Dear Yair Rand (saying this honestly not as a form), with all respect to your much engaged and always informative contributions on many topics (from which I learned so much), I would have to respond this time with some extra positions you and others might want to consider as inline comments and observations from 'other' angles... On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 2:26 AM Yair Rand <yyairrand(a)gmail.com> wrote: I think it is generous of you to invest time in proposing these principles, but I would rather see it as a separate thread and maybe on Meta then here where focus is a very personal case in a very specific context. I will try to explain why and hope you can assume good faith as I do for yours. I fear that by generalizing it almost immediately but not indicating it as an Meta RfC you do not help advance either direction as much as I think you wanted. This is a very dangerous but an established pattern for Wikimedians. It kind of maintains the status quo, while each old-school contributor feels they can pat themselves on their shoulders, as if something is done, while actually it is stalled, derailed or even suspended indefinatly.* This sounds overly generic and somewhat naive... if we would live in a world of uniformed abstraction and absolute values, sure easy to agree. We do not. The Environment is not by the norm collaborative, but participatory, so all the coordination and collaboration is extra that needs focused and constant (intelectual, social and emotional) labor, that is unlike the technical MediaWiki tool a far less obvious component. I hear what you say and I can empathise with efforts to diffuse conflicts but I can not agree with this in content or form. Firstly I would hope Wikimedians stop assuming a singular community. In the Wikimedia ecosystem of super diverse individuals with different levels of anonymity, visibility, vulnerability and also social, cultural, political, material capital, we are at best coordinated and synchronized communities and formal entities with shared goals, but neither our positions, means, motivations or methods are shared. Maybe there was a historical moment where proximity and difference was smaller and one could stretch it to call all things Wikimedia a single community, but after 20 years this feels a bit like celebratory PR, that is counter-productive to accepting more complex relational realities. Assuming that one model of organizing and doing communication work off wiki is somehow less authentic I fear is part of that logic. Not everything was/is/would be done on Wikis for the assumed 'credibility' and 'peace'...this is just not an option for many who are less privileged. How an affiliate manages their individual hires is the affiliate's I fully agree with this. If both are in relatively 'healthy' dynamics I would also easily agree. Sometimes they are not. I would love for you to be explicit about what You assume a community is and where one can set up markers of its borders. Also how starting multiple points on wiki targeting a single person is potentially fitting in your vision of a _dialogue_? (I am sorry if this sounds like conflicting, I would have invited you for an over the drink discussion if we were closer) Sure, but was this an RfC? Was this a vote related situation? How does this even start to relate to targeted individual? I am super curious to hear how this is exactly manageable? By giving all the space and freedom to frontally, wrongly and preemptively accuse Nat to all the anonymous individuals + their right wing press supporters space, while sitting on our hands and 'acting' some kind of privileged vision of civility and righteous abstract (but non-existent) order? I hope we can at least agree that these are separate discussion topics. Maybe we should not assume we are in the same position and the same methods are equally productive for all. Best wishes and thank you for your contributions - Z. Blace * I myself fell into a crack of bad+dysfunctional wikimedia-stewards system last year year for 2 months and was aware of this systemic(no)fixing(no)work by Wikimedians as a kind of second nature of turning the blind eye from non-productive work (edit 'collaboratively', support individuals 'exceptionally'). If it was not for a handful of prominent people like (Denny, Philip, Richard...and among few Nat) that kept me sane and above water and still around *(against any logic of sane burnout self-care)... Meanwhile the system of support for individuals does not exist and the WIKIMEDIA systems that exist are still too often broken or in many places with cracks, packed with people who had bad, terrible or traumatic experiences.

Long-time lurker stepping in for a little. “Stay in your lane”—no, just no. Communities and our organizations are deeply intertwined and their relationship with each other is crucial to their success. If that means swaying hiring decisions, then so be it. I have not fully read the details either but this particular reply is simply not warranted. On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 4:17 AM Lane Chance <zinkloss(a)gmail.com> wrote:

