Hi, I can't speak on behalf of the rest of WMF staff, but since I made three edits to the 'Zack Exley' article, I feel that I owe a public explanation of the three edits that I made. Here are the edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zack_Exley&diff=506286326&am… In my judgement of myself, I have a few breaches/COI/errors that I made that I should not have done: 1.) It seems that I made the edits during normal work hours. If I recall, I made the edits during my lunch break (but I can't remember). A few months ago I was reading the WMF employee handbook and realized that any personal editing is not allowed during work hours. Until then, I was unaware of an exact 'rule' for this. That's my fault. I don't have a job so that I can do the 'fun stuff' that I'd like to do - I have a job because there is a job to do, that's what I'm here for. That's it. That's all. This brings me to my second breach/COI/error: 2.) As you can see, the edits I made were an update to a photo on the 'Zack Exley' article. I made these edits from my personal account. I should mention that in the past, I have been sloppy about which account I used (WMF staff account or personal account). This is because in my role (especially in 2011-12), I have to capture stories, which takes time and I was reaching out to dozens and dozens of editors. I found out early on that when I used my personal account, Wikipedians were more likely to contact me back, so I got into the habit of largely ignoring my staff account, since it was important that I could relate to other editors on an editor-to-editor level, especially since my role is getting people to open up to me to tell me about themselves personally and why they became editors in the first place. I specifically remember one editor who said that they respected it more that I was a Wikipedian before I became a WMF staffer. 3.) I shot the photo that I added with the purpose of updating this page: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff_and_contractors but the Wikipedian in me got the better of me and I put the image in the other place where I thought it had utility, the article about Zack Exley. This was stupid. I should have put it on the talk page, and requested that another editor update it. I have a history of bullheadedness and just going ahead: (Press play from 1:02:25, I talk about how my first edits were vandalism) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0NsY48OQdc My current work involves a school in South Africa, and while I started the page for the school when I had no connection with it, I came to realize that it was a conflict of interest to keep editing after I had developed a relationship with the school and the administration, so I started to add my additions to the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinenjongo_High_School But there was another issue that I would like to bring attention to, which is somewhat more appropriate to the conversation at the moment. I have created a few videos and added several photos that I have placed in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation One edit I made in particular was so incredibly stupid to make, because it was a recruiting video for WMF: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation&diff=49… Fortunately, User:MZMcBride reverted it many days later: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation&diff=49… I can't find the response I made, but I recall saying something to user:MZMcBride like 'Kick me upside the head if I ever do something stupid like that again'. I've always tried to step away from the issues of paid editing since media content-generation for fundraising and other WMF-related content is my role, not policy-generation or discussion around such issues. But as staff of the Wikimedia Foundation, and a staffer who creates media which could be called advertising, propaganda or public relations or whatever you'd like to call it, I may be someone who should speak about the issue. I don't think that I should have made a few of the edits that I have. Some were stupid because of a conflict-of-interest with the thing I'm illustrating and my employer. It insults the core point of NPOV. That said, from the perspective of the paid-editing issue of Wikipedia content, I do think that as long as editors who work for companies make it clear who their employers are (like I do on my user pages, both staff and personal), and where their potential conflicts of interests may be, that they may have quality content that they can use to illustrate and constructively improve Wikipedia articles and so should be allowed to edit in some capacity. Per my opinions about WMF staff editing Wikimedia-related content, I think that the talk page suggestion above is a very reasonable way to create content and avoid COI editing. My only issue would be timeliness of updates, but that is a minor concern from my perspective. I have never been a person who followed all the rules exactly, and was initially attracted to Wikipedia for those reasons (see the youtube video link above), so I apologize for any rule-ignoring/breaking behavior. I will also say that I haven't spoken with or consulted any colleagues at WMF or any other editors or people involved with Wikimedia at all regarding this issue I'm writing about right now. im writing this because I felt it was important to do so. I feel it fair that the issues raised here be dealt with in a straightforward manner since I'm responsible for my edit history and my own personal opinions. I certainly don't wish to antagonize any of my colleagues with my opinions or words here. I think it's important to make things plain. I'm saying this all as an explanation, not an excuse. I value the questions raised and points made on this thread because they all point towards high standards. It points WMF staff to lead-by-example, which (to put it bluntly) will never not be a pain in the butt. It's something that should happen and people pointing out flaws (no matter how tiny or insignificant they may seem) are important to do. The minute that stops happening, that's bad for NPOV. I'm open to any thoughts or feedback regarding anything that I have done above or have said in this thread. Thank you for your time. On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Fæ &lt;faewik(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- *Victor Grigas* Storyteller <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Knv6D6Thi0> Wikimedia Foundation vgrigas(a)wikimedia.org https://donate.wikimedia.org/

