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