Mailing List Archive

[Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)
Hi all,
for those of you who do not watch the RecentChanges on the Foundation
wiki <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges>, I
think it might be somehow surprising to see that in a top-level
decision, almost all volunteer administrators of the wiki have been
stripped off their adminship yesterday evening (UTC time).

As far as I know, community members have been helping out maintaining
this wiki for as long as 2006, spending countless hours of their free
time on categorising existing pages, importing translations from Meta,
and recently, deleting unnecessary and broken pages left over by WMF staff.

Apparently, this is something that not only isn't appreciated, but
unwelcome. Let me repeat that: the WMF does not wish volunteers to help
out with running their wiki, even if they have been helping out almost
since the very start of the wiki.

Some questions come to my mind right now:

1) Who made the decision to remove adminship from all community members?
(I'm assuming it was Gayle, but it could've be someone from the
Communications department for all we know.)
2) Why did you make this decision now? What changed?
3) Why did you decide to desysop people straight away instead of
discussing things with them first?

These are questions directed at the WMF—for you regular folks, I have a
riddle (I'll give a WikiLove barnstar to the first person to submit a
correct answer). There is /at least/ one community member who does not
hold any official position within the WMF, and who has not been
desysopped in yesterday's purge—do you know who this person is?

-- Tomasz

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least) [ In reply to ]
This is the email that got sent out to everyone,

---
Dear XXX,
Thank you for your work with the Foundation wiki. At this time, we
are formalizing a new requirement, which is that administrator access
is given only to staff and board. I am having administrator access to
accounts that are neither staff or board be disabled, effective
immediately.
Sincerely,
Gayle
--
Gayle Karen K. Young
Chief Talent and Culture Officer
Wikimedia Foundation
415.310.8416
www.wikimediafoundation.org
---

Gayle's response (which was the first time she has edited the wiki in
~5 months[2]) seems lacking[1] in general and the subsequent responses
about knowing what these people do on the wiki

Another interesting fact is that Mz got desysoped first, When you
would expect it to be done in alphabetically order.

"We've been discussing this for awhile, and the thought is that it's
ultimately the Foundation's web presence, not the community's web
presence. A useful parallel to consider might be how userrights are
given to staffers on the community wikis; they're distributed as and
when they're needed for a specific task."

Um, Rights for staff on wikis are given out like candy?, although not
as much thee days but it still happens.

Also, How is the foundation wiki not apart of the community? Has the
position of the legal department changed? or the boards? just randomly
changing without any imput or discussions seems utlimately strange.
since it is actually their wiki (just like everything else that falls
under the foundation)

[1]. <https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?diff=91857&oldid=91855#Users_stripped_of_rights.3F>
[2]. <https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Gyoung>
[3]. <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Log/rights>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least) [ In reply to ]
The same happend to the Wikimedia Blog.

Most of the moderators where volunteers (and the only real active ones
also). My moderator rights where removed and I have to go after that
myself, I didn't got a message or anything.

While I was list administrator for wikitech-l I got the mail also that I
needed to give my password so that the list can be run by the staff. I
didn't respond to that mail (Thought it was spam cause It was send by
gmail). \

It gives me the feeling that we need a bigger fundraiser cause people GET
PAYED for doing things other people DO FOR FREE.

Huib


On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 1:15 PM, K. Peachey <p858snake@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is the email that got sent out to everyone,
>
> ---
> Dear XXX,
> Thank you for your work with the Foundation wiki. At this time, we
> are formalizing a new requirement, which is that administrator access
> is given only to staff and board. I am having administrator access to
> accounts that are neither staff or board be disabled, effective
> immediately.
> Sincerely,
> Gayle
> --
> Gayle Karen K. Young
> Chief Talent and Culture Officer
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 415.310.8416
> www.wikimediafoundation.org
> ---
>
> Gayle's response (which was the first time she has edited the wiki in
> ~5 months[2]) seems lacking[1] in general and the subsequent responses
> about knowing what these people do on the wiki
>
> Another interesting fact is that Mz got desysoped first, When you
> would expect it to be done in alphabetically order.
>
> "We've been discussing this for awhile, and the thought is that it's
> ultimately the Foundation's web presence, not the community's web
> presence. A useful parallel to consider might be how userrights are
> given to staffers on the community wikis; they're distributed as and
> when they're needed for a specific task."
>
> Um, Rights for staff on wikis are given out like candy?, although not
> as much thee days but it still happens.
>
> Also, How is the foundation wiki not apart of the community? Has the
> position of the legal department changed? or the boards? just randomly
> changing without any imput or discussions seems utlimately strange.
> since it is actually their wiki (just like everything else that falls
> under the foundation)
>
> [1]. <
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?diff=91857&oldid=91855#Users_stripped_of_rights.3F
> >
> [2]. <
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Gyoung
> >
> [3]. <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Log/rights>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



--
Met vriendelijke groet,

Huib Laurens
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least) [ In reply to ]
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Huib Laurens <sterkebak@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> (Thought it was spam cause It was send by
> gmail). \
> ...