A detailed response by LSP to questions raised on the French Wikipedia, and a summary of the context of being subject to an unpleasant pile on, and direct personal attacks on the team, was published yesterday at: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Les_sans_pagEs/Réponses_aux_questions_… If you can't read French, Google translate does a perfectly adequate job to do the necessary reading everyone is expected to do as a *basic courtesy*, before publishing opinions. Lane On Tue, 20 Sept 2022 at 07:34, Todd Allen &lt;toddmallen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > It is hard to determine what is being complained about, when the letter does not actually link to any of the threads it complains about. If it did that, it would be much more easily possible for someone to look into the substance of it. It states that it has been linked to "continual bad-faith arguments" (itself concerning; that's not a neutral summary) of discussions "on the project’s talk page, on the administrators’ bulletin and on Le Bistro and a formal RFC — including calls for the disestablishment of the project on the basis of concerns around Conflicts of interest and Paid editing." > > Where are the links to those discussions? Where can I see what concerns were raised? If there is paid editing going on, that's a substantial concern, as is COI. If the arguments are in bad faith, well, that should be readily apparent, too. But where are the links? > > Todd > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 5:17 AM Lane Chance &lt;zinkloss(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >> Responding to LGBTQ minority communities raising legitimate, evidence >> based, concerns of systemic bias with "stay in your lane"? >> >> I don't think I've read anything more tone deaf. >> >> The give away is "Without having looked into the actual substance". Do >> the research before rushing to punch down the voice of minority >> groups. >> >> Lane >> >> On Mon, 19 Sept 2022 at 01:25, Yair Rand &lt;yyairrand(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> > >> > Without having looked into the actual substance of whatever dispute is going on among frwiki and LSP, I want to put forward some good general principles: >> > * The individual hiring and firing decisions of our organizations should be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the entities assigned those responsibilities. Public community pressure should not be able to get someone fired or hired, or prevent any particular hiring or firing decision. A public protest against someone's hiring is unproductive and damages the collaborative environment. >> > * Responding to a community's attitude by sending out a monodirectional communication, organized off-wiki and listing supporters' affiliate positions, is basically the most conflict-oriented way possible to approach this. >> > >> > How an affiliate manages their individual hires is the affiliate's business. HR activities are complicated, and do not need to be handled in the public sphere. If an affiliate wants to hire whoever, the community doesn't get to veto it. >> > >> > How a community reacts to an affiliate's actions is their own business. Affiliates do not get a say in local community affairs. A usergroup's or chapter's collective opinion is completely irrelevant in a community dialogue. If the community wants to ban someone, or even the entire membership of a group, they can do that, and affiliates don't get to veto it. >> > >> > (Seriously: It doesn't matter if you're the WMF's Board Chair, the CEO, or whatever, you don't get an extra vote in an RfC.) >> > >> > (It should go without saying that hostile/uncivil behaviour, harassment, and accusations of bad faith are not acceptable.) >> > >> > Everyone, please stay in your lane. This is like the only place on Wikimedia where we clearly even _have_ obvious distinct lanes, it should be manageable. >> > >> > -- Yair Rand >> > >> > >> > ‫בתאריך יום ו׳, 16 בספט׳ 2022 ב-4:30 מאת ‪WM LGBT‬‏ <‪wikimedialgbt@gmail.com‬‏>:‬ >> >> >> >> Link: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Open_letter_of_support_for_Les_sans_pagEs >> >> >> >> Over 35 Wikimedia organisations and many individual Wikimedians have >> >> signed in support of the initiative of our Wikimedia Affiliate Les >> >> sans pagEs professionalising their work by hiring Nattes à chat as >> >> executive director to continue their longstanding work addressing >> >> systemic bias on Wikipedia and our sister projects and groups. >> >> >> >> Les sans pagEs should be free and supported to create a better >> >> quality, more complete French-language encyclopedia, representative of >> >> different perspectives and lived experiences, instead of having to >> >> defend their work against baseless accusations of malpractice. >> >> >> >> Please ask on the meta discussion page if you would like to add your >> >> Wikimedia organisation or name in support. >> >> >> >> On behalf of >> >> Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group >> >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_LGBT >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> >> Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… >> >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> > Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… >> > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org… > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org

Hi everyone, I was unsure whether or not to reply to this thread, but maybe something honestly has to be said. Criticism is welcome when constructive, said in a civilized manner, without going personal and without the intention of belittling, and intended to improve our content. Not when done selectively on projects (or people) that deal with the gender gap. And this is the main problem we have on this front, that despite the magnificent work done, such projects are still viewed with prejudice: as non-neutral, done more for personal or group/activism interest than for the wikimedian one, who neglect quality over quantity. And this is the meaning of the letter of support to LSP on Meta. In addition to the fact that in all discussions I have read - even we have hundred of examples in our movement - there is a great confusion on what means a non-profit wiki association born to support a project, what means community (still talking about who is to be considered part of the community and who not), between the advocacy work and the paid editing, proving not to be able to distinguish, and not even to be aware of what are the validated (and long term) Wikimedian practices: professional staff inside the affiliates (paid to do financial or administrative work, event organization or communication), Wikimedian in residence, to give just a few examples. It seems that we can only see and conceive of the work done by the chapters, a little less that of the other affiliates like user groups, especially when they act not on a territorial, but on a thematic level. My 2 cents, Camelia -- *Camelia Boban (she/her)* *| Java EE Developer |* M. +39 3383385545 camelia.boban(a)gmail.com WikiDonne Chair & Co-founder | Wikimedia Diversity Ambassador *Wikipedia <https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban> **| **WikiDonne Project <https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:WikiDonne> *| *WikiDonne UG <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne>* | *WikiDonne APS <https://wikidonne.org/>* WMIT - WMSE - WMAR - WMCH - WMNY - WMDC - WMBE Member On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 11:11 AM Vi to &lt;vituzzu.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: