Re: [Wikimedia-l] Looks familiar?

2017-07-23 Thread Comet styles
if anything, wikimedia stole their idea :P


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are inline donor banners something we view as acceptable?

2016-12-08 Thread Comet styles
Spamming to ask for donations so that they don't spam again until
December 2017 (Y)

On 12/2/16, Pine W  wrote:
> OK, thanks for the info. I'll be interested to read a summary of the
> campaign when WMF is in a position to create one, which I'm guessing might
> be in January or February.
> I could ask more questions, but I think that I'd better retreat back into
> my digital cave. I have a UI project calling my name!
> Thanks for the rapid responses to questions and comments.
> Pine
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Joseph Seddon  wrote:
>> More than it represents a feasible concept that can be significantly
>> improved upon. Reducing it's footprint, improving the look and feel so
>> that
>> it reduces its impact on the page.
>> With regards to user appeals with photos:
>> 1) They are notoriously difficult to be successful. We spent a whole year
>> trying to beat Jimmy's face and Brandon was the only one who ever came
>> close.
>> 2) our banners follow closely trends on the wider web. Donor preferences
>> at
>> the moment seem to follow an image-lite experience. We tried last year
>> reintroducing info graphics or pictures only to remove them again. Its an
>> area we regularly reassess to see if our readers tastes have changed.
>> Seddon
>> On 2 Dec 2016 06:17, "Pine W"  wrote:
>> > Hi Seddon,
>> >
>> > By "And in this instance although the test was successful, we had
>> > decided
>> > that
>> > although a winner, it was the lessons to take away that were more
>> > important. From there we hope to arrive at a banner that draws from the
>> > success but is delivered in a way that is easier on the eye." are you
>> > saying that
>> > you've decided to discontinue the inline fundraising but will use
>> > lessons
>> > learned
>> > from it to design banners?
>> >
>> > By the way, I thought that some of the WMF folks on Facebook had a good
>> > idea when they suggested the "I <3 Wikipedia" frames on peoples' profile
>> > pictures. That brings to mind that in a previous round of fundraising
>> that
>> > WMF
>> > had banners with Wikimedians' photos and some fundraising messages that
>> > I
>> > believe were written by them. Perhaps you could consider bringing back
>> > a version of that campaign.
>> >
>> > I believe that there is some tradeoff in the length of the campaign and
>> the
>> > boldness of the fundraising, so to a certain extent I'm reluctantly
>> willing
>> > to accept bold fundraising if that means that the campaign ends sooner.
>> >
>> > I feel strongly that the campaign should stick to 100% of its stated
>> > target,
>> > not intentionally overshoot the target for purposes of padding the
>> > reserves. When WMF says that its goal is $X, then it should end the
>> > campaign when it has high certainty that it has reached $X. If that
>> > means
>> > that a campaign ends a week early, so much the better.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Pine
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > New messages to:
>> > Unsubscribe:,
>> > 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to:
>> Unsubscribe:,
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What kind of ED would you like to see?

2016-02-26 Thread Comet styles
What kind of ED would you like to see?

* Someone who knows how the wiki works or atleast has basic knowledge
on how to "edit" wikis.

* Someone who wants to work on "building" the encyclopaedia, not the
bureaucratic side which our last ED was more focused on.

* Someone willing to work on improving the wiki by working on ways of
creating and increasing our contributor base, we are seriously lacking
in that sector..

* Someone who is so transparent that we could see right through them,
secrecy is what got us in this mess in the first place.

* Someone willing to ensure that the board, the staff and the
community work in 'unison' instead of the former 2 dictating their
policies, views and choices onto the latter.

* Someone willing to take the hard stance and do what's right by the
community instead of allowing the Board and other staff members to
dictate the job for them..

* Someone who puts the Community first ALWAYS. (we do not want another
 issue like 'super-protect' ever again)

That is what I would like our ED to be ...we need an "Executive
DIRECTor", not an "Executive FOLLOWer"

On 2/27/16, Greg Grossmeier  wrote:
>> Greg, agree 100%, but that's not how I understood the question and the
>> results of the staff survey. It seemed the staff expected the vision from
>> the ED/Management.
> I think you're misinterpreting.
> The agree/disagree statement was:
> "Senior leadership at Wikimedia have communicated a vision that
> motivates me"  (7% agree)
> See also, this quote in glassdoor, quoted in the Signpost as well:
> "The Executive Director unveils a new strategy every three months or
> so."
> So, it's not that people wanted the vision solely from the
> ED/Management, it's that they wanted a not constantly changing one.
> This is getting off topic, however.
> The point is, a vision does not need to come from one person, which you
> agree with. A good vision comes from many people working together
> collaboratively. Then sticking with it to see it through. Consistency is
> needed in an ED.
> Greg
> --
> | Greg GrossmeierGPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E |
> | @gregA18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D |
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman

2016-02-26 Thread Comet styles
Well the keyword in "trustees" is the word "Trust" and as far as i can
see James was the ONLY one that was forthcoming with what happened
back in December, the others decided to keep their mouth shut and let
it slide which obviously, made it worse and out of control.The
community has over the years selected a few BoT members that weren't
really that good, including some recently but James has been an
exception if we can get the ONLY Board of Trustee that the community
TRUSTS back on board, its a win for the community..

It was a really 'sly' move by the BoT to select someone else in his
place even before the fire died yes, even if the current
members of the Board do not trust him, WE the community  DO...thats
all that matters.

On 2/27/16, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
> I'm responding to an off-list comment I received to clarify that my email
> wasn't at all meant to denigrate the work of all trustees.
> It's quite possible that there were other trustees pushing down the right
> path - but I would stand by the statement that James Heilman was the only
> trustee actively and aggressively following his fiduciary duties. A
> trusteeship can involve an intense time committment, and is a volunteer
> role; there is no fault, no flaw in a trustee not universally actively and
> aggressively following their fiduciary duties at all time.  But I've been
> talking with WMF and ex-WMF employees for months before this eruption, had
> a pretty thorough idea of what it was about, and had a pretty solid feeling
> that it was the wrong thing to do even before it happened.
> James' actions retained valuable Foundation employees that would of
> otherwise left, and there are yet other valuable Foundation employees that
> would likely have stayed had he not been removed over the issue.  Not all
> trustees have the available time to be exemplary trustees at all times, and
> sometimes people just make the wrong call - I will readily confess that at
> another organization (~$20m org,) there were times when I both didn't have
> time to dedicate to be an exemplary trustee, and also times when I just
> made the wrong call.  However, this is a situation where Jame's was acting
> as an exemplar and was removed for it.  That is not intended to denigrate
> the work of most other trustees, but it's not a good situation either.
> Removing a community selected trustee who was acting as an exemplar
> *because* he was acting as an exemplar is not a good thing.  One of the
> first solid steps towards rebuilding community trust would be reinstating
> James.
> Kevin Gorman
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
>> Hi all -
>> I understand that this idea has been discussed on other currently active
>> threads, but in my opinion, it deserves a separate thread.  To an informed
>> observer, it was pretty obvious why James was removed to begin with, and
>> to
>> a casual observer, I'm guessing it's become obvious.  It would be
>> unfortunate of events have soured James' relationship with other board
>> members to the point that it would be literally unworkable to put him back
>> on the board... but it's also become readily apparent that the community
>> trusted community selected (and sorry, but that's a bullshit trick,)
>> trustee James Heilman wasn't violating his fiduciary duties.
>> I would go as far as to say that James Heilman was the only trustee who
>> was actively and aggressively following his fidicuiary duties, and that if
>> Dr. James is willing to accept a reappointment to the board, one of the
>> next three board motions that passes should be appointing James Heilman as
>> trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation.  His removal wasn't a surprise to
>> him,
>> he knew it was coming - but he also knew he was acting in the interests of
>> the Wikimedia Foundation.
>> And that's the exact kind of trustee we need.
>> Kevin Gorman
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Lawrence Lessig for ... WMF

2016-02-26 Thread Comet styles
Lawrence Lessig is an excellent suggestion, probably would be my
Candidate A for the job if he wasn't 'besties' with Jimmy Wales..we
have already had issues with the  staff and board working together in
secrecy without the community's knowledge, we should not have to go
through it again.. I agree with Lodewijk, we should not be discussing
this BUT the WMF has a habit of selecting the worst candidates for the
job on both the board and the staff without the community's input or
knowledge, so surely if this is the only way the community can gets
its input, then so be it

On 2/27/16, Yuri Astrakhan  wrote:
> Lodewijk, this is a very valid point, thanks.  My understanding is that
> this process done in private has lost some of its credibility with the
> staff and the community, and thus I would like to get some understanding on
> how we can do that same process in the open, without offending anyone.  In
> the wiki world, I think most of the time people
> have publicly nominated candidates for various roles, and that has not been
> a concern. Of course the nick names provide some degree of anonymity, so
> this might not be exactly the same.
> On Feb 27, 2016 01:57, "Lodewijk"  wrote:
>> While I love public discussions, I must say I always feel a bit awkward to
>> discuss people in public, unless there is no other choice.
>> To discuss people without them agreeing to it, may even be considered rude
>> by some. You're throwing up names, which can realistically only lead to
>> people supporting it, because if you would be against it, it would
>> possibly
>> be a slap in the face of someone you like.
>> If you really see a serious potential candidate, why not send it to the
>> board? or, once a public call is being made, point those people to it.
>> Lodewijk
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Yuri Astrakhan > >
>> wrote:
>> > For the inside, I would think Yana W would be a good candidate, but as
>> Raul
>> > Veede suggested on FB, it would be bad to loose her expertise in her
>> > current role.
>> >
>> > Dan, I think you are right that we are not yet ready to have a drop-in
>> > replacement simply because we should figure out what went wrong first.
>> > Possibly we shouldn't even have an ED, but rather have a flatter
>> > community-driven committee that allocates funds, and projects getting
>> > resources from it. And this committee would, in affect, be the
>> > direction-determining force.
>> >
>> > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Oliver Keyes 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I'm agreed with Dan and Nathan (well, Nathan's implied point) both.
>> > >
>> > > Right now we need stability. I'd much prefer an interim ED appointed
>> > > from inside the organisation or movement, ideally someone who has been
>> > > watching what's been going on. And then time for healing and
>> > > reflection in that space of stability that lets us make a better
>> > > decision.
>> > >
>> > > I have no particular opinions on Lessig - or on Creative Commons -
>> > > except to note that the organisational leaders are the people whose
>> > > opinions on trauma around reorganisations least matter, insofar as,
>> > > structurally, they are both the people least likely to be messed over
>> > > by them and the people most detached from any swirling mass of feeling
>> > > that exists in the employee base. I'd be interested instead in hearing
>> > > from current or former employees (I know a couple and they are not as
>> > > positive, but it's a small sample size) to make any evaluation more
>> > > informed.
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Dan Andreescu <
>> > >
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > I met him, he's amazingly focused and radical, I appreciate his
>> > > > brand
>> > of
>> > > intellect very much. But I think suggesting candidates for the ED
>> > position
>> > > at this time is jumping two steps ahead of where we are.
>> > > >
>> > > > We just screwed up. We were all dragged through months of an awkward
>> > > collapse of our leadership and organizational structure. Before we
>> start
>> > > piling the rubble of this collapse back up into the same exact shape
>> > with a
>> > > different keystone, let's take a breath and think.
>> > > >
>> > > > First we should make sure we understand what, more or less, failed.
>> It
>> > > was not just Lila. Second, we should talk about what options we have
>> and
>> > > what criteria we should use to evaluate those options.
>> > > >
>> > > > We can be patient. We have reaffirmed our respect for each other and
>> we
>> > > trust each other enough to share ideas, emotions, and proposals. This
>> is
>> > > our foundation, and it hasn't collapsed.
>> > > >
>> > > >   Original Message
>> > > > From: Yuri Astrakhan
>> > > > Sent: Friday, February 26, 2016 16:47
>> > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>> > > > Reply To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>> > > > Subject: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Executive transition planning

2016-02-26 Thread Comet styles
I was banned on this mailing list last month for pointing out Lila's
incompetency as a leader..I just hope the next ED we have is fully
vetted before they are selected and I'm really hoping that we get
someone with a "wikipedia" background for a change.. Why don't we hire
someone who know the project inside and out instead of someone who is
thrust into the position without the know-how?...

The events of the last 2 months seemed like something from a Hitchcock
film..Good luck to Lila on her future venture but lets just hope the
incompetency levels we have at both the Board and Staff level stops
here...If the community has to go through this again this year, I'm
sure the next job on the line may very well be at the very TOP..


On 2/26/16, Anthony Cole  wrote:
> There will be an AllHands staff discussion about recent events tomorrow,
> per Katherine Maher on Facebook.
> Anthony Cole
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
>> 2016-02-25 12:19 GMT-08:00 Gayle Karen Young :
>> > I know this isn't easy - not on the Board, not on the senior staff, not
>> on
>> > the staff, and not on Lila.
>> > I'm so sorry and sad for all of us where this has come to, and there is
>> an
>> > enormous amount of goodwill and skill in supporting the board in moving
>> > forward and doing the thorough planning it needs to do from this point
>> > onward.
>> Well said, Gayle, and best wishes in the journey ahead, both for WMF
>> and the movement, and for Lila. I'll go back to lurking for a bit, but
>> may chime in on some of the topics that have been raised in some of
>> the very constructive side conversations.
>> Warmly,
>> Erik
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> New messages to:
>> Unsubscribe:,
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

2016-01-28 Thread Comet styles
Since Jimmy is now also on the board for 'The Guardian', maybe its
about time he stepped down from the WMF board? And regarding James, it
honestly no longer matters why he was 'fired', its obvious the board
is filling up its stocks in google employees (lol) and it won't likely
change even after the VoNC on Geshuri and I think we all can expect
more 'ridiculous' hirings  in the future as well..

Regarding the Knight grant application/letter, the question isn't why
the community needs a reason to see the application/letter, the
question is why the community cannotit again goes back to the old
question..who is serving who?

On 1/29/16, Fæ  wrote:
> On 28 January 2016 at 16:12, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
> ...
>> So, what does it actually mean when Jimmy Wales says something like this
>> to
>> the community in response to criticism?
>> Do people think this is good governance, secretly admire the Machiavellian
>> chutzpah, or what?
> Jimmy Wales has defended his use of *"Utter fucking bullshit"* when
> abusing James Heilman.[1][2] In a hostile environment where "founders
> rights" appear to mean that Wales can push his colleagues around like
> a childish bully, in a way that anyone else would have their account
> blocked from Wikimedia projects, we cannot expect to hold this WMF
> trustee to account for their actions as we cannot even properly hold
> him to account against the WMF terms of use.
> In other charitable organisations, abusing volunteers or employees
> with variations of "fuck" and being incapable of recognising that is a
> problem, would make you entirely unsuitable to be a trustee. It's a
> shame that the WMF board have no higher standards for civility or
> leadership than this. It's an all time low.
> Links:
> 1.
> 2.
> Fae
> --
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update from the Board

2016-01-27 Thread Comet styles
Indeed, Steinsplitter, they are 'buying time' hoping they can sweep
everything under the rug within a week, unfortunately for them, a few
news sites have picked up on the drama including BBCArrnon may
have step down, but the issue is still there, what's to stop WMF from
hiring another person like him in the near future? The community
cannot keep voting to remove board and staff members, We don't want it
to come to a situation where the community decides to get rid of the
'foundation' for the betterment of the community..


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What happened on the Board of Trustees?

2016-01-09 Thread Comet styles
The major problem is and has been for a while  is that we have people
in the hierarchy who do not understand how the wiki works, most have
never made an edit out of their 'hidden' wikis or userpages on wmfwiki
or meta..

How can one trust a product in the hands of someone who does not use
it? ..We will never get a truthful answer for his removal and the
reason is probably quite petty as well but it shows discord amongst
our so called 'leaders' and its sad and ironic that this had to happen
around the time wikipedia is doing its donation drive..honestly, WMF
has taken a  nosedive since Sue left and left the organisation in the
hands of Lila who has failed as a leader..not to mention her
'baby-daddy' has been banned from most wikimedia wikis as well as IRC
for talking nonsense and is constantly using his blogs to attack the
same organisation his 'ex' is trying to run..


