Examples of the WMF interfering in en.wiki?

[ericbarbour]

re you aware of other instances, besides BLP, where the WMF acted as the "adults in the room" and forced a change of content or a change of PAG

As soon as you define what the hell "PAG" precisely means.

This is a bunch of vague bullshit, was originally created by Larry Sanger in 2001, was repeatedly and constantly "stepped on" by insiders and WMF employees, and is currently controlled by WMF employee Sherry Snyder. I do not consider that to be "official Wikipedia policy" anymore.

Ask the glorious Wikipedians who the hell this is. An unnoticed sockpuppet who has been messing with policies since 2008. I suspect it belongs to Sherry Snyder but no one will ever admit it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Butwhatdoiknow

WMF staff interefered in the "non-public data policy", originally created in 2006 by Kelly Martin and Kat Walsh. Which basically meant that Cary Bass, one of the WMF's first "employees", would request personal ID from anyone given access to their "big secrets" (admins, arbitrators, bureaucrats, WMF employees etc.) and then instantly destroy the ID. So only HE knew who some of those people actually were. The "community" did not like that.

They also didn't like the "Global Ban list", one of the stupidest things the WMF ever forced into effect. And that was clearly unpopular.

I haven't said anything about the insane and incompetent way they spend their user donations or give out grants. The possible list goes on and on and I'm not posting all that shit here.

Be more specific please.

[ericbarbour]

Does this count?

December 2016: the WMF Trustees decide, unanimously, to explicitly give absolute control over some Wikipedia policies to the Executive Director, Katherine Maher. It was done very quietly and without seeking the input of the Wikipedia editing community. [47][48][49][50]

"1. The resolution as adopted is without limitation and far broader than needed to achieve its intended effect. A limiting clause could and should have been inserted such as "Changes shall be made only for the purpose of clarification, or in cases of immediate necessity, and reported to the Board at the earliest opportunity: they shall cease to have effect at the next meeting of the Board unless approved by the Board at that meeting."

"2. The resolution does not provide transparency as to (a) what policies are imposed by the Executive Director or her sub-delegates or (b) who those authorised sub-delegates are. Point (a) would have been secured by a clause stating "The Executive Director shall maintain the details of policies adopted, altered, or revoked under this authority and publish them at [a suitable location] and no such policy shall be effective until so published." Point (b) would have been secured by a clause stating "The Executive Director shall maintain a list of persons authorised to adopt, alter or revoke policies and publish that list at [a suitable location]. No statement by a person not on that list shall be, or claim to be, policy of the Foundation, and nothing shall be a policy of the Foundation unless expressly stated to be so by a person on that list"."

"Presumably the Board considered these points explicitly in their own private deliberations -- I make that assumption since the Chair is confident that it is impossible for the community to have contributed anything to the deliberations that the Board in their own collective wisdom were not already cognisant of."

"The result is that the Board have handed unlimited authority to the executive to make policy, and the community have no way of knowing what that policy now is, or who is accountable for making it. We presume that was the Board's intention. Why do they believe this is a good idea in general, or compatible with their commitment to transparency in particular?"

[Philomath]

Does this count?

December 2016: the WMF Trustees decide, unanimously, to explicitly give absolute control over some Wikipedia policies to the Executive Director, Katherine Maher. It was done very quietly and without seeking the input of the Wikipedia editing community. [47][48][49][50]

"1. The resolution as adopted is without limitation and far broader than needed to achieve its intended effect. A limiting clause could and should have been inserted such as "Changes shall be made only for the purpose of clarification, or in cases of immediate necessity, and reported to the Board at the earliest opportunity: they shall cease to have effect at the next meeting of the Board unless approved by the Board at that meeting."

"2. The resolution does not provide transparency as to (a) what policies are imposed by the Executive Director or her sub-delegates or (b) who those authorised sub-delegates are. Point (a) would have been secured by a clause stating "The Executive Director shall maintain the details of policies adopted, altered, or revoked under this authority and publish them at [a suitable location] and no such policy shall be effective until so published." Point (b) would have been secured by a clause stating "The Executive Director shall maintain a list of persons authorised to adopt, alter or revoke policies and publish that list at [a suitable location]. No statement by a person not on that list shall be, or claim to be, policy of the Foundation, and nothing shall be a policy of the Foundation unless expressly stated to be so by a person on that list"."

"Presumably the Board considered these points explicitly in their own private deliberations -- I make that assumption since the Chair is confident that it is impossible for the community to have contributed anything to the deliberations that the Board in their own collective wisdom were not already cognisant of."

"The result is that the Board have handed unlimited authority to the executive to make policy, and the community have no way of knowing what that policy now is, or who is accountable for making it. We presume that was the Board's intention. Why do they believe this is a good idea in general, or compatible with their commitment to transparency in particular?"

Yes, that is exactly what I was looking for. I suspected as much. Thanks for digging that up for me.

[ericbarbour]

Yes, that is exactly what I was looking for. I suspected as much. Thanks for digging that up for me.

Now.....take that, with a few links, to Wikipediocracy and post it. Stand back and watch the harrumphing.