As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that OTRS volunteers sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have been identified as an OTRS volunteer and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015, you will lose your OTRS access. OTRS volunteers have a specific agreement available, if you have recently signed the general confidentiality agreement for another role (such as CheckUser or Oversight), you do not need to sign the general agreement again, but you will still need to sign the OTRS agreement.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain your OTRS access. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
ArbCom noticeboard discussion
I saw your comment about the phrasing of the Wikipedia harassment policy that states linking to accounts on other sites may be allowed on a case-by-case basis. Despite what you said, there was an RfC on the issue. The exact wording was not approved in the RfC, but it was decided that a previous version stating linking to "any other accounts on any other web sites" constitutes outing was not appropriate and should be rephrased. Many said each case would have to be approached differently with some being acceptable. The main focus was people who use the same account name on multiple websites to discuss Wikipedia without admitting on-wiki to operating the accounts.
Said wording was removed so the RfC could reach a decision and it concluded the wording should stay out. The editor who added the current language seemed to be phrasing it based off comments in the discussion. While the phrasing is misleading, there is good reason it exists and some history of community practice to back up the principle. The problem appears to be that no one seems to know quite how to articulate when linking to an undisclosed account is acceptable and when it isn't acceptable. I would say the standing community consensus is that if an account on another site clearly claims to be a specific editor and is trying to unduly affect Wikipedia then it is usually acceptable to note this to investigate potential misconduct.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
|Hello, Mkdw. Check your email—you've got mail!|
There has been a request to inform all who voted in the RfC about interlinking accounts involved with paid editing about the following adjustment in the "statement of issue" on Sept 18th, 2017.
It was clarified that this effort will help deal not only with impersonation of specific Wikipedians but also claims of being in good standing made by those who are not. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikimedia diversity - What happened at the conference and how to follow up
We are messaging you now because you signed up as an ambassador for Wikimedia Diversity Conference 2017. We are sharing this message far and wide, so apologies in advance if you are receiving this message twice.
During the conference, we dedicated a full afternoon to discussing the strategic direction and what it means for the work on diversity in the Wikimedia movement. Compiling the outcomes of those conversations, we summarized the key problems and solutions identified, and we created a summary statement. But the conversation is far from over! We still need to hear from diversity ambassadors: (1) what does working for diversity mean at your local context?; (2) what are the needs that should be addressed; (3) what resources are relevant for these identified needs?
We know that diversity gains meaning in context, and this is why we need to hear every voice. Please take a few minutes to go over to the diversity conversation page and add your comments.
If you’d like to stay in touch, and share your experience working for diversity with others, add your profile on our group here.
I noticed that you have signed up as a Wikimedia Diversity Ambassador, after the Diversity Conference held in Stockholm 2017. In August this year, Wikimania will take place in Stockholm, and our goal is to use Ambassadors to reach out to local communities, to spread the news about the conference and the outcomes afterwards. The conference theme (still to be announced) will connect closely to diversity. If you would like to be involved as a Wikimania ambassador, please sign up at the Ambassador page at the Wikimania wiki!
A first thing to do, if you would like to help out, would be to translate the scholarship page at the Wikimania wiki into the language(s) you speak!