On 1/9/16, Tobias  wrote:
> Dear all,
> right now, we know very little about the removal of James. It is hard
> for anyone not involved (which is the vast majority of this community)
> to come up with any safe conclusions, because there is a lack of
> evidence. This opens up the possibility of speculation. I would prefer
> the stating of facts instead of speculation, but since that's not
> happening, I think speculation might be a way to incentivize more
> insiders to come forward with facts, if only to refute the content of
> speculation.
> I am going to attempt to do this in a neutral fashion, and I will also
> follow another important tradition in the movement, assume good faith. I
> do not subscribe to conspiracy theories that allege a secret plan by
> Google or intentions of harming Wikipedia on anyone's part.
> Here's what I think might have happened:
> James, a longstanding community member, is accustomed to how we do
> things on Wikipedia -- with transparency, an open discourse, but also
> endless discussions on talk pages. Other members of the board have less
> of a "Wikipedian" background, and are more accustomed to how things work
> in companies: board meetings in secret, focus on being effective at the
> cost of transparency, with a frank tone on the inside, and a diplomatic
> and collective voice to the outside.
> These very different conceptions clash, for instance when it comes to
> the plans of a "Wikipedia knowledge engine": some prefer early community
> involvement and plead openness, others, perhaps scared of the harsh
> criticism of early announced and unfinished products by the community,
> wish to wait with giving out more information. James is frustrated and
> tries to push other board members towards more transparency, which in
> turn makes them wary of him and they mutually develop distrust.
> The pivotal part of the story then is the question of WMF leadership,
> and the fact that there is a lot of discontent among WMF staff with
> senior leadership, as indicated by an employee engagement survey. James,
> being used to transparent discussions, pushes for a thorough and open
> review, and talks to staff members to gain more information. The other
> board members, perhaps somewhat in panic, think he will initiate a
> public discussion about replacing senior leadership and (perhaps
> inadvertently) will cause a major disruption to the entire foundation,
> so they decide to call a halt before it's too late and remove him from
> the board.
> This is what, given the information publicly available, is in my opinion
> at least one likely explanation of what happened. Please take it with a
> grain of salt, it /is/ speculation. I intend this to undergo the process
> of falsification and encourage anyone involved to call me out on what
> they perceive is incorrect.
> Tobias
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

2016-01-09 Thread Comet styles
Jimmy has always been biased so I personally won't trust his words but
the way this is playing out, its like James somehow revealed the pass
codes to the WMF Nuclear launch codes or something...did he?

A board made up to govern a community driven project filled with
people no one voted in decides to give a community selected board
member the boot for reason which they supposedly 'cannot' reveal and
they wonder why the community is pissed off at them?

The FAQ on James removal gives nothing away and the community will
only accept an answer which they deem truthful, we have yet to get
one You only dismiss board/staff members when they waste away
millions on something which has no future (which they didn't) or if
they steal..sorry but a BoT member talking to staff about an ongoing
issue is not good enough a reason for removal..We will be celebrating
15 years of wikipedia soon, 9ish of those years were great, the last 6
years felt like an ongoing battle between the community and the
bloated staff/board with forced changes to the wmf wikis and
unexplained hiring, firings and wastage of money which we do not

Atleast those that have been in the project for a while now would
fondly remember the good times on the wikis, back when bureaucracy did
not play any part in changing the direction the project was now i ask the one question we all have been
ponderingWhen are the Google-ads coming?

On 1/10/16, MZMcBride  wrote:
> On January 8, 2016, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees issued "a
> short statement on recent comments by James Heilman". For completeness'
> sake, I'm pasting the text of that statement into this thread.
> ---
> Recently, James Heilman wrote, regarding his removal from the Wikimedia
> Foundation Board: "It had in part to do with me wanting there to be public
> discussion on our long term strategy."
> [
> =698553023 diff].
> I wrote the following statement, which has been agreed to by the entire
> board at the time, names below:
> "The removal of James as a board member was not due to any disagreement
> about public discussion of our long term strategy.  The board unanimously
> supports public discussion of our long term strategy, has offered no
> objections to any board member discussing long term strategy with the
> community at any time, and strongly supports that the Wikimedia Foundation
> should develop long term strategy in consultation with the community."
> * Dariusz Jemielniak
> * Frieda Brioschi
> * Denny Vrandecic
> * Patricio Lorente
> * Alice Wiegand
> * Guy Kawasaki
> * Jan-Bart de Vreede
> * Stu West
> * Jimmy Wales
> I would like to add to this, speaking for myself only, that the loss of
> trust that I felt in James was in no small part due to this kind of
> statement on his part, in which the thinking of other board members is
> being misrepresented to the community and to the staff.  James apologized
> to the board for certain actions which he has chosen not to share with the
> community, which is his right.  He asked for a second chance, and the
> board declined to give it.  My own preference, as expressed to him
> repeatedly, is that he live up to the values of honesty and transparency
> that are core to our community, and certainly that he not continue to
> misrepresent what happened.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
> ---
> Source: .
> Obviously a single mailing list thread can't and won't capture all of the
> information related to this removal, but it seemed remiss to omit an
> official statement from the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees on the
> subject, especially when we have already included a number of other
> statements from individual trustees and the Board in this thread.
> MZMcBride
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

2016-01-02 Thread Comet styles
We should probably start with our high and mighty leader, Jimbo, just
like everyone else, He should now be 'elected' into the BoT, no more
free seats..Wikimedia has now grown to an extent where we may no
longer need him to run the foundation or to hold a deciding vote on
issues where he has his own interests in..This problem of lacking
transparency has leaked down to the lower levels of wikimedia as well,
is that the example they are going to set? .. As I said before, the
longer this drags on, the more likelihood of a 'manufactured' truth
coming out..

People who do wrong need time to come up with a good lieeveryone
knows this..James spoke the moment he was "fired" for which he was
reprimanded by the same authority that 'fired' him...If what Ben
Creasy said is true, then its definitely not James on the wrong here
and I'd be really effing pissed if he was made a 'scapegoat' by the
powers that be to save their own useless hide..Its very clear that
there is corruption at the highest order at WMFthe question is..
How deep does it go? ..


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

2016-01-02 Thread Comet styles
Ofcourse you wouldn't see it, but still, as this issue kept dragging
on, things came to light and most of us here do not agree at all with
the outcome...James was elected by the community, he was not another
random person the community did not trust or hear of before being
added to the board which actually includes 5 of the sitting BoT
members none of whom actually have any knowledge on the basic
fundamentals of the project so to fire someone who understands this
and has given all to the project is downright sillyAgain, its
quite sad that they are dragging this on, it has been a few  days now
and we still have yet to get a clear answer and thus why all the
conspiracy theory is floating around...Surely James should not be
apologising for doing something right but as per my earlier comment,
he seems to be the 'scapegoat' for something much bigger...the main
question, What exactly did he do that he got fired?.

On 1/3/16,  wrote:
> I don't believe that's "very clear" at all.  You yourself said "If what Ben
> said is true"  I think it's very possible - to the extent that Ben
> cautioned against it himself - that this may be a misunderstanding.
> In my nearly seven years at the WMF I never once saw corruption of the sort
> you suggest. Not once. And I think it's safe to say I was well connected.
> --
> Philippe Beaudette

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

2016-01-02 Thread Comet styles
"My fellow trustees need no reason beyond lack of trust in me to
justify my removal. No reason beyond that is needed per our board by

Trust does go both ways, so its either 'The Hateful Eight' who are at
the wrong here or just 'James'...This firing comes around the time
when our Project goes into the Fund-raising drive so to take a drastic
step like this without providing a valid reason will not give faith to
the millions who donate to the foundation around this time.

Their action has not only affected the contributors who voted James
in, but those  that donated to the Foundation on an yearly
before another BoT member or supporter goes rambling on about the
'intricacies of the project, think twice..Its not only about the
contributors who voted James in losing faith in the BoT, its also
about the million others who donate to the foundation on an yearly
basis..No one will give money to an organisation that is rotting from
the insideso its best that they come clean on this issue by Monday
and more importantly, restore James to the BoT OR end up in a
situation where the ever-so polite community decides that they have
had enough of the 'tyranny'  and lack of transparency which as i said
before, is leaking to the lower level of the
foundationConspiracies and lies have toppled nations, this is just
a mere organisation, tread carefully..

On 1/3/16, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> This event puzzled me a lot, as I suppose it puzzles all of
> Wikimedians who don't know what was happening inside of the Board last
> couple of months.
> On one side, although I am not active English Wikipedian, it's obvious
> to me that James' integrity is on the mythical level. On the other
> side, I know well seven of the other Board members and I am quite sure
> they wouldn't do anything that stupid like removing community elected
> Board member because differences in the vision of WMF future.
> Patricio's and Dariusz's responses didn't help a lot. I was quite
> angry on them because I just saw demagogy in their emails. Initially.
> Then I read this Dariusz email and became angry again. But a cigarette
> after I understood his political discourse. You know, politicians tend
> to tell you so much nonsense around the information, that you simply
> can't understand the information. But they do transfer the
> information, as Dariusz did it.
> After reading Daridusz's response, I read again Patricio's email from
> December 31st and it definitely supported my understanding of the
> situation.
> The answer is not spectacular at all. It's about inner dynamics of the
> Board and it could happen inside of any Board composition and with any
> of the Board members, no matter of the vision of particular Board
> member.
> Before I tell you that quite unspectacular "truth", I want to say that
> I completely understand both sides. From one perspective, I could
> imagine myself in James' position; from the other one, the decision of
> other Board members to protect Board's integrity seems quite
> reasonable.
> Imagine a situation when majority of Board members make one decision,
> which staff don't like. That decision was a product of weeks or months
> of discussion and it's almost certain that all the arguments were
> processed very well.
> James doesn't agree with that decision, as he sees that it could harm
> some of the employees: it could be about layoffs or it could be just
> about making things odd enough for some of the employees, that they
> won't feel well doing their job anymore.
> Then he tells to some of them: "This is going to happen. As you don't
> want that to happen, you should try to make pressure on Board members.
> I suggest you to do that in this way." I have to say that I did that
> numerous times on committee level in relation to the community needs:
> "Look, this is not going to pass Gerard. Our options to do that are
> those. You should do this, I will do that."
> I suppose the situation could be more fuzzy: Board was preparing
> decision; James saw some employees would be strongly against it; he
> told that to them to try to influence the rest of the Board. It's
> quite an issue to draw the line between transparency and disclosing
> confidential information in such situations. And, as I told above, I
> could easily do the same thing as James did.
> What I see as a bottom line here is that the issue wasn't about
> strategic or political disagreement, but about dynamics of one group,
> which happened to be WMF Board. From that perspective, decision is
> definitely up to that group, as well as I understand now James'
> statement from the December 29th: "My fellow trustees need no reason
> beyond lack of trust in me to justify my removal. No reason beyond
> that is needed per our board by laws."
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> wrote:
>> Hi there,
>> I wanted to send a note to all of you, that shares my perspective on 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

2016-01-02 Thread Comet styles
I'm quite aware of what James was trying to achieve
( and I'm
fully in support of his ideas so if whatever he did was related to one
of those he mentions on the link, then its quite understandable why
right now I'm on his side  and not on the the other side...5 of whom
the community did not appoint (or trusts) and one who is there by

The issue is not what James did, it was the drastic step taken and
above all the silence in relation to this from the 'BoT' which has
become quite deafening..When you fire someone and them make a
statement regarding it and why, we all would have accepted it  and
possibly fought it if we had found it unjustified..but when you fire
someone and then run back into the hole...what are we to assume?..Its
too early to start an investigation since no one is
speculation and allegations are the only things left... I'm not angry,
I personally don't care but I have seen too much nonsense by the
hierarchy over the last 5 years to allow another one to be swept under
the rug under the veil of "privacy" ...


