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'_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office 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_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=901300528 [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
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'_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office 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_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=901300528 [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
Benjamin Ikuta wrote:
Thanks for this.
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one dismayed by the unilateralism and lack of transparency.
My thanks as well.
SarahSV on the English Wikipedia writes:
[...] something serious enough to warrant WMF action should not attract a one-year block on this site only. Anything not serious enough for a permanent global block by the WMF should be handled by the community or ArbCom. We therefore need a fuller statement, signed by an individual, as soon as possible. [...]
Well said and agreed.
MZMcBride
I am trying to have an open mind regarding this matter.
I'm supportive of local and global bans in a variety of circumstances, and if WMF thinks that sanctions are appropriate then I generally would expect WMF to present the relevant evidence to community authorities. English Wikipedia has ways of dealing with editors who are accused of misconduct, and we have experienced administrators who are capable of investigating situations and implementing bans including cases which involve nonpublic evidence.
In the absence of convincing evidence that demonstrates a major problem with a Wikimedia community's competence and willingness to adjudicate cases in a fair manner, I think that WMF interventions such as this are difficult to justify. Based on the limited information that I have, I disagree with WMF's process for this specific case, and in general I have ongoing concerns about WMF's process for WMF-initiated bans. WMF's lack of faith in the English Wikipedia community authorities' competence to adjudicate a case such as this is discouraging and, as far as I know, not justified. Even if a local community has well known problems with its self-governance, I think that the appropriate recourse would be to the global community. While the global community seems generally opposed to reviewing appeals of specific local cases, I think that evidence of systemic problems would likely get more attention and perhaps even a request from the global community for WMF intervention.
Based on the information that I know, I would reverse this WMF action and move the case to the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee for its consideration.
Through various means I'm aware of the partial or full circumstances of a number of office bans. In all cases, T&S investigated thoroughly and acted appropriately. I don't know why this case would be any different, or warrants pitchforks and torches from vocal members of the community, but these are the same community members who break them out at every opportunity in any case.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:06 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I am trying to have an open mind regarding this matter.
I'm supportive of local and global bans in a variety of circumstances, and if WMF thinks that sanctions are appropriate then I generally would expect WMF to present the relevant evidence to community authorities. English Wikipedia has ways of dealing with editors who are accused of misconduct, and we have experienced administrators who are capable of investigating situations and implementing bans including cases which involve nonpublic evidence.
In the absence of convincing evidence that demonstrates a major problem with a Wikimedia community's competence and willingness to adjudicate cases in a fair manner, I think that WMF interventions such as this are difficult to justify. Based on the limited information that I have, I disagree with WMF's process for this specific case, and in general I have ongoing concerns about WMF's process for WMF-initiated bans. WMF's lack of faith in the English Wikipedia community authorities' competence to adjudicate a case such as this is discouraging and, as far as I know, not justified. Even if a local community has well known problems with its self-governance, I think that the appropriate recourse would be to the global community. While the global community seems generally opposed to reviewing appeals of specific local cases, I think that evidence of systemic problems would likely get more attention and perhaps even a request from the global community for WMF intervention.
Based on the information that I know, I would reverse this WMF action and move the case to the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee for its consideration.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
As a housekeeping note, discussion has moved to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_Wikimedia_Foun...
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 09:37 Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
Through various means I'm aware of the partial or full circumstances of a number of office bans. In all cases, T&S investigated thoroughly and acted appropriately. I don't know why this case would be any different, or warrants pitchforks and torches from vocal members of the community, but these are the same community members who break them out at every opportunity in any case.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:06 AM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I am trying to have an open mind regarding this matter.
I'm supportive of local and global bans in a variety of circumstances,
and
if WMF thinks that sanctions are appropriate then I generally would
expect
WMF to present the relevant evidence to community authorities. English Wikipedia has ways of dealing with editors who are accused of misconduct, and we have experienced administrators who are capable of investigating situations and implementing bans including cases which involve nonpublic evidence.
In the absence of convincing evidence that demonstrates a major problem with a Wikimedia community's competence and willingness to adjudicate
cases
in a fair manner, I think that WMF interventions such as this are
difficult
to justify. Based on the limited information that I have, I disagree with WMF's process for this specific case, and in general I have ongoing concerns about WMF's process for WMF-initiated bans. WMF's lack of faith
in
the English Wikipedia community authorities' competence to adjudicate a case such as this is discouraging and, as far as I know, not justified. Even if a local community has well known problems with its
self-governance,
I think that the appropriate recourse would be to the global community. While the global community seems generally opposed to reviewing appeals
of
specific local cases, I think that evidence of systemic problems would likely get more attention and perhaps even a request from the global community for WMF intervention.
Based on the information that I know, I would reverse this WMF action and move the case to the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee for its consideration.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
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
It seems the English Wikipedia community is concern with whether WMF has jurisdiction to ban a user in a single project with active arbitration committee and if they may do so without any obligation to notify the project Arbitration committee or the community.
Well, I don't know the specifics of this particular ban but I believe WMF took the best decision in banning Fram considering the Foundation has acted approximately in dealing with similar issues in the past.
Regards,
Isaac
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019, 2:58 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
Well, in my own case I can confirm the decision was completely secret, issued by some unstated entity inside the WMF, and when I knew about it by a third party , the reason presented was blatantly false. I have requested an appeal, with no success till the moment. So, at this point, I am not so prone to consider WMF attitude on this case above suspicion. The WMF has a long history of using its culture of medieval obscurity as an excuse for not having to explain what is perceived as abuse.
Best, Paulo
A quarta, 12 de jun de 2019, 13:45, Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com escreveu:
It seems the English Wikipedia community is concern with whether WMF has jurisdiction to ban a user in a single project with active arbitration committee and if they may do so without any obligation to notify the project Arbitration committee or the community.
Well, I don't know the specifics of this particular ban but I believe WMF took the best decision in banning Fram considering the Foundation has acted approximately in dealing with similar issues in the past.
Regards,
Isaac
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019, 2:58 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
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
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
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
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
And why do you think the WMF would be the proper entity to step in on community issues related to the English Wikipedia?
Paulo
A quarta, 12 de jun de 2019, 13:46, Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> escreveu:
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
Because the English Wikipedia community is a garbage fire, and is hellbent on demonstrating that this week.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:16 AM Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
And why do you think the WMF would be the proper entity to step in on community issues related to the English Wikipedia?
Paulo
A quarta, 12 de jun de 2019, 13:46, Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> escreveu:
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
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
I agree that they look like a very aggressive community, but why should an entity so disconnected from everything there and immersed on a culture of obscurantism and secretiveness be the one appropriate to intervene? Especially skipping due process, with a very shady ban, as seems to have been the case there.
Paulo
A quarta, 12 de jun de 2019, 14:51, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com escreveu:
Because the English Wikipedia community is a garbage fire, and is hellbent on demonstrating that this week.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:16 AM Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
And why do you think the WMF would be the proper entity to step in on community issues related to the English Wikipedia?
Paulo
A quarta, 12 de jun de 2019, 13:46, Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> escreveu:
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
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
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
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
"We" are a subset of everyone. If Wikipedia belongs to everyone, it belongs to "us" as well. It seems that Fram who was one of us has just been excluded from our community by questionable process. I agree that this should not happen, but suggest that it is sometimes necessary to exclude people from our community when they are shown in fair process to be unable to cooperate in furthering the purposes of the project. Some of us try to make it reasonably easy and pleasant to join the community and help build the project, but it is not compulsory, either to make it pleasant, or to join. However credibility and respect beyond that which should be afforded to anyone by virtue of being human are earned. Cheers, P -----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Robert Fernandez Sent: 12 June 2019 16:08 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
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
Peter
You say that Wikipedia belongs to "us". You are mistaken. In so far as it belongs to anyone, it belongs to the Foundation.
Thrapostibongles
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 3:35 PM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
"We" are a subset of everyone. If Wikipedia belongs to everyone, it belongs to "us" as well. It seems that Fram who was one of us has just been excluded from our community by questionable process. I agree that this should not happen, but suggest that it is sometimes necessary to exclude people from our community when they are shown in fair process to be unable to cooperate in furthering the purposes of the project. Some of us try to make it reasonably easy and pleasant to join the community and help build the project, but it is not compulsory, either to make it pleasant, or to join. However credibility and respect beyond that which should be afforded to anyone by virtue of being human are earned. Cheers, P -----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Robert Fernandez Sent: 12 June 2019 16:08 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
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
Check your facts. P
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 5:48 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
Peter
You say that Wikipedia belongs to "us". You are mistaken. In so far as it belongs to anyone, it belongs to the Foundation.
Thrapostibongles
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 3:35 PM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
"We" are a subset of everyone. If Wikipedia belongs to everyone, it belongs to "us" as well. It seems that Fram who was one of us has just been excluded from our community by questionable process. I agree that this should not happen, but suggest that it is sometimes necessary to exclude people from our community when they are shown in fair process to be unable to cooperate in furthering the purposes of the project. Some of us try to make it reasonably easy and pleasant to join the community and help build the project, but it is not compulsory, either to make it pleasant, or to join. However credibility and respect beyond that which should be afforded to anyone by virtue of being human are earned. Cheers, P -----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Robert Fernandez Sent: 12 June 2019 16:08 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
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
_______________________________________________ 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
Peter
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 6:45 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Check your facts. P
Well, the Wikipedia trademark is owned by the Foundation, along with a variety of related marks, see https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_trademarks The servers on which the content of Wikipedia resides are rented and paid for by the Foundation, see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers The intellectual property in that content is very largely owned by the very disparate individuals who contributed, each of whom owns the IPR in their own individual contributons, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights These are the facts, -- do you wish to dispute them?
Thrapostibongles
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 5:48 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
Peter
You say that Wikipedia belongs to "us". You are mistaken. In so far as it belongs to anyone, it belongs to the Foundation.
Thrapostibongles
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 3:35 PM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
"We" are a subset of everyone. If Wikipedia belongs to everyone, it belongs to "us" as well. It seems that Fram who was one of us has just been excluded from our community by questionable process. I agree that
this
should not happen, but suggest that it is sometimes necessary to exclude people from our community when they are shown in fair process to be
unable
to cooperate in furthering the purposes of the project. Some of us try to make it reasonably easy and pleasant to join the community and help build the project, but it is not compulsory, either to make it pleasant, or to join. However credibility and respect beyond that which should be
afforded
to anyone by virtue of being human are earned. Cheers, P -----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Robert Fernandez Sent: 12 June 2019 16:08 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
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
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
The relevant facts to be checked were your assertion that I claimed that Wikipedia belongs to "us" Please do not misrepresent my words. I try to choose them with care. The selection of other "facts" you list below do not appear to make WMF any more an owner of Wikipedia than any of the actual contributors. However as I am not a lawyer I actually make no claims as to who, if anyone, has a legal claim to ownership of any of the Wikipedias. P
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 8:44 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
Peter
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 6:45 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Check your facts. P
Well, the Wikipedia trademark is owned by the Foundation, along with a variety of related marks, see https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_trademarks The servers on which the content of Wikipedia resides are rented and paid for by the Foundation, see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers The intellectual property in that content is very largely owned by the very disparate individuals who contributed, each of whom owns the IPR in their own individual contributons, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights These are the facts, -- do you wish to dispute them?
Thrapostibongles
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 5:48 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
Peter
You say that Wikipedia belongs to "us". You are mistaken. In so far as it belongs to anyone, it belongs to the Foundation.
Thrapostibongles
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 3:35 PM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
"We" are a subset of everyone. If Wikipedia belongs to everyone, it belongs to "us" as well. It seems that Fram who was one of us has just been excluded from our community by questionable process. I agree that
this
should not happen, but suggest that it is sometimes necessary to exclude people from our community when they are shown in fair process to be
unable
to cooperate in furthering the purposes of the project. Some of us try to make it reasonably easy and pleasant to join the community and help build the project, but it is not compulsory, either to make it pleasant, or to join. However credibility and respect beyond that which should be
afforded
to anyone by virtue of being human are earned. Cheers, P -----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Robert Fernandez Sent: 12 June 2019 16:08 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
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
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
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
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
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
If the WMF is protecting us, who is protecting us from WMF when due process is not followed, and false accusations and arbitrary punishments start being issued by them?
To who /what can we appeal?
Paulo
A quarta, 12 de jun de 2019, 17:35, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com escreveu:
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
The board, including its community representatives.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:38 PM Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
If the WMF is protecting us, who is protecting us from WMF when due process is not followed, and false accusations and arbitrary punishments start being issued by them?
To who /what can we appeal?
Paulo
A quarta, 12 de jun de 2019, 17:35, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com escreveu:
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
The board does not even has a proper contact or way to get to them. Only way seems to try to reach the few members of the board who disclosed their personal emails. And even if we manage to reach them, it is not an appeal in the least, as it continues not following any proper procedure, and is entirely dependent on the good will of the particular board member we manage to get to, if any at all.
This is not acceptable in the least for an organization like WMF. We may live with this state of affairs, but it is clearly not a trustworthy organization, at least at this point in time. I don't like all the aggressiveness I am seeing at wiki.en,but I can understand the revolt. I do hope things improve.
Paulo
A quarta, 12 de jun de 2019, 18:47, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com escreveu:
The board, including its community representatives.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:38 PM Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
If the WMF is protecting us, who is protecting us from WMF when due
process is not followed, and false accusations and arbitrary punishments start being issued by them?
To who /what can we appeal?
Paulo
A quarta, 12 de jun de 2019, 17:35, Robert Fernandez <
wikigamaliel@gmail.com> escreveu:
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
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
Hi all,
I'm torn on this issue.
I'm not a fan of Fram. Having been attacked by them in the past, I'm somewhat relieved to hear that they have been banned from enwp. I’m also dismayed by the poor response from the enwp community about this issue, particularly the inflammatory remarks and proposals that are intended to make the situation worse, rather than to work towards a solution.
Fundamentally, though, I think the WMF has missed something very important in the process that has taken place here: community representation. If an outside group makes a decision that impacts a community, without involving that community in the decision, then of course the community will be upset, even if the decision ultimately improves the community.
The WMF does a good job with involving the community in some of its processes - particularly in grantmaking, where elected community members are directly involved in the decision-making processes. In other cases, it uses ombudsmen quite effectively to investigate complaints, and to course-correct as necessary. In this case, though, the community has been deliberately excluded, and that’s not OK. And even worse, there is explicitly no appeals process, which is crazy.
The next step here really needs to involve the community. Enwp’s ArbCom would be the obvious community-elected group to involve here if at all possible,* but there are other groups available if needed (e.g., Bureaucrats, Stewards, Ombudsman commission). That doesn’t scale across all languages, or for all complaints, but it might work for this situation, providing that there is a commitment from the WMF to developing something better in the future (at least a community-elected ombudsman for this process!).
Thanks, Mike
* Regardless of Fram’s opinions about ArbCom, which seem to have led to this block, it’s still enwp’s community-elected group that handles serious disputes.
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
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
That one I'll give you. I suppose we could all turn it down a couple notches.
Todd
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:56 AM Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
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
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
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 18:51, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Do they, really?
If your local restaurant or supermarket decides to ban you, do you have that right then?
What about Facebook, Twitter, or Flickr?
If you're suggesting we become in any way like Facebook, Twitter, or Flickr...then, please, gods help us no.
Todd
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:34 PM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 18:51, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Do they, really?
If your local restaurant or supermarket decides to ban you, do you have that right then?
What about Facebook, Twitter, or Flickr?
-- Andy Mabbett @Pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
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
Peter
Thank you for raising that issue. Since user Peter Southwood has just one recorded edit on English Wikipedia, from 2012, (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Peter_Southwood) I'm puzzled by your speaking on behalf of the volunteer community. ("we do not generally appreciate pontification from outsiders")
Thrapostibongles
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 2:53 PM 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
Not that Peter Southwood. Are you a different Thrapostibongles? I couldn’t find one. Cheers, Peter Southwood.
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 4:22 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
Peter
Thank you for raising that issue. Since user Peter Southwood has just one recorded edit on English Wikipedia, from 2012, (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Peter_Southwood) I'm puzzled by your speaking on behalf of the volunteer community. ("we do not generally appreciate pontification from outsiders")
Thrapostibongles
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 2:53 PM 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
Is posting 'fuck random' "behaviour that is unacceptable in any collegial working environment"? I think not. In many work environments frank expressions of anger are a consequence of high levels of engagement in the work.
It may be that in order to encourage participation by those who are very sensitive to potentially hostile environments (We used to say thin-skinned.), the community needs to ban behavior that is often viewed as normal in other environments. But something is likely to be lost in the process: the deep commitment of some talented contributors. I, for one, will regret this and may prefer disengagement from this community to walking on eggshells.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 08:46 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> wrote:
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
Amir, yes, ArbCom members must sign the WMF confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_info...) , as must all functionaries (checkuser, oversight, etc.). I was on the English Wikipedia ArbCom for two years, and it was routine for us to deal with sensitive, private information.
Todd
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:46 AM 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
Wow, what a cluster. How does the WMF get themselves into these things? I have ten edits to en.wp since 2018 and even I could have 100% predicted the entire spectrum, and scale, of the reaction here. Why are WMF staffers so deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they feel the right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:49 PM Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Amir, yes, ArbCom members must sign the WMF confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_info... ) , as must all functionaries (checkuser, oversight, etc.). I was on the English Wikipedia ArbCom for two years, and it was routine for us to deal with sensitive, private information.
Todd
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:46 AM 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
Nathan writes:
*“Why are WMF staffers so*
*deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they feel the* *right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?”*
I’ve seen no evidence that this is the case here and would be utterly shocked if a t&s staff member had indeed banned for saying that.
If the situation is anything like what it was when I was at WMF, a ban such as this requires multiple levels of review by a couple of different teams (in my time, we would not have considered a ban such as this without sign off from the community and legal teams, for instance). I don’t know if the process is the same now but I would be surprised to hear that any single staff member would feel comfortable banning on his or her authority alone. Multiple levels of review exist in order to ensure that ban reasons are valid and appropriate.
Philippe
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 6:55 PM Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, what a cluster. How does the WMF get themselves into these things? I have ten edits to en.wp since 2018 and even I could have 100% predicted the entire spectrum, and scale, of the reaction here. Why are WMF staffers so deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they feel the right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:49 PM Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Amir, yes, ArbCom members must sign the WMF confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_info...
) , as must all functionaries (checkuser, oversight, etc.). I was on the English Wikipedia ArbCom for two years, and it was routine for us to deal with sensitive, private information.
Todd
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:46 AM 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
Phillipe,
Can you imagine a hypothetical situation where it would have been appropriate for this WMF office action to exist though - that is to say, not serious enough to ban a user from any other wiki than en. and serious enough to take direct action outside of the community?
I sure can't, yet here it happened. That means I also can't really disqualify any other points that I can't imagine as surely false. Can you, from your personal experience reconcile what happened here good enough, so that when you say you can't imagine, that dismisses the issue? Or do you maybe also have to suspend your judgement on what probably did or didn't happen as you are also in the realm of "can't imagine" already?
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 04:35 Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me wrote:
Nathan writes:
*“Why are WMF staffers so*
*deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they feel the* *right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?”*
I’ve seen no evidence that this is the case here and would be utterly shocked if a t&s staff member had indeed banned for saying that.
If the situation is anything like what it was when I was at WMF, a ban such as this requires multiple levels of review by a couple of different teams (in my time, we would not have considered a ban such as this without sign off from the community and legal teams, for instance). I don’t know if the process is the same now but I would be surprised to hear that any single staff member would feel comfortable banning on his or her authority alone. Multiple levels of review exist in order to ensure that ban reasons are valid and appropriate.
