I think it just shows another aspect of Wikimedia that I think needs a better examination - banning and blocks and activities of those members on other projects. Extended blockings (1 year) and bannings mean that a user can't participate on that one project - but they are welcome to participate in other projects. I know many folks say "Oh, assume good faith - perhaps they'll come back after their block a better, happier, healthier contributor!" or "They might be messed up online but they're not offline," (sorry Chris!) but this has not quite been what I have seen. I've seen members banned or blocked on en.WP go to have unhealthy and unstable relationships with the community on other projects, continue to express rage and even at times sociopathic behavior to WMF and editors outside of projects, and so forth.
I've had an en.WP user stalk and verbally attack me off of Wikipedia (including sexual harassment on social networking sites) to the point where I am seriously afraid that if I see this user show up at WIkimania next year or a regional event (he's regional to where I live) I won't know if I'll be able to stay. This user currently contributes to other projects that I am active on and makes a point to comment only on statements I say (in certain arenas), leave comments on my talk page, and continue to try to "get my attention" in other manners, including on IRC - where the user talks to people I consider friends about me to them in order to convince them that I'm not an adequate contributor. As someone who survived an extremely abusive relationship, the last thing I want to do is worry about my personal safety and the safety of others when attending events, editing or contributing, or just "hanging out" online. I didn't know how to deal with it when it happened, and I still don't. It's an unsettling experience.
And while the survey I am preparing to wrap up confirms what the editor survey said - most (female) users don't have problems with users escalate, just under half have. Assuming good faith isn't always possible when anger management, mental instability and off wiki or offline experiences just solidify that some of these people do have problems. And while many users often sit in the background and let the aggressive users like I've outlined above keep on keepin' on - they continue to suffer silently, and those who speak out actively have to suffer with even stronger and more prominent attacks.
Sorry to get so emotional about it, it's just...really frustrating for me..
-Sarah Stierch
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I am saying that you are questioning the decision of an independent body to select a person for membership in the same way that he questioned the WMF for selecting a person he did not consider appropriate. In short, he sought a non-project sanction for on-project activities/concerns. I do not see a difference between that behaviour, and members of this list seeking a non-project sanction (i.e., removing someone from a chapter Board of Directors) for on-project activities/concerns, particularly when the on-project concern was....well, doing exactly what seems to be proposed here.I agree that we need to be sensitive in general about how we discuss these type of issues on a public mailing list. And in this case since one party to the case is an active participate to this mailing list, we need to take extra caution that we are not only hearing one side of the story.
That said, I don't think that it is actually a parallel comparison. We don't want users escalating disputes by calling employers because it can have loads of negative repercussions for Wikipedia as well as the person who is reported. But I see no reason that users shouldn't take into consideration whether they support having someone who has been banned on one WMF project in a position of trust in a WMF related organization or another wiki. ArbCom does the same type of thing when it vets users for positions of trust such as checkuser. People take into account an users past history when they vote for steward or WMF Board members. So, I don't have a problem with someone raising a concern about it in this situation.
Sydney Poore User:FloNight
Wikimedia chapters are not beholden to one specific project. There are hundreds of people banned or blocked on one WMF project who are active, respected members of other projects; in fact, even on English Wikipedia, appropriate and valued work in another WMF project or area is usually considered a mitigating factor when a user requests review of a sanction.
(For the record, I am a member of the Arbitration Committee that voted to ban the user in question, and did support a ban.)
Risker/Anne
On 7 October 2011 11:22, Sandra sandratordonez@gmail.com wrote:
I dont understand what ur trying to express. Can u possibly clarify.
Are you saying that this person should be allowed to represent the community in an official capacity even though he has been recently banned for inappropriate behavior and breaking community guidelines?
I just want to make sure that im understanding your point of view correctly.
On Oct 7, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I would recommend considerable caution in discussing this issue on this mailing list. One of the key "harassment" issues was that the now-banned user attempted to contact the WMF about another user whom he believed to beemployed by the WMF under some form of grant or contract. It raises an interesting question that some here would think it appropriate to try to affect that person's position in a Wikimedia chapter because of the English Wikipedia ban; it is parallel to the situation for which the user was banned in the first place.
At least one other party under conditional sanctions in the same case is an active and respected member of this mailing list, and I can respect that it would be difficult for that individual to have this matter dissected here. Please proceed with caution.
Risker/Anne
On 7 October 2011 09:55, Sandra ordonez < sandratordonez@gmail.com sandratordonez@gmail.com> wrote:
Currently banned and I think it wasn't that long ago.
lets wait till aude responds to see if there is a way this list can help.
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Michael J. Lowrey <orangemike@gmail.com orangemike@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 6:49 AM, Sandra ordonez <sandratordonez@gmail.com sandratordonez@gmail.com> wrote:
Essentially, that someone has gotten a leadership position in the
D.C.
chapter who has been banned from editing Wikipedia for year for
things like
harassing people, disruptive behavior, and editing problems like
copyright
violations.
Banned in the past, and done their time; or currently banned? I've worked with ex-cons in the past.
-- Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
"When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes." -- Desiderius Erasmus
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.orgGendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- *Sandra Ordonez* *Web Astronaut* (503)866-2697 @Collaboracion
"Helping you rock out in the virtual, collaborative world."
- http://www.collaborativenation.comwww.collaborativenation.com*
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.orgGendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Sarah, I have a pretty good idea who you're talking about below. If I am correct, that user has now been banned from the #wikipedia-en IRC channel for behavioural reasons. Speak to the chanops of other channels to have this addressed as well; freenode is well aware of the concerns.
Risker/Anne
On 7 October 2011 12:49, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
I think it just shows another aspect of Wikimedia that I think needs a better examination - banning and blocks and activities of those members on other projects. Extended blockings (1 year) and bannings mean that a user can't participate on that one project - but they are welcome to participate in other projects. I know many folks say "Oh, assume good faith - perhaps they'll come back after their block a better, happier, healthier contributor!" or "They might be messed up online but they're not offline," (sorry Chris!) but this has not quite been what I have seen. I've seen members banned or blocked on en.WP go to have unhealthy and unstable relationships with the community on other projects, continue to express rage and even at times sociopathic behavior to WMF and editors outside of projects, and so forth.
I've had an en.WP user stalk and verbally attack me off of Wikipedia (including sexual harassment on social networking sites) to the point where I am seriously afraid that if I see this user show up at WIkimania next year or a regional event (he's regional to where I live) I won't know if I'll be able to stay. This user currently contributes to other projects that I am active on and makes a point to comment only on statements I say (in certain arenas), leave comments on my talk page, and continue to try to "get my attention" in other manners, including on IRC - where the user talks to people I consider friends about me to them in order to convince them that I'm not an adequate contributor. As someone who survived an extremely abusive relationship, the last thing I want to do is worry about my personal safety and the safety of others when attending events, editing or contributing, or just "hanging out" online. I didn't know how to deal with it when it happened, and I still don't. It's an unsettling experience.
And while the survey I am preparing to wrap up confirms what the editor survey said - most (female) users don't have problems with users escalate, just under half have. Assuming good faith isn't always possible when anger management, mental instability and off wiki or offline experiences just solidify that some of these people do have problems. And while many users often sit in the background and let the aggressive users like I've outlined above keep on keepin' on - they continue to suffer silently, and those who speak out actively have to suffer with even stronger and more prominent attacks.
Sorry to get so emotional about it, it's just...really frustrating for me..
-Sarah Stierch
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Sydney Poore sydney.poore@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I am saying that you are questioning the decision of an independent body to select a person for membership in the same way that he questioned the WMF for selecting a person he did not consider appropriate. In short, he sought a non-project sanction for on-project activities/concerns. I do not see a difference between that behaviour, and members of this list seeking a non-project sanction (i.e., removing someone from a chapter Board of Directors) for on-project activities/concerns, particularly when the on-project concern was....well, doing exactly what seems to be proposed here.I agree that we need to be sensitive in general about how we discuss these type of issues on a public mailing list. And in this case since one party to the case is an active participate to this mailing list, we need to take extra caution that we are not only hearing one side of the story.
That said, I don't think that it is actually a parallel comparison. We don't want users escalating disputes by calling employers because it can have loads of negative repercussions for Wikipedia as well as the person who is reported. But I see no reason that users shouldn't take into consideration whether they support having someone who has been banned on one WMF project in a position of trust in a WMF related organization or another wiki. ArbCom does the same type of thing when it vets users for positions of trust such as checkuser. People take into account an users past history when they vote for steward or WMF Board members. So, I don't have a problem with someone raising a concern about it in this situation.
Sydney Poore User:FloNight
Wikimedia chapters are not beholden to one specific project. There are hundreds of people banned or blocked on one WMF project who are active, respected members of other projects; in fact, even on English Wikipedia, appropriate and valued work in another WMF project or area is usually considered a mitigating factor when a user requests review of a sanction.
(For the record, I am a member of the Arbitration Committee that voted to ban the user in question, and did support a ban.)
Risker/Anne
On 7 October 2011 11:22, Sandra sandratordonez@gmail.com wrote:
I dont understand what ur trying to express. Can u possibly clarify.
Are you saying that this person should be allowed to represent the community in an official capacity even though he has been recently banned for inappropriate behavior and breaking community guidelines?
I just want to make sure that im understanding your point of view correctly.
On Oct 7, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I would recommend considerable caution in discussing this issue on this mailing list. One of the key "harassment" issues was that the now-banned user attempted to contact the WMF about another user whom he believed to beemployed by the WMF under some form of grant or contract. It raises an interesting question that some here would think it appropriate to try to affect that person's position in a Wikimedia chapter because of the English Wikipedia ban; it is parallel to the situation for which the user was banned in the first place.
At least one other party under conditional sanctions in the same case is an active and respected member of this mailing list, and I can respect that it would be difficult for that individual to have this matter dissected here. Please proceed with caution.
Risker/Anne
On 7 October 2011 09:55, Sandra ordonez < sandratordonez@gmail.com sandratordonez@gmail.com> wrote:
Currently banned and I think it wasn't that long ago.
lets wait till aude responds to see if there is a way this list can help.
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Michael J. Lowrey <orangemike@gmail.com orangemike@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 6:49 AM, Sandra ordonez <sandratordonez@gmail.com sandratordonez@gmail.com> wrote: > Essentially, that someone has gotten a leadership position in the D.C. > chapter who has been banned from editing Wikipedia for year for things like > harassing people, disruptive behavior, and editing problems like copyright > violations.
Banned in the past, and done their time; or currently banned? I've worked with ex-cons in the past.
-- Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
"When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes." -- Desiderius Erasmus
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.orgGendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- *Sandra Ordonez* *Web Astronaut* (503)866-2697 @Collaboracion
"Helping you rock out in the virtual, collaborative world."
- http://www.collaborativenation.comwww.collaborativenation.com*
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.orgGendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia http://www.glamwiki.org Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Arthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch and Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I think it just shows another aspect of Wikimedia that I think needs a better examination - banning and blocks and activities of those members on other projects. Extended blockings (1 year) and bannings mean that a user can't participate on that one project - but they are welcome to participate in other projects. I know many folks say "Oh, assume good faith - perhaps they'll come back after their block a better, happier, healthier contributor!" or "They might be messed up online but they're not offline," (sorry Chris!) but this has not quite been what I have seen. I've seen members banned or blocked on en.WP go to have unhealthy and unstable relationships with the community on other projects, continue to express rage and even at times sociopathic behavior to WMF and editors outside of projects, and so forth.
I've had an en.WP user stalk and verbally attack me off of Wikipedia (including sexual harassment on social networking sites) to the point where I am seriously afraid that if I see this user show up at WIkimania next year or a regional event (he's regional to where I live) I won't know if I'll be able to stay. This user currently contributes to other projects that I am active on and makes a point to comment only on statements I say (in certain arenas), leave comments on my talk page, and continue to try to "get my attention" in other manners, including on IRC - where the user talks to people I consider friends about me to them in order to convince them that I'm not an adequate contributor. As someone who survived an extremely abusive relationship, the last thing I want to do is worry about my personal safety and the safety of others when attending events, editing or contributing, or just "hanging out" online. I didn't know how to deal with it when it happened, and I still don't. It's an unsettling experience.
And while the survey I am preparing to wrap up confirms what the editor survey said - most (female) users don't have problems with users escalate, just under half have. Assuming good faith isn't always possible when anger management, mental instability and off wiki or offline experiences just solidify that some of these people do have problems. And while many users often sit in the background and let the aggressive users like I've outlined above keep on keepin' on - they continue to suffer silently, and those who speak out actively have to suffer with even stronger and more prominent attacks.
Sorry to get so emotional about it, it's just...really frustrating for me..
-Sarah Stierch
And while many users often sit in the background and let the aggressive users like I've outlined above keep on keepin' on
Right there is the coalface. The problem is the facilitators and the enablers, not the nuts.
Fred