Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[MZMcBride]

Wil Sinclair wrote:
>Thanks for bringing me up, MZMcBride; should get a lot more people to look
>at those IRC logs I was hoping to bring to everyone's attention.

I'm looking forward to your posts about the current and upcoming Wikimedia
Foundation strategic plans. That's why you came on IRC, right? Not to
stoke drama and violate its social norms regarding public logging, but to
have an open discussion about current goals and future goals? Your
discussion seems to have started there and yet somehow you became entirely
focused on trying to advance some warped version of "free speech" in a
couple of IRC channels that you rarely visit. Re-skimming some of the 2014
threads that you precipitated, this seems like pretty classic Wil behavior.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Richard Ames]

Please drop this thread / subject.  Concentrate on issues not people.

Regards, Richard.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Peter Southwood]

It is hard to tell what thread you refer to when the thread is gone.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Richard Ames
Sent: Friday, 20 November 2015 9:51 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

Please drop this thread / subject.  Concentrate on issues not people.

Regards, Richard.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/11036 - Release Date: 11/20/15


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[MZMcBride]

Wil Sinclair wrote:
>With all due respect, no more of my time will be spent on this forum
>whatsoever.
>
>I'm not at all comfortable with the direction that this thread has
>taken. If my asking earnest questions makes anyone feel "unsafe" and
>leads to requests to block me (yes, both things were
>mentioned/requested and can be found in the archives of this thread),
>then all the advice people have been offering me here is spot-on: I
>*can* find much more productive things to do with my time.

If anyone's wondering what happened to Wil, lately he's been trolling a
few Wikipedia-related IRC channels on freenode. Such productivity. :-/

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

No, I'm right here. Standing up for what I believe in, just like I stand up
for the principles I value everywhere, including IRC, on-wiki, and off-. It
seems y'all know where to find my opinion. So, if you're interested, go
look. If you're not, then feel free to just put me down here, as per the
ush.

Thanks for bringing me up, MZMcBride; should get a lot more people to look
at those IRC logs I was hoping to bring to everyone's attention.

Best!
,Wil

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:28 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Wil Sinclair wrote:
> >With all due respect, no more of my time will be spent on this forum
> >whatsoever.
> >
> >I'm not at all comfortable with the direction that this thread has
> >taken. If my asking earnest questions makes anyone feel "unsafe" and
> >leads to requests to block me (yes, both things were
> >mentioned/requested and can be found in the archives of this thread),
> >then all the advice people have been offering me here is spot-on: I
> >*can* find much more productive things to do with my time.
>
> If anyone's wondering what happened to Wil, lately he's been trolling a
> few Wikipedia-related IRC channels on freenode. Such productivity. :-/
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

hi Wil,

reading through this thread is already a challenge :) I want to write that
I really appreciate your enthusiasm and energy. It is really awesome that
you care about Wikimedia and that you do not shy away from a discussion.

As several participants have pointed out, some of the veterans may find it
slightly amusing when a newcomer starts with a critique, before learning
about how (and that) the community has worked out a given problem before.
Moreover, getting your understanding of Wikimedia movement from
Wikipediocracy mainly (rather than from different project's Village Pumps,
AfDs, RFCs, RfAs, and actual editing and discussing with other editors)
skews your view. I don't think anyone is suggesting you should stop reading
critical views on Wikimedia, but you simply may choose to make your own
opinion after you've taken part in the movement, too.

I do not think anyone is proposing banning you from the list. People are,
in my view, politely suggesting that you just slow down a little, take a
breath, and use your energy (which, again, is awesome and precious!) to
participate on Wikimedia projects. Just to get the feel of it, or to be
able to more fully pinpoint the areas, where we so deeply need to change
for the better (and, with no irony, there are many).

If you choose to gather more material for reflection, and post less
frequently, your voice may actually be heard better.

best,

dariusz pundit



On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 As I mentioned to Sam, I have just one more thing to say here before I
 let you guys deliberate on whether to block me.

 I've been getting tons of private emails from people who say that they
 don't want to see me blocked, but that they are afraid to say that on
 the list, because they feel like they might be intimidated or
 ostracized.

 That's right: *afraid*

 I think we should all let that sink in for a moment. . .



 . . . Now, is that OK? Is that how we want our community to function?
 I'm talking to each and every one of you out there, not the few dozen
 that seem to be only people posting here (and I seem to have a strong
 lead  at the moment ;) ). If you are tired of being afraid or worn out
 by the rough and tumble discourse here, then keep your chin up. There
 are a lot more of you out there than you might think; I'm hearing from
 many of them now. Wikipedia can change- but only with your help.

 ,Wil




 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
  Hello all,
 
  Lila: Thank you kindly for these recent notes.  It is wonderful to
  hear your thoughts on your first weeks.
 
  Wil: Working through public, logged forums is a fine principle; one
  that I try to follow myself.  It helps avoid misunderstandings.
 
 
  Pete Forsyth writes:
  I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at
  least as a temporary measure... I suspect that consensus among
  active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point.
 
  Pete: That is a wholly uncalled for suggestion; reckless, if you
  would. Please be kind. As you can see from the comments of others,
  there is no such consensus, mainly just requests to slow down.
 
 
  Erik Moeller writes:
  As a reminder, this list has an official soft limit of 30 posts per
 [month]
 
  Wil Sinclair writes:
  just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to those
  who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words
 
  I find it helpful to quote and briefly respond to many posts of
  interest in a thread, in a single reply (as I did here). And I try to
  make 5 edits to a project for every post, to keep a balanced
  perspective...
 
  Sam
 
  (PS: Victor, the A. Dewey Wikireader Project always makes me smile.
  Thank you for mentioning it here.  :-)
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe




-- 

__
dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
profesor zarządzania
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl

członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Lila Tretikov]

For the record, I take any safety issues concerning both staff and
volunteers extremely seriously. In the case of a threatening message left
on an employee's talk page, GorillaWarfare took immediate action, for which
I am very grateful. And I am grateful to see this kind of community at work.

Creating an open, safe and welcoming environment is extremely important to
me, and that includes maintaining a friendly space by clearly excluding
individuals who harass and threaten others and preventing their presence on
our pages.



On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Molly White 
gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com wrote:

 Wil Sinclair wllm@... writes:

  I've apologized to you here and on Wikipediocracy, but apologies are
  always worth doing directly and for as many to see as possible: I'm
  very sorry for mistaking you for a WMF employee. I take full
  responsibility for my words and actions. I hope you can forgive me.

 No need to apologize. I'm really not horrified at being mistaken for a
 staffer, I'm just trying to clear up any confusion.

  To be clear, a WMF employee did mail Lila with safety concerns. That
  was obviously not Molly, and, ultimately, I don't think it's important
  who it was. It just made me personally uncomfortable communicating
  with WMF employees in any private setting. I'm hoping that will change
  as we all begin to trust each other more. Even then, I have no plans
  to discuss WMF matters of any sort with WMF employees; that's to
  everyone's benefit IMO.

 Ah, this segues well into the email I was just drafting: I have to say that
 I was surprised to see the contents of what appears to be an internal staff
 email being brought up both on Wikipediocracy and here by a non-staff
 member. Wil, can you clarify if you were copied on the email, and if not,
 how you gained access to it? You've repeatedly emphasized that you are not
 affiliated with/do not influence/are completely separate from the WMF, and
 even that you and Lila are not even discussing Wikimedia-related matters
 with one another at home, so I'm sure you can understand the confusion.

 Yours,
 Molly (GorillaWarfare)


 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Craig Franklin]

Hi Wil,

I think the advice in this thread from John and Dariusz is excellent, and
well worth taking on board.

Energy is good, and disruption to shake us out of our status quo is good.
 But at the moment, your communication style is swamping this list and
that's getting people's backs up.  The issues that you are raising, like
child protection, are important issues that need to be discussed, but
they're not going to get the attention they deserve if you come rampaging
in like a bull trying to solve all of our problems at once.

I'm sorry if this sounds blunt, but I'd much rather see your time here be
spent positively and productively, rather than wasted with bickering and
recrimination.

Cheers,
Craig


On 29 May 2014 17:19, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote:

 hi Wil,

 reading through this thread is already a challenge :) I want to write that
 I really appreciate your enthusiasm and energy. It is really awesome that
 you care about Wikimedia and that you do not shy away from a discussion.

 As several participants have pointed out, some of the veterans may find it
 slightly amusing when a newcomer starts with a critique, before learning
 about how (and that) the community has worked out a given problem before.
 Moreover, getting your understanding of Wikimedia movement from
 Wikipediocracy mainly (rather than from different project's Village Pumps,
 AfDs, RFCs, RfAs, and actual editing and discussing with other editors)
 skews your view. I don't think anyone is suggesting you should stop reading
 critical views on Wikimedia, but you simply may choose to make your own
 opinion after you've taken part in the movement, too.

 I do not think anyone is proposing banning you from the list. People are,
 in my view, politely suggesting that you just slow down a little, take a
 breath, and use your energy (which, again, is awesome and precious!) to
 participate on Wikimedia projects. Just to get the feel of it, or to be
 able to more fully pinpoint the areas, where we so deeply need to change
 for the better (and, with no irony, there are many).

 If you choose to gather more material for reflection, and post less
 frequently, your voice may actually be heard better.

 best,

 dariusz pundit



 On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

  As I mentioned to Sam, I have just one more thing to say here before I
  let you guys deliberate on whether to block me.
 
  I've been getting tons of private emails from people who say that they
  don't want to see me blocked, but that they are afraid to say that on
  the list, because they feel like they might be intimidated or
  ostracized.
 
  That's right: *afraid*
 
  I think we should all let that sink in for a moment. . .
 
 
 
  . . . Now, is that OK? Is that how we want our community to function?
  I'm talking to each and every one of you out there, not the few dozen
  that seem to be only people posting here (and I seem to have a strong
  lead  at the moment ;) ). If you are tired of being afraid or worn out
  by the rough and tumble discourse here, then keep your chin up. There
  are a lot more of you out there than you might think; I'm hearing from
  many of them now. Wikipedia can change- but only with your help.
 
  ,Wil
 
 
 
 
  On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
   Hello all,
  
   Lila: Thank you kindly for these recent notes.  It is wonderful to
   hear your thoughts on your first weeks.
  
   Wil: Working through public, logged forums is a fine principle; one
   that I try to follow myself.  It helps avoid misunderstandings.
  
  
   Pete Forsyth writes:
   I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked,
 at
   least as a temporary measure... I suspect that consensus among
   active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point.
  
   Pete: That is a wholly uncalled for suggestion; reckless, if you
   would. Please be kind. As you can see from the comments of others,
   there is no such consensus, mainly just requests to slow down.
  
  
   Erik Moeller writes:
   As a reminder, this list has an official soft limit of 30 posts per
  [month]
  
   Wil Sinclair writes:
   just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to those
   who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words
  
   I find it helpful to quote and briefly respond to many posts of
   interest in a thread, in a single reply (as I did here). And I try to
   make 5 edits to a project for every post, to keep a balanced
   perspective...
  
   Sam
  
   (PS: Victor, the A. Dewey Wikireader Project always makes me smile.
   Thank you for mentioning it here.  :-)
  
   ___
   Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
   Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
   Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

With all due respect, no more of my time will be spent on this forum whatsoever.

I'm not at all comfortable with the direction that this thread has
taken. If my asking earnest questions makes anyone feel unsafe and
leads to requests to block me (yes, both things were
mentioned/requested and can be found in the archives of this thread),
then all the advice people have been offering me here is spot-on: I
*can* find much more productive things to do with my time.

Everyone has my email if anyone would like to reach out personally.
I'm still interested in meeting anyone working to build the sound
library on Commons.

Best!
,Wil

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Craig Franklin
cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote:
 Hi Wil,

 I think the advice in this thread from John and Dariusz is excellent, and
 well worth taking on board.

 Energy is good, and disruption to shake us out of our status quo is good.
  But at the moment, your communication style is swamping this list and
 that's getting people's backs up.  The issues that you are raising, like
 child protection, are important issues that need to be discussed, but
 they're not going to get the attention they deserve if you come rampaging
 in like a bull trying to solve all of our problems at once.

 I'm sorry if this sounds blunt, but I'd much rather see your time here be
 spent positively and productively, rather than wasted with bickering and
 recrimination.

 Cheers,
 Craig


 On 29 May 2014 17:19, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote:

 hi Wil,

 reading through this thread is already a challenge :) I want to write that
 I really appreciate your enthusiasm and energy. It is really awesome that
 you care about Wikimedia and that you do not shy away from a discussion.

 As several participants have pointed out, some of the veterans may find it
 slightly amusing when a newcomer starts with a critique, before learning
 about how (and that) the community has worked out a given problem before.
 Moreover, getting your understanding of Wikimedia movement from
 Wikipediocracy mainly (rather than from different project's Village Pumps,
 AfDs, RFCs, RfAs, and actual editing and discussing with other editors)
 skews your view. I don't think anyone is suggesting you should stop reading
 critical views on Wikimedia, but you simply may choose to make your own
 opinion after you've taken part in the movement, too.

 I do not think anyone is proposing banning you from the list. People are,
 in my view, politely suggesting that you just slow down a little, take a
 breath, and use your energy (which, again, is awesome and precious!) to
 participate on Wikimedia projects. Just to get the feel of it, or to be
 able to more fully pinpoint the areas, where we so deeply need to change
 for the better (and, with no irony, there are many).

 If you choose to gather more material for reflection, and post less
 frequently, your voice may actually be heard better.

 best,

 dariusz pundit



 On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

  As I mentioned to Sam, I have just one more thing to say here before I
  let you guys deliberate on whether to block me.
 
  I've been getting tons of private emails from people who say that they
  don't want to see me blocked, but that they are afraid to say that on
  the list, because they feel like they might be intimidated or
  ostracized.
 
  That's right: *afraid*
 
  I think we should all let that sink in for a moment. . .
 
 
 
  . . . Now, is that OK? Is that how we want our community to function?
  I'm talking to each and every one of you out there, not the few dozen
  that seem to be only people posting here (and I seem to have a strong
  lead  at the moment ;) ). If you are tired of being afraid or worn out
  by the rough and tumble discourse here, then keep your chin up. There
  are a lot more of you out there than you might think; I'm hearing from
  many of them now. Wikipedia can change- but only with your help.
 
  ,Wil
 
 
 
 
  On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
   Hello all,
  
   Lila: Thank you kindly for these recent notes.  It is wonderful to
   hear your thoughts on your first weeks.
  
   Wil: Working through public, logged forums is a fine principle; one
   that I try to follow myself.  It helps avoid misunderstandings.
  
  
   Pete Forsyth writes:
   I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked,
 at
   least as a temporary measure... I suspect that consensus among
   active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point.
  
   Pete: That is a wholly uncalled for suggestion; reckless, if you
   would. Please be kind. As you can see from the comments of others,
   there is no such consensus, mainly just requests to slow down.
  
  
   Erik Moeller writes:
   As a reminder, this list has an official soft limit of 30 posts per
  [month]
  
   Wil Sinclair writes:
   just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to those
   who have 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Pipo Le Clown]

Well, the best way to meet people interested in working with you to build
the sound library on Commons is ... on Commons. There's a Village Pump
there, where you can freely post a message, and people will answer it if
they are interested. There are projects running that revolve around sound
or video.

You are welcome to participate to Commons, as you are on any projects of
the community. But people won't come to you, you've got to make the first
step. This is how we roll.




On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 With all due respect, no more of my time will be spent on this forum
 whatsoever.

 I'm not at all comfortable with the direction that this thread has
 taken. If my asking earnest questions makes anyone feel unsafe and
 leads to requests to block me (yes, both things were
 mentioned/requested and can be found in the archives of this thread),
 then all the advice people have been offering me here is spot-on: I
 *can* find much more productive things to do with my time.

 Everyone has my email if anyone would like to reach out personally.
 I'm still interested in meeting anyone working to build the sound
 library on Commons.

 Best!
 ,Wil

 On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Craig Franklin
 cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote:
  Hi Wil,
 
  I think the advice in this thread from John and Dariusz is excellent, and
  well worth taking on board.
 
  Energy is good, and disruption to shake us out of our status quo is good.
   But at the moment, your communication style is swamping this list and
  that's getting people's backs up.  The issues that you are raising, like
  child protection, are important issues that need to be discussed, but
  they're not going to get the attention they deserve if you come rampaging
  in like a bull trying to solve all of our problems at once.
 
  I'm sorry if this sounds blunt, but I'd much rather see your time here be
  spent positively and productively, rather than wasted with bickering and
  recrimination.
 
  Cheers,
  Craig
 
 
  On 29 May 2014 17:19, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote:
 
  hi Wil,
 
  reading through this thread is already a challenge :) I want to write
 that
  I really appreciate your enthusiasm and energy. It is really awesome
 that
  you care about Wikimedia and that you do not shy away from a discussion.
 
  As several participants have pointed out, some of the veterans may find
 it
  slightly amusing when a newcomer starts with a critique, before learning
  about how (and that) the community has worked out a given problem
 before.
  Moreover, getting your understanding of Wikimedia movement from
  Wikipediocracy mainly (rather than from different project's Village
 Pumps,
  AfDs, RFCs, RfAs, and actual editing and discussing with other editors)
  skews your view. I don't think anyone is suggesting you should stop
 reading
  critical views on Wikimedia, but you simply may choose to make your own
  opinion after you've taken part in the movement, too.
 
  I do not think anyone is proposing banning you from the list. People
 are,
  in my view, politely suggesting that you just slow down a little, take a
  breath, and use your energy (which, again, is awesome and precious!) to
  participate on Wikimedia projects. Just to get the feel of it, or to be
  able to more fully pinpoint the areas, where we so deeply need to change
  for the better (and, with no irony, there are many).
 
  If you choose to gather more material for reflection, and post less
  frequently, your voice may actually be heard better.
 
  best,
 
  dariusz pundit
 
 
 
  On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
 
   As I mentioned to Sam, I have just one more thing to say here before I
   let you guys deliberate on whether to block me.
  
   I've been getting tons of private emails from people who say that they
   don't want to see me blocked, but that they are afraid to say that on
   the list, because they feel like they might be intimidated or
   ostracized.
  
   That's right: *afraid*
  
   I think we should all let that sink in for a moment. . .
  
  
  
   . . . Now, is that OK? Is that how we want our community to function?
   I'm talking to each and every one of you out there, not the few dozen
   that seem to be only people posting here (and I seem to have a strong
   lead  at the moment ;) ). If you are tired of being afraid or worn out
   by the rough and tumble discourse here, then keep your chin up. There
   are a lot more of you out there than you might think; I'm hearing from
   many of them now. Wikipedia can change- but only with your help.
  
   ,Wil
  
  
  
  
   On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com
 wrote:
Hello all,
   
Lila: Thank you kindly for these recent notes.  It is wonderful to
hear your thoughts on your first weeks.
   
Wil: Working through public, logged forums is a fine principle; one
that I try to follow myself.  It helps avoid 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Austin Hair]

́Fae,

You just did. Arguably, you did even worse by throwing the allegation
out there without substantiation. Nobody's asking you to be friends
with Greg Kohs—it's no secret that I'm not—but you're dredging up
off-list history for no productive reason I can discern.

Since I'm responsible for seeing to it that he's not able to defend
himself here, I feel compelled to ask that you at least keep the
mudslinging off this list.

Austin

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:38 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
 Wil, ask Kohs to repeat his filth. I'm not going to do it for him.

 Fae

 On 28 May 2014 23:37, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
 I didn't know that he called you a faggot. Could you please show me where?

 I mentioned I didn't agree with him on everything. I certainly would
 *never* agree that a slur like that is justified, if he did make it.
 In any case, the quote stands. Maybe we should start a separate thread
 on the quote itself?

 ,Wil

 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
 Wil, you are supporting a man that thought it was a hilarious joke to
 call me a faggot. Not something that I am prepared to overlook, ever.

 I now have serious reservations about Lila's good judgement in failing
 to ensure you were appropriately advised, considering her critical
 role in the Wikimedia movement.

 Fae

 On 28 May 2014 23:18, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
 First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's
 uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was
 the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather
 petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That
 doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I
 personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*,
 Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director);
 I'd prefer he just leave it at Wil Sinclair, but it's really his
 call on what he puts on his own site.

 Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know-
 but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any
 leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this
 point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong,
 charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and
 it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community
 here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard
 problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is
 going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again,
 that's all just my opinion.

 I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me
 so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it
 to the list this time. :)

 ,Wil

 --
 fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe



 --
 fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
 Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Fæ]

On 29/05/2014, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote:
 ́Fae,

 You just did. Arguably, you did even worse by throwing the allegation
 out there without substantiation. Nobody's asking you to be friends
 with Greg Kohs—it's no secret that I'm not—but you're dredging up
 off-list history for no productive reason I can discern.

 Since I'm responsible for seeing to it that he's not able to defend
 himself here, I feel compelled to ask that you at least keep the
 mudslinging off this list.

 Austin

Thanks Austin.

As Austin is a list moderator, I take this as an official public
warning to me, from the list moderators, that my way of highlighting
to Wil of the nature of who he was actively promoting on this list,
was not acceptable behaviour by me on this list.

My email was not intended as an allegation nor mudslinging, but as an
assertion of publicly documented fact. It should be noted that Andreas
Kolbe provided links and extracts of the evidence on this list at
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-May/072154.html.
Kohs' use of a word that demeans and derides all gay people was not
acceptable on Wikipediocracy, the website that Kohs owns, and after
some discussion there, was removed from public view under the site
terms of use(*). I am certain that Andreas would be happy to address
further questions by direct email to him as a Wikipediocracy moderator
with access to the original material, rather than continuing to
correspond about it on this public forum with only links available of
partial representations of it.

* - Wikipediocracy's terms include You agree not to post any abusive,
obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated
or any other material that may violate any laws be it of your country,
the country where “Wikipediocracy” is hosted or International Law.

Wil remains free to post exactly how he pleases on any forum, this is
up to his discretion, I hope he continues to enjoy and respect the
freedom to do so.

My apologies to readers of this list for any misunderstanding that my
taking part might have caused. It was not my intention to abuse any
free speech rights for anyone else, but to fairly exercise my own with
regard to a serious incident of LGBT interest.

Thanks,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Austin Hair]

Wil,

Just for the record, hands-off is the best way to describe our
approach to wikimedia-l moderation. We (the administrators) sometimes
step in when a thread or a poster gets way out of control, but for
this list, that bar's set pretty high.

The soft post limit that's been pointed out to you exists as a
guideline to keep individuals from dominating a conversation, which...
yeah, you kind of are, at this point. Nobody wants to take away your
ability to defend yourself, but you might want to try limiting the
number of things you have to defend all at once.

Sorry your experience turned sour. If it's any consolation, we've had way worse.

Austin


On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:05 AM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
 As I mentioned to Sam, I have just one more thing to say here before I
 let you guys deliberate on whether to block me.

 I've been getting tons of private emails from people who say that they
 don't want to see me blocked, but that they are afraid to say that on
 the list, because they feel like they might be intimidated or
 ostracized.

 That's right: *afraid*

 I think we should all let that sink in for a moment. . .



 . . . Now, is that OK? Is that how we want our community to function?
 I'm talking to each and every one of you out there, not the few dozen
 that seem to be only people posting here (and I seem to have a strong
 lead  at the moment ;) ). If you are tired of being afraid or worn out
 by the rough and tumble discourse here, then keep your chin up. There
 are a lot more of you out there than you might think; I'm hearing from
 many of them now. Wikipedia can change- but only with your help.

 ,Wil




 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hello all,

 Lila: Thank you kindly for these recent notes.  It is wonderful to
 hear your thoughts on your first weeks.

 Wil: Working through public, logged forums is a fine principle; one
 that I try to follow myself.  It helps avoid misunderstandings.


 Pete Forsyth writes:
 I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at
 least as a temporary measure... I suspect that consensus among
 active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point.

 Pete: That is a wholly uncalled for suggestion; reckless, if you
 would. Please be kind. As you can see from the comments of others,
 there is no such consensus, mainly just requests to slow down.


 Erik Moeller writes:
 As a reminder, this list has an official soft limit of 30 posts per 
 [month]

 Wil Sinclair writes:
 just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to those
 who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words

 I find it helpful to quote and briefly respond to many posts of
 interest in a thread, in a single reply (as I did here). And I try to
 make 5 edits to a project for every post, to keep a balanced
 perspective...

 Sam

 (PS: Victor, the A. Dewey Wikireader Project always makes me smile.
 Thank you for mentioning it here.  :-)

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Nathan]

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote:

 Wil,

 Just for the record, hands-off is the best way to describe our
 approach to wikimedia-l moderation. We (the administrators) sometimes
 step in when a thread or a poster gets way out of control, but for
 this list, that bar's set pretty high.

 The soft post limit that's been pointed out to you exists as a
 guideline to keep individuals from dominating a conversation, which...
 yeah, you kind of are, at this point. Nobody wants to take away your
 ability to defend yourself, but you might want to try limiting the
 number of things you have to defend all at once.

 Sorry your experience turned sour. If it's any consolation, we've had way
 worse.

 Austin


I meant to say this a month or two ago, but... Welcome back, Austin!
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Fæ]

On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote:
...
 independent individual
 able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not
 take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the WMF
 employees.

Thanks for making these distinctions. It is sad to see that your time
and energy is being used so early on in your introduction to the
Wikimedia community, in creating a political distance between yourself
and the public actions of your life partner, due to his casual
curiosity about Wikimedia projects. A curiosity that only manifested
itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the
Foundation board.

I do not really understand the point being made about not engaging
with WMF employees, any active volunteer on Wikimedia projects should
and must be free to engage with WMF employees. The statement does not
appear to match actions over the last 24 hours, with Wil freely making
public comments about his dissatisfaction after conversations
(emails?) with some WMF employees.

Thanks again for clarifying your position during this difficult start
to your engagement.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 05/28/2014 08:59 AM, Fæ wrote:
 A curiosity that only manifested
 itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the
 Foundation board.

In all fairness, Fæ, if my spouse had been hired as the leader of a very
visible and significant business or nonprofit, I too would find myself
interested in what it is, what its values are, and how it goes about
things even if I had been previously unaware or uninterested in it.

So that Wil's interest manifested around the time Lila was announced as
the next ED seems to me to be perfectly natural, even if I have
expressed serious concerns about *how* that interest was expressed.

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Everton Zanella Alvarenga]

Just a personal testimonial also to emphasize Marc's point and not
necessarily when I did a work for WMF as a contractor, my previous
girlfriend got interesting in Wikimedia projects after she saw somethings I
worked on my spare time as a volunteer. She even began to write at
Wikimedia Brasil mailing list and outreach Wikimedia projects. ;)

In fact, she still does sometimes some outreach and have even participate
of a Wikimedia meeting recently. (Well, better not say her opinion on
Wikidramas, totally aligned with mine : )

Tom


2014-05-28 11:04 GMT-03:00 Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org:

 On 05/28/2014 08:59 AM, Fæ wrote:
  A curiosity that only manifested
  itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the
  Foundation board.

 In all fairness, Fæ, if my spouse had been hired as the leader of a very
 visible and significant business or nonprofit, I too would find myself
 interested in what it is, what its values are, and how it goes about
 things even if I had been previously unaware or uninterested in it.

 So that Wil's interest manifested around the time Lila was announced as
 the next ED seems to me to be perfectly natural, even if I have
 expressed serious concerns about *how* that interest was expressed.

 -- Marc

 --
 Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom)
 Open Knowledge Brasil - Rede pelo Conhecimento Livre
 http://br.okfn.org

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Jon Davies]

My wife, thanks to Viisual Editor, now creates pages!


On 28 May 2014 16:21, Everton Zanella Alvarenga
everton.alvare...@okfn.orgwrote:

 Just a personal testimonial also to emphasize Marc's point and not
 necessarily when I did a work for WMF as a contractor, my previous
 girlfriend got interesting in Wikimedia projects after she saw somethings I
 worked on my spare time as a volunteer. She even began to write at
 Wikimedia Brasil mailing list and outreach Wikimedia projects. ;)

 In fact, she still does sometimes some outreach and have even participate
 of a Wikimedia meeting recently. (Well, better not say her opinion on
 Wikidramas, totally aligned with mine : )

 Tom


 2014-05-28 11:04 GMT-03:00 Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org:

  On 05/28/2014 08:59 AM, Fæ wrote:
   A curiosity that only manifested
   itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the
   Foundation board.
 
  In all fairness, Fæ, if my spouse had been hired as the leader of a very
  visible and significant business or nonprofit, I too would find myself
  interested in what it is, what its values are, and how it goes about
  things even if I had been previously unaware or uninterested in it.
 
  So that Wil's interest manifested around the time Lila was announced as
  the next ED seems to me to be perfectly natural, even if I have
  expressed serious concerns about *how* that interest was expressed.
 
  -- Marc
 
  --
  Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom)
  Open Knowledge Brasil - Rede pelo Conhecimento Livre
  http://br.okfn.org
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe




-- 
*Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*.  Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169
tweet @jonatreesdavies

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.

Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Fæ]

On 28 May 2014 15:04, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
...
 So that Wil's interest manifested around the time Lila was announced as
 the next ED seems to me to be perfectly natural, even if I have
 expressed serious concerns about *how* that interest was expressed.
 -- Marc

There is a big difference between your partner having an interest in
your organization, and going on to publish public complaints about the
staff that you have complete authority and responsibility for
employing.

I may be wrong, perhaps someone has some examples of where this worked
out well? The only examples from history and the political world I can
recall, did not.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Victor Grigas]

My significant other applied for a grant and got 500 Wikireaders
distributed to 3 schools:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Aislinn_Dewey/Distribute_WikiReaders_to_Schools/Report

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/help-distribute-wikireaders-and-provide-an-opportunity-for-kids-to-learn


On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 28 May 2014 15:04, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
 ...
  So that Wil's interest manifested around the time Lila was announced as
  the next ED seems to me to be perfectly natural, even if I have
  expressed serious concerns about *how* that interest was expressed.
  -- Marc

 There is a big difference between your partner having an interest in
 your organization, and going on to publish public complaints about the
 staff that you have complete authority and responsibility for
 employing.

 I may be wrong, perhaps someone has some examples of where this worked
 out well? The only examples from history and the political world I can
 recall, did not.

 Fae
 --
 fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe




-- 

*Victor Grigas*
Storyteller https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Knv6D6Thi0
Wikimedia Foundation
vgri...@wikimedia.org
https://donate.wikimedia.org/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Fæ]

Hi Victor,

That's great. I can't see any complaints about WMF employees in the
links you provided.

I am sure that we could find 100 examples of the partners of
Wikimedians doing something on Wikimedia projects, it would be a great
topic for reasons why I love Wikimedia... That is not the issue
here, in fact I encouraged Wil to get experience contributing to the
projects *before* using highly public platforms to complain about
Wikimedia and Lila's new employees.

Thanks,
Fae

On 28 May 2014 16:49, Victor Grigas vgri...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 My significant other applied for a grant and got 500 Wikireaders
 distributed to 3 schools:

 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Aislinn_Dewey/Distribute_WikiReaders_to_Schools/Report

 https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/help-distribute-wikireaders-and-provide-an-opportunity-for-kids-to-learn


 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 28 May 2014 15:04, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
 ...
  So that Wil's interest manifested around the time Lila was announced as
  the next ED seems to me to be perfectly natural, even if I have
  expressed serious concerns about *how* that interest was expressed.
  -- Marc

 There is a big difference between your partner having an interest in
 your organization, and going on to publish public complaints about the
 staff that you have complete authority and responsibility for
 employing.

 I may be wrong, perhaps someone has some examples of where this worked
 out well? The only examples from history and the political world I can
 recall, did not.

 Fae
 --
 fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe




 --

 *Victor Grigas*
 Storyteller https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Knv6D6Thi0
 Wikimedia Foundation
 vgri...@wikimedia.org
 https://donate.wikimedia.org/
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe



-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Michael Snow]

On 5/28/2014 5:59 AM, Fæ wrote:

On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote:
...

independent individual
able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not
take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the WMF
employees.

I do not really understand the point being made about not engaging
with WMF employees, any active volunteer on Wikimedia projects should
and must be free to engage with WMF employees. The statement does not
appear to match actions over the last 24 hours, with Wil freely making
public comments about his dissatisfaction after conversations
(emails?) with some WMF employees.
I believe the point is that Wil, in particular, will not interfere with 
Wikimedia staff in carrying out their duties, assign them specific 
tasks, or otherwise attempt to supervise and direct their work. These 
functions properly belong to the employee's supervisor, so it's good for 
community members to keep this in mind generally, but especially 
important for Wil because otherwise his connection to Lila might create 
concern or confusion for the staff (as in the recent GitHub situation, 
which I believe was already mentioned). If those guidelines are 
respected, there should be no problem about Wil interacting with staff 
in an ordinary fashion. I'm sure Wil understands this and will be 
careful about it, and it's also good that Lila has said this publicly so 
that people have something to point to, in case anything is uncertain 
about whether Wil has some sort of special authority.


--Michael Snow

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Fæ]

On 28 May 2014 16:55, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
 On 5/28/2014 5:59 AM, Fæ wrote:
...
 I do not really understand the point being made about not engaging
...
 I believe the point is that Wil, in particular, will not interfere with
 Wikimedia staff in carrying out their duties, assign them specific tasks, or
 otherwise attempt to supervise and direct their work. These functions
 properly belong to the employee's supervisor, so it's good for community
 members to keep this in mind generally, but especially important for Wil
 because otherwise his connection to Lila might create concern or confusion
 for the staff (as in the recent GitHub situation, which I believe was
 already mentioned). If those guidelines are respected, there should be no
 problem about Wil interacting with staff in an ordinary fashion. I'm sure
 Wil understands this and will be careful about it, and it's also good that
 Lila has said this publicly so that people have something to point to, in
 case anything is uncertain about whether Wil has some sort of special
 authority.

Thanks, that is a nice interpretation, it would be useful to have a
confirmation that this was the intention of Lila's email.

It will be interesting to see whether in practice Wil has special
authority, or not. It is quite hard to judge right now, having made so
few contributions to Wikimedia projects, and as in the majority of
discussions in various places (including Wil's English Wikipedia user
page) his preferred form of first introduction is as Lila Tretikov's
significant other, which colours everyone's perception of how he
should be treated.

Thanks,
Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Lila Tretikov]

Thanks Michael for spelling this out further. Your understanding is correct.


On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.comwrote:

 On 5/28/2014 5:59 AM, Fæ wrote:

 On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 ...

 independent individual
 able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not
 take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the
 WMF
 employees.

 I do not really understand the point being made about not engaging

 with WMF employees, any active volunteer on Wikimedia projects should
 and must be free to engage with WMF employees. The statement does not
 appear to match actions over the last 24 hours, with Wil freely making
 public comments about his dissatisfaction after conversations
 (emails?) with some WMF employees.

 I believe the point is that Wil, in particular, will not interfere with
 Wikimedia staff in carrying out their duties, assign them specific tasks,
 or otherwise attempt to supervise and direct their work. These functions
 properly belong to the employee's supervisor, so it's good for community
 members to keep this in mind generally, but especially important for Wil
 because otherwise his connection to Lila might create concern or confusion
 for the staff (as in the recent GitHub situation, which I believe was
 already mentioned). If those guidelines are respected, there should be no
 problem about Wil interacting with staff in an ordinary fashion. I'm sure
 Wil understands this and will be careful about it, and it's also good that
 Lila has said this publicly so that people have something to point to, in
 case anything is uncertain about whether Wil has some sort of special
 authority.

 --Michael Snow


 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
 wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

Hi Fae, if you're referring to the discussion on this page, then I
think I make it quite clear why I won't engage with WMF employees
going forward: 
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14t=4680start=150.

To be sure, I'm not used to having anyone from Lila's team immediately
emailing her through their official company addresses as soon as I ask
a question in a public forum. In this case, the WMF has made it quite
clear that the IRC channels aren't official and/or sponsored by the
WMF, and I was asking about community affairs WRT to those channels.
So my question about why a user was kicked from the channel didn't
have anything to do with the WMF. I still don't understand why this
employee felt it was necessary to bring Lila's attention to safety
concerns through official WMF employee channels, although I'm sure he
or she felt it was the right thing to do and I've given them the
benefit of the doubt that it was. Of course, I can't form my own
independent opinion, since a WMF employee revdeleted the rev in
question in the ~10 minutes between when it was first posted and when
I tried clicking on the link.

In any case, it should be made clear that the WMF did not ask me to
disengage with employees and has not yet asked me to stop posting to
Wikipediocracy directly. So far, the organization itself has respected
my individuality; I can only appeal to everyone in the WP community
and all WMF employees to do the same in the future. I will be engaging
with the broader WP community in whatever way I can, but I've made the
hard decision to limit my engagement with WMF employees to public,
logged forums from now on.

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 ...
 independent individual
 able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not
 take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the WMF
 employees.

 Thanks for making these distinctions. It is sad to see that your time
 and energy is being used so early on in your introduction to the
 Wikimedia community, in creating a political distance between yourself
 and the public actions of your life partner, due to his casual
 curiosity about Wikimedia projects. A curiosity that only manifested
 itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the
 Foundation board.

 I do not really understand the point being made about not engaging
 with WMF employees, any active volunteer on Wikimedia projects should
 and must be free to engage with WMF employees. The statement does not
 appear to match actions over the last 24 hours, with Wil freely making
 public comments about his dissatisfaction after conversations
 (emails?) with some WMF employees.

 Thanks again for clarifying your position during this difficult start
 to your engagement.

 Fae
 --
 fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Brandon Harris]

A slight correction: the revision was rev-deleted by a member of the community 
- a member of ArbCom, in fact - and not an employee of the Foundation. 

Snt frm m Phn

 On May 28, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
 
 Hi Fae, if you're referring to the discussion on this page, then I
 think I make it quite clear why I won't engage with WMF employees
 going forward: 
 http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14t=4680start=150.
 
 To be sure, I'm not used to having anyone from Lila's team immediately
 emailing her through their official company addresses as soon as I ask
 a question in a public forum. In this case, the WMF has made it quite
 clear that the IRC channels aren't official and/or sponsored by the
 WMF, and I was asking about community affairs WRT to those channels.
 So my question about why a user was kicked from the channel didn't
 have anything to do with the WMF. I still don't understand why this
 employee felt it was necessary to bring Lila's attention to safety
 concerns through official WMF employee channels, although I'm sure he
 or she felt it was the right thing to do and I've given them the
 benefit of the doubt that it was. Of course, I can't form my own
 independent opinion, since a WMF employee revdeleted the rev in
 question in the ~10 minutes between when it was first posted and when
 I tried clicking on the link.
 
 In any case, it should be made clear that the WMF did not ask me to
 disengage with employees and has not yet asked me to stop posting to
 Wikipediocracy directly. So far, the organization itself has respected
 my individuality; I can only appeal to everyone in the WP community
 and all WMF employees to do the same in the future. I will be engaging
 with the broader WP community in whatever way I can, but I've made the
 hard decision to limit my engagement with WMF employees to public,
 logged forums from now on.
 
 ,Wil
 
 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 ...
 independent individual
 able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not
 take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the WMF
 employees.
 
 Thanks for making these distinctions. It is sad to see that your time
 and energy is being used so early on in your introduction to the
 Wikimedia community, in creating a political distance between yourself
 and the public actions of your life partner, due to his casual
 curiosity about Wikimedia projects. A curiosity that only manifested
 itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the
 Foundation board.
 
 I do not really understand the point being made about not engaging
 with WMF employees, any active volunteer on Wikimedia projects should
 and must be free to engage with WMF employees. The statement does not
 appear to match actions over the last 24 hours, with Wil freely making
 public comments about his dissatisfaction after conversations
 (emails?) with some WMF employees.
 
 Thanks again for clarifying your position during this difficult start
 to your engagement.
 
 Fae
 --
 fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Erik Moeller]

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
 If those guidelines are respected, there should be no
 problem about Wil interacting with staff in an ordinary fashion. I'm sure
 Wil understands this and will be careful about it, and it's also good that
 Lila has said this publicly so that people have something to point to, in
 case anything is uncertain about whether Wil has some sort of special
 authority.

Yes - agreed. Let's judge Lila by her actions and Wil by his. To the
extent that her association with a quirky, curious, hyperactive guy
who enjoys poking things says anything about her, it's that she'll fit
right in :)

Erik
-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Erik Moeller]

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
 To be sure, I'm not used to having anyone from Lila's team immediately
 emailing her through their official company addresses as soon as I ask
 a question in a public forum. In this case, the WMF has made it quite
 clear that the IRC channels aren't official and/or sponsored by the
 WMF, and I was asking about community affairs WRT to those channels.
 So my question about why a user was kicked from the channel didn't
 have anything to do with the WMF. I still don't understand why this
 employee felt it was necessary to bring Lila's attention to safety
 concerns through official WMF employee channels, although I'm sure he
 or she felt it was the right thing to do and I've given them the
 benefit of the doubt that it was. Of course, I can't form my own
 independent opinion, since a WMF employee revdeleted the rev in
 question in the ~10 minutes between when it was first posted and when
 I tried clicking on the link.

If you're talking about the message left on Oliver's talk page, it was
a threat by a banned user which included reference to a dream about
him where knees were nailed to the floor from the back and other
such lovely details. That's precisely what moderation features on any
site are for, and to the extent that it included implications of
violence, yes, bringing safety concerns to the attention of senior
staff at WMF is appropriate.

Cheers,

Erik

-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Risker]

Wil, the deletion log of the page in question is publicly visible.  There
are no WMF employees who have deleted anything on that page, ever. This is
information you can check for yourself instead of relying on the words of
others.

Risker


On 28 May 2014 12:23, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 Hi Fae, if you're referring to the discussion on this page, then I
 think I make it quite clear why I won't engage with WMF employees
 going forward:
 http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14t=4680start=150.

 To be sure, I'm not used to having anyone from Lila's team immediately
 emailing her through their official company addresses as soon as I ask
 a question in a public forum. In this case, the WMF has made it quite
 clear that the IRC channels aren't official and/or sponsored by the
 WMF, and I was asking about community affairs WRT to those channels.
 So my question about why a user was kicked from the channel didn't
 have anything to do with the WMF. I still don't understand why this
 employee felt it was necessary to bring Lila's attention to safety
 concerns through official WMF employee channels, although I'm sure he
 or she felt it was the right thing to do and I've given them the
 benefit of the doubt that it was. Of course, I can't form my own
 independent opinion, since a WMF employee revdeleted the rev in
 question in the ~10 minutes between when it was first posted and when
 I tried clicking on the link.

 In any case, it should be made clear that the WMF did not ask me to
 disengage with employees and has not yet asked me to stop posting to
 Wikipediocracy directly. So far, the organization itself has respected
 my individuality; I can only appeal to everyone in the WP community
 and all WMF employees to do the same in the future. I will be engaging
 with the broader WP community in whatever way I can, but I've made the
 hard decision to limit my engagement with WMF employees to public,
 logged forums from now on.

 ,Wil

 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
  On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote:
  ...
  independent individual
  able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not
  take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the
 WMF
  employees.
 
  Thanks for making these distinctions. It is sad to see that your time
  and energy is being used so early on in your introduction to the
  Wikimedia community, in creating a political distance between yourself
  and the public actions of your life partner, due to his casual
  curiosity about Wikimedia projects. A curiosity that only manifested
  itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the
  Foundation board.
 
  I do not really understand the point being made about not engaging
  with WMF employees, any active volunteer on Wikimedia projects should
  and must be free to engage with WMF employees. The statement does not
  appear to match actions over the last 24 hours, with Wil freely making
  public comments about his dissatisfaction after conversations
  (emails?) with some WMF employees.
 
  Thanks again for clarifying your position during this difficult start
  to your engagement.
 
  Fae
  --
  fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 If you're talking about the message left on Oliver's talk page, it was
 a threat by a banned user which included reference to a dream about
 him where knees were nailed to the floor from the back and other
 such lovely details. That's precisely what moderation features on any
 site are for, and to the extent that it included implications of
 violence, yes, bringing safety concerns to the attention of senior
 staff at WMF is appropriate.

 Cheers,

 Erik

Again, this is not my concern. It is my prerogative whether to talk to
WMF employees privately, however, and I choose not to. My apologies
that we won't be able to carry on with our own private conversation,
Erik.

,Wil

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be
obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too. I posted the
following to Wikipediocracy a few minutes ago:


I may have misread which page the rev was on, or I misunderstood the
person who said s/he revdeleted it in thinking that it had been
revdeleted in the previous few minutes. This is exactly why I prefer
public recorded forums. Now no one can go back to clear up the
confusion. For all I know, I might have to apologize for a
misunderstanding, and it would really suck if I somehow misrepresented
things and didn't have any opportunity to straighten things out.

Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't
logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who
aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't
supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK,
but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be
disallowed). Next time I have a concern, I will take it to wikimedia-l
or one of the other mailing lists. As this example also shows, one
can't be sure that the revs on a page within Wikimedia's wikis
themselves won't be redacted after-the-fact. I'm not expressing an
opinion about whether stuff should be redacted or on what grounds, but
I am asserting that it is possible to do so.


There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be
followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the
discussion that includes the comment above:
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14t=4680p=96600#p96600

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
 Wil, the deletion log of the page in question is publicly visible.  There
 are no WMF employees who have deleted anything on that page, ever. This is
 information you can check for yourself instead of relying on the words of
 others.

 Risker


 On 28 May 2014 12:23, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 Hi Fae, if you're referring to the discussion on this page, then I
 think I make it quite clear why I won't engage with WMF employees
 going forward:
 http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14t=4680start=150.

 To be sure, I'm not used to having anyone from Lila's team immediately
 emailing her through their official company addresses as soon as I ask
 a question in a public forum. In this case, the WMF has made it quite
 clear that the IRC channels aren't official and/or sponsored by the
 WMF, and I was asking about community affairs WRT to those channels.
 So my question about why a user was kicked from the channel didn't
 have anything to do with the WMF. I still don't understand why this
 employee felt it was necessary to bring Lila's attention to safety
 concerns through official WMF employee channels, although I'm sure he
 or she felt it was the right thing to do and I've given them the
 benefit of the doubt that it was. Of course, I can't form my own
 independent opinion, since a WMF employee revdeleted the rev in
 question in the ~10 minutes between when it was first posted and when
 I tried clicking on the link.

 In any case, it should be made clear that the WMF did not ask me to
 disengage with employees and has not yet asked me to stop posting to
 Wikipediocracy directly. So far, the organization itself has respected
 my individuality; I can only appeal to everyone in the WP community
 and all WMF employees to do the same in the future. I will be engaging
 with the broader WP community in whatever way I can, but I've made the
 hard decision to limit my engagement with WMF employees to public,
 logged forums from now on.

 ,Wil

 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
  On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote:
  ...
  independent individual
  able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not
  take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the
 WMF
  employees.
 
  Thanks for making these distinctions. It is sad to see that your time
  and energy is being used so early on in your introduction to the
  Wikimedia community, in creating a political distance between yourself
  and the public actions of your life partner, due to his casual
  curiosity about Wikimedia projects. A curiosity that only manifested
  itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the
  Foundation board.
 
  I do not really understand the point being made about not engaging
  with WMF employees, any active volunteer on Wikimedia projects should
  and must be free to engage with WMF employees. The statement does not
  appear to match actions over the last 24 hours, with Wil freely making
  public comments about his dissatisfaction after conversations
  (emails?) with some WMF employees.
 
  Thanks again for clarifying your position during this difficult start
  to your engagement.
 
  Fae
  --
  fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
 
  

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Martijn Hoekstra]

On May 28, 2014 7:09 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be
 obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too. I posted the
 following to Wikipediocracy a few minutes ago:

 
 I may have misread which page the rev was on, or I misunderstood the
 person who said s/he revdeleted it in thinking that it had been
 revdeleted in the previous few minutes. This is exactly why I prefer
 public recorded forums. Now no one can go back to clear up the
 confusion. For all I know, I might have to apologize for a
 misunderstanding, and it would really suck if I somehow misrepresented
 things and didn't have any opportunity to straighten things out.

 Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't
 logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who
 aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't
 supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK,
 but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be
 disallowed).

I think you may have misunderstood. Public logging is not allowed, but it's
fine to keep logs for yourself.

I wouldn't mind public logging myself, by the way.

Next time I have a concern, I will take it to wikimedia-l
 or one of the other mailing lists. As this example also shows, one
 can't be sure that the revs on a page within Wikimedia's wikis
 themselves won't be redacted after-the-fact. I'm not expressing an
 opinion about whether stuff should be redacted or on what grounds, but
 I am asserting that it is possible to do so.
 

Your observation is correct. It is possible to delete revisions from
history. This will be logged. I'm a little surprised you seem surprised by
this. Am I misunderstanding what you mean?


 There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be
 followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the
 discussion that includes the comment above:
 http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14t=4680p=96600#p96600

 ,Wil

 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
  Wil, the deletion log of the page in question is publicly visible.
 There
  are no WMF employees who have deleted anything on that page, ever. This
is
  information you can check for yourself instead of relying on the words
of
  others.
 
  Risker
 
 
  On 28 May 2014 12:23, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
 
  Hi Fae, if you're referring to the discussion on this page, then I
  think I make it quite clear why I won't engage with WMF employees
  going forward:
  http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14t=4680start=150.
 
  To be sure, I'm not used to having anyone from Lila's team immediately
  emailing her through their official company addresses as soon as I ask
  a question in a public forum. In this case, the WMF has made it quite
  clear that the IRC channels aren't official and/or sponsored by the
  WMF, and I was asking about community affairs WRT to those channels.
  So my question about why a user was kicked from the channel didn't
  have anything to do with the WMF. I still don't understand why this
  employee felt it was necessary to bring Lila's attention to safety
  concerns through official WMF employee channels, although I'm sure he
  or she felt it was the right thing to do and I've given them the
  benefit of the doubt that it was. Of course, I can't form my own
  independent opinion, since a WMF employee revdeleted the rev in
  question in the ~10 minutes between when it was first posted and when
  I tried clicking on the link.
 
  In any case, it should be made clear that the WMF did not ask me to
  disengage with employees and has not yet asked me to stop posting to
  Wikipediocracy directly. So far, the organization itself has respected
  my individuality; I can only appeal to everyone in the WP community
  and all WMF employees to do the same in the future. I will be engaging
  with the broader WP community in whatever way I can, but I've made the
  hard decision to limit my engagement with WMF employees to public,
  logged forums from now on.
 
  ,Wil
 
  On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
   On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote:
   ...
   independent individual
   able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does
not
   take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with
the
  WMF
   employees.
  
   Thanks for making these distinctions. It is sad to see that your time
   and energy is being used so early on in your introduction to the
   Wikimedia community, in creating a political distance between
yourself
   and the public actions of your life partner, due to his casual
   curiosity about Wikimedia projects. A curiosity that only manifested
   itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by
the
   Foundation board.
  
   I do not really understand the point being made about not 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Nathan]

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be
 obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too. I posted the
 following to Wikipediocracy a few minutes ago:

 
 I may have misread which page the rev was on, or I misunderstood the
 person who said s/he revdeleted it in thinking that it had been
 revdeleted in the previous few minutes. This is exactly why I prefer
 public recorded forums. Now no one can go back to clear up the
 confusion. For all I know, I might have to apologize for a
 misunderstanding, and it would really suck if I somehow misrepresented
 things and didn't have any opportunity to straighten things out.

 Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't
 logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who
 aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't
 supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK,
 but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be
 disallowed). Next time I have a concern, I will take it to wikimedia-l
 or one of the other mailing lists. As this example also shows, one
 can't be sure that the revs on a page within Wikimedia's wikis
 themselves won't be redacted after-the-fact. I'm not expressing an
 opinion about whether stuff should be redacted or on what grounds, but
 I am asserting that it is possible to do so.
 

 There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be
 followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the
 discussion that includes the comment above:
 http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14t=4680p=96600#p96600

 ,Wil



Hi Wil,

This is exactly why others have suggested that you slow down, and focus on
learning the basics of the Wikimedia projects and movements before jumping
into the hottest, most controversial issues. It takes time to develop the
understanding necessary to draw conclusions, especially in areas most
likely to erupt into drama and heated exchanges.

To wit, I don't believe it can even be determined if someone is logging a
channel, and many people (including Wikimedians) log all of their channels.
Several Wikimedia-related channels are publicly logged. Other channels
prohibit people from publishing logs.

It's also quite common knowledge that revisions can be deleted (by any
administrator, where they remain viewable by administrators) or suppressed
altogether (by users with Oversight rights). I think if you considered it
with a full possession of the facts, you would agree that this is good and
necessary.

In any case, thank you Lila for your note! I appreciate that you have made
it clear you've seen the threads of the last few weeks and understand the
concerns that posters have described.

~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Risker]

Wil, if you want to use email lists for your discussions, you may find a
better reception if you use one of the project- or task-specific lists.
There is a page on English Wikipedia with links to mailing lists that most
closely relate to that project[1] and a more extensive list at Meta that
describes lists for many other projects and specific areas of interest.[2]
One is more likely to get a positive response when the audience is more
accurately targeted.

You will probably find that a lot of practical questions you have asked
could easily be answered at the English Wikipedia Teahouse page, where you
have been invited.  That would include questions about how to tell if
something has been deleted from a page, how to read page histories, or even
how to tell whether or not someone is WMF staff.


Risker




[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mailing_lists

 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Overview




On 28 May 2014 13:07, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be
 obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too. I posted the
 following to Wikipediocracy a few minutes ago:

 
 I may have misread which page the rev was on, or I misunderstood the
 person who said s/he revdeleted it in thinking that it had been
 revdeleted in the previous few minutes. This is exactly why I prefer
 public recorded forums. Now no one can go back to clear up the
 confusion. For all I know, I might have to apologize for a
 misunderstanding, and it would really suck if I somehow misrepresented
 things and didn't have any opportunity to straighten things out.

 Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't
 logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who
 aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't
 supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK,
 but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be
 disallowed). Next time I have a concern, I will take it to wikimedia-l
 or one of the other mailing lists. As this example also shows, one
 can't be sure that the revs on a page within Wikimedia's wikis
 themselves won't be redacted after-the-fact. I'm not expressing an
 opinion about whether stuff should be redacted or on what grounds, but
 I am asserting that it is possible to do so.
 

 There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be
 followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the
 discussion that includes the comment above:
 http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14t=4680p=96600#p96600

 ,Wil

 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
  Wil, the deletion log of the page in question is publicly visible.  There
  are no WMF employees who have deleted anything on that page, ever. This
 is
  information you can check for yourself instead of relying on the words of
  others.
 
  Risker
 
 
  On 28 May 2014 12:23, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
 
  Hi Fae, if you're referring to the discussion on this page, then I
  think I make it quite clear why I won't engage with WMF employees
  going forward:
  http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14t=4680start=150.
 
  To be sure, I'm not used to having anyone from Lila's team immediately
  emailing her through their official company addresses as soon as I ask
  a question in a public forum. In this case, the WMF has made it quite
  clear that the IRC channels aren't official and/or sponsored by the
  WMF, and I was asking about community affairs WRT to those channels.
  So my question about why a user was kicked from the channel didn't
  have anything to do with the WMF. I still don't understand why this
  employee felt it was necessary to bring Lila's attention to safety
  concerns through official WMF employee channels, although I'm sure he
  or she felt it was the right thing to do and I've given them the
  benefit of the doubt that it was. Of course, I can't form my own
  independent opinion, since a WMF employee revdeleted the rev in
  question in the ~10 minutes between when it was first posted and when
  I tried clicking on the link.
 
  In any case, it should be made clear that the WMF did not ask me to
  disengage with employees and has not yet asked me to stop posting to
  Wikipediocracy directly. So far, the organization itself has respected
  my individuality; I can only appeal to everyone in the WP community
  and all WMF employees to do the same in the future. I will be engaging
  with the broader WP community in whatever way I can, but I've made the
  hard decision to limit my engagement with WMF employees to public,
  logged forums from now on.
 
  ,Wil
 
  On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
   On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote:
   ...
   independent individual
   able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does
 not
   take direction from me. 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

Yes, that was mentioned on the Wikipediocracy thread, as well. I
apologize to that person and the WMF for my misunderstanding.

Other than establishing the fact that I wrongly stated that this
person is a WMF employee, the revdelete doesn't seem to warrant more
investigation according to existing policy. As I mentioned before, I
assume this revdelete was justified by published policy, so it doesn't
matter who made it beyond correcting my mistake. I would like to
protect that person's ability to act in good faith going forward.

The IRC conversation could warrant more discussion based on whether
there is interest. I've said all I wanted to say on the matter (that I
will not be engaging in private conversations with WMF employees for
the time being), but I'd be happy to answer any questions that others
might have.

Again, I'm sorry for my mistake, and thanks for pointing it out.
,Wil



On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 A slight correction: the revision was rev-deleted by a member of the 
 community - a member of ArbCom, in fact - and not an employee of the 
 Foundation.

 Snt frm m Phn

 On May 28, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 Hi Fae, if you're referring to the discussion on this page, then I
 think I make it quite clear why I won't engage with WMF employees
 going forward: 
 http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14t=4680start=150.

 To be sure, I'm not used to having anyone from Lila's team immediately
 emailing her through their official company addresses as soon as I ask
 a question in a public forum. In this case, the WMF has made it quite
 clear that the IRC channels aren't official and/or sponsored by the
 WMF, and I was asking about community affairs WRT to those channels.
 So my question about why a user was kicked from the channel didn't
 have anything to do with the WMF. I still don't understand why this
 employee felt it was necessary to bring Lila's attention to safety
 concerns through official WMF employee channels, although I'm sure he
 or she felt it was the right thing to do and I've given them the
 benefit of the doubt that it was. Of course, I can't form my own
 independent opinion, since a WMF employee revdeleted the rev in
 question in the ~10 minutes between when it was first posted and when
 I tried clicking on the link.

 In any case, it should be made clear that the WMF did not ask me to
 disengage with employees and has not yet asked me to stop posting to
 Wikipediocracy directly. So far, the organization itself has respected
 my individuality; I can only appeal to everyone in the WP community
 and all WMF employees to do the same in the future. I will be engaging
 with the broader WP community in whatever way I can, but I've made the
 hard decision to limit my engagement with WMF employees to public,
 logged forums from now on.

 ,Wil

 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 28/05/2014, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 ...
 independent individual
 able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not
 take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the WMF
 employees.

 Thanks for making these distinctions. It is sad to see that your time
 and energy is being used so early on in your introduction to the
 Wikimedia community, in creating a political distance between yourself
 and the public actions of your life partner, due to his casual
 curiosity about Wikimedia projects. A curiosity that only manifested
 itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the
 Foundation board.

 I do not really understand the point being made about not engaging
 with WMF employees, any active volunteer on Wikimedia projects should
 and must be free to engage with WMF employees. The statement does not
 appear to match actions over the last 24 hours, with Wil freely making
 public comments about his dissatisfaction after conversations
 (emails?) with some WMF employees.

 Thanks again for clarifying your position during this difficult start
 to your engagement.

 Fae
 --
 fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

If people don't want me to discuss this here, of course we can take it
elsewhere.

I only reply to this publicly to suggest that you and others help me
out with that. For example, you have plenty of options beyond replying
list-wide to communicate the very thing you're telling me below. As
long as none of these concerns boil down to Just shut up, Wil, I'm
all for optimizing communication. I think it's interesting, however,
that no one seems to think that messages containing +1's to other
people saying thanks aren't a waste of bandwidth or not entirely
appropriate for this list.

Thanks for the suggestion, in any case.
,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
 Wil, if you want to use email lists for your discussions, you may find a
 better reception if you use one of the project- or task-specific lists.
 There is a page on English Wikipedia with links to mailing lists that most
 closely relate to that project[1] and a more extensive list at Meta that
 describes lists for many other projects and specific areas of interest.[2]
 One is more likely to get a positive response when the audience is more
 accurately targeted.

 You will probably find that a lot of practical questions you have asked
 could easily be answered at the English Wikipedia Teahouse page, where you
 have been invited.  That would include questions about how to tell if
 something has been deleted from a page, how to read page histories, or even
 how to tell whether or not someone is WMF staff.


 Risker




 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mailing_lists

  [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Overview




 On 28 May 2014 13:07, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be
 obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too. I posted the
 following to Wikipediocracy a few minutes ago:

 
 I may have misread which page the rev was on, or I misunderstood the
 person who said s/he revdeleted it in thinking that it had been
 revdeleted in the previous few minutes. This is exactly why I prefer
 public recorded forums. Now no one can go back to clear up the
 confusion. For all I know, I might have to apologize for a
 misunderstanding, and it would really suck if I somehow misrepresented
 things and didn't have any opportunity to straighten things out.

 Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't
 logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who
 aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't
 supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK,
 but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be
 disallowed). Next time I have a concern, I will take it to wikimedia-l
 or one of the other mailing lists. As this example also shows, one
 can't be sure that the revs on a page within Wikimedia's wikis
 themselves won't be redacted after-the-fact. I'm not expressing an
 opinion about whether stuff should be redacted or on what grounds, but
 I am asserting that it is possible to do so.
 

 There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be
 followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the
 discussion that includes the comment above:
 http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14t=4680p=96600#p96600

 ,Wil

 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
  Wil, the deletion log of the page in question is publicly visible.  There
  are no WMF employees who have deleted anything on that page, ever. This
 is
  information you can check for yourself instead of relying on the words of
  others.
 
  Risker
 
 
  On 28 May 2014 12:23, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
 
  Hi Fae, if you're referring to the discussion on this page, then I
  think I make it quite clear why I won't engage with WMF employees
  going forward:
  http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14t=4680start=150.
 
  To be sure, I'm not used to having anyone from Lila's team immediately
  emailing her through their official company addresses as soon as I ask
  a question in a public forum. In this case, the WMF has made it quite
  clear that the IRC channels aren't official and/or sponsored by the
  WMF, and I was asking about community affairs WRT to those channels.
  So my question about why a user was kicked from the channel didn't
  have anything to do with the WMF. I still don't understand why this
  employee felt it was necessary to bring Lila's attention to safety
  concerns through official WMF employee channels, although I'm sure he
  or she felt it was the right thing to do and I've given them the
  benefit of the doubt that it was. Of course, I can't form my own
  independent opinion, since a WMF employee revdeleted the rev in
  question in the ~10 minutes between when it was first posted and when
  I tried clicking on the link.
 
  In any case, it should be made clear that the WMF did not ask me to
  

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

Nathan, I was responding to Lila's note to clarify that I had made the
decision to not discuss anything privately with any WMF employee. The
IRC discussion was referenced by Fae, so I sent a link to the
discussion so everyone could see what he was talking about; I will
absolutely stand by my words. I think it's very important for everyone
to understand that the WMF is not trying to directly control my
communication with the community and with WMF employees. These are all
my decisions.

Everyone who is encouraging me to stop posting on this thread seem to
be the people who were asking for the clarification of my role in the
first place. These people seemed to think this matter was urgent and
that we shouldn't wait any longer- much less for me to understand the
intricacies of those IRC channels- to get clarification. I was not the
person to bring up the IRC discussion, but once it was brought up, I
don't think many people would disagree that it was appropriate for me
to respond with my account.

We are all interested in hearing all sides of every story here, aren't
we? I'm starting to get the feeling that there are things that some
people on this list don't want *anyone* to discuss. After all, you
could simply ignore my messages or even filter them from your inbox,
if you are so inclined. This impression has been troubling me greatly.
Do you know that this is *precisely* what many on Wikipediocracy are
saying about this list? Are they right?

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be
 obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too. I posted the
 following to Wikipediocracy a few minutes ago:

 
 I may have misread which page the rev was on, or I misunderstood the
 person who said s/he revdeleted it in thinking that it had been
 revdeleted in the previous few minutes. This is exactly why I prefer
 public recorded forums. Now no one can go back to clear up the
 confusion. For all I know, I might have to apologize for a
 misunderstanding, and it would really suck if I somehow misrepresented
 things and didn't have any opportunity to straighten things out.

 Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't
 logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who
 aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't
 supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK,
 but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be
 disallowed). Next time I have a concern, I will take it to wikimedia-l
 or one of the other mailing lists. As this example also shows, one
 can't be sure that the revs on a page within Wikimedia's wikis
 themselves won't be redacted after-the-fact. I'm not expressing an
 opinion about whether stuff should be redacted or on what grounds, but
 I am asserting that it is possible to do so.
 

 There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be
 followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the
 discussion that includes the comment above:
 http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14t=4680p=96600#p96600

 ,Wil



 Hi Wil,

 This is exactly why others have suggested that you slow down, and focus on
 learning the basics of the Wikimedia projects and movements before jumping
 into the hottest, most controversial issues. It takes time to develop the
 understanding necessary to draw conclusions, especially in areas most
 likely to erupt into drama and heated exchanges.

 To wit, I don't believe it can even be determined if someone is logging a
 channel, and many people (including Wikimedians) log all of their channels.
 Several Wikimedia-related channels are publicly logged. Other channels
 prohibit people from publishing logs.

 It's also quite common knowledge that revisions can be deleted (by any
 administrator, where they remain viewable by administrators) or suppressed
 altogether (by users with Oversight rights). I think if you considered it
 with a full possession of the facts, you would agree that this is good and
 necessary.

 In any case, thank you Lila for your note! I appreciate that you have made
 it clear you've seen the threads of the last few weeks and understand the
 concerns that posters have described.

 ~Nathan
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Nathan]

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 Nathan, I was responding to Lila's note to clarify that I had made the
 decision to not discuss anything privately with any WMF employee. The
 IRC discussion was referenced by Fae, so I sent a link to the
 discussion so everyone could see what he was talking about; I will
 absolutely stand by my words. I think it's very important for everyone
 to understand that the WMF is not trying to directly control my
 communication with the community and with WMF employees. These are all
 my decisions.

 Everyone who is encouraging me to stop posting on this thread seem to
 be the people who were asking for the clarification of my role in the
 first place. These people seemed to think this matter was urgent and
 that we shouldn't wait any longer- much less for me to understand the
 intricacies of those IRC channels- to get clarification. I was not the
 person to bring up the IRC discussion, but once it was brought up, I
 don't think many people would disagree that it was appropriate for me
 to respond with my account.

 We are all interested in hearing all sides of every story here, aren't
 we? I'm starting to get the feeling that there are things that some
 people on this list don't want *anyone* to discuss. After all, you
 could simply ignore my messages or even filter them from your inbox,
 if you are so inclined. This impression has been troubling me greatly.
 Do you know that this is *precisely* what many on Wikipediocracy are
 saying about this list? Are they right?

 ,Wil


I'm way post having posted too much on this subject, so one last brief
message and that will be it for me. Wil, I don't think anyone has objected
to criticism of Wikimedia or enwp policies on this list (other than over
forum selection for certain issues). People *have* objected to your
decision to associate with WO, and have attempted to describe to you why
they object.

Others (including me) have pointed out that your inexperience hampers your
power as a critic of internal processes. There are just a long list of
things you don't know much about, but that doesn't seem to prevent you from
complaining about them in high visibility forums like this list. My advice
is to take time away from lists and forums and controversial discussions
and just learn and experience the projects. Then come back and join the
more meta discussions.

I suspect you won't choose to follow that advice, since its been given
multiple other times and you haven't yet, but I hope you understand the
distinction between suggesting that you listen and learn before you opine
and demanding that you piss off and stop posting full stop. I'm doing the
former, no one has done the latter.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Molly White]

Wil Sinclair wllm@... writes:

 
 Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be
 obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too.

Indeed you can. If you navigate to
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log and enter the title
of the page in the Target (title or user) field, you can see
GorillaWarfare (talk | contribs | block) changed visibility of a revision.

I was the one who deleted the revision in question. I'd like to clarify that
I'm not an employee of the WMF. I'm an administrator, and a member of the
Arbitration Committee, but my membership on that committee is by community
election. It is neither paid by nor decided by the WMF. The deletion of that
revision was done in my administrator, not arbitrator, capacity.

As for determining who is and is not an employee of the WMF, WMF employees
editing as employees (and not community members) tend to have (WMF) in
their usernames. If nothing else, you can check their userpages, where they
will mention if they are employees.

 Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't
 logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who
 aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't
 supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK,
 but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be
 disallowed). 

As some have already pointed out, it is in fact just fine to log Wikimedia
channels. It is the publishing of these logs (from channels that restrict
logging) that is considered to be a bannable offense.

 
 
 There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be
 followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the
 discussion that includes the comment above:
 http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14t=4680p=96600#p96600
 
 ,Wil

In fact, I'd suggest you *do* begin logging your IRC communications. Had you
been logging, you would have been able to refer to your logs to review my
explanation of why the user in question is typically immediately banned from
Wikimedia-related IRC channels. You also would have been able to refer to
the conversation in which I pointed you to the revision deletion policy, and
the specific criterion under which I removed the revision. You would also
have remembered that you did not ask me for any more detail about the
relationship between Wikimedia-related IRC channels and Wikimedia projects
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IRC#How_is_Wikipedia_IRC_related_to
_Wikipedia.3F), about the IRC channel guidelines
(https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC/wikipedia/Guidelines, also linked from
the channel topic in #wikipedia-en) or expectations of channel operators
(https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC/wikipedia/Channel_operator_guidelines),
or about the revision itself and its contents.

Yours,
Molly (GorillaWarfare)


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note

[ENWP Pine]

Thank you for the explanations, Lila, Molly, and everyone else.