Sue and all: On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Sue Gardner &lt;sgardner(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: This is something I've also thought about a lot. I'd like to offer a different perspective. In part that's because the on-wiki The community guidelines are extremely complex, yes. I consider that an argument *in favor* of adopting simpler rules for staff, that exceed community rules. For a general idea, here are the kind of rules that could be implemented for staff: * Staff will not edit Wikipedia, at all * Staff will not edit Wikipedia unless they have discussed appropriate boundaries around their editing with their supervisor * Staff will not edit Wikipedia unless they have discussed appropriate boundaries with XYZ people in the Community department * Staff will not edit Wikipedia under accounts that are unconnected to their real name * Staff will not edit Wikipedia on behalf of paying clients Any one of these rules would *reduce* the amount of confusion a staff member might have about what is or isn't OK, not increase it. They would of course remain subject to Wikipedia's rules as well, but these would help them stay out of the kind of grey area that might get them in trouble. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Erik Moeller &lt;erik(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: As a former staff member who actively sought out (and received very little) guidance on how to approach my approach to Wikipedia editing during my tenure, I very strongly disagree. (My volunteer edits dropped sharply during the time I was employed by WMF.[1] A significant contributing factor was not knowing under what circumstances I would have cover from my employer if I encountered resistance to my volunteer editing.) It would disincentivize hiring from the I would like to avoid naming names in this thread, but surely you can see the risks associated with the approach you *have* taken? Leaving the Belfer Center situation aside, this year there has been significant media coverage of a prominent staff member whose employment ended abruptly over paid editing that, on the face of it, violated no publicly known policy. And last year, a staff member who was hired specifically for their skills in community engagement was banned by English Wikipedia for harassment -- and as far as I know, remains on the payroll. If "connection with the community" was a consideration in setting your policy, your policy has had some dramatic failures. and would disincentivize community Responsibility typically comes with sacrifices. Leaving that responsibility up to individual staff members, rather than engaging with it at an organizational level, does not seem to have been an effective approach. You expect managers to encourage their staff to become editors? That strikes me as a strange expectation. But again: my strong contention is that guidelines that *exceed* Wikipedia's policies in clarity, make it *less* dangerous to edit, not more dangerous. instead encourage a more corporate mentality "Corporate mentality" sound to me like an appeal to an emotional response from a community that is not always sympathetic to capitalism. But many policies and approaches taken by corporations have been evolved throughout history because they are effective and worthwhile -- not because they are corporate and evil. Guidelines around how to interact with a community you exist to serve seems like an especially important area. Why is the Wikimedia Foundation trying to reinvent the wheel here? Or maybe a better analogy -- why is the Wikimedia Foundation's position that wheels actually aren't all that important after all? On this part we agree 100%. My concerns are not about the goal, but about the path you have taken to try to reach it. No. Simply, no. I do not hear anybody saying that simple human mistakes are inexcusable. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=Peteforsyth&project…

On 17 April 2014 08:46, Erik Moeller &lt;erik(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: ... Staying cool is something we can all agree with. However when long term senior managers of the Foundation respond to respectfully written whistle-blowing messages such as Russavia's or Tomasz' previous blog post by deriding them as raising "moral panicky [Bull Shit]", you are putting these words in the mouths of your CEO and Board of Trustees. If this is the vulgar way that the Foundation wishes to be publicly represented, I would be very surprised. This is not the first time that Erik has been sarcastic and rude in an apparent attempt to close down discussion in public responses to whistle-blowers. Perhaps Sue or one of the Trustees would like to say something about their expectation for exemplary and mellow behaviour towards the Wikimedia Community from their senior management team? Thanks, Fae -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

Same practice here, through spontneous reflection independent of wmfr. Seemes that this is at least natural for a chapter. I believe wmf employees should also be encouraged to contribute to the projects. Erlend Wmno Den torsdag 17. april 2014 skrev Christophe Henner < christophe.henner(a)gmail.com&gt; følgende: -- *Erlend Bjørtvedt* Nestleder, Wikimedia Norge Vice chairman, Wikimedia Norway Mob: +47 - 9225 9227 http://no.wikimedia.org <http://no.wikimedia.org/wiki/About_us>

I can't think of a better justification for IAR than this thread. On Apr 17, 2014 8:04 AM, "Fæ" &lt;faewik(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On 17 April 2014 09:40, Erik Moeller &lt;erik(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: Erik, you are not helping anyone by writing derisory nonsense and continuing to attack long term Wikimedians in this thread. Nobody has made "wild insinuations", nobody has demanded explanations from the board for "why someone pooped". I expect Foundation senior managers to behave in a civil and respectful way when writing on governance failures and representing the Foundation and our movement. Senior managers are paid to do precisely this. I am paid precisely nothing to read the nonsense you are now spouting. If you cannot behave yourself, please leave responses to other managers in the Foundation or check with Sue before pressing "send". Thanks, Fae -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

David, I am not a "creature", nor am I am a part of a conspiracy with Russavia. Your actions against both Russavia and myself, with no process for appeal, say more about the direction our open movement is taking in putting up barriers to whistle-blowing rather than accepting this is part of a healthy and transparent open culture. My response on this thread for Erik's unacceptable public behaviour as a Foundation senior manager have nothing whatsoever to do with Wikimedia UK or the wikimediauk-l list, so your using your authority on a different list to punish me is bizarre. Fae On 17 April 2014 09:58, David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Erik Moeller &lt;erik(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: to be very clear -- I don't feel "wronged" on this front, it isn't a big deal to me. I brought this up only in order to comment on your assertion that giving staff broad license, and no guidance above and beyond Wikipedia policy, would tend to *strengthen* volunteer engagement, which I think is backwards. One of the dynamics that was initially challenging for me, personally and professionally, was that some editors I had known for some time as a volunteer -- and others who I was just meeting -- began to defer to my judgment. The disposition of community members toward me changed noticeably. I did not want to be inappropriately overbearing, and among all the things I was trying to accomplish in my work, that was a puzzle I did not have time to apply much thought to. Some guidance from WMF management could have helped with that situation. (The lack of it did not, in the long run, constitute a big problem.) But Erik, it seems to me that you're operating from a premise that guidelines or rules inherently tend to discourage activity. I think that premise is flawed. Agreed. Agreed. I have to confess -- I am having a lot of trouble parsing your last paragraph. What is the point where we are so far apart? And (as I think Fae has asked) what is the "moral panicky BS" and how does it relate to this discussion? I think you've left aside the more significant points I raised -- but it's late here, so maybe you're planning to come back to it tomorrow. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]

Sue, Thank you for your response, it is appreciated. Indeed we are all n00bs at some stage, and we all make COI mistakes, and I can admit to making this mistake myself twice early on. But we all learn pretty quickly that COI editing is frowned upon, and can cause problems later on. I would like to echo pretty much what Pete Forsyth has stated, and wholeheartedly agree that the WMF should go above and beyond what we would expect other organisations to adhere to on our projects. Whilst, Pete's suggestions on possibly policies certainly do go above and beyond what is expected in the community, they would be quite difficult to implement. So how about a simple WMF policy that states something along the lines of: "Employees and contractors of the Wikimedia Foundation shall not edit articles relating to the Wikimedia Foundation, broadly construed, but at rather directed to raise potential edits on the talk pages of affected articles. This directive does not apply to the reverting vandalism, removing copyright violations or potentially libellous materials." Such a directive for WMF people would be easy to make, easy to implement, easy to enforce, and would demonstrate that the Wikimedia Foundation itself is at the forefront, and setting an example for other organisations and leading by example. Comments welcome Sue. Cheers Russavia

On 17 April 2014 16:25, Michael Snow &lt;wikipedia(a)frontier.com&gt; wrote: We also have ample real-world evidence that there is literally no limit to the querulousness of banned users. Going to great effort to carefully craft a stick for them to wield strikes me as not a productive pastime. - d.