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

2015-12-29 Thread Comet styles
Well the longer this drags on, the more likelihood of us getting a
"false" answer takes seconds to speak the truth, but days to
connive a i doubt we will get the 'truth' or atleast the full

On 12/30/15, Craig Franklin  wrote:
> Thanks Brad for spotting this and bringing it here, and also to Jimbo for
> filling in a few more details.
> Just as an aside, my thinking is that this must have needed to be an
> emergency action.  Because if the BoT has been mulling this over for
> awhile, it would be very poor governance to not have a strategy for how
> this would be communicated, and to only have WMF Legal on the case after
> the fact.  We already see this thread filling up with a bunch of
> speculation that is unhelpful and unhealthy, not just for James but also
> for the BoT and the movement in general.  I trust that there will be an
> explanation forthcoming, not only for why James has been removed in this
> way, but also for why there was seemingly not any planning for how to deal
> with the fallout of that decision.
> Cheers,
> Craig
> On 30 December 2015 at 03:47, Newyorkbrad  wrote:
>> I don't think it's been mentioned on this list that Jimmy Wales (one
>> of the board members) commented about this matter today on his En-WP
>> talkpage.  Since I assume many people on this list don't follow that
>> page, I have copied his comment below:
>> "Hi everyone.  I couldn't possibly agree more that this should have
>> been announced with a full and clear and transparent and NPOV
>> explanation.  Why didn't that happen?  Because James chose to post
>> about it before we even concluded the meeting and before we had even
>> begun to discuss what an announcement should say.  WMF legal has asked
>> the board to refrain from further comment until they've reviewed what
>> can be said - this is analogous in some ways to personnel issues.
>> Ideally, you would have heard about this a couple of days from now
>> when a mutual statement by James and the board had been agreed. For
>> now, please be patient.  Accuracy is critically important here, and to
>> have 9 board members posting their own first impressions would be more
>> likely to give rise to confusions. -- Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:35, 29
>> December 2015 (UTC)"
>> I'm not endorsing Jimbo's comment -- or the reverse -- as I frankly
>> find this whole situation strange and unfortunate.  However, it seems
>> relevant and I thought people in this discussion might want to be
>> aware of it..
>> I also agree that the information about the two new board members
>> should be circulated promptly.
>> Newyorkbrad/IBM
>> On 12/29/15, Steinsplitter Wiki  wrote:
>> > The removal is not transparent at all.
>> >
>> > Apart from that James was community elected. A democracy words
>> > different.
>> >
>> > Very disappointing.
>> >
>> >> From:
>> >> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:51:14 +0100
>> >> To:
>> >> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 4:00 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>> >> > issue here. This is hardly unusual. Regarding the removal itself, at
>> >> > least
>> >> > in the United States, it's fairly common for members of a body to be
>> >> > able
>> >> > to remove/expel one of their own. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of
>> >> > Trustees bylaws explicitly allow for removal of a member, with or
>> >> > without
>> >> > cause. Unlike in older Board resolutions, there's a clear public
>> >> > accounting of how each of the Board members voted (as opposed to
>> simple
>> >> > numeric totals). James posted that he will work with Patricio to
>> provide
>> >>
>> >> like others on this thread i think the WMF bylaws are broken in this
>> >> respect. not legally broken, but morally. i'd love to vote for a
>> >> trustee, and i'd love to reverse my decision in case a sufficient
>> >> party is not happy. if in this case james does not want to have a
>> >> public discussion he is free to resign. if the board thinks it cannot
>> >> work with james anymore, and is able to remove him without him beeing
>> >> ok with it, without public discussion, then i do not find it
>> >> transparent.
>> >>
>> >> best,
>> >> rupert
>> >>
>> >> ___
>> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> >>
>> >> New messages to:
>> >> Unsubscribe:,
>> >> 
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> >
>> > New messages to:
>> > Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

2015-12-28 Thread Comet styles
Wikimedia is still a democracy, even if the people running it aren't someone pointed out above, he was selected by over 1800
"contributors" and i have personally seen him make 'minor' mistakes,
none justifying why he was removed.. This is quite unbecoming of an
organisation that prides itself on its community, only to remove one
of its community-elected board members without any justification
whatsoever..still waitingI doubt any of us will be fond of
having another elections until we find out why James was removed in
the first place..


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] internet-in-a-boxs to the refugee camps?

2015-09-07 Thread Comet styles
contrary to the name, it doesn't actually have 'internet access'
..they can read, but not contribute..

On 9/8/15, Jane Darnell  wrote:
> Good idea. I watched a report on TV where they said some refugees have been
> waiting for years for processing. It would be nice for them to be able to
> use and maybe contribute to Wikipedia while they are waiting. Maybe we
> should set up edit-a-thons and wikiclasses about life in Europe and the
> politics of the crisis, for the refugees and the Europeans both!
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Leinonen Teemu 
> wrote:
>> Hello people,
>> Just an idea. Number of Syrian refugees is over 4,000,000 people, mostly
>> residing in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq.[1] Refugee camps are set in
>> all in these countries.[2]
>> Internet-in-a-Box[3] is a a WiFI-device with "Wikipedia in 37 languages, a
>> library of 40,000 e-books, most of the world's open source software and
>> source code, hundreds of hours of instructional videos, and world-wide
>> mapping down to street level.”
>> Could we as a movement get the internet-in-a-box to the refugee camps?
>> - Teemu
>> [1]
>> [2]
>> [3]
>> --
>> Teemu Leinonen
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> Unsubscribe:,
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> Unsubscribe:,


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Securing access to Wikimedia sites with HTTPS

2015-06-13 Thread Comet styles
China and Iran blocks https (and WMF thinks https is more secure than
http when it can be EASILY blocked lol) so people in these countries
used wikipedia on http, so some here think that these countries are
spying on them by forcing them to use http, but that https block in
this countries was NOT to target wikipedia, it was to target social
networking sites and  american based email sites like yahoo and gmail
etc..but now by moving to HTTPS, we have now become a target for those
countries..well done..and to add to that, people who used
wikipedia in those countries to find the truth about whats happening
in their country and other regions can no longer do so since its
blocked..Well Done again WMF..I asked a few devs on IRC and on the
associated VP thread why this was done and the answer seems to be a
simple way of saying  To protect Americans ...didn't know Soviet
USA was that badreally a pathetic move by WMF when this was
previously discussed before and thrown out for the sam reasons  I
mentioned above..

Someone has to be fired for this.

On 6/14/15, Vira Motorko wrote:
 Have I understood it correctly, that Wikipedia Zero traffic is free
 only while through http, and not https?

 *Vira Motorko*
 PR manager, Wikimedia Ukraine

 Are you saving your documents in free formats? ;)
 Help save natural resources – please think twice before printing this
 e-mail or any attachments.

 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Securing access to Wikimedia sites with HTTPS

2015-06-12 Thread Comet styles
Congrats, you just made internet shitty for all 3rd world countries
and did you people even bother to find out how it will affect users in
China or Iran where HTTPS is BANNED?.

On 6/13/15, Tito Dutta wrote:
 Great job. :)
 Thanks for informing
 [PS. to members, you may read the WP:VPT
 discussion too]

 On 13 June 2015 at 03:05, Habib M'henni wrote:

 This is really fantastic.



 Le 12 juin 2015 21:22:26 CET, Juliet Barbara a
 écrit :
 The Wikimedia Foundation is pleased to announce that we have begun the
 transition of the Wikimedia projects and sites to the secure HTTPS
 protocol. You may have seen our blog post from this morning; it has
 been posted to relevant Village Pumps (Technical).
 This post is available online here:
 Securing access to Wikimedia sites with HTTPS
 To be truly free, access to knowledge must be secure and uncensored. At
 Wikimedia Foundation, we believe that you should be able to use
 and the Wikimedia sites without sacrificing privacy or safety.
 Today, we’re happy to announce that we are in the process of
 HTTPS to encrypt all Wikimedia
 traffic. We will also use HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS)
 protect against efforts to ‘break’ HTTPS and intercept traffic. With
 change, the nearly half a billion people who rely on Wikipedia and its
 sister projects every month will be able to share in the world’s
 more securely.
 The HTTPS protocol creates an encrypted connection between your
 and Wikimedia sites to ensure the security and integrity of data you
 transmit. Encryption makes it more difficult for governments and other
 third parties to monitor your traffic. It also makes it harder for
 Service Providers (ISPs) to censor access to specific Wikipedia
 and other information.
 HTTPS is not new to Wikimedia sites. Since 2011, we have been working
 establishing the infrastructure and technical requirements, and
 understanding the policy and community implications of HTTPS for all
 Wikimedia traffic, with the ultimate goal of making it available to all
 users. In fact, for the past four years
 Wikimedia users could access our sites with HTTPS manually, through
 Everywhere, and when directed to
 sites from major search engines. Additionally, all logged in users
 have been accessing via HTTPS since 2013.
 Over the last few years, increasing concerns about government
 prompted members of the Wikimedia community to push
 for more broad protection through HTTPS. We agreed, and made this
 transition a priority for our policy and engineering teams.
 We believe encryption makes the web stronger for everyone. In a world
 mass surveillance has become a serious threat to intellectual freedom,
 secure connections are essential for protecting users around the world.
 Without encryption, governments can more easily surveil sensitive
 information, creating a chilling effect, and deterring participation,
 or in
 extreme cases they can isolate or discipline citizens. Accounts may
 also be
 hijacked, pages may be censored, other security flaws could expose
 sensitive user information and communications. Because of these
 circumstances, we believe that the time for HTTPS for all Wikimedia
 is now. We encourage others to join us as we move forward with this
 The technical challenges of migrating to HTTPS
 HTTPS migration for one of the world’s most popular websites can be
 complicated. For us, this process began years ago and involved teams
 across the Wikimedia Foundation. Our engineering team has been driving
 transition, working hard to improve our sites’ HTTPS performance,
 our infrastructure to handle the transition, and ultimately manage the
 Our first steps involved improving our infrastructure and code base so
 could support HTTPS. We also significantly expanded and updated our
 hardware. Since we don’t employ third party content delivery systems,
 had to manage this process for our entire infrastructure 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement: WMF to file suit against the NSA

2015-03-10 Thread Comet styles
for an organization taking on the NSA  for spying..why are we using
https? doesn't that show that we are already scared of them and
running with our tail between our legs?

On 3/10/15, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
 this sounds exactly as a thing we, as a movement, need institutional
 support of WMF for. Thanks for doing that.

 dariusz pundit

 On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Michelle Paulson

 Hi All,

 I’m writing to let you know that today the Wikimedia Foundation[1] is
 filing suit against the National Security Agency, the Department
 and the U.S. Attorney General[2] in order
 to challenge certain mass surveillance practices carried out by the U.S.
 government. We believe these practices are impinging the freedom to learn,
 inquire, and explore on Wikimedia sites.

 Since the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures, we’ve heard concerns from
 community about privacy on Wikipedia. This lawsuit is a step towards
 addressing the community's justified concerns. We believe that the
 surveillance methods being employed by the NSA under the authority of the
 Amendments Act
 negatively impact our users' ability and willingness to participate in our
 projects. Today, we fight back.

 An op-ed
 by Lila and Jimmy about the lawsuit, and Wikimedia's stance on government
 surveillance, appeared in The New York Times this morning. Additionally,
 just published a blog post with more
 information about the suit. (The post will also up on Meta for


 Michelle Paulson

 Senior Legal Counsel

 Wikimedia Foundation

 [1] We are being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
 Other plaintiffs include The National Association of Criminal Defense
 Lawyers, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty
 International USA, Pen American Center, Global Fund for Women, The Nation Magazine, The Rutherford Institute, and Washington Office on Latin America

 [2] Other named defendants include: Michael Rogers, in his official
 as Director of the National Security Agency
 and Chief of the Central Security Service; Office of the Director of
 National Intelligence; James
 Clapper, in his official
 capacity as Director of National Intelligence; and Eric Holder, in his official capacity
 as Attorney
 General of
 the United States.

 *NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you
 have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the
 mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation and for legal/ethical
 reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for,
 members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more
 on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer*
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:


 prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
 kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
 i centrum badawczego CROW
 Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego

 członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
 członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW

 Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii Common Knowledge? An
 Ethnography of Wikipedia (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego

 Pacific Standard:
 The Wikipedian:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Coming to a wiki near you

2014-08-17 Thread Comet styles
yes but mediawiki is a software, not an add-on or as the kids say
these days, an App which is what Media Viewer is. Enforcing
something with more than a 100 bugs (and counting) is indeed not a
very super idea..Fix the bugs or atleast half of them and maybe then
try enforcing them (as WMF ignores community decisions)..

On 8/17/14, Chad Horohoe wrote:
 On Aug 17, 2014 6:49 AM, Richard Farmbrough

 There are 105 bugs open for Media Viewer.  To my mind that is not a
 that is ready to be delivered to 500,000,000 users, delivering  52.5
 billion bugs!  (And that's just the ones we know about!)

 MediaWiki itself has 4893 open bugs. Guess we need to start over so we can
 write bug-free software.

 Except that's not how it works, absolute bug counts are a pretty useless

 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

2014-08-11 Thread Comet styles
Erik, I wonder, did you have discussion with other staff and moreso,
the technical staff before you went ahead and implemented this and
also something most of us are wondering, just because dewiki did not
accept your enforcement of MediaViewer, did you abuse your authority
and force the technical staff to create this new permission
(superprotect) so that you can override a community's decision..a
permission which currently only the staff have access to?

Seems a bit dictator-like...

your comments above is just not reasonable enough..

On 8/11/14, svetlana wrote:
 On Mon, 11 Aug 2014, at 08:42, Tomasz W. Kozłowski wrote:
 Someone is definitely forgetting that Wikimedia wikis are not the
 Foundation's personal playground.

 It is becoming one for a long time now.


 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A Quick Hello from New List Subscriber

2014-06-05 Thread Comet styles
I know most on this list use their real names.   not everyone, most
of us believe MZMcBride is not even a dude!! :O ...

oh and welcome banned user \\//

meh, you are not a wikipedian unless you have been banned or blocked
atleast once..

On 6/5/14, MZMcBride wrote:
 Trillium Corsage wrote:
Just to say hello and introduce myself to the list. I'm a research
professional seven years experience hoping to break into the legal field.
I'm not 25 or anything like that though. I've done other stuff in my
life, and I am middle-aged. How do I come here to the list? I was a
Wikipedia (English) contributor for like six years before being blocked.
I hope you do not infer guilt into that statement or that I'm somehow a
bad person. I am not here to discuss that and would also ask you not to,
of course, because it's off-topic for the list. I just say it because I'm
introducing myself.


Anyhow, my interest in this Wikimedia Foundation list is really because I
hold the WMF responsible for Wikipedia. I reject the notion that
Wikipedia is just some separate construct owned by the WMF, like a copy
machine or something. And for which it is not responsible. So I come here
to be informed by all of you and also perhaps to inform all of you.

 Wikipedia pre-dates the Wikimedia Foundation and will very likely outlive
 the Wikimedia Foundation. The Wikimedia Foundation is an important player
 in the Wikimedia movement, but responsibility is a complex and faceted
 concept and I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here.

 I'm looking forward to reading you. :-)


 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How Wikimedia could help languages to survive

2014-04-23 Thread Comet styles
A few years back i came with an idea, I know wikimedia is not fond of
advertisements but what if we advertise wikipedia? There is a nice
big EMPTY space on the bottom left side of wikipedia.

Make a script/feature/extension which detects the person browsing the
wiki's IP and shows them a link to their country's wiki (disabled for
logged in users)so for example if it detects the ip is from Fiji,
there will be a small advert on the left of whatever page in their
vernacular language welcoming them and asking them if they want to be
part of Wikipedia Fiji with a direct link to that language wikipedia's
main page...Google and other sites use similar methods to filter their
adverts so why not use this in a better way?

Most people are not aware of the existence of certain language wikis
and most users for whom English isn't a first language may prefer to
read article in a language they understand...


Wikimedia-l mailing list