Wil, I happen to be waiting on an email right now so I have a few minutes to 
spare. If you need clarification on anything that has been said in this 
discussion I am happy to meet you on IRC or have a Skype conversation. I would 
suggest that this thread is consuming a lot of bandwidth in this email list and 
we should move the discussion elsewhere. We can also talk on your talk page, 
although I think your more conversational style is better suited to IRC or 
Skype.

Cheers,

Pine
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Martijn Hoekstra]

 We are all interested in hearing all sides of every story here, aren't
 we? I'm starting to get the feeling that there are things that some
 people on this list don't want *anyone* to discuss.


Which things, and which people are you aiming at, particularly?

--Martijn


 After all, you
 could simply ignore my messages or even filter them from your inbox,
 if you are so inclined. This impression has been troubling me greatly.
 Do you know that this is *precisely* what many on Wikipediocracy are
 saying about this list? Are they right?

 ,Wil

 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
  On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
 
  Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be
  obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too. I posted the
  following to Wikipediocracy a few minutes ago:
 
  
  I may have misread which page the rev was on, or I misunderstood the
  person who said s/he revdeleted it in thinking that it had been
  revdeleted in the previous few minutes. This is exactly why I prefer
  public recorded forums. Now no one can go back to clear up the
  confusion. For all I know, I might have to apologize for a
  misunderstanding, and it would really suck if I somehow misrepresented
  things and didn't have any opportunity to straighten things out.
 
  Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't
  logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who
  aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't
  supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK,
  but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be
  disallowed). Next time I have a concern, I will take it to wikimedia-l
  or one of the other mailing lists. As this example also shows, one
  can't be sure that the revs on a page within Wikimedia's wikis
  themselves won't be redacted after-the-fact. I'm not expressing an
  opinion about whether stuff should be redacted or on what grounds, but
  I am asserting that it is possible to do so.
  
 
  There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be
  followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the
  discussion that includes the comment above:
 
 http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14t=4680p=96600#p96600
 
  ,Wil
 
 
 
  Hi Wil,
 
  This is exactly why others have suggested that you slow down, and focus
 on
  learning the basics of the Wikimedia projects and movements before
 jumping
  into the hottest, most controversial issues. It takes time to develop the
  understanding necessary to draw conclusions, especially in areas most
  likely to erupt into drama and heated exchanges.
 
  To wit, I don't believe it can even be determined if someone is logging a
  channel, and many people (including Wikimedians) log all of their
 channels.
  Several Wikimedia-related channels are publicly logged. Other channels
  prohibit people from publishing logs.
 
  It's also quite common knowledge that revisions can be deleted (by any
  administrator, where they remain viewable by administrators) or
 suppressed
  altogether (by users with Oversight rights). I think if you considered it
  with a full possession of the facts, you would agree that this is good
 and
  necessary.
 
  In any case, thank you Lila for your note! I appreciate that you have
 made
  it clear you've seen the threads of the last few weeks and understand the
  concerns that posters have described.
 
  ~Nathan
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

Well, we were discussing IRC and my experience there in this thread,
and many people were asking me to wait. I find this interesting,
because some on Wikipediocracy also asked me to wait, with the
significant exception that this was to wait until I so something,
then come back. In this case, it was wait until you've read these
articles and seen this stuff on-wiki, then come back. I agreed. They
then checked in with me regularly (I think most of them thought I was
going to bail), and once I had read the material I had agreed to read,
we resumed the discussion. It's all here: It's all here on this
thread: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14t=4531

But I think I've figured out a way for me to bring up topics without
worrying about my level of experience with Wikipedia/Wikimedia. I'll
start a new thread with my concerns and what I've come up with.

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Martijn Hoekstra
martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:


 We are all interested in hearing all sides of every story here, aren't
 we? I'm starting to get the feeling that there are things that some
 people on this list don't want *anyone* to discuss.


 Which things, and which people are you aiming at, particularly?

 --Martijn


 After all, you
 could simply ignore my messages or even filter them from your inbox,
 if you are so inclined. This impression has been troubling me greatly.
 Do you know that this is *precisely* what many on Wikipediocracy are
 saying about this list? Are they right?

 ,Wil

 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
  On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
 
  Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be
  obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too. I posted the
  following to Wikipediocracy a few minutes ago:
 
  
  I may have misread which page the rev was on, or I misunderstood the
  person who said s/he revdeleted it in thinking that it had been
  revdeleted in the previous few minutes. This is exactly why I prefer
  public recorded forums. Now no one can go back to clear up the
  confusion. For all I know, I might have to apologize for a
  misunderstanding, and it would really suck if I somehow misrepresented
  things and didn't have any opportunity to straighten things out.
 
  Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't
  logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who
  aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't
  supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK,
  but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be
  disallowed). Next time I have a concern, I will take it to wikimedia-l
  or one of the other mailing lists. As this example also shows, one
  can't be sure that the revs on a page within Wikimedia's wikis
  themselves won't be redacted after-the-fact. I'm not expressing an
  opinion about whether stuff should be redacted or on what grounds, but
  I am asserting that it is possible to do so.
  
 
  There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be
  followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the
  discussion that includes the comment above:
 
 http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14t=4680p=96600#p96600
 
  ,Wil
 
 
 
  Hi Wil,
 
  This is exactly why others have suggested that you slow down, and focus
 on
  learning the basics of the Wikimedia projects and movements before
 jumping
  into the hottest, most controversial issues. It takes time to develop the
  understanding necessary to draw conclusions, especially in areas most
  likely to erupt into drama and heated exchanges.
 
  To wit, I don't believe it can even be determined if someone is logging a
  channel, and many people (including Wikimedians) log all of their
 channels.
  Several Wikimedia-related channels are publicly logged. Other channels
  prohibit people from publishing logs.
 
  It's also quite common knowledge that revisions can be deleted (by any
  administrator, where they remain viewable by administrators) or
 suppressed
  altogether (by users with Oversight rights). I think if you considered it
  with a full possession of the facts, you would agree that this is good
 and
  necessary.
 
  In any case, thank you Lila for your note! I appreciate that you have
 made
  it clear you've seen the threads of the last few weeks and understand the
  concerns that posters have described.
 
  ~Nathan
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[David Cuenca]

Wil, I have been following the conversation and I can feel your
good-hearted nature.
Please do not be offended when they say wait to you. They mean no harm to
you, just the opposite.

I know how frustrating it is to have to wait, because all of us have gone
through the same...
Just to give you an example of my experience, it took me almost a year
until I felt comfortable editing in my home project. Understanding the
subjective experience of editing is something you will not find in any
book, you have to go through it and then some opinions will make more sense
to you. It took me many more years until I ventured to bring up topics that
affect bigger communities. And now after ten years I am still learning...
just figure.

Patience is a very positive trait and we never have enough of it. They have
been giving it to you because they appreciate you, and if you give it back
to them they will appreciate you even more.

Welcome to the community and an internet hug for you!

Micru

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 Well, we were discussing IRC and my experience there in this thread,
 and many people were asking me to wait. I find this interesting,
 because some on Wikipediocracy also asked me to wait, with the
 significant exception that this was to wait until I so something,
 then come back. In this case, it was wait until you've read these
 articles and seen this stuff on-wiki, then come back. I agreed. They
 then checked in with me regularly (I think most of them thought I was
 going to bail), and once I had read the material I had agreed to read,
 we resumed the discussion. It's all here: It's all here on this
 thread: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14t=4531

 But I think I've figured out a way for me to bring up topics without
 worrying about my level of experience with Wikipedia/Wikimedia. I'll
 start a new thread with my concerns and what I've come up with.

 ,Wil

 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Martijn Hoekstra
 martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 
  We are all interested in hearing all sides of every story here, aren't
  we? I'm starting to get the feeling that there are things that some
  people on this list don't want *anyone* to discuss.
 
 
  Which things, and which people are you aiming at, particularly?
 
  --Martijn
 
 
  After all, you
  could simply ignore my messages or even filter them from your inbox,
  if you are so inclined. This impression has been troubling me greatly.
  Do you know that this is *precisely* what many on Wikipediocracy are
  saying about this list? Are they right?
 
  ,Wil
 
  On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
   On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
  
   Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be
   obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too. I posted
 the
   following to Wikipediocracy a few minutes ago:
  
   
   I may have misread which page the rev was on, or I misunderstood the
   person who said s/he revdeleted it in thinking that it had been
   revdeleted in the previous few minutes. This is exactly why I prefer
   public recorded forums. Now no one can go back to clear up the
   confusion. For all I know, I might have to apologize for a
   misunderstanding, and it would really suck if I somehow
 misrepresented
   things and didn't have any opportunity to straighten things out.
  
   Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't
   logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who
   aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't
   supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK,
   but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be
   disallowed). Next time I have a concern, I will take it to
 wikimedia-l
   or one of the other mailing lists. As this example also shows, one
   can't be sure that the revs on a page within Wikimedia's wikis
   themselves won't be redacted after-the-fact. I'm not expressing an
   opinion about whether stuff should be redacted or on what grounds,
 but
   I am asserting that it is possible to do so.
   
  
   There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be
   followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the
   discussion that includes the comment above:
  
 
 http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14t=4680p=96600#p96600
  
   ,Wil
  
  
  
   Hi Wil,
  
   This is exactly why others have suggested that you slow down, and
 focus
  on
   learning the basics of the Wikimedia projects and movements before
  jumping
   into the hottest, most controversial issues. It takes time to develop
 the
   understanding necessary to draw conclusions, especially in areas most
   likely to erupt into drama and heated exchanges.
  
   To wit, I don't believe it can even be determined if someone is
 logging a
   channel, and many people (including Wikimedians) log 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Everton Zanella Alvarenga]

Hi Will, we generally can find critics mainly from those who cannot
understand or do not have patience when newbies make mistakes. Obviously I
also have this problem sometimes (for this some ironic comments when I
suggested in a recent topic suggesting  we should criticize more
kindlyhttp://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-May/071742.html),
for this I believe it'll take sometime for we, as a group or even Wikimedia
Foundation as an organization, to realise the importance of making mistakes
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/howmista.htm and give more
importance on our learnings.

My general feeling is that we lack the necessary patience and the
limitation of online communication tends to raise unnecessary issues
(sometimes called wikidramas), but I have no idea how this cultural change
can be achieved in the Wikimedia community. Maybe it will come with
nonviolent communication 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication or when we learn to
ignore the violence and deal with it with wisdom.

Leadership in this (crazy, in the good sense :) horizontal community can
also be a factor to improve the discussions environment, be it on mailing
lists, forums or the wiki. The TeaHouse is a great example. The ideia of
Wikipedia ambassadors to work on educational environments, although not
sustainable in the mid term, is another cool idea. Those great videos made
by Victor idem. More ideias will come, I believe. :)

Tom


2014-05-28 17:18 GMT-03:00 Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com:

 Well, we were discussing IRC and my experience there in this thread,
 and many people were asking me to wait. I find this interesting,
 because some on Wikipediocracy also asked me to wait, with the
 significant exception that this was to wait until I so something,
 then come back. In this case, it was wait until you've read these
 articles and seen this stuff on-wiki, then come back. I agreed. They
 then checked in with me regularly (I think most of them thought I was
 going to bail), and once I had read the material I had agreed to read,
 we resumed the discussion. It's all here: It's all here on this
 thread: http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14t=4531

 But I think I've figured out a way for me to bring up topics without
 worrying about my level of experience with Wikipedia/Wikimedia. I'll
 start a new thread with my concerns and what I've come up with.

 ,Wil


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Russavia]

Wil,

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

As you can see there is a lot of consternation being directed your
way, and at some stage, and this will teach you well for the future as
well, you have to learn to walk away from the keyboard. If you can't
do this, and I have a feeling you might have difficulty doing so, try
to at least delay hitting the send button, but this is something else
you may have trouble doing. This is especially important on this list,
as there is a sending limit per month that people are able send, and
this is obviously done to prevent the drowning out of other
participants by any single personyou would likely be well on your
way to this limit by now.

Wil, if you truly wanted to see how the projects work, usually the
best way is to get involved at the ground level. Some people may want
to make some edits on Wikipedia to an article on a subject that
interest them. Others might add some information on one of their
favourite holiday spots on Wikivoyage. Others might prefer to take a
photo of their penis and upload it to Commons. There are literally
plenty of ways for a n00b get involved on our projects.

You have missed an opportunity here to be able to help Lila with her new job.

Firstly, this is Lila's moment to shine and an opportunity for the
community to get to know her and vice versa. It's a bit difficult for
a sense of trust to be built when you have an overbearing partner
essentially publicly pushing her aside and taking all of our
attention. For example, I really don't know much about Lila, but I
know more about you. And that presents a massive problem, and believe
you me, others are thinking it, I'm willing to say it publicly.

Secondly, as a n00b, you would have been a great person for Lila to
use as a sounding board as to how it is for new editors on our
projects to be able to edit and understand how to navigate our
projects. You may not be aware but our projects have a dire editor
retention rate, and your experiences, given that it is evident you are
green to our projects, may have been able to help Lila understand that
particular issue.

Getting involved as you have done has only gone to serve
Wikipediocracy by handing them the best PSA they could hope for on a
silver platter.

Having said that, if you want to get involved on Commons,
#wikimedia-commons is full of helpful editors who might be able to
give you some further ideas on how to contribute to that project.

Learn the ropes first; there's plenty of time for wikipolitics and the
like later on.

Cheers

Russavia

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Thomas Morton]

I cannot believe I am saying this; but I totally agree with Russavia.

Wil; why not have a go contributing to some WP articles and seeing what
your experience is.

We have a comment statement that gets made on flame threads, which boils
down to isn't there an article you could be writing?

Tom


On 28 May 2014 21:44, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:

 Wil,

 On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 As you can see there is a lot of consternation being directed your
 way, and at some stage, and this will teach you well for the future as
 well, you have to learn to walk away from the keyboard. If you can't
 do this, and I have a feeling you might have difficulty doing so, try
 to at least delay hitting the send button, but this is something else
 you may have trouble doing. This is especially important on this list,
 as there is a sending limit per month that people are able send, and
 this is obviously done to prevent the drowning out of other
 participants by any single personyou would likely be well on your
 way to this limit by now.

 Wil, if you truly wanted to see how the projects work, usually the
 best way is to get involved at the ground level. Some people may want
 to make some edits on Wikipedia to an article on a subject that
 interest them. Others might add some information on one of their
 favourite holiday spots on Wikivoyage. Others might prefer to take a
 photo of their penis and upload it to Commons. There are literally
 plenty of ways for a n00b get involved on our projects.

 You have missed an opportunity here to be able to help Lila with her new
 job.

 Firstly, this is Lila's moment to shine and an opportunity for the
 community to get to know her and vice versa. It's a bit difficult for
 a sense of trust to be built when you have an overbearing partner
 essentially publicly pushing her aside and taking all of our
 attention. For example, I really don't know much about Lila, but I
 know more about you. And that presents a massive problem, and believe
 you me, others are thinking it, I'm willing to say it publicly.

 Secondly, as a n00b, you would have been a great person for Lila to
 use as a sounding board as to how it is for new editors on our
 projects to be able to edit and understand how to navigate our
 projects. You may not be aware but our projects have a dire editor
 retention rate, and your experiences, given that it is evident you are
 green to our projects, may have been able to help Lila understand that
 particular issue.

 Getting involved as you have done has only gone to serve
 Wikipediocracy by handing them the best PSA they could hope for on a
 silver platter.

 Having said that, if you want to get involved on Commons,
 #wikimedia-commons is full of helpful editors who might be able to
 give you some further ideas on how to contribute to that project.

 Learn the ropes first; there's plenty of time for wikipolitics and the
 like later on.

 Cheers

 Russavia

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

Thanks for all the pointers, Molly, and for disclosing that it was you
for the sake of adding a bit more info to the discussion; you haven't
done anything wrong as far as I know, and I didn't feel comfortable
mentioning your IRC nick in case there were any confusion. I simply
didn't get a chance to look at that diff before you revdeleted it; it
was the only concrete evidence that I saw linked there for why
badmachine was kicked. I probably should have clicked on it
immediately. My bad.

I've apologized to you here and on Wikipediocracy, but apologies are
always worth doing directly and for as many to see as possible: I'm
very sorry for mistaking you for a WMF employee. I take full
responsibility for my words and actions. I hope you can forgive me.

To be clear, a WMF employee did mail Lila with safety concerns. That
was obviously not Molly, and, ultimately, I don't think it's important
who it was. It just made me personally uncomfortable communicating
with WMF employees in any private setting. I'm hoping that will change
as we all begin to trust each other more. Even then, I have no plans
to discuss WMF matters of any sort with WMF employees; that's to
everyone's benefit IMO.

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Molly White
gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
 Wil Sinclair wllm@... writes:


 Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be
 obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too.

 Indeed you can. If you navigate to
 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log and enter the title
 of the page in the Target (title or user) field, you can see
 GorillaWarfare (talk | contribs | block) changed visibility of a revision.

 I was the one who deleted the revision in question. I'd like to clarify that
 I'm not an employee of the WMF. I'm an administrator, and a member of the
 Arbitration Committee, but my membership on that committee is by community
 election. It is neither paid by nor decided by the WMF. The deletion of that
 revision was done in my administrator, not arbitrator, capacity.

 As for determining who is and is not an employee of the WMF, WMF employees
 editing as employees (and not community members) tend to have (WMF) in
 their usernames. If nothing else, you can check their userpages, where they
 will mention if they are employees.

 Of course, it is entirely on me. I knew that the IRC channels weren't
 logged, and that it was a bannable offense to log them (for those who
 aren't familiar with IRC, this essentially means that you aren't
 supposed to save conversations there; in most channels that's A-OK,
 but on all of the most used wikipedia channels it seems to be
 disallowed).

