[Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
52 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

Pete Forsyth-2
Dave, you're simply mistaken.

The paid editing amendment was passed by the Board in April 2014 (before
Lila was hired); it was merely *announced* in June.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:59 AM, David Emrany <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear Coren
>
> I think you are mistaken. The paid editing amendment was added in 2014
> (16th June) during Lila's term.[1] Lila took over the reins from Sue
> on 1 June 2014.
>
> I'm appalled that you credit Sue for the steps taken (under Lila) to
> widen the volunteer base by exposing many rotten apples, including
> through better technology.
>
> I equally state with certainty that your claim re the WMF's not
> preventing in any way the investigations is tremendously flexible with
> the truth and is completely divorced from reality. The enforcement of
> the Terms of Use lies exclusively with the WMF. There is no point
> repeating here the legal defeats WMF has suffered in many
> international courts during Sue's regime. We can discuss this
> privately.
>
> [1]
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Terms_of_Use&type=revision&diff=98138&oldid=90463
>
> BTW, its unclear how someone "tangentially involved" can state facts
> with "absolute certainty".
>
> Dave
>
> On 3/1/16, Marc A. Pelletier <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 16-03-01 03:57 AM, David Emrany wrote:
> >> What nobody is prepared to acknowledge is that only under Lila's term
> >> some of the most blatant and egregious instances of coordinated PR
> >> socking and on-wiki abuses could come out.
> >
> > I was tangentially part of the investigation that led to many of those
> > things being ferreted out and I can tell you with absolute certainty:
> >
> > (a) The Foundation did not in any way prevent those investigations for
> > abuse in the past (before or after Lila), so saying that "only under
> > Lila's term [they] could come out" is at best misguided.
> >
> > (b) The single biggest help we have had in being able that kind of abuse
> > were the revised terms of use, that were put in place in 2012 and
> > started being worked on at least a year prior.  As far as I know the ED
> > had minor to no involvement in this - that was a long-overdue initiative
> > from Legal.  But even *if* it had ED involvement, it would have been all
> > Sue.
> >
> > (c) The foundation has always given volunteers support when we needed
> > Legal/Comm help getting rid of significant abuse, for as long as I can
> > remember (At least since 2008).  The help they were *able* to give at
> > the time was more limited because the LCA team was tiny and overworked,
> > but they always tried their best.
> >
> > So, nobody is "prepared to acknowledge" your assertion because it has no
> > relationship with reality.
> >
> > -- Coren / Marc
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

Kevin Smith
In reply to this post by Chris Sherlock
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Chris Sherlock <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I'm just going to quote directly from the Grant application here [1]:
>
> > Knowledge Engine By Wikipedia will democratize the discovery of media,
> news and information—it will make the Internet's most relevant information
> more accessible and openly curated, and it will create an open data engine
> that's completely free of commercial interests. Our new site will be the
> Internet’s first transparent search engine, and the first one that carries
> the reputation of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> So to reiterate the words that make it hard for the WMF to deny that they
> were pitching for an Internet search engine:
>

I guess I was focused on the grant deliverables, and not the "flavor text"
around it. You are correct that the pitch is in the direction of some kind
of internet search engine, although it does not specifically say that it
would include non-free information sources.


> You can tell me the scope was intended to be only for Wikimedia projects,
> but that isn't what is said in that grant application. That document as it
> stands literally states that it is to be an Internet search engine. No, I
> correct myself. It says it is to be THE Internet's search engine.
>

Clearly there are still aspirations to include non-Wikimedia projects in
the search results. I can't speak for the board, or c-levels. But I can say
that in my work with the Discovery team, we have not been asked to, and
have not had even rough plans to, search non-free information sources.


> So when you say than there is confusion between the internal presentation
> and the official external grant application, I must respectfully disagree
> with you. There is no such confusion. The two parts of the application I
> have quoted cover almost a third of the grant application and I'd argue are
> the key parts of the application.
>

I would argue that the deliverables are THE key part of the application,
but I freely admit that you are correct that the other parts matter. And
are somewhat disturbing.

