Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees Options

[carbuncle]

Announced on Foundation-L:

The Wikimedia chapters are seeking to appoint two candidates to sit on the
Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees for two years, starting 1 July
2012. The two new members of the board will help to decide the future
direction of the world’s leading non-profit website. Wikimedia project are
constructed by hundreds of thousands of volunteers worldwide, supported by
a growing number of staff and an international network of chapters. Board
membership is unpaid.

The chapters wish to appoint two excellent board members and believe this
can best be achieved by selecting from a large number of varied and skilled
candidates. Therefore, the chapters call for nominations by everyone who
believes they or someone they know would be suitable. The chapters ask that
this call for candidates be distributed as widely as possible through such
forums as mailing lists, village pumps, and blogs. ...

The discussion following the announcement is uncharacteristically interesting. I know it is popular here to say nasty things about Risker, but I think she's asking the right questions here.

Why is the discussion happening on chapterswiki, instead of in an open
place where all Wikimedians can at least read the discussion?

Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire Wikimedia
community to see? Will opinions from non-chapter members (who make up 97%
of Wikimedians) be considered?

The reply from Béria Lima (emphasis mine, of course):

> * Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire Wikimedia
> community to see? *
The real names, obviously not. The usernames may be published - IF the
candidate has no problem with that.
> *Will opinions from non-chapter members (who make up 97% of Wikimedians)
> be considered?*
>
With questions and suggestions, of course will. But with votes, No.

[radek]

Announced on Foundation-L:

The Wikimedia chapters are seeking to appoint two candidates to sit on the
Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees for two years, starting 1 July
2012. The two new members of the board will help to decide the future
direction of the world’s leading non-profit website. Wikimedia project are
constructed by hundreds of thousands of volunteers worldwide, supported by
a growing number of staff and an international network of chapters. Board
membership is unpaid.

The chapters wish to appoint two excellent board members and believe this
can best be achieved by selecting from a large number of varied and skilled
candidates. Therefore, the chapters call for nominations by everyone who
believes they or someone they know would be suitable. The chapters ask that
this call for candidates be distributed as widely as possible through such
forums as mailing lists, village pumps, and blogs. ...

The discussion following the announcement is uncharacteristically interesting. I know it is popular here to say nasty things about Risker, but I think she's asking the right questions here.

Why is the discussion happening on chapterswiki, instead of in an open
place where all Wikimedians can at least read the discussion?

Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire Wikimedia
community to see? Will opinions from non-chapter members (who make up 97%
of Wikimedians) be considered?

The reply from Béria Lima (emphasis mine, of course):

> * Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire Wikimedia
> community to see? *
The real names, obviously not. The usernames may be published - IF the
candidate has no problem with that.
> *Will opinions from non-chapter members (who make up 97% of Wikimedians)
> be considered?*
>
With questions and suggestions, of course will. But with votes, No.

I still think that's one helluva sketchy of a user account (the one replying). Can't quite put my finger on it, but there's all kinds of alarm bells going off in my head whenever I come across it. Maybe just being paranoid.

This post has been edited by radek:

[SB_Johnny]

The reply from Béria Lima (emphasis mine, of course):

> * Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire Wikimedia
> community to see? *
The real names, obviously not. The usernames may be published - IF the
candidate has no problem with that.
> *Will opinions from non-chapter members (who make up 97% of Wikimedians)
> be considered?*
>
With questions and suggestions, of course will. But with votes, No.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/jawdrop.gif) That's just insane.

I still think that's one helluva sketchy of a user account (the one replying). Can't quite put my finger on it, but there's all kinds of alarm bells going off in my head whenever I come across it. Maybe just being paranoid.

Up until this I actually thought she was a member of the more level-headed bunch.

[thekohser]

I still think that's one helluva sketchy of a user account (the one replying). Can't quite put my finger on it, but there's all kinds of alarm bells going off in my head whenever I come across it. Maybe just being paranoid.

Maybe it's just that you're not used to her Latina blood fire?

[Abd]

Up until this I actually thought she was a member of the more level-headed bunch.

Béria Lima is smart, drop-dead beautiful, and, on occasion, bat-shit crazy and vindictive.

[A Horse With No Name]

Maybe it's just that you're not used to her Latina blood fire?

WOW! Where have I been all of her life? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[Selina]

The reply from Béria Lima (emphasis mine, of course):

> *Will opinions from non-chapter members (who make up 97% of Wikimedians)
> be considered?*
>
With questions and suggestions, of course will. But with votes, No.

Of course, otherwise commoners could get in! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

also, comments about the appearance of people don't really add much to the discussion, it makes you look tacky, think about how you would feel if someone who was criticising you was making creeper comments about liking your appearance...