 As some have already pointed out, it is in fact just fine to log Wikimedia
 channels. It is the publishing of these logs (from channels that restrict
 logging) that is considered to be a bannable offense.

 

 There is a discussion about this issue there, as well. It can be
 followed at the link I posted earlier. Here's the last page of the
 discussion that includes the comment above:
 http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14t=4680p=96600#p96600

 ,Wil

 In fact, I'd suggest you *do* begin logging your IRC communications. Had you
 been logging, you would have been able to refer to your logs to review my
 explanation of why the user in question is typically immediately banned from
 Wikimedia-related IRC channels. You also would have been able to refer to
 the conversation in which I pointed you to the revision deletion policy, and
 the specific criterion under which I removed the revision. You would also
 have remembered that you did not ask me for any more detail about the
 relationship between Wikimedia-related IRC channels and Wikimedia projects
 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IRC#How_is_Wikipedia_IRC_related_to
 _Wikipedia.3F), about the IRC channel guidelines
 (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC/wikipedia/Guidelines, also linked from
 the channel topic in #wikipedia-en) or expectations of channel operators
 (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC/wikipedia/Channel_operator_guidelines),
 or about the revision itself and its contents.

 Yours,
 Molly (GorillaWarfare)


 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Molly White]

Wil Sinclair wllm@... writes:
 
 I've apologized to you here and on Wikipediocracy, but apologies are
 always worth doing directly and for as many to see as possible: I'm
 very sorry for mistaking you for a WMF employee. I take full
 responsibility for my words and actions. I hope you can forgive me.

No need to apologize. I'm really not horrified at being mistaken for a
staffer, I'm just trying to clear up any confusion.

 To be clear, a WMF employee did mail Lila with safety concerns. That
 was obviously not Molly, and, ultimately, I don't think it's important
 who it was. It just made me personally uncomfortable communicating
 with WMF employees in any private setting. I'm hoping that will change
 as we all begin to trust each other more. Even then, I have no plans
 to discuss WMF matters of any sort with WMF employees; that's to
 everyone's benefit IMO.

Ah, this segues well into the email I was just drafting: I have to say that
I was surprised to see the contents of what appears to be an internal staff
email being brought up both on Wikipediocracy and here by a non-staff
member. Wil, can you clarify if you were copied on the email, and if not,
how you gained access to it? You've repeatedly emphasized that you are not
affiliated with/do not influence/are completely separate from the WMF, and
even that you and Lila are not even discussing Wikimedia-related matters
with one another at home, so I'm sure you can understand the confusion.

Yours,
Molly (GorillaWarfare)


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Amy Vossbrinck]

Hello Victor:

I continue to admire your persistence, and now it seems that of your
partner, to fully engage in the process of bringing your considerable
talent and seemingly boundless energy to making it possible for very
single human being to freely share in the sum of all knowledge.

It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from author James Baldwin:
Those who say it can' be done are usually interrupted by others doing it.


Keep on keepin' on!

Amy






On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Victor Grigas vgri...@wikimedia.org
wrote:

 My significant other applied for a grant and got 500 Wikireaders
 distributed to 3 schools:


 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Aislinn_Dewey/Distribute_WikiReaders_to_Schools/Report


 https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/help-distribute-wikireaders-and-provide-an-opportunity-for-kids-to-learn


 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:

  On 28 May 2014 15:04, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
  ...
   So that Wil's interest manifested around the time Lila was announced as
   the next ED seems to me to be perfectly natural, even if I have
   expressed serious concerns about *how* that interest was expressed.
   -- Marc
 
  There is a big difference between your partner having an interest in
  your organization, and going on to publish public complaints about the
  staff that you have complete authority and responsibility for
  employing.
 
  I may be wrong, perhaps someone has some examples of where this worked
  out well? The only examples from history and the political world I can
  recall, did not.
 
  Fae
  --
  fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 



 --

 *Victor Grigas*
 Storyteller https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Knv6D6Thi0
 Wikimedia Foundation
 vgri...@wikimedia.org
 https://donate.wikimedia.org/
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe




-- 
*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 415.839.6885%20%C2%A0ext%206628*
*avossbri...@wikimedia.org avossbri...@wikimedia.org*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

 Ah, this segues well into the email I was just drafting: I have to say that
 I was surprised to see the contents of what appears to be an internal staff
 email being brought up both on Wikipediocracy and here by a non-staff
 member. Wil, can you clarify if you were copied on the email, and if not,
 how you gained access to it? You've repeatedly emphasized that you are not
 affiliated with/do not influence/are completely separate from the WMF, and
 even that you and Lila are not even discussing Wikimedia-related matters
 with one another at home, so I'm sure you can understand the confusion.

 Yours,
 Molly (GorillaWarfare)

Of course. While I was talking to you and others on IRC, Lila came
over and asked me to stop. She usually doesn't do that under any
circumstances, because she respects my right to say what I want where
I want. She replied a WMF employee emailed me that there are safety
concerns, and safety of my employees is a matter that I can't
compromise on. She didn't say who wrote her or what their specific
concerns were, but I'm not about to cause anyone concern over their
safety personally + Lila felt she was responsible for the employee's
well being in this case. I did find it somewhat annoying, since it
certainly wasn't anything that I said there that would cause safety
concerns and no one msg'd me about it directly. I just asked why
badmachine was kicked and about the rather mean manner under which he
was kicked. But I told you guys why I was leaving and left. FWIW, I
don't plan on coming back anytime soon.

This was the first time that Lila told me anything about internal
matters, and it was limited to exactly what I wrote above. Frankly, I
don't want to know about WMF's affairs, and I'm taking action to avoid
knowing anything more for the foreseeable future.

,Wil

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Pete Forsyth]

Dear Lila,

I think many of us are interested in how you will engage with the Wikimedia
community, what kind of outcomes you will seek, and what kind of tactics
you will employ in seeking those outcomes.

Can you please clarify whether you believe it is possible for somebody with
a close connection to you to influence public perceptions in
disproportionate, and significant, ways? If so, do you consider it a
legitimate option for you to (privately) assert your right to establish
yourself in your new position, rather than letting them take the lead?

I think what has happened in the last few days is extraordinary. I've never
seen anything like it. While I am sure that Wil's intentions are good,
frankly, if his desire had been to sabotage your new job, I can't imagine
what more effective path he could have chosen.

I'm not sure if this link has any meaning to you, as you are still getting
to know the various people and dynamics in the community. But I wonder what
others think of it. Does anybody know if the following quote is accurate?
And regardless of whether it's accurate or not -- the events of the last
week have certainly made it seem plausible, haven't they?

Is this really the best way for the new Executive Director to be introduced
to the Wikimedia community and the world?


   - *Wikipedia is lucky to have people like Greg [Kohs]; even if he
   never directly contributes to WP going forward, we're all well aware that
   he's a very intelligent and eloquent individual with a knack for
   investigative reporting. He holds WP and the WMF to their word, and I
   personally thank him for that.* - *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila
   Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director) - May 22, 2014


http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Directory%3AGregory_J._Kohsdiff=463158oldid=462896#Cheers

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]


On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Hi all,

 This is a personal note to clarify a some questions that recently came up,
 specifically in the context of my role as the incoming ED.


 My partner Wil and I are partners in our private lives. We have always both
 been extremely independent, and we respect that in each other. That said we
 have different roles: I am the Executive Director with responsibilities
 towards the Foundation and the movement, and he is an independent community
 member with his own voice.

 I make my decisions using my own professional judgement in conjunction with
 input from the community and staff. I don’t consult Wil on these matters,
 ask him to do anything on my behalf or monitor his engagements with the
 community. When I speak here, it is in my capacity as an ED.

 Wil, on the other hand, has a very strong personal interest in the
 community and agreat deal of curiosity about how the Wikimedia
 projectswork. It is very important to him that he remains an
 independent individual
 able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not
 take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the WMF
 employees.

 I hope this addresses some of the questions and draws distinction between
 my role as ED and Wil’s participation as an independent member. If you have
 any questions for Wil you can reach him directly. If you have any questions
 for me or the WMF, you can get a hold of me by email or on my talk page.


 Thanks,

 Lila
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Fæ]

On 28 May 2014 22:57, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
...
 Is this really the best way for the new Executive Director to be introduced
 to the Wikimedia community and the world?

- *Wikipedia is lucky to have people like Greg [Kohs]; even if he
never directly contributes to WP going forward, we're all well aware that
he's a very intelligent and eloquent individual with a knack for
investigative reporting. He holds WP and the WMF to their word, and I
personally thank him for that.* - *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila
Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director) - May 22, 2014

Thanks for highlighting this Pete, I had no idea that Wil wrote this
(unless someone is spoofing him).

Lila, you need to explain what game is being played here. Perhaps you
intend to shock the established community? You succeeded.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's
uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was
the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather
petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That
doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I
personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*,
Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director);
I'd prefer he just leave it at Wil Sinclair, but it's really his
call on what he puts on his own site.

Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know-
but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any
leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this
point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong,
charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and
it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community
here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard
problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is
going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again,
that's all just my opinion.

I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me
so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it
to the list this time. :)

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
 Dear Lila,

 I think many of us are interested in how you will engage with the Wikimedia
 community, what kind of outcomes you will seek, and what kind of tactics
 you will employ in seeking those outcomes.

 Can you please clarify whether you believe it is possible for somebody with
 a close connection to you to influence public perceptions in
 disproportionate, and significant, ways? If so, do you consider it a
 legitimate option for you to (privately) assert your right to establish
 yourself in your new position, rather than letting them take the lead?

 I think what has happened in the last few days is extraordinary. I've never
 seen anything like it. While I am sure that Wil's intentions are good,
 frankly, if his desire had been to sabotage your new job, I can't imagine
 what more effective path he could have chosen.

 I'm not sure if this link has any meaning to you, as you are still getting
 to know the various people and dynamics in the community. But I wonder what
 others think of it. Does anybody know if the following quote is accurate?
 And regardless of whether it's accurate or not -- the events of the last
 week have certainly made it seem plausible, haven't they?

 Is this really the best way for the new Executive Director to be introduced
 to the Wikimedia community and the world?


- *Wikipedia is lucky to have people like Greg [Kohs]; even if he
never directly contributes to WP going forward, we're all well aware that
he's a very intelligent and eloquent individual with a knack for
investigative reporting. He holds WP and the WMF to their word, and I
personally thank him for that.* - *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila
Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director) - May 22, 2014


 http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Directory%3AGregory_J._Kohsdiff=463158oldid=462896#Cheers

 -Pete
 [[User:Peteforsyth]]


 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Hi all,

 This is a personal note to clarify a some questions that recently came up,
 specifically in the context of my role as the incoming ED.


 My partner Wil and I are partners in our private lives. We have always both
 been extremely independent, and we respect that in each other. That said we
 have different roles: I am the Executive Director with responsibilities
 towards the Foundation and the movement, and he is an independent community
 member with his own voice.

 I make my decisions using my own professional judgement in conjunction with
 input from the community and staff. I don’t consult Wil on these matters,
 ask him to do anything on my behalf or monitor his engagements with the
 community. When I speak here, it is in my capacity as an ED.

 Wil, on the other hand, has a very strong personal interest in the
 community and agreat deal of curiosity about how the Wikimedia
 projectswork. It is very important to him that he remains an
 independent individual
 able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not
 take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the WMF
 employees.

 I hope this addresses some of the questions and draws distinction between
 my role as ED and Wil’s participation as an independent member. If you have
 any questions for Wil you can reach him directly. If you have any questions
 for me or the WMF, you can get a hold of me by email or on my talk page.


 Thanks,

 Lila
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Fæ]

Wil, you are supporting a man that thought it was a hilarious joke to
call me a faggot. Not something that I am prepared to overlook, ever.

I now have serious reservations about Lila's good judgement in failing
to ensure you were appropriately advised, considering her critical
role in the Wikimedia movement.

Fae

On 28 May 2014 23:18, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
 First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's
 uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was
 the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather
 petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That
 doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I
 personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*,
 Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director);
 I'd prefer he just leave it at Wil Sinclair, but it's really his
 call on what he puts on his own site.

 Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know-
 but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any
 leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this
 point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong,
 charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and
 it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community
 here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard
 problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is
 going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again,
 that's all just my opinion.

 I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me
 so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it
 to the list this time. :)

 ,Wil

-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Jasper Deng]

Wil, we talked about this on IRC, so I won't repeat what I said. But what I
did *not* say is that the foundation tends to let the community do what it
wants, and it would be against that long-standing tradition for staff to
try to force a change in the community.

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's
 uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was
 the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather
 petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That
 doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I
 personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*,
 Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director);
 I'd prefer he just leave it at Wil Sinclair, but it's really his
 call on what he puts on his own site.

 Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know-
 but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any
 leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this
 point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong,
 charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and
 it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community
 here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard
 problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is
 going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again,
 that's all just my opinion.

 I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me
 so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it
 to the list this time. :)

 ,Wil

 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  Dear Lila,
 
  I think many of us are interested in how you will engage with the
 Wikimedia
  community, what kind of outcomes you will seek, and what kind of tactics
  you will employ in seeking those outcomes.
 
  Can you please clarify whether you believe it is possible for somebody
 with
  a close connection to you to influence public perceptions in
  disproportionate, and significant, ways? If so, do you consider it a
  legitimate option for you to (privately) assert your right to establish
  yourself in your new position, rather than letting them take the lead?
 
  I think what has happened in the last few days is extraordinary. I've
 never
  seen anything like it. While I am sure that Wil's intentions are good,
  frankly, if his desire had been to sabotage your new job, I can't imagine
  what more effective path he could have chosen.
 
  I'm not sure if this link has any meaning to you, as you are still
 getting
  to know the various people and dynamics in the community. But I wonder
 what
  others think of it. Does anybody know if the following quote is accurate?
  And regardless of whether it's accurate or not -- the events of the last
  week have certainly made it seem plausible, haven't they?
 
  Is this really the best way for the new Executive Director to be
 introduced
  to the Wikimedia community and the world?
 
 
 - *Wikipedia is lucky to have people like Greg [Kohs]; even if he
 never directly contributes to WP going forward, we're all well aware
 that
 he's a very intelligent and eloquent individual with a knack for
 investigative reporting. He holds WP and the WMF to their word, and I
 personally thank him for that.* - *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila
 Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director) - May 22, 2014
 
 
 
 http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Directory%3AGregory_J._Kohsdiff=463158oldid=462896#Cheers
 
  -Pete
  [[User:Peteforsyth]]
 
 
  On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org
 wrote:
 
  Hi all,
 
  This is a personal note to clarify a some questions that recently came
 up,
  specifically in the context of my role as the incoming ED.
 
 
  My partner Wil and I are partners in our private lives. We have always
 both
  been extremely independent, and we respect that in each other. That
 said we
  have different roles: I am the Executive Director with responsibilities
  towards the Foundation and the movement, and he is an independent
 community
  member with his own voice.
 
  I make my decisions using my own professional judgement in conjunction
 with
  input from the community and staff. I don’t consult Wil on these
 matters,
  ask him to do anything on my behalf or monitor his engagements with the
  community. When I speak here, it is in my capacity as an ED.
 
  Wil, on the other hand, has a very strong personal interest in the
  community and agreat deal of curiosity about how the Wikimedia
  projectswork. It is very important to him that he remains an
  independent individual
  able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not
  take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the
 WMF
  

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

I thought she did explain it. I act on my own behalf. I'm not
introducing Lila to anyone for any purpose. Man, I am getting tired of
writing that, and I can imagine that you're tired of reading it. We've
both already answered this question.

Everything I said about Greg there is true in *my* opinion, and I
think this is probably the most clear-cut attempt at guilt by
association I've ever witnessed online. But whatever- I said, you
spread it. Thanks for getting my perspective out there.

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 28 May 2014 22:57, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
 ...
 Is this really the best way for the new Executive Director to be introduced
 to the Wikimedia community and the world?

- *Wikipedia is lucky to have people like Greg [Kohs]; even if he
never directly contributes to WP going forward, we're all well aware that
he's a very intelligent and eloquent individual with a knack for
investigative reporting. He holds WP and the WMF to their word, and I
personally thank him for that.* - *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila
Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director) - May 22, 2014

 Thanks for highlighting this Pete, I had no idea that Wil wrote this
 (unless someone is spoofing him).

 Lila, you need to explain what game is being played here. Perhaps you
 intend to shock the established community? You succeeded.

 Fae
 --
 fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

I didn't know that he called you a faggot. Could you please show me where?

I mentioned I didn't agree with him on everything. I certainly would
*never* agree that a slur like that is justified, if he did make it.
In any case, the quote stands. Maybe we should start a separate thread
on the quote itself?

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
 Wil, you are supporting a man that thought it was a hilarious joke to
 call me a faggot. Not something that I am prepared to overlook, ever.

 I now have serious reservations about Lila's good judgement in failing
 to ensure you were appropriately advised, considering her critical
 role in the Wikimedia movement.

 Fae

 On 28 May 2014 23:18, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
 First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's
 uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was
 the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather
 petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That
 doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I
 personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*,
 Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director);
 I'd prefer he just leave it at Wil Sinclair, but it's really his
 call on what he puts on his own site.

 Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know-
 but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any
 leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this
 point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong,
 charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and
 it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community
 here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard
 problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is
 going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again,
 that's all just my opinion.

 I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me
 so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it
 to the list this time. :)

 ,Wil

 --
 fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Fæ]

Wil, ask Kohs to repeat his filth. I'm not going to do it for him.

Fae

On 28 May 2014 23:37, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
 I didn't know that he called you a faggot. Could you please show me where?