There has been some handwaving going on from a variety of different parties

> that "oh, it's just a Grant application, these things are very high level
> and vague, it doesn't really matter what we write in it lets just put the
> broadest possible objectives and vision for this thing and we'll deal the
> scope later on after we've been given the grant money".
>
> Others may not think this is not a concern. I do though, and I'm very
> concerned that we are making grant applications and not really disclosing
> our full intentions, and we are not making it clear what are the
> corresponding scope limitations. Before someone objects, it's even worse
> when I have asked about the first challenge that could threaten the project
> and the response [3] is, in part:
>

Most of us on the Discovery team share your concerns about how this grant
was conceived, pitched, received, and (not) publicized. Most of the team
didn't see the grant until you did.

> So basically, 6 months means that by midway through this month,
> we will see all of these deliverables. Could someone please advise
> us how this is proceeding?  I’d imagine that we should at least be
> able to see the dashboard by now, but I’m curious to find out more
> about the research that’s been conducted and the results of the user
> testing performed.

I'm hardly the expert here, but the dashboards have been up for a while[1],
and are continually being expanded and improved. The user tests have been
documented[2]. Upcoming tests are documented in phabricator.

[1] http://searchdata.wmflabs.org/
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Discovery/Testing

Kevin
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

Philippe Beaudette-4
In reply to this post by Pete Forsyth-2
Additionally, I believe Coren was referring to the expanded TOU as a whole,
not to that amendment alone.  And I agree with him, for the record.

Lila's support in expanding the size of the CA team was useful in helping
to combat the abuses mentioned, but the vast majority of the systemic work
took place under Sue, and was the result of years of careful planning and
execution.

pb

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Pete Forsyth <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dave, you're simply mistaken.
>
> The paid editing amendment was passed by the Board in April 2014 (before
> Lila was hired); it was merely *announced* in June.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 8:59 AM, David Emrany <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Coren
> >
> > I think you are mistaken. The paid editing amendment was added in 2014
> > (16th June) during Lila's term.[1] Lila took over the reins from Sue
> > on 1 June 2014.
> >
> > I'm appalled that you credit Sue for the steps taken (under Lila) to
> > widen the volunteer base by exposing many rotten apples, including
> > through better technology.
> >
> > I equally state with certainty that your claim re the WMF's not
> > preventing in any way the investigations is tremendously flexible with
> > the truth and is completely divorced from reality. The enforcement of
> > the Terms of Use lies exclusively with the WMF. There is no point
> > repeating here the legal defeats WMF has suffered in many
> > international courts during Sue's regime. We can discuss this
> > privately.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Terms_of_Use&type=revision&diff=98138&oldid=90463
> >
> > BTW, its unclear how someone "tangentially involved" can state facts
> > with "absolute certainty".
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > On 3/1/16, Marc A. Pelletier <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > On 16-03-01 03:57 AM, David Emrany wrote:
> > >> What nobody is prepared to acknowledge is that only under Lila's term
> > >> some of the most blatant and egregious instances of coordinated PR
> > >> socking and on-wiki abuses could come out.
> > >
> > > I was tangentially part of the investigation that led to many of those
> > > things being ferreted out and I can tell you with absolute certainty:
> > >
> > > (a) The Foundation did not in any way prevent those investigations for
> > > abuse in the past (before or after Lila), so saying that "only under
> > > Lila's term [they] could come out" is at best misguided.
> > >
> > > (b) The single biggest help we have had in being able that kind of
> abuse
> > > were the revised terms of use, that were put in place in 2012 and
> > > started being worked on at least a year prior.  As far as I know the ED
> > > had minor to no involvement in this - that was a long-overdue
> initiative
> > > from Legal.  But even *if* it had ED involvement, it would have been
> all
> > > Sue.
> > >
> > > (c) The foundation has always given volunteers support when we needed
> > > Legal/Comm help getting rid of significant abuse, for as long as I can
> > > remember (At least since 2008).  The help they were *able* to give at
> > > the time was more limited because the LCA team was tiny and overworked,
> > > but they always tried their best.
> > >
> > > So, nobody is "prepared to acknowledge" your assertion because it has
> no
> > > relationship with reality.
> > >
> > > -- Coren / Marc
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--


Philippe Beaudette

[hidden email]
415-275-1424
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

Chris Sherlock
In reply to this post by Kevin Smith

> On 2 Mar 2016, at 5:24 AM, Kevin Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> You can tell me the scope was intended to be only for Wikimedia projects,
>> but that isn't what is said in that grant application. That document as it
>> stands literally states that it is to be an Internet search engine. No, I
>> correct myself. It says it is to be THE Internet's search engine.
>>
>
> Clearly there are still aspirations to include non-Wikimedia projects in
> the search results. I can't speak for the board, or c-levels. But I can say
> that in my work with the Discovery team, we have not been asked to, and
> have not had even rough plans to, search non-free information sources.

It’s not even the wrong thing to do :-) Thank you for clarifying this though.

>
>> So when you say than there is confusion between the internal presentation
>> and the official external grant application, I must respectfully disagree
>> with you. There is no such confusion. The two parts of the application I
>> have quoted cover almost a third of the grant application and I'd argue are
>> the key parts of the application.
>>
>
> I would argue that the deliverables are THE key part of the application,
> but I freely admit that you are correct that the other parts matter. And
> are somewhat disturbing.

That’s a fair perspective for those actually doing the important work of making sure the grant is fulfilled. The deliverables are extremely important, but from my POV, the deliverables for the “discovery” phase inform the rest of the project, which is where the rubber hits the road. The deliverables ask to set the core and usage and performance metrics, which must be determined from the overall overall grant objective. User research and testing, similarly, can’t just be executed but the study and testing has to be designed and scoped, which again has to come from the overall grant objective, which is what I highlighted earlier.

>
> There has been some handwaving going on from a variety of different parties
>> that "oh, it's just a Grant application, these things are very high level
>> and vague, it doesn't really matter what we write in it lets just put the
>> broadest possible objectives and vision for this thing and we'll deal the
>> scope later on after we've been given the grant money".
>>
>> Others may not think this is not a concern. I do though, and I'm very
>> concerned that we are making grant applications and not really disclosing
>> our full intentions, and we are not making it clear what are the
>> corresponding scope limitations. Before someone objects, it's even worse
>> when I have asked about the first challenge that could threaten the project
>> and the response [3] is, in part:
>>
>
> Most of us on the Discovery team share your concerns about how this grant
> was conceived, pitched, received, and (not) publicized. Most of the team
> didn't see the grant until you did.

I feel need to tell those on the Discovery team who may think that my questions seem to be denigrating those on the team - I’m sorry if in any way I’ve written something that could give you a perception that I don’t believe in the worth of what you are doing. I want to put my hand up and take responsibility for it, because it’s absolutely not the case. My issues are literally with the Board of Trustees and the way they went about getting that grant, and set (or rather, didn’t set) effective and clearly-communicated strategy.

Shortly after I sent that last email, I reread the Discovery FAQ again to see if I’d missed anything. And I realised that I had missed that there was a portal and a whole bunch of material already prepared by folks in that team. I mean, there is a gerrit reviewer hooked into the version control system and everything, so it’s all being done in the open, exactly in the way that I’ve been rabbiting on about in a number of emails. I can see that Chris Koerner has attempted to ensure that all the material has been communicated and centralised on the team’s Wiki, the team’s goals are tracking very nicely [1] Oliver did a study which I was going to go back to read but for the life of me I can’t find it… the portal is up and running [2] and I can see that the team have been continuing to hold their meetings and publish their minutes in a very open and accessible manner.

So I’d like to not only apologise if I’ve offended or upset anyone in the Discovery team. That was never my intent. Actually, now that I’ve found how to view the work you are doing, I’m actually very impressed!

My only feedback is that information is *really* scattered. I’m finding it hard to follow what is going on, not that this should be a concern as I’m not doing the work. It might be nice to have a slightly reorganized page for this project so we can see what is being done. I’d love to see blog posts from the team showing off their work. It really helps to get to grips with what is going on.

Anyway, it’s heartening to see that the Discovery team is getting on with it, even through all this turmoil.

Chris

1. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Engineering/2015-16_Q3_Goals
2. http://discovery.wmflabs.org/metrics/#kpis_summary

Chris
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

Pete Forsyth-2
In reply to this post by Pete Forsyth-2
The message below went without response on the list, but there was a
significant off-list response.

Jimmy Wales wrote to James Heilman, and CC'd me. His message professed to
praise this one, but missed its main points:
* There was no mention of professional mediation or facilitation to work
through disagreements
* Jimmy Wales had *even worse* things to say about James Heilman than he
has said in public.

I won't repeat those words on a public list, but I am unimpressed with the
tactic of moving personal attacks off list. Jimmy's message was sent 48
hours ago, and I immediately told him the things I've said here, but there
has been no response.

We should not use off-list messages to convey thoughts that would be
completely unacceptable if said in public. I don't want to be involved in
stuff like that -- and I'd much rather it didn't happen to begin with.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Pete Forsyth <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Jimmy and James, I'm glad to see you both agreeing on some facts. That's
> encouraging. But IMO you should both put some careful thought into this
> part:
>
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 9:36 PM, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Finally facts are not determined by a vote. That you got unanimity for
>> "The
>> board.. has offered no objections to any board member discussing long term
>> strategy with the community at any time" should make all of us worry. I
>> have provided evidence that refutes this claim here
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/In_focus
>
>
> As somebody who's following this, but who's not locked in a dispute, it
> seems there is a very natural explanation for this, that should not
> especially make us worry:
>
> Different people, reasonable people, can reasonably disagree about what
> constitutes "discussing long term strategy" and what does not.
>
> For the entire board to agree to a statement like that does not strike me
> as especially bad; perhaps there was a dominant idea of what constituted
> strategy and what didn't, and everybody voted with that idea in mind,
> without insisting on a clearer definition in the text of the statement. Not
> ideal, I think -- but also not the end of the world.
>
> But Jimmy, you have repeatedly claimed that vote as evidence that James
> told a lie.
>
> That claim introduces a lot of drama into the discussion -- and does
> exactly something you stated you didn't want to do, which is publicly
> assaulting James' reputation.
>
> I would suggest you both stop accusing each other of lying, long enough to
> figure out what facts you *can* agree on. You're both Wikipedians, we do
> this all the time. It might involve getting out of some of the language
> patterns you've been using, e.g. getting away from abstract notions like
> "long term strategy."
>
> A skilled, professional mediator, facilitator, or ombudsman can be an
> excellent resource for working through stuff like this.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

Kevin Smith
In reply to this post by Chris Sherlock
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Chris Sherlock <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> My only feedback is that information is *really* scattered. I’m finding it
> hard to follow what is going on, not that this should be a concern as I’m
> not doing the work. It might be nice to have a slightly reorganized page
> for this project so we can see what is being done. I’d love to see blog
> posts from the team showing off their work. It really helps to get to grips
> with what is going on.
>

We're always trying to improve, so thanks for this feedback. We actually
proposed at least one blog post that didn't fit the criteria for blog
posts, so we're trying to use other channels. We did several presentations
at the metrics meetings, and we try to present at lightning
talks/showcases. And of course there is the Discovery mailing list[1],
which is a great source of information for what we are thinking about, and
what we have accomplished. For completeness, I'll also mention our team
wiki page[2].


> Anyway, it’s heartening to see that the Discovery team is getting on with
> it, even through all this turmoil.
>

Thanks! That's exactly what we have tried to do.


[1] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery
[2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Discovery

Kevin
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

Fæ
In reply to this post by Pete Forsyth-2
Hi Pete,

if Jimmy Wales' behaviour has degenerated to the level of making
personal attacks off-list while posting contradictory soft soap
on-list (such as not being against James rerunning, and he did not
want to vote James off the board but this was everyone else on the WMF
board that forced his hand), then he is the type of self-inflated
celebrity that neither the Wikimedia community or the board of the WMF
should accept as an appointed trustee, without a community vote which
will at least hold him to account for his past behaviour in a way that
his fellow trustees are obviously unable to do.

Can you please forward your complete evidence to the WMF board of
trustees? If they ever take credible action to improve governance,
then the campaign of nasty personal attacks we have seen Jimmy Wales
make over the last month against James should be examined in detail by
a "grown-up" who can give the board feedback on the minimum ethical
behaviour expected from a trustee, along with educating them as to
what "removal for cause" means and how it must apply to Jimmy Wales as
much as any other member of the board.

I find it deeply disturbing that a trustee behaving so ridiculously
childishly is at this moment a self-appointed conduit for WMF staff
feedback to the board, and a self-appointed spokesman for what the WMF
is looking for in the next CEO.

P.S. I'll be returning to Jimmy's blatant conflict of loyalties
between Wikia and the WMF, and his refusal to recognize there may be a
governance issue requiring transparent management (i.e. seeing
something mentioned in the public board meeting minutes), when the
list is quieter.

Thanks,
Fae

On 2 March 2016 at 16:45, Pete Forsyth <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The message below went without response on the list, but there was a
> significant off-list response.
>
> Jimmy Wales wrote to James Heilman, and CC'd me. His message professed to
> praise this one, but missed its main points:
> * There was no mention of professional mediation or facilitation to work
> through disagreements
> * Jimmy Wales had *even worse* things to say about James Heilman than he
> has said in public.
>
> I won't repeat those words on a public list, but I am unimpressed with the
> tactic of moving personal attacks off list. Jimmy's message was sent 48
> hours ago, and I immediately told him the things I've said here, but there
> has been no response.
>
> We should not use off-list messages to convey thoughts that would be
> completely unacceptable if said in public. I don't want to be involved in
> stuff like that -- and I'd much rather it didn't happen to begin with.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 10:53 PM, Pete Forsyth <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Jimmy and James, I'm glad to see you both agreeing on some facts. That's
>> encouraging. But IMO you should both put some careful thought into this
>> part:
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 9:36 PM, James Heilman <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Finally facts are not determined by a vote. That you got unanimity for
>>> "The
>>> board.. has offered no objections to any board member discussing long term
>>> strategy with the community at any time" should make all of us worry. I
>>> have provided evidence that refutes this claim here
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/In_focus
>>
>>
>> As somebody who's following this, but who's not locked in a dispute, it
>> seems there is a very natural explanation for this, that should not
>> especially make us worry:
>>
>> Different people, reasonable people, can reasonably disagree about what
>> constitutes "discussing long term strategy" and what does not.
>>
>> For the entire board to agree to a statement like that does not strike me
>> as especially bad; perhaps there was a dominant idea of what constituted
>> strategy and what didn't, and everybody voted with that idea in mind,
>> without insisting on a clearer definition in the text of the statement. Not
>> ideal, I think -- but also not the end of the world.
>>
>> But Jimmy, you have repeatedly claimed that vote as evidence that James
>> told a lie.
>>
>> That claim introduces a lot of drama into the discussion -- and does
>> exactly something you stated you didn't want to do, which is publicly
>> assaulting James' reputation.
>>
>> I would suggest you both stop accusing each other of lying, long enough to
>> figure out what facts you *can* agree on. You're both Wikipedians, we do
>> this all the time. It might involve getting out of some of the language
>> patterns you've been using, e.g. getting away from abstract notions like
>> "long term strategy."
>>
>> A skilled, professional mediator, facilitator, or ombudsman can be an
>> excellent resource for working through stuff like this.
>>
>> -Pete
>> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

Andreas Kolbe-2
In reply to this post by Pete Forsyth-2
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Pete Forsyth <[hidden email]> wrote:

> We should not use off-list messages to convey thoughts that would be
> completely unacceptable if said in public. I don't want to be involved in
> stuff like that -- and I'd much rather it didn't happen to begin with.
>


I told Jimmy Wales a couple of years ago that emails he sent to me
privately, in an effort to remove conversations that should be public from
the public domain, would be forwarded to journalists. That worked. I
haven't had one since.

Andreas
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

Chris Sherlock
In reply to this post by Pete Forsyth-2
On 3 Mar 2016, at 3:45 AM, Pete Forsyth <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> The message below went without response on the list, but there was a
> significant off-list response.
>
> Jimmy Wales wrote to James Heilman, and CC'd me. His message professed to
> praise this one, but missed its main points:
> * There was no mention of professional mediation or facilitation to work
> through disagreements
> * Jimmy Wales had *even worse* things to say about James Heilman than he
> has said in public.
>
> I won't repeat those words on a public list, but I am unimpressed with the
> tactic of moving personal attacks off list. Jimmy's message was sent 48
> hours ago, and I immediately told him the things I've said here, but there
> has been no response.
>
> We should not use off-list messages to convey thoughts that would be
> completely unacceptable if said in public. I don't want to be involved in
> stuff like that -- and I'd much rather it didn't happen to begin with.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]

If you didn’t solicit the email then I think you should make it public, and redact anything that might be dangerous to someone’s personal privacy.

This is surprising and frankly very upsetting to hear. I have been critical of the WMF, and I have openly criticized actions that Jimmy has taken in public. But I never thought that I’d read that he’d send off-list messages disparaging James.

It’s even worse than that actually - I’m assuming he stated things that he believes James did as a Board member, but said it to a non-Board member. I seem to recall a certain WMF Board member saying that he felt he couldn’t support James because he felt that he might not keep his issue confidential.

Chris
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

David Emrany
In reply to this post by Philippe Beaudette-4
Philippe

There is no public evidence of your misleading statements re years of
careful planning.and execution.

What there is public evidence of is that the WMF has systematically
evaded its enforcement responsibilities under the Terms of Use.

To cite 1 specific instance, Sue Gardner was repeatedly informed about
the pedo on-wiki grooming by User Demiurge1000

"Who is responsible for child protection ?"
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sue_Gardner&oldid=10496213#Response_to_your_question

It is deeply unsettling to have your confirmation that Sue Gardner sat
on this for years and it was only Lila (an outsider with no great ties
to the community) who could globally ban this user out.

PS: You surely recall “I won’t allow the accusations that the anon is
making to stand on my talk page. I’ve redacted them. Philippe
Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)”

David

On 3/2/16, Philippe Beaudette <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Additionally, I believe Coren was referring to the expanded TOU as a whole,
> not to that amendment alone.  And I agree with him, for the record.
>
> Lila's support in expanding the size of the CA team was useful in helping
> to combat the abuses mentioned, but the vast majority of the systemic work
> took place under Sue, and was the result of years of careful planning and
> execution.
>
> pb
>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

Philippe Beaudette-4
It is deeply unsettling to have my WHAT?  I confirmed no such thing, and
your misrepresentations do you no favors.

One thing I have learned over the last few years is that it is impossible
to have a conversation in a spirit of openness when one party so wildly
misrepresents the statements of the other. That's not good faith dealing.

Therefore, I won't be continuing this discussion with you.

pb

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016, David Emrany <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Philippe
>
> There is no public evidence of your misleading statements re years of
> careful planning.and execution.
>
> What there is public evidence of is that the WMF has systematically
> evaded its enforcement responsibilities under the Terms of Use.
>
> To cite 1 specific instance, Sue Gardner was repeatedly informed about
> the pedo on-wiki grooming by User Demiurge1000
>
> "Who is responsible for child protection ?"
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sue_Gardner&oldid=10496213#Response_to_your_question
>
> It is deeply unsettling to have your confirmation that Sue Gardner sat
> on this for years and it was only Lila (an outsider with no great ties
> to the community) who could globally ban this user out.
>
> PS: You surely recall “I won’t allow the accusations that the anon is
> making to stand on my talk page. I’ve redacted them. Philippe
> Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)”
>
> David
>
> On 3/2/16, Philippe Beaudette <[hidden email] <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > Additionally, I believe Coren was referring to the expanded TOU as a
> whole,
> > not to that amendment alone.  And I agree with him, for the record.
> >
> > Lila's support in expanding the size of the CA team was useful in helping
> > to combat the abuses mentioned, but the vast majority of the systemic
> work
> > took place under Sue, and was the result of years of careful planning and
> > execution.
> >
> > pb
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email] <javascript:;>
> ?subject=unsubscribe>



--


Philippe Beaudette

[hidden email]
415-275-1424
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open letter: Issues needing addressing by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees

Austin Hair
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 3:50 AM, Philippe Beaudette
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> It is deeply unsettling to have my WHAT?  I confirmed no such thing, and
> your misrepresentations do you no favors.
>
> One thing I have learned over the last few years is that it is impossible
> to have a conversation in a spirit of openness when one party so wildly
> misrepresents the statements of the other. That's not good faith dealing.
>
> Therefore, I won't be continuing this discussion with you.

It's only been fifteen minutes, but it seems that Richard managed to
beat me to moderating him.

He won't be continuing any discussion, until he can bring something
approaching sanity to the table.

Austin

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
123