Wait.. what the..., Staff aren't using their wmf accounts for stuff
like that? which means the emails aren't archived properly...

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least) [ In reply to ]
This sort of tone might be appropriate coming from HR in a bank or
something, but I'm tremendously disappointed that something so tactless and
rude was sent out from a senior officer in the Foundation to its
volunteers. I know Gayle is a new hire, so I'm assuming good faith that
she wasn't aware that taking this sort of attitude with volunteers would go
down like a lead balloon.

Someone at the WMF needs to take Gayle into an office and patiently explain
to her that the volunteers whose access she just "disabled, effective
immediately" are the same ones that keep the websites that per her salary
going.

Cheers,
Craig Franklin


On 11 May 2013 21:15, K. Peachey <p858snake@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is the email that got sent out to everyone,
>
> ---
> Dear XXX,
> Thank you for your work with the Foundation wiki. At this time, we
> are formalizing a new requirement, which is that administrator access
> is given only to staff and board. I am having administrator access to
> accounts that are neither staff or board be disabled, effective
> immediately.
> Sincerely,
> Gayle
> --
> Gayle Karen K. Young
> Chief Talent and Culture Officer
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 415.310.8416
> www.wikimediafoundation.org
> ---
>
> Gayle's response (which was the first time she has edited the wiki in
> ~5 months[2]) seems lacking[1] in general and the subsequent responses
> about knowing what these people do on the wiki
>
> Another interesting fact is that Mz got desysoped first, When you
> would expect it to be done in alphabetically order.
>
> "We've been discussing this for awhile, and the thought is that it's
> ultimately the Foundation's web presence, not the community's web
> presence. A useful parallel to consider might be how userrights are
> given to staffers on the community wikis; they're distributed as and
> when they're needed for a specific task."
>
> Um, Rights for staff on wikis are given out like candy?, although not
> as much thee days but it still happens.
>
> Also, How is the foundation wiki not apart of the community? Has the
> position of the legal department changed? or the boards? just randomly
> changing without any imput or discussions seems utlimately strange.
> since it is actually their wiki (just like everything else that falls
> under the foundation)
>
> [1]. <
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?diff=91857&oldid=91855#Users_stripped_of_rights.3F
> >
> [2]. <
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Gyoung
> >
> [3]. <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Log/rights>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least) [ In reply to ]
Having an HR & IR background myself, I am most surprised that the
person for managing TALENT and CULTURE would take such a move without
even so much as consulting with the community who keep the WMF's
presence on the internet working, nor without giving them an actual
reason as to why this has occurred.

I can only encourage Karen to either 1) explain why this was an
absolutely necessary step to make, or 2) reverse those actions.

Russavia


On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Craig Franklin
<cfranklin@halonetwork.net> wrote:
> This sort of tone might be appropriate coming from HR in a bank or
> something, but I'm tremendously disappointed that something so tactless and
> rude was sent out from a senior officer in the Foundation to its
> volunteers. I know Gayle is a new hire, so I'm assuming good faith that
> she wasn't aware that taking this sort of attitude with volunteers would go
> down like a lead balloon.
>
> Someone at the WMF needs to take Gayle into an office and patiently explain
> to her that the volunteers whose access she just "disabled, effective
> immediately" are the same ones that keep the websites that per her salary
> going.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig Franklin
>
>
> On 11 May 2013 21:15, K. Peachey <p858snake@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is the email that got sent out to everyone,
>>
>> ---
>> Dear XXX,
>> Thank you for your work with the Foundation wiki. At this time, we
>> are formalizing a new requirement, which is that administrator access
>> is given only to staff and board. I am having administrator access to
>> accounts that are neither staff or board be disabled, effective
>> immediately.
>> Sincerely,
>> Gayle
>> --
>> Gayle Karen K. Young
>> Chief Talent and Culture Officer
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> 415.310.8416
>> www.wikimediafoundation.org
>> ---
>>
>> Gayle's response (which was the first time she has edited the wiki in
>> ~5 months[2]) seems lacking[1] in general and the subsequent responses
>> about knowing what these people do on the wiki
>>
>> Another interesting fact is that Mz got desysoped first, When you
>> would expect it to be done in alphabetically order.
>>
>> "We've been discussing this for awhile, and the thought is that it's
>> ultimately the Foundation's web presence, not the community's web
>> presence. A useful parallel to consider might be how userrights are
>> given to staffers on the community wikis; they're distributed as and
>> when they're needed for a specific task."
>>
>> Um, Rights for staff on wikis are given out like candy?, although not
>> as much thee days but it still happens.
>>
>> Also, How is the foundation wiki not apart of the community? Has the
>> position of the legal department changed? or the boards? just randomly
>> changing without any imput or discussions seems utlimately strange.
>> since it is actually their wiki (just like everything else that falls
>> under the foundation)
>>
>> [1]. <
>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?diff=91857&oldid=91855#Users_stripped_of_rights.3F
>> >
>> [2]. <
>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Gyoung
>> >
>> [3]. <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Log/rights>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least) [ In reply to ]
Apologies, I mean Gayle, not Karen.

Russavia

On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Russavia <russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com> wrote:
> Having an HR & IR background myself, I am most surprised that the
> person for managing TALENT and CULTURE would take such a move without
> even so much as consulting with the community who keep the WMF's
> presence on the internet working, nor without giving them an actual
> reason as to why this has occurred.
>
> I can only encourage Karen to either 1) explain why this was an
> absolutely necessary step to make, or 2) reverse those actions.
>
> Russavia
>
>
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Craig Franklin
> <cfranklin@halonetwork.net> wrote:
>> This sort of tone might be appropriate coming from HR in a bank or
>> something, but I'm tremendously disappointed that something so tactless and
>> rude was sent out from a senior officer in the Foundation to its
>> volunteers. I know Gayle is a new hire, so I'm assuming good faith that
>> she wasn't aware that taking this sort of attitude with volunteers would go
>> down like a lead balloon.
>>
>> Someone at the WMF needs to take Gayle into an office and patiently explain
>> to her that the volunteers whose access she just "disabled, effective
>> immediately" are the same ones that keep the websites that per her salary
>> going.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Craig Franklin
>>
>>
>> On 11 May 2013 21:15, K. Peachey <p858snake@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This is the email that got sent out to everyone,
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Dear XXX,
>>> Thank you for your work with the Foundation wiki. At this time, we
>>> are formalizing a new requirement, which is that administrator access
>>> is given only to staff and board. I am having administrator access to
>>> accounts that are neither staff or board be disabled, effective
>>> immediately.
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Gayle
>>> --
>>> Gayle Karen K. Young
>>> Chief Talent and Culture Officer
>>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>> 415.310.8416
>>> www.wikimediafoundation.org
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Gayle's response (which was the first time she has edited the wiki in
>>> ~5 months[2]) seems lacking[1] in general and the subsequent responses
>>> about knowing what these people do on the wiki
>>>
>>> Another interesting fact is that Mz got desysoped first, When you
>>> would expect it to be done in alphabetically order.
>>>
>>> "We've been discussing this for awhile, and the thought is that it's
>>> ultimately the Foundation's web presence, not the community's web
>>> presence. A useful parallel to consider might be how userrights are
>>> given to staffers on the community wikis; they're distributed as and
>>> when they're needed for a specific task."
>>>
>>> Um, Rights for staff on wikis are given out like candy?, although not
>>> as much thee days but it still happens.
>>>
>>> Also, How is the foundation wiki not apart of the community? Has the
>>> position of the legal department changed? or the boards? just randomly
>>> changing without any imput or discussions seems utlimately strange.
>>> since it is actually their wiki (just like everything else that falls
>>> under the foundation)
>>>
>>> [1]. <
>>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?diff=91857&oldid=91855#Users_stripped_of_rights.3F
>>> >
>>> [2]. <
>>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Gyoung
>>> >
>>> [3]. <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Log/rights>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least) [ In reply to ]
Given the foundation's recent tsunami of centralisation I'm not surprised
by this at all. The message is clear - the community doesn't belong here.
Go back to meta.

I'll be interested to see how long the WMF wiki will last before they hit
their first massive technical problem happens and they need to call in a
volunteer to fix it.

Deryck

On 11 May 2013 12:15, K. Peachey <p858snake@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is the email that got sent out to everyone,
>
> ---
> Dear XXX,
> Thank you for your work with the Foundation wiki. At this time, we
> are formalizing a new requirement, which is that administrator access
> is given only to staff and board. I am having administrator access to
> accounts that are neither staff or board be disabled, effective
> immediately.
> Sincerely,
> Gayle
> --
> Gayle Karen K. Young
> Chief Talent and Culture Officer
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 415.310.8416
> www.wikimediafoundation.org
> ---
>
> Gayle's response (which was the first time she has edited the wiki in
> ~5 months[2]) seems lacking[1] in general and the subsequent responses
> about knowing what these people do on the wiki
>
> Another interesting fact is that Mz got desysoped first, When you
> would expect it to be done in alphabetically order.
>
> "We've been discussing this for awhile, and the thought is that it's
> ultimately the Foundation's web presence, not the community's web
> presence. A useful parallel to consider might be how userrights are
> given to staffers on the community wikis; they're distributed as and
> when they're needed for a specific task."
>
> Um, Rights for staff on wikis are given out like candy?, although not
> as much thee days but it still happens.
>
> Also, How is the foundation wiki not apart of the community? Has the
> position of the legal department changed? or the boards? just randomly
> changing without any imput or discussions seems utlimately strange.
> since it is actually their wiki (just like everything else that falls
> under the foundation)
>
> [1]. <
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?diff=91857&oldid=91855#Users_stripped_of_rights.3F
> >
> [2]. <
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Gyoung
> >
> [3]. <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Log/rights>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least) [ In reply to ]
Can we please give time to the Foundation to response and express their
side before everyone starts to attack them? I think we had enough of that
on Internal-l.

After the first response, or at least 24h, I will understand everyone
feelings about that. (And right now I'm also don't agree or understand
WMF's decision, but I'm waiting to hear them first).


On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Deryck Chan <deryckchan@wikimedia.hk>wrote:

> Given the foundation's recent tsunami of centralisation I'm not surprised
> by this at all. The message is clear - the community doesn't belong here.
> Go back to meta.
>
> I'll be interested to see how long the WMF wiki will last before they hit
> their first massive technical problem happens and they need to call in a
> volunteer to fix it.
>
> Deryck
>
> On 11 May 2013 12:15, K. Peachey <p858snake@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is the email that got sent out to everyone,
> >
> > ---
> > Dear XXX,
> > Thank you for your work with the Foundation wiki. At this time, we
> > are formalizing a new requirement, which is that administrator access
> > is given only to staff and board. I am having administrator access to
> > accounts that are neither staff or board be disabled, effective
> > immediately.
> > Sincerely,
> > Gayle
> > --
> > Gayle Karen K. Young
> > Chief Talent and Culture Officer
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > 415.310.8416
> > www.wikimediafoundation.org
> > ---
> >
> > Gayle's response (which was the first time she has edited the wiki in
> > ~5 months[2]) seems lacking[1] in general and the subsequent responses
> > about knowing what these people do on the wiki
> >
> > Another interesting fact is that Mz got desysoped first, When you
> > would expect it to be done in alphabetically order.
> >
> > "We've been discussing this for awhile, and the thought is that it's
> > ultimately the Foundation's web presence, not the community's web
> > presence. A useful parallel to consider might be how userrights are
> > given to staffers on the community wikis; they're distributed as and
> > when they're needed for a specific task."
> >
> > Um, Rights for staff on wikis are given out like candy?, although not
> > as much thee days but it still happens.
> >
> > Also, How is the foundation wiki not apart of the community? Has the
> > position of the legal department changed? or the boards? just randomly
> > changing without any imput or discussions seems utlimately strange.
> > since it is actually their wiki (just like everything else that falls
> > under the foundation)
> >
> > [1]. <
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?diff=91857&oldid=91855#Users_stripped_of_rights.3F
> > >
> > [2]. <
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Gyoung
> > >
> > [3]. <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Log/rights>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least) [ In reply to ]
Deryck Chan wrote:
>Given the foundation's recent tsunami of centralisation I'm not surprised
>by this at all. The message is clear - the community doesn't belong here.
>Go back to meta.

Yeah, I think you're right. It seems to be part of a larger pattern.

* Blog access has been restricted (as noted).
* Bugzilla adminship has been restricted to staff only.
* wikimediafoundation.org adminship is now restricted to staff and Board
Members.
* Shell access has been restricted to staff only (no more volunteer
sysadmins).

Relatedly, the Toolserver is being slowly killed in favor of a controlled
sandbox called "Wikimedia Labs" and all Wikimedia accounts are being
unified (with forceable usurps/renames) to make it easier to track and
control users across all Wikimedia wikis.

It's very surprising that the Board has been so quiet about all of this.
Generally, a few staff members (notably Philippe and his team) have tried
to create "tiers" in which paid staff are above volunteers. Even the most
trusted volunteers are no longer allowed to hold positions of trust within
the Wikimedia community. This is very bad. Are there ways to address this?

But to blame this on Gayle is kind of insane. It seems clear to me that
she's being used as a pawn here. There are very few indications that this
has anything to do with her, aside from a few log entries (from...
Philippe) inexplicably pointing to her name. And the curt e-mail she sent
out to affected users. Her involvement with the wiki would charitably be
described as negligible.

The director of _community advocacy_ (Philippe) is stripping nearly every
community member of user rights. And yet there's still no provided
rationale for the change in policy, other than it being based on a series
of private discussions. Meanwhile, the home page of
wikimediafoundation.org stresses how transparent the organization is.

This is a pretty disappointing day. I'd be interested to hear what Gayle,
Philippe, or the Board has to say.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least) [ In reply to ]
Itzik Edri wrote:
>Can we please give time to the Foundation to response and express their
>side before everyone starts to attack them? I think we had enough of that
>on Internal-l.
>
>After the first response, or at least 24h, I will understand everyone
>feelings about that. (And right now I'm also don't agree or understand
>WMF's decision, but I'm waiting to hear them first).

I agree that it would be nice to have a full explanation from the
Wikimedia Foundation here (particularly from Philippe and Gayle, who have
apparently conspired).

But I'm not sure I agree that time is needed to evaluate what has
happened. There was certainly no wait before users were stripped of their
user rights. The lack of any emergency makes this rash series of actions
even more upsetting and confusing.

Wikimedia _is_ its community. When a few staff members start to kick out
the community (from the blog, from Bugzilla, from volunteer sysadminning),
it's a pretty awful situation that needs to be immediately addressed, in
my opinion. The alternative is that most volunteers will simply go away.
While that may seem like a victory to certain staff members, I wonder when
they'll realize that it's these same volunteers that keep the projects
running. When the dedicated and trusted volunteers leave, their (paid)
jobs will soon follow. Wikimedia simply isn't sustainable without trusted
volunteers. Slapping them in the face does what?

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least) [ In reply to ]
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse the brevity and typos.
On May 11, 2013 4:36 PM, "MZMcBride" <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
>
> Deryck Chan wrote:
> >Given the foundation's recent tsunami of centralisation I'm not surprised
> >by this at all. The message is clear - the community doesn't belong here.
> >Go back to meta.
>
> Yeah, I think you're right. It seems to be part of a larger pattern.
>
> * Blog access has been restricted (as noted).
> * Bugzilla adminship has been restricted to staff only.
> * wikimediafoundation.org adminship is now restricted to staff and Board
> Members.
> * Shell access has been restricted to staff only (no more volunteer
> sysadmins).

Someone better tell that to domas and his ssh key.

As someone tasked with protecting the servers,ssh keys should be restricted
as much as possible, both with staff and volunteers. that is technical and
not political.
>
> Relatedly, the Toolserver is being slowly killed in favor of a controlled
> sandbox called "Wikimedia Labs" and all Wikimedia accounts are being
> unified (with forceable usurps/renames) to make it easier to track and
> control users across all Wikimedia wikis.
>
> It's very surprising that the Board has been so quiet about all of this.
> Generally, a few staff members (notably Philippe and his team) have tried
> to create "tiers" in which paid staff are above volunteers. Even the most
> trusted volunteers are no longer allowed to hold positions of trust within
> the Wikimedia community. This is very bad. Are there ways to address this?
>
> But to blame this on Gayle is kind of insane. It seems clear to me that
> she's being used as a pawn here. There are very few indications that this
> has anything to do with her, aside from a few log entries (from...
> Philippe) inexplicably pointing to her name. And the curt e-mail she sent
> out to affected users. Her involvement with the wiki would charitably be
> described as negligible.
>
> The director of _community advocacy_ (Philippe) is stripping nearly every
> community member of user rights. And yet there's still no provided
> rationale for the change in policy, other than it being based on a series
> of private discussions. Meanwhile, the home page of
> wikimediafoundation.org stresses how transparent the organization is.
>
> This is a pretty disappointing day. I'd be interested to hear what Gayle,
> Philippe, or the Board has to say.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least) [ In reply to ]
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Leslie Carr <lcarr@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> ...
> As someone tasked with protecting the servers,ssh keys should be restricted
> as much as possible, both with staff and volunteers. that is technical and
> not political.

That same argument can also be used for restricting all but even a
smaller circle of staff from root. Probably not the best example to
lead with...

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least) [ In reply to ]
K. Peachey, 11/05/2013 16:59:
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Leslie Carr <lcarr@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> ...
>> As someone tasked with protecting the servers,ssh keys should be restricted
>> as much as possible, both with staff and volunteers. that is technical and
>> not political.
>
> That same argument can also be used for restricting all but even a
> smaller circle of staff from root. Probably not the best example to
> lead with...

Yes, or all the sysops on foundationwiki with 0 edits. :)

Nemo

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least) [ In reply to ]
Leslie Carr wrote:
>> * Shell access has been restricted to staff only (no more volunteer
>> sysadmins).
>
>Someone better tell that to domas and his ssh key.
>
>As someone tasked with protecting the servers, ssh keys should be
>restricted as much as possible, both with staff and volunteers. that is
>technical and not political.

That was just sloppy wording on my part, apologies. Shell/root access has
been indeed been restricted to staff only. About four users have been
grandfathered in (Domas, Jens, River, Robert S.). I'll note that these
users have all contributed an enormous amount (for free!) to the Wikimedia
movement. They deserve only our appreciation for the volunteer work
they've done. And they serve as a model of what trusted volunteers can do.
Please don't suggest that this has anything to do with technical
decisions. Even a child can see that this is pure politics.

Leslie, do you agree with these policies that remove all non-staff from
positions of trust? Do you agree with creating tiers between staff and
everyone else?

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least) [ In reply to ]
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 4:59 PM, K. Peachey <p858snake@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Leslie Carr <lcarr@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> ...
>> As someone tasked with protecting the servers,ssh keys should be restricted
>> as much as possible, both with staff and volunteers. that is technical and
>> not political.
>
> That same argument can also be used for restricting all but even a
> smaller circle of staff from root. Probably not the best example to
> lead with...
>

Actually it is the perfect example to lead with -- very few people
with shell access have root.


--
Leslie Carr
Wikimedia Foundation
AS 14907, 43821
http://as14907.peeringdb.com/

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least) [ In reply to ]
On 11 May 2013 14:46, Deryck Chan <deryckchan@wikimedia.hk> wrote:

> Given the foundation's recent tsunami of centralisation I'm not surprised
> by this at all.

Sad to say, this chimes with the Foundation's recent decision to
consult on changes to en.Wikipedia's method of notifying users that
they have a talk page message, and then to reject the overwhelming
consensus (to return the familiar orange bar, at least while other
options are discussed) of that consultation.

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least) [ In reply to ]
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 5:04 PM, MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> Leslie Carr wrote:
>>> * Shell access has been restricted to staff only (no more volunteer
>>> sysadmins).
>>
>>Someone better tell that to domas and his ssh key.
>>
>>As someone tasked with protecting the servers, ssh keys should be
>>restricted as much as possible, both with staff and volunteers. that is
>>technical and not political.
>
> That was just sloppy wording on my part, apologies. Shell/root access has
> been indeed been restricted to staff only. About four users have been
> grandfathered in (Domas, Jens, River, Robert S.). I'll note that these
> users have all contributed an enormous amount (for free!) to the Wikimedia
> movement. They deserve only our appreciation for the volunteer work
> they've done. And they serve as a model of what trusted volunteers can do.
> Please don't suggest that this has anything to do with technical
> decisions. Even a child can see that this is pure politics.
>
> Leslie, do you agree with these policies that remove all non-staff from
> positions of trust? Do you agree with creating tiers between staff and
> everyone else?

I have no opinion on all the other policies - my concern, expertise,
and really the only place I think my opinion even matters is for the
servers.

My opinion is that we should restrict any ssh access on the cluster to
those who have demonstrated that they both need it and can handle the
responsibility. If a volunteer has been very responsible in labs and
has a demonstratable need, I'd be fine with that. The reason that ops
staff get ssh access and root is that we (hopefully) during our
interview and references have demonstrated the ability to handle the
access responsibly, have a need, and on top of that have signed a big
stack of paperwork. But the more that we can do on labs without ever
touching production, the better off the stability of the cluster.

Also I believe that several analytics folks ( under admins::restricted
in admins.pp ) are not employees but do have some ssh access.


Leslie

>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l



--
Leslie Carr
Wikimedia Foundation
AS 14907, 43821
http://as14907.peeringdb.com/

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least) [ In reply to ]
On 11 May 2013 15:36, MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:

> Yeah, I think you're right. It seems to be part of a larger pattern.

+ Withdrawal of the ability to use WMF logos/ wordmarks in community
projects, such as QRpedia.

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least) [ In reply to ]
On 05/11/2013 06:26 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski wrote:
> Let me repeat that: the WMF does not wish volunteers to help out with
> running their wiki, even if they have been helping out almost since the
> very start of the wiki.