Philippe
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 6:55 PM Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, what a cluster. How does the WMF get themselves into these things? I have ten edits to en.wp since 2018 and even I could have 100% predicted
the
entire spectrum, and scale, of the reaction here. Why are WMF staffers so deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they feel
the
right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:49 PM Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Amir, yes, ArbCom members must sign the WMF confidentiality agreement
for
nonpublic information (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_info...
) , as must all functionaries (checkuser, oversight, etc.). I was on the English Wikipedia ArbCom for two years, and it was routine for us to
deal
with sensitive, private information.
Todd
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:46 AM 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
-- Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me _______________________________________________ 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
Martian,
While it’s not something I could conjure up today, my time at WMF exposed me to enough things that I could not have imagined prior to seeing them for myself that I am unwilling to discount that such a situation could exist.
Philippe
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:25 PM Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
Phillipe,
Can you imagine a hypothetical situation where it would have been appropriate for this WMF office action to exist though - that is to say, not serious enough to ban a user from any other wiki than en. and serious enough to take direct action outside of the community?
I sure can't, yet here it happened. That means I also can't really disqualify any other points that I can't imagine as surely false. Can you, from your personal experience reconcile what happened here good enough, so that when you say you can't imagine, that dismisses the issue? Or do you maybe also have to suspend your judgement on what probably did or didn't happen as you are also in the realm of "can't imagine" already?
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 04:35 Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me wrote:
Nathan writes:
*“Why are WMF staffers so*
*deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they feel the* *right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?”*
I’ve seen no evidence that this is the case here and would be utterly shocked if a t&s staff member had indeed banned for saying that.
If the situation is anything like what it was when I was at WMF, a ban
such
as this requires multiple levels of review by a couple of different teams (in my time, we would not have considered a ban such as this without sign off from the community and legal teams, for instance). I don’t know if
the
process is the same now but I would be surprised to hear that any single staff member would feel comfortable banning on his or her authority
alone.
Multiple levels of review exist in order to ensure that ban reasons are valid and appropriate.
Philippe
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 6:55 PM Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, what a cluster. How does the WMF get themselves into these
things? I
have ten edits to en.wp since 2018 and even I could have 100% predicted
the
entire spectrum, and scale, of the reaction here. Why are WMF staffers
so
deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they feel
the
right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:49 PM Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
Amir, yes, ArbCom members must sign the WMF confidentiality agreement
for
nonpublic information (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_info...
) , as must all functionaries (checkuser, oversight, etc.). I was on
the
English Wikipedia ArbCom for two years, and it was routine for us to
deal
with sensitive, private information.
Todd
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:46 AM 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
-- Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me _______________________________________________ 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
I have read several threads on this incident including Fram and T&S statement on the English Wikipedia but I find it difficult to draw any reasonable conclusion as WMF has not officially says that Fram was banned for the fuck ArbCom comment. I really do not think we'll be fair to WMF if we conclude based on Fram's statement alone.
I am also aware that the office action has been override by one of English Wikipedia's administrator. Even though Jimbo and others asked the user not to do so.
This whole event is scandalous and I am sad this is happening at the time.
Isaac
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 7:28 AM Philippe Beaudette <philippe@beaudette.me wrote:
Martian,
While it’s not something I could conjure up today, my time at WMF exposed me to enough things that I could not have imagined prior to seeing them for myself that I am unwilling to discount that such a situation could exist.
Philippe
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:25 PM Martijn Hoekstra < martijnhoekstra@gmail.com> wrote:
Phillipe,
Can you imagine a hypothetical situation where it would have been appropriate for this WMF office action to exist though - that is to say, not serious enough to ban a user from any other wiki than en. and serious enough to take direct action outside of the community?
I sure can't, yet here it happened. That means I also can't really disqualify any other points that I can't imagine as surely false. Can
you,
from your personal experience reconcile what happened here good enough,
so
that when you say you can't imagine, that dismisses the issue? Or do you maybe also have to suspend your judgement on what probably did or didn't happen as you are also in the realm of "can't imagine" already?
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 04:35 Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me wrote:
Nathan writes:
*“Why are WMF staffers so*
*deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they
feel
the* *right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?”*
I’ve seen no evidence that this is the case here and would be utterly shocked if a t&s staff member had indeed banned for saying that.
If the situation is anything like what it was when I was at WMF, a ban
such
as this requires multiple levels of review by a couple of different
teams
(in my time, we would not have considered a ban such as this without
sign
off from the community and legal teams, for instance). I don’t know if
the
process is the same now but I would be surprised to hear that any
single
staff member would feel comfortable banning on his or her authority
alone.
Multiple levels of review exist in order to ensure that ban reasons are valid and appropriate.
Philippe
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 6:55 PM Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, what a cluster. How does the WMF get themselves into these
things? I
have ten edits to en.wp since 2018 and even I could have 100%
predicted
the
entire spectrum, and scale, of the reaction here. Why are WMF
staffers
so
deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they
feel
the
right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:49 PM Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
Amir, yes, ArbCom members must sign the WMF confidentiality
agreement
for
nonpublic information (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_info...
) , as must all functionaries (checkuser, oversight, etc.). I was on
the
English Wikipedia ArbCom for two years, and it was routine for us
to
deal
with sensitive, private information.
Todd
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:46 AM 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
-- Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me _______________________________________________ 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
-- Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me _______________________________________________ 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
Philippe, the email from Trust & Safety said quite clearly that the ban was triggered by edit 895438118. I assume that T&S would not lie about their reasons for something like this.
בתאריך יום ג׳, 11 ביוני 2019 ב-22:35 מאת Philippe Beaudette < philippe@beaudette.me>:
Nathan writes:
*“Why are WMF staffers so*
*deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they feel the* *right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?”*
I’ve seen no evidence that this is the case here and would be utterly shocked if a t&s staff member had indeed banned for saying that.
If the situation is anything like what it was when I was at WMF, a ban such as this requires multiple levels of review by a couple of different teams (in my time, we would not have considered a ban such as this without sign off from the community and legal teams, for instance). I don’t know if the process is the same now but I would be surprised to hear that any single staff member would feel comfortable banning on his or her authority alone. Multiple levels of review exist in order to ensure that ban reasons are valid and appropriate.
Philippe
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 6:55 PM Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, what a cluster. How does the WMF get themselves into these things? I have ten edits to en.wp since 2018 and even I could have 100% predicted
the
entire spectrum, and scale, of the reaction here. Why are WMF staffers so deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they feel
the
right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:49 PM Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Amir, yes, ArbCom members must sign the WMF confidentiality agreement
for
nonpublic information (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_info...
) , as must all functionaries (checkuser, oversight, etc.). I was on the English Wikipedia ArbCom for two years, and it was routine for us to
deal
with sensitive, private information.
Todd
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:46 AM 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
-- Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me _______________________________________________ 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
I think we should probably reflect on the fact we've got to the point where arguments along the lines of
"This guy shouldn't be blocked, he was only telling people to fuck themselves"
are sort of normal.
This kind of behaviour wouldn't be acceptable in any other movement or community or workplace... Why here?
(Also I think it's clear this was not the only issue... so while I have some concerns about the "how" here, I'm struggling to disagree with the outcome)
Chris
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019, 07:44 Yair Rand, yyairrand@gmail.com wrote:
Philippe, the email from Trust & Safety said quite clearly that the ban was triggered by edit 895438118. I assume that T&S would not lie about their reasons for something like this.
בתאריך יום ג׳, 11 ביוני 2019 ב-22:35 מאת Philippe Beaudette < philippe@beaudette.me>:
Nathan writes:
*“Why are WMF staffers so*
*deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they feel the* *right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?”*
I’ve seen no evidence that this is the case here and would be utterly shocked if a t&s staff member had indeed banned for saying that.
If the situation is anything like what it was when I was at WMF, a ban
such
as this requires multiple levels of review by a couple of different teams (in my time, we would not have considered a ban such as this without sign off from the community and legal teams, for instance). I don’t know if
the
process is the same now but I would be surprised to hear that any single staff member would feel comfortable banning on his or her authority
alone.
Multiple levels of review exist in order to ensure that ban reasons are valid and appropriate.
Philippe
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 6:55 PM Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, what a cluster. How does the WMF get themselves into these
things? I
have ten edits to en.wp since 2018 and even I could have 100% predicted
the
entire spectrum, and scale, of the reaction here. Why are WMF staffers
so
deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they feel
the
right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:49 PM Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
Amir, yes, ArbCom members must sign the WMF confidentiality agreement
for
nonpublic information (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_info...
) , as must all functionaries (checkuser, oversight, etc.). I was on
the
English Wikipedia ArbCom for two years, and it was routine for us to
deal
with sensitive, private information.
Todd
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:46 AM 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
-- Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me _______________________________________________ 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
I would like to reserve the right to say "fuck arbcom", "fuck the WMF", or "fuck the admins", just like I deserve the right to say "fuck the police" or "fuck the judiciary system".
Regardless whether you think so or not, I dont think that's within WMFs remit to police and enforce.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 10:09 Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I think we should probably reflect on the fact we've got to the point where arguments along the lines of
"This guy shouldn't be blocked, he was only telling people to fuck themselves"
are sort of normal.
This kind of behaviour wouldn't be acceptable in any other movement or community or workplace... Why here?
(Also I think it's clear this was not the only issue... so while I have some concerns about the "how" here, I'm struggling to disagree with the outcome)
Chris
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019, 07:44 Yair Rand, yyairrand@gmail.com wrote:
Philippe, the email from Trust & Safety said quite clearly that the ban
was
triggered by edit 895438118. I assume that T&S would not lie about their reasons for something like this.
בתאריך יום ג׳, 11 ביוני 2019 ב-22:35 מאת Philippe Beaudette < philippe@beaudette.me>:
Nathan writes:
*“Why are WMF staffers so*
*deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they
feel
the* *right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?”*
I’ve seen no evidence that this is the case here and would be utterly shocked if a t&s staff member had indeed banned for saying that.
If the situation is anything like what it was when I was at WMF, a ban
such
as this requires multiple levels of review by a couple of different
teams
(in my time, we would not have considered a ban such as this without
sign
off from the community and legal teams, for instance). I don’t know if
the
process is the same now but I would be surprised to hear that any
single
staff member would feel comfortable banning on his or her authority
alone.
Multiple levels of review exist in order to ensure that ban reasons are valid and appropriate.
Philippe
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 6:55 PM Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, what a cluster. How does the WMF get themselves into these
things? I
have ten edits to en.wp since 2018 and even I could have 100%
predicted
the
entire spectrum, and scale, of the reaction here. Why are WMF
staffers
so
deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they
feel
the
right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:49 PM Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
Amir, yes, ArbCom members must sign the WMF confidentiality
agreement
for
nonpublic information (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_info...
) , as must all functionaries (checkuser, oversight, etc.). I was on
the
English Wikipedia ArbCom for two years, and it was routine for us
to
deal
with sensitive, private information.
Todd
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:46 AM 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
-- Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me _______________________________________________ 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
I don’t think that is the point at all. For justice to be accepted as justice, it must be comprehensible. The process was badly flawed, and instead of sending a message that T&S was looking after our trust and safety, it sent a message that anyone could be blocked without reference to our internal processes and without explanation of the reasons. The notification supplied after the fact was by an unidentified functionary and consisted of a boilerplate non-explanation. Not helping either. This could reasonably be described as a PR blunder. An exercise in opacity. A failure to communicate of noteworthy proportions. Another brick in the wall between the enwiki community and WMF. Maybe WMF just don’t care, and consider us all expendable. It certainly looks like it. That is kind of worrying to those of us actually trying to build an encyclopaedia. In spite of all his alleged defects, I see Fram as one of those. Anyone reasonably familiar with the dramaboards will recognise that not everyone taking exception to this action are friends of Fram. Several would probably have supported a desysopping and/or a block, but never without due and visible process and not without talk page access or no right to appeal. Your mileage may differ. I judge on what information is available to me. I do not just accept what someone tells me, I try to check. One gets that way after working on Wikipedia for a while. One gets to know what a reliable source is likely to look like, and keeps a lookout for disinformation and non-answers. Read what is available before passing judgement on those who have taken that step. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Chris Keating Sent: 12 June 2019 09:56 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
I think we should probably reflect on the fact we've got to the point where arguments along the lines of
"This guy shouldn't be blocked, he was only telling people to fuck themselves"
are sort of normal.
This kind of behaviour wouldn't be acceptable in any other movement or community or workplace... Why here?
(Also I think it's clear this was not the only issue... so while I have some concerns about the "how" here, I'm struggling to disagree with the outcome)
Chris
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019, 07:44 Yair Rand, yyairrand@gmail.com wrote:
Philippe, the email from Trust & Safety said quite clearly that the ban was triggered by edit 895438118. I assume that T&S would not lie about their reasons for something like this.
בתאריך יום ג׳, 11 ביוני 2019 ב-22:35 מאת Philippe Beaudette < philippe@beaudette.me>:
Nathan writes:
*“Why are WMF staffers so*
*deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they feel the* *right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?”*
I’ve seen no evidence that this is the case here and would be utterly shocked if a t&s staff member had indeed banned for saying that.
If the situation is anything like what it was when I was at WMF, a ban
such
as this requires multiple levels of review by a couple of different teams (in my time, we would not have considered a ban such as this without sign off from the community and legal teams, for instance). I don’t know if
the
process is the same now but I would be surprised to hear that any single staff member would feel comfortable banning on his or her authority
alone.
Multiple levels of review exist in order to ensure that ban reasons are valid and appropriate.
Philippe
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 6:55 PM Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, what a cluster. How does the WMF get themselves into these
things? I
have ten edits to en.wp since 2018 and even I could have 100% predicted
the
entire spectrum, and scale, of the reaction here. Why are WMF staffers
so
deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they feel
the
right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:49 PM Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
Amir, yes, ArbCom members must sign the WMF confidentiality agreement
for
nonpublic information (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_info...
) , as must all functionaries (checkuser, oversight, etc.). I was on
the
English Wikipedia ArbCom for two years, and it was routine for us to
deal
with sensitive, private information.
Todd
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:46 AM 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
-- Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me _______________________________________________ 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
There are some non-controversial facts that apply: * The WMF was created to operationally support the projects, by design it is not a police force for social conduct, even though it may have a duty to remove unlawful content * There is no consensus with the English Wikipedia community for WMF employees to use role accounts for social conduct issues that might be otherwise handled by other administrators, oversight or Arbcom requests * Policies developed away from the English Wikipedia community such as for Safe Spaces and the Technical Code of Conduct would require consensus on the English Wikipedia to become applicable on that project
The one year WMF Office English Wikipedia ban of Fram overturns these prior understandings of how our community works collegially with the WMF. It is hard to conceive of any eventuality where Fram's months in advance WMF warnings could not have been reviewed with Arbcom, and if WMF T&S then thought action was needed, that there was some new legal or confidential issue that stopped them choosing to escalate as a confidential request to Arbcom. Any Arbcom approved sanction against Fram based on the evidence would not be controversial for anyone.
The fundamental difference between an Arbcom sanction and a WMF Office ban, is that: 1. Fram would have the opportunity to contribute to the review of evidence 2. Fram would be able to follow a well defined appeal procedure 3. The English Wikipedia community elected Arbcom for this specific role, and consequently actions taken via Arbcom motion have automatic community support 4. If the English Wikipedia's policies are inadequate or not being implemented correctly, including administrator conduct, Arbcom can and does recommend improvement to the community
Peter's comments below are just factually correct. For sanctions to be considered "justice", there has to be governing processes that ensure all evidence which can be safely published is published and subject to public scrutiny and all sanctions must have a process for appeal. As the Wikipedia article on natural justice puts it "The right to a fair hearing requires that individuals should not be penalized by decisions affecting their rights or legitimate expectations unless they have been given prior notice of the case, a fair opportunity to answer it, and the opportunity to present their own case." The current and significantly extended use of the secretive WMF Office role account, fails to meet those basic expectations.
After the dramah dies down, let's hope that meaningful lessons are learned and the WMF takes the opportunity to revisit whether they want to pay employees to act as social police officers with ban hammers, or instead solve these problems by working with the community to improve local policies to make the projects more welcoming and more civil places to volunteer our time.
Links https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_justice
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Any Arbcom approved sanction against Fram based on the evidence would not be controversial for anyone.
Sorry for coming in late to this conversation; I've mostly been following the sicussion happening on-wiki. But I wanted to pipe up to say that I absolutely do not believe this is true (see also my comment here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&type=revision&diff=901559520&oldid=901559137&diffmode=source). To repeat my comment somewhat, the English Wikipedia ArbCom has in the past had to place similar bans: that is, ones against long-term contributors with many supporters, and ones in which the full details behind what led to the ban cannot be revealed publicly. The reaction has been quite similar to the one the WMF is currently experiencing—"star chamber" accusations, claims that we've abused our power or the process, and assumptions that the ban is unwarranted unless everyone is allowed to scrutinize the private evidence. The ArbCom is empowered to take action based off of privately-submitted evidence and private discussion, but in practice it is extremely poorly-received when we do, basically across-the-board.
– Molly (GorillaWarfare) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare
Just to summarize the difference between WMF and ArbCom, in view of the majority of the en.wiki community:
We elect ArbCom, and if they do not do what they should be doing, they do not get re-elected in two years, which happens on a regular basis
We do not elect WMF and in fact we have no means of influencing WMF (apart of the three Trustees we elect every three years who are themselves typically alienated from the community). Short of taking down the fundraiser banner or of organizing a Wikipedia blackout.
This is the difference, and this is why virtually everybody who had to say smth about this episode was unhappy with the process. Without looking at the diffs, I only remember three users who were perfectly happy with what happened, out of hundreds who said smth.
One unfortunate consequence of the whole episode was, whoever is right and whoever is wrong, the general opinion about WMF in the community is all-time low, with people generally not prepared to believe to anything communicated to them. If WMF is not interested in getting very unpleasant surprises, they should start working towards building the community trust.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:48 PM GorillaWarfare < gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Any Arbcom approved sanction against Fram based on the evidence would not be controversial for anyone.
Sorry for coming in late to this conversation; I've mostly been following the sicussion happening on-wiki. But I wanted to pipe up to say that I absolutely do not believe this is true (see also my comment here < https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Commit...
).
To repeat my comment somewhat, the English Wikipedia ArbCom has in the past had to place similar bans: that is, ones against long-term contributors with many supporters, and ones in which the full details behind what led to the ban cannot be revealed publicly. The reaction has been quite similar to the one the WMF is currently experiencing—"star chamber" accusations, claims that we've abused our power or the process, and assumptions that the ban is unwarranted unless everyone is allowed to scrutinize the private evidence. The ArbCom is empowered to take action based off of privately-submitted evidence and private discussion, but in practice it is extremely poorly-received when we do, basically across-the-board.
– Molly (GorillaWarfare) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare _______________________________________________ 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
Just you reply to your point on how many people are speaking out against this decision, I'm a relatively active and interested editor and I have no interest in voicing my opinion there as the atmosphere is so toxic. There is always a danger of the tyranny of a vocal and motivated minority appearing to be the dominant opinion of the community as a whole. I would proffer that that is a deeply flawed premise, if we were to take into account the number of people engaged in this discussion and compare it to the number of regular contributors.
On Wed 12 Jun 2019, 22:01 Yaroslav Blanter, ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Just to summarize the difference between WMF and ArbCom, in view of the majority of the en.wiki community:
We elect ArbCom, and if they do not do what they should be doing, they do not get re-elected in two years, which happens on a regular basis
We do not elect WMF and in fact we have no means of influencing WMF (apart of the three Trustees we elect every three years who are themselves typically alienated from the community). Short of taking down the fundraiser banner or of organizing a Wikipedia blackout.
This is the difference, and this is why virtually everybody who had to say smth about this episode was unhappy with the process. Without looking at the diffs, I only remember three users who were perfectly happy with what happened, out of hundreds who said smth.
One unfortunate consequence of the whole episode was, whoever is right and whoever is wrong, the general opinion about WMF in the community is all-time low, with people generally not prepared to believe to anything communicated to them. If WMF is not interested in getting very unpleasant surprises, they should start working towards building the community trust.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:48 PM GorillaWarfare < gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Any Arbcom approved sanction against Fram based on the evidence would
not
be controversial for anyone.
Sorry for coming in late to this conversation; I've mostly been following the sicussion happening on-wiki. But I wanted to pipe up to say that I absolutely do not believe this is true (see also my comment here <
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Commit...
).
To repeat my comment somewhat, the English Wikipedia ArbCom has in the
past
had to place similar bans: that is, ones against long-term contributors with many supporters, and ones in which the full details behind what led
to
the ban cannot be revealed publicly. The reaction has been quite similar
to
the one the WMF is currently experiencing—"star chamber" accusations, claims that we've abused our power or the process, and assumptions that
the
ban is unwarranted unless everyone is allowed to scrutinize the private evidence. The ArbCom is empowered to take action based off of privately-submitted evidence and private discussion, but in practice it
is
extremely poorly-received when we do, basically across-the-board.
– Molly (GorillaWarfare) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare _______________________________________________ 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
Seconded. These pages appear to have a substantial population of raving obsessives I have no intention of bothering to deal with.
- d.
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 22:10, Rebecca O'Neill rebeccanineil@gmail.com wrote:
Just you reply to your point on how many people are speaking out against this decision, I'm a relatively active and interested editor and I have no interest in voicing my opinion there as the atmosphere is so toxic. There is always a danger of the tyranny of a vocal and motivated minority appearing to be the dominant opinion of the community as a whole. I would proffer that that is a deeply flawed premise, if we were to take into account the number of people engaged in this discussion and compare it to the number of regular contributors.
On Wed 12 Jun 2019, 22:01 Yaroslav Blanter, ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Just to summarize the difference between WMF and ArbCom, in view of the majority of the en.wiki community:
We elect ArbCom, and if they do not do what they should be doing, they do not get re-elected in two years, which happens on a regular basis
We do not elect WMF and in fact we have no means of influencing WMF (apart of the three Trustees we elect every three years who are themselves typically alienated from the community). Short of taking down the fundraiser banner or of organizing a Wikipedia blackout.
This is the difference, and this is why virtually everybody who had to say smth about this episode was unhappy with the process. Without looking at the diffs, I only remember three users who were perfectly happy with what happened, out of hundreds who said smth.
One unfortunate consequence of the whole episode was, whoever is right and whoever is wrong, the general opinion about WMF in the community is all-time low, with people generally not prepared to believe to anything communicated to them. If WMF is not interested in getting very unpleasant surprises, they should start working towards building the community trust.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:48 PM GorillaWarfare < gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Any Arbcom approved sanction against Fram based on the evidence would
not
be controversial for anyone.
Sorry for coming in late to this conversation; I've mostly been following the sicussion happening on-wiki. But I wanted to pipe up to say that I absolutely do not believe this is true (see also my comment here <
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Commit...
).
To repeat my comment somewhat, the English Wikipedia ArbCom has in the
past
had to place similar bans: that is, ones against long-term contributors with many supporters, and ones in which the full details behind what led
to
the ban cannot be revealed publicly. The reaction has been quite similar
to
the one the WMF is currently experiencing—"star chamber" accusations, claims that we've abused our power or the process, and assumptions that
the
ban is unwarranted unless everyone is allowed to scrutinize the private evidence. The ArbCom is empowered to take action based off of privately-submitted evidence and private discussion, but in practice it
is
extremely poorly-received when we do, basically across-the-board.
– Molly (GorillaWarfare) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare _______________________________________________ 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
I don't believe we can presume everyone who hasn't participated in the discussion would like to disagree but is afraid to.
Among all active contributors, I suspect non-participants are mostly a mix of unaware of the issue, don't have a strong opinion about the issue, don't understand what's happening and don't want to devote the time to understanding it, or don't care. Given the WMF's actions, there may indeed even be some who do not like what they've done, but are afraid to be seen speaking against them--look what happened to the last guy! And of course some people on both sides might be hesitant to enter a discussion that's rather heated and very fast-moving, not to mention the sheer size of the page to read just to catch up on what already happened.
So, pretty much every discussion is decided by those who choose to participate in it. I don't know any way around that; we can't force people to participate. At some point, if you don't stick your hand up, you don't get counted.
Todd
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 3:10 PM Rebecca O'Neill rebeccanineil@gmail.com wrote:
Just you reply to your point on how many people are speaking out against this decision, I'm a relatively active and interested editor and I have no interest in voicing my opinion there as the atmosphere is so toxic. There is always a danger of the tyranny of a vocal and motivated minority appearing to be the dominant opinion of the community as a whole. I would proffer that that is a deeply flawed premise, if we were to take into account the number of people engaged in this discussion and compare it to the number of regular contributors.
On Wed 12 Jun 2019, 22:01 Yaroslav Blanter, ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Just to summarize the difference between WMF and ArbCom, in view of the majority of the en.wiki community:
We elect ArbCom, and if they do not do what they should be doing, they do not get re-elected in two years, which happens on a regular basis
We do not elect WMF and in fact we have no means of influencing WMF
(apart
of the three Trustees we elect every three years who are themselves typically alienated from the community). Short of taking down the fundraiser banner or of organizing a Wikipedia blackout.
This is the difference, and this is why virtually everybody who had to
say
smth about this episode was unhappy with the process. Without looking at the diffs, I only remember three users who were perfectly happy with what happened, out of hundreds who said smth.
One unfortunate consequence of the whole episode was, whoever is right
and
whoever is wrong, the general opinion about WMF in the community is all-time low, with people generally not prepared to believe to anything communicated to them. If WMF is not interested in getting very unpleasant surprises, they should start working towards building the community
trust.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:48 PM GorillaWarfare < gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Any Arbcom approved sanction against Fram based on the evidence would
not
be controversial for anyone.
Sorry for coming in late to this conversation; I've mostly been
following
the sicussion happening on-wiki. But I wanted to pipe up to say that I absolutely do not believe this is true (see also my comment here <
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Commit...
).
To repeat my comment somewhat, the English Wikipedia ArbCom has in the
past
had to place similar bans: that is, ones against long-term contributors with many supporters, and ones in which the full details behind what
led
to
the ban cannot be revealed publicly. The reaction has been quite
similar
to
the one the WMF is currently experiencing—"star chamber" accusations, claims that we've abused our power or the process, and assumptions that
the
ban is unwarranted unless everyone is allowed to scrutinize the private evidence. The ArbCom is empowered to take action based off of privately-submitted evidence and private discussion, but in practice it
is
extremely poorly-received when we do, basically across-the-board.
– Molly (GorillaWarfare) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare _______________________________________________ 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
So, pretty much every discussion is decided by those who choose to participate in it. I don't know any way around that; we can't force people to participate. At some point, if you don't stick your hand up, you don't get counted.
Well, Maria Sefidari (Raystorm) showed up and ended up being faced with a torrent of abuse.
If you don't stick your hand up, your views are invalid. If you do stick your hand up, people will shout at you about how invalid your views are. Particularly if you're a woman.
I don't know what lesson we're all supposed to draw from this....
Going there dismissing the whole issue as a sexist mob doing GamerGate kind of stuff, what was she expecting, really.
Paulo
A quarta, 12 de jun de 2019, 22:39, Chris Keating < chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com> escreveu:
So, pretty much every discussion is decided by those who choose to participate in it. I don't know any way around that; we can't force
people
to participate. At some point, if you don't stick your hand up, you don't get counted.
Well, Maria Sefidari (Raystorm) showed up and ended up being faced with a torrent of abuse.
If you don't stick your hand up, your views are invalid. If you do stick your hand up, people will shout at you about how invalid your views are. Particularly if you're a woman.
I don't know what lesson we're all supposed to draw from this.... _______________________________________________ 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
A lot of different issues are being conflated by commenters on-wiki and here, muddying the issue. The WMF responses and some others think that this is about policing conduct, and the perennial difficulty of doing that against people who have entrenched support and lots of positive contributions. But that's not really it - even in the discussion, many people acknowledge that Fram can be a jerk and has a lot of distance to cover before they reach the community norm of appropriate behavior.
The problem is that most people were surprised by the blunt assertion of WMF authority in a realm where they have mostly been absent. The appearance is that an insider with a connection to Trust & Safety went outside community processes to report what she viewed as (on-wiki) harassment. The T&S team made a very token effort to intervene, and then imposed a high profile ban with the flimsy excuse of a diff that says "fuck arbcom". They then used that diff to excuse not including ArbCom, as if ArbCom had never been subjected to any abuse before.
And then predictably the WMF can't eeeeven figure out how to help themselves once the screw up has occurred. I take Philippe's point that multiple levels of people contributed to the screw up, and the silly meaningless responses (and the tepid defense of some other insiders) only exacerbated the issue. The bottom line is that if WMF wants to change the rules of who in en.wp is responsible for what, and lift conduct policing from the community's responsibility, it has a duty to let people know in advance. This is an echo of the lesson that the WMF has clearly failed to learn despite many chances over the years (superprotect, LiquidThreads, a dozen other features and changes people didn't like, and so on). When will they learn? Philippe moved on, so the easy solution - put him in charge of everything - isn't going to work.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:20 PM Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Philippe moved on, so the easy solution - put him in charge of everything - isn't going to work.
I laughed. Thank you for this. But remember, I was in front of Arbcomm for a not too dissimilar case, being accused of overreaching and an unhelpful response and tone (false, true and true, in that order). I learned from my mistakes. More importantly, I hope (and believe) that the WMF learned from my mistakes.
The people on the T&S team are neither dumb nor disconnected. Quite the opposite. I hired and worked with a couple of them and know them to be talented, thoughtful and deliberate. I know Katherine to be the same.
On the basis of that “insider” knowledge - and that is truly all the insider knowledge that I have here - I trust that there is more here that I do not and can not know.
I trust the people and the process. I wish I could find a way to share that trust in such a way that it would be adopted by more. Maybe you have to live it to develop it, but these are talented staff making hard decisions. No doubt they will err some - but it’s not because they didn’t try everything they know to get it right.
I wish we could put away the pitchforks - and also (on the wmf side) make ourselves available and open to listening and sharing whatever we can - if there is anything and try like hell to deescalate this thing.
Or give me time to go buy more popcorn. One or the other.
Philippe
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
Phillipe wrote in part:
I trust the people and the process. I wish I could find a way to share that
trust in such a way that it would be adopted by more. Maybe you have to live it to develop it, but these are talented staff making hard decisions. No doubt they will err some - but it’s not because they didn’t try everything they know to get it right.
When I sent my first email on all this, I tried to be as trusting and open as possible. But something troubled me greatly and I have still not seen any hypotheticals or specifics to address it.
In the past, as I understood it, there was a null set of things that could be done by someone that would justify Office taking action like this and wouldn't result in a lifetime permanent ban.
Everything else, to my knowledge, was safe to handle somewhere between privately in Arbcom and normally on-Wiki.
The combination of "Something Office needed to do" and "It's only for a year" breaks my head and my heart. There obviously has to be an explanation here. If that's not really an empty set of things that Office could need to do in this manner and might not result in permanent bans, then Office and the Foundation staff really really owe the community a clear explanation of the criteria used to determine that.
I should not be sitting here days later wondering even what category of problem this could be in that resulted in the action.
I don't need this answered today, but it does need to get answered. The difference between a court which sometimes has to act in secret and a Star Chamber is that people can tell what the rules are for the court that sometimes has to act in secret. Either Office are acting like a court that sometimes has to act in secret, or Office and En.Wikipedia do in fact have a catastrophic problem. We need to know the parameters.
-george
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 5:02 PM Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:20 PM Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Philippe moved on, so the easy solution - put him in charge of everything - isn't going to work.
I laughed. Thank you for this. But remember, I was in front of Arbcomm for a not too dissimilar case, being accused of overreaching and an unhelpful response and tone (false, true and true, in that order). I learned from my mistakes. More importantly, I hope (and believe) that the WMF learned from my mistakes.
The people on the T&S team are neither dumb nor disconnected. Quite the opposite. I hired and worked with a couple of them and know them to be talented, thoughtful and deliberate. I know Katherine to be the same.
On the basis of that “insider” knowledge - and that is truly all the insider knowledge that I have here - I trust that there is more here that I do not and can not know.
I trust the people and the process. I wish I could find a way to share that trust in such a way that it would be adopted by more. Maybe you have to live it to develop it, but these are talented staff making hard decisions. No doubt they will err some - but it’s not because they didn’t try everything they know to get it right.
I wish we could put away the pitchforks - and also (on the wmf side) make ourselves available and open to listening and sharing whatever we can - if there is anything and try like hell to deescalate this thing.
Or give me time to go buy more popcorn. One or the other.
Philippe
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
-- Philippe Beaudette philippe@beaudette.me _______________________________________________ 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
Nathan,
Continuing on my theme of assuming good faith:
I think that the assumption of good faith needs to go in all ways, which includes that WMF should assume good faith of ENWP and that ENWP should assume good faith of WMF. I had some very critical comments in mind earlier but I am trying to take my own advice regarding not rushing to judgement. Also, I think that WMF might be more willing to listen to me in this case if I don't go too far with my critique.
I think that WMF should not have done this, but I also was very unhappy to read an allegation that some people at ENWP are being aggressive about looking for individual people to blame. I hope that we (and I include myself) can discuss this situation civilly and without going too far.
Sincerely, another imperfect person,
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 16:19 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
A lot of different issues are being conflated by commenters on-wiki and here, muddying the issue. The WMF responses and some others think that this is about policing conduct, and the perennial difficulty of doing that against people who have entrenched support and lots of positive contributions. But that's not really it - even in the discussion, many people acknowledge that Fram can be a jerk and has a lot of distance to cover before they reach the community norm of appropriate behavior.
The problem is that most people were surprised by the blunt assertion of WMF authority in a realm where they have mostly been absent. The appearance is that an insider with a connection to Trust & Safety went outside community processes to report what she viewed as (on-wiki) harassment. The T&S team made a very token effort to intervene, and then imposed a high profile ban with the flimsy excuse of a diff that says "fuck arbcom". They then used that diff to excuse not including ArbCom, as if ArbCom had never been subjected to any abuse before.
And then predictably the WMF can't eeeeven figure out how to help themselves once the screw up has occurred. I take Philippe's point that multiple levels of people contributed to the screw up, and the silly meaningless responses (and the tepid defense of some other insiders) only exacerbated the issue. The bottom line is that if WMF wants to change the rules of who in en.wp is responsible for what, and lift conduct policing from the community's responsibility, it has a duty to let people know in advance. This is an echo of the lesson that the WMF has clearly failed to learn despite many chances over the years (superprotect, LiquidThreads, a dozen other features and changes people didn't like, and so on). When will they learn? Philippe moved on, so the easy solution - put him in charge of everything - isn't going to work. _______________________________________________ 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
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 00:19, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
The T&S team made a very token effort to intervene, and then imposed a high profile ban with the flimsy excuse of a diff that says "fuck arbcom". They then used that diff to excuse not including ArbCom, as if ArbCom had never been subjected to any abuse before.
Did they actually do that, or was that Fram claiming it was the cause?
- d.
User:Fram posted on Commons a slice of what is purportedly the email from T&S, which says that "this ban has been triggered following your recent abusive communications on the project, as seen here" linking to the diff in question (#895438118). The WMFOffice account has made three statements since the discussion of the post began (these statements made on the same page where that discussion occured), none of which denied (or referenced at all) the accuracy of the snippet. That's all we know.
-- Yair Rand
בתאריך יום ה׳, 13 ביוני 2019 ב-1:59 מאת David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com >:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 00:19, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
The T&S team made a very token effort to intervene, and then imposed a high profile ban with the flimsy excuse of a diff that says "fuck arbcom".
They
then used that diff to excuse not including ArbCom, as if ArbCom had
never
been subjected to any abuse before.
Did they actually do that, or was that Fram claiming it was the cause?
- d.
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
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:48 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Going there dismissing the whole issue as a sexist mob doing GamerGate kind of stuff, what was she expecting, really.
Maybe she was expecting people to read what she actually said, and engage with it, rather than twist her words so they're easy to dismiss?
Maybe she was hoping people might think about whether there WAS some sexist harrassment happening, and whether parts of our community were actually behaving a bit like Gamergaters?
What is the point of addressing and lecturing an onwiki community about harassment happening offwiki, and then using that to imply all happening on that situation onwiki was about sexism and GamerGate stuff?
Really, going into an already very escalated situation and making such baseless and inflammatory comments does not seem like the wisest thing to do.
Paulo
A quinta, 13 de jun de 2019, 08:15, Chris Keating < chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com> escreveu:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:48 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Going there dismissing the whole issue as a sexist mob doing GamerGate
kind
of stuff, what was she expecting, really.
Maybe she was expecting people to read what she actually said, and engage with it, rather than twist her words so they're easy to dismiss?
Maybe she was hoping people might think about whether there WAS some sexist harrassment happening, and whether parts of our community were actually behaving a bit like Gamergaters? _______________________________________________ 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
A number of people in our community literally are Gamergaters, including editors with tools.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 3:15 AM Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:48 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Going there dismissing the whole issue as a sexist mob doing GamerGate kind of stuff, what was she expecting, really.
Maybe she was expecting people to read what she actually said, and engage with it, rather than twist her words so they're easy to dismiss?
Maybe she was hoping people might think about whether there WAS some sexist harrassment happening, and whether parts of our community were actually behaving a bit like Gamergaters? _______________________________________________ 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
I do not doubt that, but dismissing the current issue of project autonomy as GamerGate stuff without providing any evidence to support it does not seem helpful at all.
Paulo
A quinta, 13 de jun de 2019, 13:10, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com escreveu:
A number of people in our community literally are Gamergaters, including editors with tools.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 3:15 AM Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:48 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Going there dismissing the whole issue as a sexist mob doing GamerGate
kind
of stuff, what was she expecting, really.
Maybe she was expecting people to read what she actually said, and engage with it, rather than twist her words so they're easy to dismiss?
Maybe she was hoping people might think about whether there WAS some
sexist
harrassment happening, and whether parts of our community were actually behaving a bit like Gamergaters? _______________________________________________ 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
I didn't make any speculation as to the potential views of any non-participating editors. I didn't even proffer my own view.
I do find it telling that the assumption was made as to what side I would fall on. My problem with how these discussions unfold is that there is a vocal minority that dominate every single last one of them which does nothing to inspire me to engage (along with many other editors I know). You are right that the length and tone of the discussions is a huge factor in that, along with the general fatigue brought on by the wall of text effect.
There is a strong element of certain editors continuously setting the tone of these discussions which is unbearably adversarial and exclusionary.
On Wed 12 Jun 2019, 22:33 Todd Allen, toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I don't believe we can presume everyone who hasn't participated in the discussion would like to disagree but is afraid to.
Among all active contributors, I suspect non-participants are mostly a mix of unaware of the issue, don't have a strong opinion about the issue, don't understand what's happening and don't want to devote the time to understanding it, or don't care. Given the WMF's actions, there may indeed even be some who do not like what they've done, but are afraid to be seen speaking against them--look what happened to the last guy! And of course some people on both sides might be hesitant to enter a discussion that's rather heated and very fast-moving, not to mention the sheer size of the page to read just to catch up on what already happened.
