I prefer to let WMF sort this one out. Whether you are
correct or not, my
block has an intolerable odour about it. Will someone please open a window?
---
New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here:
*----- Original Message -----*
*From:* Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com>
*Reply-To:* Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
*To:* Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
*Sent:* 09/12/2020 01:06:18
*Subject:* Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation commitment of support for LGBT+
volunteers
------------------------------
I'm sorry that you've chosen to hijack this thread, Rodhullandemu.
Nonetheless, I will point out that it was *me* who indefinitely blocked you
in the middle of an arbitration case, for reasons that didn't actually have
anything to do with the case, and for edits that met the requirements for
suppression. Those edits were also reported to the predecessor of the
Trust & Safety department at the time. There was also nothing to do with
Usenet - it was your own words that resulted in your block. I hope that
the circumstances that led to your block have improved significantly since
that time. Your block remains appealable to the current Arbitration
Committee, and I am certain neither I nor Roger Davies (who subsequently
reblocked you to remove email access) would object to the block being
reviewed.
Returning to the key subject of this thread, I thank Trust & Safety for
making a statement, and also thank our colleagues for arranging
translations into other languages.
Risker/Anne
On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 19:07, Phil Nash via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Great news. Vulnerable contributors to Wikimedia
projects should be owed
a duty of care, not least because they make good, well-informed
contributions, but also that those projects should not become the preserve
of a socially and politically advantaged elite.
However, what he have here is only much less than half of the story.
Those who are falsely accused of unacceptable, maybe criminal behaviour,
when there is a significant lack of evidence to support that, have little
or no comeback. Minds seem to be irretrievably poisoned against you.
I make no secret of the fact that I am User:Rodhullandemu on multiple
Wikimedia projects. I was blocked or banned (it's not been made clear) on
en:WP in 2011 on the basis of some fake Usenet posts that Roger Davies
found, and for some reason gave credence to, despite the policy
[[:en:WP:Usenet]]. There is no pretending that this is not the case, given
---
New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here:
https://www.oeclassic.com/
the entry in my block log on en:WP. As an experienced user on Wikipedia,
I know exactly what "Refer all enquiries to Arbitration Committee" means.
It's a code which everybody understands, and as it stands, is a defamatory
libel as an innuendo.
I have asked Roger to copy those Usenet posts to me, compete with
headers. I have no doubt that he will be unable, or will refuse, to do so.
Meanwhile, I cannot trust ArbCom to understand their role in relation to
due processs and the rules of natural justice, given the recent input into
my desysop on Commons from two sitting arbs, one of whom was such in 2011,
and one of their clerks. So I can't ask them to unblock me. They are
irretrievably poisoned.
Meanwhile, WMF T&S refused to do anything to intervene when someone
misguidedly complained about me to them. Shameful, as I said at the time. I
deserve at least as much as those who are against me. Jimbo Wales's
decision on my appeal against my block missed the point completely. He
suggested that I shoud prove myself sane. That's both impossible and
ridiculous, and mentioned in my RFA on Commons.
Time, perhaps, for the WMF to get its act together and say to people
"That was the wrong thing to do, and we have no hesitation in correcting
it". Fortunately I am no longer alone; I have people interested in exposing
the arbitrariness of arbitration.
Phil Nash/Rodhullandemu
*----- Original Message -----*
*From:* Maggie Dennis <mdennis(a)wikimedia.org>
*Reply-To:* Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
*To:* Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
*Sent:* 08/12/2020 15:24:15
*Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Foundation commitment of support for LGBT+
volunteers
------------------------------
Hello.
My name is Maggie Dennis. I’m the Vice President of Community Resilience
and Sustainability at the Wikimedia Foundation.[1] I oversee the
Foundation’s Trust and Safety teams (operations and policy), the Community
Development team, and the upcoming Foundation Human Rights lead.
On December 2nd, I met with representatives of the Wikimedia LGBT+ User
Group along with several Trust and Safety personnel, including Global Head
Jan Eißfeldt, to understand some of the challenges faced by the members of
the group as volunteers in our international movement.[2] It is apparent
that many volunteers openly identifying as LGBTQIA+ are targeted and
attacked for their identities, with transgender, non-binary, queer, and
queer feminist editors in particular at higher risk for such abuse. The
members of the group who met with us voiced concerns about the safety and
wellbeing of other marginalized communities and groups as well.
In my role, and speaking for the Foundation, I am writing today to
restate, reinforce, and firmly assert our commitment to supporting the
LGBTQIA+ volunteers in our movement, as well as others who face exclusion
and hostility on the basis of identity factors.[3]
The Wikimedia movement is based on the value of inclusivity, that anyone
may play a part in not only receiving but curating and sharing knowledge.
What volunteers have been able to accomplish in Wikimedia projects is
extraordinary, but the movement will never reach its full potential if we
do not close the diversity gap which our communities defined so ably in the
Movement Strategy process.[4] There continue to be barriers in our movement
for LGBTQIA+, women, indigenous communities, and other underrepresented
groups. We as a movement have been called upon by a broad and diverse group
of our own movement members to promote inclusivity and reduce harms to our
participants.
In light of this, one of my teams has been directed by the Board of
Trustees to (among other requests) facilitate the drafting of the Universal
Code of Conduct called for in the Movement Strategy recommendations.[5]
This collaboratively drafted document underwent significant community
review in September and October and is currently under review by the Board.
We will next be launching a second phase of that work in January, meant to
result in enforcement pathways that will make our projects safe spaces for
all volunteers.
Following the LGBT+ User Group meeting, we are also building into our
plans facilitated support for the LGBT+ User Group and other Wikimedia
affiliate organizations focused on marginalized communities to come
together to discuss better mechanisms for supporting volunteers who are
targeted on the basis of sexual orientation, gender, race, religion,
ethnicity or other identify factors. We expect to solidify plans and launch
conversations in January and will be putting out information on how to
participate.
In addition, we see the urgency and the opportunity to do more to address
the needs of the LGBT+ User Group and others. The Foundation’s Community
Resilience & Sustainability function will be connecting more closely with
the LGBT+ User Group going forward to ensure that the Foundation’s staff
better understand the needs of this community, especially but not solely in
our professional Trust & Safety work.
We are committed to supporting volunteers in participating safely in our
movement and want to be sure that we do not, through lack of understanding,
ourselves do harm. This includes:
-
adopting and disseminating to staff best-practice terminology when
conducting community surveys,
-
ensuring that volunteers have easier access to existing reporting
structures now, even as we build other enforcement pathways in the UCoC,
-
being vigilant that incidents where individuals are targeted for
identity factors are properly recognized and addressed in our Trust &
Safety systems, and
-
exploring peer support options.
I thank the members of the user group for inviting us to join them. I’m
excited and energized by that conversation and looking forward to finding
ways to improve. I hope others in the community will join in the publicly
hosted UCoC discussions starting early in the new year to improve the
safety of all community members. It will help to ensure that volunteers
across the movement, and in all movement spaces online and off, have an
opportunity to contribute safely. People should feel welcomed to contribute
to our collective and important mission of delivering the sum of all
knowledge to everyone.
Warm regards,
Maggie Dennis
P.S. This statement is also on Meta, at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resilience_and_Sustainability/202…,
where translation is being enabled today. If you are interested in helping
translate, please do!
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resilience_and_Sustainability
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_LGBT%2B/Portal
[3] I’m borrowing the language of the UN, here:
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/UN%20Strategy%20and%20Pl…
.
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recomme…
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Draft_review
--
Maggie Dennis
Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: