On May 28, 2014 7:09 PM, "Wil Sinclair" <wllm(a)wllm.com> 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
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:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Wil, the deletion log of the page in question is publicly visible.
> are no WMF employees who have deleted anything on
that page, ever. This
> information you can check for yourself instead of
relying on the words
> On 28 May 2014 12:23, Wil Sinclair <wllm(a)wllm.com> 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:
>> 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.
>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov <lila(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> > ...
>> >> independent individual
>> >> able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does
>> >> take direction from me. He will not
work for the WMF or engage with
>> >> 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
>> > 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
>> > Foundation board.
>> > I do not really understand the point being made about not
>> > 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
>> > 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
>> > --
>> > faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: