Well, it's Monday SF time (4 PM if Google doesn't lie to me), and we're
still waiting for some explanations on why this situations happened /at
all/.
-- Tomasz
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski
tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote:
Well, it's Monday SF time (4 PM if Google doesn't lie to me), and we're
still waiting for some explanations on why this situations happened /at
all/.
The problem with this kind of actions is personal inability
I can sympathize with the issue, namely, that it would be nice if only
Foundation employees could be allowed admin access on their own wiki.
I recall a similar issue (which was not so widely blown up) for our
WMNL board wiki in the Netherlands (and yes Phoebe, that is a very
boring wiki). I find
Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)
So, I took Florence's excellent advice and went for a walk (beautiful day
in SF, by the way - absolutely perfect).
And I reflected on what I've
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Peter Southwood
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote:
Lets get a few things in perspective:
1. How many community members were abusive/unreasonable/whatever beyond
what might be considered a startle reaction to an apparent attack without
warning?
2 How many
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:03 AM, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Peter Southwood
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote:
Lets get a few things in perspective:
1. How many community members were abusive/unreasonable/whatever beyond
what might be
Just a general note, could you please all wait for Gayle to get back to her
office? ^^ I think she wanted to address some of the things discussed here
on Monday, which is by San Francisco time. So maybe let it rest for a few
hours now? :)
Th.
p.s. sorry about the empty email, my mouse is broken
Hi,
The Wikimedia Foundation site says the following: The Wikimedia Foundation
is proud http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Values to be one of the most
transparent non-profit organizations in the world.
But the decission to remove administrator rights is made internaly, thats
not transparent?
Thomas,
She is on holiday, she will not be in the office today?
Huib
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Thomas Goldammer tho...@gmail.com wrote:
Just a general note, could you please all wait for Gayle to get back to her
office? ^^ I think she wanted to address some of the things discussed
On May 13, 2013, at 6:57 AM, phoebe ayers wrote:
You know, it's kind of the
ultimate Wikimedian tempest: arguing over who gets to add users and delete
pages on what is quite possibly the world's most boring wiki[1]...
I would take a stab and stay that it's not about who gets access but about how
but will circle back when I return to work next Monday. (Gayle)
Wait for that. Whatever time it actually means. :)
Th.
2013/5/13 Huib Laurens sterke...@gmail.com
Thomas,
She is on holiday, she will not be in the office today?
Huib
___
I've been watching this unfold over the weekend. And am sorely disapointed
with the rudeness from ALL sides (not from everyone, it should be said)
The action of removing admin access with little warning, and last thing on
a Friday is obnoxious and rude. I'd expect the foundation to review
On 5/13/13 8:54 AM, Theo10011 wrote:
Hi Casey
First, I miss seeing you around, in case you are not omnipresent anymore.
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Try and be a bit nicer
jameso...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)
*
I'm just going to top post here because responding to you in line won't be
helpful to anybody.The staff
On 13 May 2013 08:18, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:03 AM, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.comwrote:
That's a bit relative, James. The active folk on this mailing list make
for a pretty good cross section of thoughts/feelings/opinions of the
movement.
That was actually my point.
Cheers,
Peter
- Original Message -
From: James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)
On Mon, May 13
Upon reading Gayle's response, and reflecting on some of the comments I
made on Saturday night, I have come to the conclusion that some of the
things I said may have come across as a little harsh and condescending.
While that was my intention (my point was that sometimes the community
can bite,
On 5/13/13 9:27 AM, Heather Ford wrote:
On May 13, 2013, at 6:57 AM, phoebe ayers wrote:
You know, it's kind of the
ultimate Wikimedian tempest: arguing over who gets to add users and delete
pages on what is quite possibly the world's most boring wiki[1]...
I would take a stab and stay that
Philippe Beaudette, 13/05/2013 11:21:
I actually was, Florence :-)
Let's see... https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=prevoldid=55625971
First (registered user, non deleted) edit 28 May... so not 7 years yet? ;-)
And of course answering on day counts is a very constructive way to
address Florence's
On May 13, 2013, at 9:10 AM, Florence Devouard wrote:
On 5/13/13 9:27 AM, Heather Ford wrote:
On May 13, 2013, at 6:57 AM, phoebe ayers wrote:
You know, it's kind of the
ultimate Wikimedian tempest: arguing over who gets to add users and delete
pages on what is quite possibly the world's most
Previous account, Nemo. :)
—
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc
On May 13, 2013, at 3:01 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Philippe Beaudette, 13/05/2013 11:21:
I actually was, Florence :-)
Let's see...
omg, he just admitted sockpupetting !!!
On 5/13/13 12:35 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
Previous account, Nemo. :)
—
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc
On May 13, 2013, at 3:01 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Philippe
This isn't a comment aimed at anyone in particular, so I'm not going to
quote anybody, but can we please stop hijacking this thread, and posting
about how Wikimedia Foundation staff are also humans and how the WMF was
badly organised X years ago — which are valid discussion for a different
On 13.05.2013 14:07, Tomasz W. Kozlowski wrote:
This isn't a comment aimed at anyone in particular, so I'm not going
to quote anybody, but can we please stop hijacking this thread, and
posting about how Wikimedia Foundation staff are also humans and how
the WMF was badly organised X years ago —
Wading into the water here. I hope we can separate the blog issue out a bit
from the Foundation wiki issue, at least in terms of the user rights part.
I was the one who changed a whole slew of user rights from Editor to
Contributor, which in our WordPress setup limits some of their abilities,
Philippe,
Thank you for a thoughtful reply. I have especially taken seriously your
advice to moderate the tone, something I have been guilty of in the past.
We expect editors to treat one another respectfully even when they
disagree, and I think staff should receive the same courtesy.
That
hi Florence,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry
sockpuppeting is using more than one account in the same time. There are
legitimate situations when users have a new account set up (e.g. after
forgetting a password). Also, some users have multiple accounts for privacy
reasons.
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.plwrote:
hi Florence,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry
sockpuppeting is using more than one account in the same time. There are
legitimate situations when users have a new account set up (e.g. after
On 13 May 2013 18:01, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
.You bring
up Echo; yes, we didn't bring the Orange Bar back. But we spent a lot of
cycles coming up with alternatives, running them past people, with many
editors and many staffers actively engaged in the process. We had
Basically, you (in the plural) thought you could do better than the
consensus, and therefore simply without rejecting it , did not implement it
while you tried other things first. All these trials would have been
good, ''had they been done before implementation.'' I am waiting for
someone from
Employees have a separate wiki specifically for employee things. The
foundationwiki is different from that, serving as a forefront to the
movement itself, something which we are all a part of - and that admin
access should be reflecting people's specific type of association with
the movement
Theo,
I know who Florence is and was, and quite honestly her suggestion that
Philippe was sockpuppeting in my view only called for this short reminder.
And if she joked, I'm sure she appreciated it, too. :)
PS You forgot the /facepalm tag!
dj
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Theo10011
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:56 AM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
Basically, you (in the plural) thought you could do better than the
consensus, and therefore simply without rejecting it , did not implement it
while you tried other things first. All these trials would have been
good,
Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
If I read the e-mails correctly, 1 and 2 were covered. 1 is Gayle, and 2
is that it was on her to do list for a long time, so apparently she
decided to perform this on Friday afternoon since it was not pleasant
and had to be done anyway.
I'm not so sure about
On 5/13/13 6:39 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
hi Florence,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry
sockpuppeting is using more than one account in the same time. There are
legitimate situations when users have a new account set up (e.g. after
forgetting a password). Also, some
right; wrong thread.
But yes,beta is good,as with the virtual editor.
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:56 AM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
Basically, you (in the plural) thought you could do better than the
Well, perhaps there was extensive consultation from Phillippe and Gayle if
it had been planned over a long period of time and I just missed it. If
that's the case, I'm sure that one of them will point it out for us first
thing on Monday morning, at which point I'd have to start removing egg from
On 5/11/13 8:01 PM, Seb35 wrote:
Thanks a lot for this explanation.
On the other side, wikis not only need content producers (here WMF) but
also curators (wikignomes) who are sorting the pages, deleting and
moving pages, typocorrecting, templating things, helping new users in
formatting texts,
On 5/12/13 8:13 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 12 May 2013 18:47, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote:
Alternatively, it might be good to really move as much as possible of the
Wikimedia Foundation Wiki to meta (where at least, the community is in
charge of who is admin and who is not).
On 5/12/13 8:26 PM, Thehelpfulone wrote:
On 12 May 2013 18:47, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote:
Alternatively, it might be good to really move as much as possible of the
Wikimedia Foundation Wiki to meta (where at least, the community is in
charge of who is admin and who is not).
On 12 May 2013 19:44, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote:
:) Yeah, pretty bad.
The main reason I would consider WMF wiki SHOULD NOT be an entirely
staff-controlled and operated site is the fact we originally wanted it to
be at least in part multilingual.
Current staff does not seem
Thehelpfulone, 12/05/2013 20:58:
For what it's worth, I did try to get some re-translation organised in
early February: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation_requests/WMF and
asked communications staff at the WMF for their input. To be fair to them
they did say that they'd look into it and
On 12.05.2013 20:44, Florence Devouard wrote:
The multilingualism we hoped so dearly has always been an issue. It
is poorly dealt with on the Wikimedia Foundation blog. Poorly dealt
with on the Foundation Wiki. Poorly dealt with on OTRS.
:(
Florence
If someone approaches me and asks to
On 5/12/13 9:28 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
On 12.05.2013 20:44, Florence Devouard wrote:
The multilingualism we hoped so dearly has always been an issue. It
is poorly dealt with on the Wikimedia Foundation blog. Poorly dealt
with on the Foundation Wiki. Poorly dealt with on OTRS.
:(
That is correct. Because despite your attempts to turn me into the
decision making authority here, I wasn't. You don't need to talk to
the worker bee who executed, you want to talk to the person who made
the decision. That's not me. And she is traveling.
And also, you know, I'm working brutal
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
You want an explanation? I'm sure that Gayle will offer one. But for
the umpteenth time, I was the person pushing the button because
someone had to be.
Why did you feel compelled to act here when it wasn't your decision? Was
there something preventing Gayle from doing
MZMcBride, 12/05/2013 22:45:
Why did you feel compelled to act here when it wasn't your decision? Was
there something preventing Gayle from doing this herself?
Be honest, if Gayle had done this herself you would have said that maybe
she hadn't read the documentation on Special:UserRights
On 5/12/13 10:45 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
You want an explanation? I'm sure that Gayle will offer one. But for
the umpteenth time, I was the person pushing the button because
someone had to be.
Why did you feel compelled to act here when it wasn't your decision? Was
Thanks for clarifying this Phillippe.
I must say that I think this discussion is becoming unpleasantly personal
(and my initial email on the topic probably didn't help there, I concede).
How about we stop pointing fingers at each other and conduct an honest and
transparent appraisal of what has
On 05/12/2013 04:42 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
The most he could ask from you is a comment on how frequently you have
to be the one pushing the button against the community.
Again with this meme!
Against the community.
*NOBODY* works against the community. Sometimes, we do things that
On 12/05/13 02:48, Sue Gardner wrote:
The staff working on the
Wikimedia Foundation wiki have jobs they've got to get done, in support of
the entire movement. If they spend days or weeks needing to persuade a
single community member of the merits of something they want to do on the
Foundation
Hello folks,
So... I caught bits of this while I was on layover between plane flights,
so I've had time to have the multiple reactions that one has (nothing like
an 11-hour flight to think about a situation). I've had time to feel
defensive, insulted, opened, humbled, curious, thoughtful,
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote:
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 7:15 AM, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote:
This is the email that got sent out to everyone,
For what it's worth, this didn't get sent out to everyone. I was a
bureaucrat and administrator,
Gayle Karen Young wrote:
Hello folks,
[...]
Gayle
So what did you want to say? I haven't been able to find any answers to
any questions that have been asked by so many people in this thread.
-- Tomasz
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net
wrote:
So what did you want to say? I haven't been able to find any answers to
any questions that have been asked by so many people in this thread.
Try and be a bit nicer please. Gayle is still relatively new and
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Gayle Karen Young gyo...@wikimedia.org wrote:
This definitely feels like a bit of trial by fire.
True dat. Now that you have received your initiation, there's nothing
left to say but WELCOME TO WIKIPEDIA :)
Cheers,
Russavia
So, I took Florence's excellent advice and went for a walk (beautiful day
in SF, by the way - absolutely perfect).
And I reflected on what I've seen since flipping the switch on things
last Friday. Here's where I stand, and I haven't discussed this with
anyone else at WMF, including Gayle.
At
Hi Philippe,
your message just reminds me a recent message I sent here and a
general feeling about sometimes the wiki community only stressing the
negative aspects and mistakes we all do (contractors, staff,
volunteers etc.)
* Highlight the positive aspects and multicultural comparisons
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Try and be a bit nicer please. Gayle is still relatively new and this level
of scrutiny might be jarring for someone.
Comments like these have always bothered me.
Gayle isn't some random secretary or new run-of-the-mill
Casey Brown, 13/05/2013 07:05:
[...] [Note that I'm speaking generally -- I personally think Gayle can
handle criticism and she seems very nice. She also probably had no
idea this would create dramz. My comment is directed towards the
general omg think of the staff member! response to criticism
*
I'm just going to top post here because responding to you in line won't be
helpful to anybody.The staff ARE held to a higher standard, they are held
to a higher standard day in and day out. If you don't think they are then
you're blind. They get attacked at a level that is NOTHING compared to
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
nemow...@gmail.comwrote:
Casey Brown, 13/05/2013 07:05:
[...] [Note that I'm speaking generally -- I personally think Gayle can
handle criticism and she seems very nice. She also probably had no
idea this would create dramz. My comment
The same happend to the Wikimedia Blog.
Most of the moderators where volunteers (and the only real active ones
also). My moderator rights where removed and I have to go after that
myself, I didn't got a message or anything.
While I was list administrator for wikitech-l I got the mail also that I
This sort of tone might be appropriate coming from HR in a bank or
something, but I'm tremendously disappointed that something so tactless and
rude was sent out from a senior officer in the Foundation to its
volunteers. I know Gayle is a new hire, so I'm assuming good faith that
she wasn't aware
Having an HR IR background myself, I am most surprised that the
person for managing TALENT and CULTURE would take such a move without
even so much as consulting with the community who keep the WMF's
presence on the internet working, nor without giving them an actual
reason as to why this has
Apologies, I mean Gayle, not Karen.
Russavia
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
Having an HR IR background myself, I am most surprised that the
person for managing TALENT and CULTURE would take such a move without
even so much as consulting with the
Given the foundation's recent tsunami of centralisation I'm not surprised
by this at all. The message is clear - the community doesn't belong here.
Go back to meta.
I'll be interested to see how long the WMF wiki will last before they hit
their first massive technical problem happens and they
Can we please give time to the Foundation to response and express their
side before everyone starts to attack them? I think we had enough of that
on Internal-l.
After the first response, or at least 24h, I will understand everyone
feelings about that. (And right now I'm also don't agree or
Deryck Chan wrote:
Given the foundation's recent tsunami of centralisation I'm not surprised
by this at all. The message is clear - the community doesn't belong here.
Go back to meta.
Yeah, I think you're right. It seems to be part of a larger pattern.
* Blog access has been restricted (as
Itzik Edri wrote:
Can we please give time to the Foundation to response and express their
side before everyone starts to attack them? I think we had enough of that
on Internal-l.
After the first response, or at least 24h, I will understand everyone
feelings about that. (And right now I'm also
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse the brevity and typos.
On May 11, 2013 4:36 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Deryck Chan wrote:
Given the foundation's recent tsunami of centralisation I'm not surprised
by this at all. The message is clear - the community doesn't belong here.
Go back
K. Peachey, 11/05/2013 16:59:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Leslie Carr lc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
...
As someone tasked with protecting the servers,ssh keys should be restricted
as much as possible, both with staff and volunteers. that is technical and
not political.
That same argument
Leslie Carr wrote:
* Shell access has been restricted to staff only (no more volunteer
sysadmins).
Someone better tell that to domas and his ssh key.
As someone tasked with protecting the servers, ssh keys should be
restricted as much as possible, both with staff and volunteers. that is
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 4:59 PM, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Leslie Carr lc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
...
As someone tasked with protecting the servers,ssh keys should be restricted
as much as possible, both with staff and volunteers. that is technical
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 5:04 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Leslie Carr wrote:
* Shell access has been restricted to staff only (no more volunteer
sysadmins).
Someone better tell that to domas and his ssh key.
As someone tasked with protecting the servers, ssh keys should be
On 11 May 2013 14:46, Deryck Chan deryckc...@wikimedia.hk wrote:
Given the foundation's recent tsunami of centralisation I'm not surprised
by this at all.
Sad to say, this chimes with the Foundation's recent decision to
consult on changes to en.Wikipedia's method of notifying users that
they
On 11 May 2013 15:36, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Yeah, I think you're right. It seems to be part of a larger pattern.
+ Withdrawal of the ability to use WMF logos/ wordmarks in community
projects, such as QRpedia.
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
On 05/11/2013 06:26 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski wrote:
Let me repeat that: the WMF does not wish volunteers to help out with
running their wiki, even if they have been helping out almost since the
very start of the wiki.
Tomasz, while it seems clear that communications about that move seem to
have
Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
Tomasz, while it seems clear that communications about that move seem to
have been lacking, I think it's unwarranted to ascribe ill-intent to the
WMF staff. Perhaps you should wait for a response from them before you
declare what their wishes may be or what their
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:32 PM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net
wrote:
[Yes, I do understand there is a considerable time difference, etc; I'll
be patiently waiting for a response from the WMF.]
Might even have to wait till Monday. This was done on a Friday night I
think.
There
Gayle is travelling today and not online, so I'll take a crack at
responding to this.
The editors are responsible for the projects: the Wikimedia Foundation
knows that, acknowledges it, and is deeply appreciative (as are all
readers) for the work that volunteers do in the projects. The Wikimedia
Sue Gardner wrote:
So. People can disagree with this decision, and that's okay. But
ultimately, the Wikimedia Foundation is responsible for the Wikimedia
Foundation wiki: it's our job to figure out how best to manage and
Maintain it. That's what we're doing here.
wikimediafoundation.org has
On 05/11/2013 12:41 PM, Seb35 wrote:
At the same time, it’s a very bad timing of doing such a controversial
action just before weekend, and let people wondering during two days the
reasons behind this action. So waiting still 2 days..
Yes, IMO that was a faux-pas. This should have been
I'm not going to respond to all the points raised in your e-mail, Sue
(partially because most of them are just too general), so let me just
mentioned some of them.
The editors are responsible for the projects: the Wikimedia Foundation
knows that, acknowledges it, and is deeply appreciative
Argh, why do we have to keep going through this over and over again?
I'm sure we're long past the point where Sue and many members of the
staff are convinced that they will be attacked by someone in reaction
to any decision they could make. Maybe that's true, but its no excuse
for transforming
Thanks a lot for this explanation.
On the other side, wikis not only need content producers (here WMF) but
also curators (wikignomes) who are sorting the pages, deleting and moving
pages, typocorrecting, templating things, helping new users in formatting
texts, etc. (I read some of the
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
My understanding is that administrator rights have been removed from a
small number of volunteers, but that those people still have basic editing
rights.
Far more than basic, actually. The WMF wiki is unusual in that
Having read through this entire thread, I have to ask: would there have
been any value in, instead of desysopping non-staff (because there appears
to be a possibly-valid argument that non-staff did most of the
administrative work on the wmf wiki), instead making it clear that unlike
on all other
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 3:26 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net
wrote:
These are questions directed at the WMF—for you regular folks, I have a
riddle (I'll give a WikiLove barnstar to the first person to submit a
correct answer). There is /at least/ one community member who does
I just want to highlight Nathan's excellent and reasonable point:
The WMF could work on: manag[ing] the implementation of a change that
affects dedicated volunteers. An advanced notice, an explanation, a thank
you, an expression of hope that volunteers will continue to help. That's all
it would
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 7:15 AM, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote:
This is the email that got sent out to everyone,
For what it's worth, this didn't get sent out to everyone. I was a
bureaucrat and administrator, and have the most edits on that wiki
(afaik?), and wasn't notified. Like Huib,
(Inline comments most likely, So shoot me)
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
…
But, my understanding is also that occasionally volunteers have overridden
decisions made by staff on the Wikimedia Foundation wiki. I don't think
that's ever been a huge
There's been a long-term conflict with volunteers staff on
wikimediafoundation.org. As a user, I understand. Each staff member likes
to keep everything their way. They frequently revert changes (take a look
at the discussion and user talk pages, especially for MZMcBride) on 'staff
authority'.
If the conflict was primarily with MZMcBride (which seems to be the
case), then it was a bit cowardly to overhaul the entire scheme on the
site in order to avoid telling him to knock it off.
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Mono monom...@gmail.com wrote:
There's been a long-term conflict with
Casey Brown wrote:
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 7:15 AM, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote:
This is the email that got sent out to everyone,
For what it's worth, this didn't get sent out to everyone. I was a
bureaucrat and administrator, and have the most edits on that wiki
(afaik?), and wasn't
Nathan wrote:
If the conflict was primarily with MZMcBride (which seems to be the
case), then it was a bit cowardly to overhaul the entire scheme on the
site in order to avoid telling him to knock it off.
What'd I do?
MZMcBride
___
Wikimedia-l
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 5:07 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Mono monom...@gmail.com wrote:
There's been a long-term conflict with volunteers staff on
wikimediafoundation.org. As a user, I understand. Each staff member
likes
to keep everything
Wow, this was definitely a huge brick they dropped there... It seems, the
WMF needs to hire someone (a diplomat) to counsel them about actions
towards the volunteers. (Seriously!)
Well, and when we are at it, the volunteer community might need a diplomat,
too, one who counsels them about actions
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Thomas Goldammer tho...@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, this was definitely a huge brick they dropped there... It seems, the
WMF needs to hire someone (a diplomat) to counsel them about actions
towards the volunteers. (Seriously!)
Or was there
any sort of emergency
Sue (or anyone from staff who is more precisely in charge for this), may
you just revert this and open discussion to reach more sensible solution?
I understand that there could be a good reason for this action, but the way
it's been handled is not the perfect one. And at least permissions on a
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