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:28 AM, rupert THURNER &lt;rupert.thurner(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: I accept Sue's recent statement -- she's right, the final call about what kind of policy the organization will or won't have rests with the organization. and everybody who thinks WMF and its I do not agree with this characterization of my words -- but I'm happy to move on. I agree with that statement. (By the way: It may be known to some that Zack and I have not always seen eye-to-eye; but I respect him and what he has done for the movement, and I am trying, as always, not to let any personal feelings influence how I proceed.) Let me be specific about the problem I see, because there have been many misunderstandings in this thread. I do think it is safe to assume that User:Wikitedium is Zack Exley. In February 2010, either shortly before or during his application for a top level executive position as Chief Community Officer, Zack created[1] a user page with the following content: "Mainly, I just fix typos when I come across them. I depend on Wikipedia and I'm happy I can help improve it in at least a small way." That was absolutely false as a description of how User:Wikitedium had operated in the preceding four years. The user account's edits had been almost entirely devoted to expanding content related to Zack Exley and his career. It was a bad decision to create that user page -- specifically, a bad decision for somebody seeking to set the direction for how the Wikimedia Foundation would build its relationship to community. After he was hired, Zack continued to use that account -- more responsibly, yes -- but he neither corrected the false statement on its user page, or disclose his connection to it. In my view, another bad decision. And now, close to 24 hours after all this has been brought up, neither Zack, nor anybody at the WMF, has addressed this on the wiki. Now, this is looking to me like a *really* bad decision. The WMF's position has been made clear, that it's Wikipedia's rules and norms that should be followed. I still maintain that's not the best way to go about it, but if that's what remains -- so be it. The Wikipedia policies and processes around a situation like this are very clear.[2] -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wikitedium&oldid=343275… [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Pete Forsyth &lt;peteforsyth(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: That is untrue; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zackexley . Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

On 17 April 2014 15:23, Pete Forsyth &lt;peteforsyth(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Actually, it meets the requirements of the project. It's not perfect, but we have administrators who don't even give that much disclosure to their own alternate accounts (or that they edit without logging in), and nobody's getting the pitchforks out for them. If you don't like the edits made by the account, work on-wiki to address the issues. You know how to start an AfD for any articles you think are about non-notable subjects, you know how to un-peacock an article. If one really wants to push the COI envelope, one could say that users who are former employees of an organization shouldn't be editing articles related directly to the organization or its employees (salaried or contract), though. Indeed, one of the biggest COI issues we have on English Wikipedia is former employees trying to use our articles to "bring problems to light" about organizations. The disclosure was made. Incidentally, that's all that would need to be done even at the farthest reaches of the proposed terms of use amendment. Risker

On 17 April 2014 20:49, Zack Exley &lt;zexley(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: It's important to note that threads like this are pretty much entirely raised by people who aren't actually allowed to do so directly any more. You'd think there was some sort of correlation or something. - d.

Yes - *assume good faith *because it can make all the difference in any relationship. Or - if one finds "assuming good faith" seems naive, try acknowledging that people do the best they can with the information they have at any given moment; Or - if acknowledging people do the best they can doesn't work, allow that we humans (each and every one of us) make many mistakes in a life time; Or - if you have never made any mistakes, please let me know how in the world you managed to avoid them :-) Take care, Amy On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Erlend Bjørtvedt &lt;erlend(a)wikimedia.no&gt;wrote;wrote: -- *Amy Vossbrinck* *Executive Assistant to the* *Chief of Finance and Administration, Garfield Byrd* *Wikimedia Foundation* *149 New Montgomery Street* *San Francisco, CA 94105* *415.839.6885 ext 6628* *avossbrinck(a)wikimedia.org &lt;avossbrinck(a)wikimedia.org&gt;*

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Zack Exley &lt;zexley(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: zack, i find this a little offending. most of the persons in this discussion thread did more edits in the last months than you in your lifetime - and this without touching an article about self, or accepting that the colleagues at work do so. its you who gets a 6 digit number of donors money wired to your bank account every year. you can be sure they did not give it because of your edits. instead of "feeling bad" you might consider doing something about the cause. e.g. you might propose your own article for deletion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion). what makes this whole story confusing to me are the following pages: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Organizing_Institute * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_freeman * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Carteroni * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mstemp the zack exley wikipedia page says you are president of new organizing institute, and you let some one time wikipedia user create an article about your organization again, and let another one time user create a page for your only partner in that organization? after feeling terribly bad? after being chief community officer at WMF responsible for developing the foundations relationship with the editing community? many thanks, zack, that you are there. otherwise "the whole thing would have fallen apart" (wikimedia), as you say in this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQfHVGMrHCY rupert

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Pete Forsyth &lt;peteforsyth(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: <snip> <snip> There is one incorrect fact and one bad faith assumption in what you've written. Zack described his activity on his userpage; you have no way to assume that all of his "minor typo" fixes were made under the Wikitedium account. Personally, I often don't login when I'm making very minor edits. Moreover, edits summarized as "typo" actually form a large portion of the Wikitedium account contributions. So wrong all around here, Pete. The incorrect fact, which you have not acknowledged, is your assertion that Zack never disclosed his connection to the other account. I suppose it might be slightly challenging to connect Wikitedium to Zack Exley, rather than the other way around. He did disclose it. While it was two years after he was hired by the WMF, the Wikitedium account was editing at the rate of a handful of edits per year. Incidentally, the Zackexley account has made less than 15 edits ever. You haven't mentioned it on this list, but you actually accused Zack of violating the sockpuppetry policy on his talk page, and you threaten to "pursue further action." But the most cursory review of the sockpuppetry policy, which I assume you performed before making an accusation, reveals that even if he had not disclosed the Wikitedium account he would hardly have violated any part of the rules. Perhaps your personal feelings have indeed influenced your behavior here. You may want to reconsider further involvement. Hopefully we can drop discussing Zack and move on to whatever this thread is supposed to be about.

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 2:14 PM, David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: response to Zack and Risker, and also in the notes I've left on both user accounts' talk pages. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-April/071203.html(ema… to Zack/Risker not yet archived) My understanding of the sock puppet policy is apparently not perfect. But I stand my my personal and professional understanding of what the best practices are for disclosure, for somebody in a leadership position in the Wikimedia movement. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]

On 17 April 2014 17:05, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) &lt;bjorsch(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: It doesn't, unless you're a banned editor looking to troll. - d.

Brad Jorsch (Anomie), 17/04/2014 18:05: When something is proclaimed heresy, it's unsuprising that inquisitions are set up. Historically the solution is to disband/divest the central authority (e.g. the Roman pope). Nemo

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 9:53 AM, geni &lt;geniice(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: IMO if we talk about enforcement we are getting *very* far off track. When one takes a job with an organization, one usually gets some guidance about what is expected. I assume good faith on the part of the people who choose to work for the WMF. Shouldn't we all? The need for enforcement may come up from time to time (I prefer not to keep belaboring specific examples) but it is very far from the main point. I do think that enforcement, at times when it *does* happen to come up, is generally much easier to pursue when broad principles have already been clearly expressed and agreed to. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]

I feel like I've given the WMF's position pretty clearly upthread, so I'll try not to repeat myself. I believe that policies like the one described here would do more harm than good, for reasons including those given by others in this thread. To the suggestion that the WMF ought to hold staff to a higher standard of on-wiki conduct than is generally required by the community: I can see how that might seem like a good idea, but I believe it would actually have the overall negative effect of discouraging staff participation in the projects. The solution would be worse than the problem. The WMF contains a widely-varying level of on-wiki expertise. That's always been the case, and I'm sure it always will be. It seems unrealistic to expect new non-Wikipedian staff to walk in the door and immediately become excellent Wikipedians, and it seems equally unrealistic to expect seasoned Wikipedians on the staff to never make mistakes on-wiki. I want WMF staff to feel encouraged to learn and explore and contribute on the projects, just like everyone else. I don't expect them to get special leniency just for being staff, but neither do I expect or want them to be held to an unattainably high standard. I am also not interested in giving anybody a special stick with which to beat them. To repeat what I said before: internal WMF staff policies are developed and set and enforced by the WMF, based on what we think is best and informed by our experiences. The community makes rules governing community conduct, and the WMF makes rules governing staff conduct. The WMF alone makes determinations about what happens when or if WMF standards are violated. It's pretty simple. Thanks, Sue Sue, Thank you for your response, it is appreciated. Indeed we are all n00bs at some stage, and we all make COI mistakes, and I can admit to making this mistake myself twice early on. But we all learn pretty quickly that COI editing is frowned upon, and can cause problems later on. I would like to echo pretty much what Pete Forsyth has stated, and wholeheartedly agree that the WMF should go above and beyond what we would expect other organisations to adhere to on our projects. Whilst, Pete's suggestions on possibly policies certainly do go above and beyond what is expected in the community, they would be quite difficult to implement. So how about a simple WMF policy that states something along the lines of: "Employees and contractors of the Wikimedia Foundation shall not edit articles relating to the Wikimedia Foundation, broadly construed, but at rather directed to raise potential edits on the talk pages of affected articles. This directive does not apply to the reverting vandalism, removing copyright violations or potentially libellous materials." Such a directive for WMF people would be easy to make, easy to implement, easy to enforce, and would demonstrate that the Wikimedia Foundation itself is at the forefront, and setting an example for other organisations and leading by example. Comments welcome Sue. Cheers Russavia _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>