 I mentioned I didn't agree with him on everything. I certainly would
 *never* agree that a slur like that is justified, if he did make it.
 In any case, the quote stands. Maybe we should start a separate thread
 on the quote itself?

 ,Wil

 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
 Wil, you are supporting a man that thought it was a hilarious joke to
 call me a faggot. Not something that I am prepared to overlook, ever.

 I now have serious reservations about Lila's good judgement in failing
 to ensure you were appropriately advised, considering her critical
 role in the Wikimedia movement.

 Fae

 On 28 May 2014 23:18, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
 First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's
 uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was
 the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather
 petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That
 doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I
 personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*,
 Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director);
 I'd prefer he just leave it at Wil Sinclair, but it's really his
 call on what he puts on his own site.

 Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know-
 but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any
 leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this
 point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong,
 charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and
 it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community
 here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard
 problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is
 going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again,
 that's all just my opinion.

 I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me
 so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it
 to the list this time. :)

 ,Wil

 --
 fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe



-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Russavia]

Wil,

Have you been introduced to Jimmy Wales yet?

I'd be most interested for you to take your quote about Greg Kohs to
Jimmy on his talk page
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Walesaction=editsection=new)
and ask him if he would agree with you.

Also, please note that here on wikimedia-l you are reaching only a
small audience, you will likely get a wider audience at Jimmy's talk
page, and therefore a wider variety of opinion.

We'd then be most interested in hearing about your findings.

Cheers,

Russavia

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

Yes, we did talk on IRC. But what are you referring to? I wasn't
referring to you anywhere. I don't even remember talking about WMF's
role in the community. I guess if you have a log of that part of the
conversation, you should post it now. I may have a log in my own
client, if you don't mind my posting it.

I think it's becoming abundantly clear why I think it's best if I
don't interact with WMF employees in private.

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Jasper Deng jas...@jasperswebsite.com wrote:
 Wil, we talked about this on IRC, so I won't repeat what I said. But what I
 did *not* say is that the foundation tends to let the community do what it
 wants, and it would be against that long-standing tradition for staff to
 try to force a change in the community.

 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's
 uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was
 the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather
 petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That
 doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I
 personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*,
 Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director);
 I'd prefer he just leave it at Wil Sinclair, but it's really his
 call on what he puts on his own site.

 Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know-
 but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any
 leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this
 point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong,
 charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and
 it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community
 here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard
 problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is
 going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again,
 that's all just my opinion.

 I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me
 so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it
 to the list this time. :)

 ,Wil

 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  Dear Lila,
 
  I think many of us are interested in how you will engage with the
 Wikimedia
  community, what kind of outcomes you will seek, and what kind of tactics
  you will employ in seeking those outcomes.
 
  Can you please clarify whether you believe it is possible for somebody
 with
  a close connection to you to influence public perceptions in
  disproportionate, and significant, ways? If so, do you consider it a
  legitimate option for you to (privately) assert your right to establish
  yourself in your new position, rather than letting them take the lead?
 
  I think what has happened in the last few days is extraordinary. I've
 never
  seen anything like it. While I am sure that Wil's intentions are good,
  frankly, if his desire had been to sabotage your new job, I can't imagine
  what more effective path he could have chosen.
 
  I'm not sure if this link has any meaning to you, as you are still
 getting
  to know the various people and dynamics in the community. But I wonder
 what
  others think of it. Does anybody know if the following quote is accurate?
  And regardless of whether it's accurate or not -- the events of the last
  week have certainly made it seem plausible, haven't they?
 
  Is this really the best way for the new Executive Director to be
 introduced
  to the Wikimedia community and the world?
 
 
 - *Wikipedia is lucky to have people like Greg [Kohs]; even if he
 never directly contributes to WP going forward, we're all well aware
 that
 he's a very intelligent and eloquent individual with a knack for
 investigative reporting. He holds WP and the WMF to their word, and I
 personally thank him for that.* - *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila
 Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director) - May 22, 2014
 
 
 
 http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Directory%3AGregory_J._Kohsdiff=463158oldid=462896#Cheers
 
  -Pete
  [[User:Peteforsyth]]
 
 
  On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org
 wrote:
 
  Hi all,
 
  This is a personal note to clarify a some questions that recently came
 up,
  specifically in the context of my role as the incoming ED.
 
 
  My partner Wil and I are partners in our private lives. We have always
 both
  been extremely independent, and we respect that in each other. That
 said we
  have different roles: I am the Executive Director with responsibilities
  towards the Foundation and the movement, and he is an independent
 community
  member with his own voice.
 
  I make my decisions using my own professional judgement in conjunction
 with
  input from the community and staff. I don’t consult Wil on these
 matters,
  

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Jasper Deng]

I mean, you referred to Lila as a potential source of change in the
community's problems in your email right before mine on this thread. If you
meant the community of the wikis, I'm just saying that it wouldn't really
be kosher according to our current practices.


On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 Yes, we did talk on IRC. But what are you referring to? I wasn't
 referring to you anywhere. I don't even remember talking about WMF's
 role in the community. I guess if you have a log of that part of the
 conversation, you should post it now. I may have a log in my own
 client, if you don't mind my posting it.

 I think it's becoming abundantly clear why I think it's best if I
 don't interact with WMF employees in private.

 ,Wil

 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Jasper Deng jas...@jasperswebsite.com
 wrote:
  Wil, we talked about this on IRC, so I won't repeat what I said. But
 what I
  did *not* say is that the foundation tends to let the community do what
 it
  wants, and it would be against that long-standing tradition for staff to
  try to force a change in the community.
 
  On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
 
  First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's
  uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was
  the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather
  petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That
  doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I
  personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*,
  Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director);
  I'd prefer he just leave it at Wil Sinclair, but it's really his
  call on what he puts on his own site.
 
  Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know-
  but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any
  leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this
  point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong,
  charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and
  it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community
  here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard
  problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is
  going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again,
  that's all just my opinion.
 
  I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me
  so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it
  to the list this time. :)
 
  ,Wil
 
  On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com
  wrote:
   Dear Lila,
  
   I think many of us are interested in how you will engage with the
  Wikimedia
   community, what kind of outcomes you will seek, and what kind of
 tactics
   you will employ in seeking those outcomes.
  
   Can you please clarify whether you believe it is possible for somebody
  with
   a close connection to you to influence public perceptions in
   disproportionate, and significant, ways? If so, do you consider it a
   legitimate option for you to (privately) assert your right to
 establish
   yourself in your new position, rather than letting them take the lead?
  
   I think what has happened in the last few days is extraordinary. I've
  never
   seen anything like it. While I am sure that Wil's intentions are good,
   frankly, if his desire had been to sabotage your new job, I can't
 imagine
   what more effective path he could have chosen.
  
   I'm not sure if this link has any meaning to you, as you are still
  getting
   to know the various people and dynamics in the community. But I wonder
  what
   others think of it. Does anybody know if the following quote is
 accurate?
   And regardless of whether it's accurate or not -- the events of the
 last
   week have certainly made it seem plausible, haven't they?
  
   Is this really the best way for the new Executive Director to be
  introduced
   to the Wikimedia community and the world?
  
  
  - *Wikipedia is lucky to have people like Greg [Kohs]; even if he
  never directly contributes to WP going forward, we're all well
 aware
  that
  he's a very intelligent and eloquent individual with a knack for
  investigative reporting. He holds WP and the WMF to their word,
 and I
  personally thank him for that.* - *Wil Sinclair*, Partner of Lila
  Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director) - May 22, 2014
  
  
  
 
 http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Directory%3AGregory_J._Kohsdiff=463158oldid=462896#Cheers
  
   -Pete
   [[User:Peteforsyth]]
  
  
   On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org
  wrote:
  
   Hi all,
  
   This is a personal note to clarify a some questions that recently
 came
  up,
   specifically in the context of my role as the incoming ED.
  
  
   My partner Wil and I are partners in our private 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Pete Forsyth]

All:

I don't know the first thing about the alleged safety concerns discussed on
IRC, but the following quote is troubling to me:

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 She replied a WMF employee emailed me that there are safety
 concerns,


It seems that Wil has chosen to repeat something that was said privately,
about personal safety, in a public forum. It seems likely to me that this
kind of choice would tend to *increase* potential danger, not decrease it.

I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at
least as a temporary measure. I think his behavior here has been reckless
in a number of ways. This is no judgment on him as a person, but I do think
we need to protect this list from further flooding.

I don't know much about the precedents for list access removal, but I
suspect that consensus among active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at
this point. Can anybody comment on what would be necessary to make this
happen?

Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

Greg, would you like to repeat your filth? He may need someone to post
it in surrogate, since I believe he said he's banned here.

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
 Wil, ask Kohs to repeat his filth. I'm not going to do it for him.

 Fae

 On 28 May 2014 23:37, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
 I didn't know that he called you a faggot. Could you please show me where?

 I mentioned I didn't agree with him on everything. I certainly would
 *never* agree that a slur like that is justified, if he did make it.
 In any case, the quote stands. Maybe we should start a separate thread
 on the quote itself?

 ,Wil

 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
 Wil, you are supporting a man that thought it was a hilarious joke to
 call me a faggot. Not something that I am prepared to overlook, ever.

 I now have serious reservations about Lila's good judgement in failing
 to ensure you were appropriately advised, considering her critical
 role in the Wikimedia movement.

 Fae

 On 28 May 2014 23:18, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
 First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's
 uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was
 the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather
 petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That
 doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I
 personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*,
 Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director);
 I'd prefer he just leave it at Wil Sinclair, but it's really his
 call on what he puts on his own site.

 Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know-
 but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any
 leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this
 point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong,
 charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and
 it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community
 here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard
 problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is
 going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again,
 that's all just my opinion.

 I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me
 so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it
 to the list this time. :)

 ,Wil

 --
 fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe



 --
 fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
 Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

You *can't* be serious. Now I'm *really* starting to get the idea that
you guys just want to shut me up. And you're using the fact that I'm
actually being very open about something to justify it. This is
extremely worrying if everyone else on this list agrees with you.

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
 l:

 I don't know the first thing about the alleged safety concerns discussed on
 IRC, but the following quote is troubling to me:

 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 She replied a WMF employee emailed me that there are safety
 concerns,


 It seems that Wil has chosen to repeat something that was said privately,
 about personal safety, in a public forum. It seems likely to me that this
 kind of choice would tend to *increase* potential danger, not decrease it.

 I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at
 least as a temporary measure. I think his behavior here has been reckless
 in a number of ways. This is no judgment on him as a person, but I do think
 we need to protect this list from further flooding.

 I don't know much about the precedents for list access removal, but I
 suspect that consensus among active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at
 this point. Can anybody comment on what would be necessary to make this
 happen?

 Pete
 [[User:Peteforsyth]]

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

Someone already mentioned me on his talk page, and I responded. Please
do paste that quote there if you think he'd be interested in it. I
know he and Greg have disagreed in the past; he may offer me a
different perspective on the matter. I'm interested in everyone's
perspective.

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
 Wil,

 Have you been introduced to Jimmy Wales yet?

 I'd be most interested for you to take your quote about Greg Kohs to
 Jimmy on his talk page
 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Walesaction=editsection=new)
 and ask him if he would agree with you.

 Also, please note that here on wikimedia-l you are reaching only a
 small audience, you will likely get a wider audience at Jimmy's talk
 page, and therefore a wider variety of opinion.

 We'd then be most interested in hearing about your findings.

 Cheers,

 Russavia

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Kevin Gorman]

... I wish I kept more up to date on this set of threads and had stepped in
to say something sooner.  I'm going to go ahead and say that I agree with
Pete that at this juncture the most beneficial course of action would
probably be for Wil to back this set of discussions for at least a few
days, if necessary even by putting Wil on temporary moderation as bizarre
as that sounds.  Wil: I'm going to type a private email after I send this
to you, and I promise the last thing I desire is to shut you up - you're
just currently running through a minefield with no map, and it would be
much better if you had a map before continuing.

Kevin Gorman



On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 You *can't* be serious. Now I'm *really* starting to get the idea that
 you guys just want to shut me up. And you're using the fact that I'm
 actually being very open about something to justify it. This is
 extremely worrying if everyone else on this list agrees with you.

 ,Wil

 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  l:
 
  I don't know the first thing about the alleged safety concerns discussed
 on
  IRC, but the following quote is troubling to me:
 
  On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
 
  She replied a WMF employee emailed me that there are safety
  concerns,
 
 
  It seems that Wil has chosen to repeat something that was said privately,
  about personal safety, in a public forum. It seems likely to me that this
  kind of choice would tend to *increase* potential danger, not decrease
 it.
 
  I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at
  least as a temporary measure. I think his behavior here has been reckless
  in a number of ways. This is no judgment on him as a person, but I do
 think
  we need to protect this list from further flooding.
 
  I don't know much about the precedents for list access removal, but I
  suspect that consensus among active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at
  this point. Can anybody comment on what would be necessary to make this
  happen?
 
  Pete
  [[User:Peteforsyth]]

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Erik Moeller]

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:

 This is no judgment on him as a person, but I do think
 we need to protect this list from further flooding.

As a reminder, this list has an official soft limit of 30 posts per
individual/month, as stated on
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l . It's encouraged for
participants to stay below this limit in order for the conversation(s)
not to be dominated by a single participant. In a listserv context,
this is especially important, because it's a push medium that gets
delivered directly to people's inboxes (contrary to a web forum), in
some cases without filters.

By my count, Wil has posted to this list 50 times this month, which
is a bit excessive.

Wil: I would encourage you to respect the norms of this list and
refrain from excessive posting. I don't see an issue with any of the
_topics_ you're wanting to talk about, just the volume/frequency at
which you've been doing it.

Cheers,

Erik

-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

I didn't really mention anything specifically, except a leader who
could change the concerning aspects of the WP community. It has been
WMF's stated goal to change things like the participation of women on
WP for years. I suppose it would be most accurate to say that I meant
the things that the WMF has been very publicly trying to change about
the community and WP for years now. I believe these goals are shared
by Lila, but we haven't really discussed them.

You know, that's strange. Everything you guys are adding to this
thread could be used to discredit me in the eyes of various parts of
the community. I really hope that isn't the case, but it wouldn't
change my behavior if it were. I encourage everyone to read these
threads and make up their minds for themselves. Keep in mind that some
of the characterizations of what people have said haven't been
substantiated yet. Maybe some more evidence will come to light on this
thread.

Thanks.
,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Jasper Deng jas...@jasperswebsite.com wrote:
 I mean, you referred to Lila as a potential source of change in the
 community's problems in your email right before mine on this thread. If you
 meant the community of the wikis, I'm just saying that it wouldn't really
 be kosher according to our current practices.


 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 Yes, we did talk on IRC. But what are you referring to? I wasn't
 referring to you anywhere. I don't even remember talking about WMF's
 role in the community. I guess if you have a log of that part of the
 conversation, you should post it now. I may have a log in my own
 client, if you don't mind my posting it.

 I think it's becoming abundantly clear why I think it's best if I
 don't interact with WMF employees in private.

 ,Wil

 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Jasper Deng jas...@jasperswebsite.com
 wrote:
  Wil, we talked about this on IRC, so I won't repeat what I said. But
 what I
  did *not* say is that the foundation tends to let the community do what
 it
  wants, and it would be against that long-standing tradition for staff to
  try to force a change in the community.
 
  On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
 
  First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's
  uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was
  the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather
  petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point. That
  doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I
  personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*,
  Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director);
  I'd prefer he just leave it at Wil Sinclair, but it's really his
  call on what he puts on his own site.
 
  Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know-
  but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any
  leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this
  point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong,
  charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and
  it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community
  here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard
  problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is
  going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again,
  that's all just my opinion.
 
  I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about me
  so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it
  to the list this time. :)
 
  ,Wil
 
  On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com
  wrote:
   Dear Lila,
  
   I think many of us are interested in how you will engage with the
  Wikimedia
   community, what kind of outcomes you will seek, and what kind of
 tactics
   you will employ in seeking those outcomes.
  
   Can you please clarify whether you believe it is possible for somebody
  with
   a close connection to you to influence public perceptions in
   disproportionate, and significant, ways? If so, do you consider it a
   legitimate option for you to (privately) assert your right to
 establish
   yourself in your new position, rather than letting them take the lead?
  
   I think what has happened in the last few days is extraordinary. I've
  never
   seen anything like it. While I am sure that Wil's intentions are good,
   frankly, if his desire had been to sabotage your new job, I can't
 imagine
   what more effective path he could have chosen.
  
   I'm not sure if this link has any meaning to you, as you are still
  getting
   to know the various people and dynamics in the community. But I wonder
  what
   others think of it. Does anybody know if the following quote is
 accurate?
   And regardless of whether it's accurate or not -- the events of the
 last
   week have certainly made it seem plausible, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Kevin Gorman]

Wil: nothing anyone is saying here is aimed at discrediting you, you've
just jumped in to a field of landmines without a map, and we'd rather not
have you blow your legs off.  I'll have a private email incoming to you as
fast as I can type it but given that the deputy director of the WMF and
several respected Wikimedians have said things may be better if you back
off a bit, it would probably good to extend us the trust necessary to give
you a map of the field of landmines you've jumped in to.

---
Kevin Gorman


On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 I didn't really mention anything specifically, except a leader who
 could change the concerning aspects of the WP community. It has been
 WMF's stated goal to change things like the participation of women on
 WP for years. I suppose it would be most accurate to say that I meant
 the things that the WMF has been very publicly trying to change about
 the community and WP for years now. I believe these goals are shared
 by Lila, but we haven't really discussed them.

