it seems my email was rejected, trying to send again:
would be the best place to make this kind of decisions?
certain this is the kind of rule
Thanks for sharing, Greg.
As it proves to be quite hard to filter out this kind of companies, it must
be even harder for affiliates that don't have the WMF infrastructure at
hand. I can imagine there exists some kind of 'blacklist' of companies that
the WMF doesn't want to work with for this kind
Thanks for picking this challenge up with such enthusiasm!
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 6:58 AM Alex Stinson wrote:
> Thank you Farhard for sharing out the progress that you have been making as
> a benefit of the Wikipedian of the Year! I look forward to continuing to
> support these
I would also suggest not to get overly bureaucratic with this :) If the
public meeting you refer to requires a large attendance, the 14 days makes
sense for example - but I cannot recall many meetings of that style.
Rather, most meetings are either scheduled taking the availability of
Perhaps stating the obvious, but please remember there were some
significant flaws with the consultation by the WMF that you refer to
(especially with regards to the way questions were phrased and options were
limited beforehand, if I recall correctly).
Wikimania's purpose is mostly pluriform and
Wow congratulations :)
I'm guessing this is the link you wanted to include:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 3:51 PM Brian Choo wrote:
> Fellow Wikimedians,
> Wikimedians of Chicago User Group has put together their
a quick sanity check (sorry if this was already discussed): in your
overview, you don't mention any WMF staff members as such. Is that because
they won't be invited in that capacity (i.e. not including staff members
that happen to be in affcom, that are affiliate representatives or
> project that is most abused, sometimes in ways that I'd be hesitant to
> publicly describe.
> (English Wikipedia oversighter)
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 12:29, effe iets anders
>> Hi all,
>> This is one of thes
This is one of these things that seems particularly hard to find, so I'd
like to pick your collective brains on this:
What are the various policies across our little universe on using the 'hide
version' functionality to hide historical versions of articles? I would
(changing the topic to reflect better the more abstract case: this is no
longer about WMPT, as I don't know enough about that specific instance)
I appreciate your concerns for embarrassing situations. This may be the
least painful approach in many of the cases. I also appreciate that
Thanks for sharing. I share most of your concerns, reading your explanation
- and they seem reasonable. I find it particularly odd that such major
changes are forced upon the chapter in this situation. If these changes are
necessary, it would be better to discuss them in a global
As for process.. While I appreciate that this time, the change was at least
announced before the vote, and that some board members at least engaged in
some conversation - I have yet to see how this was taken into consideration
by the board as a whole. It feels like the board already made up its
I have always enjoyed Erik's insightful input - especially the insights
that people don't like to hear at first. I trust that much more of that is
to come in the future, so I'm not ready to say farewells :). I wouldn't be
able to accurately summarize it anyway.
Erik, I hope that you'll find a lot
in favor of a
>unilateral preferred action.
>- Abruptly undoing administrator actions without consultation.
>- *Reversal of a Wikimedia Foundation office action
> Dan Rosenthal
Great, now we have a wheelwar going on (
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block=Fram ). I
have a hard time seeing how this would help anyone.
A massive discussion where everyone tries to say something and nobody
really reads everything (because how could you) is not going to
The landscape has changed quite a bit since 2012, and there are a number of
players that could offer a service like this by now. It may be worthwhile
exploring them briefly (including but not limited to Google), if we believe
this is important enough to invest time in (and I agree that there is a
(forking the discussion to allow a focus on more general line, rather than
the specifics of who wrote what, why and when)
My main takeaway from this discussion would be that it's good if there is a
neutral review option for actions by the T team (or the WMF in general),
such as an ombudsperson.
Gerard, I think your comment is highly inappropriate. I don't generally
like to pile on, but this needs calling out. When discussing these
sensitive topics, the very least we can expect, is a careful approach to
I don't know the underlying situation well enough to establish who's
Thanks. I agree with your assessment.
Probably asking for the obvious: is there someone on the committee that
knows the real world identity (and the other way around, the online
pseudonym) of each member, and could flag a COI/suggest to abstain if need
be? (aside from people refraining
Thanks Abhinav for your email. I'm having a hard time splitting the email
out in a) what is the exact and complete set of reasons that Affcom put the
chapter on suspension. b) what additional complaints are part of the big
picture. c) what is the response from WMIN.
I realize it is really hard
Refreshing to see some positive development here again, after all the
complications, setbacks etc - welcome to your new status WMKR! It was
always a joy to see you at work in activities, looking forward to hearing
even more from you again :)
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 3:11 PM María
Thanks for the update Geert. I'll join you in thanking Romaine for the vast
amounts of work that he has done over the past years in Belgium. I think
this was a great trigger to get the chapter to where it is now - even if I
have only seen the tip of the activities from my comfortable outsider
Thanks for the update - I'm glad this got resolved.
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 8:50 AM Rajeeb Dutta wrote:
> Great news and many many congratulations to all the winners.
> Thanks Gonçalo for the update.
> Best Regards,
> (U: Marajozkee)
> Sent from my iPhone
> > On
The main question here at Wikimania is really... Will you be more like Leo
McGarry or like Doug Stamper as far as it comes to problem solving? :)
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 07:33 Rajeeb Dutta wrote:
> Congrats Ryan & all my best wishes, thanks Katherine for the update.
Thank you Kirill for outlining the procedural component. That is helpful,
and paints a better picture. I know Affcom us always balancing in a tough
position, not only between interests but also between different levels of
The piece of information that I'm struggling to
really impressive how you managed to leverage this opportunity. Thank you
for putting in all this effort, it's heart warming to see you and your
colleagues so busy.
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 1:16 PM Фархад Фаткуллин / Farhad Fatkullin <
Now imagine trying to explain the difference between a chapter, the
Foundation and the community when they have the same name...
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 1:41 PM Isaac Olatunde
> We sometimes spend several minutes trying to explain to potentials partners
> the difference between
Mail list logo