User talk:Clovermoss

Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group and the organizing team of Queering Wikipedia is delivering the Queering Wikipedia 2023 Conference for LGBT+ Wikimedians and allies, as a hybrid, bilingual and trans-local event. It is online on 12, 14 and 17 May, the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia #IDAHOBIT, with offline events at around 10 locations on 5 continents in the 5-day span as QW2023 Nodes.

The online program is delivered as a series of keynotes, panels, presentations, workshops, lightning talks and creative interventions, starting on Friday noon (UTC) with the first keynote of Dr Nishant Shah entitled: I spy, with my little AI — Wikiway as a means to disrupt the ‘dirty queer’ impulses of emergent AI platforms. Second keynote is at Sunday’s closure by Esra’a Al Shafei, Wikimedia Foundation’s Board of Trustees vice chair, entitled: Digital Public Spaces for Queer Communities.

If you have been an active Wikimedian or enthusiast, supporting LGBT+ activities or if you identify as part of the larger LGBT+ community and allies in Wikimedia, please join us in advancing this thematic work. We encourage you to join online or in person with fellow Wikimedians if it is easy and safe to do so. Our working languages are English and Spanish, with possible local language support at sites of Nodes.

Registration for the online event is free and is open until Wednesday May 10th at 18:00 UTC, for safety protocol. Late event registration approval and event access denial is at the discretion of organizers.

More information, and registration details, may be found on Meta at QW2023

Thanks, from Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC) Reply

Hello, thanks for signing up for the Wikimedia Café session. An email has been sent to you through Special:EmailUser. Please ensure that you received this email. The link to join the session will be emailed to you before the start time. ↠Pine (✉) 02:13, 6 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

For this Friday's community meeting, we will be joined by Bernadette Meehan, the new CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation. We will discuss our current work and the challenges we navigate. Lucy Moore from the GRDC will also attend to provide updates on resource distribution. Register yourself at this Event, and join us! --Vic Sfriso (WMLGBT) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

↠Pine (✉) 04:30, 29 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

↠Pine (✉) 15:48, 21 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi Clover. Thank you for your edits to Cite Unseen/sources/studentPublications. As I'm sure you've guessed, this specific plugin list will likely never be fully complete. Each US state has tens of universities each with their own magazine etc. I started off with the UK as a baseline, and plan to complete Europe over the course of this year. This list was added at my suggestion to @SuperGrey. To my knowledge, it's in the process of being added to the front-end. It would be very appreciated if you continue updating US and Canada in the future, as there are hundreds, if not over a thousand URLs yet to be added!

(Just a sidenote. URLs are preferred to be in alphabetical order per section.) 11WB (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi 11WB. I appreciate the feedback. I'm really only just getting started, but I try to pace myself, and I plan on continuing to flesh the source lists out. I'll remember to keep things in alphabetical order going forward. Any chance you could give more detail about what you mean by it's in the process of being added to the front-end? I'd like to not duplicate effort if that's what that implies. Clovermoss (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I meant as users see it when viewing sources using the plugin on the project. 11WB (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Indeed: #80. SuperGrey (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Completely missed this @SuperGrey. I just posted over on the main talk page with a Commons image I found... Feel free to ignore it! 11WB (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

↠Pine (✉) 01:33, 15 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

↠Pine (✉) 02:57, 13 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi, Clover. I know the Board has its issues, and while one has every right to complain about them, there is a point where the pestering becomes harassment (which is very much a blockable offence). Spamming every board member's talk page is also an unhealthy level of upset and also very counterproductive to reaching your goals. For all of BoT's flaws, please remember they're still human and deserve to be treated with the basic expectation of not being harassed. Thanks, //shb (t • c) 23:16, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I don't think it's spam to notify every single board member of something that every member of the board should be aware of. I don't think it's harrassment by any reasonable sense of the definition. Clovermoss (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Users have the right to write on the talk pages of BoT members. We have the right to expect answers to our questions. We have the right to be heard. Doing whatever we can to be heard is not harassment.

Seeing this as "pestering" and therefore blockable, would be a very poor judgment call. One I assume/hope the community wouldn't stand for. We need people like @Clovermoss in the movement. Egezort (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Meta:Civility#Respect is a basic rule for Meta. The constant messages are very much on the lines of POINT. //shb (t • c) 00:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I am not seeing evidence that Clovermoss is "spamming" anyone, with a spot check showing she has not left repeated messages on any of these pages. If someone wants to get a message to each member of the board, this seems a perfectly reasonable way to do it. The messages are critical, but far from "harassment", and I don't think your evaluation of Clovermoss's health is particularly appropriate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I haven't been incivil and I haven't done anything wrong. Clovermoss (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I also think that Clovermoss did nothing wrong. There was nothing incivil in what she wrote. Abzeronow (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I understand how anyone can become deeply invested in an issue they care about. But sending accusatory demands to every BoT member, such as I’m also going to remind you of what duties a board has during a crisis since it seems like you’re forgetting, Have you done that? Clearly not, and Do something before it’s too late, is not mere notification. It is pressure and, if continued, could absolutely become harassment. -- XXBlackburnXx (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

@XXBlackburnXx: I think warning someone about my behaviour in these circumstances is completely unwarranted and has a substantial chilling effect. Board members have certain responsibilities and being direct about my assessment on whether or not they are fulfilling them is not incivil or failing to be respectful. It certainly isn't harrassment. Clovermoss (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

If continued to an unreasonable level, it would be a completely picture. That's a whole different scenario.

It is pressure for sure, which is not blockable, and very justified in this case. Exerting pressure on powerful people to "do the right thing" (whatever we think that is) is a fundamental aspect of democracy. Illicit threats of blocking are really hostile and as @Clovermoss said, create a chilling effect. Egezort (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

They aren’t illicit threats; civility is a fundamental principle on Meta, and accusatory demands are far from that. It’s a basic expectation on Meta regardless on what your views on the board are. //shb (t • c) 02:25, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

What in her message was uncivil? As you acknowledge, "one has every right to complain about [the board]". GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

It has already been explained in XXB's message above. //shb (t • c) 03:26, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

So we may complain about the board but not pressure the board? That seems like a pretty fine line. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm struggling to understand the principle you're applying here.

How is sending one message to each Board member about a matter that falls within the Board's responsibilities considered "spamming every Board member's talk page"? There were no repeated messages to the same individual.

If the concern is the tone or wording of the messages, that's a separate discussion. But if the concern is simply that every Board member received one message, I don't see why the number of recipients alone would make it spam or harassment. A governing board consists of multiple individuals, each with the same responsibilities and the ability to respond independently.

Could you explain what rule or principle makes a single, relevant message to each Board member inappropriate? Irdiism (talk) 04:46, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

This is an absurd warning in particular to the proportionality of the matter. The Foundation has knowingly allowed professional union-busters to advise it on how intimidate, and harass employees over months. But complaining about that to the Board who may or may not have had the full picture warrants a harassment complaint? If shb expressed a concern that we should avoid a pile on-effect on individual Trustees who are also volunteers, I could generally agree to that. But this ain't it chief. Shushugah (talk) 07:56, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

SHB2000 and XXBlackburnXx: I have tried to open an RfC about this because I'm frankly concerned that I was warned about this. See Requests for comment/August 2026 dispute about civility. I'm not entirely sure I did the formatting right. RfCs for conduct disputes seem unusual to me, but it seems they have precedent on Meta. Clovermoss (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I created an internal Meta RfC (confusing name since everything on here is Meta) at Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#Disputing_a_user_warning Shushugah (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Local Meta RFCs are hosted at Meta:RFC but I believe RFH is a better venue. Should not be taken as a RFC since it's purely an administrative issue and should see a discussion among admins on RFH (or wp:ANI equivalent) before a broader community input anyways. What WMF did before is irrelevant in this situation. A09 |(pogovor) 09:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC) Reply