So, pretty much every discussion is decided by those who choose to participate in it. I don't know any way around that; we can't force people to participate. At some point, if you don't stick your hand up, you don't get counted.
Todd
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 3:10 PM Rebecca O'Neill rebeccanineil@gmail.com wrote:
Just you reply to your point on how many people are speaking out against this decision, I'm a relatively active and interested editor and I have
no
interest in voicing my opinion there as the atmosphere is so toxic. There is always a danger of the tyranny of a vocal and motivated minority appearing to be the dominant opinion of the community as a whole. I would proffer that that is a deeply flawed premise, if we were to take into account the number of people engaged in this discussion and compare it to the number of regular contributors.
On Wed 12 Jun 2019, 22:01 Yaroslav Blanter, ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Just to summarize the difference between WMF and ArbCom, in view of the majority of the en.wiki community:
We elect ArbCom, and if they do not do what they should be doing, they
do
not get re-elected in two years, which happens on a regular basis
We do not elect WMF and in fact we have no means of influencing WMF
(apart
of the three Trustees we elect every three years who are themselves typically alienated from the community). Short of taking down the fundraiser banner or of organizing a Wikipedia blackout.
This is the difference, and this is why virtually everybody who had to
say
smth about this episode was unhappy with the process. Without looking
at
the diffs, I only remember three users who were perfectly happy with
what
happened, out of hundreds who said smth.
One unfortunate consequence of the whole episode was, whoever is right
and
whoever is wrong, the general opinion about WMF in the community is all-time low, with people generally not prepared to believe to anything communicated to them. If WMF is not interested in getting very
unpleasant
surprises, they should start working towards building the community
trust.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:48 PM GorillaWarfare < gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Any Arbcom approved sanction against Fram based on the evidence
would
not
be controversial for anyone.
Sorry for coming in late to this conversation; I've mostly been
following
the sicussion happening on-wiki. But I wanted to pipe up to say that
I
absolutely do not believe this is true (see also my comment here <
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Commit...
).
To repeat my comment somewhat, the English Wikipedia ArbCom has in
the
past
had to place similar bans: that is, ones against long-term
contributors
with many supporters, and ones in which the full details behind what
led
to
the ban cannot be revealed publicly. The reaction has been quite
similar
to
the one the WMF is currently experiencing—"star chamber" accusations, claims that we've abused our power or the process, and assumptions
that
the
ban is unwarranted unless everyone is allowed to scrutinize the
private
evidence. The ArbCom is empowered to take action based off of privately-submitted evidence and private discussion, but in practice
it
is
extremely poorly-received when we do, basically across-the-board.
– Molly (GorillaWarfare) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare _______________________________________________ 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
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
Hi Rebecca,
These conversations can be stressful for many of us, including me.
Speaking up in public can take courage. Thank you for participating here, and I encourage you to continue to participate even if you are in the minority regarding a certain discussion.
I know that this can be difficult to do, and it's sometimes difficult for me to do, but please be careful about linking strong opinions with assuming bad faith on the part of the people who state those opinions. Sometimes there are good reasons for assuming bad faith, but I think that it's easy for many of us, including me, to rush to the conclusion that someone who disagrees with me may be acting in bad faith.
I am sorry if you feel that you are not welcome here. Public discussions can be rough, but personally I think that they are usually for the best.
I hope that my comments here are somehow encouraging.
Hi Pine,
While I appreciate your attempt at guidance here, given some of the messages in the chain the fact that you are calling me out as assuming bad faith out of all the participants does not inspire me to take part at all.
Thanks, but I feel that I might just go back to deleting these onerous threads as has been my custom in the past rather than be singled out in such a manner.
If I had wanted to be tone policed o would have engaged with the on-wiki conversation.
Rebecca
On Wed 12 Jun 2019, 23:58 Pine W, wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rebecca,
These conversations can be stressful for many of us, including me.
Speaking up in public can take courage. Thank you for participating here, and I encourage you to continue to participate even if you are in the minority regarding a certain discussion.
I know that this can be difficult to do, and it's sometimes difficult for me to do, but please be careful about linking strong opinions with assuming bad faith on the part of the people who state those opinions. Sometimes there are good reasons for assuming bad faith, but I think that it's easy for many of us, including me, to rush to the conclusion that someone who disagrees with me may be acting in bad faith.
I am sorry if you feel that you are not welcome here. Public discussions can be rough, but personally I think that they are usually for the best.
I hope that my comments here are somehow encouraging.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
I'm sorry if my post sounded hostile. I wish that I knew what to say.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 16:19 Rebecca O'Neill rebeccanineil@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Pine,
While I appreciate your attempt at guidance here, given some of the messages in the chain the fact that you are calling me out as assuming bad faith out of all the participants does not inspire me to take part at all.
Thanks, but I feel that I might just go back to deleting these onerous threads as has been my custom in the past rather than be singled out in such a manner.
If I had wanted to be tone policed o would have engaged with the on-wiki conversation.
Rebecca
On Wed 12 Jun 2019, 23:58 Pine W, wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rebecca,
These conversations can be stressful for many of us, including me.
Speaking up in public can take courage. Thank you for participating here, and I encourage you to continue to participate even if you are in the minority regarding a certain discussion.
I know that this can be difficult to do, and it's sometimes difficult for me to do, but please be careful about linking strong opinions with
assuming
bad faith on the part of the people who state those opinions. Sometimes there are good reasons for assuming bad faith, but I think that it's easy for many of us, including me, to rush to the conclusion that someone who disagrees with me may be acting in bad faith.
I am sorry if you feel that you are not welcome here. Public discussions can be rough, but personally I think that they are usually for the best.
I hope that my comments here are somehow encouraging.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
It wasn't hostile Pine, but it wasn't a great idea to call out one of the few women on the chain for assuming bad faith given some of the other statements and assertions on the thread.
I did not make any assumptions on the motivations of those who take part in the on wiki discussions, I just stated that the results were often hostile environments which make engagement difficult or intimidating. And then I am name checked for making this rather mundane and oft cited issue. It was just a poor choice given the circumstances overall.
I don't take part as a I don't want my "card to be marked" or have certain editors monitoring my on wiki contributions based on assumptions made about me and my editing motivations.
On Thu 13 Jun 2019, 00:33 Pine W, wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry if my post sounded hostile. I wish that I knew what to say.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 16:19 Rebecca O'Neill rebeccanineil@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Pine,
While I appreciate your attempt at guidance here, given some of the messages in the chain the fact that you are calling me out as assuming
bad
faith out of all the participants does not inspire me to take part at
all.
Thanks, but I feel that I might just go back to deleting these onerous threads as has been my custom in the past rather than be singled out in such a manner.
If I had wanted to be tone policed o would have engaged with the on-wiki conversation.
Rebecca
On Wed 12 Jun 2019, 23:58 Pine W, wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rebecca,
These conversations can be stressful for many of us, including me.
Speaking up in public can take courage. Thank you for participating
here,
and I encourage you to continue to participate even if you are in the minority regarding a certain discussion.
I know that this can be difficult to do, and it's sometimes difficult
for
me to do, but please be careful about linking strong opinions with
assuming
bad faith on the part of the people who state those opinions. Sometimes there are good reasons for assuming bad faith, but I think that it's
easy
for many of us, including me, to rush to the conclusion that someone
who
disagrees with me may be acting in bad faith.
I am sorry if you feel that you are not welcome here. Public
discussions
can be rough, but personally I think that they are usually for the
best.
I hope that my comments here are somehow encouraging.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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 seems like a mighty menacing line of discourse, coming from someone in a position to initiate a block. I don't think I should participate in any WP or WMF or Commons or WikiData discussions if such menace is the norm.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:05 PM Rebecca O'Neill rebeccanineil@gmail.com wrote:
It wasn't hostile Pine, but it wasn't a great idea to call out one of the few women on the chain for assuming bad faith given some of the other statements and assertions on the thread.
I did not make any assumptions on the motivations of those who take part in the on wiki discussions, I just stated that the results were often hostile environments which make engagement difficult or intimidating. And then I am name checked for making this rather mundane and oft cited issue. It was just a poor choice given the circumstances overall.
I don't take part as a I don't want my "card to be marked" or have certain editors monitoring my on wiki contributions based on assumptions made about me and my editing motivations.
On Thu 13 Jun 2019, 00:33 Pine W, wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sorry if my post sounded hostile. I wish that I knew what to say.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 16:19 Rebecca O'Neill rebeccanineil@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Pine,
While I appreciate your attempt at guidance here, given some of the messages in the chain the fact that you are calling me out as assuming
bad
faith out of all the participants does not inspire me to take part at
all.
Thanks, but I feel that I might just go back to deleting these onerous threads as has been my custom in the past rather than be singled out in such a manner.
If I had wanted to be tone policed o would have engaged with the
on-wiki
conversation.
Rebecca
On Wed 12 Jun 2019, 23:58 Pine W, wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rebecca,
These conversations can be stressful for many of us, including me.
Speaking up in public can take courage. Thank you for participating
here,
and I encourage you to continue to participate even if you are in the minority regarding a certain discussion.
I know that this can be difficult to do, and it's sometimes difficult
for
me to do, but please be careful about linking strong opinions with
assuming
bad faith on the part of the people who state those opinions.
Sometimes
there are good reasons for assuming bad faith, but I think that it's
easy
for many of us, including me, to rush to the conclusion that someone
who
disagrees with me may be acting in bad faith.
I am sorry if you feel that you are not welcome here. Public
discussions
can be rough, but personally I think that they are usually for the
best.
I hope that my comments here are somehow encouraging.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
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
Thanks for the concern, Dennis, but I am not feeling threatened and I don't fully understand the source of your concern. I suggest that we not increase the tension any further, please.
(I need to go do something else besides participate in this thread, but anyone is welcome to email me off list or leave a note on my talk page if they want to talk to me in particular.)
Thank you,
Yaroslav,
I understand the difference. I'm simply raising an objection to the claim that this would've gone over much better had it been the ArbCom and not the WMF who placed a ban.
– Molly White (GorillaWarfare) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 5:01 PM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Just to summarize the difference between WMF and ArbCom, in view of the majority of the en.wiki community:
We elect ArbCom, and if they do not do what they should be doing, they do not get re-elected in two years, which happens on a regular basis
We do not elect WMF and in fact we have no means of influencing WMF (apart of the three Trustees we elect every three years who are themselves typically alienated from the community). Short of taking down the fundraiser banner or of organizing a Wikipedia blackout.
This is the difference, and this is why virtually everybody who had to say smth about this episode was unhappy with the process. Without looking at the diffs, I only remember three users who were perfectly happy with what happened, out of hundreds who said smth.
One unfortunate consequence of the whole episode was, whoever is right and whoever is wrong, the general opinion about WMF in the community is all-time low, with people generally not prepared to believe to anything communicated to them. If WMF is not interested in getting very unpleasant surprises, they should start working towards building the community trust.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:48 PM GorillaWarfare < gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Any Arbcom approved sanction against Fram based on the evidence would
not
be controversial for anyone.
Sorry for coming in late to this conversation; I've mostly been following the sicussion happening on-wiki. But I wanted to pipe up to say that I absolutely do not believe this is true (see also my comment here <
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Commit...
).
To repeat my comment somewhat, the English Wikipedia ArbCom has in the
past
had to place similar bans: that is, ones against long-term contributors with many supporters, and ones in which the full details behind what led
to
the ban cannot be revealed publicly. The reaction has been quite similar
to
the one the WMF is currently experiencing—"star chamber" accusations, claims that we've abused our power or the process, and assumptions that
the
ban is unwarranted unless everyone is allowed to scrutinize the private evidence. The ArbCom is empowered to take action based off of privately-submitted evidence and private discussion, but in practice it
is
extremely poorly-received when we do, basically across-the-board.
– Molly (GorillaWarfare) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare _______________________________________________ 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
I think it would. I see many people in the discussions, myself included, who would not have any objections to a ban by ArbCom but who oppose the WMF ban. Having a PhD in math and physics, I can not theoretically exclude that there are active community members who are happy now and would object the ArbCom ban, but, to be honest, I still would like to see one.
The amount of shit could indeed be approximately the same.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:31 PM GorillaWarfare < gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com> wrote:
Yaroslav,
I understand the difference. I'm simply raising an objection to the claim that this would've gone over much better had it been the ArbCom and not the WMF who placed a ban.
– Molly White (GorillaWarfare) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 5:01 PM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Just to summarize the difference between WMF and ArbCom, in view of the majority of the en.wiki community:
We elect ArbCom, and if they do not do what they should be doing, they do not get re-elected in two years, which happens on a regular basis
We do not elect WMF and in fact we have no means of influencing WMF
(apart
of the three Trustees we elect every three years who are themselves typically alienated from the community). Short of taking down the fundraiser banner or of organizing a Wikipedia blackout.
This is the difference, and this is why virtually everybody who had to
say
smth about this episode was unhappy with the process. Without looking at the diffs, I only remember three users who were perfectly happy with what happened, out of hundreds who said smth.
One unfortunate consequence of the whole episode was, whoever is right
and
whoever is wrong, the general opinion about WMF in the community is all-time low, with people generally not prepared to believe to anything communicated to them. If WMF is not interested in getting very unpleasant surprises, they should start working towards building the community
trust.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:48 PM GorillaWarfare < gorillawarfarewikipedia@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Any Arbcom approved sanction against Fram based on the evidence would
not
be controversial for anyone.
Sorry for coming in late to this conversation; I've mostly been
following
the sicussion happening on-wiki. But I wanted to pipe up to say that I absolutely do not believe this is true (see also my comment here <
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Commit...
).
To repeat my comment somewhat, the English Wikipedia ArbCom has in the
past
had to place similar bans: that is, ones against long-term contributors with many supporters, and ones in which the full details behind what
led
to
the ban cannot be revealed publicly. The reaction has been quite
similar
to
the one the WMF is currently experiencing—"star chamber" accusations, claims that we've abused our power or the process, and assumptions that
the
ban is unwarranted unless everyone is allowed to scrutinize the private evidence. The ArbCom is empowered to take action based off of privately-submitted evidence and private discussion, but in practice it
is
extremely poorly-received when we do, basically across-the-board.
– Molly (GorillaWarfare) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare _______________________________________________ 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
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 07:43, Yair Rand yyairrand@gmail.com wrote:
Philippe, the email from Trust & Safety said quite clearly that the ban was triggered by edit 895438118. I assume that T&S would not lie about their reasons for something like this.
I haven't seen this email. Have you? If so, where?
Frankly, I'm surprised by how surprised everyone is. The Foundation has the responsibility to support the community, and the time, the expertise, the money and the people to do so. Individual volunteers, however well-meaning, do not. The Foundation has determined that in this particular case the community;s own processes were unable to provide the support that the community needed, and so the Foundation has acted to do so, as you would expect.
Thrapostibongles
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:26 AM 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
I think that you are making a number of assertions about the community, individuals, the Foundation, and the power and roles and responsibilities that aren't warranted.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 2:15 AM Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> wrote:
Frankly, I'm surprised by how surprised everyone is. The Foundation has the responsibility to support the community, and the time, the expertise, the money and the people to do so. Individual volunteers, however well-meaning, do not. The Foundation has determined that in this particular case the community;s own processes were unable to provide the support that the community needed, and so the Foundation has acted to do so, as you would expect.
Thrapostibongles
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:26 AM 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
George,
There are five things that I claimed the Foundation has and the volunteers do not: responsibility to support the community, and the time, the expertise, the money and the people to do so. So that's ten assertions. You claim that some of those are unwarranted. There are over a thousand possible interpretations of your claim. In the interests of a productive discussion, would you like to be more precise about which assertions you think might be incorrect, please?
Thrapostibongles
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:22 AM George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I think that you are making a number of assertions about the community, individuals, the Foundation, and the power and roles and responsibilities that aren't warranted.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 2:15 AM Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> wrote:
Frankly, I'm surprised by how surprised everyone is. The Foundation has the responsibility to support the community, and the time, the expertise, the money and the people to do so. Individual volunteers, however well-meaning, do not. The Foundation has determined that in this particular case the community;s own processes were unable to provide the support that the community needed, and so the Foundation has acted to do so, as you would expect.
Thrapostibongles
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:26 AM 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
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.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
I would guess that "expertise" is one of them. Cheers, P
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles Sent: 12 June 2019 08:58 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] en.wp office yearlock block
George,
There are five things that I claimed the Foundation has and the volunteers do not: responsibility to support the community, and the time, the expertise, the money and the people to do so. So that's ten assertions. You claim that some of those are unwarranted. There are over a thousand possible interpretations of your claim. In the interests of a productive discussion, would you like to be more precise about which assertions you think might be incorrect, please?
Thrapostibongles
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:22 AM George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I think that you are making a number of assertions about the community, individuals, the Foundation, and the power and roles and responsibilities that aren't warranted.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 2:15 AM Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> wrote:
Frankly, I'm surprised by how surprised everyone is. The Foundation has the responsibility to support the community, and the time, the expertise, the money and the people to do so. Individual volunteers, however well-meaning, do not. The Foundation has determined that in this particular case the community;s own processes were unable to provide the support that the community needed, and so the Foundation has acted to do so, as you would expect.
Thrapostibongles
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:26 AM 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
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
They certainly don't have the expertise. Most of them aren't regular participants on the English Wikipedia, and even those who are often dial back after joining the WMF. The most relevant expertise is participation in the project itself, and familiarity with how things are supposed to be done on it. They proved that they didn't have the relevant expertise, by utilizing an opaque, closed-door process when that wasn't necessary. Anyone with expertise in how the English Wikipedia operates would know that's a major no-no.
It takes no money to evaluate an ANI complaint or file an ArbCom case. So, while the WMF may have money, that's irrelevant.
The English Wikipedia community has far more people, in terms of Wikipedia volunteers vs. WMF employees, than the Foundation could dream of.
The Foundation has the responsibility to support the community, yes. Never to overrule it, except in cases of legal requirement, child protection, or threats of harm to self or others. And in those cases, the WMF and community are largely on the same page anyway--we don't want pedophiles editing, copyright violations on our project, or editors threatening to harm other editors, and the Foundation doesn't either. So in those instances, we're partners, not antagonists.
If the job of the WMF is to support the community, it has failed spectacularly and entirely to do so. It has done more damage to the community than any number of mildly nasty comments about the ArbCom ever could, with its ham-fisted, unexplained, unwarranted actions. It has also done serious, perhaps irreparable, damage to that partnership between the community and WMF, which was in none too great of shape to start with after the Visual Editor and MediaViewer/Superprotect fiascos.
I thought that at that time, they had learned that the English Wikipedia would not tolerate this type of action, having WMF actions crammed down our throat. ENWP administrators have never, to my knowledge, even dreamed of reversing an Office action before, because we trusted that they would be taken rarely and only in extremis. Now, two have done so (so far), and both have been enthusiastically supported in doing so. If that does not go to show that the community's respect for WMF has been put right in the toilet, I do not know what would.
Just look at what's happened there. I don't, to be frank, even like Fram all that well, and I know I'm not the only one. But this is not about Fram. It's about the community's editorial independence (and, from posts from Chinese and German Wikipedia users, apparently the editorial independence of their communities as well). And usurpation of that is not something we will take lying down.
Todd
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 6:46 AM Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> wrote:
George,
There are five things that I claimed the Foundation has and the volunteers do not: responsibility to support the community, and the time, the expertise, the money and the people to do so. So that's ten assertions. You claim that some of those are unwarranted. There are over a thousand possible interpretations of your claim. In the interests of a productive discussion, would you like to be more precise about which assertions you think might be incorrect, please?
Thrapostibongles
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:22 AM George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I think that you are making a number of assertions about the community, individuals, the Foundation, and the power and roles and responsibilities that aren't warranted.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 2:15 AM Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> wrote:
Frankly, I'm surprised by how surprised everyone is. The Foundation
has
the responsibility to support the community, and the time, the
expertise,
the money and the people to do so. Individual volunteers, however well-meaning, do not. The Foundation has determined that in this particular case the community;s own processes were unable to provide
the
support that the community needed, and so the Foundation has acted to
do
so, as you would expect.
Thrapostibongles
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:26 AM 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
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.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
Todd
They certainly don't have the expertise. Most of them aren't regular
participants on the English Wikipedia, and even those who are often dial back after joining the WMF. The most relevant expertise is participation in the project itself, and familiarity with how things are supposed to be done on it.
This seems to assume that dealing with harassment and community dysfunction on the English Wikipedia is quite different to dealing with any other community that exists in the world today. Well, to misquote Tolstoy, every dysfunctional community is indeed dysfunctional in its own way. But the problems of correcting that dysfunction are pretty similar across a broad range of online community, and English Wikipedia is not special. The notion that it is, and that nobody who is not deeply embedded in its dysfunctional culture can possibly know anything, say anything or do anything about it is simply colossal arrogance and is part of what has led us into the mess we are in today.
It takes no money to evaluate an ANI complaint or file an ArbCom case. So, while the WMF may have money, that's irrelevant.
It takes money to hire people who know what they are doing and to give them time and space to do it. Volunteers plainly do not, and the evidence is before us.
Thrapostibongles
When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be, consequences. An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So what? The only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do whatever they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes ballistic when consequences happen.
I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if that did not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year is like telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is clearly overly sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong.
This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles, terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki death threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks and threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or criminal stuff.
The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which goes against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do, then we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other Wikimedia projects.
Fae
Fæ
[...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for banning bad behaviour on our projects.
Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English Wikipedia community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
If the English Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
Indeed. Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_... suggests that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to happen or be productive.
Thrapostibongles
I quote David and Isaac. Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any wiki behavior. Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin, all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to stop it.
Camelia
-- *Camelia Boban*
*| Java EE Developer |*
*Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030 Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project ideator*
*Diversity Space @ Wikimania 2019 Co-Lead* WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
M. +39 3383385545 camelia.boban@gmail.com *Aissa Technologies* http://aissatechnologies.eu/* | *Twitter https://twitter.com/cameliaboban *|* *LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122* *Wikipedia https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban **| **WikiDonne UG https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne* | *WikiDonne Project https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:WikiDonne *
Il giorno ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Fæ
[...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for banning bad behaviour on our projects.
Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English Wikipedia community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
If the English Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
Indeed. Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_... suggests that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to happen or be productive.
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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
Sadly, people with advanced permissions (admin, checkuser etc) on Wikimedia projects are almost immune to sanctions. You could imagine a behavior that would normally lead to a site ban for people with no permission will only result in a desysop for an administrator. Worst of it is Wikimedia Commons where there has to be two different RfC/votes to get an admin desysoped.
Isaac
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 1:46 PM camelia boban <camelia.boban@gmail.com wrote:
I quote David and Isaac. Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any wiki behavior. Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin, all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to stop it.
Camelia
-- *Camelia Boban*
*| Java EE Developer |*
*Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030 Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project ideator*
*Diversity Space @ Wikimania 2019 Co-Lead* WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
M. +39 3383385545 camelia.boban@gmail.com *Aissa Technologies* http://aissatechnologies.eu/* | *Twitter https://twitter.com/cameliaboban *|* *LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122* *Wikipedia https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban **| **WikiDonne UG https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne* | *WikiDonne Project https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:WikiDonne *
Il giorno ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Fæ
[...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for banning bad behaviour on our projects.
Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English
Wikipedia
community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
If the English Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
Indeed. Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_...
suggests that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to happen or
be
productive.
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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
I do think that people should be sanctioned for off-wiki harassment if the harassment is a result of the on-wiki activities of the victim. It doesn't matter if it was done on-wiki or off-wiki, if we can identify the harasser and we are confident that their actions are motivated by onwiki activities of the victim.
Regards
Isaac
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 2:03 PM Isaac Olatunde <reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
Sadly, people with advanced permissions (admin, checkuser etc) on Wikimedia projects are almost immune to sanctions. You could imagine a behavior that would normally lead to a site ban for people with no permission will only result in a desysop for an administrator. Worst of it is Wikimedia Commons where there has to be two different RfC/votes to get an admin desysoped.
Isaac
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 1:46 PM camelia boban <camelia.boban@gmail.com wrote:
I quote David and Isaac. Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any wiki behavior. Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin, all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to stop it.
Camelia
-- *Camelia Boban*
*| Java EE Developer |*
*Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030 Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project ideator*
*Diversity Space @ Wikimania 2019 Co-Lead* WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
M. +39 3383385545 camelia.boban@gmail.com *Aissa Technologies* http://aissatechnologies.eu/* | *Twitter https://twitter.com/cameliaboban *|* *LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122* *Wikipedia https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban **| **WikiDonne UG https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne* | *WikiDonne Project https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:WikiDonne *
Il giorno ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Fæ
[...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for banning bad behaviour on our projects.
Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English
Wikipedia
community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
If the English Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
Indeed. Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_...
suggests that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to happen
or be
productive.
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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
No they're not. Just within the last month or thereabouts, the English Wikipedia ArbCom desysopped three administrators. One for poor tool use and communication, one for simple misuse and aggressive communication afterward, and one for socking. Admins are by no means "immune to sanctions"; if anything, they're watched more closely than others.
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 4:36 PM Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
Sadly, people with advanced permissions (admin, checkuser etc) on Wikimedia projects are almost immune to sanctions. You could imagine a behavior that would normally lead to a site ban for people with no permission will only result in a desysop for an administrator. Worst of it is Wikimedia Commons where there has to be two different RfC/votes to get an admin desysoped.
Isaac
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 1:46 PM camelia boban <camelia.boban@gmail.com wrote:
I quote David and Isaac. Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any
wiki
behavior. Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin, all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to stop it.
Camelia
-- *Camelia Boban*
*| Java EE Developer |*
*Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030 Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project ideator*
*Diversity Space @ Wikimania 2019 Co-Lead* WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
M. +39 3383385545 camelia.boban@gmail.com *Aissa Technologies* http://aissatechnologies.eu/* | *Twitter https://twitter.com/cameliaboban *|* *LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122* *Wikipedia https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban **| **WikiDonne UG https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne* | *WikiDonne Project https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:WikiDonne *
Il giorno ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Fæ
[...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for banning bad behaviour on our projects.
Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English
Wikipedia
community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
If the English Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
Indeed. Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_...
suggests that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to happen
or
be
productive.
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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
if Fram was not an admin, all these discussions would not have been done) [citation needed]
why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to
stop it.
Camelia
-- *Camelia Boban*
*| Java EE Developer |*
*Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030 Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project ideator*
*Diversity Space @ Wikimania 2019 Co-Lead* WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
M. +39 3383385545 camelia.boban@gmail.com *Aissa Technologies* http://aissatechnologies.eu/* | *Twitter https://twitter.com/cameliaboban *|* *LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122* *Wikipedia https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban **| **WikiDonne UG https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne* | *WikiDonne Project https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:WikiDonne *
Il giorno ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Fæ
[...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for banning bad behaviour on our projects.
Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English
Wikipedia
community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
If the English Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
Indeed. Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_...
suggests that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to happen or
be
productive.
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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
if Fram was not an admin, all these discussions would not have been done) [citation needed]
I don't think this is entirely incorrect. Chances are that people would not notice or care if Fram was not an admin.
Isaac
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 2:05 PM Martijn Hoekstra <martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
if Fram was not an admin, all these discussions would not have been done) [citation needed]
why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to
stop it.
Camelia
-- *Camelia Boban*
*| Java EE Developer |*
*Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030 Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project ideator*
*Diversity Space @ Wikimania 2019 Co-Lead* WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
M. +39 3383385545 camelia.boban@gmail.com *Aissa Technologies* http://aissatechnologies.eu/* | *Twitter https://twitter.com/cameliaboban *|* *LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122* *Wikipedia https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban **| **WikiDonne UG https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne* | *WikiDonne Project https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:WikiDonne *
Il giorno ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Fæ
[...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for banning bad behaviour on our projects.
Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English
Wikipedia
community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
If the English Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
Indeed. Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_...
suggests that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to happen
or
be
productive.
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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
+1
We need to make a reality that Wikipedia workspace is without langauge that intimidate users.
Anders
Den 2019-06-14 kl. 14:45, skrev camelia boban:
I quote David and Isaac. Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any wiki behavior. Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin, all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to stop it.
Camelia
-- *Camelia Boban*
*| Java EE Developer |*
*Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030 Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project ideator*
*Diversity Space @ Wikimania 2019 Co-Lead* WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
M. +39 3383385545 camelia.boban@gmail.com *Aissa Technologies* http://aissatechnologies.eu/* | *Twitter https://twitter.com/cameliaboban *|* *LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122* *Wikipedia https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban **| **WikiDonne UG https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne* | *WikiDonne Project https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:WikiDonne *
Il giorno ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Fæ
[...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for banning bad behaviour on our projects.
Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English Wikipedia community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
If the English Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
Indeed. Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_... suggests that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to happen or be productive.
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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
"Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin, all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to stop it."
First, if Fram were a well-known editor but not an admin, yes, there absolutely would be such a discussion. But as to why, the answer, very simply, is that the English Wikipedia community values competence over politeness, and probably always will. That is part of the culture of the community, and the WMF has no right to override that.
Todd
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:46 AM camelia boban camelia.boban@gmail.com wrote:
I quote David and Isaac. Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any wiki behavior. Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin, all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to stop it.
Camelia
-- *Camelia Boban*
*| Java EE Developer |*
*Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030 Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project ideator*
*Diversity Space @ Wikimania 2019 Co-Lead* WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
M. +39 3383385545 camelia.boban@gmail.com *Aissa Technologies* http://aissatechnologies.eu/* | *Twitter https://twitter.com/cameliaboban *|* *LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122* *Wikipedia https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban **| **WikiDonne UG https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne* | *WikiDonne Project https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:WikiDonne *
Il giorno ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Fæ
[...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for banning bad behaviour on our projects.
Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English
Wikipedia
community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
If the English Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
Indeed. Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_...
suggests that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to happen or
be
productive.
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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
That's overstating the community's position a bit, I think. Despite the occasional attempt to get rid of the civility policy, the community has continued to support it -- at least in the abstract -- and generally has no problem whatsoever in sanctioning an ordinary, run-of-the-mill editor for being uncivil, even when that editor is perfectly competent.
Rather, the problem occurs when a *popular* competent editor violates the civility policy (or, for particularly popular editors, virtually any other policy); the traditional consensus-based approach to policy enforcement makes it difficult, if not impossible, to effectively sanction an editor with a substantial contingent of vocal supporters who will argue against any such sanctions whenever the opportunity arises.
Kirill
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:58 PM Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
"Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin, all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to stop it."
First, if Fram were a well-known editor but not an admin, yes, there absolutely would be such a discussion. But as to why, the answer, very simply, is that the English Wikipedia community values competence over politeness, and probably always will. That is part of the culture of the community, and the WMF has no right to override that.
Todd
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:46 AM camelia boban camelia.boban@gmail.com wrote:
I quote David and Isaac. Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any
wiki
behavior. Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin, all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to stop it.
Camelia
-- *Camelia Boban*
*| Java EE Developer |*
*Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030 Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project ideator*
*Diversity Space @ Wikimania 2019 Co-Lead* WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
M. +39 3383385545 camelia.boban@gmail.com *Aissa Technologies* http://aissatechnologies.eu/* | *Twitter https://twitter.com/cameliaboban *|* *LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122* *Wikipedia https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban **| **WikiDonne UG https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne* | *WikiDonne Project https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:WikiDonne *
Il giorno ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Fæ
[...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for banning bad behaviour on our projects.
Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English
Wikipedia
community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
If the English Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
Indeed. Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_...
suggests that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to happen
or
be
productive.
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 19:18, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
Rather, the problem occurs when a *popular* competent editor violates the civility policy (or, for particularly popular editors, virtually any other policy); the traditional consensus-based approach to policy enforcement makes it difficult, if not impossible, to effectively sanction an editor with a substantial contingent of vocal supporters who will argue against any such sanctions whenever the opportunity arises.
This.
And a number (not everyone, of course) of those screaming loudest about the WMF's recent action are those whose style of behaviour would see them sanctioned if a civility policy were properly enforced.
Sometimes is hard to tell a harsh dispute from lack of civility.
Generally it's easy to focus on form rather than on substance.
Some issues are very complex to handle, for example some weeks ago, criticizing someone (who wrote an aggravating email on this thread) brought me to receive some truly nice insults in a private email. It's a very complex case of a behavior which is formally "right" but which is widely considered as destructive within the involved community.
WMF bans are meant to handle issues which cannot be handled by ordinary community means, above all because they involve out-of-wiki elements.
In a recent incident I advocated for some changes in WMF ban (namely, giving a wider framework to people which are supposed to help enforcing them) but in my experience none of WMF ban I have sufficient background to judge was unjustified.
Vito
Il giorno ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 22:52 Andy Mabbett < andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> ha scritto:
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 19:18, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
Rather, the problem occurs when a *popular* competent editor violates the civility policy (or, for particularly popular editors, virtually any
other
policy); the traditional consensus-based approach to policy enforcement makes it difficult, if not impossible, to effectively sanction an editor with a substantial contingent of vocal supporters who will argue against any such sanctions whenever the opportunity arises.
This.
And a number (not everyone, of course) of those screaming loudest about the WMF's recent action are those whose style of behaviour would see them sanctioned if a civility policy were properly enforced.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
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
Framing it as "competence over politeness" is convenient for the people who do not want the latter and imagine they are the former.
It also insults the editors who have managed to do both. I know an en.wp editor who has dozens of FAs and somehow managed the herculean feat of not referring to anyone on Wikipedia using the c-word.
Framing it as "the culture of the community" leaves out of the community all of us who are sick of this behavior, including long-time veterans of the community like myself (fifteen years), and community victims of harassment asking T&S for help.
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:58 PM Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
"Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin, all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to stop it."
First, if Fram were a well-known editor but not an admin, yes, there absolutely would be such a discussion. But as to why, the answer, very simply, is that the English Wikipedia community values competence over politeness, and probably always will. That is part of the culture of the community, and the WMF has no right to override that.
Todd
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:46 AM camelia boban camelia.boban@gmail.com wrote:
I quote David and Isaac. Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any wiki behavior. Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin, all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to stop it.
Camelia
-- *Camelia Boban*
*| Java EE Developer |*
*Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030 Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project ideator*
*Diversity Space @ Wikimania 2019 Co-Lead* WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
M. +39 3383385545 camelia.boban@gmail.com *Aissa Technologies* http://aissatechnologies.eu/* | *Twitter https://twitter.com/cameliaboban *|* *LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122* *Wikipedia https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban **| **WikiDonne UG https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne* | *WikiDonne Project https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:WikiDonne *
Il giorno ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Fæ
[...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for banning bad behaviour on our projects.
Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English
Wikipedia
community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
If the English Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
Indeed. Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_...
suggests that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to happen or
be
productive.
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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
Well, you'll get no argument from me that I wish people wouldn't be gratuitously rude. (Or use that word; nothing good ever comes of that.)
I am certainly not endorsing that. At the same time, some of the most disruptive editors I've seen were unfailingly polite.
Todd
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 3:40 PM Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
Framing it as "competence over politeness" is convenient for the people who do not want the latter and imagine they are the former.
It also insults the editors who have managed to do both. I know an en.wp editor who has dozens of FAs and somehow managed the herculean feat of not referring to anyone on Wikipedia using the c-word.
Framing it as "the culture of the community" leaves out of the community all of us who are sick of this behavior, including long-time veterans of the community like myself (fifteen years), and community victims of harassment asking T&S for help.
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:58 PM Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
"Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin, all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to stop it."
First, if Fram were a well-known editor but not an admin, yes, there absolutely would be such a discussion. But as to why, the answer, very simply, is that the English Wikipedia community values competence over politeness, and probably always will. That is part of the culture of the community, and the WMF has no right to override that.
Todd
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:46 AM camelia boban camelia.boban@gmail.com wrote:
I quote David and Isaac. Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any
wiki
behavior. Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an
admin,
all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask
ourselves
why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening
to
stop it.
Camelia
-- *Camelia Boban*
*| Java EE Developer |*
*Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030 Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project ideator*
*Diversity Space @ Wikimania 2019 Co-Lead* WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
M. +39 3383385545 camelia.boban@gmail.com *Aissa Technologies* http://aissatechnologies.eu/* | *Twitter https://twitter.com/cameliaboban *|* *LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122* *Wikipedia https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban **| **WikiDonne UG https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne* | *WikiDonne Project https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:WikiDonne *
Il giorno ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Fæ
[...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for banning bad behaviour on our projects.
Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English
Wikipedia
community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
If the English Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
Indeed. Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_...
suggests that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to
happen or
be
productive.
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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
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
Great, now we have a wheelwar going on ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=Fram ). I have a hard time seeing how this would help anyone.
A massive discussion where everyone tries to say something and nobody really reads everything (because how could you) is not going to lead to any constructive outcome. I hope that someone picks up the challenge and brings together the WMF and community before this spins further out of control. (I'm naively assuming that the WMF would be willing to engage at least privately in conversation if it relies on private information, or publicly if it does not).
Lodewijk
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:40 PM Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
Framing it as "competence over politeness" is convenient for the people who do not want the latter and imagine they are the former.
It also insults the editors who have managed to do both. I know an en.wp editor who has dozens of FAs and somehow managed the herculean feat of not referring to anyone on Wikipedia using the c-word.
Framing it as "the culture of the community" leaves out of the community all of us who are sick of this behavior, including long-time veterans of the community like myself (fifteen years), and community victims of harassment asking T&S for help.
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:58 PM Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
"Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin, all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to stop it."
First, if Fram were a well-known editor but not an admin, yes, there absolutely would be such a discussion. But as to why, the answer, very simply, is that the English Wikipedia community values competence over politeness, and probably always will. That is part of the culture of the community, and the WMF has no right to override that.
Todd
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:46 AM camelia boban camelia.boban@gmail.com wrote:
I quote David and Isaac. Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any
wiki
behavior. Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an
admin,
all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask
ourselves
why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening
to
stop it.
Camelia
-- *Camelia Boban*
*| Java EE Developer |*
*Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030 Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project ideator*
*Diversity Space @ Wikimania 2019 Co-Lead* WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
M. +39 3383385545 camelia.boban@gmail.com *Aissa Technologies* http://aissatechnologies.eu/* | *Twitter https://twitter.com/cameliaboban *|* *LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122* *Wikipedia https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban **| **WikiDonne UG https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne* | *WikiDonne Project https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:WikiDonne *
Il giorno ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Fæ
[...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for banning bad behaviour on our projects.
Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English
Wikipedia
community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
If the English Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
Indeed. Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_...
suggests that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to
happen or
be
productive.
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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
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
Wow, that logs page is something else. Pretty ironic that Bishonen would accuse the Office account of "wheel warring", when the wheel warring policy explicitly states that reversing an Office Action is indicative of wheel warring. So I'm *sure* we'll see suitable discussions of sanctions for the knowing, planned, intentional reversal of an office action against policy, right?
Possible indications of an incipient wheel war:
- An administrator getting too distressed to discuss calmly. - Deliberately ignoring an existing discussion in favor of a unilateral preferred action. - Abruptly undoing administrator actions without consultation. - *Reversal of a Wikimedia Foundation office action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_actions.*
Dan Rosenthal
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:06 PM effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Great, now we have a wheelwar going on ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=Fram ). I have a hard time seeing how this would help anyone.
A massive discussion where everyone tries to say something and nobody really reads everything (because how could you) is not going to lead to any constructive outcome. I hope that someone picks up the challenge and brings together the WMF and community before this spins further out of control. (I'm naively assuming that the WMF would be willing to engage at least privately in conversation if it relies on private information, or publicly if it does not).
Lodewijk
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:40 PM Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
Framing it as "competence over politeness" is convenient for the people who do not want the latter and imagine they are the former.
It also insults the editors who have managed to do both. I know an en.wp editor who has dozens of FAs and somehow managed the herculean feat of not referring to anyone on Wikipedia using the c-word.
Framing it as "the culture of the community" leaves out of the community all of us who are sick of this behavior, including long-time veterans of the community like myself (fifteen years), and community victims of harassment asking T&S for help.
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:58 PM Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
"Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an
admin,
all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask
ourselves
why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening
to
stop it."
First, if Fram were a well-known editor but not an admin, yes, there absolutely would be such a discussion. But as to why, the answer, very simply, is that the English Wikipedia community values competence over politeness, and probably always will. That is part of the culture of
the
community, and the WMF has no right to override that.
Todd
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:46 AM camelia boban <camelia.boban@gmail.com
wrote:
I quote David and Isaac. Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any
wiki
behavior. Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an
admin,
all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask
ourselves
why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without
intervening
to
stop it.
Camelia
-- *Camelia Boban*
*| Java EE Developer |*
*Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030 Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project
ideator*
*Diversity Space @ Wikimania 2019 Co-Lead* WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
M. +39 3383385545 camelia.boban@gmail.com *Aissa Technologies* http://aissatechnologies.eu/* | *Twitter https://twitter.com/cameliaboban *|* *LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122* *Wikipedia https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban **| **WikiDonne UG https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne* | *WikiDonne Project https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:WikiDonne *
Il giorno ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Fæ
[...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for banning bad behaviour on our projects.
Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English
Wikipedia
community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
If the English Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation
of
policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
Indeed. Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_...
suggests that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to
happen or
be
productive.
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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
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
For those trying to grasp what's going on, some more links: - Statement by the SuSa team manager, explaining the WMF viewpoint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_...
- Arbcom case around the desysop/resysop of WJBscribe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#WJBscribe
I haven't read everything in detail, but these seem the snippets most relevant to the global community. I'm still struggling to find a good summary of what the new (global) processes/policies of SuSa to address harassment in the broad sense of the word are - Jan only linked to an annual plan announcing them. But then, given the sheer amount of text, I probably missed it if anyone posted a link.
Lodewijk
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 3:16 PM Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, that logs page is something else. Pretty ironic that Bishonen would accuse the Office account of "wheel warring", when the wheel warring policy explicitly states that reversing an Office Action is indicative of wheel warring. So I'm *sure* we'll see suitable discussions of sanctions for the knowing, planned, intentional reversal of an office action against policy, right?
Possible indications of an incipient wheel war:
- An administrator getting too distressed to discuss calmly.
- Deliberately ignoring an existing discussion in favor of a
unilateral preferred action.
- Abruptly undoing administrator actions without consultation.
- *Reversal of a Wikimedia Foundation office action
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_actions.*
Dan Rosenthal
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:06 PM effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Great, now we have a wheelwar going on ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=Fram ). I have a hard time seeing how this would help anyone.
A massive discussion where everyone tries to say something and nobody really reads everything (because how could you) is not going to lead to any constructive outcome. I hope that someone picks up the challenge and brings together the WMF and community before this spins further out of control. (I'm naively assuming that the WMF would be willing to engage at least privately in conversation if it relies on private information, or publicly if it does not).
Lodewijk
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:40 PM Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
Framing it as "competence over politeness" is convenient for the people who do not want the latter and imagine they are the former.
It also insults the editors who have managed to do both. I know an en.wp editor who has dozens of FAs and somehow managed the herculean feat of not referring to anyone on Wikipedia using the c-word.
Framing it as "the culture of the community" leaves out of the community all of us who are sick of this behavior, including long-time veterans of the community like myself (fifteen years), and community victims of harassment asking T&S for help.
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:58 PM Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
"Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an
admin,
all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask
ourselves
why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without
intervening to
stop it."
First, if Fram were a well-known editor but not an admin, yes, there absolutely would be such a discussion. But as to why, the answer, very simply, is that the English Wikipedia community values competence over politeness, and probably always will. That is part of the culture of
the
community, and the WMF has no right to override that.
Todd
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:46 AM camelia boban <
camelia.boban@gmail.com>
wrote:
I quote David and Isaac. Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of
any
wiki
behavior. Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an
admin,
all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask
ourselves
why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without
intervening
to
stop it.
Camelia
-- *Camelia Boban*
*| Java EE Developer |*
*Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030 Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project
ideator*
*Diversity Space @ Wikimania 2019 Co-Lead* WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
M. +39 3383385545 camelia.boban@gmail.com *Aissa Technologies* http://aissatechnologies.eu/* | *Twitter https://twitter.com/cameliaboban *|* *LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122* *Wikipedia https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban **| **WikiDonne UG https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne* | *WikiDonne
Project
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:WikiDonne *
Il giorno ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Fæ
[...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for > banning bad behaviour on our projects.
Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English
Wikipedia
community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
> If the English > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation
of
> policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
Indeed. Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_...
suggests that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to
happen or
be
productive.
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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
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
If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done then clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles, terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki death threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks and threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or criminal stuff.
The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which goes against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do, then we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other Wikimedia projects.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be,
consequences.
An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So what? The only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do whatever they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes ballistic
when
consequences happen.
I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if that
did
not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year is
like
telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is clearly
overly
sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong. _______________________________________________ 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
Nobody deserves to be harassed on any Wikimedia project.
Unfortunately once you are mobbed on the English Wikipedia, some people thinks it's fine to harass you. They don't care how you feel, your personal life does not matter to them.
Imagine someone want the name of the person behind the WMF Office account revealed. What purpose will this serve if not to harass the staff member?
Isaac
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 5:14 PM Robert Fernandez <wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done then clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles, terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki death threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks and threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or criminal stuff.
The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which goes against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do, then we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other Wikimedia projects.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be,
consequences.
An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So what? The only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do
whatever
they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes ballistic
when
consequences happen.
I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if that
did
not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year is
like
telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is clearly
overly
sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong. _______________________________________________ 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
Is there evidence that this is the reason for the block? If so where is it stated? Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Robert Fernandez Sent: 13 June 2019 18:14 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done then clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles, terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki death threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks and threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or criminal stuff.
The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which goes against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do, then we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other Wikimedia projects.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be,
consequences.
An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So what? The only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do whatever they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes ballistic
when
consequences happen.
I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if that
did
not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year is
like
telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is clearly
overly
sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong. _______________________________________________ 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
I'll note that WMF has provided a statement here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_t...
I find WMF's justifications for its actions to be unpersuasive. WMF's policies can (within some legal limits) be changed by WMF, so using WMF policy is not a sufficient justification. I also am troubled that WMF states that it lacked confidence in Arbcom's ability to handle a case but, as far as I know, WMF did not present evidence of Arbcom's problems to the ENWP community so that the community could address them. If there is a problem with Arbcom then that is first and foremost for us as a community to address, and WMF almost likely should not have bypassed Arbcom in an individual case. An analogy would be the U.S. President bypassing U.S. Federal courts in an individual case because he/she does not trust the courts to handle the case in the manner that the President wants.
At the same time, I would not approve of criticizing someone for communicating a concern to WMF. Sometimes people don't know where to communicate their concerns, and someone might have had a legitimate concern about Arbcom's ability to handle a case in an impartial manner. I think that WMF should have handled this differently than it did, but that does not mean that any original concern about Fram and/or Arbcom were invalid.
I would not sanction someone who communicated a concern to WMF for doing that. However, if I had the authority to do so, I would consider applying a sanction against WMF for its handling of this matter.
*almost certainly. Reprimand to Pine for insufficient proofreading.
The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept writing garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage! Harassment! Bad!"
If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR SOURCES PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement anyway. The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had her articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as "harassment" rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's policies. Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article only after she has them in hand.
Todd
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done then clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles, terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki death threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks and threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or criminal stuff.
The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which goes against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do, then we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other Wikimedia projects.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be,
consequences.
An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So what? The only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do
whatever
they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes ballistic
when
consequences happen.
I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if that
did
not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year is
like
telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is clearly
overly
sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong. _______________________________________________ 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
and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for doing only what you describe?
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept writing garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage! Harassment! Bad!"
If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR SOURCES PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement anyway. The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had her articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as "harassment" rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's policies. Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article only after she has them in hand.
Todd
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done then clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles, terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki death threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks and threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or criminal stuff.
The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which goes against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do, then we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other Wikimedia projects.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be,
consequences.
An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So what? The only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do
whatever
they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes ballistic
when
consequences happen.
I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if that
did
not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year is
like
telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is clearly
overly
sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong. _______________________________________________ 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
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
At this point, it certainly looks like that. That, and the "f*** Arbcom" thing. If you know otherwise, please explain.
Paulo
David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com escreveu no dia sexta, 14/06/2019 à(s) 11:37:
and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for doing only what you describe?
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept writing garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage! Harassment! Bad!"
If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
SOURCES
PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement anyway. The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had her articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
"harassment"
rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's policies. Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
only
after she has them in hand.
Todd
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
wikigamaliel@gmail.com>
wrote:
If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done then clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles, terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
death
threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
and
threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
criminal
stuff.
The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
goes
against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
then
we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other Wikimedia projects.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be,
consequences.
An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So
what? The
only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do
whatever
they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes
ballistic
when
consequences happen.
I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if
that
did
not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year
is
like
telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is
clearly
overly
sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong. _______________________________________________ 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
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
I do not think any of the present or recent past arb com members are at all bothered by insults, however unjustified. People involved in arb cases often tend to get emotional and even a little irrational. We just ignore them.
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:37 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
At this point, it certainly looks like that. That, and the "f*** Arbcom" thing. If you know otherwise, please explain.
Paulo
David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com escreveu no dia sexta, 14/06/2019 à(s) 11:37:
and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for doing only what you describe?
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept writing garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
Harassment!
Bad!"
If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
SOURCES
PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement
anyway.
The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had her articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
"harassment"
rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's policies. Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
only
after she has them in hand.
Todd
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
wikigamaliel@gmail.com>
wrote:
If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done
then
clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles, terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
death
threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
and
threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
criminal
stuff.
The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
goes
against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
then
we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators
the
same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for
free
in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or
Wikipedia's
Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they
should
be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than
whether
Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was
not
worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on
other
Wikimedia projects.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be,
consequences.
An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So
what? The
only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do
whatever
they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes
ballistic
when
consequences happen.
I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if
that
did
not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one
year
is
like
telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is
clearly
overly
sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong. _______________________________________________ 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
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
According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs, the maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is lying or omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not challenging him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for what they told him they sanctioned him for.
Todd
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for doing only what you describe?
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept writing garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage! Harassment! Bad!"
If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
SOURCES
PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement anyway. The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had her articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
"harassment"
rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's policies. Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
only
after she has them in hand.
Todd
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
wikigamaliel@gmail.com>
wrote:
If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done then clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles, terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
death
threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
and
threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
criminal
stuff.
The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
goes
against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
then
we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other Wikimedia projects.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be,
consequences.
An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So
what? The
only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do
whatever
they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes
ballistic
when
consequences happen.
I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if
that
did
not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year
is
like
telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is
clearly
overly
sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong. _______________________________________________ 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
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
If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible, let alone the story, then you're less competent than I have previously considered you to be.
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs, the maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is lying or omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not challenging him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for what they told him they sanctioned him for.
Todd
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for doing only what you describe?
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept writing garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage! Harassment! Bad!"
If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
SOURCES
PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement anyway. The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had her articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
"harassment"
rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's policies. Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
only
after she has them in hand.
Todd
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
wikigamaliel@gmail.com>
wrote:
If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done then clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles, terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
death
threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
and
threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
criminal
stuff.
The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
goes
against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
then
we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other Wikimedia projects.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be,
consequences.
An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So
what? The
only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do
whatever
they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes
ballistic
when
consequences happen.
I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if
that
did
not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year
is
like
telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is
clearly
overly
sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong. _______________________________________________ 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
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
You ought to read the entire paragraph. Such as the part where I explicitly acknowledged that Fram's version of events may be inaccurate or incomplete.
Todd
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 5:03 PM David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible, let alone the story, then you're less competent than I have previously considered you to be.
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs,
the
maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is lying
or
omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not challenging him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for
what
they told him they sanctioned him for.
Todd
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for doing only what you describe?
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
writing
garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
Harassment!
Bad!"
If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
SOURCES
PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement
anyway.
The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had
her
articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
"harassment"
rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
policies.
Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
only
after she has them in hand.
Todd
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
wikigamaliel@gmail.com>
wrote:
If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done
then
clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban
paedophiles,
terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
death
threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these
attacks
and
threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
criminal
stuff.
The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
goes
against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not
replace
existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF
employees
start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
then
we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators
the
same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for
free
in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or
Wikipedia's
Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they
should
be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation
of
policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than
whether
Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was
not
worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on
other
Wikimedia projects.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad <jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
> > When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be, consequences. > An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So
what? The
> only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do
whatever
> they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes
ballistic
when > consequences happen. > > I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and
if
that
did > not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one
year
is
like > telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is
clearly
overly > sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong. > _______________________________________________ > 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>
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
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
From my perspective of 4 years on enWP arb com, there is no question that
the enWP does not deal well with routine low-level harassment in the absence of something really awful. If it were done by the WMF using in-camera proceedings, , there would probably be more actual problem editors sanctioned, and probably more over-reaction and sanctions based on unfair accusations. Opinions vary about the relative importance of those two, but as for me, the probability of unfairness from secret proceeding by anonymous paid staff is by far the worse, and I see it as in direct opposition to the principles underlying the entire wikipedia effort.
If the WMF would assist the enWP to develop its own procedures, towards something that would be both effective and fair, *that* would be useful. The nature of this event causes me to doubt they could do it. For one thing, they do not seem to understand that sanctions of this sort teach the lesson only if they are closely related in time to the offense, not follow months afterwards--otherwise it is punitive, not corrective. Much worse, it seems they do not understand or value the concept of basic fairness.
I am not however saying that I personally find the actual sanction here totally unwarranted. The problem is rather that it sets a terrible precedent.
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:14 PM Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
You ought to read the entire paragraph. Such as the part where I explicitly acknowledged that Fram's version of events may be inaccurate or incomplete.
Todd
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 5:03 PM David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible, let alone the story, then you're less competent than I have previously considered you to be.
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs,
the
maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is lying
or
omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not
challenging
him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for
what
they told him they sanctioned him for.
Todd
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
wrote:
and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for doing only what you describe?
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
writing
garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
Harassment!
Bad!"
If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
SOURCES
PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement
anyway.
The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had
her
articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
"harassment"
rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
policies.
Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the
article
only
after she has them in hand.
Todd
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
wikigamaliel@gmail.com>
wrote:
If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is
done
then
clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
> This misses the point, as others have highlighted already. > > The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban
paedophiles,
> terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple
cross-wiki
death
> threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and > understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these
attacks
and
> threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
criminal
> stuff. > > The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project > specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention,
which
goes
> against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not
replace
> existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for > banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF
employees
> start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already
do,
then
> we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers
administrators
the
> same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of > administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for
free
> in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time > employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie? > > If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is > because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or
Wikipedia's
> Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they
should
> be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation
of
> policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than
whether
> Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly
was
not
> worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block
on
> Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on
other
> Wikimedia projects. > > Fae > -- > faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae > > On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad <
jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > > When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be, > consequences. > > An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So
what? The
> > only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can
do
whatever > > they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes
ballistic
> when > > consequences happen. > > > > I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off,
and
if
that
> did > > not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one
year
is
> like > > telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is
clearly
> overly > > sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong. > > _______________________________________________ > > 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>
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
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
Il giorno sab 15 giu 2019 alle ore 04:32 David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com ha scritto:
From my perspective of 4 years on enWP arb com, there is no question that the enWP does not deal well with routine low-level harassment in the absence of something really awful.
This happens everywhere, though I don't have out of the box solutions at all.
I am not however saying that I personally find the actual sanction here totally unwarranted. The problem is rather that it sets a terrible precedent.
The precedent is already set, the difference seems to be in collective perception. I'm not aware of the rationale for this ban and it seems community members complaining about it don't have a clue too.
Vito
Far better that editors deal with unfairness from secret proceedings by untrained and unqualified volunteers of varying degrees of incompetence elected in a popularity contest.
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 10:32 PM David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com wrote:
the probability of unfairness from secret proceeding by anonymous paid staff is by far the worse, and I see it as in direct opposition to the principles underlying the entire wikipedia effort.
Both systems are horrible. Secret trials punishing people who don't even know they are being accused, and of what they are being accused, without any chance to appeal afterwards, are nothing short of horrible and inhumane. That, yes, is plain harassment against the victims of those secret trials.
As far as I know, Arbcom is not doing that, but the WMF is.
Paulo
A sábado, 15 de jun de 2019, 15:37, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com escreveu:
Far better that editors deal with unfairness from secret proceedings by untrained and unqualified volunteers of varying degrees of incompetence elected in a popularity contest.
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 10:32 PM David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com wrote:
the probability of unfairness from secret proceeding by anonymous paid staff is by far the worse, and I see it as in direct opposition to the principles underlying the entire wikipedia effort.
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
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 00:04, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible,
What you are calling Fram's framing appears to be a the WMF's version of events as told to fram. The WMF does look slightly better if you remember that T&S arw trying to improve behaviour through threat of blocks not file a diff heavy arbcom case.
let alone the story
Given that the other versions of "the story" are T&S's PR waffle or conspiracy theories it understandable that people are going to go with the option that at least gives them something to work from.
-- geni
People shouldn't be going with any random option, but rather presume the innocence of others unless guilt is proven by some legit process. It seems that this very basic principle of Human Rights and dignity is being forgotten. There is not the least appearance of due process happening there, but that has not stopped people from finding themselves their guilty part of election, using their own bias to evaluate the case. Including some Wikipedia related social network accounts that should be acting more responsible and wiser than joining the rabble in the offwiki harassment of their guilty part of choice.
Best, Paulo
geni geniice@gmail.com escreveu no dia sábado, 15/06/2019 à(s) 17:15:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 00:04, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible,
What you are calling Fram's framing appears to be a the WMF's version of events as told to fram. The WMF does look slightly better if you remember that T&S arw trying to improve behaviour through threat of blocks not file a diff heavy arbcom case.
let alone the story
Given that the other versions of "the story" are T&S's PR waffle or conspiracy theories it understandable that people are going to go with the option that at least gives them something to work from.
-- geni
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
There is no "very basic principle of Human Rights and dignity" to be free from the presumption of guilt by others. You may be confusing Article 11 of the UHDR, but this applies explicitly only to "penal offenses." Unless Fram is getting locked up in prison for his actions, let's drop the absurd hyperbole that this is somehow a human rights violation.
Dan Rosenthal
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 11:35 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
People shouldn't be going with any random option, but rather presume the innocence of others unless guilt is proven by some legit process. It seems that this very basic principle of Human Rights and dignity is being forgotten. There is not the least appearance of due process happening there, but that has not stopped people from finding themselves their guilty part of election, using their own bias to evaluate the case. Including some Wikipedia related social network accounts that should be acting more responsible and wiser than joining the rabble in the offwiki harassment of their guilty part of choice.
Best, Paulo
geni geniice@gmail.com escreveu no dia sábado, 15/06/2019 à(s) 17:15:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 00:04, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible,
What you are calling Fram's framing appears to be a the WMF's version of events as told to fram. The WMF does look slightly better if you remember that T&S arw trying to improve behaviour through threat of blocks not file a diff heavy arbcom case.
let alone the story
Given that the other versions of "the story" are T&S's PR waffle or conspiracy theories it understandable that people are going to go with the option that at least gives them something to work from.
-- geni
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
I have never said that this is a human rights violation, so please don't put your words on my mouth.
I have said that the general principles of equality, right to fair trial, not having ones honor damaged by baseless accusations, etc. which are present at the UDHR are being forgotten here.
Of course you may argue that since the WMF is a private organization, they are free to engage in this kind of secret trials, star chambers and kangaroo courts at will. As others already stated, the matter here is not if they can, but if they should be engaging on those schemes, as they are now.
Best, Paulo
A sábado, 15 de jun de 2019, 18:39, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com escreveu:
There is no "very basic principle of Human Rights and dignity" to be free from the presumption of guilt by others. You may be confusing Article 11 of the UHDR, but this applies explicitly only to "penal offenses." Unless Fram is getting locked up in prison for his actions, let's drop the absurd hyperbole that this is somehow a human rights violation.
Dan Rosenthal
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 11:35 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
People shouldn't be going with any random option, but rather presume the innocence of others unless guilt is proven by some legit process. It seems that this very basic principle of Human Rights and dignity is being forgotten. There is not the least appearance of due process happening there, but
that
has not stopped people from finding themselves their guilty part of election, using their own bias to evaluate the case. Including some Wikipedia related social network accounts that should be acting more responsible and wiser than joining the rabble in the offwiki harassment of their guilty part of choice.
Best, Paulo
geni geniice@gmail.com escreveu no dia sábado, 15/06/2019 à(s) 17:15:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 00:04, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible,
What you are calling Fram's framing appears to be a the WMF's version of events as told to fram. The WMF does look slightly better if you remember that T&S arw trying to improve behaviour through threat of blocks not file a diff heavy arbcom case.
let alone the story
Given that the other versions of "the story" are T&S's PR waffle or conspiracy theories it understandable that people are going to go with the option that at least gives them something to work from.
-- geni
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
I didn't put my words in your mouth -- I quoted your own words precisely, and the implication you were trying to make is obvious; so respectfully, please refrain from gaslighting here. I simply suggested dropping the hyperbole of "star chambers and kangaroo courts", "secret trials punishing people who don't know they're being accused' and "very basic principle[s] of Human Rights and dignity" over someone getting banned from a website over bad conduct issues. You need not reply -- I'm done with this portion of the conversation.
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:03 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
I have never said that this is a human rights violation, so please don't put your words on my mouth.
I have said that the general principles of equality, right to fair trial, not having ones honor damaged by baseless accusations, etc. which are present at the UDHR are being forgotten here.
Of course you may argue that since the WMF is a private organization, they are free to engage in this kind of secret trials, star chambers and kangaroo courts at will. As others already stated, the matter here is not if they can, but if they should be engaging on those schemes, as they are now.
Best, Paulo
A sábado, 15 de jun de 2019, 18:39, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com escreveu:
There is no "very basic principle of Human Rights and dignity" to be free from the presumption of guilt by others. You may be confusing Article 11 of the UHDR, but this applies explicitly only to "penal offenses."
Unless
Fram is getting locked up in prison for his actions, let's drop the
absurd
hyperbole that this is somehow a human rights violation.
Dan Rosenthal
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 11:35 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
People shouldn't be going with any random option, but rather presume
the
innocence of others unless guilt is proven by some legit process. It seems that this very basic principle of Human Rights and dignity is being forgotten. There is not the least appearance of due process happening there, but
that
has not stopped people from finding themselves their guilty part of election, using their own bias to evaluate the case. Including some Wikipedia related social network accounts that should be acting more responsible and wiser than joining the rabble in the
offwiki
harassment of their guilty part of choice.
Best, Paulo
geni geniice@gmail.com escreveu no dia sábado, 15/06/2019 à(s)
17:15:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 00:04, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
wrote:
If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even
plausible,
What you are calling Fram's framing appears to be a the WMF's version of events as told to fram. The WMF does look slightly better if you remember that T&S arw trying to improve behaviour through threat of blocks not file a diff heavy arbcom case.
let alone the story
Given that the other versions of "the story" are T&S's PR waffle or conspiracy theories it understandable that people are going to go
with
the option that at least gives them something to work from.
-- geni
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
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
"someone getting banned from a website over bad conduct issue" - Since the WMF has not clarified what that "bad conduct" has been, I wonder what was the educative value of that. Seems to have been only purely disruptive, and opened the door for all kinds of assumptions, and offwiki harassment of all "guilty parts" of anyone's choice.
Of the parts purportedly involved in this: One editor banned for one year, another editor not contributing to the project since the scandal began; and the Wikimedia flagship project in severe disruption - that's what this absolutely disastrous WMF intervention managed to achieve.
And "secret trials punishing people who don't even know they're being accused, not of what they are being accused" is not hyperbole, is fact. And I don't need this recent issue with Fram to state that. I've personally dealt with at least two situations which were factually that.
Best, Paulo
Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com escreveu no dia sábado, 15/06/2019 à(s) 20:32:
I didn't put my words in your mouth -- I quoted your own words precisely, and the implication you were trying to make is obvious; so respectfully, please refrain from gaslighting here. I simply suggested dropping the hyperbole of "star chambers and kangaroo courts", "secret trials punishing people who don't know they're being accused' and "very basic principle[s] of Human Rights and dignity" over someone getting banned from a website over bad conduct issues. You need not reply -- I'm done with this portion of the conversation.
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:03 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
I have never said that this is a human rights violation, so please don't put your words on my mouth.
I have said that the general principles of equality, right to fair trial, not having ones honor damaged by baseless accusations, etc. which are present at the UDHR are being forgotten here.
Of course you may argue that since the WMF is a private organization,
they
are free to engage in this kind of secret trials, star chambers and kangaroo courts at will. As others already stated, the matter here is not if they can, but if they should be engaging on those schemes, as they are now.
Best, Paulo
A sábado, 15 de jun de 2019, 18:39, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com escreveu:
There is no "very basic principle of Human Rights and dignity" to be
free
from the presumption of guilt by others. You may be confusing Article
11
of the UHDR, but this applies explicitly only to "penal offenses."
Unless
Fram is getting locked up in prison for his actions, let's drop the
absurd
hyperbole that this is somehow a human rights violation.
Dan Rosenthal
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 11:35 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
People shouldn't be going with any random option, but rather presume
the
innocence of others unless guilt is proven by some legit process. It seems that this very basic principle of Human Rights and dignity
is
being forgotten. There is not the least appearance of due process happening there, but
that
has not stopped people from finding themselves their guilty part of election, using their own bias to evaluate the case. Including some Wikipedia related social network accounts that should
be
acting more responsible and wiser than joining the rabble in the
offwiki
harassment of their guilty part of choice.
Best, Paulo
geni geniice@gmail.com escreveu no dia sábado, 15/06/2019 à(s)
17:15:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 00:04, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
wrote:
If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even
plausible,
What you are calling Fram's framing appears to be a the WMF's
version
of events as told to fram. The WMF does look slightly better if you remember that T&S arw trying to improve behaviour through threat of blocks not file a diff heavy arbcom case.
let alone the story
Given that the other versions of "the story" are T&S's PR waffle or conspiracy theories it understandable that people are going to go
with
the option that at least gives them something to work from.
-- geni
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
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
It seems perfectly reasonable to use metaphors based on legal systems, including human rights, in discussing these matters, which do, after all, involve rules of human behavior and their adjudication by authorities. Fairness and justice are constantly invoked in all sorts of everyday matters, from sports to baking.
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 3:32 PM Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't put my words in your mouth -- I quoted your own words precisely, and the implication you were trying to make is obvious; so respectfully, please refrain from gaslighting here. I simply suggested dropping the hyperbole of "star chambers and kangaroo courts", "secret trials punishing people who don't know they're being accused' and "very basic principle[s] of Human Rights and dignity" over someone getting banned from a website over bad conduct issues. You need not reply -- I'm done with this portion of the conversation.
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:03 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
I have never said that this is a human rights violation, so please don't put your words on my mouth.
I have said that the general principles of equality, right to fair trial, not having ones honor damaged by baseless accusations, etc. which are present at the UDHR are being forgotten here.
Of course you may argue that since the WMF is a private organization,
they
are free to engage in this kind of secret trials, star chambers and kangaroo courts at will. As others already stated, the matter here is not if they can, but if they should be engaging on those schemes, as they are now.
Best, Paulo
A sábado, 15 de jun de 2019, 18:39, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com escreveu:
There is no "very basic principle of Human Rights and dignity" to be
free
from the presumption of guilt by others. You may be confusing Article
11
of the UHDR, but this applies explicitly only to "penal offenses."
Unless
Fram is getting locked up in prison for his actions, let's drop the
absurd
hyperbole that this is somehow a human rights violation.
Dan Rosenthal
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 11:35 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
People shouldn't be going with any random option, but rather presume
the
innocence of others unless guilt is proven by some legit process. It seems that this very basic principle of Human Rights and dignity
is
being forgotten. There is not the least appearance of due process happening there, but
that
has not stopped people from finding themselves their guilty part of election, using their own bias to evaluate the case. Including some Wikipedia related social network accounts that should
be
acting more responsible and wiser than joining the rabble in the
offwiki
harassment of their guilty part of choice.
Best, Paulo
geni geniice@gmail.com escreveu no dia sábado, 15/06/2019 à(s)
17:15:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 00:04, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
wrote:
If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even
plausible,
What you are calling Fram's framing appears to be a the WMF's
version
of events as told to fram. The WMF does look slightly better if you remember that T&S arw trying to improve behaviour through threat of blocks not file a diff heavy arbcom case.
let alone the story
Given that the other versions of "the story" are T&S's PR waffle or conspiracy theories it understandable that people are going to go
with
the option that at least gives them something to work from.
-- geni
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
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
I think that's true too; such things are very often used metaphorically. I think everyone here is clear that no one is literally going to be drug off in a white van by a balaclava-wearing goon squad from the WMF and sent to a gulag.
But the fact remains, those systems of justice are things we arrived at, via deliberation and over a period of millennia since at least Hammurabi, to determine how to fairly handle a situation where one person says "You have done something wrong", and they reply "No, I have not." We could do worse than to examine how those systems operate, why they have the procedural safeguards that they do, and what abuses led to those safeguards being proposed to begin with.
Todd
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:55 PM Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com wrote:
It seems perfectly reasonable to use metaphors based on legal systems, including human rights, in discussing these matters, which do, after all, involve rules of human behavior and their adjudication by authorities. Fairness and justice are constantly invoked in all sorts of everyday matters, from sports to baking.
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 3:32 PM Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't put my words in your mouth -- I quoted your own words precisely, and the implication you were trying to make is obvious; so respectfully, please refrain from gaslighting here. I simply suggested dropping the hyperbole of "star chambers and kangaroo courts", "secret trials
punishing
people who don't know they're being accused' and "very basic principle[s] of Human Rights and dignity" over someone getting banned from a website over bad conduct issues. You need not reply -- I'm done with this
portion
of the conversation.
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:03 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
I have never said that this is a human rights violation, so please
don't
put your words on my mouth.
I have said that the general principles of equality, right to fair
trial,
not having ones honor damaged by baseless accusations, etc. which are present at the UDHR are being forgotten here.
Of course you may argue that since the WMF is a private organization,
they
are free to engage in this kind of secret trials, star chambers and kangaroo courts at will. As others already stated, the matter here is
not
if they can, but if they should be engaging on those schemes, as they
are
now.
Best, Paulo
A sábado, 15 de jun de 2019, 18:39, Dan Rosenthal <
swatjester@gmail.com>
escreveu:
There is no "very basic principle of Human Rights and dignity" to be
free
from the presumption of guilt by others. You may be confusing
Article
11
of the UHDR, but this applies explicitly only to "penal offenses."
Unless
Fram is getting locked up in prison for his actions, let's drop the
absurd
hyperbole that this is somehow a human rights violation.
Dan Rosenthal
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 11:35 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
People shouldn't be going with any random option, but rather
presume
the
innocence of others unless guilt is proven by some legit process. It seems that this very basic principle of Human Rights and dignity
is
being forgotten. There is not the least appearance of due process happening there,
but
that
has not stopped people from finding themselves their guilty part of election, using their own bias to evaluate the case. Including some Wikipedia related social network accounts that
should
be
acting more responsible and wiser than joining the rabble in the
offwiki
harassment of their guilty part of choice.
Best, Paulo
geni geniice@gmail.com escreveu no dia sábado, 15/06/2019 à(s)
17:15:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 00:04, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
wrote:
> > If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even
plausible,
>
What you are calling Fram's framing appears to be a the WMF's
version
of events as told to fram. The WMF does look slightly better if
you
remember that T&S arw trying to improve behaviour through threat
of
blocks not file a diff heavy arbcom case.
>let alone the story
Given that the other versions of "the story" are T&S's PR waffle
or
conspiracy theories it understandable that people are going to go
with
the option that at least gives them something to work from.
-- geni
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
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
-- Dennis C. During _______________________________________________ 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
<for the avoidance of any doubt, I am absolutely joking about this post>
Todd, I have to tell you, this comment made me absolutely LOL. All I could imagine was Sue Gardner (from my WMF days) and Geoff Brigham interrogating me about my desire to send out a goon squad after, i dunno, Risker and Newyorkbrad or something. I could imagine Geoff telling me that I needed more evidence (as he ALWAYS said) and Sue telling me that this required a memo first, and I better have budgeted the money in the annual plan.
The image was very vivid for me.
As a Trust and Safety professional, with almost two decades of experience under my belt, all I can say is this: I freakin' wish. Really.
</joke>
Philippe
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:16 PM Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote: I think everyone here is clear that no one is literally going to be drug off
in a white van by a balaclava-wearing goon squad from the WMF and sent to a gulag.
I disagree with using this kind of metaphor as long as they imply an overestimation of the importance of the fictional universe we're dealing with. For sanity sake it's always useful to remember this is just "a strange website".
Vito
Il giorno sab 15 giu 2019 alle ore 21:55 Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com ha scritto:
It seems perfectly reasonable to use metaphors based on legal systems, including human rights, in discussing these matters, which do, after all, involve rules of human behavior and their adjudication by authorities. Fairness and justice are constantly invoked in all sorts of everyday matters, from sports to baking.
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 3:32 PM Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't put my words in your mouth -- I quoted your own words precisely, and the implication you were trying to make is obvious; so respectfully, please refrain from gaslighting here. I simply suggested dropping the hyperbole of "star chambers and kangaroo courts", "secret trials
punishing
people who don't know they're being accused' and "very basic principle[s] of Human Rights and dignity" over someone getting banned from a website over bad conduct issues. You need not reply -- I'm done with this
portion
of the conversation.
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:03 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
I have never said that this is a human rights violation, so please
don't
put your words on my mouth.
I have said that the general principles of equality, right to fair
trial,
not having ones honor damaged by baseless accusations, etc. which are present at the UDHR are being forgotten here.
Of course you may argue that since the WMF is a private organization,
they
are free to engage in this kind of secret trials, star chambers and kangaroo courts at will. As others already stated, the matter here is
not
if they can, but if they should be engaging on those schemes, as they
are
now.
Best, Paulo
A sábado, 15 de jun de 2019, 18:39, Dan Rosenthal <
swatjester@gmail.com>
escreveu:
There is no "very basic principle of Human Rights and dignity" to be
free
from the presumption of guilt by others. You may be confusing
Article
11
of the UHDR, but this applies explicitly only to "penal offenses."
Unless
Fram is getting locked up in prison for his actions, let's drop the
absurd
hyperbole that this is somehow a human rights violation.
Dan Rosenthal
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 11:35 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
People shouldn't be going with any random option, but rather
presume
the
innocence of others unless guilt is proven by some legit process. It seems that this very basic principle of Human Rights and dignity
is
being forgotten. There is not the least appearance of due process happening there,
but
that
has not stopped people from finding themselves their guilty part of election, using their own bias to evaluate the case. Including some Wikipedia related social network accounts that
should
be
acting more responsible and wiser than joining the rabble in the
offwiki
harassment of their guilty part of choice.
Best, Paulo
geni geniice@gmail.com escreveu no dia sábado, 15/06/2019 à(s)
17:15:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 00:04, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
wrote:
> > If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even
plausible,
>
What you are calling Fram's framing appears to be a the WMF's
version
of events as told to fram. The WMF does look slightly better if
you
remember that T&S arw trying to improve behaviour through threat
of
blocks not file a diff heavy arbcom case.
>let alone the story
Given that the other versions of "the story" are T&S's PR waffle
or
conspiracy theories it understandable that people are going to go
with
the option that at least gives them something to work from.
-- geni
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
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
-- Dennis C. During _______________________________________________ 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
Just so long as we don't make exaggeration/hyperbole a violation of the Code of Conduct.
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 5:28 PM Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree with using this kind of metaphor as long as they imply an overestimation of the importance of the fictional universe we're dealing with. For sanity sake it's always useful to remember this is just "a strange website".
Vito
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 18:39, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
There is no "very basic principle of Human Rights and dignity" to be free from the presumption of guilt by others. You may be confusing Article 11 of the UHDR, but this applies explicitly only to "penal offenses." Unless Fram is getting locked up in prison for his actions, let's drop the absurd hyperbole that this is somehow a human rights violation.
The Foundation has explicitly stated at https://wikimediafoundation.org/advocacy/ that "everyone has the right to seek and share knowledge." and at https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/05/23/wikimedia-foundation-petitions-th... that the ability to contribute to Wikipedia is a matter for the European Court of Human Rights.
So it seems that Dan is incorrect -- this *is* a human rights matter. All the more reason, then, to have it supervised by the competent professionals of the Foundation.
The Turnip
I think the legalities are distracting, but to be more on point and blunt:
Wikipedia is a volunteer organization.
Wikimedia Foundation is the professional support arm of in some ways the world's largest collection of similar goal volunteer organizations.
Volunteer organizations happen because volunteers volunteer their time and interest. Things get done either because they think it's important, or they're willing to contribute some fraction of their total effort to things the community as a whole agrees need doing.
Whether there's any legality involved or not, doing something that immediately alienates a large portion of the most dedicated most experienced volunteer base of the English language Wikipedia is ... at best misguided, at worst horrifically counterproductive for the goals and long term survival of the Wikimedia Foundation.
I'm not going far out on a limb speculating that S&T did this because they felt they could, felt they should, and felt it was not going to cause widespread outrage and pushback.
Pushback is clear and shiningly evident now. The reasoning why they should has been challenged, based on the public statements, and is at the very least challenged and in doubt.
The Foundation damaging volunteer interest in the projects this profoundly is not a minor glitch.
-george
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 3:35 PM Thomas Townsend homesec1783@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 18:39, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
There is no "very basic principle of Human Rights and dignity" to be free from the presumption of guilt by others. You may be confusing Article 11 of the UHDR, but this applies explicitly only to "penal offenses."
Unless
Fram is getting locked up in prison for his actions, let's drop the
absurd
hyperbole that this is somehow a human rights violation.
The Foundation has explicitly stated at https://wikimediafoundation.org/advocacy/ that "everyone has the right to seek and share knowledge." and at
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/05/23/wikimedia-foundation-petitions-th... that the ability to contribute to Wikipedia is a matter for the European Court of Human Rights.
