Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Peter Southwood]

It is hard to tell what thread you refer to when the thread is gone.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Richard Ames
Sent: Friday, 20 November 2015 9:51 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

Please drop this thread / subject.  Concentrate on issues not people.

Regards, Richard.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/11036 - Release Date: 11/20/15


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Richard Ames]

Please drop this thread / subject.  Concentrate on issues not people.

Regards, Richard.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[MZMcBride]

Wil Sinclair wrote:
>Thanks for bringing me up, MZMcBride; should get a lot more people to look
>at those IRC logs I was hoping to bring to everyone's attention.

I'm looking forward to your posts about the current and upcoming Wikimedia
Foundation strategic plans. That's why you came on IRC, right? Not to
stoke drama and violate its social norms regarding public logging, but to
have an open discussion about current goals and future goals? Your
discussion seems to have started there and yet somehow you became entirely
focused on trying to advance some warped version of "free speech" in a
couple of IRC channels that you rarely visit. Re-skimming some of the 2014
threads that you precipitated, this seems like pretty classic Wil behavior.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

No, I'm right here. Standing up for what I believe in, just like I stand up
for the principles I value everywhere, including IRC, on-wiki, and off-. It
seems y'all know where to find my opinion. So, if you're interested, go
look. If you're not, then feel free to just put me down here, as per the
ush.

Thanks for bringing me up, MZMcBride; should get a lot more people to look
at those IRC logs I was hoping to bring to everyone's attention.

Best!
,Wil

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:28 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Wil Sinclair wrote:
> >With all due respect, no more of my time will be spent on this forum
> >whatsoever.
> >
> >I'm not at all comfortable with the direction that this thread has
> >taken. If my asking earnest questions makes anyone feel "unsafe" and
> >leads to requests to block me (yes, both things were
> >mentioned/requested and can be found in the archives of this thread),
> >then all the advice people have been offering me here is spot-on: I
> >*can* find much more productive things to do with my time.
>
> If anyone's wondering what happened to Wil, lately he's been trolling a
> few Wikipedia-related IRC channels on freenode. Such productivity. :-/
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[MZMcBride]

Wil Sinclair wrote:
>With all due respect, no more of my time will be spent on this forum
>whatsoever.
>
>I'm not at all comfortable with the direction that this thread has
>taken. If my asking earnest questions makes anyone feel "unsafe" and
>leads to requests to block me (yes, both things were
>mentioned/requested and can be found in the archives of this thread),
>then all the advice people have been offering me here is spot-on: I
>*can* find much more productive things to do with my time.

If anyone's wondering what happened to Wil, lately he's been trolling a
few Wikipedia-related IRC channels on freenode. Such productivity. :-/

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Nathan]

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Austin Hair  wrote:

> Wil,
>
> Just for the record, "hands-off" is the best way to describe our
> approach to wikimedia-l moderation. We (the administrators) sometimes
> step in when a thread or a poster gets way out of control, but for
> this list, that bar's set pretty high.
>
> The "soft post limit" that's been pointed out to you exists as a
> guideline to keep individuals from dominating a conversation, which...
> yeah, you kind of are, at this point. Nobody wants to take away your
> ability to defend yourself, but you might want to try limiting the
> number of things you have to defend all at once.
>
> Sorry your experience turned sour. If it's any consolation, we've had way
> worse.
>
> Austin
>

I meant to say this a month or two ago, but... Welcome back, Austin!
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Austin Hair]

Wil,

Just for the record, "hands-off" is the best way to describe our
approach to wikimedia-l moderation. We (the administrators) sometimes
step in when a thread or a poster gets way out of control, but for
this list, that bar's set pretty high.

The "soft post limit" that's been pointed out to you exists as a
guideline to keep individuals from dominating a conversation, which...
yeah, you kind of are, at this point. Nobody wants to take away your
ability to defend yourself, but you might want to try limiting the
number of things you have to defend all at once.

Sorry your experience turned sour. If it's any consolation, we've had way worse.

Austin


On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
> As I mentioned to Sam, I have just one more thing to say here before I
> let you guys deliberate on whether to block me.
>
> I've been getting tons of private emails from people who say that they
> don't want to see me blocked, but that they are afraid to say that on
> the list, because they feel like they might be intimidated or
> ostracized.
>
> That's right: *afraid*
>
> I think we should all let that sink in for a moment. . .
>
>
>
> . . . Now, is that OK? Is that how we want our community to function?
> I'm talking to each and every one of you out there, not the few dozen
> that seem to be only people posting here (and I seem to have a strong
> lead  at the moment ;) ). If you are tired of being afraid or worn out
> by the rough and tumble discourse here, then keep your chin up. There
> are a lot more of you out there than you might think; I'm hearing from
> many of them now. Wikipedia can change- but only with your help.
>
> ,Wil
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Lila: Thank you kindly for these recent notes.  It is wonderful to
>> hear your thoughts on your first weeks.
>>
>> Wil: Working through public, logged forums is a fine principle; one
>> that I try to follow myself.  It helps avoid misunderstandings.
>>
>>
>> Pete Forsyth writes:
>>> I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at
>>> least as a temporary measure... I suspect that consensus among
>>> active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point.
>>
>> Pete: That is a wholly uncalled for suggestion; reckless, if you
>> would. Please be kind. As you can see from the comments of others,
>> there is no such consensus, mainly just requests to slow down.
>>
>>
>> Erik Moeller writes:
>>> As a reminder, this list has an official "soft limit" of 30 posts per 
>>> [month]
>>
>> Wil Sinclair writes:
>>> just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to those
>>> who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words
>>
>> I find it helpful to quote and briefly respond to many posts of
>> interest in a thread, in a single reply (as I did here). And I try to
>> make 5 edits to a project for every post, to keep a balanced
>> perspective...
>>
>> Sam
>>
>> (PS: Victor, the A. Dewey Wikireader Project always makes me smile.
>> Thank you for mentioning it here.  :-)
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Fæ]

On 29/05/2014, Austin Hair  wrote:
> ́Fae,
>
> You just did. Arguably, you did even worse by throwing the allegation
> out there without substantiation. Nobody's asking you to be friends
> with Greg Kohs—it's no secret that I'm not—but you're dredging up
> off-list history for no productive reason I can discern.
>
> Since I'm responsible for seeing to it that he's not able to defend
> himself here, I feel compelled to ask that you at least keep the
> mudslinging off this list.
>
> Austin

Thanks Austin.

As Austin is a list moderator, I take this as an official public
warning to me, from the list moderators, that my way of highlighting
to Wil of the nature of who he was actively promoting on this list,
was not acceptable behaviour by me on this list.

My email was not intended as an allegation nor mudslinging, but as an
assertion of publicly documented fact. It should be noted that Andreas
Kolbe provided links and extracts of the evidence on this list at
.
Kohs' use of a word that demeans and derides all gay people was not
acceptable on Wikipediocracy, the website that Kohs owns, and after
some discussion there, was removed from public view under the site
terms of use(*). I am certain that Andreas would be happy to address
further questions by direct email to him as a Wikipediocracy moderator
with access to the original material, rather than continuing to
correspond about it on this public forum with only links available of
partial representations of it.

* - Wikipediocracy's terms include "You agree not to post any abusive,
obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated
or any other material that may violate any laws be it of your country,
the country where “Wikipediocracy” is hosted or International Law."

Wil remains free to post exactly how he pleases on any forum, this is
up to his discretion, I hope he continues to enjoy and respect the
freedom to do so.

My apologies to readers of this list for any misunderstanding that my
taking part might have caused. It was not my intention to abuse any
free speech rights for anyone else, but to fairly exercise my own with
regard to a serious incident of LGBT interest.

Thanks,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Austin Hair]

́Fae,

You just did. Arguably, you did even worse by throwing the allegation
out there without substantiation. Nobody's asking you to be friends
with Greg Kohs—it's no secret that I'm not—but you're dredging up
off-list history for no productive reason I can discern.

Since I'm responsible for seeing to it that he's not able to defend
himself here, I feel compelled to ask that you at least keep the
mudslinging off this list.

Austin

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:38 AM, Fæ  wrote:
> Wil, ask Kohs to repeat his filth. I'm not going to do it for him.
>
> Fae
>
> On 28 May 2014 23:37, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
>> I didn't know that he called you a "faggot." Could you please show me where?
>>
>> I mentioned I didn't agree with him on everything. I certainly would
>> *never* agree that a slur like that is justified, if he did make it.
>> In any case, the quote stands. Maybe we should start a separate thread
>> on the quote itself?
>>
>> ,Wil
>>
>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Fæ  wrote:
>>> Wil, you are supporting a man that thought it was a hilarious joke to
>>> call me a faggot. Not something that I am prepared to overlook, ever.
>>>
>>> I now have serious reservations about Lila's good judgement in failing
>>> to ensure you were appropriately advised, considering her critical
>>> role in the Wikimedia movement.
>>>
>>> Fae
>>>
>>> On 28 May 2014 23:18, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
 First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's
 uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was
 the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather
 petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That
 doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I
 personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*,
 Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director);
 I'd prefer he just leave it at "Wil Sinclair," but it's really his
 call on what he puts on his own site.

 Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know-
 but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any
 leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this
 point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong,
 charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and
 it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community
 here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard
 problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is
 going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again,
 that's all just my opinion.

 I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me
 so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it
 to the list this time. :)

 ,Wil
>>>
>>> --
>>> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>>> 
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>> 
>
>
>
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Pipo Le Clown]

Well, the best way to meet people interested in working with you to build
the sound library on Commons is ... on Commons. There's a Village Pump
there, where you can freely post a message, and people will answer it if
they are interested. There are projects running that revolve around sound
or video.

You are welcome to participate to Commons, as you are on any projects of
the community. But people won't come to you, you've got to make the first
step. This is how we roll.




On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:

> With all due respect, no more of my time will be spent on this forum
> whatsoever.
>
> I'm not at all comfortable with the direction that this thread has
> taken. If my asking earnest questions makes anyone feel "unsafe" and
> leads to requests to block me (yes, both things were
> mentioned/requested and can be found in the archives of this thread),
> then all the advice people have been offering me here is spot-on: I
> *can* find much more productive things to do with my time.
>
> Everyone has my email if anyone would like to reach out personally.
> I'm still interested in meeting anyone working to build the sound
> library on Commons.
>
> Best!
> ,Wil
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Craig Franklin
>  wrote:
> > Hi Wil,
> >
> > I think the advice in this thread from John and Dariusz is excellent, and
> > well worth taking on board.
> >
> > Energy is good, and disruption to shake us out of our status quo is good.
> >  But at the moment, your communication style is swamping this list and
> > that's getting people's backs up.  The issues that you are raising, like
> > child protection, are important issues that need to be discussed, but
> > they're not going to get the attention they deserve if you come rampaging
> > in like a bull trying to solve all of our problems at once.
> >
> > I'm sorry if this sounds blunt, but I'd much rather see your time here be
> > spent positively and productively, rather than wasted with bickering and
> > recrimination.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
> >
> >
> > On 29 May 2014 17:19, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
> >
> >> hi Wil,
> >>
> >> reading through this thread is already a challenge :) I want to write
> that
> >> I really appreciate your enthusiasm and energy. It is really awesome
> that
> >> you care about Wikimedia and that you do not shy away from a discussion.
> >>
> >> As several participants have pointed out, some of the veterans may find
> it
> >> slightly amusing when a newcomer starts with a critique, before learning
> >> about how (and that) the community has worked out a given problem
> before.
> >> Moreover, getting your understanding of Wikimedia movement from
> >> Wikipediocracy mainly (rather than from different project's Village
> Pumps,
> >> AfDs, RFCs, RfAs, and actual editing and discussing with other editors)
> >> skews your view. I don't think anyone is suggesting you should stop
> reading
> >> critical views on Wikimedia, but you simply may choose to make your own
> >> opinion after you've taken part in the movement, too.
> >>
> >> I do not think anyone is proposing banning you from the list. People
> are,
> >> in my view, politely suggesting that you just slow down a little, take a
> >> breath, and use your energy (which, again, is awesome and precious!) to
> >> participate on Wikimedia projects. Just to get the feel of it, or to be
> >> able to more fully pinpoint the areas, where we so deeply need to change
> >> for the better (and, with no irony, there are many).
> >>
> >> If you choose to gather more material for reflection, and post less
> >> frequently, your voice may actually be heard better.
> >>
> >> best,
> >>
> >> dariusz "pundit"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
> >>
> >> > As I mentioned to Sam, I have just one more thing to say here before I
> >> > let you guys deliberate on whether to block me.
> >> >
> >> > I've been getting tons of private emails from people who say that they
> >> > don't want to see me blocked, but that they are afraid to say that on
> >> > the list, because they feel like they might be intimidated or
> >> > ostracized.
> >> >
> >> > That's right: *afraid*
> >> >
> >> > I think we should all let that sink in for a moment. . .
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > . . . Now, is that OK? Is that how we want our community to function?
> >> > I'm talking to each and every one of you out there, not the few dozen
> >> > that seem to be only people posting here (and I seem to have a strong
> >> > lead  at the moment ;) ). If you are tired of being afraid or worn out
> >> > by the rough and tumble discourse here, then keep your chin up. There
> >> > are a lot more of you out there than you might think; I'm hearing from
> >> > many of them now. Wikipedia can change- but only with your help.
> >> >
> >> > ,Wil
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Samuel Klein 
> wrote:
> >> > > Hello all,
> >> > >
> >> > > Lila: Thank you kindly for thes

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

With all due respect, no more of my time will be spent on this forum whatsoever.

I'm not at all comfortable with the direction that this thread has
taken. If my asking earnest questions makes anyone feel "unsafe" and
leads to requests to block me (yes, both things were
mentioned/requested and can be found in the archives of this thread),
then all the advice people have been offering me here is spot-on: I
*can* find much more productive things to do with my time.

Everyone has my email if anyone would like to reach out personally.
I'm still interested in meeting anyone working to build the sound
library on Commons.

Best!
,Wil

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Craig Franklin
 wrote:
> Hi Wil,
>
> I think the advice in this thread from John and Dariusz is excellent, and
> well worth taking on board.
>
> Energy is good, and disruption to shake us out of our status quo is good.
>  But at the moment, your communication style is swamping this list and
> that's getting people's backs up.  The issues that you are raising, like
> child protection, are important issues that need to be discussed, but
> they're not going to get the attention they deserve if you come rampaging
> in like a bull trying to solve all of our problems at once.
>
> I'm sorry if this sounds blunt, but I'd much rather see your time here be
> spent positively and productively, rather than wasted with bickering and
> recrimination.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig
>
>
> On 29 May 2014 17:19, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:
>
>> hi Wil,
>>
>> reading through this thread is already a challenge :) I want to write that
>> I really appreciate your enthusiasm and energy. It is really awesome that
>> you care about Wikimedia and that you do not shy away from a discussion.
>>
>> As several participants have pointed out, some of the veterans may find it
>> slightly amusing when a newcomer starts with a critique, before learning
>> about how (and that) the community has worked out a given problem before.
>> Moreover, getting your understanding of Wikimedia movement from
>> Wikipediocracy mainly (rather than from different project's Village Pumps,
>> AfDs, RFCs, RfAs, and actual editing and discussing with other editors)
>> skews your view. I don't think anyone is suggesting you should stop reading
>> critical views on Wikimedia, but you simply may choose to make your own
>> opinion after you've taken part in the movement, too.
>>
>> I do not think anyone is proposing banning you from the list. People are,
>> in my view, politely suggesting that you just slow down a little, take a
>> breath, and use your energy (which, again, is awesome and precious!) to
>> participate on Wikimedia projects. Just to get the feel of it, or to be
>> able to more fully pinpoint the areas, where we so deeply need to change
>> for the better (and, with no irony, there are many).
>>
>> If you choose to gather more material for reflection, and post less
>> frequently, your voice may actually be heard better.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> dariusz "pundit"
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
>>
>> > As I mentioned to Sam, I have just one more thing to say here before I
>> > let you guys deliberate on whether to block me.
>> >
>> > I've been getting tons of private emails from people who say that they
>> > don't want to see me blocked, but that they are afraid to say that on
>> > the list, because they feel like they might be intimidated or
>> > ostracized.
>> >
>> > That's right: *afraid*
>> >
>> > I think we should all let that sink in for a moment. . .
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > . . . Now, is that OK? Is that how we want our community to function?
>> > I'm talking to each and every one of you out there, not the few dozen
>> > that seem to be only people posting here (and I seem to have a strong
>> > lead  at the moment ;) ). If you are tired of being afraid or worn out
>> > by the rough and tumble discourse here, then keep your chin up. There
>> > are a lot more of you out there than you might think; I'm hearing from
>> > many of them now. Wikipedia can change- but only with your help.
>> >
>> > ,Wil
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>> > > Hello all,
>> > >
>> > > Lila: Thank you kindly for these recent notes.  It is wonderful to
>> > > hear your thoughts on your first weeks.
>> > >
>> > > Wil: Working through public, logged forums is a fine principle; one
>> > > that I try to follow myself.  It helps avoid misunderstandings.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Pete Forsyth writes:
>> > >> I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked,
>> at
>> > >> least as a temporary measure... I suspect that consensus among
>> > >> active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point.
>> > >
>> > > Pete: That is a wholly uncalled for suggestion; reckless, if you
>> > > would. Please be kind. As you can see from the comments of others,
>> > > there is no such consensus, mainly just requests to slow down.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Erik Moeller writes:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Craig Franklin]

Hi Wil,

I think the advice in this thread from John and Dariusz is excellent, and
well worth taking on board.

Energy is good, and disruption to shake us out of our status quo is good.
 But at the moment, your communication style is swamping this list and
that's getting people's backs up.  The issues that you are raising, like
child protection, are important issues that need to be discussed, but
they're not going to get the attention they deserve if you come rampaging
in like a bull trying to solve all of our problems at once.

I'm sorry if this sounds blunt, but I'd much rather see your time here be
spent positively and productively, rather than wasted with bickering and
recrimination.

Cheers,
Craig


On 29 May 2014 17:19, Dariusz Jemielniak  wrote:

> hi Wil,
>
> reading through this thread is already a challenge :) I want to write that
> I really appreciate your enthusiasm and energy. It is really awesome that
> you care about Wikimedia and that you do not shy away from a discussion.
>
> As several participants have pointed out, some of the veterans may find it
> slightly amusing when a newcomer starts with a critique, before learning
> about how (and that) the community has worked out a given problem before.
> Moreover, getting your understanding of Wikimedia movement from
> Wikipediocracy mainly (rather than from different project's Village Pumps,
> AfDs, RFCs, RfAs, and actual editing and discussing with other editors)
> skews your view. I don't think anyone is suggesting you should stop reading
> critical views on Wikimedia, but you simply may choose to make your own
> opinion after you've taken part in the movement, too.
>
> I do not think anyone is proposing banning you from the list. People are,
> in my view, politely suggesting that you just slow down a little, take a
> breath, and use your energy (which, again, is awesome and precious!) to
> participate on Wikimedia projects. Just to get the feel of it, or to be
> able to more fully pinpoint the areas, where we so deeply need to change
> for the better (and, with no irony, there are many).
>
> If you choose to gather more material for reflection, and post less
> frequently, your voice may actually be heard better.
>
> best,
>
> dariusz "pundit"
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
>
> > As I mentioned to Sam, I have just one more thing to say here before I
> > let you guys deliberate on whether to block me.
> >
> > I've been getting tons of private emails from people who say that they
> > don't want to see me blocked, but that they are afraid to say that on
> > the list, because they feel like they might be intimidated or
> > ostracized.
> >
> > That's right: *afraid*
> >
> > I think we should all let that sink in for a moment. . .
> >
> >
> >
> > . . . Now, is that OK? Is that how we want our community to function?
> > I'm talking to each and every one of you out there, not the few dozen
> > that seem to be only people posting here (and I seem to have a strong
> > lead  at the moment ;) ). If you are tired of being afraid or worn out
> > by the rough and tumble discourse here, then keep your chin up. There
> > are a lot more of you out there than you might think; I'm hearing from
> > many of them now. Wikipedia can change- but only with your help.
> >
> > ,Wil
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > Lila: Thank you kindly for these recent notes.  It is wonderful to
> > > hear your thoughts on your first weeks.
> > >
> > > Wil: Working through public, logged forums is a fine principle; one
> > > that I try to follow myself.  It helps avoid misunderstandings.
> > >
> > >
> > > Pete Forsyth writes:
> > >> I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked,
> at
> > >> least as a temporary measure... I suspect that consensus among
> > >> active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point.
> > >
> > > Pete: That is a wholly uncalled for suggestion; reckless, if you
> > > would. Please be kind. As you can see from the comments of others,
> > > there is no such consensus, mainly just requests to slow down.
> > >
> > >
> > > Erik Moeller writes:
> > >> As a reminder, this list has an official "soft limit" of 30 posts per
> > [month]
> > >
> > > Wil Sinclair writes:
> > >> just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to those
> > >> who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words
> > >
> > > I find it helpful to quote and briefly respond to many posts of
> > > interest in a thread, in a single reply (as I did here). And I try to
> > > make 5 edits to a project for every post, to keep a balanced
> > > perspective...
> > >
> > > Sam
> > >
> > > (PS: Victor, the A. Dewey Wikireader Project always makes me smile.
> > > Thank you for mentioning it here.  :-)
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guideline

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Lila Tretikov]

For the record, I take any safety issues concerning both staff and
volunteers extremely seriously. In the case of a threatening message left
on an employee's talk page, GorillaWarfare took immediate action, for which
I am very grateful. And I am grateful to see this kind of community at work.

Creating an open, safe and welcoming environment is extremely important to
me, and that includes maintaining a friendly space by clearly excluding
individuals who harass and threaten others and preventing their presence on
our pages.



On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Molly White <
gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Wil Sinclair  writes:
>
> > I've apologized to you here and on Wikipediocracy, but apologies are
> > always worth doing directly and for as many to see as possible: I'm
> > very sorry for mistaking you for a WMF employee. I take full
> > responsibility for my words and actions. I hope you can forgive me.
>
> No need to apologize. I'm really not horrified at being mistaken for a
> staffer, I'm just trying to clear up any confusion.
>
> > To be clear, a WMF employee did mail Lila with "safety concerns." That
> > was obviously not Molly, and, ultimately, I don't think it's important
> > who it was. It just made me personally uncomfortable communicating
> > with WMF employees in any private setting. I'm hoping that will change
> > as we all begin to trust each other more. Even then, I have no plans
> > to discuss WMF matters of any sort with WMF employees; that's to
> > everyone's benefit IMO.
>
> Ah, this segues well into the email I was just drafting: I have to say that
> I was surprised to see the contents of what appears to be an internal staff
> email being brought up both on Wikipediocracy and here by a non-staff
> member. Wil, can you clarify if you were copied on the email, and if not,
> how you gained access to it? You've repeatedly emphasized that you are not
> affiliated with/do not influence/are completely separate from the WMF, and
> even that you and Lila are not even discussing Wikimedia-related matters
> with one another at home, so I'm sure you can understand the confusion.
>
> Yours,
> Molly (GorillaWarfare)
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

hi Wil,

reading through this thread is already a challenge :) I want to write that
I really appreciate your enthusiasm and energy. It is really awesome that
you care about Wikimedia and that you do not shy away from a discussion.

As several participants have pointed out, some of the veterans may find it
slightly amusing when a newcomer starts with a critique, before learning
about how (and that) the community has worked out a given problem before.
Moreover, getting your understanding of Wikimedia movement from
Wikipediocracy mainly (rather than from different project's Village Pumps,
AfDs, RFCs, RfAs, and actual editing and discussing with other editors)
skews your view. I don't think anyone is suggesting you should stop reading
critical views on Wikimedia, but you simply may choose to make your own
opinion after you've taken part in the movement, too.

I do not think anyone is proposing banning you from the list. People are,
in my view, politely suggesting that you just slow down a little, take a
breath, and use your energy (which, again, is awesome and precious!) to
participate on Wikimedia projects. Just to get the feel of it, or to be
able to more fully pinpoint the areas, where we so deeply need to change
for the better (and, with no irony, there are many).

If you choose to gather more material for reflection, and post less
frequently, your voice may actually be heard better.

best,

dariusz "pundit"



On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:

> As I mentioned to Sam, I have just one more thing to say here before I
> let you guys deliberate on whether to block me.
>
> I've been getting tons of private emails from people who say that they
> don't want to see me blocked, but that they are afraid to say that on
> the list, because they feel like they might be intimidated or
> ostracized.
>
> That's right: *afraid*
>
> I think we should all let that sink in for a moment. . .
>
>
>
> . . . Now, is that OK? Is that how we want our community to function?
> I'm talking to each and every one of you out there, not the few dozen
> that seem to be only people posting here (and I seem to have a strong
> lead  at the moment ;) ). If you are tired of being afraid or worn out
> by the rough and tumble discourse here, then keep your chin up. There
> are a lot more of you out there than you might think; I'm hearing from
> many of them now. Wikipedia can change- but only with your help.
>
> ,Wil
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > Lila: Thank you kindly for these recent notes.  It is wonderful to
> > hear your thoughts on your first weeks.
> >
> > Wil: Working through public, logged forums is a fine principle; one
> > that I try to follow myself.  It helps avoid misunderstandings.
> >
> >
> > Pete Forsyth writes:
> >> I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at
> >> least as a temporary measure... I suspect that consensus among
> >> active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point.
> >
> > Pete: That is a wholly uncalled for suggestion; reckless, if you
> > would. Please be kind. As you can see from the comments of others,
> > there is no such consensus, mainly just requests to slow down.
> >
> >
> > Erik Moeller writes:
> >> As a reminder, this list has an official "soft limit" of 30 posts per
> [month]
> >
> > Wil Sinclair writes:
> >> just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to those
> >> who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words
> >
> > I find it helpful to quote and briefly respond to many posts of
> > interest in a thread, in a single reply (as I did here). And I try to
> > make 5 edits to a project for every post, to keep a balanced
> > perspective...
> >
> > Sam
> >
> > (PS: Victor, the A. Dewey Wikireader Project always makes me smile.
> > Thank you for mentioning it here.  :-)
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> 
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 

__
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
profesor zarządzania
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl

członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guideli

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
> As I mentioned to Sam, I have just one more thing to say here before I
> let you guys deliberate on whether to block me.
>
> I've been getting tons of private emails from people who say that they
> don't want to see me blocked, but that they are afraid to say that on
> the list, because they feel like they might be intimidated or
> ostracized.
>
> That's right: *afraid*
>
> I think we should all let that sink in for a moment. . .
>
>
>
> . . . Now, is that OK? Is that how we want our community to function?

It is an interesting question; you have framed it as a serious
problem, which may be undeniably true from your perspective based on
the private emails that you have received.  But we can't see those
emails, and you don't know the people who are sending you those
emails, and their motivations.  Please let *that* sink in.

As I have said in another post, *this list* is the primary
communication venue for a 'movement' that runs one of the largest web
properties in the world, and the people doing it are mostly volunteers
whose time is very precious and motivations very diverse, and it is
being done on a tiny budget so the paid staff time is just as
precious.

That *should* have ramifications on the type of discourse that is
appropriate on this list.  'free speech' isnt a valid argument.  Your
speech on this list effectively costs me money (time).  And it
consumes donor dollars.  So what is appropriate use of this list?  We
do discuss that periodically, and organically.

I know I was *afraid* of posting to this list during my first year of
being 'highly active' part of this movement.  I remember being in awe
of some of the insightful posts, and very disturbed by others, but
usually someone else would pipe up and complain, so I just lurked and
occasionally privately emailed people, learning as I went along.
I dont see that as inherently a bad thing.  This movement is huge;
there is lots to learn.  About the projects.  About the people.  About
their disputes.

The change of ED is *very disruptive*, and so it should be.

Your arrival on this list is *very disruptive*.  e.g. we dont often
have people hit the posting limit in their first month of
participating in this list.

Disruption can be very good. ;-)
But consider this list officially disrupted for at least the next
month or two, and probably best avoided IMO.
Don't be surprised that volunteers don't want to get publicly involved
in the highly disrupted environment that this list is currently, and
instead privately email you a word of encouragement.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Exopedianism

--
John Vandenberg

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

As I mentioned to Sam, I have just one more thing to say here before I
let you guys deliberate on whether to block me.

I've been getting tons of private emails from people who say that they
don't want to see me blocked, but that they are afraid to say that on
the list, because they feel like they might be intimidated or
ostracized.

That's right: *afraid*

I think we should all let that sink in for a moment. . .



. . . Now, is that OK? Is that how we want our community to function?
I'm talking to each and every one of you out there, not the few dozen
that seem to be only people posting here (and I seem to have a strong
lead  at the moment ;) ). If you are tired of being afraid or worn out
by the rough and tumble discourse here, then keep your chin up. There
are a lot more of you out there than you might think; I'm hearing from
many of them now. Wikipedia can change- but only with your help.

,Wil




On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Lila: Thank you kindly for these recent notes.  It is wonderful to
> hear your thoughts on your first weeks.
>
> Wil: Working through public, logged forums is a fine principle; one
> that I try to follow myself.  It helps avoid misunderstandings.
>
>
> Pete Forsyth writes:
>> I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at
>> least as a temporary measure... I suspect that consensus among
>> active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point.
>
> Pete: That is a wholly uncalled for suggestion; reckless, if you
> would. Please be kind. As you can see from the comments of others,
> there is no such consensus, mainly just requests to slow down.
>
>
> Erik Moeller writes:
>> As a reminder, this list has an official "soft limit" of 30 posts per [month]
>
> Wil Sinclair writes:
>> just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to those
>> who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words
>
> I find it helpful to quote and briefly respond to many posts of
> interest in a thread, in a single reply (as I did here). And I try to
> make 5 edits to a project for every post, to keep a balanced
> perspective...
>
> Sam
>
> (PS: Victor, the A. Dewey Wikireader Project always makes me smile.
> Thank you for mentioning it here.  :-)
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

Thanks for the note, Sam. Your advice to me is very wise. I've said
and seen about all that I want to, save one more post. You'll see it
in the next few minutes.

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Lila: Thank you kindly for these recent notes.  It is wonderful to
> hear your thoughts on your first weeks.
>
> Wil: Working through public, logged forums is a fine principle; one
> that I try to follow myself.  It helps avoid misunderstandings.
>
>
> Pete Forsyth writes:
>> I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at
>> least as a temporary measure... I suspect that consensus among
>> active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point.
>
> Pete: That is a wholly uncalled for suggestion; reckless, if you
> would. Please be kind. As you can see from the comments of others,
> there is no such consensus, mainly just requests to slow down.
>
>
> Erik Moeller writes:
>> As a reminder, this list has an official "soft limit" of 30 posts per [month]
>
> Wil Sinclair writes:
>> just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to those
>> who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words
>
> I find it helpful to quote and briefly respond to many posts of
> interest in a thread, in a single reply (as I did here). And I try to
> make 5 edits to a project for every post, to keep a balanced
> perspective...
>
> Sam
>
> (PS: Victor, the A. Dewey Wikireader Project always makes me smile.
> Thank you for mentioning it here.  :-)
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Samuel Klein]

Hello all,

Lila: Thank you kindly for these recent notes.  It is wonderful to
hear your thoughts on your first weeks.

Wil: Working through public, logged forums is a fine principle; one
that I try to follow myself.  It helps avoid misunderstandings.


Pete Forsyth writes:
> I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at
> least as a temporary measure... I suspect that consensus among
> active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point.

Pete: That is a wholly uncalled for suggestion; reckless, if you
would. Please be kind. As you can see from the comments of others,
there is no such consensus, mainly just requests to slow down.


Erik Moeller writes:
> As a reminder, this list has an official "soft limit" of 30 posts per [month]

Wil Sinclair writes:
> just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to those
> who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words

I find it helpful to quote and briefly respond to many posts of
interest in a thread, in a single reply (as I did here). And I try to
make 5 edits to a project for every post, to keep a balanced
perspective...

Sam

(PS: Victor, the A. Dewey Wikireader Project always makes me smile.
Thank you for mentioning it here.  :-)

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:

> I didn't know that he called you a "faggot." Could you please show me
> where?
>


That post was removed from view at the time (May 2012).

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3707#p3707

What Greg had said on WO was,

---o0o---

It looks like *Fae got* upset with my post to his
Talk
 page.

---o0o---

The diff Greg linked to was this one:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:F%C3%A6&diff=next&oldid=70008600

Greg apologised to Fæ for the post here:

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4888#p4888

I would like to apologize to Ashley "Fae" Van Haeften for my recent
word-play quip, "Fae got upset". I had hoped that the poke would be
received in the playful tone that it was intended, but I erred in that
supposition. I don't mean any malice or harm to Ashley. I'm simply
interested in the truth about his past and present actions on Wikipedia and
determining whether or not he enjoys (or expects) a double standard to
apply for him.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Erik Moeller]

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
> Hi Erik, just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to
> those who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words
> directly?

Hey Wil,

Pick your battles, help keep the conversation manageable, exercise
restraint, take social cues, assume good faith, forgive and forget.
The 30 posts/month guideline is in place to help with that -- forcing
yourself to simply slow down (not shut up) is a good way to exercise
the aforementioned habits, which are good habits for any large group
conversation in my experience.

Warm regards,

Erik
-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Bence Damokos]

I do agree that with all good faith being assumed, Wil's style of
interaction is a bit new and the novelty is starting to wear off a bit. Wil
is of course his own individual and beyond respecting the soft posting
limits as part of this list's etiquette I do not think anyone is trying to
stifle or silence him against his interests.

People commenting on this list have been offering him the courtesy for him
to calm down with the constant posting for a bit of a breather, but he is
of course free to continue. As a person who has been following WMF's
actions and governance for a few years now, I think it might be best for
the organisation, Wil and Lila if Will let this thread die a natural death
now -- he's already started a few others that can take things forward in a
more constructive manner and that do not need his involvement. I am sure he
will be able to contribute to more debates once the posting limits reset,
and he and everyone else had some time to think and recharge by doing
something else in the meantime.

In any case, Wil seems like a very interesting person and I hope I get to
meet him at Wikimania, still, I have to join the list of people who think
it would be in his best interests if he posted less and with more political
tact to this list considering that his actions and style reflect on his
partner.

Best regards,
Bence

P.S. I have used third person, impersonal pronouns so Wil is not compelled
to feel a need to reply. It was not meant in disrespect as if he was not
reading this.



[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l - at 30 posts/month as a
"soft limit". Wil is around the limit right now -
http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/Wikimedia-l.html


On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:

> Greg, would you like to repeat your filth? He may need someone to post
> it in surrogate, since I believe he said he's banned here.
>
> ,Wil
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Fæ  wrote:
> > Wil, ask Kohs to repeat his filth. I'm not going to do it for him.
> >
> > Fae
> >
> > On 28 May 2014 23:37, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
> >> I didn't know that he called you a "faggot." Could you please show me
> where?
> >>
> >> I mentioned I didn't agree with him on everything. I certainly would
> >> *never* agree that a slur like that is justified, if he did make it.
> >> In any case, the quote stands. Maybe we should start a separate thread
> >> on the quote itself?
> >>
> >> ,Wil
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Fæ  wrote:
> >>> Wil, you are supporting a man that thought it was a hilarious joke to
> >>> call me a faggot. Not something that I am prepared to overlook, ever.
> >>>
> >>> I now have serious reservations about Lila's good judgement in failing
> >>> to ensure you were appropriately advised, considering her critical
> >>> role in the Wikimedia movement.
> >>>
> >>> Fae
> >>>
> >>> On 28 May 2014 23:18, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
>  First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's
>  uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was
>  the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather
>  petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That
>  doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I
>  personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*,
>  Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director);
>  I'd prefer he just leave it at "Wil Sinclair," but it's really his
>  call on what he puts on his own site.
> 
>  Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know-
>  but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any
>  leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this
>  point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong,
>  charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and
>  it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community
>  here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard
>  problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is
>  going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again,
>  that's all just my opinion.
> 
>  I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me
>  so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it
>  to the list this time. :)
> 
>  ,Wil
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing li

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Milos Rancic]

It turns out that Lila is actually a perfect ED. Someone capable to handle
and love a person like Wil is -- should be quite competent in handling the
rest of the community :D
 On May 29, 2014 1:21 AM, "Wil Sinclair"  wrote:

> Hi Erik, just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to
> those who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words
> directly?
>
> You guys are moving in a *very* sketchy direction here. These mails
> are archived; it will be quite clear what everyone said before I was
> blocked if you decide to go that route. You are talking about very
> obviously censoring a person who has been saying inconvenient things
> in a high-profile manner. Is this the kind of Free Speech Wikipedia
> supposedly stands for?
>
> Seriously. I really want to know.
>
> ,Wil
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
> >
> >> This is no judgment on him as a person, but I do think
> >> we need to protect this list from further flooding.
> >
> > As a reminder, this list has an official "soft limit" of 30 posts per
> > individual/month, as stated on
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l . It's encouraged for
> > participants to stay below this limit in order for the conversation(s)
> > not to be dominated by a single participant. In a listserv context,
> > this is especially important, because it's a "push" medium that gets
> > delivered directly to people's inboxes (contrary to a web forum), in
> > some cases without filters.
> >
> > By my count, Wil has posted to this list >50 times this month, which
> > is a bit excessive.
> >
> > Wil: I would encourage you to respect the norms of this list and
> > refrain from excessive posting. I don't see an issue with any of the
> > _topics_ you're wanting to talk about, just the volume/frequency at
> > which you've been doing it.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Erik
> >
> > --
> > Erik Möller
> > VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

Hi Erik, just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to
those who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words
directly?

You guys are moving in a *very* sketchy direction here. These mails
are archived; it will be quite clear what everyone said before I was
blocked if you decide to go that route. You are talking about very
obviously censoring a person who has been saying inconvenient things
in a high-profile manner. Is this the kind of Free Speech Wikipedia
supposedly stands for?

Seriously. I really want to know.

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
>
>> This is no judgment on him as a person, but I do think
>> we need to protect this list from further flooding.
>
> As a reminder, this list has an official "soft limit" of 30 posts per
> individual/month, as stated on
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l . It's encouraged for
> participants to stay below this limit in order for the conversation(s)
> not to be dominated by a single participant. In a listserv context,
> this is especially important, because it's a "push" medium that gets
> delivered directly to people's inboxes (contrary to a web forum), in
> some cases without filters.
>
> By my count, Wil has posted to this list >50 times this month, which
> is a bit excessive.
>
> Wil: I would encourage you to respect the norms of this list and
> refrain from excessive posting. I don't see an issue with any of the
> _topics_ you're wanting to talk about, just the volume/frequency at
> which you've been doing it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Erik
>
> --
> Erik Möller
> VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Leigh Thelmadatter]

Ive been watching this conversation and I have to agree with Will here. These 
calls for banning/restriction of access to the list and admission that 
Wikipedia is full of "landmines" is troubling.  If we have such grave problems, 
we should be confronting them. If Will is just stirring the pot, ignore him and 
it will go away.



> From: w...@wllm.com
> Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 16:10:49 -0700
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.
> 
> If this list chooses to block me for any amount of time, it might as
> well be forever. I'm responding to other people's mails here; I'd
> prefer to mail less as well.
> 
> In any case, you'll be blocking someone for asking relevant questions
> and replying to relevant concerns. I think that is pretty
> self-evident. If I do get blocked on this list, I will be taking my
> discussion to Wikipediocracy where I have never been so much as
> encouraged to be quiet beyond the matter I mentioned before, and
> anyone who is interested in it is welcome to join me there.
> 
> This is getting *really* scary. Think about what you do in full sight
> of the entire community before you act, please.
> 
> ,Wil
> 
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
> > ... I wish I kept more up to date on this set of threads and had stepped in
> > to say something sooner.  I'm going to go ahead and say that I agree with
> > Pete that at this juncture the most beneficial course of action would
> > probably be for Wil to back this set of discussions for at least a few
> > days, if necessary even by putting Wil on temporary moderation as bizarre
> > as that sounds.  Wil: I'm going to type a private email after I send this
> > to you, and I promise the last thing I desire is to shut you up - you're
> > just currently running through a minefield with no map, and it would be
> > much better if you had a map before continuing.
> > 
> > Kevin Gorman
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
> >
> >> You *can't* be serious. Now I'm *really* starting to get the idea that
> >> you guys just want to shut me up. And you're using the fact that I'm
> >> actually being very open about something to justify it. This is
> >> extremely worrying if everyone else on this list agrees with you.
> >>
> >> ,Wil
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> >> wrote:
> >> > l:
> >> >
> >> > I don't know the first thing about the alleged safety concerns discussed
> >> on
> >> > IRC, but the following quote is troubling to me:
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> She replied "a WMF employee emailed me that there are safety
> >> >> concerns,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > It seems that Wil has chosen to repeat something that was said privately,
> >> > about personal safety, in a public forum. It seems likely to me that this
> >> > kind of choice would tend to *increase* potential danger, not decrease
> >> it.
> >> >
> >> > I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at
> >> > least as a temporary measure. I think his behavior here has been reckless
> >> > in a number of ways. This is no judgment on him as a person, but I do
> >> think
> >> > we need to protect this list from further flooding.
> >> >
> >> > I don't know much about the precedents for list access removal, but I
> >> > suspect that consensus among active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at
> >> > this point. Can anybody comment on what would be necessary to make this
> >> > happen?
> >> >
> >> > Pete
> >> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

If this list chooses to block me for any amount of time, it might as
well be forever. I'm responding to other people's mails here; I'd
prefer to mail less as well.

In any case, you'll be blocking someone for asking relevant questions
and replying to relevant concerns. I think that is pretty
self-evident. If I do get blocked on this list, I will be taking my
discussion to Wikipediocracy where I have never been so much as
encouraged to be quiet beyond the matter I mentioned before, and
anyone who is interested in it is welcome to join me there.

This is getting *really* scary. Think about what you do in full sight
of the entire community before you act, please.

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Kevin Gorman  wrote:
> ... I wish I kept more up to date on this set of threads and had stepped in
> to say something sooner.  I'm going to go ahead and say that I agree with
> Pete that at this juncture the most beneficial course of action would
> probably be for Wil to back this set of discussions for at least a few
> days, if necessary even by putting Wil on temporary moderation as bizarre
> as that sounds.  Wil: I'm going to type a private email after I send this
> to you, and I promise the last thing I desire is to shut you up - you're
> just currently running through a minefield with no map, and it would be
> much better if you had a map before continuing.
> 
> Kevin Gorman
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
>
>> You *can't* be serious. Now I'm *really* starting to get the idea that
>> you guys just want to shut me up. And you're using the fact that I'm
>> actually being very open about something to justify it. This is
>> extremely worrying if everyone else on this list agrees with you.
>>
>> ,Wil
>>
>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Pete Forsyth 
>> wrote:
>> > l:
>> >
>> > I don't know the first thing about the alleged safety concerns discussed
>> on
>> > IRC, but the following quote is troubling to me:
>> >
>> > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
>> >
>> >> She replied "a WMF employee emailed me that there are safety
>> >> concerns,
>> >
>> >
>> > It seems that Wil has chosen to repeat something that was said privately,
>> > about personal safety, in a public forum. It seems likely to me that this
>> > kind of choice would tend to *increase* potential danger, not decrease
>> it.
>> >
>> > I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at
>> > least as a temporary measure. I think his behavior here has been reckless
>> > in a number of ways. This is no judgment on him as a person, but I do
>> think
>> > we need to protect this list from further flooding.
>> >
>> > I don't know much about the precedents for list access removal, but I
>> > suspect that consensus among active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at
>> > this point. Can anybody comment on what would be necessary to make this
>> > happen?
>> >
>> > Pete
>> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Kevin Gorman]

Wil: nothing anyone is saying here is aimed at discrediting you, you've
just jumped in to a field of landmines without a map, and we'd rather not
have you blow your legs off.  I'll have a private email incoming to you as
fast as I can type it but given that the deputy director of the WMF and
several respected Wikimedians have said things may be better if you back
off a bit, it would probably good to extend us the trust necessary to give
you a map of the field of landmines you've jumped in to.

---
Kevin Gorman


On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:

> I didn't really mention anything specifically, except a leader who
> could "change the concerning aspects of the WP community." It has been
> WMF's stated goal to change things like the participation of women on
> WP for years. I suppose it would be most accurate to say that I meant
> the things that the WMF has been very publicly trying to change about
> the community and WP for years now. I believe these goals are shared
> by Lila, but we haven't really discussed them.
>
> You know, that's strange. Everything you guys are adding to this
> thread could be used to discredit me in the eyes of various parts of
> the community. I really hope that isn't the case, but it wouldn't
> change my behavior if it were. I encourage everyone to read these
> threads and make up their minds for themselves. Keep in mind that some
> of the characterizations of what people have said haven't been
> substantiated yet. Maybe some more evidence will come to light on this
> thread.
>
> Thanks.
> ,Wil
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Jasper Deng 
> wrote:
> > I mean, you referred to Lila as a potential source of change in the
> > community's problems in your email right before mine on this thread. If
> you
> > meant the community of the wikis, I'm just saying that it wouldn't really
> > be kosher according to our current practices.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, we did talk on IRC. But what are you referring to? I wasn't
> >> referring to you anywhere. I don't even remember talking about WMF's
> >> role in the community. I guess if you have a log of that part of the
> >> conversation, you should post it now. I may have a log in my own
> >> client, if you don't mind my posting it.
> >>
> >> I think it's becoming abundantly clear why I think it's best if I
> >> don't interact with WMF employees in private.
> >>
> >> ,Wil
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Jasper Deng  >
> >> wrote:
> >> > Wil, we talked about this on IRC, so I won't repeat what I said. But
> >> what I
> >> > did *not* say is that the foundation tends to let the community do
> what
> >> it
> >> > wants, and it would be against that long-standing tradition for staff
> to
> >> > try to force a change in the community.
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's
> >> >> uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was
> >> >> the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather
> >> >> petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point.
> That
> >> >> doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I
> >> >> personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*,
> >> >> Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director);
> >> >> I'd prefer he just leave it at "Wil Sinclair," but it's really his
> >> >> call on what he puts on his own site.
> >> >>
> >> >> Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know-
> >> >> but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any
> >> >> leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this
> >> >> point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong,
> >> >> charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and
> >> >> it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community
> >> >> here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard
> >> >> problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is
> >> >> going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again,
> >> >> that's all just my opinion.
> >> >>
> >> >> I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about
> me
> >> >> so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it
> >> >> to the list this time. :)
> >> >>
> >> >> ,Wil
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Pete Forsyth  >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > Dear Lila,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I think many of us are interested in how you will engage with the
> >> >> Wikimedia
> >> >> > community, what kind of outcomes you will seek, and what kind of
> >> tactics
> >> >> > you will employ in seeking those outcomes.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Can you please clarify whether you believe it is possible for
> somebody
> >> >> with
> >> >> > a close connection to you to influe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

I didn't really mention anything specifically, except a leader who
could "change the concerning aspects of the WP community." It has been
WMF's stated goal to change things like the participation of women on
WP for years. I suppose it would be most accurate to say that I meant
the things that the WMF has been very publicly trying to change about
the community and WP for years now. I believe these goals are shared
by Lila, but we haven't really discussed them.

You know, that's strange. Everything you guys are adding to this
thread could be used to discredit me in the eyes of various parts of
the community. I really hope that isn't the case, but it wouldn't
change my behavior if it were. I encourage everyone to read these
threads and make up their minds for themselves. Keep in mind that some
of the characterizations of what people have said haven't been
substantiated yet. Maybe some more evidence will come to light on this
thread.

Thanks.
,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Jasper Deng  wrote:
> I mean, you referred to Lila as a potential source of change in the
> community's problems in your email right before mine on this thread. If you
> meant the community of the wikis, I'm just saying that it wouldn't really
> be kosher according to our current practices.
>
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
>
>> Yes, we did talk on IRC. But what are you referring to? I wasn't
>> referring to you anywhere. I don't even remember talking about WMF's
>> role in the community. I guess if you have a log of that part of the
>> conversation, you should post it now. I may have a log in my own
>> client, if you don't mind my posting it.
>>
>> I think it's becoming abundantly clear why I think it's best if I
>> don't interact with WMF employees in private.
>>
>> ,Wil
>>
>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Jasper Deng 
>> wrote:
>> > Wil, we talked about this on IRC, so I won't repeat what I said. But
>> what I
>> > did *not* say is that the foundation tends to let the community do what
>> it
>> > wants, and it would be against that long-standing tradition for staff to
>> > try to force a change in the community.
>> >
>> > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
>> >
>> >> First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's
>> >> uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was
>> >> the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather
>> >> petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That
>> >> doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I
>> >> personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*,
>> >> Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director);
>> >> I'd prefer he just leave it at "Wil Sinclair," but it's really his
>> >> call on what he puts on his own site.
>> >>
>> >> Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know-
>> >> but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any
>> >> leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this
>> >> point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong,
>> >> charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and
>> >> it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community
>> >> here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard
>> >> problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is
>> >> going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again,
>> >> that's all just my opinion.
>> >>
>> >> I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me
>> >> so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it
>> >> to the list this time. :)
>> >>
>> >> ,Wil
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Pete Forsyth 
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Dear Lila,
>> >> >
>> >> > I think many of us are interested in how you will engage with the
>> >> Wikimedia
>> >> > community, what kind of outcomes you will seek, and what kind of
>> tactics
>> >> > you will employ in seeking those outcomes.
>> >> >
>> >> > Can you please clarify whether you believe it is possible for somebody
>> >> with
>> >> > a close connection to you to influence public perceptions in
>> >> > disproportionate, and significant, ways? If so, do you consider it a
>> >> > legitimate option for you to (privately) assert your right to
>> establish
>> >> > yourself in your new position, rather than letting them take the lead?
>> >> >
>> >> > I think what has happened in the last few days is extraordinary. I've
>> >> never
>> >> > seen anything like it. While I am sure that Wil's intentions are good,
>> >> > frankly, if his desire had been to sabotage your new job, I can't
>> imagine
>> >> > what more effective path he could have chosen.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm not sure if this link has any meaning to you, as you are still
>> >> getting
>> >> > to know the various people and dynamics in the community. But I wonder
>> >> what
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Erik Moeller]

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> This is no judgment on him as a person, but I do think
> we need to protect this list from further flooding.

As a reminder, this list has an official "soft limit" of 30 posts per
individual/month, as stated on
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l . It's encouraged for
participants to stay below this limit in order for the conversation(s)
not to be dominated by a single participant. In a listserv context,
this is especially important, because it's a "push" medium that gets
delivered directly to people's inboxes (contrary to a web forum), in
some cases without filters.

By my count, Wil has posted to this list >50 times this month, which
is a bit excessive.

Wil: I would encourage you to respect the norms of this list and
refrain from excessive posting. I don't see an issue with any of the
_topics_ you're wanting to talk about, just the volume/frequency at
which you've been doing it.

Cheers,

Erik

-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Kevin Gorman]

... I wish I kept more up to date on this set of threads and had stepped in
to say something sooner.  I'm going to go ahead and say that I agree with
Pete that at this juncture the most beneficial course of action would
probably be for Wil to back this set of discussions for at least a few
days, if necessary even by putting Wil on temporary moderation as bizarre
as that sounds.  Wil: I'm going to type a private email after I send this
to you, and I promise the last thing I desire is to shut you up - you're
just currently running through a minefield with no map, and it would be
much better if you had a map before continuing.

Kevin Gorman



On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:

> You *can't* be serious. Now I'm *really* starting to get the idea that
> you guys just want to shut me up. And you're using the fact that I'm
> actually being very open about something to justify it. This is
> extremely worrying if everyone else on this list agrees with you.
>
> ,Wil
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
> > l:
> >
> > I don't know the first thing about the alleged safety concerns discussed
> on
> > IRC, but the following quote is troubling to me:
> >
> > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
> >
> >> She replied "a WMF employee emailed me that there are safety
> >> concerns,
> >
> >
> > It seems that Wil has chosen to repeat something that was said privately,
> > about personal safety, in a public forum. It seems likely to me that this
> > kind of choice would tend to *increase* potential danger, not decrease
> it.
> >
> > I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at
> > least as a temporary measure. I think his behavior here has been reckless
> > in a number of ways. This is no judgment on him as a person, but I do
> think
> > we need to protect this list from further flooding.
> >
> > I don't know much about the precedents for list access removal, but I
> > suspect that consensus among active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at
> > this point. Can anybody comment on what would be necessary to make this
> > happen?
> >
> > Pete
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

Someone already mentioned me on his talk page, and I responded. Please
do paste that quote there if you think he'd be interested in it. I
know he and Greg have disagreed in the past; he may offer me a
different perspective on the matter. I'm interested in everyone's
perspective.

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Russavia  wrote:
> Wil,
>
> Have you been introduced to Jimmy Wales yet?
>
> I'd be most interested for you to take your quote about Greg Kohs to
> Jimmy on his talk page
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&action=edit§ion=new)
> and ask him if he would agree with you.
>
> Also, please note that here on wikimedia-l you are reaching only a
> small audience, you will likely get a wider audience at Jimmy's talk
> page, and therefore a wider variety of opinion.
>
> We'd then be most interested in hearing about your findings.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Russavia
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

You *can't* be serious. Now I'm *really* starting to get the idea that
you guys just want to shut me up. And you're using the fact that I'm
actually being very open about something to justify it. This is
extremely worrying if everyone else on this list agrees with you.

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> l:
>
> I don't know the first thing about the alleged safety concerns discussed on
> IRC, but the following quote is troubling to me:
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
>
>> She replied "a WMF employee emailed me that there are safety
>> concerns,
>
>
> It seems that Wil has chosen to repeat something that was said privately,
> about personal safety, in a public forum. It seems likely to me that this
> kind of choice would tend to *increase* potential danger, not decrease it.
>
> I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at
> least as a temporary measure. I think his behavior here has been reckless
> in a number of ways. This is no judgment on him as a person, but I do think
> we need to protect this list from further flooding.
>
> I don't know much about the precedents for list access removal, but I
> suspect that consensus among active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at
> this point. Can anybody comment on what would be necessary to make this
> happen?
>
> Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

Greg, would you like to repeat your filth? He may need someone to post
it in surrogate, since I believe he said he's banned here.

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Fæ  wrote:
> Wil, ask Kohs to repeat his filth. I'm not going to do it for him.
>
> Fae
>
> On 28 May 2014 23:37, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
>> I didn't know that he called you a "faggot." Could you please show me where?
>>
>> I mentioned I didn't agree with him on everything. I certainly would
>> *never* agree that a slur like that is justified, if he did make it.
>> In any case, the quote stands. Maybe we should start a separate thread
>> on the quote itself?
>>
>> ,Wil
>>
>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Fæ  wrote:
>>> Wil, you are supporting a man that thought it was a hilarious joke to
>>> call me a faggot. Not something that I am prepared to overlook, ever.
>>>
>>> I now have serious reservations about Lila's good judgement in failing
>>> to ensure you were appropriately advised, considering her critical
>>> role in the Wikimedia movement.
>>>
>>> Fae
>>>
>>> On 28 May 2014 23:18, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
 First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's
 uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was
 the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather
 petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That
 doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I
 personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*,
 Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director);
 I'd prefer he just leave it at "Wil Sinclair," but it's really his
 call on what he puts on his own site.

 Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know-
 but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any
 leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this
 point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong,
 charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and
 it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community
 here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard
 problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is
 going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again,
 that's all just my opinion.

 I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me
 so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it
 to the list this time. :)

 ,Wil
>>>
>>> --
>>> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>>> 
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>> 
>
>
>
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Pete Forsyth]

All:

I don't know the first thing about the alleged safety concerns discussed on
IRC, but the following quote is troubling to me:

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:

> She replied "a WMF employee emailed me that there are safety
> concerns,


It seems that Wil has chosen to repeat something that was said privately,
about personal safety, in a public forum. It seems likely to me that this
kind of choice would tend to *increase* potential danger, not decrease it.

I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at
least as a temporary measure. I think his behavior here has been reckless
in a number of ways. This is no judgment on him as a person, but I do think
we need to protect this list from further flooding.

I don't know much about the precedents for list access removal, but I
suspect that consensus among active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at
this point. Can anybody comment on what would be necessary to make this
happen?

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Jasper Deng]

I mean, you referred to Lila as a potential source of change in the
community's problems in your email right before mine on this thread. If you
meant the community of the wikis, I'm just saying that it wouldn't really
be kosher according to our current practices.


On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:

> Yes, we did talk on IRC. But what are you referring to? I wasn't
> referring to you anywhere. I don't even remember talking about WMF's
> role in the community. I guess if you have a log of that part of the
> conversation, you should post it now. I may have a log in my own
> client, if you don't mind my posting it.
>
> I think it's becoming abundantly clear why I think it's best if I
> don't interact with WMF employees in private.
>
> ,Wil
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Jasper Deng 
> wrote:
> > Wil, we talked about this on IRC, so I won't repeat what I said. But
> what I
> > did *not* say is that the foundation tends to let the community do what
> it
> > wants, and it would be against that long-standing tradition for staff to
> > try to force a change in the community.
> >
> > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
> >
> >> First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's
> >> uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was
> >> the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather
> >> petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That
> >> doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I
> >> personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*,
> >> Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director);
> >> I'd prefer he just leave it at "Wil Sinclair," but it's really his
> >> call on what he puts on his own site.
> >>
> >> Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know-
> >> but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any
> >> leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this
> >> point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong,
> >> charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and
> >> it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community
> >> here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard
> >> problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is
> >> going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again,
> >> that's all just my opinion.
> >>
> >> I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me
> >> so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it
> >> to the list this time. :)
> >>
> >> ,Wil
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> >> wrote:
> >> > Dear Lila,
> >> >
> >> > I think many of us are interested in how you will engage with the
> >> Wikimedia
> >> > community, what kind of outcomes you will seek, and what kind of
> tactics
> >> > you will employ in seeking those outcomes.
> >> >
> >> > Can you please clarify whether you believe it is possible for somebody
> >> with
> >> > a close connection to you to influence public perceptions in
> >> > disproportionate, and significant, ways? If so, do you consider it a
> >> > legitimate option for you to (privately) assert your right to
> establish
> >> > yourself in your new position, rather than letting them take the lead?
> >> >
> >> > I think what has happened in the last few days is extraordinary. I've
> >> never
> >> > seen anything like it. While I am sure that Wil's intentions are good,
> >> > frankly, if his desire had been to sabotage your new job, I can't
> imagine
> >> > what more effective path he could have chosen.
> >> >
> >> > I'm not sure if this link has any meaning to you, as you are still
> >> getting
> >> > to know the various people and dynamics in the community. But I wonder
> >> what
> >> > others think of it. Does anybody know if the following quote is
> accurate?
> >> > And regardless of whether it's accurate or not -- the events of the
> last
> >> > week have certainly made it seem plausible, haven't they?
> >> >
> >> > Is this really the best way for the new Executive Director to be
> >> introduced
> >> > to the Wikimedia community and the world?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >- * is lucky to have people like Greg [Kohs]; even if he
> >> >never directly contributes to WP going forward, we're all well
> aware
> >> that
> >> >he's a very intelligent and eloquent individual with a knack for
> >> >investigative reporting. He holds WP and the WMF to their word,
> and I
> >> >personally thank him for that.* - *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila
> >> >Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director) - May 22, 2014
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Directory%3AGregory_J._Kohs&diff=463158&oldid=462896#Cheers
> >> >
> >> > -Pete
> >> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Lila Tretikov 
> >> w

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

Yes, we did talk on IRC. But what are you referring to? I wasn't
referring to you anywhere. I don't even remember talking about WMF's
role in the community. I guess if you have a log of that part of the
conversation, you should post it now. I may have a log in my own
client, if you don't mind my posting it.

I think it's becoming abundantly clear why I think it's best if I
don't interact with WMF employees in private.

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Jasper Deng  wrote:
> Wil, we talked about this on IRC, so I won't repeat what I said. But what I
> did *not* say is that the foundation tends to let the community do what it
> wants, and it would be against that long-standing tradition for staff to
> try to force a change in the community.
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
>
>> First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's
>> uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was
>> the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather
>> petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That
>> doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I
>> personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*,
>> Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director);
>> I'd prefer he just leave it at "Wil Sinclair," but it's really his
>> call on what he puts on his own site.
>>
>> Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know-
>> but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any
>> leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this
>> point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong,
>> charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and
>> it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community
>> here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard
>> problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is
>> going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again,
>> that's all just my opinion.
>>
>> I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me
>> so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it
>> to the list this time. :)
>>
>> ,Wil
>>
>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Pete Forsyth 
>> wrote:
>> > Dear Lila,
>> >
>> > I think many of us are interested in how you will engage with the
>> Wikimedia
>> > community, what kind of outcomes you will seek, and what kind of tactics
>> > you will employ in seeking those outcomes.
>> >
>> > Can you please clarify whether you believe it is possible for somebody
>> with
>> > a close connection to you to influence public perceptions in
>> > disproportionate, and significant, ways? If so, do you consider it a
>> > legitimate option for you to (privately) assert your right to establish
>> > yourself in your new position, rather than letting them take the lead?
>> >
>> > I think what has happened in the last few days is extraordinary. I've
>> never
>> > seen anything like it. While I am sure that Wil's intentions are good,
>> > frankly, if his desire had been to sabotage your new job, I can't imagine
>> > what more effective path he could have chosen.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure if this link has any meaning to you, as you are still
>> getting
>> > to know the various people and dynamics in the community. But I wonder
>> what
>> > others think of it. Does anybody know if the following quote is accurate?
>> > And regardless of whether it's accurate or not -- the events of the last
>> > week have certainly made it seem plausible, haven't they?
>> >
>> > Is this really the best way for the new Executive Director to be
>> introduced
>> > to the Wikimedia community and the world?
>> >
>> >
>> >- * is lucky to have people like Greg [Kohs]; even if he
>> >never directly contributes to WP going forward, we're all well aware
>> that
>> >he's a very intelligent and eloquent individual with a knack for
>> >investigative reporting. He holds WP and the WMF to their word, and I
>> >personally thank him for that.* - *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila
>> >Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director) - May 22, 2014
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Directory%3AGregory_J._Kohs&diff=463158&oldid=462896#Cheers
>> >
>> > -Pete
>> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Lila Tretikov 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> This is a personal note to clarify a some questions that recently came
>> up,
>> >> specifically in the context of my role as the incoming ED.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> My partner Wil and I are partners in our private lives. We have always
>> both
>> >> been extremely independent, and we respect that in each other. That
>> said we
>> >> have different roles: I am the Executive Director with responsibilities
>> >> towards the Foundation and the movement, and he is an independent
>> community
>> >> member 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Russavia]

Wil,

Have you been introduced to Jimmy Wales yet?

I'd be most interested for you to take your quote about Greg Kohs to
Jimmy on his talk page
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&action=edit§ion=new)
and ask him if he would agree with you.

Also, please note that here on wikimedia-l you are reaching only a
small audience, you will likely get a wider audience at Jimmy's talk
page, and therefore a wider variety of opinion.

We'd then be most interested in hearing about your findings.

Cheers,

Russavia

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Fæ]

Wil, ask Kohs to repeat his filth. I'm not going to do it for him.

Fae

On 28 May 2014 23:37, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
> I didn't know that he called you a "faggot." Could you please show me where?
>
> I mentioned I didn't agree with him on everything. I certainly would
> *never* agree that a slur like that is justified, if he did make it.
> In any case, the quote stands. Maybe we should start a separate thread
> on the quote itself?
>
> ,Wil
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Fæ  wrote:
>> Wil, you are supporting a man that thought it was a hilarious joke to
>> call me a faggot. Not something that I am prepared to overlook, ever.
>>
>> I now have serious reservations about Lila's good judgement in failing
>> to ensure you were appropriately advised, considering her critical
>> role in the Wikimedia movement.
>>
>> Fae
>>
>> On 28 May 2014 23:18, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
>>> First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's
>>> uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was
>>> the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather
>>> petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That
>>> doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I
>>> personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*,
>>> Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director);
>>> I'd prefer he just leave it at "Wil Sinclair," but it's really his
>>> call on what he puts on his own site.
>>>
>>> Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know-
>>> but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any
>>> leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this
>>> point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong,
>>> charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and
>>> it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community
>>> here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard
>>> problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is
>>> going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again,
>>> that's all just my opinion.
>>>
>>> I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me
>>> so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it
>>> to the list this time. :)
>>>
>>> ,Wil
>>
>> --
>> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 



-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

I didn't know that he called you a "faggot." Could you please show me where?

I mentioned I didn't agree with him on everything. I certainly would
*never* agree that a slur like that is justified, if he did make it.
In any case, the quote stands. Maybe we should start a separate thread
on the quote itself?

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Fæ  wrote:
> Wil, you are supporting a man that thought it was a hilarious joke to
> call me a faggot. Not something that I am prepared to overlook, ever.
>
> I now have serious reservations about Lila's good judgement in failing
> to ensure you were appropriately advised, considering her critical
> role in the Wikimedia movement.
>
> Fae
>
> On 28 May 2014 23:18, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
>> First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's
>> uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was
>> the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather
>> petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That
>> doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I
>> personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*,
>> Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director);
>> I'd prefer he just leave it at "Wil Sinclair," but it's really his
>> call on what he puts on his own site.
>>
>> Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know-
>> but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any
>> leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this
>> point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong,
>> charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and
>> it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community
>> here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard
>> problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is
>> going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again,
>> that's all just my opinion.
>>
>> I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me
>> so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it
>> to the list this time. :)
>>
>> ,Wil
>
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

I thought she did explain it. I act on my own behalf. I'm not
introducing Lila to anyone for any purpose. Man, I am getting tired of
writing that, and I can imagine that you're tired of reading it. We've
both already answered this question.

Everything I said about Greg there is true in *my* opinion, and I
think this is probably the most clear-cut attempt at guilt by
association I've ever witnessed online. But whatever- I said, you
spread it. Thanks for getting my perspective out there.

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Fæ  wrote:
> On 28 May 2014 22:57, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> ...
>> Is this really the best way for the new Executive Director to be introduced
>> to the Wikimedia community and the world?
>>
>>- * is lucky to have people like Greg [Kohs]; even if he
>>never directly contributes to WP going forward, we're all well aware that
>>he's a very intelligent and eloquent individual with a knack for
>>investigative reporting. He holds WP and the WMF to their word, and I
>>personally thank him for that.* - *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila
>>Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director) - May 22, 2014
>
> Thanks for highlighting this Pete, I had no idea that Wil wrote this
> (unless someone is spoofing him).
>
> Lila, you need to explain what game is being played here. Perhaps you
> intend to shock the established community? You succeeded.
>
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Jasper Deng]

Wil, we talked about this on IRC, so I won't repeat what I said. But what I
did *not* say is that the foundation tends to let the community do what it
wants, and it would be against that long-standing tradition for staff to
try to force a change in the community.

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:

> First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's
> uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was
> the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather
> petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That
> doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I
> personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*,
> Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director);
> I'd prefer he just leave it at "Wil Sinclair," but it's really his
> call on what he puts on his own site.
>
> Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know-
> but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any
> leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this
> point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong,
> charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and
> it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community
> here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard
> problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is
> going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again,
> that's all just my opinion.
>
> I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me
> so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it
> to the list this time. :)
>
> ,Wil
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
> > Dear Lila,
> >
> > I think many of us are interested in how you will engage with the
> Wikimedia
> > community, what kind of outcomes you will seek, and what kind of tactics
> > you will employ in seeking those outcomes.
> >
> > Can you please clarify whether you believe it is possible for somebody
> with
> > a close connection to you to influence public perceptions in
> > disproportionate, and significant, ways? If so, do you consider it a
> > legitimate option for you to (privately) assert your right to establish
> > yourself in your new position, rather than letting them take the lead?
> >
> > I think what has happened in the last few days is extraordinary. I've
> never
> > seen anything like it. While I am sure that Wil's intentions are good,
> > frankly, if his desire had been to sabotage your new job, I can't imagine
> > what more effective path he could have chosen.
> >
> > I'm not sure if this link has any meaning to you, as you are still
> getting
> > to know the various people and dynamics in the community. But I wonder
> what
> > others think of it. Does anybody know if the following quote is accurate?
> > And regardless of whether it's accurate or not -- the events of the last
> > week have certainly made it seem plausible, haven't they?
> >
> > Is this really the best way for the new Executive Director to be
> introduced
> > to the Wikimedia community and the world?
> >
> >
> >- * is lucky to have people like Greg [Kohs]; even if he
> >never directly contributes to WP going forward, we're all well aware
> that
> >he's a very intelligent and eloquent individual with a knack for
> >investigative reporting. He holds WP and the WMF to their word, and I
> >personally thank him for that.* - *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila
> >Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director) - May 22, 2014
> >
> >
> >
> http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Directory%3AGregory_J._Kohs&diff=463158&oldid=462896#Cheers
> >
> > -Pete
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Lila Tretikov 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> This is a personal note to clarify a some questions that recently came
> up,
> >> specifically in the context of my role as the incoming ED.
> >>
> >>
> >> My partner Wil and I are partners in our private lives. We have always
> both
> >> been extremely independent, and we respect that in each other. That
> said we
> >> have different roles: I am the Executive Director with responsibilities
> >> towards the Foundation and the movement, and he is an independent
> community
> >> member with his own voice.
> >>
> >> I make my decisions using my own professional judgement in conjunction
> with
> >> input from the community and staff. I don’t consult Wil on these
> matters,
> >> ask him to do anything on my behalf or monitor his engagements with the
> >> community. When I speak here, it is in my capacity as an ED.
> >>
> >> Wil, on the other hand, has a very strong personal interest in the
> >> community and agreat deal of curiosity about how the Wikimedia
> >> projectswork. It is very important to him that he remains an
> >> independent individual
> >> able to speak 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Fæ]

Wil, you are supporting a man that thought it was a hilarious joke to
call me a faggot. Not something that I am prepared to overlook, ever.

I now have serious reservations about Lila's good judgement in failing
to ensure you were appropriately advised, considering her critical
role in the Wikimedia movement.

Fae

On 28 May 2014 23:18, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
> First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's
> uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was
> the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather
> petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That
> doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I
> personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*,
> Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director);
> I'd prefer he just leave it at "Wil Sinclair," but it's really his
> call on what he puts on his own site.
>
> Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know-
> but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any
> leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this
> point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong,
> charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and
> it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community
> here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard
> problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is
> going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again,
> that's all just my opinion.
>
> I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me
> so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it
> to the list this time. :)
>
> ,Wil

-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's
uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was
the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather
petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That
doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I
personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*,
Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director);
I'd prefer he just leave it at "Wil Sinclair," but it's really his
call on what he puts on his own site.

Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know-
but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any
leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this
point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong,
charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and
it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community
here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard
problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is
going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again,
that's all just my opinion.

I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me
so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it
to the list this time. :)

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> Dear Lila,
>
> I think many of us are interested in how you will engage with the Wikimedia
> community, what kind of outcomes you will seek, and what kind of tactics
> you will employ in seeking those outcomes.
>
> Can you please clarify whether you believe it is possible for somebody with
> a close connection to you to influence public perceptions in
> disproportionate, and significant, ways? If so, do you consider it a
> legitimate option for you to (privately) assert your right to establish
> yourself in your new position, rather than letting them take the lead?
>
> I think what has happened in the last few days is extraordinary. I've never
> seen anything like it. While I am sure that Wil's intentions are good,
> frankly, if his desire had been to sabotage your new job, I can't imagine
> what more effective path he could have chosen.
>
> I'm not sure if this link has any meaning to you, as you are still getting
> to know the various people and dynamics in the community. But I wonder what
> others think of it. Does anybody know if the following quote is accurate?
> And regardless of whether it's accurate or not -- the events of the last
> week have certainly made it seem plausible, haven't they?
>
> Is this really the best way for the new Executive Director to be introduced
> to the Wikimedia community and the world?
>
>
>- * is lucky to have people like Greg [Kohs]; even if he
>never directly contributes to WP going forward, we're all well aware that
>he's a very intelligent and eloquent individual with a knack for
>investigative reporting. He holds WP and the WMF to their word, and I
>personally thank him for that.* - *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila
>Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director) - May 22, 2014
>
>
> http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Directory%3AGregory_J._Kohs&diff=463158&oldid=462896#Cheers
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Lila Tretikov  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This is a personal note to clarify a some questions that recently came up,
>> specifically in the context of my role as the incoming ED.
>>
>>
>> My partner Wil and I are partners in our private lives. We have always both
>> been extremely independent, and we respect that in each other. That said we
>> have different roles: I am the Executive Director with responsibilities
>> towards the Foundation and the movement, and he is an independent community
>> member with his own voice.
>>
>> I make my decisions using my own professional judgement in conjunction with
>> input from the community and staff. I don’t consult Wil on these matters,
>> ask him to do anything on my behalf or monitor his engagements with the
>> community. When I speak here, it is in my capacity as an ED.
>>
>> Wil, on the other hand, has a very strong personal interest in the
>> community and agreat deal of curiosity about how the Wikimedia
>> projectswork. It is very important to him that he remains an
>> independent individual
>> able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not
>> take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the WMF
>> employees.
>>
>> I hope this addresses some of the questions and draws distinction between
>> my role as ED and Wil’s participation as an independent member. If you have
>> any questions for Wil you can reach him directly. If you have any questions
>> for me or the WMF, you can get a hold of me by email or on my talk page.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Lila
>> __

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Fæ]

On 28 May 2014 22:57, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
...
> Is this really the best way for the new Executive Director to be introduced
> to the Wikimedia community and the world?
>
>- * is lucky to have people like Greg [Kohs]; even if he
>never directly contributes to WP going forward, we're all well aware that
>he's a very intelligent and eloquent individual with a knack for
>investigative reporting. He holds WP and the WMF to their word, and I
>personally thank him for that.* - *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila
>Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director) - May 22, 2014

Thanks for highlighting this Pete, I had no idea that Wil wrote this
(unless someone is spoofing him).

Lila, you need to explain what game is being played here. Perhaps you
intend to shock the established community? You succeeded.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Pete Forsyth]

Dear Lila,

I think many of us are interested in how you will engage with the Wikimedia
community, what kind of outcomes you will seek, and what kind of tactics
you will employ in seeking those outcomes.

Can you please clarify whether you believe it is possible for somebody with
a close connection to you to influence public perceptions in
disproportionate, and significant, ways? If so, do you consider it a
legitimate option for you to (privately) assert your right to establish
yourself in your new position, rather than letting them take the lead?

I think what has happened in the last few days is extraordinary. I've never
seen anything like it. While I am sure that Wil's intentions are good,
frankly, if his desire had been to sabotage your new job, I can't imagine
what more effective path he could have chosen.

I'm not sure if this link has any meaning to you, as you are still getting
to know the various people and dynamics in the community. But I wonder what
others think of it. Does anybody know if the following quote is accurate?
And regardless of whether it's accurate or not -- the events of the last
week have certainly made it seem plausible, haven't they?

Is this really the best way for the new Executive Director to be introduced
to the Wikimedia community and the world?


   - * is lucky to have people like Greg [Kohs]; even if he
   never directly contributes to WP going forward, we're all well aware that
   he's a very intelligent and eloquent individual with a knack for
   investigative reporting. He holds WP and the WMF to their word, and I
   personally thank him for that.* - *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila
   Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director) - May 22, 2014


http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Directory%3AGregory_J._Kohs&diff=463158&oldid=462896#Cheers

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]


On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Lila Tretikov  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> This is a personal note to clarify a some questions that recently came up,
> specifically in the context of my role as the incoming ED.
>
>
> My partner Wil and I are partners in our private lives. We have always both
> been extremely independent, and we respect that in each other. That said we
> have different roles: I am the Executive Director with responsibilities
> towards the Foundation and the movement, and he is an independent community
> member with his own voice.
>
> I make my decisions using my own professional judgement in conjunction with
> input from the community and staff. I don’t consult Wil on these matters,
> ask him to do anything on my behalf or monitor his engagements with the
> community. When I speak here, it is in my capacity as an ED.
>
> Wil, on the other hand, has a very strong personal interest in the
> community and agreat deal of curiosity about how the Wikimedia
> projectswork. It is very important to him that he remains an
> independent individual
> able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not
> take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the WMF
> employees.
>
> I hope this addresses some of the questions and draws distinction between
> my role as ED and Wil’s participation as an independent member. If you have
> any questions for Wil you can reach him directly. If you have any questions
> for me or the WMF, you can get a hold of me by email or on my talk page.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lila
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

> Ah, this segues well into the email I was just drafting: I have to say that
> I was surprised to see the contents of what appears to be an internal staff
> email being brought up both on Wikipediocracy and here by a non-staff
> member. Wil, can you clarify if you were copied on the email, and if not,
> how you gained access to it? You've repeatedly emphasized that you are not
> affiliated with/do not influence/are completely separate from the WMF, and
> even that you and Lila are not even discussing Wikimedia-related matters
> with one another at home, so I'm sure you can understand the confusion.
>
> Yours,
> Molly (GorillaWarfare)

Of course. While I was talking to you and others on IRC, Lila came
over and asked me to stop. She usually doesn't do that under any
circumstances, because she respects my right to say what I want where
I want. She replied "a WMF employee emailed me that there are safety
concerns, and safety of my employees is a matter that I can't
compromise on." She didn't say who wrote her or what their specific
concerns were, but I'm not about to cause anyone concern over their
safety personally + Lila felt she was responsible for the employee's
well being in this case. I did find it somewhat annoying, since it
certainly wasn't anything that I said there that would cause safety
concerns and no one msg'd me about it directly. I just asked why
badmachine was kicked and about the rather mean manner under which he
was kicked. But I told you guys why I was leaving and left. FWIW, I
don't plan on coming back anytime soon.

This was the first time that Lila told me anything about internal
matters, and it was limited to exactly what I wrote above. Frankly, I
don't want to know about WMF's affairs, and I'm taking action to avoid
knowing anything more for the foreseeable future.

,Wil

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Amy Vossbrinck]

Hello Victor:

I continue to admire your persistence, and now it seems that of your
partner, to fully engage in the process of bringing your considerable
talent and seemingly boundless energy to making it possible for "very
single human being to freely share in the sum of all knowledge."

It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from author James Baldwin:
"Those who say it can' be done are usually interrupted by others doing it.


Keep on keepin' on!

Amy






On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Victor Grigas 
wrote:

> My significant other applied for a grant and got 500 Wikireaders
> distributed to 3 schools:
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Aislinn_Dewey/Distribute_WikiReaders_to_Schools/Report
>
>
> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/help-distribute-wikireaders-and-provide-an-opportunity-for-kids-to-learn
>
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Fæ  wrote:
>
> > On 28 May 2014 15:04, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
> > ...
> > > So that Wil's interest manifested around the time Lila was announced as
> > > the next ED seems to me to be perfectly natural, even if I have
> > > expressed serious concerns about *how* that interest was expressed.
> > > -- Marc
> >
> > There is a big difference between your partner having an interest in
> > your organization, and going on to publish public complaints about the
> > staff that you have complete authority and responsibility for
> > employing.
> >
> > I may be wrong, perhaps someone has some examples of where this worked
> > out well? The only examples from history and the political world I can
> > recall, did not.
> >
> > Fae
> > --
> > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Victor Grigas*
> Storyteller 
> Wikimedia Foundation
> vgri...@wikimedia.org
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> 
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
*Amy Vossbrinck*
*Executive Assistant to the*
*Chief of Finance and Administration, Garfield Byrd*
*Wikimedia Foundation*
*149 New Montgomery Street*
*San Francisco, CA 94105*
*415.839.6885  ext 6628 <415.839.6885%20%C2%A0ext%206628>*
*avossbri...@wikimedia.org *
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Molly White]

Wil Sinclair  writes:
 
> I've apologized to you here and on Wikipediocracy, but apologies are
> always worth doing directly and for as many to see as possible: I'm
> very sorry for mistaking you for a WMF employee. I take full
> responsibility for my words and actions. I hope you can forgive me.

No need to apologize. I'm really not horrified at being mistaken for a
staffer, I'm just trying to clear up any confusion.

> To be clear, a WMF employee did mail Lila with "safety concerns." That
> was obviously not Molly, and, ultimately, I don't think it's important
> who it was. It just made me personally uncomfortable communicating
> with WMF employees in any private setting. I'm hoping that will change
> as we all begin to trust each other more. Even then, I have no plans
> to discuss WMF matters of any sort with WMF employees; that's to
> everyone's benefit IMO.

Ah, this segues well into the email I was just drafting: I have to say that
I was surprised to see the contents of what appears to be an internal staff
email being brought up both on Wikipediocracy and here by a non-staff
member. Wil, can you clarify if you were copied on the email, and if not,
how you gained access to it? You've repeatedly emphasized that you are not
affiliated with/do not influence/are completely separate from the WMF, and
even that you and Lila are not even discussing Wikimedia-related matters
with one another at home, so I'm sure you can understand the confusion.

Yours,
Molly (GorillaWarfare)


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Thomas Morton]

I cannot believe I am saying this; but I totally agree with Russavia.

Wil; why not have a go contributing to some WP articles and seeing what
your experience is.

We have a comment statement that gets made on flame threads, which boils
down to "isn't there an article you could be writing?"

Tom


On 28 May 2014 21:44, Russavia  wrote:

> Wil,
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
>
> As you can see there is a lot of consternation being directed your
> way, and at some stage, and this will teach you well for the future as
> well, you have to learn to walk away from the keyboard. If you can't
> do this, and I have a feeling you might have difficulty doing so, try
> to at least delay hitting the send button, but this is something else
> you may have trouble doing. This is especially important on this list,
> as there is a sending limit per month that people are able send, and
> this is obviously done to prevent the drowning out of other
> participants by any single personyou would likely be well on your
> way to this limit by now.
>
> Wil, if you truly wanted to see how the projects work, usually the
> best way is to get involved at the ground level. Some people may want
> to make some edits on Wikipedia to an article on a subject that
> interest them. Others might add some information on one of their
> favourite holiday spots on Wikivoyage. Others might prefer to take a
> photo of their penis and upload it to Commons. There are literally
> plenty of ways for a n00b get involved on our projects.
>
> You have missed an opportunity here to be able to help Lila with her new
> job.
>
> Firstly, this is Lila's moment to shine and an opportunity for the
> community to get to know her and vice versa. It's a bit difficult for
> a sense of trust to be built when you have an overbearing partner
> essentially publicly pushing her aside and taking all of our
> attention. For example, I really don't know much about Lila, but I
> know more about you. And that presents a massive problem, and believe
> you me, others are thinking it, I'm willing to say it publicly.
>
> Secondly, as a n00b, you would have been a great person for Lila to
> use as a sounding board as to how it is for new editors on our
> projects to be able to edit and understand how to navigate our
> projects. You may not be aware but our projects have a dire editor
> retention rate, and your experiences, given that it is evident you are
> green to our projects, may have been able to help Lila understand that
> particular issue.
>
> Getting involved as you have done has only gone to serve
> Wikipediocracy by handing them the best PSA they could hope for on a
> silver platter.
>
> Having said that, if you want to get involved on Commons,
> #wikimedia-commons is full of helpful editors who might be able to
> give you some further ideas on how to contribute to that project.
>
> Learn the ropes first; there's plenty of time for wikipolitics and the
> like later on.
>
> Cheers
>
> Russavia
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

Thanks for all the pointers, Molly, and for disclosing that it was you
for the sake of adding a bit more info to the discussion; you haven't
done anything wrong as far as I know, and I didn't feel comfortable
mentioning your IRC nick in case there were any confusion. I simply
didn't get a chance to look at that diff before you revdeleted it; it
was the only concrete evidence that I saw linked there for why
badmachine was kicked. I probably should have clicked on it
immediately. My bad.

I've apologized to you here and on Wikipediocracy, but apologies are
always worth doing directly and for as many to see as possible: I'm
very sorry for mistaking you for a WMF employee. I take full
responsibility for my words and actions. I hope you can forgive me.

To be clear, a WMF employee did mail Lila with "safety concerns." That
was obviously not Molly, and, ultimately, I don't think it's important
who it was. It just made me personally uncomfortable communicating
with WMF employees in any private setting. I'm hoping that will change
as we all begin to trust each other more. Even then, I have no plans
to discuss WMF matters of any sort with WMF employees; that's to
everyone's benefit IMO.

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Molly White
 wrote:
> Wil Sinclair  writes:
>
>>
>> Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be
>> obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too.
>
> Indeed you can. If you navigate to
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log and enter the title
> of the page in the "Target (title or user)" field, you can see
> "GorillaWarfare (talk | contribs | block) changed visibility of a revision".
>
> I was the one who deleted the revision in question. I'd like to clarify that
> I'm not an employee of the WMF. I'm an administrator, and a member of the
> Arbitration Committee, but my membership on that committee is by community
> election. It is neither paid by nor decided by the WMF. The deletion of that
> revision was done in my administrator, not arbitrator, capacity.
>
> As for determining who is and is not an employee of the WMF, WMF employees
> editing as employees (and not community members) tend to have "(WMF)" in
> their usernames. If nothing else, you can check their userpages, where they
> will mention if they are employees.
>
>> Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't
>> logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who
>> aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't
>> supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK,
>> but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be
>> disallowed).
>
> As some have already pointed out, it is in fact just fine to log Wikimedia
> channels. It is the publishing of these logs (from channels that restrict
> logging) that is considered to be a bannable offense.
>
>> "
>>
>> There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be
>> followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the
>> discussion that includes the comment above:
>> http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&p=96600#p96600
>>
>> ,Wil
>
> In fact, I'd suggest you *do* begin logging your IRC communications. Had you
> been logging, you would have been able to refer to your logs to review my
> explanation of why the user in question is typically immediately banned from
> Wikimedia-related IRC channels. You also would have been able to refer to
> the conversation in which I pointed you to the revision deletion policy, and
> the specific criterion under which I removed the revision. You would also
> have remembered that you did not ask me for any more detail about the
> relationship between Wikimedia-related IRC channels and Wikimedia projects
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IRC#How_is_Wikipedia_IRC_related_to
> _Wikipedia.3F), about the IRC channel guidelines
> (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC/wikipedia/Guidelines, also linked from
> the channel topic in #wikipedia-en) or expectations of channel operators
> (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC/wikipedia/Channel_operator_guidelines),
> or about the revision itself and its contents.
>
> Yours,
> Molly (GorillaWarfare)
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Russavia]

Wil,

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:

As you can see there is a lot of consternation being directed your
way, and at some stage, and this will teach you well for the future as
well, you have to learn to walk away from the keyboard. If you can't
do this, and I have a feeling you might have difficulty doing so, try
to at least delay hitting the send button, but this is something else
you may have trouble doing. This is especially important on this list,
as there is a sending limit per month that people are able send, and
this is obviously done to prevent the drowning out of other
participants by any single personyou would likely be well on your
way to this limit by now.

Wil, if you truly wanted to see how the projects work, usually the
best way is to get involved at the ground level. Some people may want
to make some edits on Wikipedia to an article on a subject that
interest them. Others might add some information on one of their
favourite holiday spots on Wikivoyage. Others might prefer to take a
photo of their penis and upload it to Commons. There are literally
plenty of ways for a n00b get involved on our projects.

You have missed an opportunity here to be able to help Lila with her new job.

Firstly, this is Lila's moment to shine and an opportunity for the
community to get to know her and vice versa. It's a bit difficult for
a sense of trust to be built when you have an overbearing partner
essentially publicly pushing her aside and taking all of our
attention. For example, I really don't know much about Lila, but I
know more about you. And that presents a massive problem, and believe
you me, others are thinking it, I'm willing to say it publicly.

Secondly, as a n00b, you would have been a great person for Lila to
use as a sounding board as to how it is for new editors on our
projects to be able to edit and understand how to navigate our
projects. You may not be aware but our projects have a dire editor
retention rate, and your experiences, given that it is evident you are
green to our projects, may have been able to help Lila understand that
particular issue.

Getting involved as you have done has only gone to serve
Wikipediocracy by handing them the best PSA they could hope for on a
silver platter.

Having said that, if you want to get involved on Commons,
#wikimedia-commons is full of helpful editors who might be able to
give you some further ideas on how to contribute to that project.

Learn the ropes first; there's plenty of time for wikipolitics and the
like later on.

Cheers

Russavia

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Everton Zanella Alvarenga]

Hi Will, we generally can find critics mainly from those who cannot
understand or do not have patience when newbies make mistakes. Obviously I
also have this problem sometimes (for this some ironic comments when I
suggested in a recent topic suggesting  we should criticize more
kindly),
for this I believe it'll take sometime for we, as a group or even Wikimedia
Foundation as an organization, to realise the importance of making mistakes
 and give more
importance on our learnings.

My general feeling is that we lack the necessary patience and the
limitation of online communication tends to raise unnecessary issues
(sometimes called wikidramas), but I have no idea how this cultural change
can be achieved in the Wikimedia community. Maybe it will come with
nonviolent communication <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication> or when we learn to
ignore the violence and deal with it with wisdom.

Leadership in this (crazy, in the good sense :) horizontal community can
also be a factor to improve the discussions environment, be it on mailing
lists, forums or the wiki. The TeaHouse is a great example. The ideia of
Wikipedia ambassadors to work on educational environments, although not
sustainable in the mid term, is another cool idea. Those great videos made
by Victor idem. More ideias will come, I believe. :)

Tom


2014-05-28 17:18 GMT-03:00 Wil Sinclair :

> Well, we were discussing IRC and my experience there in this thread,
> and many people were asking me to "wait." I find this interesting,
> because some on Wikipediocracy also asked me to "wait," with the
> significant exception that this was to "wait until I so something,
> then come back." In this case, it was "wait until you've read these
> articles and seen this stuff on-wiki, then come back." I agreed. They
> then checked in with me regularly (I think most of them thought I was
> going to bail), and once I had read the material I had agreed to read,
> we resumed the discussion. It's all here: It's all here on this
> thread: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4531
>
> But I think I've figured out a way for me to bring up topics without
> worrying about my level of experience with Wikipedia/Wikimedia. I'll
> start a new thread with my concerns and what I've come up with.
>
> ,Wil
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[David Cuenca]

Wil, I have been following the conversation and I can feel your
good-hearted nature.
Please do not be offended when they say "wait" to you. They mean no harm to
you, just the opposite.

I know how frustrating it is to have to wait, because all of us have gone
through the same...
Just to give you an example of my experience, it took me almost a year
until I felt comfortable editing in my home project. Understanding the
subjective experience of editing is something you will not find in any
book, you have to go through it and then some opinions will make more sense
to you. It took me many more years until I ventured to bring up topics that
affect bigger communities. And now after ten years I am still learning...
just figure.

Patience is a very positive trait and we never have enough of it. They have
been giving it to you because they appreciate you, and if you give it back
to them they will appreciate you even more.

Welcome to the community and an internet hug for you!

Micru

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:

> Well, we were discussing IRC and my experience there in this thread,
> and many people were asking me to "wait." I find this interesting,
> because some on Wikipediocracy also asked me to "wait," with the
> significant exception that this was to "wait until I so something,
> then come back." In this case, it was "wait until you've read these
> articles and seen this stuff on-wiki, then come back." I agreed. They
> then checked in with me regularly (I think most of them thought I was
> going to bail), and once I had read the material I had agreed to read,
> we resumed the discussion. It's all here: It's all here on this
> thread: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4531
>
> But I think I've figured out a way for me to bring up topics without
> worrying about my level of experience with Wikipedia/Wikimedia. I'll
> start a new thread with my concerns and what I've come up with.
>
> ,Wil
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Martijn Hoekstra
>  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> We are all interested in hearing all sides of every story here, aren't
> >> we? I'm starting to get the feeling that there are things that some
> >> people on this list don't want *anyone* to discuss.
> >
> >
> > Which things, and which people are you aiming at, particularly?
> >
> > --Martijn
> >
> >
> >> After all, you
> >> could simply ignore my messages or even filter them from your inbox,
> >> if you are so inclined. This impression has been troubling me greatly.
> >> Do you know that this is *precisely* what many on Wikipediocracy are
> >> saying about this list? Are they right?
> >>
> >> ,Wil
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Nathan  wrote:
> >> > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be
> >> >> obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too. I posted
> the
> >> >> following to Wikipediocracy a few minutes ago:
> >> >>
> >> >> "
> >> >> I may have misread which page the rev was on, or I misunderstood the
> >> >> person who said s/he revdeleted it in thinking that it had been
> >> >> revdeleted in the previous few minutes. This is exactly why I prefer
> >> >> public recorded forums. Now no one can go back to clear up the
> >> >> confusion. For all I know, I might have to apologize for a
> >> >> misunderstanding, and it would really suck if I somehow
> misrepresented
> >> >> things and didn't have any opportunity to straighten things out.
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't
> >> >> logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who
> >> >> aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't
> >> >> supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK,
> >> >> but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be
> >> >> disallowed). Next time I have a concern, I will take it to
> wikimedia-l
> >> >> or one of the other mailing lists. As this example also shows, one
> >> >> can't be sure that the revs on a page within Wikimedia's wikis
> >> >> themselves won't be redacted after-the-fact. I'm not expressing an
> >> >> opinion about whether stuff should be redacted or on what grounds,
> but
> >> >> I am asserting that it is possible to do so.
> >> >> "
> >> >>
> >> >> There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be
> >> >> followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the
> >> >> discussion that includes the comment above:
> >> >>
> >>
> http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&p=96600#p96600
> >> >>
> >> >> ,Wil
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Hi Wil,
> >> >
> >> > This is exactly why others have suggested that you slow down, and
> focus
> >> on
> >> > learning the basics of the Wikimedia projects and movements before
> >> jumping
> >> > into the hottest, most controversial issues. It takes time to develop
> the
> >> > understanding ne

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

Well, we were discussing IRC and my experience there in this thread,
and many people were asking me to "wait." I find this interesting,
because some on Wikipediocracy also asked me to "wait," with the
significant exception that this was to "wait until I so something,
then come back." In this case, it was "wait until you've read these
articles and seen this stuff on-wiki, then come back." I agreed. They
then checked in with me regularly (I think most of them thought I was
going to bail), and once I had read the material I had agreed to read,
we resumed the discussion. It's all here: It's all here on this
thread: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4531

But I think I've figured out a way for me to bring up topics without
worrying about my level of experience with Wikipedia/Wikimedia. I'll
start a new thread with my concerns and what I've come up with.

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Martijn Hoekstra
 wrote:
>>
>>
>> We are all interested in hearing all sides of every story here, aren't
>> we? I'm starting to get the feeling that there are things that some
>> people on this list don't want *anyone* to discuss.
>
>
> Which things, and which people are you aiming at, particularly?
>
> --Martijn
>
>
>> After all, you
>> could simply ignore my messages or even filter them from your inbox,
>> if you are so inclined. This impression has been troubling me greatly.
>> Do you know that this is *precisely* what many on Wikipediocracy are
>> saying about this list? Are they right?
>>
>> ,Wil
>>
>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Nathan  wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be
>> >> obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too. I posted the
>> >> following to Wikipediocracy a few minutes ago:
>> >>
>> >> "
>> >> I may have misread which page the rev was on, or I misunderstood the
>> >> person who said s/he revdeleted it in thinking that it had been
>> >> revdeleted in the previous few minutes. This is exactly why I prefer
>> >> public recorded forums. Now no one can go back to clear up the
>> >> confusion. For all I know, I might have to apologize for a
>> >> misunderstanding, and it would really suck if I somehow misrepresented
>> >> things and didn't have any opportunity to straighten things out.
>> >>
>> >> Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't
>> >> logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who
>> >> aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't
>> >> supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK,
>> >> but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be
>> >> disallowed). Next time I have a concern, I will take it to wikimedia-l
>> >> or one of the other mailing lists. As this example also shows, one
>> >> can't be sure that the revs on a page within Wikimedia's wikis
>> >> themselves won't be redacted after-the-fact. I'm not expressing an
>> >> opinion about whether stuff should be redacted or on what grounds, but
>> >> I am asserting that it is possible to do so.
>> >> "
>> >>
>> >> There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be
>> >> followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the
>> >> discussion that includes the comment above:
>> >>
>> http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&p=96600#p96600
>> >>
>> >> ,Wil
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Hi Wil,
>> >
>> > This is exactly why others have suggested that you slow down, and focus
>> on
>> > learning the basics of the Wikimedia projects and movements before
>> jumping
>> > into the hottest, most controversial issues. It takes time to develop the
>> > understanding necessary to draw conclusions, especially in areas most
>> > likely to erupt into drama and heated exchanges.
>> >
>> > To wit, I don't believe it can even be determined if someone is logging a
>> > channel, and many people (including Wikimedians) log all of their
>> channels.
>> > Several Wikimedia-related channels are publicly logged. Other channels
>> > prohibit people from publishing logs.
>> >
>> > It's also quite common knowledge that revisions can be deleted (by any
>> > administrator, where they remain viewable by administrators) or
>> suppressed
>> > altogether (by users with Oversight rights). I think if you considered it
>> > with a full possession of the facts, you would agree that this is good
>> and
>> > necessary.
>> >
>> > In any case, thank you Lila for your note! I appreciate that you have
>> made
>> > it clear you've seen the threads of the last few weeks and understand the
>> > concerns that posters have described.
>> >
>> > ~Nathan
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikime

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Martijn Hoekstra]

>
>
> We are all interested in hearing all sides of every story here, aren't
> we? I'm starting to get the feeling that there are things that some
> people on this list don't want *anyone* to discuss.


Which things, and which people are you aiming at, particularly?

--Martijn


> After all, you
> could simply ignore my messages or even filter them from your inbox,
> if you are so inclined. This impression has been troubling me greatly.
> Do you know that this is *precisely* what many on Wikipediocracy are
> saying about this list? Are they right?
>
> ,Wil
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Nathan  wrote:
> > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be
> >> obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too. I posted the
> >> following to Wikipediocracy a few minutes ago:
> >>
> >> "
> >> I may have misread which page the rev was on, or I misunderstood the
> >> person who said s/he revdeleted it in thinking that it had been
> >> revdeleted in the previous few minutes. This is exactly why I prefer
> >> public recorded forums. Now no one can go back to clear up the
> >> confusion. For all I know, I might have to apologize for a
> >> misunderstanding, and it would really suck if I somehow misrepresented
> >> things and didn't have any opportunity to straighten things out.
> >>
> >> Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't
> >> logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who
> >> aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't
> >> supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK,
> >> but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be
> >> disallowed). Next time I have a concern, I will take it to wikimedia-l
> >> or one of the other mailing lists. As this example also shows, one
> >> can't be sure that the revs on a page within Wikimedia's wikis
> >> themselves won't be redacted after-the-fact. I'm not expressing an
> >> opinion about whether stuff should be redacted or on what grounds, but
> >> I am asserting that it is possible to do so.
> >> "
> >>
> >> There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be
> >> followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the
> >> discussion that includes the comment above:
> >>
> http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&p=96600#p96600
> >>
> >> ,Wil
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Hi Wil,
> >
> > This is exactly why others have suggested that you slow down, and focus
> on
> > learning the basics of the Wikimedia projects and movements before
> jumping
> > into the hottest, most controversial issues. It takes time to develop the
> > understanding necessary to draw conclusions, especially in areas most
> > likely to erupt into drama and heated exchanges.
> >
> > To wit, I don't believe it can even be determined if someone is logging a
> > channel, and many people (including Wikimedians) log all of their
> channels.
> > Several Wikimedia-related channels are publicly logged. Other channels
> > prohibit people from publishing logs.
> >
> > It's also quite common knowledge that revisions can be deleted (by any
> > administrator, where they remain viewable by administrators) or
> suppressed
> > altogether (by users with Oversight rights). I think if you considered it
> > with a full possession of the facts, you would agree that this is good
> and
> > necessary.
> >
> > In any case, thank you Lila for your note! I appreciate that you have
> made
> > it clear you've seen the threads of the last few weeks and understand the
> > concerns that posters have described.
> >
> > ~Nathan
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note

[ENWP Pine]

Thank you for the explanations, Lila, Molly, and everyone else.

Wil, I happen to be waiting on an email right now so I have a few minutes to 
spare. If you need clarification on anything that has been said in this 
discussion I am happy to meet you on IRC or have a Skype conversation. I would 
suggest that this thread is consuming a lot of bandwidth in this email list and 
we should move the discussion elsewhere. We can also talk on your talk page, 
although I think your more conversational style is better suited to IRC or 
Skype.

Cheers,

Pine
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Molly White]

Wil Sinclair  writes:

> 
> Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be
> obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too.

Indeed you can. If you navigate to
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log and enter the title
of the page in the "Target (title or user)" field, you can see
"GorillaWarfare (talk | contribs | block) changed visibility of a revision".

I was the one who deleted the revision in question. I'd like to clarify that
I'm not an employee of the WMF. I'm an administrator, and a member of the
Arbitration Committee, but my membership on that committee is by community
election. It is neither paid by nor decided by the WMF. The deletion of that
revision was done in my administrator, not arbitrator, capacity.

As for determining who is and is not an employee of the WMF, WMF employees
editing as employees (and not community members) tend to have "(WMF)" in
their usernames. If nothing else, you can check their userpages, where they
will mention if they are employees.

> Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't
> logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who
> aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't
> supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK,
> but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be
> disallowed). 

As some have already pointed out, it is in fact just fine to log Wikimedia
channels. It is the publishing of these logs (from channels that restrict
logging) that is considered to be a bannable offense.

> "
> 
> There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be
> followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the
> discussion that includes the comment above:
> http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&p=96600#p96600
> 
> ,Wil

In fact, I'd suggest you *do* begin logging your IRC communications. Had you
been logging, you would have been able to refer to your logs to review my
explanation of why the user in question is typically immediately banned from
Wikimedia-related IRC channels. You also would have been able to refer to
the conversation in which I pointed you to the revision deletion policy, and
the specific criterion under which I removed the revision. You would also
have remembered that you did not ask me for any more detail about the
relationship between Wikimedia-related IRC channels and Wikimedia projects
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IRC#How_is_Wikipedia_IRC_related_to
_Wikipedia.3F), about the IRC channel guidelines
(https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC/wikipedia/Guidelines, also linked from
the channel topic in #wikipedia-en) or expectations of channel operators
(https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC/wikipedia/Channel_operator_guidelines),
or about the revision itself and its contents.

Yours,
Molly (GorillaWarfare)


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Nathan]

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:

> Nathan, I was responding to Lila's note to clarify that I had made the
> decision to not discuss anything privately with any WMF employee. The
> IRC discussion was referenced by Fae, so I sent a link to the
> discussion so everyone could see what he was talking about; I will
> absolutely stand by my words. I think it's very important for everyone
> to understand that the WMF is not trying to directly control my
> communication with the community and with WMF employees. These are all
> my decisions.
>
> Everyone who is encouraging me to stop posting on this thread seem to
> be the people who were asking for the clarification of my role in the
> first place. These people seemed to think this matter was urgent and
> that we shouldn't wait any longer- much less for me to understand the
> intricacies of those IRC channels- to get clarification. I was not the
> person to bring up the IRC discussion, but once it was brought up, I
> don't think many people would disagree that it was appropriate for me
> to respond with my account.
>
> We are all interested in hearing all sides of every story here, aren't
> we? I'm starting to get the feeling that there are things that some
> people on this list don't want *anyone* to discuss. After all, you
> could simply ignore my messages or even filter them from your inbox,
> if you are so inclined. This impression has been troubling me greatly.
> Do you know that this is *precisely* what many on Wikipediocracy are
> saying about this list? Are they right?
>
> ,Wil


I'm way post having posted too much on this subject, so one last brief
message and that will be it for me. Wil, I don't think anyone has objected
to criticism of Wikimedia or enwp policies on this list (other than over
forum selection for certain issues). People *have* objected to your
decision to associate with WO, and have attempted to describe to you why
they object.

Others (including me) have pointed out that your inexperience hampers your
power as a critic of internal processes. There are just a long list of
things you don't know much about, but that doesn't seem to prevent you from
complaining about them in high visibility forums like this list. My advice
is to take time away from lists and forums and controversial discussions
and just learn and experience the projects. Then come back and join the
more meta discussions.

I suspect you won't choose to follow that advice, since its been given
multiple other times and you haven't yet, but I hope you understand the
distinction between suggesting that you listen and learn before you opine
and demanding that you piss off and stop posting full stop. I'm doing the
former, no one has done the latter.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

Nathan, I was responding to Lila's note to clarify that I had made the
decision to not discuss anything privately with any WMF employee. The
IRC discussion was referenced by Fae, so I sent a link to the
discussion so everyone could see what he was talking about; I will
absolutely stand by my words. I think it's very important for everyone
to understand that the WMF is not trying to directly control my
communication with the community and with WMF employees. These are all
my decisions.

Everyone who is encouraging me to stop posting on this thread seem to
be the people who were asking for the clarification of my role in the
first place. These people seemed to think this matter was urgent and
that we shouldn't wait any longer- much less for me to understand the
intricacies of those IRC channels- to get clarification. I was not the
person to bring up the IRC discussion, but once it was brought up, I
don't think many people would disagree that it was appropriate for me
to respond with my account.

We are all interested in hearing all sides of every story here, aren't
we? I'm starting to get the feeling that there are things that some
people on this list don't want *anyone* to discuss. After all, you
could simply ignore my messages or even filter them from your inbox,
if you are so inclined. This impression has been troubling me greatly.
Do you know that this is *precisely* what many on Wikipediocracy are
saying about this list? Are they right?

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Nathan  wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
>
>> Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be
>> obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too. I posted the
>> following to Wikipediocracy a few minutes ago:
>>
>> "
>> I may have misread which page the rev was on, or I misunderstood the
>> person who said s/he revdeleted it in thinking that it had been
>> revdeleted in the previous few minutes. This is exactly why I prefer
>> public recorded forums. Now no one can go back to clear up the
>> confusion. For all I know, I might have to apologize for a
>> misunderstanding, and it would really suck if I somehow misrepresented
>> things and didn't have any opportunity to straighten things out.
>>
>> Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't
>> logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who
>> aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't
>> supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK,
>> but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be
>> disallowed). Next time I have a concern, I will take it to wikimedia-l
>> or one of the other mailing lists. As this example also shows, one
>> can't be sure that the revs on a page within Wikimedia's wikis
>> themselves won't be redacted after-the-fact. I'm not expressing an
>> opinion about whether stuff should be redacted or on what grounds, but
>> I am asserting that it is possible to do so.
>> "
>>
>> There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be
>> followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the
>> discussion that includes the comment above:
>> http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&p=96600#p96600
>>
>> ,Wil
>>
>>
>
> Hi Wil,
>
> This is exactly why others have suggested that you slow down, and focus on
> learning the basics of the Wikimedia projects and movements before jumping
> into the hottest, most controversial issues. It takes time to develop the
> understanding necessary to draw conclusions, especially in areas most
> likely to erupt into drama and heated exchanges.
>
> To wit, I don't believe it can even be determined if someone is logging a
> channel, and many people (including Wikimedians) log all of their channels.
> Several Wikimedia-related channels are publicly logged. Other channels
> prohibit people from publishing logs.
>
> It's also quite common knowledge that revisions can be deleted (by any
> administrator, where they remain viewable by administrators) or suppressed
> altogether (by users with Oversight rights). I think if you considered it
> with a full possession of the facts, you would agree that this is good and
> necessary.
>
> In any case, thank you Lila for your note! I appreciate that you have made
> it clear you've seen the threads of the last few weeks and understand the
> concerns that posters have described.
>
> ~Nathan
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

If people don't want me to discuss this here, of course we can take it
elsewhere.

I only reply to this publicly to suggest that you and others help me
out with that. For example, you have plenty of options beyond replying
list-wide to communicate the very thing you're telling me below. As
long as none of these concerns boil down to "Just shut up, Wil," I'm
all for optimizing communication. I think it's interesting, however,
that no one seems to think that messages containing +1's to other
people saying thanks aren't a waste of bandwidth or not entirely
appropriate for this list.

Thanks for the suggestion, in any case.
,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Risker  wrote:
> Wil, if you want to use email lists for your discussions, you may find a
> better reception if you use one of the project- or task-specific lists.
> There is a page on English Wikipedia with links to mailing lists that most
> closely relate to that project[1] and a more extensive list at Meta that
> describes lists for many other projects and specific areas of interest.[2]
> One is more likely to get a positive response when the audience is more
> accurately targeted.
>
> You will probably find that a lot of practical questions you have asked
> could easily be answered at the English Wikipedia Teahouse page, where you
> have been invited.  That would include questions about how to tell if
> something has been deleted from a page, how to read page histories, or even
> how to tell whether or not someone is WMF staff.
>
>
> Risker
>
>
>
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mailing_lists
>
>  [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Overview
>
>
>
>
> On 28 May 2014 13:07, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
>
>> Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be
>> obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too. I posted the
>> following to Wikipediocracy a few minutes ago:
>>
>> "
>> I may have misread which page the rev was on, or I misunderstood the
>> person who said s/he revdeleted it in thinking that it had been
>> revdeleted in the previous few minutes. This is exactly why I prefer
>> public recorded forums. Now no one can go back to clear up the
>> confusion. For all I know, I might have to apologize for a
>> misunderstanding, and it would really suck if I somehow misrepresented
>> things and didn't have any opportunity to straighten things out.
>>
>> Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't
>> logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who
>> aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't
>> supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK,
>> but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be
>> disallowed). Next time I have a concern, I will take it to wikimedia-l
>> or one of the other mailing lists. As this example also shows, one
>> can't be sure that the revs on a page within Wikimedia's wikis
>> themselves won't be redacted after-the-fact. I'm not expressing an
>> opinion about whether stuff should be redacted or on what grounds, but
>> I am asserting that it is possible to do so.
>> "
>>
>> There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be
>> followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the
>> discussion that includes the comment above:
>> http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&p=96600#p96600
>>
>> ,Wil
>>
>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Risker  wrote:
>> > Wil, the deletion log of the page in question is publicly visible.  There
>> > are no WMF employees who have deleted anything on that page, ever. This
>> is
>> > information you can check for yourself instead of relying on the words of
>> > others.
>> >
>> > Risker
>> >
>> >
>> > On 28 May 2014 12:23, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Fae, if you're referring to the discussion on this page, then I
>> >> think I make it quite clear why I won't engage with WMF employees
>> >> going forward:
>> >> http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&start=150.
>> >>
>> >> To be sure, I'm not used to having anyone from Lila's team immediately
>> >> emailing her through their official company addresses as soon as I ask
>> >> a question in a public forum. In this case, the WMF has made it quite
>> >> clear that the IRC channels aren't official and/or sponsored by the
>> >> WMF, and I was asking about community affairs WRT to those channels.
>> >> So my question about why a user was kicked from the channel didn't
>> >> have anything to do with the WMF. I still don't understand why this
>> >> employee felt it was necessary to bring Lila's attention to "safety
>> >> concerns" through official WMF employee channels, although I'm sure he
>> >> or she felt it was the right thing to do and I've given them the
>> >> benefit of the doubt that it was. Of course, I can't form my own
>> >> independent opinion, since a WMF employee revdeleted the rev in
>> >> question in the ~10 minutes between 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

Yes, that was mentioned on the Wikipediocracy thread, as well. I
apologize to that person and the WMF for my misunderstanding.

Other than establishing the fact that I wrongly stated that this
person is a WMF employee, the revdelete doesn't seem to warrant more
investigation according to existing policy. As I mentioned before, I
assume this revdelete was justified by published policy, so it doesn't
matter who made it beyond correcting my mistake. I would like to
protect that person's ability to act in good faith going forward.

The IRC conversation could warrant more discussion based on whether
there is interest. I've said all I wanted to say on the matter (that I
will not be engaging in private conversations with WMF employees for
the time being), but I'd be happy to answer any questions that others
might have.

Again, I'm sorry for my mistake, and thanks for pointing it out.
,Wil



On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Brandon Harris  wrote:
> A slight correction: the revision was rev-deleted by a member of the 
> community - a member of ArbCom, in fact - and not an employee of the 
> Foundation.
>
> Snt frm m Phn
>
>> On May 28, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Fae, if you're referring to the discussion on this page, then I
>> think I make it quite clear why I won't engage with WMF employees
>> going forward: 
>> http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&start=150.
>>
>> To be sure, I'm not used to having anyone from Lila's team immediately
>> emailing her through their official company addresses as soon as I ask
>> a question in a public forum. In this case, the WMF has made it quite
>> clear that the IRC channels aren't official and/or sponsored by the
>> WMF, and I was asking about community affairs WRT to those channels.
>> So my question about why a user was kicked from the channel didn't
>> have anything to do with the WMF. I still don't understand why this
>> employee felt it was necessary to bring Lila's attention to "safety
>> concerns" through official WMF employee channels, although I'm sure he
>> or she felt it was the right thing to do and I've given them the
>> benefit of the doubt that it was. Of course, I can't form my own
>> independent opinion, since a WMF employee revdeleted the rev in
>> question in the ~10 minutes between when it was first posted and when
>> I tried clicking on the link.
>>
>> In any case, it should be made clear that the WMF did not ask me to
>> disengage with employees and has not yet asked me to stop posting to
>> Wikipediocracy directly. So far, the organization itself has respected
>> my individuality; I can only appeal to everyone in the WP community
>> and all WMF employees to do the same in the future. I will be engaging
>> with the broader WP community in whatever way I can, but I've made the
>> hard decision to limit my engagement with WMF employees to public,
>> logged forums from now on.
>>
>> ,Wil
>>
>>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Fæ  wrote:
 On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov  wrote:
 ...
 independent individual
 able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not
 take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the WMF
 employees.
>>>
>>> Thanks for making these distinctions. It is sad to see that your time
>>> and energy is being used so early on in your introduction to the
>>> Wikimedia community, in creating a political distance between yourself
>>> and the public actions of your life partner, due to his casual
>>> curiosity about Wikimedia projects. A curiosity that only manifested
>>> itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the
>>> Foundation board.
>>>
>>> I do not really understand the point being made about not "engaging"
>>> with WMF employees, any active volunteer on Wikimedia projects should
>>> and must be free to engage with WMF employees. The statement does not
>>> appear to match actions over the last 24 hours, with Wil freely making
>>> public comments about his dissatisfaction after conversations
>>> (emails?) with some WMF employees.
>>>
>>> Thanks again for clarifying your position during this difficult start
>>> to your engagement.
>>>
>>> Fae
>>> --
>>> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>>> 
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>> 
>
> __

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Risker]

Wil, if you want to use email lists for your discussions, you may find a
better reception if you use one of the project- or task-specific lists.
There is a page on English Wikipedia with links to mailing lists that most
closely relate to that project[1] and a more extensive list at Meta that
describes lists for many other projects and specific areas of interest.[2]
One is more likely to get a positive response when the audience is more
accurately targeted.

You will probably find that a lot of practical questions you have asked
could easily be answered at the English Wikipedia Teahouse page, where you
have been invited.  That would include questions about how to tell if
something has been deleted from a page, how to read page histories, or even
how to tell whether or not someone is WMF staff.


Risker




[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mailing_lists

 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Overview




On 28 May 2014 13:07, Wil Sinclair  wrote:

> Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be
> obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too. I posted the
> following to Wikipediocracy a few minutes ago:
>
> "
> I may have misread which page the rev was on, or I misunderstood the
> person who said s/he revdeleted it in thinking that it had been
> revdeleted in the previous few minutes. This is exactly why I prefer
> public recorded forums. Now no one can go back to clear up the
> confusion. For all I know, I might have to apologize for a
> misunderstanding, and it would really suck if I somehow misrepresented
> things and didn't have any opportunity to straighten things out.
>
> Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't
> logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who
> aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't
> supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK,
> but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be
> disallowed). Next time I have a concern, I will take it to wikimedia-l
> or one of the other mailing lists. As this example also shows, one
> can't be sure that the revs on a page within Wikimedia's wikis
> themselves won't be redacted after-the-fact. I'm not expressing an
> opinion about whether stuff should be redacted or on what grounds, but
> I am asserting that it is possible to do so.
> "
>
> There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be
> followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the
> discussion that includes the comment above:
> http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&p=96600#p96600
>
> ,Wil
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Risker  wrote:
> > Wil, the deletion log of the page in question is publicly visible.  There
> > are no WMF employees who have deleted anything on that page, ever. This
> is
> > information you can check for yourself instead of relying on the words of
> > others.
> >
> > Risker
> >
> >
> > On 28 May 2014 12:23, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Fae, if you're referring to the discussion on this page, then I
> >> think I make it quite clear why I won't engage with WMF employees
> >> going forward:
> >> http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&start=150.
> >>
> >> To be sure, I'm not used to having anyone from Lila's team immediately
> >> emailing her through their official company addresses as soon as I ask
> >> a question in a public forum. In this case, the WMF has made it quite
> >> clear that the IRC channels aren't official and/or sponsored by the
> >> WMF, and I was asking about community affairs WRT to those channels.
> >> So my question about why a user was kicked from the channel didn't
> >> have anything to do with the WMF. I still don't understand why this
> >> employee felt it was necessary to bring Lila's attention to "safety
> >> concerns" through official WMF employee channels, although I'm sure he
> >> or she felt it was the right thing to do and I've given them the
> >> benefit of the doubt that it was. Of course, I can't form my own
> >> independent opinion, since a WMF employee revdeleted the rev in
> >> question in the ~10 minutes between when it was first posted and when
> >> I tried clicking on the link.
> >>
> >> In any case, it should be made clear that the WMF did not ask me to
> >> disengage with employees and has not yet asked me to stop posting to
> >> Wikipediocracy directly. So far, the organization itself has respected
> >> my individuality; I can only appeal to everyone in the WP community
> >> and all WMF employees to do the same in the future. I will be engaging
> >> with the broader WP community in whatever way I can, but I've made the
> >> hard decision to limit my engagement with WMF employees to public,
> >> logged forums from now on.
> >>
> >> ,Wil
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Fæ  wrote:
> >> > On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov  wrote:
> >> > ...
> >> >> independent individual
> >> >> ab

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Nathan]

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:

> Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be
> obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too. I posted the
> following to Wikipediocracy a few minutes ago:
>
> "
> I may have misread which page the rev was on, or I misunderstood the
> person who said s/he revdeleted it in thinking that it had been
> revdeleted in the previous few minutes. This is exactly why I prefer
> public recorded forums. Now no one can go back to clear up the
> confusion. For all I know, I might have to apologize for a
> misunderstanding, and it would really suck if I somehow misrepresented
> things and didn't have any opportunity to straighten things out.
>
> Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't
> logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who
> aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't
> supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK,
> but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be
> disallowed). Next time I have a concern, I will take it to wikimedia-l
> or one of the other mailing lists. As this example also shows, one
> can't be sure that the revs on a page within Wikimedia's wikis
> themselves won't be redacted after-the-fact. I'm not expressing an
> opinion about whether stuff should be redacted or on what grounds, but
> I am asserting that it is possible to do so.
> "
>
> There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be
> followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the
> discussion that includes the comment above:
> http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&p=96600#p96600
>
> ,Wil
>
>

Hi Wil,

This is exactly why others have suggested that you slow down, and focus on
learning the basics of the Wikimedia projects and movements before jumping
into the hottest, most controversial issues. It takes time to develop the
understanding necessary to draw conclusions, especially in areas most
likely to erupt into drama and heated exchanges.

To wit, I don't believe it can even be determined if someone is logging a
channel, and many people (including Wikimedians) log all of their channels.
Several Wikimedia-related channels are publicly logged. Other channels
prohibit people from publishing logs.

It's also quite common knowledge that revisions can be deleted (by any
administrator, where they remain viewable by administrators) or suppressed
altogether (by users with Oversight rights). I think if you considered it
with a full possession of the facts, you would agree that this is good and
necessary.

In any case, thank you Lila for your note! I appreciate that you have made
it clear you've seen the threads of the last few weeks and understand the
concerns that posters have described.

~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Martijn Hoekstra]

On May 28, 2014 7:09 PM, "Wil Sinclair"  wrote:
>
> Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be
> obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too. I posted the
> following to Wikipediocracy a few minutes ago:
>
> "
> I may have misread which page the rev was on, or I misunderstood the
> person who said s/he revdeleted it in thinking that it had been
> revdeleted in the previous few minutes. This is exactly why I prefer
> public recorded forums. Now no one can go back to clear up the
> confusion. For all I know, I might have to apologize for a
> misunderstanding, and it would really suck if I somehow misrepresented
> things and didn't have any opportunity to straighten things out.
>
> Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't
> logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who
> aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't
> supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK,
> but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be
> disallowed).

I think you may have misunderstood. Public logging is not allowed, but it's
fine to keep logs for yourself.

I wouldn't mind public logging myself, by the way.

Next time I have a concern, I will take it to wikimedia-l
> or one of the other mailing lists. As this example also shows, one
> can't be sure that the revs on a page within Wikimedia's wikis
> themselves won't be redacted after-the-fact. I'm not expressing an
> opinion about whether stuff should be redacted or on what grounds, but
> I am asserting that it is possible to do so.
> "

Your observation is correct. It is possible to delete revisions from
history. This will be logged. I'm a little surprised you seem surprised by
this. Am I misunderstanding what you mean?

>
> There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be
> followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the
> discussion that includes the comment above:
> http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&p=96600#p96600
>
> ,Wil
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Risker  wrote:
> > Wil, the deletion log of the page in question is publicly visible.
 There
> > are no WMF employees who have deleted anything on that page, ever. This
is
> > information you can check for yourself instead of relying on the words
of
> > others.
> >
> > Risker
> >
> >
> > On 28 May 2014 12:23, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Fae, if you're referring to the discussion on this page, then I
> >> think I make it quite clear why I won't engage with WMF employees
> >> going forward:
> >> http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&start=150.
> >>
> >> To be sure, I'm not used to having anyone from Lila's team immediately
> >> emailing her through their official company addresses as soon as I ask
> >> a question in a public forum. In this case, the WMF has made it quite
> >> clear that the IRC channels aren't official and/or sponsored by the
> >> WMF, and I was asking about community affairs WRT to those channels.
> >> So my question about why a user was kicked from the channel didn't
> >> have anything to do with the WMF. I still don't understand why this
> >> employee felt it was necessary to bring Lila's attention to "safety
> >> concerns" through official WMF employee channels, although I'm sure he
> >> or she felt it was the right thing to do and I've given them the
> >> benefit of the doubt that it was. Of course, I can't form my own
> >> independent opinion, since a WMF employee revdeleted the rev in
> >> question in the ~10 minutes between when it was first posted and when
> >> I tried clicking on the link.
> >>
> >> In any case, it should be made clear that the WMF did not ask me to
> >> disengage with employees and has not yet asked me to stop posting to
> >> Wikipediocracy directly. So far, the organization itself has respected
> >> my individuality; I can only appeal to everyone in the WP community
> >> and all WMF employees to do the same in the future. I will be engaging
> >> with the broader WP community in whatever way I can, but I've made the
> >> hard decision to limit my engagement with WMF employees to public,
> >> logged forums from now on.
> >>
> >> ,Wil
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Fæ  wrote:
> >> > On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov  wrote:
> >> > ...
> >> >> independent individual
> >> >> able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does
not
> >> >> take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with
the
> >> WMF
> >> >> employees.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for making these distinctions. It is sad to see that your time
> >> > and energy is being used so early on in your introduction to the
> >> > Wikimedia community, in creating a political distance between
yourself
> >> > and the public actions of your life partner, due to his casual
> >> > curiosity about Wikimedia projects. A curiosity that only manifested
> >> > itself shortly after

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be
obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too. I posted the
following to Wikipediocracy a few minutes ago:

"
I may have misread which page the rev was on, or I misunderstood the
person who said s/he revdeleted it in thinking that it had been
revdeleted in the previous few minutes. This is exactly why I prefer
public recorded forums. Now no one can go back to clear up the
confusion. For all I know, I might have to apologize for a
misunderstanding, and it would really suck if I somehow misrepresented
things and didn't have any opportunity to straighten things out.

Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't
logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who
aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't
supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK,
but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be
disallowed). Next time I have a concern, I will take it to wikimedia-l
or one of the other mailing lists. As this example also shows, one
can't be sure that the revs on a page within Wikimedia's wikis
themselves won't be redacted after-the-fact. I'm not expressing an
opinion about whether stuff should be redacted or on what grounds, but
I am asserting that it is possible to do so.
"

There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be
followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the
discussion that includes the comment above:
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&p=96600#p96600

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Risker  wrote:
> Wil, the deletion log of the page in question is publicly visible.  There
> are no WMF employees who have deleted anything on that page, ever. This is
> information you can check for yourself instead of relying on the words of
> others.
>
> Risker
>
>
> On 28 May 2014 12:23, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
>
>> Hi Fae, if you're referring to the discussion on this page, then I
>> think I make it quite clear why I won't engage with WMF employees
>> going forward:
>> http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&start=150.
>>
>> To be sure, I'm not used to having anyone from Lila's team immediately
>> emailing her through their official company addresses as soon as I ask
>> a question in a public forum. In this case, the WMF has made it quite
>> clear that the IRC channels aren't official and/or sponsored by the
>> WMF, and I was asking about community affairs WRT to those channels.
>> So my question about why a user was kicked from the channel didn't
>> have anything to do with the WMF. I still don't understand why this
>> employee felt it was necessary to bring Lila's attention to "safety
>> concerns" through official WMF employee channels, although I'm sure he
>> or she felt it was the right thing to do and I've given them the
>> benefit of the doubt that it was. Of course, I can't form my own
>> independent opinion, since a WMF employee revdeleted the rev in
>> question in the ~10 minutes between when it was first posted and when
>> I tried clicking on the link.
>>
>> In any case, it should be made clear that the WMF did not ask me to
>> disengage with employees and has not yet asked me to stop posting to
>> Wikipediocracy directly. So far, the organization itself has respected
>> my individuality; I can only appeal to everyone in the WP community
>> and all WMF employees to do the same in the future. I will be engaging
>> with the broader WP community in whatever way I can, but I've made the
>> hard decision to limit my engagement with WMF employees to public,
>> logged forums from now on.
>>
>> ,Wil
>>
>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Fæ  wrote:
>> > On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov  wrote:
>> > ...
>> >> independent individual
>> >> able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not
>> >> take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the
>> WMF
>> >> employees.
>> >
>> > Thanks for making these distinctions. It is sad to see that your time
>> > and energy is being used so early on in your introduction to the
>> > Wikimedia community, in creating a political distance between yourself
>> > and the public actions of your life partner, due to his casual
>> > curiosity about Wikimedia projects. A curiosity that only manifested
>> > itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the
>> > Foundation board.
>> >
>> > I do not really understand the point being made about not "engaging"
>> > with WMF employees, any active volunteer on Wikimedia projects should
>> > and must be free to engage with WMF employees. The statement does not
>> > appear to match actions over the last 24 hours, with Wil freely making
>> > public comments about his dissatisfaction after conversations
>> > (emails?) with some WMF employees.
>> >
>> > Thanks again for clarifying your position during this difficult start
>> > to yo

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote:
> If you're talking about the message left on Oliver's talk page, it was
> a threat by a banned user which included reference to a dream about
> him where "knees were nailed to the floor from the back" and other
> such lovely details. That's precisely what moderation features on any
> site are for, and to the extent that it included implications of
> violence, yes, bringing safety concerns to the attention of senior
> staff at WMF is appropriate.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Erik

Again, this is not my concern. It is my prerogative whether to talk to
WMF employees privately, however, and I choose not to. My apologies
that we won't be able to carry on with our own private conversation,
Erik.

,Wil

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Risker]

Wil, the deletion log of the page in question is publicly visible.  There
are no WMF employees who have deleted anything on that page, ever. This is
information you can check for yourself instead of relying on the words of
others.

Risker


On 28 May 2014 12:23, Wil Sinclair  wrote:

> Hi Fae, if you're referring to the discussion on this page, then I
> think I make it quite clear why I won't engage with WMF employees
> going forward:
> http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&start=150.
>
> To be sure, I'm not used to having anyone from Lila's team immediately
> emailing her through their official company addresses as soon as I ask
> a question in a public forum. In this case, the WMF has made it quite
> clear that the IRC channels aren't official and/or sponsored by the
> WMF, and I was asking about community affairs WRT to those channels.
> So my question about why a user was kicked from the channel didn't
> have anything to do with the WMF. I still don't understand why this
> employee felt it was necessary to bring Lila's attention to "safety
> concerns" through official WMF employee channels, although I'm sure he
> or she felt it was the right thing to do and I've given them the
> benefit of the doubt that it was. Of course, I can't form my own
> independent opinion, since a WMF employee revdeleted the rev in
> question in the ~10 minutes between when it was first posted and when
> I tried clicking on the link.
>
> In any case, it should be made clear that the WMF did not ask me to
> disengage with employees and has not yet asked me to stop posting to
> Wikipediocracy directly. So far, the organization itself has respected
> my individuality; I can only appeal to everyone in the WP community
> and all WMF employees to do the same in the future. I will be engaging
> with the broader WP community in whatever way I can, but I've made the
> hard decision to limit my engagement with WMF employees to public,
> logged forums from now on.
>
> ,Wil
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Fæ  wrote:
> > On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov  wrote:
> > ...
> >> independent individual
> >> able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not
> >> take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the
> WMF
> >> employees.
> >
> > Thanks for making these distinctions. It is sad to see that your time
> > and energy is being used so early on in your introduction to the
> > Wikimedia community, in creating a political distance between yourself
> > and the public actions of your life partner, due to his casual
> > curiosity about Wikimedia projects. A curiosity that only manifested
> > itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the
> > Foundation board.
> >
> > I do not really understand the point being made about not "engaging"
> > with WMF employees, any active volunteer on Wikimedia projects should
> > and must be free to engage with WMF employees. The statement does not
> > appear to match actions over the last 24 hours, with Wil freely making
> > public comments about his dissatisfaction after conversations
> > (emails?) with some WMF employees.
> >
> > Thanks again for clarifying your position during this difficult start
> > to your engagement.
> >
> > Fae
> > --
> > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Erik Moeller]

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
> To be sure, I'm not used to having anyone from Lila's team immediately
> emailing her through their official company addresses as soon as I ask
> a question in a public forum. In this case, the WMF has made it quite
> clear that the IRC channels aren't official and/or sponsored by the
> WMF, and I was asking about community affairs WRT to those channels.
> So my question about why a user was kicked from the channel didn't
> have anything to do with the WMF. I still don't understand why this
> employee felt it was necessary to bring Lila's attention to "safety
> concerns" through official WMF employee channels, although I'm sure he
> or she felt it was the right thing to do and I've given them the
> benefit of the doubt that it was. Of course, I can't form my own
> independent opinion, since a WMF employee revdeleted the rev in
> question in the ~10 minutes between when it was first posted and when
> I tried clicking on the link.

If you're talking about the message left on Oliver's talk page, it was
a threat by a banned user which included reference to a dream about
him where "knees were nailed to the floor from the back" and other
such lovely details. That's precisely what moderation features on any
site are for, and to the extent that it included implications of
violence, yes, bringing safety concerns to the attention of senior
staff at WMF is appropriate.

Cheers,

Erik

-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Erik Moeller]

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Michael Snow  wrote:
> If those guidelines are respected, there should be no
> problem about Wil interacting with staff in an ordinary fashion. I'm sure
> Wil understands this and will be careful about it, and it's also good that
> Lila has said this publicly so that people have something to point to, in
> case anything is uncertain about whether Wil has some sort of special
> authority.

Yes - agreed. Let's judge Lila by her actions and Wil by his. To the
extent that her association with a quirky, curious, hyperactive guy
who enjoys poking things says anything about her, it's that she'll fit
right in :)

Erik
-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Brandon Harris]

A slight correction: the revision was rev-deleted by a member of the community 
- a member of ArbCom, in fact - and not an employee of the Foundation. 

Snt frm m Phn

> On May 28, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Wil Sinclair  wrote:
> 
> Hi Fae, if you're referring to the discussion on this page, then I
> think I make it quite clear why I won't engage with WMF employees
> going forward: 
> http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&start=150.
> 
> To be sure, I'm not used to having anyone from Lila's team immediately
> emailing her through their official company addresses as soon as I ask
> a question in a public forum. In this case, the WMF has made it quite
> clear that the IRC channels aren't official and/or sponsored by the
> WMF, and I was asking about community affairs WRT to those channels.
> So my question about why a user was kicked from the channel didn't
> have anything to do with the WMF. I still don't understand why this
> employee felt it was necessary to bring Lila's attention to "safety
> concerns" through official WMF employee channels, although I'm sure he
> or she felt it was the right thing to do and I've given them the
> benefit of the doubt that it was. Of course, I can't form my own
> independent opinion, since a WMF employee revdeleted the rev in
> question in the ~10 minutes between when it was first posted and when
> I tried clicking on the link.
> 
> In any case, it should be made clear that the WMF did not ask me to
> disengage with employees and has not yet asked me to stop posting to
> Wikipediocracy directly. So far, the organization itself has respected
> my individuality; I can only appeal to everyone in the WP community
> and all WMF employees to do the same in the future. I will be engaging
> with the broader WP community in whatever way I can, but I've made the
> hard decision to limit my engagement with WMF employees to public,
> logged forums from now on.
> 
> ,Wil
> 
>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Fæ  wrote:
>>> On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov  wrote:
>>> ...
>>> independent individual
>>> able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not
>>> take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the WMF
>>> employees.
>> 
>> Thanks for making these distinctions. It is sad to see that your time
>> and energy is being used so early on in your introduction to the
>> Wikimedia community, in creating a political distance between yourself
>> and the public actions of your life partner, due to his casual
>> curiosity about Wikimedia projects. A curiosity that only manifested
>> itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the
>> Foundation board.
>> 
>> I do not really understand the point being made about not "engaging"
>> with WMF employees, any active volunteer on Wikimedia projects should
>> and must be free to engage with WMF employees. The statement does not
>> appear to match actions over the last 24 hours, with Wil freely making
>> public comments about his dissatisfaction after conversations
>> (emails?) with some WMF employees.
>> 
>> Thanks again for clarifying your position during this difficult start
>> to your engagement.
>> 
>> Fae
>> --
>> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>> 
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

Hi Fae, if you're referring to the discussion on this page, then I
think I make it quite clear why I won't engage with WMF employees
going forward: 
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4680&start=150.

To be sure, I'm not used to having anyone from Lila's team immediately
emailing her through their official company addresses as soon as I ask
a question in a public forum. In this case, the WMF has made it quite
clear that the IRC channels aren't official and/or sponsored by the
WMF, and I was asking about community affairs WRT to those channels.
So my question about why a user was kicked from the channel didn't
have anything to do with the WMF. I still don't understand why this
employee felt it was necessary to bring Lila's attention to "safety
concerns" through official WMF employee channels, although I'm sure he
or she felt it was the right thing to do and I've given them the
benefit of the doubt that it was. Of course, I can't form my own
independent opinion, since a WMF employee revdeleted the rev in
question in the ~10 minutes between when it was first posted and when
I tried clicking on the link.

In any case, it should be made clear that the WMF did not ask me to
disengage with employees and has not yet asked me to stop posting to
Wikipediocracy directly. So far, the organization itself has respected
my individuality; I can only appeal to everyone in the WP community
and all WMF employees to do the same in the future. I will be engaging
with the broader WP community in whatever way I can, but I've made the
hard decision to limit my engagement with WMF employees to public,
logged forums from now on.

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Fæ  wrote:
> On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov  wrote:
> ...
>> independent individual
>> able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not
>> take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the WMF
>> employees.
>
> Thanks for making these distinctions. It is sad to see that your time
> and energy is being used so early on in your introduction to the
> Wikimedia community, in creating a political distance between yourself
> and the public actions of your life partner, due to his casual
> curiosity about Wikimedia projects. A curiosity that only manifested
> itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the
> Foundation board.
>
> I do not really understand the point being made about not "engaging"
> with WMF employees, any active volunteer on Wikimedia projects should
> and must be free to engage with WMF employees. The statement does not
> appear to match actions over the last 24 hours, with Wil freely making
> public comments about his dissatisfaction after conversations
> (emails?) with some WMF employees.
>
> Thanks again for clarifying your position during this difficult start
> to your engagement.
>
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Lila Tretikov]

Thanks Michael for spelling this out further. Your understanding is correct.


On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Michael Snow wrote:

> On 5/28/2014 5:59 AM, Fæ wrote:
>
>> On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov  wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> independent individual
>>> able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not
>>> take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the
>>> WMF
>>> employees.
>>>
>> I do not really understand the point being made about not "engaging"
>>
>> with WMF employees, any active volunteer on Wikimedia projects should
>> and must be free to engage with WMF employees. The statement does not
>> appear to match actions over the last 24 hours, with Wil freely making
>> public comments about his dissatisfaction after conversations
>> (emails?) with some WMF employees.
>>
> I believe the point is that Wil, in particular, will not interfere with
> Wikimedia staff in carrying out their duties, assign them specific tasks,
> or otherwise attempt to supervise and direct their work. These functions
> properly belong to the employee's supervisor, so it's good for community
> members to keep this in mind generally, but especially important for Wil
> because otherwise his connection to Lila might create concern or confusion
> for the staff (as in the recent GitHub situation, which I believe was
> already mentioned). If those guidelines are respected, there should be no
> problem about Wil interacting with staff in an ordinary fashion. I'm sure
> Wil understands this and will be careful about it, and it's also good that
> Lila has said this publicly so that people have something to point to, in
> case anything is uncertain about whether Wil has some sort of special
> authority.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Fæ]

On 28 May 2014 16:55, Michael Snow  wrote:
> On 5/28/2014 5:59 AM, Fæ wrote:
...
>> I do not really understand the point being made about not "engaging"
...
> I believe the point is that Wil, in particular, will not interfere with
> Wikimedia staff in carrying out their duties, assign them specific tasks, or
> otherwise attempt to supervise and direct their work. These functions
> properly belong to the employee's supervisor, so it's good for community
> members to keep this in mind generally, but especially important for Wil
> because otherwise his connection to Lila might create concern or confusion
> for the staff (as in the recent GitHub situation, which I believe was
> already mentioned). If those guidelines are respected, there should be no
> problem about Wil interacting with staff in an ordinary fashion. I'm sure
> Wil understands this and will be careful about it, and it's also good that
> Lila has said this publicly so that people have something to point to, in
> case anything is uncertain about whether Wil has some sort of special
> authority.

Thanks, that is a nice interpretation, it would be useful to have a
confirmation that this was the intention of Lila's email.

It will be interesting to see whether in practice Wil has special
authority, or not. It is quite hard to judge right now, having made so
few contributions to Wikimedia projects, and as in the majority of
discussions in various places (including Wil's English Wikipedia user
page) his preferred form of first introduction is as "Lila Tretikov's
significant other", which colours everyone's perception of how he
should be treated.

Thanks,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Michael Snow]

On 5/28/2014 5:59 AM, Fæ wrote:

On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov  wrote:
...

independent individual
able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not
take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the WMF
employees.

I do not really understand the point being made about not "engaging"
with WMF employees, any active volunteer on Wikimedia projects should
and must be free to engage with WMF employees. The statement does not
appear to match actions over the last 24 hours, with Wil freely making
public comments about his dissatisfaction after conversations
(emails?) with some WMF employees.
I believe the point is that Wil, in particular, will not interfere with 
Wikimedia staff in carrying out their duties, assign them specific 
tasks, or otherwise attempt to supervise and direct their work. These 
functions properly belong to the employee's supervisor, so it's good for 
community members to keep this in mind generally, but especially 
important for Wil because otherwise his connection to Lila might create 
concern or confusion for the staff (as in the recent GitHub situation, 
which I believe was already mentioned). If those guidelines are 
respected, there should be no problem about Wil interacting with staff 
in an ordinary fashion. I'm sure Wil understands this and will be 
careful about it, and it's also good that Lila has said this publicly so 
that people have something to point to, in case anything is uncertain 
about whether Wil has some sort of special authority.


--Michael Snow

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Fæ]

Hi Victor,

That's great. I can't see any complaints about WMF employees in the
links you provided.

I am sure that we could find 100 examples of the partners of
Wikimedians doing something on Wikimedia projects, it would be a great
topic for "reasons why I love Wikimedia"... That is not the issue
here, in fact I encouraged Wil to get experience contributing to the
projects *before* using highly public platforms to complain about
Wikimedia and Lila's new employees.

Thanks,
Fae

On 28 May 2014 16:49, Victor Grigas  wrote:
> My significant other applied for a grant and got 500 Wikireaders
> distributed to 3 schools:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Aislinn_Dewey/Distribute_WikiReaders_to_Schools/Report
>
> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/help-distribute-wikireaders-and-provide-an-opportunity-for-kids-to-learn
>
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Fæ  wrote:
>
>> On 28 May 2014 15:04, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
>> ...
>> > So that Wil's interest manifested around the time Lila was announced as
>> > the next ED seems to me to be perfectly natural, even if I have
>> > expressed serious concerns about *how* that interest was expressed.
>> > -- Marc
>>
>> There is a big difference between your partner having an interest in
>> your organization, and going on to publish public complaints about the
>> staff that you have complete authority and responsibility for
>> employing.
>>
>> I may be wrong, perhaps someone has some examples of where this worked
>> out well? The only examples from history and the political world I can
>> recall, did not.
>>
>> Fae
>> --
>> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Victor Grigas*
> Storyteller 
> Wikimedia Foundation
> vgri...@wikimedia.org
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 



-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Victor Grigas]

My significant other applied for a grant and got 500 Wikireaders
distributed to 3 schools:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Aislinn_Dewey/Distribute_WikiReaders_to_Schools/Report

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/help-distribute-wikireaders-and-provide-an-opportunity-for-kids-to-learn


On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> On 28 May 2014 15:04, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
> ...
> > So that Wil's interest manifested around the time Lila was announced as
> > the next ED seems to me to be perfectly natural, even if I have
> > expressed serious concerns about *how* that interest was expressed.
> > -- Marc
>
> There is a big difference between your partner having an interest in
> your organization, and going on to publish public complaints about the
> staff that you have complete authority and responsibility for
> employing.
>
> I may be wrong, perhaps someone has some examples of where this worked
> out well? The only examples from history and the political world I can
> recall, did not.
>
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 

*Victor Grigas*
Storyteller 
Wikimedia Foundation
vgri...@wikimedia.org
https://donate.wikimedia.org/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Fæ]

On 28 May 2014 15:04, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
...
> So that Wil's interest manifested around the time Lila was announced as
> the next ED seems to me to be perfectly natural, even if I have
> expressed serious concerns about *how* that interest was expressed.
> -- Marc

There is a big difference between your partner having an interest in
your organization, and going on to publish public complaints about the
staff that you have complete authority and responsibility for
employing.

I may be wrong, perhaps someone has some examples of where this worked
out well? The only examples from history and the political world I can
recall, did not.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Jon Davies]

My wife, thanks to Viisual Editor, now creates pages!


On 28 May 2014 16:21, Everton Zanella Alvarenga
wrote:

> Just a personal testimonial also to emphasize Marc's point and not
> necessarily when I did a work for WMF as a contractor, my previous
> girlfriend got interesting in Wikimedia projects after she saw somethings I
> worked on my spare time as a volunteer. She even began to write at
> Wikimedia Brasil mailing list and outreach Wikimedia projects. ;)
>
> In fact, she still does sometimes some outreach and have even participate
> of a Wikimedia meeting recently. (Well, better not say her opinion on
> Wikidramas, totally aligned with mine : )
>
> Tom
>
>
> 2014-05-28 11:04 GMT-03:00 Marc A. Pelletier :
>
> > On 05/28/2014 08:59 AM, Fæ wrote:
> > > A curiosity that only manifested
> > > itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the
> > > Foundation board.
> >
> > In all fairness, Fæ, if my spouse had been hired as the leader of a very
> > visible and significant business or nonprofit, I too would find myself
> > interested in what it is, what its values are, and how it goes about
> > things even if I had been previously unaware or uninterested in it.
> >
> > So that Wil's interest manifested around the time Lila was announced as
> > the next ED seems to me to be perfectly natural, even if I have
> > expressed serious concerns about *how* that interest was expressed.
> >
> > -- Marc
> >
> > --
> > Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom)
> > Open Knowledge Brasil - Rede pelo Conhecimento Livre
> > http://br.okfn.org
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
*Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*.  Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169
tweet @jonatreesdavies

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.

Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Everton Zanella Alvarenga]

Just a personal testimonial also to emphasize Marc's point and not
necessarily when I did a work for WMF as a contractor, my previous
girlfriend got interesting in Wikimedia projects after she saw somethings I
worked on my spare time as a volunteer. She even began to write at
Wikimedia Brasil mailing list and outreach Wikimedia projects. ;)

In fact, she still does sometimes some outreach and have even participate
of a Wikimedia meeting recently. (Well, better not say her opinion on
Wikidramas, totally aligned with mine : )

Tom


2014-05-28 11:04 GMT-03:00 Marc A. Pelletier :

> On 05/28/2014 08:59 AM, Fæ wrote:
> > A curiosity that only manifested
> > itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the
> > Foundation board.
>
> In all fairness, Fæ, if my spouse had been hired as the leader of a very
> visible and significant business or nonprofit, I too would find myself
> interested in what it is, what its values are, and how it goes about
> things even if I had been previously unaware or uninterested in it.
>
> So that Wil's interest manifested around the time Lila was announced as
> the next ED seems to me to be perfectly natural, even if I have
> expressed serious concerns about *how* that interest was expressed.
>
> -- Marc
>
> --
> Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom)
> Open Knowledge Brasil - Rede pelo Conhecimento Livre
> http://br.okfn.org
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 05/28/2014 08:59 AM, Fæ wrote:
> A curiosity that only manifested
> itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the
> Foundation board.

In all fairness, Fæ, if my spouse had been hired as the leader of a very
visible and significant business or nonprofit, I too would find myself
interested in what it is, what its values are, and how it goes about
things even if I had been previously unaware or uninterested in it.

So that Wil's interest manifested around the time Lila was announced as
the next ED seems to me to be perfectly natural, even if I have
expressed serious concerns about *how* that interest was expressed.

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Fæ]

On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov  wrote:
...
> independent individual
> able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not
> take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the WMF
> employees.

Thanks for making these distinctions. It is sad to see that your time
and energy is being used so early on in your introduction to the
Wikimedia community, in creating a political distance between yourself
and the public actions of your life partner, due to his casual
curiosity about Wikimedia projects. A curiosity that only manifested
itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the
Foundation board.

I do not really understand the point being made about not "engaging"
with WMF employees, any active volunteer on Wikimedia projects should
and must be free to engage with WMF employees. The statement does not
appear to match actions over the last 24 hours, with Wil freely making
public comments about his dissatisfaction after conversations
(emails?) with some WMF employees.

Thanks again for clarifying your position during this difficult start
to your engagement.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Lila Tretikov]

Hi all,

This is a personal note to clarify a some questions that recently came up,
specifically in the context of my role as the incoming ED.


My partner Wil and I are partners in our private lives. We have always both
been extremely independent, and we respect that in each other. That said we
have different roles: I am the Executive Director with responsibilities
towards the Foundation and the movement, and he is an independent community
member with his own voice.

I make my decisions using my own professional judgement in conjunction with
input from the community and staff. I don’t consult Wil on these matters,
ask him to do anything on my behalf or monitor his engagements with the
community. When I speak here, it is in my capacity as an ED.

Wil, on the other hand, has a very strong personal interest in the
community and agreat deal of curiosity about how the Wikimedia
projectswork. It is very important to him that he remains an
independent individual
able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not
take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the WMF
employees.

I hope this addresses some of the questions and draws distinction between
my role as ED and Wil’s participation as an independent member. If you have
any questions for Wil you can reach him directly. If you have any questions
for me or the WMF, you can get a hold of me by email or on my talk page.


Thanks,

Lila
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,