But star chamber rhetoric is not hyperbolic?
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:50 PM Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I think that's more than a bit hyperbolic.
If it's a case of off-wiki harassment, of course that should get reviewed privately. (Though by ArbCom, NOT WMF.) But it is not a violation of anyone's privacy for the person who is accused to be told what they supposedly did. If they did in fact do it--they already know exactly what they did. If I send you some kind of harassing email, I already know I sent it to you, so telling me "You sent Robert an email saying he's a _________ and a _________ and a _____________ while we're at it" is not news to me. I already know I did.
On the other hand, if I didn't send that, knowing what was alleged allows me to say "I absolutely did not do that." If I did send something, but it were misinterpreted or misconstrued, I can offer an explanation of what was actually meant. It is not always necessary for everyone to see everything, but it is crucial for the accused party to. They have the right to defend themself.
However, if the alleged bad conduct all took place on-wiki, it is already all public, so there is no privacy to protect (unless it involves suppressed material). In that case, yes, any procedures should be public and transparent, and that should be the default.
Todd
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:35 AM Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
Of course it doesn't belong to the WMF. It belongs to everyone, and that includes the victims of harassment who have no one to turn to except the WMF. I am not aware of the circumstances of this office action, but I am of a couple of the others, and there was nothing involving the star chamber hyperbole you describe. Transparency is key to the project in terms of policy making and article creation, but the project cannot ethically demand transparency as you define it in private matters involving things like (for example) off wiki harassment and sexual abuse. This process involves multiple layers of investigation and approval. The only thing it lacks is the ability for you to pore over salacious details of someone's victimization.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:07 PM Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Robert,
These two aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, Wikipedia belongs to everyone. Specifically, a place in the community of Wikipedia editors is open to anyone who would like to join. Those of us here have already done that. But it is natural in any community or organization to give more weight to respected, long-term members than those who just joined up yesterday. They've learned the ropes and demonstrated a commitment to it.
However, the project categorically does not belong to the WMF. The WMF exists to serve and assist Wikimedia projects, not lord it over and rule them. And since "Wikipedia belongs to everyone", we certainly shouldn't be throwing people out in secret Star Chamber-style proceedings, where apparently even the accused is not permitted to know all the evidence against them. That is utterly antithetical to the open, community-run ethos of the project.
Todd
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:09 AM Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and find that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
This is part of the problem right here. This isn't our project and we shouldn't be trying to exclude people from our community. Wikipedia belongs to everyone.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:53 AM Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Thrapostibongles, I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and find that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015. While it is possible that you have a long and distinguished edit history under a previous name or as an IP editor, it leads me to wonder just how familiar you are with the customs and culture of enwiki, which I freely agree are non-optimal, but have evolved to sort of work in an environment which was predicted to be impossible. Yet here we are, dysfunctionally surviving when we are theoretically long extinct. Our dysfunctional mores function as they do and evolve through surviving and occasional modification by consensus of those who care enough to take part in the process, within the environment in which we work. We are somewhere between an anarchy and a community, and we do not generally appreciate pontification from outsiders, which is what you appear to be, and to a large extent, what we consider WMF to be. It is a problem. If WMF chooses to rule by fiat it will have interesting consequences. So far they have mostly avoided that, and when they have it has not ended well. If you consider yourself an expert in something relevant I invite you to show evidence of your credentials. Otherwise we will take your comments as we do those of any other unproven internet commentator. This is just my personal take, I do not presume to represent anyone else. You are as free to ignore me as I am to ignore you, but engaging in this discussion has its consequences, and one of them is to be questioned. Cheers, Peter Southwood
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles Sent: 12 June 2019 09:06 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
Yaroslav,
I think it's reasonably clear that the English Wikipedia community and its community structures, such as its Arbitration Committee, and processes are not capable of maintaining a productive, harassment-free environment for the volunteer workers. For example, they have consistently failed, after several attempts, to handle the case of a volunteer who used the word "Cxxx" about a fellow worker, and the community has agreed that telling others to "Fxxx off" is acceptable. These are symptoms of a dysfunctional community, which tolerates behaviour that is unacceptable in any collegial working environment, and it is right that the Foundation should step in.
Thrapostibongles
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:56 PM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
The point made by pretty much everyone is not that Fram should or should not be banned, but that the process in this case should have followed the standard dispute resolution avenues, More specifically, the case should have been communicated to the Arbitration Committee, whose members did sign the non-disclosure agreement.
This is different from the past cases when users were banned by WMF, since in this case it was made clear the case is based on on-wiki open activity of Fram (and, specifically, only on the English Wikipedia). The on-wiki activity is subject to the community policies.
To be clear, I am not a friend of Fram, and in the past supported desysop on a number of occasions.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:46 PM Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com wrote:
> People who oppose the ban: Are you aware of all aspects and things Fram has > done? Do you have the full picture? It's really saddening to see how fast > people jump to conclusion in page mentioned in the email. I personally, > don't know what happened so I neither can support or oppose the ban. As > simple as that. > > So what should be done IMO. If enwiki wants to know more, a community body > can ask for more information, if body satisfy two things: > - They had signed NDA not to disclose the case > - They are trusted by the community > > I think the only body can sorta work with this is stewards but not sure > (Does ArbCom NDA'ed?) > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < > paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Lack of transparency from the WMF, whatelse is new. > > I'm currently under a funding ban secretly decided (by who?) based on a > > false accusation, without providing any evidence. Until now I'm waiting > for > > an explanation from the WMF. So, this sort of attitude doesn't surprise > me > > at all. > > It is very unfortunate that the WMF apparently thrives in this kind of > > medieval obscurity, the opposite of the values of the Wikimedia Movement. > > Matter for Roles & Reponsibilities. > > > > Best, > > Paulo > > > > > > Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com escreveu no dia terça, > 11/06/2019 > > à(s) 05:45: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for this. > > > > > > I'm glad to see I'm not the only one dismayed by the unilateralism and > > > lack of transparency. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 2019, at 8:25 PM, Techman224 techman224@techman224.ca > > wrote: > > > > > > > Forwarding to WIkimedia-l since WikiEN-l is relatively dead. > > > > > > > > Since this message, an Arbcom member (SilkTork) stated that they > > weren't > > > consulted, nor did this action was the result of Arbcom forwarding a > > > concern to the office. [1] > > > > > > > > The only non-response excuse from the WMF [2] was that "local > > > communities consistently struggle to uphold not just their own > autonomous > > > rules but the Terms of Use, too.” even though there were no complaints > > > on-wiki nor to Arbcom privately. > > > > > > > > The on-wiki discussion is taking place at the Bureaucrats and the > > Arbcom > > > noticeboards. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#User:Fram... > > > < > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#User:Fram... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboa... > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Commit... > > > < > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Commit... > > > > > > > > [2] > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#Statement... > > > > > > > > Techman224 > > > > > > > >> Begin forwarded message: > > > >> > > > >> From: George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com > > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block > > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT > > > >> To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > >> > > > >> In case you're not following on-wiki - Office S&T blocked English > > > Wikipedia > > > >> user / administrator Fram for a year and desysopped, for unspecified > > > >> reasons in the Office purview. There was a brief statement here > from > > > >> Office regarding it which gave no details other than that normal > > policy > > > and > > > >> procedures for Office actions were followed, which under normal > > > >> circumstances preclude public comments. > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#User:Fram... > > > >> > > > >> Several people on Arbcom and board have commented they're making > > private > > > >> inquiries under normal reporting and communication channels, due to > > the > > > >> oddity and essentially uniqueness of the action. > > > >> > > > >> There was an initial surge of dismay which has mellowed IMHO into > "Ok, > > > >> responsible people following up". > > > >> > > > >> I understand the sensitivity of some of the topics under Office > > actions, > > > >> having done OTRS and other various had-to-stay-private stuff myself > at > > > >> times in the past. A high profile investigation target is most > > unusual > > > but > > > >> not unheard of. > > > >> > > > >> I did send email to Fram earlier today asking if they had any public > > > >> comment, no reply as yet. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> -george william herbert > > > >> george.herbert@gmail.com > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> WikiEN-l mailing list > > > >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > > > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe > > > > -- > Amir (he/him) > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe