User talk:AKeton (WMF)

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Meta![edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | অসমীয়া | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Boarisch | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца) | български | বাংলা | བོད་ཡིག | bosanski | català | کوردی | corsu | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form) | Zazaki | ދިވެހިބަސް | Ελληνικά | emiliàn e rumagnòl | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | Nordfriisk | Frysk | galego | Alemannisch | ગુજરાતી | עברית | हिन्दी | Fiji Hindi | hrvatski | magyar | հայերեն | interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Ido | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | ភាសាខ្មែរ | 한국어 | kar | kurdî | Limburgs | lietuvių | Minangkabau | македонски | മലയാളം | молдовеняскэ | Bahasa Melayu | မြန်မာဘာသာ | مازِرونی | Napulitano | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | Kapampangan | polski | português | português do Brasil | پښتو | Runa Simi | română | русский | संस्कृतम् | sicilianu | سنڌي | සිංහල | slovenčina | slovenščina | Soomaaliga | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ślůnski | தமிழ் | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkmençe | Tagalog | Türkçe | татарча/tatarça | ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ  | українська | اردو | oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 吴语 | 粵語 | 中文(简体) | 中文(繁體) | +/-

Hello, AKeton (WMF). Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum if you need help with something (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

Nemo 14:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thesis[edit]

Hello! Welcome again. It's always nice to read past writings of new WMF folks and I saw on the announcement about your "thesis on why culturally and linguistically diverse students opt out of gifted and talented programs", is it this? It would be a pity if it's only on ProQuest, could you upload it to https://zenodo.org/ or other with a free license? Thanks, Nemo 14:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

i18n[edit]

You say «Tides Network, a national public foundation»; I ask: national, of which “nation”, meaning country? Tuvalkin (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Email[edit]

Hi Amanda! You have a link on your userpage named "email" and I clicked it and was told you do not have an email address specified. I do not know if it is me or you that have a problem. --MGA73 (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Sunday November 29 Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network meeting[edit]

Take flight with us.

The Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network (SWAN) is a developing forum for all Wikimedia movement affiliates to share ideas on the Wikimedia 2030 strategy process. It expands on the model of the All-Affiliates Brand Meeting to help lay some of the groundwork for a future Global Council.

Following up on the August, September, and October SWAN meetings, and June's All-Affiliates Brand Meeting, as well as strategic and outreach topics of mutual concern to all affiliates including the recent proposed changes to the Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws, this month we are meeting on Sunday November 29, and you are all invited to RSVP here.

(Note that the UTC times of 03:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC are the same as before, although a number of places have had daylight savings time changes since our last meeting).--Pharos (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Sunday January 10 Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network meeting[edit]

Into the blue.

The Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network (SWAN) is a developing forum for all Wikimedia movement affiliates to share ideas on the Wikimedia 2030 strategy process. It expands on the model of the All-Affiliates Brand Meeting to help lay some of the groundwork for a future Global Council.

Following up on the August, September, October, and November SWAN meetings, and June's All-Affiliates Brand Meeting, as well as strategic and outreach topics of mutual concern to all affiliates including SWAN input on Interim Global Council and Movement Charter, this month we are meeting on Sunday January 10, and you are all invited to RSVP here.

To start the exchange of ideas on the IGC early, and to help prepare before the SWAN calls, we have set up and invite everyone to participate at this etherpad. If you like a more interactive way of discussing, we have also made a jamboard. Check here for more details.

--Pharos (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Sunday February 21 Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network meeting[edit]

We are a mosiac.

The Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network (SWAN) is a developing forum for all Wikimedia movement affiliates to share ideas on the Wikimedia 2030 strategy process. It expands on the model of the All-Affiliates Brand Meeting to help lay some of the groundwork for a future Global Council.

Following up on the August, September, October, November, and January SWAN meetings and June's All-Affiliates Brand Meeting, as well as strategic and outreach topics of mutual concern to all affiliates, this month we are meeting on Sunday February 21, and you are all invited to RSVP here.

To help set priorities for the SWAN agenda, and also to help manage which global conversations should be a focus in general, we have set up and invite everyone to participate at this SWAN priorities form.

Possible topics include Community Board seats, Interim Global Council, Strategy prioritization follow-up events, Branding, Universal Code of Conduct, Grant strategy, and WMF CEO search. That is a lot of things, which are most important to cover in our upcoming SWAN meeting?

Following the regular call, in SWAN after hours: Wikimedia Meet Jitsi social event with brainstorming for possible Nano Charter ideas, plus any other topics.

--Pharos (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Sunday March 21 Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network meeting[edit]

Community as a hand-carved gem.

The Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network (SWAN) is a developing forum for all Wikimedia movement affiliates to share ideas on the Wikimedia 2030 strategy process. It expands on the model of the All-Affiliates Brand Meeting to help lay some of the groundwork for a future Global Council.

Following up on the August, September, October, November, January, and February SWAN meetings and June's All-Affiliates Brand Meeting, as well as strategic and outreach topics of mutual concern to all affiliates including Grants relaunch, Universal Code of Conduct/Discussions, Wikimedia Enterprise / OKAPI, Community Board seats, Interim Global Council + Movement Charter, and WMF Executive Transition

This month we are meeting on Sunday March 21, and you are all invited to RSVP here.

(Note that the UTC times of 03:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC are the same as before, although some places have had daylight savings time changes since our last meeting).--Pharos (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Legal team not responding about WMF spreading false, defamatory information about me[edit]

Dear Amanda, as you are responsible for the Legal team, I again put to your attention that I have more than 1 month ago asked the Legal team to proceed office action to remove false, defamatory information about myself spread by WUG Wikimedians of Slovakia and protected by Meta community. I made my 5th formal official request at Wikimedia_Forum#5th_Official_request_for_correction_of_false_and_libelous_information_about_Michal_Matúšov_in_the_Annual_report_2018_of_WMSVK and also send you an email titled "WMSVK: Official request for correction of false ad libelous information about Michal Matúšov in the Annual report 2018 of WMSVK".

The Legal team have not responded to me at all for more than a month. Please, urge your team to proceed my request ASAP. --KuboF Hromoslav (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Anonymous Users of Wikipedia spreading defamatory lies about our company.[edit]

Hello,

Anonymous Users of Wikipedia are spreading defamatory lies about our company. When I tried to contact them at the Wikipedia Teahouse for new users, somebody blocked my account for requesting help from the community.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bl2phy7uwr9ty

Please advise how we should proceed to get these highly defamatory articles removed—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bl2phy7uwr9ty (talk) 09:09, 5. Apr. 2021

Legal guidelines and intervention[edit]

Good morning, I would like to know if there are WMF guidelines for cases that involve or may involve justice, such as pt:César do Paço. I would also like to know when WMF would intervene to protect the wikimedia community, and when not.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

JSutherland (WMF) I read your message here so I think you can answer the question above. I would like to understand better and participate in the process. --Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 21:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Felipe da Fonseca, thanks for asking about this. I am not quite sure what you mean about cases that may involve justice, but I think I can answer at least part of your question. When the Foundation receives legal complaints, we typically evaluate the case to see if there is a valid legal claim. If the case does have a legal requirement for the Foundation, we follow that. If it does not, we typically try to help the complaining individual understand how to work with the communities and sometimes help bring the issue to community attention. Typical cases that do have legal requirements for us include valid copyright claims, U.S. court orders or claims that could lead to a successful court order, and sometimes court orders or good claims from other countries where the law at issue applies to us, which we determine case by case. In rare cases like pt:César do Paço there can be a situation where there is not a requirement for the Wikimedia Foundation to take action, but there may be some risk to editors who worked on the article. In cases like that, we try to share our concerns with the volunteer community so that people can review the article and ensure that the information is accurate and the sources are good quality, which helps protect everyone who works on any article. If, despite this work, a user is sued, we have a program called defense of contributors where we may be able to provide legal assistance to a volunteer, including finding an attorney and paying legal fees. I want to emphasize though that this program is limited in nature: we may be able to help, especially in good cases where there is high confidence that the information in an article is accurate and the sources are high quality. However, if a volunteer has written material that does actually constitute defamation, violations of privacy, or similar issues in their own country, it may not be possible to defend them. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Jrogers (WMF) That was exactly what I was asking. Who makes these assessments? Is it possible to participate in them? Is this procedure recorded anywhere?--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
In most cases, we conduct the assessment in-house (for example, several members of our legal team are experts on copyright law). In more difficult cases, we typically hire a law firm that specializes in the law of the relevant location. In this case, we asked a Portuguese firm to review the article and they had some concerns, which are the points that were relayed in the email that JSutherland sent. In general, it is actually risky to publicly explain too much detail of a legal evaluation, however. If we laid out all the detail of a case, why we or users might be sued, or what kind of claims could occur, it would be giving someone a guide for how to successfully sue the Foundation or a community member. So, while we do consult with community members (and consult closely with a particular user if they are sued) we do need to make the evaluation non-publicly using expert advise from lawyers specialized in the relevant areas of law. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Dear colleagues, my topic turned out to be distorted in a particular case, through my own fault. About this, I would like to say that: a) I opened this topic asking for information before the case came up; b) the case ended up representing a good example of what I was asking, so I share my concerns with my colleagues below; c) in any case, my concern is in general terms and not just with this case in particular. That said, Jrogers (WMF), I now understand that the procedures are normally done outside of Wiki. Are there, however, WMF guidelines for avoiding such legal problems? Where? Thanks.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
AKeton (WMF), Jrogers (WMF) and JSutherland (WMF) could one of you please answer my generic question that has nothing to do with the case (which I imagine you are already dealing with off-wiki), thank you.--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
AKeton (WMF),Jrogers (WMF) and JSutherland (WMF) asking again: are there guidelines on how editors should behave to protect themselves from legal and other threats and to be entitled to protection and assistance from WMF?--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Felipe da Fonseca, apologies I had been pulled into some other work and wasn't looking at this for a few days. There isn't one set of guidelines for a couple reasons. The first is because the law varies throughout the world. For example, some places are more accepting of older sources than others, some places accept stronger language than others, and some places have restrictions on certain topics that are only limited within a certain region. The second is that general guidelines are actually covered by wiki policies already. The best general guidance is to ensure that you're using reliable sources and writing in a neutral encyclopedic tone in line with local language style guidelines. One suggestion when tackling controversial topics is to think about whether the public value of the material you're adding outweighs the harm it may cause the individual when considering the notability of the material. That isn't an easy standard and it does vary by region, but one of the most common ways courts consider the issue (especially in Europe) is to try and compare the value of the information against the impact on the person. For example, accurate negative information about a current candidate for public office is very clearly important to the public even if it hurts the candidate. On the other hand, information about a crime someone committed two decades ago when that person hasn't done anything notable after might be a problem even if it has good sources (unless the crime is so historically significant that it should be preserved long-term). I hope this is helpful. I'll also add this topic as something to be a research project in the new few months. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Jrogers (WMF), thanks for the reply. Actually these individualized instructions help me little, I wanted to know if there were universal guides, thanks for the answer. I wrote about it on the Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard, I will let they know that you replied to me, but I will continue to opine on the creation of guidelines. If you have any recommendations on how to start a discussion for the creation of these guidelines, I would appreciate it. Best,--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


The original email has been partially oversighted for potentially violating the privacy policy of Wikimedia projects. I have to say I am surprised and disappointed a private response to the WMF legal was shared with at least two other Wikimedia volunteers, one who is not under NDA. Precisely for the reasons Jrogers (WMF) points out above "If we laid out all the detail of a case, why we or users might be sued, or what kind of claims could occur, it would be giving someone a guide for how to successfully sue the Foundation or a community member." and with my prior experience of being sued for editing an article and having no support from WMF I have say it is deeply troubling for WMF to single out an editor when communicating about an issue with potential for legal trouble. Chico Venancio (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello. The legal department is perfectly aware that the person that sent that request - which is currently banned from the Wikipedia in Portuguese for, among other things, xenophobic behavior - has not only been sending legal threats to Wikipedia editors, but actually stalking and harassing by phone. Legal is perfectly aware of this, since I and others sent that information to legal by email, attached to those cases. Why have you contacted members of the community that are not aware of that, placing them at risk? Asking them to involve the Wikipedia community to act on that case, placing more editors at risk of harassment, stalking, and legal issues? Sending to editors confidential information about OTRS volunteers, which is then relayed into the entire world at Wikipedia Village Pump, placing the OTRS volunteers in potential risk? Who will look after our security, when the legal department and Trust & Safety puts everyone at risk in such a reckless way? In a number of occasions me and other members of the OTRS team have sent back to legal similar requests, asking for OTRS and community involvement in dangerous legal - and even court - cases. We asked very explicitly for the legal department to stop sending us similar requests, which would obviously put us at risk. Requests coming from a professional legal department, asking volunteers to act in cases that are, sometimes, already on court, or being assembled to go to court. It is incredibly disappointing, disturbing and disheartening that this is happening, and really call for a debate of what are, in fact, the guarantees that we have from WMF that we will not be put at risk - by WMF itself, no less - as volunteers on the projects and supporting teams.--- Darwin Ahoy! 00:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

After discussion with some experienced pt-wikimedians I deleted the topic to mitigate this mess to slowdown the doxxing. Our fellow pt-wikipedians had acted in good faith in our village pump, since they were not informed of the context and the several real world risks envolved in this long issue. The e-mail with request from legal team certainly looks like for wikipedians as an important issue that deserves some action. --Ixocactus (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Complementing:

  • "we asked a Portuguese firm to review the article and they had some concerns, which are the points that were relayed in the email that JSutherland sent" - When the suggestions include "changing the tone" of what is presented in the reliable source, so that it "present both sides equally" (according to who?), and asks for the inclusion of information that do not seem to even exist in any publicly available source ("claims that the ERC "found evidence" though does not include the outcome of their investigation"), I strongly suggest that you review the firms you contract, so that they are familiar with the Wikipedia foundational principles, policies and rules.
  • The reference to "attorneys representing (...) Vítor Rodrigues", BLP and the contact with a specific OTRS agent, also suggests that the legal department may have mixed up two completely different cases of legal threats that are currently going on, involving different persons who happen to have a similar name and be from the same region of Portugal, as if they were one. You may want to have a look at that.
  • Finally, please stop asking the community to be involved in such extremely dangerous situations. I apologize for the harsh words, but there really is no other way to say this: That is reckless and irresponsible behaviour from the legal and Trust and Safety department, which is putting everybody at risk. We are not trained lawyers, we are good-willing volunteers in this project, and deserve some respect and a minimum of protection.

--- Darwin Ahoy! 12:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Sunday April 25 Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network meeting[edit]

Swanlings grow up together.

The Strategic Wikimedia Affiliates Network (SWAN) is a developing forum for all Wikimedia movement affiliates to share ideas on the Wikimedia 2030 strategy process. It expands on the model of the All-Affiliates Brand Meeting to help lay some of the groundwork for a future Global Council.

Following up on the August, September, October, November, January, February, and March SWAN meetings and June's All-Affiliates Brand Meeting, as well as strategic and outreach topics of mutual concern to all affiliates including Interim Global Council + Movement Charter, WMF Resolution about the upcoming Board elections, Community Resilience and Sustainability role in Movement Strategy coordination, Grants Strategy Relaunch, and WMF Executive Transition

This month we are meeting on Sunday April 25, and you are all invited to RSVP here.

(Note that the UTC times of 03:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC are the same as before, although some places may have had daylight savings time changes since our last meeting).--Pharos (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)