But star chamber rhetoric is not hyperbolic?
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:50 PM Todd Allen <toddmallen(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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:Fra…
> >> > > > > > <
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#User:F…
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticebo…
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > [1]
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Commi…
> >> > > > > > <
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Commi…
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > [2]
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#Statemen…
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Techman224
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >> Begin forwarded message:
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> From: George Herbert
<george.herbert(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> >> > > > > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia
<wikien-l(a)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:Fra…
> >> > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > >> 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(a)gmail.com
> >> > > > > > >>
_______________________________________________
> >> > > > > > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> > > > > > >> WikiEN-l(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>