Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice

2020-09-10 Thread Aron Manning
I'd like to thank the list administrators for:
* their transparency in handling this moderation request
* the clarity in describing how to and how not to criticize
* for not banning Dan but patiently giving clear guidelines

While I don't find Dan's language as offensive as to be banworthy, it is a
bit stressful, therefore I appreciate that a clear stance is taken to steer
the discussion towards a more relaxed tone. I also appreciate that it's
made clear it's not the content but the form which is too much. In my
experience such openness is a rare occurrence and serves as an example of
how I hope the UCoC will be handled.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's discuss first features of Desktop Improvements coming to Vector

2020-08-25 Thread Aron Manning
On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 22:36, Strainu  wrote:

> 1. Why bundle the changes? The collapsible toolbar could be a useful
> feature in itself, even for those who are firmly against the
> narrow-down content area. It could also be the basis for more radical
> changes, such as a "no distraction mode".

Do you mean these should be individual opt-in options, so every editor can
customize their preferred version?
I like that idea, I think it would make community acceptance much easier.
However, for readers (unregistered users) the developer team has
difficulties enabling to customize their experience, so the majority of the
users (readers) would probably see a default version, bringing us back to
the question: what that default should be.

2. Why change Vector rather than creating a new skin or starting from
> a 3-column skin such as Timeless? I assume it has more to do with
> community dynamics than technical reasons...

I've had the same two questions before the project started (Build upon

The technical reason would be that Timeless isn't targeting old browsers
that's supported by the WMF and accessibility is not a primary concern.
Both of these could be rectified easily, however.
The actual reason seems to be that Timeless was never considered, as that
is a "volunteer" skin, not an official one. This strict distinction between
official and volunteer solutions is a cultural constraint that makes it
impossible to fully realize the developer community's potential IMHO.

The reason to not create a new skin is not documented. The few comments
suggest the developers felt this will be easier to manage and to keep the
common parts in sync. Initially that was true, but by now Vector became two
skins in one, a significant part of the code being duplicated. Furthermore,
this complicates the task of gadget and user style creators, which was not
taken into consideration. In any case, either making a new skin or making
two skins in one has their own, different difficulties that would be close
in a comparison, but in the long run it would be cleaner to have them

On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 14:00, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <> wrote:

> Indeed! The FINAL stage of the changes is deeply conservative and not a
> change at all. It's a small lifting, but not a real change. We are now 10
> years old, and with the new changes we will be 8 years old in a year,
> instead of being 11 years old.

I'd say the final stage will be 5 years old, other than that our estimates
are quite close :-D
Still, it's a very much needed facelift and the design is a good balance

Aron (Demian)  -
most of the project implemented
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sexual harassment

2020-08-25 Thread Aron Manning
On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 14:08, Gnangarra  wrote:

> that doesn't mean we don't try to find alternative ways and improve on  the
> way we deal with issues

Having observed and researched the working of ANI it became apparent to me
that the unstructured nature of the discussions there allows for great
fluctuations in what selection of opinions and interests are represented in
each discussion. As the outcome of discussions is mostly steered by the
number of editors supporting any resolution, it's easy to drown out
individual views, even if that's the closest to the truth. A more
structured format that would limit statements and present them equally -
similar to ArbCom's - would ensure more protection from steering
discussions towards a non-neutral outcome based on popularity.
Previously in the discussions about the User reporting system I've drafted (
how a tool that ensures this format would work.
I believe that approach would limit how "dramatic" a dispute can become.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sexual harassment

2020-08-23 Thread Aron Manning
On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 22:43, Chris Sherlock 

> I have been advised by the WMF that if anyone is concerned about being
> sexually harassed they must report this to AN/I and there are no private
> mechanisms to report this sort of thing.
> Is this for real?

Assuming you've contacted Trust, "falls outside of the Foundation's
remit" is a standard answer to receive as a regular editor.

Bringing the issue to ANI it will most likely be ignored. If your issue is
with a long-term / established editor it has a significant chance to
boomerang .

Sadly, this is for real and somewhat the reason behind the UCoC proposal.
Whether that will change this is another question.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Universal Code of Conduct Drafting Committee - Call for participation

2020-07-31 Thread Aron Manning
As firmly endorsed by 41 community members (out of thousands) in the ToU
for WMF

I think we can agree that the Terms of Use (and also the Code of Conduct)
should apply to WMF employees as well, not just volunteers.

However, I don't see how from that it could be inferred that there should
be no Code of Conduct for the communities.
I believe that the important question is how the CoC will be implemented:
will it be a tool for silencing unwanted POVs or a tool for addressing

Just my thoughts.

On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 at 18:11, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> It is known and widely recognized that online communities were excluded
> from the strategy process. There was no way one could open RfC on the
> process, and no approval of the strategy by the editing communities.
> This has to be fixed now. It is difficult to fix, because there are already
> too many boundary conditions attached, and I am personally trying to do
> whatever I can as a member of the transition strategy group.
> On the other hand, there was no real RfC rejecting the UCoC (at least I am
> not aware of one), even though many users, in particular, on the English
> Wikipedia in relation to the Fram affair, were very vocal about this. But
> people become vocal about many things, some of them, for example, continue
> to advocate that we should fork from the existing project and this forking
> is the only way forward. People say many things, and we have community
> processes to see what is consensus and what is not.
> In the current situation, specifically concerning UCoC, is to wait for the
> draft / drafting principle, whatever comes on 24 august. If many people
> think the product is not acceptable they should open RfC on meta or on the
> projects and see whether there is consensus it is unacceptable. For these
> RfCs to happen, but for this people should really follow the process, read
> the draft and see what the consequences are. If online communities are not
> involved in this process either, then things will go over and over again -
> UCOc accepted as proposed, included into ToU, followed by a couple of
> high-profile bans, shistorm in the most active communities, and complete
> denial by WMF managers. We have been there and we do not want this
> happening again.
> Best
> Yaroslav
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 5:55 PM Anders Wennersten <
> wrote:
> > If you choose to not take active part in he strategy process it it your
> > privilege.  But the fact is that the Strategy is the steering document
> > now for the nearest activities in the Movement. And the endorsments are
> > there to be read.
> >
> > If you had wanted the endorsement to be visible in the form of a Rfc,
> > you missed to express that in an appropriate  moment.
> >
> > Anders
> >
> > (This being my third entry, it will be my last)
> >
> >
> >
> > Den 2020-07-31 kl. 17:38, skrev Todd Allen:
> > > I have read that, but do not see any public RfC nor any individual
> > > statements.
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 9:34 AM Anders Wennersten <
> >>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Read
> >
> > >> and people involved supporting it and endorsing its different phases
> > >>
> > >> Anders
> > >>
> > >> Den 2020-07-31 kl. 17:28, skrev Todd Allen:
> > >>> Where was the public RfC that these "700 individuals" participated
> in?
> > >> The
> > >>> one I saw, which took place on Meta, was, again, a very firm "No".
> > >>>
> > >>> Off-wiki backchanneling stuff doesn't count.
> > >>>
> > >>> Todd
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 9:18 AM Anders Wennersten <
> > >>>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> >  The development of the Code of Conduct is part of the Strategy. The
> >  strategy and this part was endorsed by some 700 individuals
> > representing
> >  more or less all parts of the Movement. And that group is the
> closest
> > we
> >  have seen resembling a government body of the movement. But as in a
> >  democracy, even if the parliament is unanimous in a decision, it
> does
> >  not mean all citizens, or even groups of citizens, agree. But is the
> >  best way we know how to come to a decision.
> > 
> >  And how to implent it is still open, and will most likely involve
> all
> >  parties being effected by it
> > 
> >  Anders
> > 
> >  Den 2020-07-31 kl. 16:28, skrev Todd Allen:
> > > Uh, guys?
> > >
> > > That was a firm "No" on any Universal Code of Conduct. There
> > shouldn't
> >  be a
> > > "drafting committee" for it, it was disapproved.
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:49 AM Christel Steigenberger <
> > >> wrote:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

2020-07-11 Thread Aron Manning
On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 10:48, Peter Southwood 

> Context is necessary to understand this.
> If OTRS part of Wikipedia?

I don't understand that question.
The cited answer was received from .

If not, Which ANI?
The OTRS volunteer referred to [[en:wp:ANI]].


On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 10:48, Peter Southwood 

> Context is necessary to understand this.
> If OTRS part of Wikipedia? If not, Which ANI?
> Cheers,
> Peter
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [] On
> Behalf Of Aron Manning
> Sent: 11 July 2020 09:23
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 19:52, Jonatan Svensson Glad <
> wrote:
> > 8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the
> > process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions
> > (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)?
> > I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> > agents sign.
> I recall one experience with OTRS in which I've received this brief answer:
> > Report them to ANI and hope you're not *hit in the face with a
> boomerang*.
> >
> > Yours sincerely, ...
> The individual did not apologize in further correspondence and I haven't
> thought about contacting OTRS since then.
> Aron
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> and
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> and
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Re: [Wikitech-l] CI and Code Review

2020-07-11 Thread Aron Manning
*Cross-posting to wikitech-l as it's a topic related to development.*

On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 23:01, Maarten Dammers  wrote:

> Of interest to the wider community. I really hope this is not part of a
> larger pattern of the WMF ignoring community.
> Maarten

I've had a great experience in the "Discussion Tools" (WMF's talk pages
reply tool) project. Feedback is properly documented, considered and worked
on. I recall having quite some input on the UI design and I'm happy that
resulted in a clean, focused UI.

That is an example to follow, but there's a lot to improve in other areas.
Although I favor GitLab, I was surprised that this introduction didn't have
a community round other than the developer feedback survey. I assume
the non-public results of the surcey justify this move and I'm happy
with it, so no complaints, but it came as a surprise to me that this is
happening as such discussions were promptly shut down on phabricator: I've
given this suggestion once in a related topic and rude comments told me
this is off-topic and basically to keep it to myself. The discussion ended
abruptly and the ticket was closed within a day.

There was another discussion  closed
and declined after 4 comments from 3 participants in 12 minutes. This
discussion was later referred to as the official decision to avoid GitLab
And prior to the current announcement, an attempt was made to rename this
discussion to "RFC: ..."
I have a hard time to understand these actions and correlate it to any
consensus process and transparent communication.

The recent update to the history diff font
 also could have been
communicated better. Informing editors about a simple solution (to change
your editor font setting or add some CSS to common.css/global.css) would
have avoided disruption and community backlash. Instead the latter solution
was only shared reactively after complaints and the simple solution was not

I'd hope the developer team gives more attention to communication and
transparency. I think this has improved in the last year, primarily in the
preparation of Desktop Improvements and Talk pages project, but it's still
a long path to improve engagement generally with the community and in
particular development matters.

Aron (Demian)
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Operation and oversight of OTRS system

2020-07-11 Thread Aron Manning
On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 19:52, Jonatan Svensson Glad 

> 8. if an individual has been acting contrary to policy, what is the
> process for reviewing and if necessary overturning their past actions
> (including contacting and apologising to their correspondents)?
> I’m unable to answer this due to the Confidentiality Agreement all OTRS
> agents sign.

I recall one experience with OTRS in which I've received this brief answer:

> Report them to ANI and hope you're not *hit in the face with a boomerang*.
> Yours sincerely, ...

The individual did not apologize in further correspondence and I haven't
thought about contacting OTRS since then.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Early thoughts regarding a global code of conduct and a GCC committee

2020-06-05 Thread Aron Manning
On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 21:43, Pine W  wrote:

> Hello,
> This topic has been in the back of my mind for awhile.

Your proposal was thought-provoking. I was about to share my thoughts on it
for a long time:

First, I think there are 3 aspects to the discussion on the CoC:
1. The values and standards defined in the CoC: policy making.
2. Establishing those standards in the community: education.
3. Ensuring those standards are upheld: enforcement.

These have very different considerations and challenges, therefore it's
important to distinguish. I saw in the community feedback that 1. and 3.
(definition and enforcement) are discussed intermixed. Most notably I've
seen many reactions worried about how enforcement (3) will be done, finding
fault in the idea of having a CoC (1).

Furthermore, I haven't seen education (2) being discussed, although I
believe that part is necessary to prevent issues escalating to enforcement.
For ex. if we take a look at the first five points of the Contributor

   - Demonstrating empathy and kindness toward other people
   - Being respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences
   - Giving and gracefully accepting constructive feedback
   - Accepting responsibility and apologizing to those affected by our
   mistakes, and learning from the experience
   - Focusing on what is best not just for us as individuals, but for the
   overall community

These are values we strive for, therefore I would include in a CoC. These
are not to be enforced, it would be ridiculous to ban an editor for not
being empathetic, but it's an important declaration of values to aim for.
To make these values a reality I believe the key is education, showing an
example and rewarding such behavior.

I reckon your proposal discusses the 3rd aspect: enforcement. That comes
into effect when the opposite of the above values is experienced, such as
hostility. My thought on your points:

I think that a global code of conduct, and a way to enforce it, could
> be good in some limited but important circumstances:

> (1) Where the governance of a Wikimedia project or another WMF conduct
> review organization has allegedly been compromised so extensively that
> removal of all of its administrators, functionaries, and/or other
> authorities should be considered for the purpose of providing a
> relatively "clean start" for reforming the affected domain's
> governance, or a domain is allegedly becoming so anarchic that
> peacekeeping from outsiders is necessary to restore order.

That would be a very beneficial application. The "clean start" requires
criterions or some form of an election for choosing new admins or
functionaries. That's worth a separate topic in itself.

> ... I think that local
> administrators and functionaries who have good knowledge of a
> project's policies, guidelines, and language(s) are best placed to
> address these disputes.

In a scalable dispute resolution system with well-defined paths of
escalation local admins then functionaries would be part of that path.

(4) silencing debates or unwelcome opinions for the purpose of making
> people feel safe.

This is a valid concern, in my opinion observable in how the Technical Code
of Conduct committee interprets the CoC and deals with feedback about
development mistakes and decisions that startled the community.
There are a few editors, who weren't careful enough when expressing their
disappointment - mostly about Flow and VE - and received a temporary or
permanent ban in response.

I've also observed this very regularly in disputes on the big wikis (not
just enwiki). I think this is one of the major reasons for editors leaving
and it will be difficult to address this issue.
I believe the high stakes of blocking makes the threat of blocking (usually
implied, not explicit) a strong tool in silencing debates. As blocks are
very difficult to apply to editors, whose work is highly valued, that
threat usually affects one side in a dispute, thus becoming discouraging
from open debate. This shortcoming of the original blocking model
predetermines the outcome of many debates, when one side is practically
exempt from the conduct policies. These stakes were somewhat reduced by the
introduction of partial blocks, which reduces the severity of sanctions and
might even be applied to editors, who would have been considered

To avoid use of bans as a silencing tool, a similar refined approach needs
to be taken with CoC enforcement as well. The focus should be on resolving
disputes and - only if necessary - applying the minimal effective sanction.
Bans should be the very last resort, only after a number of smaller
sanctions failed. These escalation models can be well defined, detailing
the possible breadth and length of sanctions.

In comparison, the length and severity of blocks is now at the discretion
of administrators without limitations, allowing 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] June 4 1800 Maggie Dennis office hour (with a twist)

2020-06-05 Thread Aron Manning
On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 at 09:30, Pine W  wrote:

> 1. For privacy reasons,I don't think that they need to be on video.
> Sue had them on IRC. In the Wikimedia Cafe several of us use audio
> only.

It was great to have it in person. Conferencing is a great opportunity to
have a more humane experience in this binary environment.
Also there was an IRC channel. IRC however shares one's IP - unless a cloak
is set up, which is not trivial -, so how is that "privacy"?
I don't understand why some imaginary "privacy reasons" have to trump good
things, such as the openness of this meeting.
In any way, being on video was optional and questions on both IRC and
Youtube chats were answered. It was really well organized, professional, I
would say.

2. I'm digesting what Maggie said about the incidents of last July.
> I'm not sure that the version of events that was communicated to her
> captures how I would describe the multiple bad decisions that
> happened, and I'm not inclined to believe that the problems can be
> summed up as poor communications. I don't mean to put words in
> Maggie's mouth, and I don't think that she was trying to provide a
> comprehensive view of her briefing, but I also have concerns regarding
> what I heard in her summary, and I would encourage Maggie to probe
> extensively into what happened while she was on leave.

I don't think we can expect the WMF to admit the SANFRANBAN was motivated
by staff members' needs, not by the intent to protect the community and
address hostility in the admin ranks. Nor do I care, that's in the past and
the focus now is to create in collaboration with the communities better,
transparent and accountable processes instead of the secretive office

> I would have more faith in the integrity of WMF if there had
> been an outside review as I describe here, including public

It doesn't answer any of your questions, but I've just stumbled upon this
and thought you might be interested: 2019 Governance Review

an outside review as I describe here, including public
accountability for the actions of individual staff,
> *much as we do on English Wikipedia for administrators and functionaries*.

Emphasis mine. What kind of public review is there on enwiki? WP:DESYSOP2019
I recall a few admins alleged it would be "abused", so better not have it
(aka. no consensus).

In practice not even policy violations can be reported, unless you are a
well-known admin or established editor, or want to get banned.

Regarding functionaries: the Ombudsman Commission had *9 cases older than
one year *at the end of March (ref
and *24 unsolved cases* altogether.
This trend has been ongoing for years, in 2018 first half there were 2
cases closed (in 6 months!) and 12 open...
Besides, the OC only reports the number of cases, nothing else in public.
What kind of "public accountability" is there for functionaries?

As I see both sides need to improve accountability and the capability for
self-review. Holding people accountable does not mean, however, that heads
need to fall, admins be desysoped and employees fired. That approach
creates a battlefield environment: fight for yourself till the last
breath, then be gone. That's not healthy. Accountability means to recognize
that the results of our actions (not just mistakes) could be better and to
learn from it, improve and (on an advanced level) fix the mistakes. That
last part seldom happens, but the first step is to recognize the mistakes
and that's the step we are at now.

I appreciate that Maggie has shown a much more open and transparent
approach than we've experienced in the office actions consultation
This gives me more faith that the implementation of these recommendations
will be more for the benefit of the whole community than one small group.

Aron Manning (Demian)
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] June 4 1800 Maggie Dennis office hour (with a twist)

2020-06-04 Thread Aron Manning
Thank you, Maggie, Elena and Nick for this meeting!

The event was very well organized on the first try, focused and informative.
Special thanks to Maggie for tirelessly answering all the questions and
giving insight to the wide spectrum of challenges.

It was great to hear that transparency will be an important part of the
processes to be developed and that the communities will be involved in
working out the details. I think this is going in the right direction to
establish trust and cooperation with the communities and a mutually
agreeable outcome.

Thank you to all participants and I hope there will be more meetings as
this project progresses!


On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 23:24, Maggie Dennis  wrote:

> We will post notes from the meeting, with the identity of question-askers
> anonymized, afterward. Questions can be submitted on Telegram [1], on IRC
> [2] or in the YouTube Chat or by email in advance to
> (To make sure they are presented during this meeting, please use “Trust &
> Safety” as the subject line.)
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps on Wikimedia Space

2020-02-20 Thread Aron Manning
Thank you, Quim Gil and your team all the effort that went into
discuss-space. We've seen a great platform being developed.
It was far from ready, however, and my impression was we were in a
pre-release phase. To add to the lessons learned, let me share my thoughts
on this.

From the recurring feedback that the forum did not become part of
contributors' everyday workflow, that groups are still using facebook for
similar purposes, we can deduce that a crucial feature-set was missing:
integration with our everyday on-wiki workflow. This would include 3
* Notifications within Echo.
* Automatic listing of active and on-topic discussions on wiki pages (in
project namespace mostly).
* Including (transcluding) discussions on wiki-pages.

The first one is crucial, the next two "just" very important. If there will
be any similar solution in the future, these will be the hard criteria for
adoption and success.
Without these features the expectation that this forum becomes widely
adopted was unfounded: it's still in its infancy and it was judged too

The foundation of it - an established forum engine - is solid, any solution
that would be chosen in the future would recreate this or similar
functionality. That would be a massive endeavour. The WMF devs have their
hands full all the time, how would that be possible?

I'm sure the success of such a project hinges on the above critical
features. Even if the WMF stops developing these features, nothing is lost:
interest from volunteers might be enough to develop some of these features.
I've shown interest in one of these, GSoC also will be an opportunity for
motivated developers to contribute and grant proposals could be made for
the most important features. In true collaborative fashion, the WMF can
enable the community to turn this experiment into a fully-featured,
integrated product. I believe this is the best path to take, that's in line
with the Mid-Term Plan's targets.

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 11:31, Quim Gil  wrote:

> While we remain committed to this important goal ...

Given how overwhelming the positive expectations are about this project, I
think the best path to take for the WMF is to halt the development, but
continue operating the platform and motivate volunteers to get involved
with its development. At least that's how I see the ideal role of WMF in
our Movement.

The Space blog, which continues to fill
> a need to share news for the movement by the movement, will continue in a
> new home.

A subjective note: I think both the blog and the forum would be more
accessible on simpler URLs, I've always found "discuss-space" unusual.
Wikimedia Space is a good name for those projects all together but in the
URLs I find it confusing.

I would have suggested these URLs instead:
* ""
  * or simply "" as usual in the free-software
  * or "" (following the KISS
* ""
* ""
* ""

If any of these is released to production, "" would be replaced
by ""

Thank you, Quim for asking feedback from the community.

Aron (Demian)
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps on Wikimedia Space

2020-02-20 Thread Aron Manning
Also +1 to Guillaume's comment, I couldn't have said better. A
user-friendly forum, like discuss-space is most needed by those, who want
to join the movement, whom the WMF wants to attract, not to those who are
comfortable with the current solutions.

And IRC being an appropriate real-time platform? It's a serious privacy
violation with the IP addresses published. It took me an hour to learn
about cloaks (to hide the IP) and find someone, who would add a cloak...
how many newbies would do that?
IRC also goes against the wiki way with "forgetting" all the history, about
which I always had concerns besides that it's very impractical: long-term
discussions cannot take place or the user has to be always online...

Aron (Demian)

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 23:32, Guillaume Paumier 

> > That perspective suffers from a lack of empathy. "The tools we already
> have" may work for the limited sample of the population who are currently
> using them. Assuming that that sample is representative is flawed and is a
> classic example of survivorship bias. If we have learned anything from the
> Space experiment and from years of strategy discussions, it is that the
> tools we currently have do not, in fact, work just fine for a large number
> of people, whose voices are missing from our discussions and content.
> --
> Guillaume Paumier
> (he/him)
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Last chance to review the recommendations, next steps

2020-02-19 Thread Aron Manning
Hi Todd,

I'm not sure how your comment about "backchanneling" is applicable to a
recording made in public. Please express your views in a good-faith and
respectful manner.

On Wikimedia projects, we do things in full public view.

To prove your point, please link to the log of the irc channels and the
admin back-channels to start with.


On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 19:21, Todd Allen  wrote:

> Nicole,
> While I appreciate you taking the time to respond, this is exactly why we
> distrust this kind of backchanneling. If you have something to say, you say
> it publicly, open to criticism and dispute. You don't say it in a "salon"
> or a "survey" or anything else insulated from that. On Wikimedia projects,
> we do things in full public view.
> Todd
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 10:14 AM Nicole Ebber 
> wrote:
> > Hello again,
> >
> > I now realised that none of the participants in the audience was aware
> > of us recording them, and that we aren't able to identify them to ask
> > for their consent. We are not going to release the full video, but are
> > of course happy to answer potential questions and create more clarity
> > where needed.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Nicole
> >
> > On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 11:30, Nicole Ebber 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Todd,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your question. The video is indeed incomplete. We cut if
> > > for the viewer's comfort, as the original version is ~60 mins long,
> > > and has questions and interaction with the audience at All Hands. Our
> > > main objective for this video was to focus on conveying the broad
> > > context and content of each recommendation in a quick and accessible
> > > way, without putting too much emphasis on specific recommendations or
> > > details.
> > >
> > > We'll look into whether the dialogues offer additional clarity. We
> > > might also have to identify those who have asked the questions and get
> > > their consent to publish. That can take a couple of days, so please
> > > stay tuned.
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Nicole
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 21:25, Todd Allen  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello Nicole,
> > > >
> > > > The second video seems to be incomplete. There are, for example,
> > several
> > > > jump cuts, e.g., at 05:07, 11:08, 17:08, 22:31, etc. At 11:14 the
> > > > presenters invite questions or comments, and at 41:32 someone is
> > clearly
> > > > being called upon to offer one, but they are not shown in the video.
> > Could
> > > > you please provide a link to the entire video without cuts, including
> > any
> > > > questions or comments and the responses to them?
> > > >
> > > > Todd
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:45 AM Nicole Ebber <
> >>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > >
> > > > > We’re in week 4 of community conversations about the movement
> > strategy
> > > > > recommendations. Thank you to everyone who has already taken part.
> > The
> > > > > community conversations will continue until Friday, February 21 -
> you
> > > > > can get involved on Meta[1] in Arabic, English, French, German,
> > Hindi,
> > > > > Spanish, and Portuguese, strategize with your community or
> > > > > organization, or send the core team your feedback to
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This current round of community conversations is the last
> opportunity
> > > > > to suggest improvements to the recommendations. They will be
> > finalized
> > > > > before the end of March, and then published for the movement to
> > > > > understand them, reflect on what they mean in their project, local,
> > or
> > > > > thematic context, and move into implementation.
> > > > >
> > > > > == Movement feedback: what happens next ==
> > > > > All feedback is being collected, reviewed and analyzed on an
> ongoing
> > > > > basis. Here are the  next steps after February 21:
> > > > >
> > > > > * Week commencing February 24: the core team will summarize all the
> > > > > feedback received in a report. You are welcome to continue
> commenting
> > > > > and discussing during this time, but the discussions will not be as
> > > > > closely facilitated and documented.
> > > > >
> > > > > * Week commencing March 2: the core team will publish the above
> > report
> > > > > on Meta to give the movement an opportunity to review the content
> and
> > > > > give feedback as to whether it accurately reflects their input. The
> > > > > closing date for this is March 6. This summary report will then be
> > > > > finalized and published.
> > > > >
> > > > > In mid-March, the feedback from the Board of Trustees, movement
> > > > > conversations and reviewers' input will be considered in the
> creation
> > > > > of the final, improved set of recommendations. A rationale for
> things
> > > > > that have not been considered will be provided, too. Our aim is to
> > > > > have the recommendations finalized and published in late March.
> More
> > > > > about the actual integration 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

2020-02-04 Thread Aron Manning
On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 08:57, Chris Keating 

> In part this is because people were very angry about the issue at the time,
> and that anger was dealt with very poorly at the time.

While MediaViewer's introduction wasn't prepared appropriately and
superprotect was an inconsiderate, rushed and authoritarian solution to
stop the wheel-warring, it is a fundamental issue of the community that
such disagreements are always dealt with anger, combative actions and
rushed decisions.
The parallels with last year's Fram debacle are strong both on WMF's and
the communities' side: no conversation, drama, wheel-warring again,
immediately. This is how "collegial discussion" of differences should

I see this as a fundamental issue, that's strongly related to why so much
harassment (and lesser forms of incivility) are part of our everyday
editing experience (I'm talking about less-known members of the community,
who aren't protected by their established status, not us). Those
differences can't be dealt with anger, but only with level-headed, honest
and just moderation.

On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 11:23, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> In the Strategy discussions, I have experienced and witnessed several times
> that defenders of the "strategy synthesis/recommendations" do not want to
> talk about an issue. They say things like:

With experience in projects on this scale, one can understand that not all
questions can be answered. While I wish the working group members would
have engaged more in the discussions (kudos to the few, who did, thank you
for showing an example to follow), it is very de-motivating to read
negative comments written in a matter of minutes, that reject months of
work with the strike of a few buttons, without making any effort to think
about solutions to the problem and realizing how hard (impossible, in fact)
it is to implement solutions that satisfy every individual's every need and

This is disrespectful to the hard work put into these recommendations and
damaging to the motivation of the volunteers and staff members, who gave
their time out of goodwill and -faith, and takes away from their time and
energy to improve the recommendations. What I find disheartening about this
is that most of the negative comments come from users, who opposed the 2017
Movement Direction
which is the basis for the current recommendations. Although the first name
is especially *not* representative of the "not constructive" comments, I
would hope that who don't understand or share this vision, would express
their "concerns" with less drama, respecting the work of those, who can
imagine a future with a more friendly and diverse editing culture.

Imagine, how helpful it would be if I were to approach users with
authority, to ask them to assume good faith and treat newcomers with
respect. It would cause some discord, which would turn into angry
responses, which would eventually result in my de facto ban. As it did on
enwiki. Fortunately, the consultations are a more civil atmosphere and
there is space for negative comments, to a certain extent.

> * "this feels like défa vu"

* "you are not constructive"
> * "we must look forward, not backward"
> * "we don't want to talk about details now, we leave that for later"

I don't know exactly what was implied with "déja vu" and fortunately, I
haven't met the last response, that I strongly disagree with. The concern
about some feedback not being constructive is, however, very valid, that
I've reflected on above. Responses that give alternative solutions,
highlight questions worth focusing on and generally *add* something to the
proposals, can be incorporated into the proposals and many of those were
included in the new iterations. The primary purpose is to incorporate the
feedback and it is understandable, that there's no capacity to respond to
everything and even feedback that found its way into the recommendations,
won't necessarily be answered. That's how projects of this size work.
Obviously, constructive comments will be answered first - that's rewarding
and helpful to the process -, rather than effortless "I don't agree with
this" responses, which is in fact not constructive, but very similar to the
that often weigh heavily on discussions in the community.

It is understandable, that every change awakens our basic fear of
unpredictability. The future is unpredictable, what we can do is to give
our best in manifesting every change. Instead of theorizing about what
might be the result of the recommendations. To move forward we need to
explore new possibilities, and if it's not giving the expected results, we
need to move even further, until the desired results are accomplished. The
best result is seldom the first result. We could learn from the success of
SpaceX about how to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

2020-02-03 Thread Aron Manning
On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 at 00:49, Pine W  wrote:

> Here are a couple of arguments from WMF in favor of SuperProtect, which was
> implemented to prevent local users from removing MediaViewer.

It's interesting that this topic came up, as there was a bug in MediaViewer
that disturbed me so much I've started working on a patch a month ago. The
bug is no longer an issue in most cases, but I'm still working on some

It seems to me that users still could disable MediaViewer with the same one
line of javascript as used in Common.js. To be exact about SP, what I've
seen is it was implemented to prevent local admins (specifically one former
German admin) from removing MW project-wide for all editors *and readers*.
I assume the "Disable MediaViewer" option, which allows every user to
decide for themselves comfortably, wasn't implemented back then...
How long before that feature was added?

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement of the 2020 Ombuds Commission

2020-02-01 Thread Aron Manning
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 23:10, Karen Brown  wrote:

> Hello, everyone.
> I'm writing with information about the Ombudsman Commission (OC), the small
> group of volunteers who investigate complaints about violations of the
> privacy policy, and in particular concerning the use of CheckUser and
> Oversight tools, on any Wikimedia project for the Board of Trustees.

Thank you for the update, Karen!

I hope the new commission will be able to more promptly respond to reports.
Our community processes failing to address issues is a topic discussed to
no end in the community consultations. Could you please reflect on what can
be the problem causing that only half of the requests are answered and
those take over 90 days to resolve
Are there any plans to shorten the response time? This seems to be a very
long time. How long did those cases over 90 days take?

I hope nobody else has to wait as long my case takes. My editing experience
was very negatively affected by a simple mistake for 7 months now, despite
that the case is well-documented
<> and clear
that a single good-faith edit
signing the main account's comment was mistaken as abuse.

In the last 7 months, I've been trying every existing process to address
this issue and still, the resulting badge of shame
<> on my user page causes
everyday stress as the basic assumption that I regularly experience and
have to disprove is that I'm a bad faith editor, causing damage, although
I'm the victim of the actual damage.

I believe this was not the purpose here, but all my attempts to communicate
about this were rejected on-wiki and through the functionaries list, where
such concerns are to be directed
<> (but
my email address was blocked) and were unanswered (not acknowledged
by the Arbitration Committee.

I've waited for a resolution (or just an update) from the OC in the last 7
months. I hope that this dire situation is resolved in the near future by
ombuds who aren't involved with enwiki or my recent rejected rename request

Until then could you please elaborate on the factors that caused such a
delay and on how I could help that process move forward?

With appreciation,
Aron Manning
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Co sprawia, że jesteś szczęśliwy w tym tygodniu? / What's making you happy this week? (Week of 19 Jan 2019)

2020-01-23 Thread Aron Manning
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 02:37, Clover moss 

> This week, I learned about Wiki Loves Monuments
> . The wording kind of
> sounded familiar at first, but I wasn't sure why. I didn't really know what
> Wiki Loves Monuments was and now I'm thankful that I do. A lot goes into a
> good photograph and really good photographs have a way of striking me with
> awe in a way that's hard to describe with words.
> There were 25 announcements for the top winners and the winner was
> announced on January 14th. I love the way the sunlight shines in through
> the windows - it seems surreal, and it's almost like I'm standing there
> myself. I don't know what the temperature would be like inside the church,
> but I felt slightly cold looking at it. I'd imagine there isn't any heating
> currently in the building because it's abandoned, although maybe I'm
> thinking too much about details like that?

This reminded me of a similar cathartic moment I've had when I've learned
about the Wiki Loves Earth

It makes me happy to share it with those who haven't seen it and to express
my appreciation to the photographers and organizers of the event.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

2020-01-22 Thread Aron Manning
Hello Pine,

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 08:06, Pine W  wrote:

> Hi Aron,
> Some of your comments remind me of arguments that I heard from WMF around
> the time that the WMF Board decided to let Lila have her way with
> Superprotect. WMF's solution to various question about who should make
> decisions and whether diverse needs were being adequately addressed was to
> put itself in charge.

My knowledge about Superprotect is khm... superficial (no pun intended),
from recollections and some randomly read discussions, but you made me
interested to deepen my knowledge. Could you reference the arguments that
you were reminded of, together with my specific comments that you
associated with it, so I can better understand your comment?

Regarding my comments: these are original thoughts based on researching
policies and guidelines, the actual application of those, user feedback
from editors (present and former) and impressions from readers. The extent
of my research pales in comparison to those made by the WMF, therefore I
focus on topics where I've acquired enough knowledge that my opinion and
vision have taken form. Superprotect is not one of those topics, but maybe
one day it will be.

> I'm curious. How do you think that all-Wikiverse governance should be done?
> This is a complex topic. You partially addressed this in your previous
> email, and I would like to hear more, particularly regarding governance
> structures, representation, and methods for creating all-Wikiverse policies
> and budgets.

Thank you for asking. I'm happy (this week ;-) that someone shows an
interest in these discussions. My hope is that there will be a global
project for volunteers motivated in researching and improving the
efficiency of governance practices, creating recommendations in cooperation
with the WMF. Similar to the working groups - if you wish -, with
significantly more volunteer participation and a focus on implementation
details, not high-level concepts.

My interest is more localized than what you expect as I'm not interested in
questions of high-level governance of the all-Wikiverse such as budgets,
representation, and global structures. The devil is in the details, that's
where my focus is: I believe *how* we implement the Medium-term plan

determine which targets are met. I've experienced the need to meet some of
those targets and understand others' need for the rest. I wish to put my 2
cents into the implementation.

In this spirit, I've advocated for transparency and cooperation between the
communities and the WMF in the office actions consultation which you can read

chronological order) and drafted a design proposal

for the planned User reporting system

that yet again focuses on transparency while giving privacy to the reporter
in the initial stages (before a report is evaluated) and making it
technically possible to include limited non-public evidence. I would be
delighted if you would share your thoughts on the discussion page.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations released, join the conversation

2020-01-21 Thread Aron Manning
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 11:50, Fæ  wrote:

> The WMF board and their CEO know it is in their interest to take on any
> firm community consensus rather than playing
> political games to get around it.

Political games, like requesting supermajority

be best avoided, indeed.

> As others have expressed, I am not in the least bit inclined to give any
> feedback on meta. It's a waste of volunteer time, as effective as shouting
> out of your office window expecting to make the weather change.

> Fae

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 11:38, Gergő Tisza  wrote:

> having participated in writing some of these recommendations, I can tell
> you from personal experience they have been massively shaped by feedback.
> That included feedback on the talk pages, feedback at events and
> conferences, feedback from strategy salons organized for that specific
> purpose, feedback from all kinds of personal conversations... often
> conflicting feedback, since, unsurprisingly, different people within the
> movement often have opposing views.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations released, join the conversation

2020-01-21 Thread Aron Manning
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 12:57, Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Could you please explain which of the mails in this thread are problematic
> in your opinion? I think that I made a factual statement in the most
> neutral way.

The strong focus on voting is in itself, not neutral. Voting at this scale
cannot measure the needs of the wider movement. These plans affect hundreds
of thousands of editors. Making decisions based on the vote of a the few
hundred contributors who comment, would misrepresent the movement and lead
to populist decisions stemming from the strong status quo bias

The purpose of the consultations is to give constructive feedback to
positively influence the outcome. Effort-less votes would misunderstand the
purpose and only create disruption. That's not helpful to our cause. A
collaborative mindset is necessary to move forward with implementing the Medium
term plan


> Anders, your opinion is that the recommendations are „wonderful“. I want to
> tolerate your opinion. But do you also tolerate other opinions? Or do you
> think that opponents need a better „attitude“?

I don't see that Anders would have trouble "tolerating" the opposing
opinions. A "better tone and attitude" would mean to express our opinion in
less combative and more constructive ways. Maybe you meant to "Respect your
opinion", which implies a more positive judgement. Nuances can
differentiate between a civil and a tense atmosphere.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Recommendations and community conversations launching next week

2020-01-20 Thread Aron Manning
The following views are mine. I'm not affiliated with either the Foundation
or those speaking in the name of the communities. This is a volunteer's

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 04:24, Pine W  wrote:

>  Hi Leila and Todd, thanks for the constructive comments.
> I think that global consensus is possible, but it's challenging.

To measure the needs of the movement, the organizers of the consultation
have to take into consideration all the editors - present and future -, the
affiliates, and even the readers. Thousands of regulars, hundreds of
thousands of casuals, not counting the millions of readers, who contribute
with their donations.

The participation of this many people in the consultations would not be
feasible. The most that can be expected is a few hundred editors, who voice
their opinions, mostly representing the English Wikipedia and Commons. I
believe this is what Leila meant. Any of the consensus models can only
reflect a local consensus
Deciding the movement's future based upon this comparatively small
selection of contributors would result in a one-sided outcome.

The needs of the movement, however, can be measured globally by systematic
research and this is what the Foundation has been doing in recent years and
now serves as the basis for the recommendations. My personal experience and
impressions confirm many of these findings: The movement needs to move
forward, to keep up with the times. The start of a new decade is the best
time to take that big step.

With these fundamental changes, there will be many differing views and
visions. Regardless whether those differences are big or small, at this
scale, this many participants could only agree to disagree.
A simple vote-counting would not be able to establish any kind of consensus
besides vetoes, what would only undermine and disrupt the consultation.
Wikipedia is not a vote for a good reason.
On the other hand, the true model of consensus, which evaluates the merits
of the comments is simply unmanageable above a few dozen participants.
Neither of these models could achieve consensus or equally consider every
community and contributor.

The purpose of the consultations is not to struggle seeking global
consensus with many differing views, but to gather constructive feedback
from the communities.
It is clear that the Foundation and the Working Groups are asking for
meritable comments, which they can incorporate in their proposals.

I remain concerned about the current timeline for this strategy process. I
> think that after initial community discussions, a phased approach over a
> period of years for !votes and implementation might be best.

Continuous consultations about individual projects and specific
implementations would be of great benefit to bridging the gap between the
Foundation and the communities.
However, only experience will prove the changes beneficial, procrastinating
the decision would be just a waste of time and opportunity.
It seems to be an easy way out to run votes endlessly, without doing the
hard work to achieve the movement's targets, but it leads nowhere, just
creates disruption.

That's not why we are here. Although I can't vouch for all, I believe we
are here to improve the projects we work on and to collaboratively create
the world's biggest encyclopedia and knowledge platform, which shows an
example of what's possible, that makes us proud.

Perhaps an early phase could focus on reviewing our current mechanisms for
> all-Wikiverse governance and considering some changes to those mechanisms.

The governance processes haven't seen a significant update since the
initial influx of editors, but these processes and the technical tools did
not scale with the sudden increase in editor count. A significant technical
debt  has been carried along
for more than a decade. These processes need significant updates to address
the abuse (bullying and occasional harassment) of editors, who aren't
protected by the network of supportive editors who have known them for

Addressing this issue is fundamental to improving diversity and editing
experience within the communities. Although the issues faced by Wikipedia
are the same as in any online community, many communities - most notably
open source communities - have progressed significantly in regards of
addressing abuse and conduct issues.

Perhaps the strategy process organizers will have some recommendations for
> us to consider regarding governance.
> Pine
> ( )

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Was macht dich diese Woche glücklich? / What's making you happy this week? (Week of 29 Dec 2019)

2020-01-01 Thread Aron Manning
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 at 12:23, Amir E. Aharoni 


That's very serious work, Amir, thank you for investing all the effort!

I'd also love to see this come to fruition. While making a dark-mode theme

for Wikipedia I've noticed the ad-hoc nature of Templates, each using their
own hardcoded styling. It is very inefficient to override these styles both
in terms of the browser's workload and the developer's effort to collect
each case that needs coloring. Actually, it's hardly possible - or it would
take forever - to collect all cases; there's always a page left with some
unreadable (bright on bright) text. Color inversion
 can handle
all cases, but the result is not as pleasant as colors chosen specifically
for the purpose. Templates need to use standard styles (similar to those on
) to make
product-quality theming possible. With global templates transitioning to
the use of standard css classes would be worthwhile.

Another idea: a template editor can be created that parses the long stream
of double "{{" and triple "{{{" curly braces and presents the template
pretty-printed (reflecting the structure) with different, more readable
delimiters like "❮❯", "«»", "‹›" (example

That would make editing a bit easier and less error-prone. I wonder what
tools template editors use. Editing this:  "{{lorem
seems humanly impossible.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The wikisites looks like 1996

2019-12-15 Thread Aron Manning
On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 at 18:53, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <> wrote:

> Is this the right time to plug Timeless?
> It is, well, timeless. Looks modern too.

Should be the default imho by now.
Then the wikimania design features could be added to it, to make it almost

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The wikisites looks like 1996

2019-12-11 Thread Aron Manning
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 at 07:04, Stryn  wrote:

> You can use
> to set the same skin everywhere.

Thank you so much! I was looking for this...

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The wikisites looks like 1996

2019-12-11 Thread Aron Manning
That's nice. Try these redesigns with an adblocker for a comparison: (redesign and fork)

Btw, switching

to *Timeless* or *Minerva* (mobile) skin gives a bit nicer experience than
the default Vector skin.
Unfortunately, it has to be changed individually on each wiki you use.

Imo Timeless should be the default, that's the closest to modern designs.
With these improvements it would be quite close to the modern


On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 22:48, John Erling Blad  wrote:

> Could we please update them with a slightly more up-to-date skin?
> Take a look at our Norwegian competitor in the lexicon field.
> John Erling Blad
> /jeblad
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> and
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Chief of Community Engagement to leave the Foundation

2019-11-17 Thread Aron Manning
 as well as its impact.
> Placing it in Legal could, for example, decrease significantly contact and
> trust from our community members whose experience with laws is that they
> are used as weapons and tools to oppress rather than engendering fairness
> and cooperation.

I wholly agree with your concern, my first thought too. However, my
experience (as detailed above) and observation is that T already only
gets involved with legal matters, therefore placing it under the Legal
department won't change anything in the regard. That's why I have no
concerns about that move.

Katherine Maher wrote:

> The planned restructure and expansion of Community Engagement was intended
> to help us support

the community in achieving these goals [of the Medium Term Plan]. This
> includes the MTP’s focus on
> building a thriving movement, increasing community health and diversity,
> and growing among new languages, regions, and audiences. We set these goals
> as part of our interpretation of the Movement Strategy, and they will
> remain our focus for the medium term.
> I still believe we need to make many of these changes, as well as be
> prepared for further changes that may arise from the recommendations of the
> Movement Strategy Working Groups.

This year many long-running community and governance issues surfaced: the
mass-desysop proposals of Azerbaijani and Croatian Wikipedias, admin
civility issues on English Wikipedia and a few long-term, valued editors
being sanctioned. These were present for many years and these are just the
public issues known to me.

I believe in the Movement's targets of diverse, inclusive communities and I
recognize that we are very far from it. I believe the WMF has the resources
to increase community health and diversity, if that target is pursued
consistently. Change is not an easy task however and cannot be done without
close cooperation with the communities. The key to community acceptance is
transparency, communication, and practical solutions; enforcing rules and
unilateral decisions would only result in resistance. I hope there will be
specific roles in the new structure to engage with the community on a daily
basis to resolve community issues and establish healthy practices. I've
suggested in the partial bans consultation, that the WMF hire professional
arbitrators/mediators to tackle the hardest cases in cooperation with
community-elected arbitrators. Professionals would bring a new set of more
nuanced tools to the table to resolve issues with minimal sanctions and
without punishments.

The WMF is facing a huge challenge. I wish the best luck and good faith
from the community to achieve the Movement's targets.

Aron Manning

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 at 3:36 pm,  'Katherine Maher'   wrote:

> - Original Message -
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Chief of Community Engagement
> to leave the Foundation
> From: 'Katherine Maher' 
> Date: 11/15/19 3:36 pm
> To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' 
> Hello everyone,
> I am writing to let you know that Val D’Costa, Chief Community Engagement
> Officer, is leaving the Wikimedia Foundation. I also want to share some
> changes we’re making around how the Foundation organizes staff in the
> Community Engagement department.
> Val joined us last January, bringing nearly three decades of experience
> launching and growing international initiatives in emerging markets. With
> the Wikimedia 2030 movement strategy as a guide, Val and her team drafted
> an ambitious new vision for the work of Community Engagement—focused on
> decentralization of power and resources, safe and welcoming spaces,
> equitable collaboration, increased language and cultural fluency, dedicated
> programs for groups such as women and young people, and expansive
> partnerships in service of free knowledge.
> With this vision in hand, Val and I both see this as the right juncture for
> her to move on to her next professional challenge. While she will be
> leaving the position of Chief of Community Engagement, she will remain on
> as a consultant to me for a brief period.
> I am deeply appreciative of Val’s time with us at the Foundation and want
> to thank her for the contributions she has made to the Wikimedia movement.
> She has been a passionate and persuasive advocate for our mission and
> pushed us to expand our vision of what could be possible for our movement.
> I wish her the absolute best in what she does next.
> *== What comes next for Community Engagement ==*
> I'll be direct -- we are making changes to the CE department structure.
> We will not be starting a search for a new Chief of Community Engagement.
> Instead, over the course of the next few weeks, the seven teams currently
> within the Community Engagement (CE) department will be integrated into the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Astrophoto Contest

2019-10-24 Thread Aron Manning
Hello Toni!

There are some beautiful, professional photos in the commons category...
- Is it possible to submit non-professional photos?
- The photo I would submit was made in the summer, is that ok, or the photo
has to be made between 15 October - 15 November?
- How to submit the photo?

Kind regards,

On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 at 20:18, Toni Ristovski 

> Dear All,
> I`m Toni Ristovski, Wikipedian from Macedonian Wikipedian and Board Member
> of user group Shared Knowledge (Macedonia).
> From 15th October 2019, Shared Knowledge started Astrophoto Contest, which
> is unique photographic competition. This contest is realized along with
> Skopje Astronomical Society and it is first event that we planned to
> conduct with them.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Synthesizing the recommendations and next steps

2019-10-21 Thread Aron Manning
Hello Nicole,

Thank you for the update!

This timeline is very useful to understanding the process globally, though,
I have to admit, I haven't found it, until you linked it directly in your
email. The link to Timeline is hard to notice in the middle of the Overview
Comparing the pageviews of Recommendations

 and Timeline
it seems not many people find it.
May I suggest to add a nav link for it in the header, next to

Yours sincerely,

On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 22:14, Nicole Ebber 

> Hi everyone,
> I wanted to share some updates about movement strategy with you all.
> The core team has spent the last few weeks developing and finalizing a
> plan to take forward the work that the nine working groups have done
> and, from this, create one set of recommendations.
> ...

On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 22:14, Nicole Ebber 

> Hi everyone,
> I wanted to share some updates about movement strategy with you all.
> The core team has spent the last few weeks developing and finalizing a
> plan to take forward the work that the nine working groups have done
> and, from this, create one set of recommendations.
> To ensure enough time to do this effectively and to facilitate
> community input on the synthesized recommendations as well as
> endorsement, we have adapted the movement strategy timeline.[1]
> == What’s next for working groups ==
> The nine working groups are currently putting any remaining finishing
> touches on the current, second iteration of their recommendations[2].
> This version reflects inputs and perspectives that were shared by the
> movement online and in person prior to, during, and after Wikimania,
> including at many strategy salons and the two regional summits.
> Any final bits of relevant research will be integrated, and some
> groups may make small refinements to their work. They are also in the
> process of ranking their recommendations to indicate which ones, in
> their perspective, are the most foundational for driving change in our
> movement.
> Following this, working group members will conclude the duty that they
> signed up for by 1 November. We are incredibly grateful to each
> working group member for their tireless efforts and engagement.
> In the meantime, the core team and contracted strategy liaisons will
> also be working to share back information with online and offline
> communities about how their feedback has been reviewed and
> incorporated into the existing drafts of recommendations.
> == Synthesizing recommendations ==
> The focus over the next few months will be on synthesizing the 89
> recommendations to develop one set. To help create a product that is
> concise and clear, overlaps in the content will be identified to see
> where certain recommendations could be merged. Others may be forwarded
> for consideration to the implementation process. Others might conflict
> and need to be reconciled.
> To do this work, a new working group will be formed, comprised of
> existing working group members who are interested in continuing to
> contribute. This new group will consist of:
> * Writers who will synthesize the recommendations and develop one coherent
> set.
> * Connectors who will help writers make sense and further integrate
> existing material, research, and input from community conversations,
> both past and upcoming.
> * Reviewers who will bring in specific additional perspectives,
> expertise, contexts, advise at different times of the process.
> The sign up process for this new group is currently underway, and best
> ways to support the content creation are being assessed. We will
> provide updates here soon.
> If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to me.
> Best wishes,
> Nicole
> [1]
> [2]
> --
> Nicole Ebber
> Adviser International Relations
> Program Manager Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy
> Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
> Unsere Vision ist eine Welt, in der alle Menschen am Wissen der
> Menschheit teilhaben, es nutzen und mehren können. Helfen Sie uns
> dabei!
> Wikimedia Deutschland — Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.
> V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
> Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
> anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
> Steuernummer 27/029/42207.

[Wikimedia-l] RfC: binding desysop procedure on English Wikipedia

2019-10-19 Thread Aron Manning

So far about 60% of the commenters are administrators, which role comes
with an inherent and unavoidable conflict-of-interest. Although the
discussion is quite neutral, administrators are a minor part of the
community, thus hopefully editors will join the discussion as well, and
share their views and suggestions on the topic.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Partial blocks update

2019-09-20 Thread Aron Manning
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 08:24, Paulo Santos Perneta 

> How and where can one request enabling this at the Portuguese Wikipedia?

It seems gaining community consensus (an RfC) is the standard way to do it.
See a few examples


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Partial blocks update

2019-09-19 Thread Aron Manning
This development is very much appreciated. Thank you for the effort of the
Anti-Harassment Tools team!

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 03:01, James Forrester 

> > How do we see which wikis have partial blocks deployed already / are
> > planning to have it deployed?
> On a technical level, this is defined as wgEnablePartialBlocks in config,
> which is currently:
>- most of the big Wikipedias: Arabic, Bengali, German, Farsi, Finnish,
>French, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Polish, Russian, Serbian,
>Telugu and Chinese.

Except the biggest, the English Wikipedia. What's the reason for lagging

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Welcoming Wikimedia Foundation’s new CTO, Grant Ingersoll

2019-09-18 Thread Aron Manning
> ...without linking to at least one cute pic of Allie ;-)

Well, Wikipedia is not a social networking service like Facebook or Twitter.

Although fun and uplifting comments are always welcome, please notice that
your mail can be understood in many different ways, neither of which is
Thank you.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community feedback and next steps on movement brand proposal

2019-09-12 Thread Aron Manning
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 20:27, Mike Peel  wrote:

> > Hi.
> >
> > I haven't been following this discussion too closely, but my sense is
> that
> > a few people within Wikimedia Foundation Inc. have already decided on an
> > outcome and are seeking "support" and "feedback" to legitimize and
> > validate that predetermined decision.
> Hi.
> I haven't been following this discussion too closely, but my sense is that
> a few people on this mailing list have already decided on an
> outcome and are seeking “oppose" and "feedback" to legitimize and
> validate that predetermined decision.
> Mike
> (Seriously - please give more constructive feedback, and engage in
> conversation, everyone's working towards the same goals here.)

Yes. If we could just put aside discussing people ad hominem, and instead
focus on *reasoning*,  also known as constructive feedback / criticism.
According to the original email that should happen on meta
or on wikimedia space


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-24 Thread Aron Manning
On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 00:22, Todd Allen  wrote:

> When the FRAMBAN occurred, nearly 10% of the English Wikipedia
> functionaries resigned. Many have returned, but that's only because WMF
> backed off. We lost many of our best to that, and if WMF hadn't swiftly
> backed down, they would have stayed gone. And some still have stayed gone
> regardless. We won't recover from the damage they inflicted.

There's a different interpretation to those events:

> nearly 10% of the English Wikipedia functionaries resigned

Maybe I missed somebody, but the only functionary
, who resigned was
BU Rob13, others were admins and bureaucrats, not functionaries.
It's worth noting, that Rob did not resign because of the WMF's office
action, but the opposite: the community's response to it.
The 22 admins who resigned was ca. 5.4% of the reasonably active admins
("411 [admins] with 24 [actions] or more in the year").

> Many have returned

Read: Some of those resignations were for the effect. In a superficial
check I only found a few, who have actually returned.

> WMF backed off
Did it? Fram is still banned, temporary office actions policy consultation
is in preparation. I would agree that the WMF is more open to conversation
now, which is good.

> We lost many of our best to that

That can't be claimed objectively. There was an attempt to measure the
activity of the resigned admins: a statistics about number of admin actions
It's subjective, how many actions in a year should count as being active.
"As a more reasonable bar, there are 411 [admins] with 24 [actions] or more
in the year".  22/411 = 5.4% of the "active" admins resigned, those who
"were responsible for 19423 admin actions or 2.4% of the total". Based on
this dataset, the resigned 5.4% of admins made 2.4% of the admin actions in
one year. Less than half of the average. This is not representative of the
"quality" of an admin, but shows that their resignation was not a major
disruption, contrary to how it is dramatized.

I can't see how any lesson can be learned from that except for "Never do
> something like that again".

"Do better than that" would be the solution oriented lesson to be learned.
By better I mean to do a cooperative process.
I wonder if that "community", whose opinion you represent, have learned
from these recommendations, that there are long-running issues to be
It's not only the Foundations' lacking cooperation with the communities,
that's under scrutiny here, but also the communities' failure to resolve
fundamental issues.
There would be no need for intervention, if the communities were able to do
this on their own.

> What WMF should've learned from that is to never pull any hamfisted
> interference with a local
> community again.

Starting these conversations was a major step forward from the "hamfisted
interference" of the framban.
Can the community show good faith in response, and cooperatively
participate? Many of us did.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-24 Thread Aron Manning
On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 at 00:01, Todd Allen  wrote:

> And if they're between five and ten thousand, why would they, consisting of
> thousands, be outweighed by "working groups" consisting of little more than
> a dozen people?

Let's be factual. There are 9 WGs

with 8-14, members each, say ca. 100 WG members to sum.
There are ca. 40 "activists" revolting

one or more recommendations. Only a few of them made actual, constructive
contributions to the discussions.
This group is hardly representative of the presumed few thousands
interested in the future of the movement.

That's no way to run a project. It's no way to run anything. "Well, their
> vote counts for a hundred of yours...".
> That's not how we do things, at all. Either things are accepted or rejected
> by Wikimedia members, but every single long-term, good-faith contributor
> counts the same as any other. No one's voice is "more equal" than another.

It sounds like you are describing WP:Vote
On enwiki we do WP:Consensus
where the arguments count, not directly the number of contributors.
Also, it's questionable, whether the purely negative comments are
good-faith contributions, or disruptions, that make it more difficult to
focus on finding a solution on common grounds.

On the other hand, Wikimania is over, and the WGs' involvement in the
discussions hasn't increased. I hinted on a very optimistic one week
turnaround for the WGs, that didn't happen. I expected this would be a
likely possibility, in which case it's doubtful that the WGs will be able
to produce a recommendation after 15 Sept, that could be accepted as final,
or some will lack important details, or carry the unresolved fundamental
issues. Even if it happens so, that's also a workable process, or
alternatively the Foundation can modify the timeline, when the community
response makes it clear, there's need for more iterations.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-24 Thread Aron Manning
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 11:18, Benjamin Ikuta 

> It's obvious that you, for one, stand with the community.

Benjamin, this is not a clash between two opposing forces, albeit some
combative elements try to "divide and conquer", and turn the community into
two opposing camps.
The recommendations are about the path we choose for the future, and the
conversations are your chance to contribute to that vision.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Diversity Working Group Recommendation 9 - proposal to split in two: "Terms of Use update" and "Licensing Policy update"

2019-08-18 Thread Aron Manning
This draft resulted in the longest talk page
and the most passionate feedback. The responses mostly address the
Licensing Policy update, that turned out to be a very heavy topic, while
the Terms of Use update is overlooked.
I think both are equally important, but raise very different concerns and
technical questions. The community feedback would be more focused, if these
two were split into their own recommendations.

I suggest the Terms of Use update be split into recommendation 14 with the
next iteration, so the community can reflect on that topic as well.

It would be also helpful to add cross-references to the strongly
related Recommendation
# 1: Code of Conduct
and Community Health Recommendation #1

I'm posting this here, as it seems more likely that it reaches WG members.


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-18 Thread Aron Manning
On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 06:42, Leila Zia  wrote:

> * Re Commons or not is something we should discuss in the talk pages.
Peter had some really good points early on on this thread about the 3
> different options available.

And his option of a dedicated project for non-free content has been
already proposed
in 2015  and 2018
, proposed name
*NonFreeWiki */ *FairUseWiki */ *UnCommons */ etc.
Discuss at: recommendation talk page section

I was pretty surprised this was not mentioned in the recommendation. That
proposal answers many questions, missing from the current recommendation.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!

2019-08-18 Thread Aron Manning
On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 22:07, Jeff Hawke  wrote:

> "Open community input will be accepted until September 15, after which
> working groups will refine and finalize their work using movement input as

I expect the drafts to be revised for new rounds of feedback within that
timeframe. In one week the community gathered information fundamental to
these drafts, but missing from the first iteration. In an agile environment
this can be incorporated into the drafts in a few days, and even in
wikipedian time 1-2 weeks could be enough to publish the next iteration,
and keep the conversation alive.
I hope after Wikimania the WG members will be able to dedicate time for
this, otherwise the tight timeline is not possible. Ideally the most
popular drafts would be updated weekly, or more often, answering some
feedback in each iteration, not necessarily all of it.


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!

2019-08-17 Thread Aron Manning
On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 09:00, Peter Southwood 

> Do you speak for one or more working groups in an official or
> semi-official capacity?

I don't think it would make sense, if a WG member would write this. I speak
my opinion as an editor. To be clear: I meant I assume the WMF will
continue working on these drafts, incorporating the feedback, and proposing
new versions.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please reconsider!

2019-08-16 Thread Aron Manning
I appreciate that there is an attempt to start conversations. These are
drafts of recommendations, that implies at least 1 more round of community
feedback, and preferably 2 or 3 for the alpha drafts, such as licensing.
Plenty of time and opportunity to come to a mutually agreeable outcome. If
not, I expect the timelines will be adapted to the process, not the other
way around.

The mission of these recommendations is strongly relate-able, with the
community feedback incorporated, these have a potential to benefit the
movement. This round of conversation already provided ample feedback, with
detailed reviews and in-depth information about local community customs,
some of that adding important, overlooked facts, that are absolutely
necessary to be taken into account. Good progress, I'm quite positive about


On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 17:35, Peter Southwood 

> Some are worse than others. I would settle for a mix of alpha and beta.
> You don’t want to go too far before getting feedback, but when people don’t
> know what you are talking about you probably have not gone far enough.
> There seems to be a lot of variability in response to requests for
> clarification too.  Some get a response quite quickly, others get very
> little. I predict that the ones that do not provide clarification within a
> reasonable period are likely to meet snowballing resistance. Another
> problem is the sheer number all at the same time. This will annoy people wo
> feel obliged to do a review of a large proportion of the proposal, and a
> small sample suggests that they really do need review, to avoid some really
> bad stuff getting passed.
> Cheers,
> Peter
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [] On
> Behalf Of Ziko van Dijk
> Sent: 16 August 2019 16:51
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please
> reconsider!
> Let's put it this way: The "recommendations" have been presented as a kind
> of "Beta". But the actual status looks more like "Alpha".
> Kind regards
> Ziko
> Am Do., 15. Aug. 2019 um 20:03 Uhr schrieb Peter Southwood <
> > I agree that a lot of review and comment is needed before some of these
> > items can be considered ready for further development. The amount may
> > differ, so why not use the Wikipedian method of allowing each
> > recommendation to remain open for discussion as long as it is being
> > actively discussed (and relevant questions remain unanswered - if
> questions
> > are not answered  it may be necessary to close as no consensus, in which
> > case probably best abandoned as a waste of time and effort).
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [] On
> > Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta
> > Sent: 15 August 2019 13:10
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The timeline of the Wikimedia strategy: please
> > reconsider!
> >
> > I subscribe Ziko's request to redefine the timeline of Strategy 2030, for
> > the stated reasons. Not only it looks absurd, looking at the quality of
> the
> > published materials, which are obviously not fit for a final discussion
> on
> > this mater, but also because there's no rush to present results already
> in
> > October.
> > Rushing to present a final set of recommendations, without proper
> > discussion, risks producing a faulty and immature document, facing a
> > barrage of resistence from the part of the community when trying to
> > implement the recommendations, and basically destroy more than 1 year of
> > hard work from everyone involved (core team, WGs, liasion, and the part
> of
> > the community who involved itself on the process).
> >
> > I endorse the request to the Strategy 2030 Core Team: Please review your
> > schedule, and adjust your timetable, so to allow some reasonable time for
> > that draft to be discussed and properly finished.
> >
> > Best,
> > Paulo
> >
> > Ziko van Dijk  escreveu no dia quarta, 14/08/2019
> à(s)
> > 14:48:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Recently, the "draft recommendations" of the strategy working groups
> have
> > > been published. As Nicole informed us, they are "key tools" for the
> > future
> > > of the movement. These documents are the result of one year of work of
> > the
> > > working groups.
> > >
> > > If I am not mistaken, the Wikimedia volunteers now have one month to
> give
> > > feedback. In October, the process of refining and finalizing has to be
> > > ready, and in November, the movement will have to start with
> implementing
> > > the recommendations.
> > >
> > > Having seen now more of the documents, my conclusion can only be one:
> the
> > > documents are simply not ready for this stage of the process. They are
> > much
> > > more unready than they should be for being put to the eyes of the
> > Wikimeda
> > > volunteers.
> > >
> > > There are 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-14 Thread Aron Manning
Peter, this is a very thoughtful suggestion. I'm not sure the WG members
will see it here, maybe you could post on the talk page? I haven't seen it


On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 12:00, Peter Southwood 

> One way to make it very clear is to have a separate project for non-free
> and pseudo-free media. Keep it off Commons altogether, so Commonists have
> no new problems, and to use it on a project would require specific
> permission by that project, so that Commons is not the only repository that
> can be used. Keep Commons the default, and make it necessary to use a
> prefix to use the not-so-free media files, so it is quite clear that they
> are different. If it is all on Commons, people will be sneaking it onto
> projects where it is not allowed, making yet more maintenance work for
> volunteers who might prefer to spend their time creating and improving
> valid content. To make it less of a hassle, the upload wizard could
> automatically switch to the alternative project if any of a specific range
> of licences were to be used, with an explanation of why the file could not
> be stored on Commons.
> Cheers,
> Peter
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-12 Thread Aron Manning
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 22:45, Ziko  wrote:

The concern is that allowing NC and ND would lead to more content being
> uploaded under these "unfree" conditions that otherwise would be uploaded
> as "free".

I share those concerns, and believe it's not in the general interest of
uploaders to use nonfree licenses. These licenses limit the visibility of
the content, therefore uploaders are generally demotivated from using it. I
think we should focus on how to communicate that the use of these licenses
do not benefit the uploader, or Wikipedia as a whole, or its users, except
in a few marginal cases, when it is a necessity.

There are a few options to do so, and minimize the proportion of free
content converted to "unfree":

   - Free is the default. Make it a significant effort (multiple steps) to
   choose NC or ND license. This is what the cookie opt-out UIs do, very
   - At each step inform the uploader, that an unfree license severely
   limits the visibility of the content (no media, no private schools, no
   - If a user mostly uploads non-free content, notify them, this
   negatively affects Wikipedia as whole in its mission to be a free
   - If non-free content is uploaded in great quantity, that content should
   be examined by other editors, and proposed for deletion, if similar content
   is available with free license.
   - If some content is available elsewhere with free license, the content
   and license can be replaced with that. This can be automated to an extent
   with reverse-image search.
   - After all these measures, I will have good faith, that most editors
   understand the benefit of free content over non-free, and only uses these
   licenses when it's truly necessary.

> See the excellent brochure published by WMDE some years ago.

Thank you, it's really excellent.

> I fail to see how these two articles "explain the need for ND". The -
interesting - article about the daguerrotypes relates to images that are
> long in the Public Domain.

My bad. 1st article
about commercial use (NC): "the university is illegally profiting from the
images by using them for “advertising and commercial purposes,” such as by
using Renty’s image on the cover of a $40 anthropology book."
2nd article

about derivative work (ND): "The past year has had several high profile
examples of the perceived misuse of Native American culture find
significant echo in the media. These include a Victoria’s Secret model
wearing a headdress during a fashion show, the No Doubt music bands
’cowboys and Indians' themed music video, and the use of the “Navajo” name
and symbols on various goods by the clothing company Urban Outfitters
attracting legal proceedings for misrepresenting the products’ origins as
well as public ire."

It's my conclusion these "explain the need" for *some* solution to disallow
such usages. NC and ND is one way to express this prohibition.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Movement Strategy: Draft recommendations are here!

2019-08-12 Thread Aron Manning
We've been waiting for the moment the WMF starts a conversation of proposed
changes. It finally came, and I appreciate this good faith effort.
I hope we can give constructive feedback and get involved in a civil
manner, without focusing on perceived hostilities.

The Terms of Use/Licensing Policy recommendation

more broad than the addition of NC and ND licensing.
"we assume that it would be necessary to *modify the “Terms of Use”
especially to address community health, foster diversity and address
systemic biases.*"
This would be a clear statement of the Foundation's future purpose,
therefore I strongly agree with it.

Part of this would be the addition of NC and ND licenses. This doesn't mean
that there will be less free content, but instead more material will be
possible to be uploaded, from underrepresented communities. This would be a
very welcome change.
The draft already refers to 2 articles (1
that explain the need for ND. I'll ask for further sources that show the
benefits of NC and ND licensed materials.


On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 11:25, Fæ  wrote:

> The justifications for the change read as unsourced and arbitrary. In
> particular there is no evidence that using Commons to host NC ND
> material that may be important to minority communities, such as
> traditional folk art, would help better to educate the public about
> those arts when the same NC restriction would halt in its
> tracks the general use of Commons by educators and universities. The
> change in commons policies would have the consequence of advice to
> educators being against using our media in lectures, study materials,
> academic papers, academic books etc.
> The Meta page that is linked to verges on being blatantly hostile to
> the views of the Wikimedia Commons communities
> * Q4a. Could this Recommendation have a negative impact/change?
> * (Answer) All change has negative connotations to some members of the
> community.
> This appears deliberately flippant and provocative. Bizarre.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

2019-07-07 Thread Aron Manning
One could say that deletionism is just as toxic, cutting off valuable
off-springs at the root, based on the balance of different views present at
the birth. Walking around with the intent to cut for a long time, has an
effect on how one relates to the world.

On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 12:15, Benjamin Ikuta  wrote:

> As a strong inclusionist myself, I'm a bit disappointed to see this.
> See also:
> On Jul 5, 2019, at 3:15 AM, Todd Allen  wrote:
> > Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of garbage
> > pile up. Deletionism just takes out the trash. We did it with damn
> Pokemon,
> > and we'll eventually do it with junk football "biographies", with
> > "football" in the sense of American and otherwise. We'll sooner or later
> > get it done with "populated places" and the like too.
> >
> > NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub
> > "article".
> >
> > As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any
> > editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate
> > sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet
> > ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an
> > article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to
> > show sourcing immediately.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers <
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic
> editing
> >> environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has
> >> historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads
> at
> >> for examples.
> >>
> >> On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because
> we
> >> have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
> >> sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last
> >> year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information,
> >> these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs.
> I
> >> would have voted to accept cases , and  and
> >> these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction
> ,
> >> z"
> >>
> >> Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
> >> community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued
> >> for, among other things:
> >>
> >>
> >>   1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
> >>   to blocks.
> >>   2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
> >>   creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins
> find
> >>   them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
> >>   3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing
> edits.
> >>
> >>
> >> None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
> >> environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for
> example
> >> some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit
> conflict
> >> understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents
> where
> >> people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one
> >> the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some
> deletionists
> >> even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
> >> deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
> >>
> >> My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
> >> ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter
> people
> >> you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different
> versions
> >> of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their
> >> native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some
> other
> >> Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture
> might
> >> think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm
> being
> >> nuanced and diplomatic.
> >>
> >> Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have
> communicated
> >> before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
> >> would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem
> >> was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some
> >> Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on
> Wikipedia.
> >> But other Wikipedians might have agreed with  the WMF if only we knew
> what
> >> the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might
> >> support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support
> >> empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed
> reason
> >> where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was
> now
> >> an