[melloden]

The reply from Béria Lima (emphasis mine, of course):

> * Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire Wikimedia
> community to see? *
The real names, obviously not. The usernames may be published - IF the
candidate has no problem with that.
> *Will opinions from non-chapter members (who make up 97% of Wikimedians)
> be considered?*
>
With questions and suggestions, of course will. But with votes, No.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/jawdrop.gif) That's just insane.

I still think that's one helluva sketchy of a user account (the one replying). Can't quite put my finger on it, but there's all kinds of alarm bells going off in my head whenever I come across it. Maybe just being paranoid.

Up until this I actually thought she was a member of the more level-headed bunch.

Ha ha ha.

[EricBarbour]

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/III_Assembleia-Geral_da_Wikimedia_Portugal.JPG)
A chica, lost in a sea of lifeless nerds......any wonder she's rising quickly at "Wikimedia Portugal", whatever that may be?

If you want to know more about her, this is the translation of her Portuguese Wikipedia page.
Predictably, she's a Huggle-driving patroller, and likes to fight with people. Unlike en-WP, there are very few like her on pt-WP.

[thekohser]

also, comments about the appearance of people don't really add much to the discussion, it makes you look tacky, think about how you would feel if someone who was criticising you was making creeper comments about liking your appearance...

Oh, come off it, Selina. Is Béria asking us here to evaluate the words on her display screen, and not notice her?

[Selina]

You must have a different definition of "asking for it" than me - There is a difference between noticing and being gross about it

Predictably, she's a Huggle-driving patroller, and likes to fight with people. Unlike en-WP, there are very few like her on pt-WP.

Why is this predictable o_O

[Abd]

also, comments about the appearance of people don't really add much to the discussion, it makes you look tacky, think about how you would feel if someone who was criticising you was making creeper comments about liking your appearance...

Oh, come off it, Selina. Is Béria asking us here to evaluate the words on her display screen, and not notice her?

I see Selina's point. However, this is also the Wikipedia Review Bar and Girrl. I found this from a bio intended for WikiWomenCamp

The community has been supportive of Beria's work, demonstrating this by giving her barn stars and other forms of recognition.[18][19][20] Sadly, not all of Beria's experiences have been positive. As a result of her involvement, she been subjected to death threats, threats of rape, bullying and other harassment from men who represent a wide spectrum of the leadership inside WMF projects.

Notice: " from men who represent a wide spectrum of the leadership inside WMF projects" That's a remarkable statement.

She's not complaining about a few odd comments from users on Wikipedia Review....

Selina, I wonder if you were talking about me, since I did write about Beria, here,

Béria Lima is smart, drop-dead beautiful, and, on occasion, bat-shit crazy and vindictive.

I hope that "drop-dead beautiful isn't "creepy," but, right now, I want to retract the "vindictive." That may have been unfair, I was recalling a certain process that she participated in, and I don't want to go back and really review it, so my comment was, as to what I clearly know, out of place, inappropriate.

As to "bat-shit crazy," though, I realize that it may not seem so, but it could be a compliment. If it's a criticism, it is one that invites no response, because it's not stated as something verifiable, it's obviously a "story." Remember, I shouldn't have to remind you of all people, this is the Wikipedia Review Bar and Girrl. The place has its standards. I.e., if you make substantiated charges, you are boring. I fall into that one a lot.

Horse, I hate to break it to you, but there was an image of Beria on-line, as I recall, what looked to be of professional quality, showing her topless, facing away from the camera. I couldn't find it today, she may have had it taken down. Maybe that's better, if the rather tame photos you've seen had you hopping. On the other hand, here is an article she may have written that could be of interest to you. If you have medication to keep yourself from getting too excited, be sure to have some ready, maybe take it before you look at the page. We'd hate to lose you.

Beria did run for steward last year. I'd already been blocked on meta, I'm not sure how I'd have voted. Conflict of interest, eh? Seems that some of the substantial minority who opposed had some impression similar to my casual comment.

The WMF wikis are weird. Majority rule doesn't count. What that means in practice is that there is a form of minority rule, not what people mostly think, that if they don't allow majority rule, they will get consensus rule. That's naive, and anyone with substantial experience (like, decades) with consensus organizations knows it. Unless they happen to be in a controlling cabal, they may then imagine that, hey, we make decisions by consensus. Not noticing that much of what might have been a much larger -- and more powerful -- organization has walked away out of frustration.... or been banned.

