Lighthumormonger

The Wikipedia Editors Guild

The Wikipedia Editors Guild (WEG) is in agreement and alignment with all of the journalistic ideals of the Wikimedia Movement as stated within the Charter of the Wikimedia Movement.

This page will be augmented in the future however circumstances may dictate. Should anyone have any questions about the WEG and it's nature or purpose, please leave your questions here and we will try to address and answer these questions here in a timely fashion.

Thanks kindly,

Lighthumormonger (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Questions about the WMF and misc

@Lighthumormonger, what is the Wikipedia Editors Guild ? And why does your User Page indicate that your talk page should be used to contact this alleged "Guild"? Does this Guild consist of actual persons, or is it your personal project? Is there some document which describes how the alleged "WEG" is constituted? Does it have officers, a charter, recognition by the WMF or recognition by Wikipedians? Thank you for your cooperation. Elizium23 (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your questions Elizium23. The WEG is currently in its beginning stages of development (as you can see). In addition to myself, there are others but not yet many. So far, all of us are what I would call "long time editors of Wikipedia." If you might have an interest in possibly joining the WEG, you can contact me at light.humor(at)yahoo.com .

Here is a "foundational" statement for the WEG:

"The Wikipedia Editors Guild (WEG) consists of a few Wikipedia editors who have banded together as a Guild. We are a fully autonomous group of Wikipedia editors, operating fully independently from, and in full support of, the journalistic ideals of Wikipedia. We believe that Wikipedia is one of Mankind's best ideas!"

The WMF is aware of our existence, and we certainly do support the WMF's journalistic ideals. Questions about officers and charter can be asked at the Yahoo email.

Thanks for asking, Lighthumormonger (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

What "other" members are there? Would you kindly reveal their identities, if this is a public organization?

Why do you conduct communications with an off-wiki, personal freemail address? This is not transparency; this is in fact a violation of policies of various projects, such as the English Wikipedia. Please see policies such as en:WP:Consensus which explicitly prohibits consensus-building and discussions off-wiki which would affect on-wiki actions or behaviors.

No, I cannot see any indicators of your development. You have no WikiProject page, no charter, no foundational document, no list of members. Your operation is completely opaque. Nobody can see your development, except for you.

Why do you link to the "Global Council" section of the WMF Charter? Why do you link to the Charter at all? You're not chartered by the WMF. You don't have an actual organization. You are definitely not the Global Council or anything related to the Global Council. Your section link seems misleading at best, disingenuous, and perhaps falsely indicates that you have official recognition or that your group is a part of the WMF. You are not. Elizium23 (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@FULBERT, @Mehman (WMF), @Suyash.dwivedi: pinging you three as the leadership of the Affiliations Committee for WMF. You are hopefully aware of this organization. Elizium23 (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Elizium23 and others! Thank you for reaching out to us with your question. I want to remind you that AffCom is a Wikimedia community-run committee (so by Wikimedia volunteers) entrusted with advising the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees on the approval of new movement affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups). We begin the process of reviewing new affiliations when we receive a request to do so from prospective affiliations; we do not have a process where we begin the process of reviewing and recognizing affiliations without a request to do so. After your message, I checked our current requests for recognition of new affiliations, checking for the above-mentioned names. Unfortunately, we do not have a current request from the above-mentioned interest group.

I have also read the discussion above and can say that the above issue is not within the scope of the Affiliations Committee, and I recommend you contact the Wikimedia Foundation or the Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia. Best, --Mehman 20:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

---

• We are a fully autonomous group of Wikipedia editors, operating fully independently from, and in full support of, the journalistic ideals of Wikipedia.

• The WMF is aware of our existence, and we certainly do support the WMF's journalistic ideals. Questions about officers and charter can be asked at the Yahoo email.

I hope that you or someone realizes just how contradictory these statements are. Are you in support of them, or are you fully independent of them? Bizarre. If you are Wikipedia editors, then why do you operate solely from a Yahoo! email account? Why can't you maintain an on-wiki presence that is not under an individual editor's username? Elizium23 (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
---

Questions about officers and charter (and other such detailed questions) can be asked at the Yahoo email. Lighthumormonger (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Due to needs for transparency, all questions shall be asked here on Wikimedia projects, and nothing will be sent to personal, off-wiki, third-party contacts. Elizium23 (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Your choice. Lighthumormonger (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

It's yours and mine both; if you wish to continue soliciting people to violate policies, that's on you. You can choose to establish an on-wiki presence for your alleged "WEG" where communications are handled transparently, and members can be listed as on a WikiProject or other committee/guild. If you were to cease and desist use of third-party, personal communications channels, then those actions, those choices, if you will, may help you (and other "members" who are Wikipedians) to avoid escalation, complaints, and sanctions issued by administrators, such as blocking and banning. Elizium23 (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I was unaware that there was any policy that Wikipedia editors are not allowed to talk to each other outside of Wikipedia itself. I would love to find out where it says that.

Lighthumormonger (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't think you knew where that would be in the policy section.

Lighthumormonger (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Life is too short to waste on arguments and negativity. If you have anything positive to say, you can say it here or at the Yahoo address. Otherwise, I don't think I have anything more to say to you. You obviously respect Wikipedia deeply and I appreciate that in you. You don't appear to have any respect for me, and that is OK.

Lighthumormonger (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Canvassing do's and don'ts

According to the canvassing article, "It is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." The same article goes on to say that editors should not notify other editors about ongoing discussions, if the intention is to influence, "The outcome of a discussion in a particular way."

So what is OK and what is not OK here? I would humbly submit that only if one is attempting to influence an article so that it might in any way harm the content of an article so that the content was in clear violation of Wikipedia policies, then such communications are to be strongly discouraged. I would not necessarily assume that all off-wiki conversations must have such a negative intention. In fact, quite to the contrary.

So, conversations attempting to skirt the policies of Wikipedia are obviously not good, but those that try to enforce its policies, no problem. (By the way, please don't tell me that the Wikimedia staff and the admins don't ever talk about us editors behind our backs! Come now, we are ALL adults here.)

Lighthumormonger (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The WEG's current relationship with the WMF

The WEG fully supports the WMF's journalistic ideals, but like a few other "WP:Support Organizations and groups," the WEG wishes to maintain its own rights to manage its own affairs independently from the WMF (but fully within WP's current Policies and Guidelines.) As noted above, the WMF is aware of the existence of the WEG, which so far has not objected to the WEG's existence. Contact between the WMF and the WEG continues on an "as needed" basis, and will continue in the near future, as it has in the recent past.

Lighthumormonger (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

---

>> Note: Below I have placed a copy from material above, of Mehman's reply to Elizium23's pings to the Affcom committee.

Hello @Elizium23 and others! Thank you for reaching out to us with your question. I want to remind you that AffCom is a Wikimedia community-run committee (so by Wikimedia volunteers) entrusted with advising the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees on the approval of new movement affiliates (chapters, thematic organizations, and user groups). We begin the process of reviewing new affiliations when we receive a request to do so from prospective affiliations; we do not have a process where we begin the process of reviewing and recognizing affiliations without a request to do so. After your message, I checked our current requests for recognition of new affiliations, checking for the above-mentioned names. Unfortunately, we do not have a current request from the above-mentioned interest group.

I have also read the discussion above and can say that the above issue is not within the scope of the Affiliations Committee, and I recommend you contact the Wikimedia Foundation or the Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia. Best, --Mehman 20:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for your reply to Elizium23's request here Mehman. While the WEG considers itself as being in close association with the WMF, the WEG does not seek any recognition as being in a formal legal affiliation with the WMF. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post have Editors Guilds that are associated with them, but neither of those Guilds is a "formal legal affiliate" of either of those papers. In fact, there is nothing illegal, immoral, or wrong at all about Editors Guilds. We at the WEG happen to believe that the time has now finally come for a supportive Wikipedia Editors Guild. The only aim of the WEG is to support and enhance Wikipedia. I do sincerely hope that Elizium23 might be OK with the fact that we now exist.

Thank you kindly to Mehman and to all others who have taken the time to read this,

Lighthumormonger (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is anything wrong with your "guild" as long as you are not trying to represent Wikipedia to the world or start doing paid editing projects or making promises to others that are outside your control to carry out. I think that is one aspect of this that is worrying to others. I'm also surprised that you identify yourself as a "longtime editor" when you've only had an account on the English Wikipedia for a little over a year. I think that is a misrepresentation. Liz (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Block

Hi Lighthumormonger. I've placed an indefinite block on your account, primarily for your edits to Elizium23's talk page. This was after an explicit request from him that you not post on his talk page, which you acknowledged and agreed to not even three days ago. Your violation of that agreement is a violation of our civility policy.

I am secondarily interested in understanding what your intent is with this "guild". From a cursory look, it seems its primary effect so far has been to waste inordinate amounts of community time trying to understand what it is. You sent emails speaking on behalf of the guild that strongly mislead their recipients and demonstrate that you have a "dangerously distorted" understanding of how Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons function. Users on Wikimedia Commons rasied concerns with your emails and related uploads, which were clearly in violation of the project's licensing policy. And rather than addressing those community concerns directly, you redirected discussion to your "guild", writing that: At this point, my performing any further image uploads here on my part, would probably no longer be very compatible with my current role at the WEG. Your comments on this talk page are similarly troubling, providing no indication of what the group is, its membership, its intent, etc. If it is your personal project...just say that. Attempts to resolve confusion around this "guild" and your use of it to redirect concerns about your conduct are an unncessary use of community time.

You are an individual. Your actions on Wikimedia projects are attributed to you. Your method of engaging with concerns about your conduct has been unconstructive, and for you to be unblocked admins would need to see an understanding of why they were and reassurance that similar issues will not reoccur. Regards, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 17:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Vermont,

(@Vermont:)

I have nothing against Elizium, except that I just wish he would finally one day please leave me alone! He did request that a sysop block me from posting on his page, but he never posed the question directly to me, and I never told him directly that I would never post on his page, but I did tell the sysop that, "I would be happy to stop posting on his page if he would stop posting on my page." The sysop did not comply with his request. I directly asked Elizium to stop posting on my Talk page, but Elizium did not stop posting on my Talk page. You do whatever you want Vermont. Elizium openly admitted that he knew he had intentionally been causing me to feel harassed and stalked for four days. I only begged Elizium for forgiveness, I guess that was not acceptable to you Vermont. Do whatever you want Vermont. Lighthumormonger (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

PS: One more thing Vermont, should you happen to re-decide in my favor instead of in Elizium's favor, please don't block Elizium for my sake. Please just tell him for my sake, that he needs to just leave me alone. That's all I ask. Thanks, Lighthumormonger (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

PPS: Also Vermont, I would be happy to talk with you about other things, once this more important matter of my block has been resolved. Lighthumormonger (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

On 14 July, in response to Elizium's request to not comment on his talk page, you wrote: "I will be happy to stop posting on your Talk page. Thank you for letting me know here first that this is your wish." A sysop then closed the discussion, thinking it was resolved.

Your claim here that you "never told him directly that I would never post on his page" is demonstrably false. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 18:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)