Tomasz, while it seems clear that communications about that move seem to
have been lacking, I think it's unwarranted to ascribe ill-intent to the
WMF staff. Perhaps you should wait for a response from them before you
declare what their wishes may be or what their reasons were?

-- Marc


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least) [ In reply to ]
Marc A. Pelletier wrote:

> Tomasz, while it seems clear that communications about that move seem to
> have been lacking, I think it's unwarranted to ascribe ill-intent to the
> WMF staff. Perhaps you should wait for a response from them before you
> declare what their wishes may be or what their reasons were?

I cannot tell what was the /intent/ of the WMF when they acted (for
obvious reasons), but I think that my description of the situation was
pretty justified — and the message sent to all those desysopped
volunteers could not have been more clear. If the WMF wants their help,
why would they desysop them in the first place?

If you had read my e-mail, then I'm sure you noticed that I actually
asked about the reasons for this decision and its execution, as I am
unable to find any justification for what happened.

[.Yes, I do understand there is a considerable time difference, etc; I'll
be patiently waiting for a response from the WMF.]

-- Tomasz

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least) [ In reply to ]
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:32 PM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski <tomasz@twkozlowski.net
> wrote:

>
> [.Yes, I do understand there is a considerable time difference, etc; I'll
> be patiently waiting for a response from the WMF.]


Might even have to wait till Monday. This was done on a Friday night I
think.

There doesn't seem to be any method to how these rights are being assigned
and retained. Observations-

1) Only 2 of the current board members (besides Jimmy) have admin rights.
Prob. on the argument that they are community-elected?
2) A few of the current admins that retained their flag have never made a
contribution, or made any in the last year.
3) Phoebe for some reason, retains her right while currently not being on
staff or the board.
4) Only 2 people are prob. assigned on the basis of "advisory board"
without any explanation. There is no updated list to check who is on the
advisory board this time.

There does seem to be a pattern about how this is being cleaned up, and I
don't think Gayle is the impetus behind this though she is taking the blame
for it.

Theo
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least) [ In reply to ]
Le Sat, 11 May 2013 17:50:18 +0200, Marc A. Pelletier <marc@uberbox.org> a
écrit:
> Perhaps you should wait for a response from them before you
> declare what their wishes may be or what their reasons were?

At the same time, it’s a very bad timing of doing such a controversial
action just before weekend, and let people wondering during two days the
reasons behind this action. So waiting still 2 days..

Sébastien

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least) [ In reply to ]
Gayle is travelling today and not online, so I'll take a crack at
responding to this.

The editors are responsible for the projects: the Wikimedia Foundation
knows that, acknowledges it, and is deeply appreciative (as are all
readers) for the work that volunteers do in the projects. The Wikimedia
Foundation is responsible for the Wikimedia Foundation wiki (and the blog).
We are grateful to get community help there, and a small number of
community members do really good work with us on both the WMF wiki and the
blog. But ultimately that wiki, and the blog, are our responsibility, and
we are accountable for making sure that e.g. the staff page, the Board
bios, the resolution texts, etc., are maintained and in good shape. Most
material on the WMF is not created via collaborative production processes
-- it's "corporate" in nature, meaning that it is developed by the
Wikimedia Foundation, for an audience of Wikimedia Foundation stakeholders,
which includes community members and prospective community members, donors,
readers of the projects, media, and others.

My understanding is that administrator rights have been removed from a
small number of volunteers, but that those people still have basic editing
rights. My understanding is that the Wikimedia Foundation staff who work on
the Foundation wiki have been grateful (and are grateful) for the help
they've gotten from community members in maintaining the Foundation wiki,
and that we hope they'll continue to help us. They've been great, and we're
grateful.

But, my understanding is also that occasionally volunteers have overridden
decisions made by staff on the Wikimedia Foundation wiki. I don't think
that's ever been a huge problem: I don't think we've ever had a situation
in which extensive discussion hasn't reached an okay conclusion. But, the
extensive discussions --which, I understand, have typically been
one-on-one, by which I mean, not a large number of community members or a
community consensus against something the Foundation has wanted to do, but
rather one volunteer disagreeing with something staff have been asked to do
as part of their job --- occasionally, those discussions have been
extremely time-consuming. That's not good. The staff working on the
Wikimedia Foundation wiki have jobs they've got to get done, in support of
the entire movement. If they spend days or weeks needing to persuade a
single community member of the merits of something they want to do on the
Foundation wiki, or if they need to modify their plans extensively to
accommodate the opinions of a single community member, that reduces the
amount of time available for them to do the rest of their work. Which, I
repeat, is in the service of the movement overall.

So I would say this:

This decision is not about "the community" versus "the WMF." This decision
is about the WMF staff, and making it possible for them to do their work on
the WMF wiki with some reasonable degree of efficiency and effectiveness.
This decision clarifies roles-and-responsibilities. On the projects, the
volunteers are the editorial leads, and the WMF plays a supporting role by
creating functionality, maintaining the servers, paying the bandwidth
bills, and so forth. On the WMF wiki, the WMF is the editorial lead, and
volunteers can (and do) play a supporting role helping staff organize
pages, maintain pages, and so forth. That's a reasonable division, and I
think having clarity around it is a good thing.

Slightly more broadly: when the Wikimedia movement was very young,
everybody did everything and there wasn't much division of
roles-and-responsibilities. I remember when the Wikimedia Foundation
budgets were prepared by volunteers, when the trademarks were managed by
volunteers, and so forth. That was appropriate for the time, and even
though it was messy, it was kind of great. Then we all went through a
period in which roles-and-responsibilities were utterly unclear -- it
wasn't at all obvious who should do what, and many
roles-and-responsibilities were hotly disputed. Personally, I feel like
we're moving into a period now in which things are getting clearer. We
don't pay staff to edit the projects: staff who edit do it on their own
time, as a hobby or special personal interest. We do pay staff to do things
that are better done by staff than by volunteers, such as managing the
trademark portfolio. Some volunteers (such as Domas) have very special
privileges and powers, because they've proved over time they are
exceptionally skilled. Some volunteers support the Wikimedia Foundation
staff in their work in a variety of ways, because they've proved their
interest and abilities. Some work happens in close partnership between
staff and volunteers, such as production of blog posts, speaking with the
media, and in projects such as the Global Ed one. Sometimes organized
groups of volunteers are created by volunteers and supported by staff (e.g.
ArbCom or AffCom) and sometimes organized groups of volunteers are created
by the Wikimedia Foundation and supported by the Wikimedia Foundation (such
as the FDC). Upshot: community members and Wikimedia Foundation staff work
together in many different coordinated fashions. The ways on which we work
together are becoming increasingly clear, and I think that clarity is good.

So. People can disagree with this decision, and that's okay. But
ultimately, the Wikimedia Foundation is responsible for the Wikimedia
Foundation wiki: it's our job to figure out how best to manage and maintain
it. That's what we're doing here.

Thanks,
Sue
On May 11, 2013 4:15 AM, "K. Peachey" <p858snake@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is the email that got sent out to everyone,
>
> ---
> Dear XXX,
> Thank you for your work with the Foundation wiki. At this time, we
> are formalizing a new requirement, which is that administrator access
> is given only to staff and board. I am having administrator access to
> accounts that are neither staff or board be disabled, effective
> immediately.
> Sincerely,
> Gayle
> --
> Gayle Karen K. Young
> Chief Talent and Culture Officer
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 415.310.8416
> www.wikimediafoundation.org
> ---
>
> Gayle's response (which was the first time she has edited the wiki in
> ~5 months[2]) seems lacking[1] in general and the subsequent responses
> about knowing what these people do on the wiki
>
> Another interesting fact is that Mz got desysoped first, When you
> would expect it to be done in alphabetically order.
>
> "We've been discussing this for awhile, and the thought is that it's
> ultimately the Foundation's web presence, not the community's web
> presence. A useful parallel to consider might be how userrights are
> given to staffers on the community wikis; they're distributed as and
> when they're needed for a specific task."
>
> Um, Rights for staff on wikis are given out like candy?, although not
> as much thee days but it still happens.
>
> Also, How is the foundation wiki not apart of the community? Has the
> position of the legal department changed? or the boards? just randomly
> changing without any imput or discussions seems utlimately strange.
> since it is actually their wiki (just like everything else that falls
> under the foundation)
>
> [1]. <
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?diff=91857&oldid=91855#Users_stripped_of_rights.3F
> >
> [2]. <
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Gyoung
> >
> [3]. <https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:Log/rights>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least) [ In reply to ]
Sue Gardner wrote:
>So. People can disagree with this decision, and that's okay. But
>ultimately, the Wikimedia Foundation is responsible for the Wikimedia
>Foundation wiki: it's our job to figure out how best to manage and
>Maintain it. That's what we're doing here.

wikimediafoundation.org has historically been managed by the Board. Not
Gayle or Philippe.

I'm still waiting on the Board to chime in here. It's my understanding
that several Board members (current and former) wanted to open the wiki to
more editing and cleanup in the short-term and in the long-term re-unite
the wiki with Meta-Wiki at www.wikimedia.org.

This is a step in the wrong direction.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

1 2 3 4 5  View All