It's really unfair to assume that Beria is using her beauty to gain some unfair advantage. It might have that effect under some circumstances, but in others, her beauty might work against her. Most Wikipedia problems are due to poor structure, not to Bad Actors; the structure brings out the worst in people, beautiful or otherwise. However, the structure also seems to collect some flotsam and jetsam in the center of the whirlpool. She's not that, I'd say. She's just a volunteer who has put in a lot of time and effort, that's obvious.

[Selina]

this is also the Wikipedia Review Bar and Girrl.

this is the Wikipedia Review Bar and Girrl. The place has its standards. I.e., if you make substantiated charges, you are boring. I fall into that one a lot.

You're either trolling or need to get some spine, god. If people say you are "boring" for trying to engage in intelligent discussion then they're the boring ones. In your giving in you've became just as bad as any lolwikipedian in the chat channels... Believe it or not this place has always been intended for serious criticism and debate, just because some people don't want to do that you don't have to cave in to peer pressure.

I found this from a bio intended for WikiWomenCamp

The community has been supportive of Beria's work, demonstrating this by giving her barn stars and other forms of recognition.[18][19][20] Sadly, not all of Beria's experiences have been positive. As a result of her involvement, she been subjected to death threats, threats of rape, bullying and other harassment from men who represent a wide spectrum of the leadership inside WMF projects.

Notice: " from men who represent a wide spectrum of the leadership inside WMF projects" That's a remarkable statement.

You find it remarkable that people who are made to feel inferior want to bring someone else down, to hurt them out of spite or bitter burning jealousy? Really? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

She's not complaining about a few odd comments from users on Wikipedia Review....

Because these posts have only been up a day? I'm bi and don't even find her attractive but god it's just seems like so many people associated with Wikipedia are just totally out of touch with real life issues and how pervasive and corrosive they are, desensitised from seeing trolling so much...

Selina, I wonder if you were talking about me

No that was not some personal post directed at anyone - just a point that "is so and so hot or not" isn't really helping criticise Wikipedia anyway and just makes people look bad and get taken less seriously... It's all over the internet though I know..

, since I did write about Beria, here,

Béria Lima is smart, drop-dead beautiful, and, on occasion, bat-shit crazy and vindictive.

I hope that "drop-dead beautiful isn't "creepy," but, right now, I want to retract the "vindictive." That may have been unfair, I was recalling a certain process that she participated in, and I don't want to go back and really review it, so my comment was, as to what I clearly know, out of place, inappropriate.

As to "bat-shit crazy," though, I realize that it may not seem so, but it could be a compliment. If it's a criticism, it is one that invites no response, because it's not stated as something verifiable, it's obviously a "story."

I don't understand how you can come to these kind of conclusions, criticism is not bad at all? It wouldn't be if she was a male editor obviously, no one is saying in the least that criticism is wrong, just why should it be based around how "hot" you think she is, try I don't know, act a bit more like a grown up is all I'm saying? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

It's really unfair to assume that Beria is using her beauty to gain some unfair advantage. It might have that effect under some circumstances, but in others, her beauty might work against her.

Well that is just it, just ask any schoolgirl what they think of the popular girls - often they aren't as good looking but just try bring down the people who are, the people who are threats to their own social status (and sense of self-worth!) to make themselves look better (and in Wikipedia, like in workplace politics, the older see the younger as a threat, thinking of people like Slimvirgin) and surround themselves with even uglier people - and then there's the anal retentive librarian wonk types that are more common on Wikipedia though because Wikipedia rates people on how wonk and manipulative they are - thinking of people like Durova etc - than niceness they then become the popular "in" crew and abused turns into the abusers

The WMF wikis are weird. Majority rule doesn't count. What that means in practice is that there is a form of minority rule, not what people mostly think, that if they don't allow majority rule, they will get consensus rule. That's naive, and anyone with substantial experience (like, decades) with consensus organizations knows it. Unless they happen to be in a controlling cabal, they may then imagine that, hey, we make decisions by consensus. Not noticing that much of what might have been a much larger -- and more powerful -- organization has walked away out of frustration.... or been banned.

[..] Most Wikipedia problems are due to poor structure, not to Bad Actors; the structure brings out the worst in people, beautiful or otherwise. However, the structure also seems to collect some flotsam and jetsam in the center of the whirlpool. She's not that, I'd say. She's just a volunteer who has put in a lot of time and effort, that's obvious.

That is actually quality comment, that is cool. The Wikipedia structure's been commented on a lot - and the psychology of "evil structures" is a long long thing that no one seems to have come up with a genuine answer on how to solve, something that is a serious serious question for Wikipedia and world/national politics too - and there seems to be no way to change it other than to open it up a lot more and do away with the cliques and mailing lists really - If you look at my unbanning discussion, all the inner crew, Raul654's cabal showed up along with MONGO, but they weren't able to get what they want anymore - more admins, more openness in power means things even themselves out:



That is why WP:CANVASS was created - At it's heart it's about keeping control on the majority so the minority can get along with their private discussions through their alreay established social networks. Ironically, it could also be their downfall if enough good people actually cared about changing Wikipedia, since it specifically says discussions should be kept on talk pages where possible and discourages "off-wiki" discussion. But there's no one with teeth to do anything about it.

[Fusion]

As a result of her involvement, she been subjected to death threats, threats of rape, bullying and other harassment from men who represent a wide spectrum of the leadership inside WMF projects.

You find it remarkable that people who are made to feel inferior want to bring someone else down, to hurt them out of spite or bitter burning jealousy?

I know all too well about the second quote. But death threats? Threats of rape? That is vastly excessive.

If the first quote is true (and I do say if as I have seen no such thing) it is a serioius breach of the law. If indeed such is going on with "a wide spectrum of the leadership inside WMF projects" it is a serious scandal. Imagine if the tabloids got hold of it and published a few pictures of this woman. Would it not blast WMF out of the water? This is huge< If true (I say again, if) stop wasting time on collecting trivia about POV editors and publish it!

[Abd]

this is also the Wikipedia Review Bar and Girrl.

this is the Wikipedia Review Bar and Girrl. The place has its standards. I.e., if you make substantiated charges, you are boring. I fall into that one a lot.

You're either trolling or need to get some spine, god. If people say you are "boring" for trying to engage in intelligent discussion then they're the boring ones.

No, I'm "boring." Obviously. That's a result, it's actually not in what I am, it's how I occur to some other people. Since my goal is communication, I find it necessary to use the language of the audience, to develop relatedness. It's a technique, Selina, used consciously.

In your giving in you've became just as bad as any lolwikipedian in the chat channels...

Giving in to what? I haven't stopped writing serious commentary, I simply relieve it with more direct, more "common" chit-chat, bar stuff. Mostly not how I'd relate to women, to be sure, but most of the participants here aren't women. Personally, I'd prefer to sit down for a chat with people, and I can speak to fairly large groups and engage with the group presence.

Believe it or not this place has always been intended for serious criticism and debate, just because some people don't want to do that you don't have to cave in to peer pressure.

You may have intended that -- I believe you --, and it's worked to some degree, but there's also lot of noise.

In my view the Bar and Girrl serves a function, to let off steam, to be able to say things that one may think, on Wikipedia, without sanctions, at least to some degree. That's an element in improving communication, for those who will participate. Others may need the protection of fora where civility rules are enforced. It takes all kinds. I do know that most women, becoming aware of what Wikipedia is really like, think I'm crazy for even caring about the place. In other words, maybe I'm "bat-shit crazy," a worse case than Beria.

I found this from a bio intended for WikiWomenCamp

The community has been supportive of Beria's work, demonstrating this by giving her barn stars and other forms of recognition.[18][19][20] Sadly, not all of Beria's experiences have been positive. As a result of her involvement, she been subjected to death threats, threats of rape, bullying and other harassment from men who represent a wide spectrum of the leadership inside WMF projects.

Notice: " from men who represent a wide spectrum of the leadership inside WMF projects" That's a remarkable statement.

You find it remarkable that people who are made to feel inferior want to bring someone else down, to hurt them out of spite or bitter burning jealousy? Really? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

It's remarkable that she's an administrator. It's remarkable that she's alleging that level of harassment. I have no idea about motivations, I really don't know what you are talking about here. Who has been "made to feel inferior," and by whom?

Believe it or not this place has always been intended for serious criticism and debate, just because some people don't want to do that you don't have to cave in to peer pressure.

You may have intended that -- I believe you --, and it's worked to some degree, but there's also lot of noise.

In my view the Bar and Girrl serves a function, to let off steam, to be able to say things that one may think, on Wikipedia, without sanctions, at least to some degree. That's an element in improving communication, for those who will participate. Others may need the protection of fora where civility rules are enforced. It takes all kinds. I do know that most women, becoming aware of what Wikipedia is really like, think I'm crazy for even caring about the place. In other words, maybe I'm "bat-shit crazy," a worse case than Beria.

I found this from a bio intended for WikiWomenCamp

The community has been supportive of Beria's work, demonstrating this by giving her barn stars and other forms of recognition.[18][19][20] Sadly, not all of Beria's experiences have been positive. As a result of her involvement, she been subjected to death threats, threats of rape, bullying and other harassment from men who represent a wide spectrum of the leadership inside WMF projects.

Notice: " from men who represent a wide spectrum of the leadership inside WMF projects" That's a remarkable statement.

You find it remarkable that people who are made to feel inferior want to bring someone else down, to hurt them out of spite or bitter burning jealousy? Really? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

It's remarkable that she's an administrator. It's remarkable that she's alleging that level of harassment. I have no idea about motivations, I really don't know what you are talking about here. Who has been "made to feel inferior," and by whom?

I do think, though, that the meta ban of me was prompted by a steward who thought that my suggestions to him were threats. It was truly weird. I was pointing to checkuser policy, suggesting that he *could* do something that he was claiming -- contrary to the policy -- couldn't be done. He could reveal checkuser data to Abigor, data that had been used to show he was very likely a certain vandal, but that, in the event -- it came to seem to be a reasonable possibility to me -- that he'd been hacked or at least successfully sppofed -- he should have the data so that he could take proper defensive measures. I was not implying any sort of checkuser abuse, but the checkuser policy specifically allowed checkuser data to be revealed to the user involved.

And some very, very weird arguments, catch-22 maddening, were developed as an excuse for not doing this. After all, if Abigor was not the vandal, then this would be violating the privacy of the vandal! Hello? Anyone home? The Abigor case demonstrated that there was something going on other than what was visible. Probably involving what I called the Dutch cabal. It wasn't about the welfare of the projects, it was about punishing a user.

(Abigor had, my view, been an abusive administrator, and might have been among those calling for my ban, I'd confronted some of it. However, I was about the only person willing to seriously stand up for him, and he appreciated it. I was not standing up for his errors and offenses, but for the possibility of continued service, and for his human dignity. I think this made me an enemy in the eyes of some at meta.)

She's not complaining about a few odd comments from users on Wikipedia Review....

Because these posts have only been up a day?

There have been comments before. I looked and couldn't find them, though.

I'm bi and don't even find her attractive

Well, you may be bi, but you're not a guy.... I'm not going to argue whether it's biology or training, but, shall we say, Beria pushes some buttons. Or flips some switches, whatever. It's just knee-jerk response, probably for most men. It's not about her personality, per se, though there is very likely an interplay. I.e., how she looks is not simply something that happened to her, it's also something she does. Complicated.

but god it's just seems like so many people associated with Wikipedia are just totally out of touch with real life issues and how pervasive and corrosive they are, desensitised from seeing trolling so much...

Yes. There is extensive ignorance of how normal people will respond to Wikipedia treatment.

Selina, I wonder if you were talking about me

No that was not some personal post directed at anyone - just a point that "is so and so hot or not" isn't really helping criticise Wikipedia anyway and just makes people look bad and get taken less seriously... It's all over the internet though I know..

Here, it's just part of the bar atmosphere. That *does* help to "criticize Wikipedia," but, Selina, aren't you falling into an assumption about how criticism must be packaged? Should it be "civil and polite"? If so, uh, what about some of your own writing, which is a bit blunt at times. Look, nothing wrong with that, I claim, it's just I'm noticing a reversal here. Perhaps some nerve has been touched.

I'm quite aware that the bar atmosphere of Wikipedia Review isn't particularly inviting to most women. Most women I know, when they become aware of the atmosphere on Wikipedia itself, want nothing to do with it.

It takes all kinds, Selina. "It" includes men and women, who are generally *different*. I'm not implying that any particular individual will necessarily fit what is generally true.

I spent at lot of time in an organization with high involvement from gay and bi men and women, and so I looked at myself and tried certain ideas on for a time. Never acted on them, because I got it quickly, no, that's not me! I'm "straight." I know it, and it's clear; that is, I'm attracted to women, and not to men in the same way.

Here the software broke, I've seen this before, it only accepts so many quotations. So I'll continue this as a new post.

[Abd]

(Continued)

, since I did write about Beria, here,

Béria Lima is smart, drop-dead beautiful, and, on occasion, bat-shit crazy and vindictive.

I hope that "drop-dead beautiful isn't "creepy," but, right now, I want to retract the "vindictive." That may have been unfair, I was recalling a certain process that she participated in, and I don't want to go back and really review it, so my comment was, as to what I clearly know, out of place, inappropriate.

As to "bat-shit crazy," though, I realize that it may not seem so, but it could be a compliment. If it's a criticism, it is one that invites no response, because it's not stated as something verifiable, it's obviously a "story."

I don't understand how you can come to these kind of conclusions, criticism is not bad at all?

What criticism? My point is that "bat-shit crazy" isn't criticism, certainly not serious criticism. It's a kind of judgment, and not a careful one.

The paragraph below may be out of sequence, this became quite a mess. I just love this software, where any error in quotation levels breaks the whole post....

It wouldn't be if she was a male editor obviously, no one is saying in the least that criticism is wrong, just why should it be based around how "hot" you think she is, try I don't know, act a bit more like a grown up is all I'm saying? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Again, what criticism? "Vindictive" could be more critical. I took that back. Now, is there a connection between her "hotness" -- not my term, but yours -- and "bat-shit crazy." Perhaps. I did combine a mention of beauty and craziness in the same sentence, but didn't connect them causally, and, indeed, there was a "but" there, as if they were opposed qualities. Again, though, this was a casual, chatty comment in a bar. Not a considered presentation before, say, a disciplinary committee!

It's really unfair to assume that Beria is using her beauty to gain some unfair advantage. It might have that effect under some circumstances, but in others, her beauty might work against her.

Well that is just it, just ask any schoolgirl what they think of the popular girls - often they aren't as good looking but just try bring down the people who are, the people who are threats to their own social status (and sense of self-worth!) to make themselves look better (and in Wikipedia, like in workplace politics, the older see the younger as a threat, thinking of people like Slimvirgin) and surround themselves with even uglier people - and then there's the anal retentive librarian wonk types that are more common on Wikipedia though because Wikipedia rates people on how wonk and manipulative they are - thinking of people like Durova etc - than niceness they then become the popular "in" crew and abused turns into the abusers.

Who are you talking about, here. We sees the younger as a threat? Who is trying to "bring down" Beria, is that what you are talking about? There is criticism of Beria in the stewardship voting. Are you equating that with what schoolgirls think of popular girls? Or are you talking about something else?

The WMF wikis are weird. Majority rule doesn't count. What that means in practice is that there is a form of minority rule, not what people mostly think, that if they don't allow majority rule, they will get consensus rule. That's naive, and anyone with substantial experience (like, decades) with consensus organizations knows it. Unless they happen to be in a controlling cabal, they may then imagine that, hey, we make decisions by consensus. Not noticing that much of what might have been a much larger -- and more powerful -- organization has walked away out of frustration.... or been banned.

[..] Most Wikipedia problems are due to poor structure, not to Bad Actors; the structure brings out the worst in people, beautiful or otherwise. However, the structure also seems to collect some flotsam and jetsam in the center of the whirlpool. She's not that, I'd say. She's just a volunteer who has put in a lot of time and effort, that's obvious.

That is actually quality comment, that is cool.

Thanks. I manage that from time to time. I do have some experience. In fact, a lot of experience, going back to the W.E.L.L. in the 1980s, going back with consensus organizations well before that.

The Wikipedia structure's been commented on a lot - and the psychology of "evil structures" is a long long thing that no one seems to have come up with a genuine answer on how to solve, something that is a serious serious question for Wikipedia and world/national politics too - and there seems to be no way to change it other than to open it up a lot more and do away with the cliques and mailing lists really - If you look at my unbanning discussion, all the inner crew, Raul654's cabal showed up along with MONGO, but they weren't able to get what they want anymore - more admins, more openness in power means things even themselves out:

[you tube video omitted]

Don't fool yourself. The cabal was never able to win all the time, but they are persistent, and the cabal world-view is attractive to a certain class of aspiring user, and Wikipedia has become more and more corrupted over time. I will say, though, that I might be wrong, there are some signs in your unban discussion that are hopeful. I'm just suggesting that I've seen such signs before, and then saw the cabal prevail anyway, later. All it takes is sufficient cover, and they are very good at presenting things in a way to make people like you look really awful, to casual users who don't investigate, and that's all it takes. You have sufficient support from Wikipedia Review -- which has a certain influence -- that it was possible to overcome the cabal sensibilities. This time. Don't push it, my recommendation. Unless you prefer to be blocked. I have no recommendation on that part, no judgment that one side or the other, blocked/unblocked is better. Depends on what you want to accomplish.

That is why WP:CANVASS was created - At it's heart it's about keeping control on the majority so the minority can get along with their private discussions through their alreay established social networks. Ironically, it could also be their downfall if enough good people actually cared about changing Wikipedia, since it specifically says discussions should be kept on talk pages where possible and discourages "off-wiki" discussion. But there's no one with teeth to do anything about it.

That's generally true of the guidelines and policies. If you cite them as a reason why you did something that the cabal doesn't like, you will be called a "wikilawyer," which is definitely Bad. Reliance upon policies and guidelines should be protective; and if a guideline or policy isn't complete, it should be completed. Wikis were invented to create user manuals, but on Wikipedia, improvement and completion of guidelines and policies was called "instruction creep," and I saw, very clearly, and demonstrated, how improving the clarity of guidelines was resisted, in spite of massive waste of time caused by this failure. People should be able to predict whether an article will be deleted; when they can't, because the guidelines are vague, enormous time is wasted creating articles that will be deleted, and, in the other direction, where consensus generally has an exception to a guideline, where something that is normally not reliable source will be considered such, and allowed to establish notability, because of special conditions that could be spelled out, time is wasted filing AfDs that will usually result in Keep, except sometimes when only those who care more about guidelines than actual notability show up.

The structure is one with an active resistance to learning and documenting what works and what does not work. So it is constantly re-inventing the wheel.

But it never invents a reliable decision-making process. That's abusive, in the end, to all sides. I've watched cabal administrators go through the process of passing from an apparent belief that they owned the place, le wiki, c'est moi, to a belief that it had been taken over by some reprehensible cabal, different from them (they typically deny there is a cabal while they have "Cabal-Approved" user boxes. After all, everyone knows There Is No Cabal, never realizing that there are actually two essays, TINC and TIAC.

Because there are cabals, and Jimbo himself, when establishing administrative practice and policy, wrote about the "administrative cabal," as a good thing. I used cabal, in RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolly, to refer to a body of editors and administrators who routinely backed each other up, as a faction which was "mutually involved." This was largely the same faction as was later confronted by Lar; Lar was more successful at getting the attention of ArbComm, and he did get some results, but still the problem of mutual involvement wasn't faced adequately. "Cabal" did *not* mean "secret conspiracy," and I was explicit about that, and it did not mean or require that "members" of the cabal had necessarily done something sanctionable, and in spite of my saying that, ArbComm complained that I hadn't proven that they had done something wrong. Brilliant! I did try to prove that. "Cabal" just meant "mutually supportive, not neutral with respect to each other." What I was looking for was a notice that if two dozen editors show up and vote a certain way, say in a ban discussion, that might be a sign of consensus, or it might be a sign of cabal involvement, and one would have to look at the history of such combinations to discriminate.

Too hard, I'm sure ArbComm thought. Ban policy talks about a consensus of "uninvolved editors," but I've never seen a ban closure that even considered involvement. Look at your unban discussion. Numbers of editors on the sides were considered, there was no consideration of factional involvement or possible involved bias, no deprecation of votes because of prior involvement with you or Wikipedia Review. The policy is dead letter. It only says what it says because it sounds like a good idea....

It would actually be possible to arrange such discussions and voting, but ... it's not the wiki way, eh?

This post has been edited by Abd:

[thekohser]

As a result of her involvement, she been subjected to death threats, threats of rape, bullying and other harassment from men who represent a wide spectrum of the leadership inside WMF projects.

I think what we have here is simply horrid parsing of the English language by "LauraHale".

I think Laura meant to write: "As a result of her involvement, she (has) been subjected to death threats, threats of rape, bullying and other harassment from men. Men also happen to represent a wide spectrum of the leadership inside WMF projects."

[Abd]

As a result of her involvement, she been subjected to death threats, threats of rape, bullying and other harassment from men who represent a wide spectrum of the leadership inside WMF projects.

I think what we have here is simply horrid parsing of the English language by "LauraHale".

I think Laura meant to write: "As a result of her involvement, she (has) been subjected to death threats, threats of rape, bullying and other harassment from men. Men also happen to represent a wide spectrum of the leadership inside WMF projects."

Unlikely, though we could ask Laura, I suppose. That doesn't fit with "wide spectrum of the leadership."

"Men represent a wide spectrum of the leadership" would be an odd expression. "Wide spectrum" is an inclusive term, implying diversity. Why even say this, this way? "Men" *are* the *majority* of "leaders" in WMF project, they don't "represent" a "wide spectrum." No, one would use language like this if one was implying that a "wide spectrum of the leadership" was abusive men.

Meaning that there are minor leaders who are abusive, and major ones, ones only active on-wiki, perhaps anonymous, and ones who are using real identity, perhaps active in WMF structure.

Rather, Greg, I suspect you are creatively parsing. If Laura says that's what she meant, that would be fine! We all make mistakes.

However, that was put up by Laura on 22 December 2011‎, and edited a number of times by both Laura and Beria. These are serious charges, as stated.

Parsing it, and with what I see people often do, and without any lying, the charges might be exaggerated. For example, how many death threats has she received, from how many people?

(Exaggerated does not mean wrong. Even one incident of threat of death or rape is very serious.)

Sometimes a single cause is behind a plural report. That was done when Wilhelmina Will was harassed. A single possible copyvio, found in the Sandbox by her and, with consultation with an admin, moved to article space, became, through Blechnic, "posts copyvios." And, by the way, was taken that way by the mob at AN/I. If they even looked at a diff, they saw a copyvio and then, being human, might assume that everything else said was accurate. A single silly comment, expressing her personal outrage, becomes "makes uncivil comments." Etc.

There are charges, the first two in plural:
1. Death threats.
2. Threats of rape.
3. Bullying.
4. Other harassment.

I don't doubt that she's been subject to harassment. Comments about her beauty here could be considered harassment, though it's a bit of a stretch. It occurs to me to tell a story. I was recently at a course, and had offered to watch the door, and I was sitting with another person assisting. A young woman, quite cute, came up and started to invite us to register in a particular, different seminar. We both knew what was going on, she was practicing a certain aspect of the education. Anyway, I think my friend thought she might be using her cuteness. He's gay, which might be relevant. He said to her, smiling, "If I told you you have a beautiful body, would you hold it against me?"

She took it in stride, hardly missed a beat. However, that was sexual harassment. It was contrary to the policy of the organization. If she'd complained, he might easily have been barred from any further assisting. On the other hand, he didn't care. I think he was actually conveying a message to her, or maybe he was merely irritated by what he saw as over-persistence. People are complicated, they are not cardboard cut-outs, Good and Bad, with nothing in between.

I do know of one incident of WMF death threat, a sitting arbitrator was threatened with harm to him and his family, and they knew where he lived, and the threat was delivered face-to-face, apparently, in England. He resigned, he told me it just wasn't worth it. Beria is operating on a level where she might also start to come into the cross-hairs of the kinds of interests that would have been behind the threat to the arbitrator.

I'd have preferred for him to blow the whistle, but ... it was his family, after all, his decision, and I have to respect that.

Most Wikipedians are quite naive about all this. There are interests with billions of dollars at stake, who very much want Wikipedia to slant one way. I would be astonished if they haven't bought any administrators. Greg showed how easy it was, in fact. Trivial, if you have a serious interest and patience and money. It would not be difficult, either, to get onto ArbComm. Just analyze what gets people elected, then behave that way for a period.

And don't act on your interests unless you have adequate cover. Don't fight battles that you will lose, but if you err, then lose some battles, gracefully, pretending complete non-attachment, if you haven't developed adequate support.

What would it take to buy (or create) a dozen administrators, compared to the resources of these people? I'm not talking about socks, that's too risky. I'm talking about meat puppets, who would generally work for the benefit of the project, for that's the cover, and who would just occasionally have an odd opinion, shown in a small fraction of their edits, never insisting or staying put in a position. Individually.

It would be legal, folks. Highly corrupt, highly unethical, but not illegal. I'm claiming it would be unethical, but the individuals involved might see it differently, perhaps they would think that the cause was good enough to justify secrecy and deception. Depends.

An adhocracy like Wikipedia, then, is easily subject to corruption, if skillfully done. It could explains a lot about certain incidents, eh? Naive editors imagine that true bad guys will have handlebar moustaches and behave with incivility, etc. Don't they also wear black hats?

Nope. The opposite. They will be models of reasonableness. Unless you look seriously and carefully at long-term behavior, which would show perplexing anomalies, inconsistencies, perhaps. Difficult to detect. The protection against this would have to depend, not on identifying COI editors, but on structure that makes it irrelevant, by distributing power more broadly. Alternatively, there is the strong-leader model. If the leader is not corruptible, that can be secure. Until he or she dies or moves on, that is.

These people will not want to change the structure unless it increases their personal power, that would be one characteristic. Difficult to tease out from normal human behavior.

I'd like to encourage Beria to share her experiences, with other women, as apparently she's intending to do at the camp. Women can do together what they might not be able to do alone. That's true for men, too.

Selina, you planning on going? You'd be popping your anonymity, at least before some. Might be worth it. I'd think it would be fun, one of my own prime criteria for decision-making.

[thekohser]

However, that was put up by Laura on 22 December 2011‎, and edited a number of times by both Laura and Beria. These are serious charges, as stated.

I wonder why two people who have perfect mastery of the English language would be content with the incorrect verb usage, "she been"?

[Abd]

However, that was put up by Laura on 22 December 2011‎, and edited a number of times by both Laura and Beria. These are serious charges, as stated.

I wonder why two people who have perfect mastery of the English language would be content with the incorrect verb usage, "she been"?

Mystery, indeed. Typo? Beria might have fairly good English and not notice the error. Laura Hale definitely would notice, ordinarily. I have excellent English, have been a proofreader professionally, but when I'm not deliberately proofreading, I can also miss stuff. It probably is getting worse as I get older.