User talk:Katherine (WMF)/Archive 3

Communications between WMF and enwiki

Hi Katherine. There is concern relating to the current relationship between the Foundation and enwiki, particularly in regard to levels of communication. I sent an email about this to you two days ago (25 June) - see Please contact WMF. You may not have had a chance to read it yet, let alone compose a reply. However, there are concerns that emails are not getting through. Would it be possible for someone to send an acknowledgement that the email has been received and will be looked into? SilkTork (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Same for me. --Rschen7754 14:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

(+1) Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 05:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Re-posting here from enwp: Without any intention to involve myself in the main discussion, above all as a community member, and as a former admin here (enwiki) and elsewhere (not that the bits should matter), I would like to express my disappointment at the way the WMF has handled this matter so far, at various levels (and especially when it comes to clarity in the WMF-community relations). Although my contributions have been dwindling and scant of late, this climate of general malaise arising out of this situation is dispiriting (and given that this [sic] is enwiki, that's saying something). I do not wish to expound further on this issue here, but if you or anyone else should need my opinion, my email user function is open, FWIW. Lynch7 12:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Your recent tweet

You recently wrote: When you have to retweet your shitty pseudo-thinkpiece three times because no one cares. Please explain what you are referring to, and please ping me if you (or anyone else) responds. Starship.paint (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

+ Benjamin (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

++ Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 05:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Katherine, I've posted a similar question at your talk page on enwiki here. Thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

+ SilkTork (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Katherine. I'd also like a response to this. Preferably on the English Wikipedia. I'll also note, that the last three posters here represent a quarter of the Arbitration Committee. Worm^TT 06:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

+ yeah, me too. I am having trouble seeing how it can be taken nonspecifically. Hope I can be corrected. Casliber (talk) 07:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

i don't think any further explanation is called for. the open letter form of feedback, is not much of an improvement from "wikipedia has cancer". sea-lioning the ED says it all. Slowking4 (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Pasted here from your en: page: WMF have displayed appalling leadership and appalling communication throughout this farrago. And now you add the kind of childish hideousness that if done on en: could get you banned without appeal or information about your offence by your very own WMF secret police. Disgraceful. --Dweller (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

As Dweller noted on en.wikipedia,[1] Katherine is not active there. It's hard to argue she's active here either, having made two edits in the last 12 months, the last being 3 months ago. I'm rather concerned that 1/4th of the en.wikipedia ArbCom has the talk page of an inactive-on-meta CEO of Wikimedia as apparently their most effective means of communication to the CEO. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

They may have more effective means of communication but wanted to use talkpages since that's where Wikipedians discuss things? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Criticising someone directly onwiki is much classier than doing so without naming them on Twitter and then pretending you didn't. --Dweller (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• It is perhaps interesting to note that Katherine Maher has made more tweets in the last 24 hours than she has made edits to meta.wikimedia.org in the last year. Perhaps it's time to put down the twitter feed, get to work on solving this crisis and show some leadership. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• I strongly support @Hammersoft:'s comment above. DuncanHill (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Alas, I tried encouraging her to engage with the community 2+ years ago, but gave up as it seemed hopeless. It took me a while to realize that "community engagement" didn't really mean what I thought it did. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I've also commented on en.wiki, and made Katherine aware of it via Twitter. She has replied to say she will take a look at it after she gets out of meetings this afternoon (PST). GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

How many admins will we lose during that intervening time? Will there still be a Wikipedia when she is able to reply? --Rschen7754 18:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I suspect that there will still be a Wikipedia in a few hours. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the second part is a bit sarcastic, but I wonder what could be so important. --Rschen7754 18:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

[uncivil comment removed] Slowking4 (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

No need for that, Slowking4. Please review Meta:Urbanity and avoid making such comments. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

sarcasm for sarcasm; i'm glad to see you are taking onboard civility enforcement, now that you agree what to call the consensus. no wonder WMF people do not want to engage on talk pages. Slowking4 (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

It frankly looks like, Katherine, that you don't care about the volunteers WMF is supposed to help and serve. That tweet was pure callousness that is an insult and it reflects badly upon the Foundation. We are losing more and more admins and bureaucrats every day because it is apparent WMF just doesn't give a damn. Why should any person volunteer their time, efforts and intelligence to contribute to a project whose CEO shows contempt for them? Liz (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi all, I've gone ahead and replied on my talkpage on enWP. I am sorry for the delay, today was the last working day of the fiscal year and there were a number of things that I needed to make sure were resolved on deadline. Katherine (WMF) (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Katherine,

I am sorry to see you have decided to move this discussion to enwiki. There is a whole community of Wikipedians who have been kicked off enwiki, but who still care deeply about what happens. I recognize at least one other banned/blocked enwikipedian right here in this thread.

Note: I hesitate to post here since I have been warned against any kind of participation in enwiki affairs by one of the enwiki admins. I sincerely hope I will not be globally locked for simply posting here. I have given this project many years and hours of my time, and would hate this to happen. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Ad Hoc Community Health Body For Resolving Conflicts In India

Hi, In reference to the mail here, I request you to setup an Ad-Hoc body and resolve the conflicts happening in India. This may comprise people from Trust and Safety, Community Members external to the Indian eco-systems and preferably Board Member(s).The problems are

• Relationship between Affiliations Committee and Wikimedia India
• Relationship between CIS-A2K and Wikimedia India
• Relationship between WMF Staff and Wikimedia India
• Relationship between Wikimedia India and Community.

May add few more points wherever needed. --Abhinav619 (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Question regarding the Chief of Staff

I am writing to address a question that was raised by a member of the Wikimedia community regarding the hiring of Ryan Merkley as Chief of Staff at the Foundation.

From 2014 until September 2019, Ryan was CEO at Creative Commons. In 2014, he received a complaint from a staff member concerning an incident that had occurred in 2013, predating his leadership of the organization. The report alleged that the staff member had been subject to verbal harassment by their manager.

The question concerns Ryan’s handling of the complaint. Although we are seldom able to discuss personnel matters, Creative Commons’ own public audit of the complaint makes this a unique circumstance. And as it addresses harassment, an important issue within our own movement, I appreciate the chance to address this directly.

First, I want to be explicit that I don’t stand for harassment in our movement, or in Wikimedia workplaces. I’ve experienced workplace harassment myself, and I didn’t have the power and voice at the time to make it stop. Now that I have the power and positionality to draw the line in the sand, I do.

Fortunately, it isn’t a line I draw alone. The Wikimedia Foundation has robust anti-harassment policies for anyone participating in Wikimedia spaces and working with the Foundation as a staff or contractors. Any complaint of harassment involving a staff member or contractor will be thoroughly investigated by our human resources and legal teams, sometimes with the support of independent external legal counsel. The findings of those investigations are taken seriously, and our human resources team is fully empowered to take swift, appropriate action. Complaints of harassment by and between volunteers are evaluated by our trust and safety and legal teams and also acted on when appropriate

Second, I want to underline that the reported harassment at CC took place between two CC employees who reported to Ryan, and occurred prior to Ryan starting at CC. I am not aware of any claim that Ryan himself has engaged in harassing behavior.

The concerns raised characterized what happened at CC as a “systems failure.” Initially, I didn’t understand this characterization. At first glance, the systems all seemed to work — the initial complaint was investigated by CC’s HR and legal counsel and the staff member involved was sanctioned. The CC board later audited the investigation and concluded that the organization followed its policies correctly and took appropriate actions.

However, on reflection, I have come to agree that there was a failure, but that it wasn’t about any specific HR process or outcome. The systems failure was the existence of a culture in which harassment can occur.

In other words, it’s necessary, but not sufficient to respond to harassment. Rather, the culture and systems should preclude it from happening in the first place. Protecting people from harassment requires well-crafted systems. Systems that are not explicitly and actively anti-harassment and pro-safety are systems that will ultimately fall short, with the potential for real harm to real people.

Well before Ryan and I ever started talking about working together, I was familiar with the complaint at CC. I often reach out to other EDs in the open movement to learn from their experiences. Ryan and I had discussed the complaint, talking at length about the difference between recourse and redress -- that is, the actions you can take in response to a problem, versus the ability to “set right” the problem. It is possible to have policies that facilitate action, but don’t necessarily facilitate justice. Ryan has written about how CC handled the situation, what they learned, and the subsequent improvements CC made to their internal own systems, including their policies and anti-harassment training.

When hiring someone into a senior position at the Foundation, we call references, ask hard and direct questions, and do background research. As part of Ryan’s hiring process, the human resources and legal team further reviewed available documentation about the complaint at CC. This included the findings of the Creative Commons independent Audit Committee, which found that CC “acted appropriately and adhered to its policies” and that there was “no violation of the code of conduct,” We also spoke with former employees (independent of the formal reference check process), and current and former CC board members to ensure that we had a well-rounded assessment of the situation.

Those inquiries guided our conclusion that Ryan had not only handled the complaint appropriately, but that he also took significant and ongoing action to improve the workplace culture, practices, and policies of the organization. Our conclusion was that his personal commitment to addressing these systemic issues is serious and sustained. It is particularly because of this commitment that Ryan was the right choice for this role.

I would never knowingly hire someone with a history of harassment, or tolerate such behavior. You have my commitment that any report of harassment or otherwise problematic behavior will be taken seriously and thoroughly investigated. The Foundation will not hesitate to take appropriate action, including termination of employment.

Harassment has no place in Wikimedia. Not on our sites, not in our community, not on staff.

-- Katherine (WMF) (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this. --Yair rand (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello Katherine, please see your WMF email - need an appropriate contact in regards to an OTRS request. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 16:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: If this hasn't already been answered via email, then I'm the Foundation staff member assigned to support OTRS-admins and I'd be happy to point you in the right direction, if you're able to fwd the question/details to me. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Quiddity (WMF): please see ticket:2020010710005979 . Katherine did reply to me over the weekend, I'm waiting for another follow up but if you know the answer that would also be great! — xaosflux ^Talk 23:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Quiddity (WMF): correction it is ticket:2020010710005979. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia and the Blind

Hi Katherine! Hope your week is going good so far! Sorry to bother you with this but have you ever seen this Phabricator Ticket? The TLDR version of the ticket is the Captcha system Wikimedia uses on its projects doesn't work for the blind. This issue was raised over 14 years ago, I personally have brought this up a few times over the years to various WMF staff and get the same response "put it on a wish list". I then get dejected until I see all the great work the WMF does and then I get a reminder about this ticket and then disappointment sets in again. In the ticket history we've been told this just isn't a priority for the Foundation and they aren't willing to spend the money on it. Can I ask why this isn't a priority? I just don't understand why it isn't. What can I do to help get this addressed? Is there a way I can reach out to the board? Can you point me in the right direction of someone to talk to at the Foundation?

Tracked in Phabricator:
Task T6845

Ping @Guy Macon: who has also been working on bringing attention to this issue.--Cameron11598 (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: Hi, just a brief note to say thanks for the questions, and that a reply is coming, but likely not till next week. Cheers. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Some 2006 users remember. –84.46.52.123 06:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Quiddity (WMF): Hi just following up on this... --Cameron11598 (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

A number of related people were out sick this week. Sorry for the delay in reply. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: Hi. Briefly: I have good news! Work on this is being planned because the overall captcha system needs an overhaul. There are a number of significant problems with our Captcha systems and fixing any of them will be a major project. While accessibility is a core tenet of our movement, the lack of visual accessibility is just one of several highly limiting problems with our current captcha, which blocks humans better than it blocks bots. We cannot simply build better [accessibility] into a tool that doesn’t really work. We are in the process of assessing solutions to the problems, including 3rd party tools. Why 3rd party tools? As bots become more sophisticated, the technology required to find a task that any human can do, but any bot cannot, becomes more challenging. However it comes about, it is a requirement that the new solution includes some better features for people with various levels of visual impairments, including blindness. I assure you that this is actively being discussed. We’re still investigating our options and resourcing, but if you'd like to follow along, the other relevant task is phab:T241921 which already contains many more details and links, and which will be updated as we progress. I hope that information helps. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Please stop the advertisements

Invoking IAR to show the covid 19 pandemic advertisements was inappropriate, and caused this editor significant stress and led to my resignation. If you wish to do an advertisement again please link to the WHO rather than the page. At this point, we are not to be trusted as a reliable source or unbiased source of information on the pandemic. —Almaty (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Almaty: Thank you for sharing your concerns, and I'm sorry that the banner caused you stress. I will note that the banner message had already stopped running on 26 march at 20:45 UTC, and also that the article which was being linked to was the same article that the Enwiki editors had/have chosen to highlight in a new box on the w:en:Main Page for many days. I hope that information helps at least a bit, and hope you might return to collaborating on improvements to the projects again in the future. Sincerely, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

thank you for recognising that. However a small box on the main page is not equivalent to this message being shown repetitively to all users on any Wikipedia page. It was very inappropriate and such office actions should not occur without preexisting consensus. —Almaty (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I am cautiously editing English Wikipedia again, presuming that you have the knowledge of how important unbiased and consensus information is, and that you will not attempt to do such an office action again without community consensus. If you do so again, it will be the second “constitutional crisis” that Wikipedia English has had in as many years. —Almaty (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Some projects on Commons.....

In response to certain news about certain issues facing the Internet Archive, taking mass copies (on Wikimedia Commons) of some collections of compatibly licensed material, was suggested at Commons.

The first of these "collections" was the scanned volumes of the "Catalog of Copyright Entries" (1891-1978) that IA holds. A request to have these volumes on commons was how c:wiki/User_talk:Fæ/CCE_volumes apparently got started.

This later led to two other proposal at Commons:- c:Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Mass_requests_to_GLAM_to_mirror_PD_content_on_Commons_as_well_as_on_Internet_Archive c:Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Mass_"Evacuation"_copy_of_Public_domain_resources_from_Internet_Archive_to_Commons.

Mentioning these on your talk page, for information. Of course if the WMF can expedite the efforts to have 'backup' copies of "compatibly licensed" materials in other archives on Wikimedia Commons, perhaps by mentioning it to appropriate GLAM contacts so much the better. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to create the Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Recommendations

		Wikimedia 2030
		Thank you for your guidance to me and the core team and your ongoing commitment which has enabled us to build our movement’s future and create the Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Recommendations! --Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

goodby

Hi Katherine. I'm sorry to read that you'll leave Wikimedia Foundation. Thank you very much for your support of our projects. I wish you all the best in a new phase of your life. Best regards from Germany. --Holder (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)