 You know, that's strange. Everything you guys are adding to this
 thread could be used to discredit me in the eyes of various parts of
 the community. I really hope that isn't the case, but it wouldn't
 change my behavior if it were. I encourage everyone to read these
 threads and make up their minds for themselves. Keep in mind that some
 of the characterizations of what people have said haven't been
 substantiated yet. Maybe some more evidence will come to light on this
 thread.

 Thanks.
 ,Wil

 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Jasper Deng jas...@jasperswebsite.com
 wrote:
  I mean, you referred to Lila as a potential source of change in the
  community's problems in your email right before mine on this thread. If
 you
  meant the community of the wikis, I'm just saying that it wouldn't really
  be kosher according to our current practices.
 
 
  On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
 
  Yes, we did talk on IRC. But what are you referring to? I wasn't
  referring to you anywhere. I don't even remember talking about WMF's
  role in the community. I guess if you have a log of that part of the
  conversation, you should post it now. I may have a log in my own
  client, if you don't mind my posting it.
 
  I think it's becoming abundantly clear why I think it's best if I
  don't interact with WMF employees in private.
 
  ,Wil
 
  On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Jasper Deng jas...@jasperswebsite.com
 
  wrote:
   Wil, we talked about this on IRC, so I won't repeat what I said. But
  what I
   did *not* say is that the foundation tends to let the community do
 what
  it
   wants, and it would be against that long-standing tradition for staff
 to
   try to force a change in the community.
  
   On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
  
   First off, I said that about Greg, and I firmly believe it. He's
   uncovered many controversies at Wikipedia. In fact, his article was
   the first to be critical of Lila's appointment, and- save the rather
   petty comment about airline fees at the end- was pretty on-point.
 That
   doesn't mean that I agree with everything Greg says, just that I
   personally am glad someone is saying it. He added *Wil Sinclair*,
   Partner of Lila Tretikov (Wikimedia Foundation executive director);
   I'd prefer he just leave it at Wil Sinclair, but it's really his
   call on what he puts on his own site.
  
   Now, I don't know what Lila thinks of this- and I don't want to know-
   but I would really like to understand if there is a chance for any
   leader to change the concerning aspects of the WP community at this
   point. I know that if there is, it's likely to be a very strong,
   charismatic leader like Lila. But if there isn't, then so be it and
   it's better to know now. And I'm pretty sure that if the community
   here wants positive change, it has to be ready to talk about the hard
   problems- no matter who brings them up. Whatever happens, Lila is
   going to land on her feet; no one need worry about her. But, again,
   that's all just my opinion.
  
   I know you didn't ask me for a response, but this mail is all about
 me
   so I felt justified chiming in. Thanks for (intentionally) taking it
   to the list this time. :)
  
   ,Wil
  
   On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com
 
   wrote:
Dear Lila,
   
I think many of us are interested in how you will engage with the
   Wikimedia
community, what kind of outcomes you will seek, and what kind of
  tactics
you will employ in seeking those outcomes.
   
Can you please clarify whether you believe it is possible for
 somebody
   with
a close connection to you to influence public perceptions in
disproportionate, and significant, ways? If so, do you consider it
 a
legitimate option for you to (privately) assert your right to
  establish
yourself in your new position, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

If this list chooses to block me for any amount of time, it might as
well be forever. I'm responding to other people's mails here; I'd
prefer to mail less as well.

In any case, you'll be blocking someone for asking relevant questions
and replying to relevant concerns. I think that is pretty
self-evident. If I do get blocked on this list, I will be taking my
discussion to Wikipediocracy where I have never been so much as
encouraged to be quiet beyond the matter I mentioned before, and
anyone who is interested in it is welcome to join me there.

This is getting *really* scary. Think about what you do in full sight
of the entire community before you act, please.

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote:
 ... I wish I kept more up to date on this set of threads and had stepped in
 to say something sooner.  I'm going to go ahead and say that I agree with
 Pete that at this juncture the most beneficial course of action would
 probably be for Wil to back this set of discussions for at least a few
 days, if necessary even by putting Wil on temporary moderation as bizarre
 as that sounds.  Wil: I'm going to type a private email after I send this
 to you, and I promise the last thing I desire is to shut you up - you're
 just currently running through a minefield with no map, and it would be
 much better if you had a map before continuing.
 
 Kevin Gorman



 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 You *can't* be serious. Now I'm *really* starting to get the idea that
 you guys just want to shut me up. And you're using the fact that I'm
 actually being very open about something to justify it. This is
 extremely worrying if everyone else on this list agrees with you.

 ,Wil

 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  l:
 
  I don't know the first thing about the alleged safety concerns discussed
 on
  IRC, but the following quote is troubling to me:
 
  On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
 
  She replied a WMF employee emailed me that there are safety
  concerns,
 
 
  It seems that Wil has chosen to repeat something that was said privately,
  about personal safety, in a public forum. It seems likely to me that this
  kind of choice would tend to *increase* potential danger, not decrease
 it.
 
  I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at
  least as a temporary measure. I think his behavior here has been reckless
  in a number of ways. This is no judgment on him as a person, but I do
 think
  we need to protect this list from further flooding.
 
  I don't know much about the precedents for list access removal, but I
  suspect that consensus among active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at
  this point. Can anybody comment on what would be necessary to make this
  happen?
 
  Pete
  [[User:Peteforsyth]]

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Leigh Thelmadatter]

Ive been watching this conversation and I have to agree with Will here. These 
calls for banning/restriction of access to the list and admission that 
Wikipedia is full of landmines is troubling.  If we have such grave problems, 
we should be confronting them. If Will is just stirring the pot, ignore him and 
it will go away.



 From: w...@wllm.com
 Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 16:10:49 -0700
 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.
 
 If this list chooses to block me for any amount of time, it might as
 well be forever. I'm responding to other people's mails here; I'd
 prefer to mail less as well.
 
 In any case, you'll be blocking someone for asking relevant questions
 and replying to relevant concerns. I think that is pretty
 self-evident. If I do get blocked on this list, I will be taking my
 discussion to Wikipediocracy where I have never been so much as
 encouraged to be quiet beyond the matter I mentioned before, and
 anyone who is interested in it is welcome to join me there.
 
 This is getting *really* scary. Think about what you do in full sight
 of the entire community before you act, please.
 
 ,Wil
 
 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote:
  ... I wish I kept more up to date on this set of threads and had stepped in
  to say something sooner.  I'm going to go ahead and say that I agree with
  Pete that at this juncture the most beneficial course of action would
  probably be for Wil to back this set of discussions for at least a few
  days, if necessary even by putting Wil on temporary moderation as bizarre
  as that sounds.  Wil: I'm going to type a private email after I send this
  to you, and I promise the last thing I desire is to shut you up - you're
  just currently running through a minefield with no map, and it would be
  much better if you had a map before continuing.
  
  Kevin Gorman
 
 
 
  On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
 
  You *can't* be serious. Now I'm *really* starting to get the idea that
  you guys just want to shut me up. And you're using the fact that I'm
  actually being very open about something to justify it. This is
  extremely worrying if everyone else on this list agrees with you.
 
  ,Wil
 
  On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com
  wrote:
   l:
  
   I don't know the first thing about the alleged safety concerns discussed
  on
   IRC, but the following quote is troubling to me:
  
   On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
  
   She replied a WMF employee emailed me that there are safety
   concerns,
  
  
   It seems that Wil has chosen to repeat something that was said privately,
   about personal safety, in a public forum. It seems likely to me that this
   kind of choice would tend to *increase* potential danger, not decrease
  it.
  
   I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at
   least as a temporary measure. I think his behavior here has been reckless
   in a number of ways. This is no judgment on him as a person, but I do
  think
   we need to protect this list from further flooding.
  
   I don't know much about the precedents for list access removal, but I
   suspect that consensus among active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at
   this point. Can anybody comment on what would be necessary to make this
   happen?
  
   Pete
   [[User:Peteforsyth]]
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

Hi Erik, just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to
those who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words
directly?

You guys are moving in a *very* sketchy direction here. These mails
are archived; it will be quite clear what everyone said before I was
blocked if you decide to go that route. You are talking about very
obviously censoring a person who has been saying inconvenient things
in a high-profile manner. Is this the kind of Free Speech Wikipedia
supposedly stands for?

Seriously. I really want to know.

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:

 This is no judgment on him as a person, but I do think
 we need to protect this list from further flooding.

 As a reminder, this list has an official soft limit of 30 posts per
 individual/month, as stated on
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l . It's encouraged for
 participants to stay below this limit in order for the conversation(s)
 not to be dominated by a single participant. In a listserv context,
 this is especially important, because it's a push medium that gets
 delivered directly to people's inboxes (contrary to a web forum), in
 some cases without filters.

 By my count, Wil has posted to this list 50 times this month, which
 is a bit excessive.

 Wil: I would encourage you to respect the norms of this list and
 refrain from excessive posting. I don't see an issue with any of the
 _topics_ you're wanting to talk about, just the volume/frequency at
 which you've been doing it.

 Cheers,

 Erik

 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Milos Rancic]

It turns out that Lila is actually a perfect ED. Someone capable to handle
and love a person like Wil is -- should be quite competent in handling the
rest of the community :D
 On May 29, 2014 1:21 AM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 Hi Erik, just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to
 those who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words
 directly?

 You guys are moving in a *very* sketchy direction here. These mails
 are archived; it will be quite clear what everyone said before I was
 blocked if you decide to go that route. You are talking about very
 obviously censoring a person who has been saying inconvenient things
 in a high-profile manner. Is this the kind of Free Speech Wikipedia
 supposedly stands for?

 Seriously. I really want to know.

 ,Wil

 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
  On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
  This is no judgment on him as a person, but I do think
  we need to protect this list from further flooding.
 
  As a reminder, this list has an official soft limit of 30 posts per
  individual/month, as stated on
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l . It's encouraged for
  participants to stay below this limit in order for the conversation(s)
  not to be dominated by a single participant. In a listserv context,
  this is especially important, because it's a push medium that gets
  delivered directly to people's inboxes (contrary to a web forum), in
  some cases without filters.
 
  By my count, Wil has posted to this list 50 times this month, which
  is a bit excessive.
 
  Wil: I would encourage you to respect the norms of this list and
  refrain from excessive posting. I don't see an issue with any of the
  _topics_ you're wanting to talk about, just the volume/frequency at
  which you've been doing it.
 
  Cheers,
 
  Erik
 
  --
  Erik Möller
  VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Erik Moeller]

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
 Hi Erik, just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to
 those who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words
 directly?

Hey Wil,

Pick your battles, help keep the conversation manageable, exercise
restraint, take social cues, assume good faith, forgive and forget.
The 30 posts/month guideline is in place to help with that -- forcing
yourself to simply slow down (not shut up) is a good way to exercise
the aforementioned habits, which are good habits for any large group
conversation in my experience.

Warm regards,

Erik
-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:

 I didn't know that he called you a faggot. Could you please show me
 where?



That post was removed from view at the time (May 2012).

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3707#p3707

What Greg had said on WO was,

---o0o---

It looks like *Fae got* upset with my post to his
Talkhttp://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:F%C3%A6diff=nextoldid=70008600
 page.

---o0o---

The diff Greg linked to was this one:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:F%C3%A6diff=nextoldid=70008600

Greg apologised to Fæ for the post here:

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4888#p4888

I would like to apologize to Ashley Fae Van Haeften for my recent
word-play quip, Fae got upset. I had hoped that the poke would be
received in the playful tone that it was intended, but I erred in that
supposition. I don't mean any malice or harm to Ashley. I'm simply
interested in the truth about his past and present actions on Wikipedia and
determining whether or not he enjoys (or expects) a double standard to
apply for him.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Samuel Klein]

Hello all,

Lila: Thank you kindly for these recent notes.  It is wonderful to
hear your thoughts on your first weeks.

Wil: Working through public, logged forums is a fine principle; one
that I try to follow myself.  It helps avoid misunderstandings.


Pete Forsyth writes:
 I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at
 least as a temporary measure... I suspect that consensus among
 active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point.

Pete: That is a wholly uncalled for suggestion; reckless, if you
would. Please be kind. As you can see from the comments of others,
there is no such consensus, mainly just requests to slow down.


Erik Moeller writes:
 As a reminder, this list has an official soft limit of 30 posts per [month]

Wil Sinclair writes:
 just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to those
 who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words

I find it helpful to quote and briefly respond to many posts of
interest in a thread, in a single reply (as I did here). And I try to
make 5 edits to a project for every post, to keep a balanced
perspective...

Sam

(PS: Victor, the A. Dewey Wikireader Project always makes me smile.
Thank you for mentioning it here.  :-)

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

Thanks for the note, Sam. Your advice to me is very wise. I've said
and seen about all that I want to, save one more post. You'll see it
in the next few minutes.

,Wil

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hello all,

 Lila: Thank you kindly for these recent notes.  It is wonderful to
 hear your thoughts on your first weeks.

 Wil: Working through public, logged forums is a fine principle; one
 that I try to follow myself.  It helps avoid misunderstandings.


 Pete Forsyth writes:
 I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at
 least as a temporary measure... I suspect that consensus among
 active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point.

 Pete: That is a wholly uncalled for suggestion; reckless, if you
 would. Please be kind. As you can see from the comments of others,
 there is no such consensus, mainly just requests to slow down.


 Erik Moeller writes:
 As a reminder, this list has an official soft limit of 30 posts per [month]

 Wil Sinclair writes:
 just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to those
 who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words

 I find it helpful to quote and briefly respond to many posts of
 interest in a thread, in a single reply (as I did here). And I try to
 make 5 edits to a project for every post, to keep a balanced
 perspective...

 Sam

 (PS: Victor, the A. Dewey Wikireader Project always makes me smile.
 Thank you for mentioning it here.  :-)

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[Wil Sinclair]

As I mentioned to Sam, I have just one more thing to say here before I
let you guys deliberate on whether to block me.

I've been getting tons of private emails from people who say that they
don't want to see me blocked, but that they are afraid to say that on
the list, because they feel like they might be intimidated or
ostracized.

That's right: *afraid*

I think we should all let that sink in for a moment. . .



. . . Now, is that OK? Is that how we want our community to function?
I'm talking to each and every one of you out there, not the few dozen
that seem to be only people posting here (and I seem to have a strong
lead  at the moment ;) ). If you are tired of being afraid or worn out
by the rough and tumble discourse here, then keep your chin up. There
are a lot more of you out there than you might think; I'm hearing from
many of them now. Wikipedia can change- but only with your help.

,Wil




On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hello all,

 Lila: Thank you kindly for these recent notes.  It is wonderful to
 hear your thoughts on your first weeks.

 Wil: Working through public, logged forums is a fine principle; one
 that I try to follow myself.  It helps avoid misunderstandings.


 Pete Forsyth writes:
 I'd like to suggest that Wil's access to this email list be blocked, at
 least as a temporary measure... I suspect that consensus among
 active Wikimedians would be pretty strong at this point.

 Pete: That is a wholly uncalled for suggestion; reckless, if you
 would. Please be kind. As you can see from the comments of others,
 there is no such consensus, mainly just requests to slow down.


 Erik Moeller writes:
 As a reminder, this list has an official soft limit of 30 posts per [month]

 Wil Sinclair writes:
 just for guidance here- should I not publicly respond to those
 who have publicly address me or talked about my actions or words

 I find it helpful to quote and briefly respond to many posts of
 interest in a thread, in a single reply (as I did here). And I try to
 make 5 edits to a project for every post, to keep a balanced
 perspective...

 Sam

 (PS: Victor, the A. Dewey Wikireader Project always makes me smile.
 Thank you for mentioning it here.  :-)

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
 As I mentioned to Sam, I have just one more thing to say here before I
 let you guys deliberate on whether to block me.

 I've been getting tons of private emails from people who say that they
 don't want to see me blocked, but that they are afraid to say that on
 the list, because they feel like they might be intimidated or
 ostracized.

 That's right: *afraid*

 I think we should all let that sink in for a moment. . .



 . . . Now, is that OK? Is that how we want our community to function?

It is an interesting question; you have framed it as a serious
problem, which may be undeniably true from your perspective based on
the private emails that you have received.  But we can't see those
emails, and you don't know the people who are sending you those
emails, and their motivations.  Please let *that* sink in.

As I have said in another post, *this list* is the primary
communication venue for a 'movement' that runs one of the largest web
properties in the world, and the people doing it are mostly volunteers
whose time is very precious and motivations very diverse, and it is
being done on a tiny budget so the paid staff time is just as
precious.

That *should* have ramifications on the type of discourse that is
appropriate on this list.  'free speech' isnt a valid argument.  Your
speech on this list effectively costs me money (time).  And it
consumes donor dollars.  So what is appropriate use of this list?  We
do discuss that periodically, and organically.

I know I was *afraid* of posting to this list during my first year of
being 'highly active' part of this movement.  I remember being in awe
of some of the insightful posts, and very disturbed by others, but
usually someone else would pipe up and complain, so I just lurked and
occasionally privately emailed people, learning as I went along.
I dont see that as inherently a bad thing.  This movement is huge;
there is lots to learn.  About the projects.  About the people.  About
their disputes.

The change of ED is *very disruptive*, and so it should be.

Your arrival on this list is *very disruptive*.  e.g. we dont often
have people hit the posting limit in their first month of
participating in this list.

Disruption can be very good. ;-)
But consider this list officially disrupted for at least the next
month or two, and probably best avoided IMO.
Don't be surprised that volunteers don't want to get publicly involved
in the highly disrupted environment that this list is currently, and
instead privately email you a word of encouragement.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Exopedianism

--
John Vandenberg

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe