I'm aware that some moderated accounts for this list have been under
moderation for a very long time, and in practice some recent posts
from these accounts took so long to get through the moderation queue
that they became irrelevant.
Are there any views on having an amnesty, and removing all
restrictions? This would be a nice gesture of good faith and reduce
expectations on current list mods.
This seems more about Neotarf's personal ban more than anything else.
Looking at the arbcom findings of fact (which I won't quote here), it
doesn't look like the ban was related to the gender gap on Wikipedia as
much as behaviour displayed towards other editors.
Maybe it would be better for the mailing list if we stopped talking about
this? Just a suggestion.
On 15 Jul 2017 8:20 PM, "Nathan" <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I believe because the ArbCom case regards the 'Gender Gap Task Force'
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 7:24 PM, JJ Marr <jjmarr(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> How does this relate to the gender gap on Wikimedia again?
> On 15 Jul 2017 6:00 PM, "Neotarf" <neotarf(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to follow up, the WMF has now responded. I appreciate them taking
> time to review these concerns.
> >>>your best course of action is to discuss the PII situation with WMF
> Been and done, also involvement from C-levels, although that was some time
> >>>a few other remedies which could come into play, but they would almost
> certainly take longer and be more politically problematic than a minimal
> If this is necessary, we should not shrink from it. If this can happen to
> me, it can happen to anyone -- your students, your employees, or someone
> like Bassel Khartabil. The arbitrators should not be using dox as a tool to
> silence voices for diversity or as an arbitration outcome.
> The foundation lost social capital during the media viewer/visual
> editor/flow controversies, because the community went to a great deal of
> effort to document the problems with those products, and was not listened
> to. But that was a long time ago, and the community has now lost the high
> ground, largely because of the gender issue. 640 people voted in the 2014
> arbcom election, but after this GGTF case, 2674 people voted in the 2015
> election. Is there any doubt that the arbcom is out of touch with the
> community, and that the community process is failing? The arbitration
> committee was not established by the community, it was established by Jimmy
> Wales. Is there any doubt the foundation has the capability and the
> resources to step in and protect the long term interests of the movement if
> the arbcom and the community process can not?
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Unfortunately I don't think there is much more I can do here. Based on
>> what you wrote, I think that your best course of action is to discuss the
>> PII situation with WMF Legal. There are a few other remedies which could
>> come into play, but they would almost certainly take longer and be more
>> politically problematic than a minimal intervention in which WMF Legal
>> clarifies to the Ombuds and Arbcom what is required under WMF's
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Neotarf <neotarf(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> is safe. There is nothing I can find in the written policy that would back
>>> the idea that the ombuds should refuse to remove PII if they think it might
>>> have been posted in good faith. If it could be used to identify someone, it
>>> should just be removed. That's just basic safety. Maybe they are not
>>> allowed to go against arbitrators I also don't understand why arbitrators
>>> would insist on posting PII over and over. We have seen too much what that
>>> can lead to. In all fairness, the gamergate sub-reddit was very
>>> professional and removed the dox within an hour of my request.
>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hmm. I'd like to take a closer look at this, but unfortunately I'm
>>>> already backlogged with other projects. I wish I knew what to suggest here.
>>>> If you have already been to the Ombudsman Commission and you disagree with
>>>> their interpretation of WMF policies, then you might try to contact WMF
>>>> Legal, although I don't know to what extent they will want to involve
>>>> For what it's worth, if I had my way the OC would (1) have
>>>> significantly more independence from the WMF Board and staff and (2) be
>>>> issuing monthly or quarterly reports about its activities, but
>>>> realistically the current setup is likely to continue for the foreseeable
>>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing,
>>>> please visit:
>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
> Gendergap mailing list
> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
> Gendergap mailing list
> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
Gendergap mailing list
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
As we have stated in our annual plan , “currently, community members
must search many pages and places to stay informed about Foundation
activities and resources.” We have worked in the past two quarters to
create a single point of entry. We call it the Wikimedia Resource Center,
and its alpha version is now live on Meta Wikimedia:
As the movement expands to include more affiliates and more programmatic
activities every year, newer Wikimedians are faced with lack of experience
in the movement and its various channels for requesting support. In order
to expand Wikimedia communities’ efforts, we want to provide easy access to
resources that support their very important work. The [[m:Wikimedia
Resource Center]] is a hub designed in response to this issue: it is
intended to evolve into a single point of entry for Wikimedians all over
the world to the variety of resources and types of staff support they may
need to develop new initiatives or also expand existing ones.
This version of the Resource Center is only the beginning. For phase two of
the project, we will enable volunteer Wikimedians to add resources
developed by other individuals or organizations to the Wikimedia Resource
Center, and in phase three, the Wikimedia Resource Center will include
features to better connect Wikimedians to other Wikimedians that can
We want to hear what you think about this prototype and our plans for it!
If you have comments about the Wikimedia Resource Center, you can submit
your feedback publicly, on the Talk Page, or privately, via a survey hosted
by a third party, that shouldn’t take you more than 4 minutes to complete.
A feedback button is on the top right corner on every page of the hub.
Looking forward to more collaborations!
Communications and Outreach Project Manager, Community Engagement
Can someone look at this for me?
The Women's Equality Party is non-partisan. It is willing to work with ANY and ALL OTHER PARTIES. It is a key fact about them as a party. I think removing it would breach WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". I've also offered multiple sources to demonstrate its non-partisanship.
All the comments seem to be debating whether the party IS non-partisan, if a party CAN BE non-partisan etc. and consensus building on that point.
The Women's Equality Party is not affiliated to any OTHER party, a key fact which is made repeatedly clear in the article.
I think it needs an administrator to make a ruling on the Wikipedia POLICY POINTS that I have made (no-one has taken me up on any of them in the discussion), rather than a consensus based on the ding-dong over the concept of non-partisanship generally.
For me this is an attempt at censorship.
>"We cannot suggest that WEP are a bunch of head-bangers if they are willing to work with anyone, regardless of which side of the political divide they come from."
>"Let's take 'non-partisan' out of the infobox, it makes the party sound too reasonable."
This sounds like a great project. Forwarding.
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Leila Zia <leila(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
> With the start of the new fiscal year in Wikimedia Foundation on July
> 1, the Research team has officially started the work on Program 12:
> Growing contributor diversity.  Here are a few
> announcements/pointers about this program and the research and work
> that will be going to it:
> * We aim to keep the research documentation for this project on the
> corresponding research page on meta. 
> * Research tasks are hard to break down and track in task-tracking
> systems. This being said, any task that we can break down and track
> will be documented under the corresponding Epic task on Phabricator.
> * The goals for this Program for July-September 2017 (Quarter 1) are
> captured on MediaWiki.  (The Phabricator epic will be updated with
> corresponding tasks as we start working on them.)
> * Our three formal collaborators (cc-ed) will contribute to this
> program: Jérôme Hergueux from ETH, Paul Seabright from TSE, and Bob
> West from EPFL. We are thankful to these people who have agreed to
> spend their time and expertise on this project in the coming year, and
> to those of you who have already worked with us as we were shaping the
> proposal for this project and are planning to continue your
> contributions to this program. :)
> * I act as the point of contact for this research in Wikimedia
> Foundation. Please feel free to reach out to me (directly, if it
> cannot be shared publicly) if you have comments/questions about the
> project in the coming year.
>  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
>  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Voice_and_exit_
>  https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T166083
>  https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Technology/
> Leila Zia
> Senior Research Scientist
> Wikimedia Foundation
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
Hello, this is to let everyone know that I have submitted an appeal to the
It has been very difficult to try to respond to the accusations in this
arbitration case, because I don't understand them. Everyone who has looked
at the diffs has found nothing. Kevin Gorman called them "flimsy". Even
Wikipediocracy, which has no particular love for me, could find nothing.
After having had time to go through some of the histories, I found that
half of the diffs were from someone who wrote a program specifically to
collect diffs of my edits in order to sift through them and who was able to
use the program to discover IP addresses as well. The other half of the
diffs were added to the case by one of the arbitrators after the evidence
phase of the case had closed and included edits made by Jimmy Wales and one
of the admins--not even my edits. I don't want to say a lot about this on
a public mailing list, but at this point it is pretty obvious that this is
a false conviction.
I understand I was eligible to appeal this after one year, however I have
waited more than two years. My initial inquiry to the WMF was on 11/17/16.
I was assigned a member of the WMF staff and told I could expect to hear
something in mid-January. Since then, I have made three followup queries,
asking for an update to the expected timeline, but have been unable to get
any response at all. At this point, there is no reason to believe the
non-response is not deliberate.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Melody Kramer <mkramer(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:26 PM
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] [fellowship] Opportunity for people working on "open
projects that support a healthy Internet."
I wanted to pass along an opportunity that I saw earlier today via Twitter:
It sets up people working on "open projects that support a healthy
Internet" with a mentor, a cohort of like-minded people from all over the
world, and a trip to Mozfest, which is a London-based open Internet
conference I've attended/presented at in past years and found really
mind-expanding due to the cross-disciplinary conversations that take place.
You can see previous projects here: https://mozilla.github.
io/leadership-training/round-3/projects/ — it looks like there's quite a
broad cross-section and many of the projects across the movement might be
applicable. The post notes participants will learn about "best practices
for project setup and communication, tools for collaboration, community
building, and running events."
Thank you to Leila for suggesting I pass this along to this listserv. Feel
free to share it broadly.
Melody Kramer <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:MKramer_(WMF)>
Senior Audience Development Manager
Read a random featured article from Wikipedia!
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org