So it seems that Dan is incorrect -- this *is* a human rights matter. All the more reason, then, to have it supervised by the competent professionals of the Foundation.
The Turnip
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
Hoi, For me it is not about Fram, it is about who you are as a community how you rate as friendly cooperative inviting. At that Wikipedia sucks and as it says in the book Max Havelaar, "Barbertje moet hangen". This case is a clear sign that not everything can be said and done and that there is no entitlement in this. That point is now made. Nobody is above the law, particularly admin and other people in "high ofice".
There is a reason why I hardly edit Wikipedia and it is because I feel not at home with all the aggression used in stead of arguments. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 at 00:47, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I think the legalities are distracting, but to be more on point and blunt:
Wikipedia is a volunteer organization.
Wikimedia Foundation is the professional support arm of in some ways the world's largest collection of similar goal volunteer organizations.
Volunteer organizations happen because volunteers volunteer their time and interest. Things get done either because they think it's important, or they're willing to contribute some fraction of their total effort to things the community as a whole agrees need doing.
Whether there's any legality involved or not, doing something that immediately alienates a large portion of the most dedicated most experienced volunteer base of the English language Wikipedia is ... at best misguided, at worst horrifically counterproductive for the goals and long term survival of the Wikimedia Foundation.
I'm not going far out on a limb speculating that S&T did this because they felt they could, felt they should, and felt it was not going to cause widespread outrage and pushback.
Pushback is clear and shiningly evident now. The reasoning why they should has been challenged, based on the public statements, and is at the very least challenged and in doubt.
The Foundation damaging volunteer interest in the projects this profoundly is not a minor glitch.
-george
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 3:35 PM Thomas Townsend homesec1783@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 18:39, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com
wrote:
There is no "very basic principle of Human Rights and dignity" to be
free
from the presumption of guilt by others. You may be confusing Article
11
of the UHDR, but this applies explicitly only to "penal offenses."
Unless
Fram is getting locked up in prison for his actions, let's drop the
absurd
hyperbole that this is somehow a human rights violation.
The Foundation has explicitly stated at https://wikimediafoundation.org/advocacy/ that "everyone has the right to seek and share knowledge." and at
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/05/23/wikimedia-foundation-petitions-th...
that the ability to contribute to Wikipedia is a matter for the European Court of Human Rights.
So it seems that Dan is incorrect -- this *is* a human rights matter. All the more reason, then, to have it supervised by the competent professionals of the Foundation.
The Turnip
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
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.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
Why do you doubt Fram? What do you think happened? And why can't the WMF say even so much as a, "That's not accurate."?
You really think he's just outright lying?
On Jun 14, 2019, at 4:03 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible, let alone the story, then you're less competent than I have previously considered you to be.
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs, the maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is lying or omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not challenging him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for what they told him they sanctioned him for.
Todd
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for doing only what you describe?
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept writing garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage! Harassment! Bad!"
If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
SOURCES
PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement anyway. The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had her articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
"harassment"
rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's policies. Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
only
after she has them in hand.
Todd
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
wikigamaliel@gmail.com>
wrote:
If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done then clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles, terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
death
threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
and
threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
criminal
stuff.
The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
goes
against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
then
we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other Wikimedia projects.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
> > When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be, consequences. > An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So
what? The
> only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do
whatever
> they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes
ballistic
when > consequences happen. > > I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if
that
did > not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year
is
like > telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is
clearly
overly > sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong. > _______________________________________________ > 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
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
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
Nobody seems to be insinuating that Fram is lying. It's just plain stupidity to demonize the WMF's action solely on their part of the story alone. Fram has penchant for irritating people he disagrees with and it's possible they have crossed the line.
Recently there was an AbCom case against Rama, an English Wikipedia administrator (now desysoped), Commons administrator and oversighter. While the case was ongoing, Fram began to follow this user to an extent that they began to mass-nominate for deletion the user's uploads on Commons, a behavior the user considered as stalking and harassment. Some users including myself requested that Fram stay away from Rama and their uploads. A behavior like this would normally get users blocked but nobody felt the reason to ban or blocked Fram partly because they wear the English Wikipedia's admin hat.
This incident is barely a month ago.
I am unsure if this form part of the reasons for the ban but I have no enough reasons to think that the ban was unjustifiable.
Regards,
Isaac
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 10:15 AM Benjamin Ikuta <benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Why do you doubt Fram? What do you think happened? And why can't the WMF say even so much as a, "That's not accurate."?
You really think he's just outright lying?
On Jun 14, 2019, at 4:03 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible, let alone the story, then you're less competent than I have previously considered you to be.
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs,
the
maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is lying
or
omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not challenging him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for
what
they told him they sanctioned him for.
Todd
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for doing only what you describe?
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
writing
garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
Harassment!
Bad!"
If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
SOURCES
PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement
anyway.
The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had
her
articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
"harassment"
rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
policies.
Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
only
after she has them in hand.
Todd
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
wikigamaliel@gmail.com>
wrote:
If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done
then
clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
> This misses the point, as others have highlighted already. > > The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles, > terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
death
> threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and > understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
and
> threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
criminal
> stuff. > > The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project > specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
goes
> against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for > banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees > start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
then
> we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the > same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of > administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free > in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time > employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie? > > If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is > because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's > Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should > be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of > policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether > Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not > worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on > Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other > Wikimedia projects. > > Fae > -- > faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae > > On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
>> >> When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be, > consequences. >> An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So
what? The
>> only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do whatever >> they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes
ballistic
> when >> consequences happen. >> >> I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if
that
> did >> not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year
is
> like >> telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is
clearly
> overly >> sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
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
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
Many of us take the opposing view that we do not have enough reason to think the ban was justifiable, and that the ban itself is a small part of the issue, which is seen as lack of due process, compounded by poor communication and bad crisis management. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Isaac Olatunde Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 12:01 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
Nobody seems to be insinuating that Fram is lying. It's just plain stupidity to demonize the WMF's action solely on their part of the story alone. Fram has penchant for irritating people he disagrees with and it's possible they have crossed the line.
Recently there was an AbCom case against Rama, an English Wikipedia administrator (now desysoped), Commons administrator and oversighter. While the case was ongoing, Fram began to follow this user to an extent that they began to mass-nominate for deletion the user's uploads on Commons, a behavior the user considered as stalking and harassment. Some users including myself requested that Fram stay away from Rama and their uploads. A behavior like this would normally get users blocked but nobody felt the reason to ban or blocked Fram partly because they wear the English Wikipedia's admin hat.
This incident is barely a month ago.
I am unsure if this form part of the reasons for the ban but I have no enough reasons to think that the ban was unjustifiable.
Regards,
Isaac
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 10:15 AM Benjamin Ikuta <benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Why do you doubt Fram? What do you think happened? And why can't the WMF say even so much as a, "That's not accurate."?
You really think he's just outright lying?
On Jun 14, 2019, at 4:03 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible, let alone the story, then you're less competent than I have previously considered you to be.
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs,
the
maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is lying
or
omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not challenging him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for
what
they told him they sanctioned him for.
Todd
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for doing only what you describe?
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
writing
garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
Harassment!
Bad!"
If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
SOURCES
PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement
anyway.
The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had
her
articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
"harassment"
rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
policies.
Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
only
after she has them in hand.
Todd
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
wikigamaliel@gmail.com>
wrote:
If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done
then
clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
> This misses the point, as others have highlighted already. > > The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles, > terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
death
> threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and > understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
and
> threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
criminal
> stuff. > > The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project > specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
goes
> against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for > banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees > start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
then
> we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the > same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of > administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free > in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time > employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie? > > If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is > because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's > Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should > be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of > policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether > Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not > worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on > Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other > Wikimedia projects. > > Fae > -- > faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae > > On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
>> >> When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be, > consequences. >> An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So
what? The
>> only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do whatever >> they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes
ballistic
> when >> consequences happen. >> >> I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if
that
> did >> not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year
is
> like >> telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is
clearly
> overly >> sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
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
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
Not really demonizing WMF, but healthily not trusting at face value what they say, specially given WMF quite messy record at that.
The WMF interference in that Wikipedia community was completely out of process, and to the moment lacking any justification worth of that name. IMO it is OK for that community to take the measures they deem as appropriate to prevent such kind of interference in the future.
Best. Paulo
A sexta, 28 de jun de 2019, 11:22, Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com escreveu:
Nobody seems to be insinuating that Fram is lying. It's just plain stupidity to demonize the WMF's action solely on their part of the story alone. Fram has penchant for irritating people he disagrees with and it's possible they have crossed the line.
Recently there was an AbCom case against Rama, an English Wikipedia administrator (now desysoped), Commons administrator and oversighter. While the case was ongoing, Fram began to follow this user to an extent that they began to mass-nominate for deletion the user's uploads on Commons, a behavior the user considered as stalking and harassment. Some users including myself requested that Fram stay away from Rama and their uploads. A behavior like this would normally get users blocked but nobody felt the reason to ban or blocked Fram partly because they wear the English Wikipedia's admin hat.
This incident is barely a month ago.
I am unsure if this form part of the reasons for the ban but I have no enough reasons to think that the ban was unjustifiable.
Regards,
Isaac
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 10:15 AM Benjamin Ikuta <benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Why do you doubt Fram? What do you think happened? And why can't the WMF say even so much as a, "That's not accurate."?
You really think he's just outright lying?
On Jun 14, 2019, at 4:03 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible, let alone the story, then you're less competent than I have previously considered you to be.
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs,
the
maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is
lying
or
omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not
challenging
him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for
what
they told him they sanctioned him for.
Todd
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
wrote:
and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for doing only what you describe?
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
writing
garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
Harassment!
Bad!"
If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
SOURCES
PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement
anyway.
The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had
her
articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
"harassment"
rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
policies.
Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the
article
only
after she has them in hand.
Todd
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
wikigamaliel@gmail.com>
wrote:
> If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done
then
> clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate” > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote: > >> This misses the point, as others have highlighted already. >> >> The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles, >> terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
death
>> threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and >> understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
and
>> threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
criminal
>> stuff. >> >> The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project >> specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
goes
>> against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace >> existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for >> banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF
employees
>> start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
then
>> we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators
the
>> same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of >> administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for
free
>> in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time >> employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie? >> >> If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is >> because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or
Wikipedia's
>> Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they
should
>> be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English >> Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of >> policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than
whether
>> Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was
not
>> worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on >> Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on
other
>> Wikimedia projects. >> >> Fae >> -- >> faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae >> >> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
>>> >>> When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be, >> consequences. >>> An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So
what? The
>>> only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do > whatever >>> they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes
ballistic
>> when >>> consequences happen. >>> >>> I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if
that
>> did >>> not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one
year
is
>> like >>> telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is
clearly
>> overly >>> sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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>
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
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
I think many Commons users would be flatly insulted by the idea that they wouldn't take action against something done on Commons because an English Wikipedia admin did it. Commons is as fiercely protective of its independence as EN-WP is.
And this elides a crucial question: Were the deletion nominations largely correct or incorrect? If someone nominates a bunch of entirely appropriate files for deletion, that could certainly be construed as harassment or at minimum poor judgment on the nominator's part, but if the complaint is "I uploaded a bunch of inappropriate stuff and I got caught", that's appropriate maintenance work. So, were those files mainly deleted, or kept?
Todd
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 4:22 AM Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
Nobody seems to be insinuating that Fram is lying. It's just plain stupidity to demonize the WMF's action solely on their part of the story alone. Fram has penchant for irritating people he disagrees with and it's possible they have crossed the line.
Recently there was an AbCom case against Rama, an English Wikipedia administrator (now desysoped), Commons administrator and oversighter. While the case was ongoing, Fram began to follow this user to an extent that they began to mass-nominate for deletion the user's uploads on Commons, a behavior the user considered as stalking and harassment. Some users including myself requested that Fram stay away from Rama and their uploads. A behavior like this would normally get users blocked but nobody felt the reason to ban or blocked Fram partly because they wear the English Wikipedia's admin hat.
This incident is barely a month ago.
I am unsure if this form part of the reasons for the ban but I have no enough reasons to think that the ban was unjustifiable.
Regards,
Isaac
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 10:15 AM Benjamin Ikuta <benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Why do you doubt Fram? What do you think happened? And why can't the WMF say even so much as a, "That's not accurate."?
You really think he's just outright lying?
On Jun 14, 2019, at 4:03 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible, let alone the story, then you're less competent than I have previously considered you to be.
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs,
the
maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is
lying
or
omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not
challenging
him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for
what
they told him they sanctioned him for.
Todd
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
wrote:
and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for doing only what you describe?
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
writing
garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
Harassment!
Bad!"
If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
SOURCES
PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement
anyway.
The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had
her
articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
"harassment"
rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
policies.
Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the
article
only
after she has them in hand.
Todd
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
wikigamaliel@gmail.com>
wrote:
> If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done
then
> clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate” > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote: > >> This misses the point, as others have highlighted already. >> >> The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles, >> terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
death
>> threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and >> understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
and
>> threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
criminal
>> stuff. >> >> The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project >> specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
goes
>> against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace >> existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for >> banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF
employees
>> start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
then
>> we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators
the
>> same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of >> administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for
free
>> in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time >> employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie? >> >> If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is >> because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or
Wikipedia's
>> Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they
should
>> be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English >> Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of >> policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than
whether
>> Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was
not
>> worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on >> Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on
other
>> Wikimedia projects. >> >> Fae >> -- >> faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae >> >> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
>>> >>> When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be, >> consequences. >>> An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So
what? The
>>> only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do > whatever >>> they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes
ballistic
>> when >>> consequences happen. >>> >>> I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if
that
>> did >>> not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one
year
is
>> like >>> telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is
clearly
>> overly >>> sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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>
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
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
The files were mainly kept because most of them were considered to be utilitarian objects, but IMO the rationale was correct, as all of them are modern props from the Lord of the Rings movie series.
Personally, I think it could be interpreted or construed as some kind of petty revenge from Fram on Rama (every day wikipolitics) , but technically the nominations were correct, indeed.
And it is very true that the Commons community is completely independent from the English Wikipedia, and fiercely adamant defenders of that independence. Someone being a sysop on the English Wikipedia, or on any other Wikipedia project generally count zero on content decisions there.
In this specific case, it is absolutely irrelevant that Fram is or was a sysop at wiki.en.
Best, Paulo
A sexta, 28 de jun de 2019, 15:09, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com escreveu:
I think many Commons users would be flatly insulted by the idea that they wouldn't take action against something done on Commons because an English Wikipedia admin did it. Commons is as fiercely protective of its independence as EN-WP is.
And this elides a crucial question: Were the deletion nominations largely correct or incorrect? If someone nominates a bunch of entirely appropriate files for deletion, that could certainly be construed as harassment or at minimum poor judgment on the nominator's part, but if the complaint is "I uploaded a bunch of inappropriate stuff and I got caught", that's appropriate maintenance work. So, were those files mainly deleted, or kept?
Todd
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 4:22 AM Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
Nobody seems to be insinuating that Fram is lying. It's just plain stupidity to demonize the WMF's action solely on their part of the story alone. Fram has penchant for irritating people he disagrees with and it's possible they have crossed the line.
Recently there was an AbCom case against Rama, an English Wikipedia administrator (now desysoped), Commons administrator and oversighter. While the case was ongoing, Fram began to follow this user to an extent that they began to mass-nominate for deletion the user's uploads on Commons, a behavior the user considered as stalking and harassment. Some users including myself requested that Fram stay away from Rama and their uploads. A behavior like this would normally get users blocked but nobody felt the reason to ban or blocked Fram partly because they wear
the
English Wikipedia's admin hat.
This incident is barely a month ago.
I am unsure if this form part of the reasons for the ban but I have no enough reasons to think that the ban was unjustifiable.
Regards,
Isaac
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 10:15 AM Benjamin Ikuta <benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Why do you doubt Fram? What do you think happened? And why can't the
WMF
say even so much as a, "That's not accurate."?
You really think he's just outright lying?
On Jun 14, 2019, at 4:03 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible, let alone the story, then you're less competent than I have
previously
considered you to be.
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the
diffs,
the
maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is
lying
or
omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not
challenging
him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him
for
what
they told him they sanctioned him for.
Todd
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
wrote:
and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for doing only what you describe?
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com
wrote:
> > The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
writing
> garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
Harassment!
> Bad!" > > If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND
YOUR
SOURCES > PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement
anyway.
> The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly
had
her
> articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as "harassment" > rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
policies.
> Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the
article
only > after she has them in hand. > > Todd > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez < wikigamaliel@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is
done
then
>> clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate” >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> This misses the point, as others have highlighted already. >>> >>> The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban
paedophiles,
>>> terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki death >>> threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and >>> understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these
attacks
and >>> threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or criminal >>> stuff. >>> >>> The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project >>> specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention,
which
goes >>> against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not
replace
>>> existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for >>> banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF
employees
>>> start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already
do,
then >>> we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators
the
>>> same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of >>> administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for
free
>>> in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time >>> employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie? >>> >>> If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is >>> because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or
Wikipedia's
>>> Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they
should
>>> be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English >>> Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation
of
>>> policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than
whether
>>> Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was
not
>>> worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block
on
>>> Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on
other
>>> Wikimedia projects. >>> >>> Fae >>> -- >>> faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae >>> >>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad <
jeblad@gmail.com>
wrote: >>>> >>>> When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be, >>> consequences. >>>> An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So what? The >>>> only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do >> whatever >>>> they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes ballistic >>> when >>>> consequences happen. >>>> >>>> I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and
if
that >>> did >>>> not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one
year
is >>> like >>>> telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is clearly >>> overly >>>> sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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>
> _______________________________________________ > 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
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
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
I do.
It just doesn’t make any sense. His account is either wrong or leaving out much of the truth.
I have some idea (from unfortunate experience) how long office bans take, how much work goes into them, and how many people have to sign off on them.
So we’re either saying one person with a checkered history is lying or a large number of professionals lied, conspired, and lashed out.
Occam’s razor.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:15 AM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Why do you doubt Fram? What do you think happened? And why can't the WMF say even so much as a, "That's not accurate."?
You really think he's just outright lying?
On Jun 14, 2019, at 4:03 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible, let alone the story, then you're less competent than I have previously considered you to be.
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs,
the
maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is lying
or
omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not challenging him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for
what
they told him they sanctioned him for.
Todd
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for doing only what you describe?
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
writing
garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
Harassment!
Bad!"
If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
SOURCES
PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement
anyway.
The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had
her
articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
"harassment"
rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
policies.
Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
only
after she has them in hand.
Todd
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
wikigamaliel@gmail.com>
wrote:
If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done
then
clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
> This misses the point, as others have highlighted already. > > The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles, > terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
death
> threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and > understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
and
> threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
criminal
> stuff. > > The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project > specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
goes
> against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for > banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees > start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
then
> we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the > same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of > administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free > in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time > employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie? > > If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is > because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's > Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should > be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of > policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether > Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not > worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on > Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other > Wikimedia projects. > > Fae > -- > faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae > > On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
>> >> When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be, > consequences. >> An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So
what? The
>> only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do whatever >> they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes
ballistic
> when >> consequences happen. >> >> I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if
that
> did >> not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year
is
> like >> telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is
clearly
> overly >> sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
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
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
Do you at least believe him when he says he hasn't contacted anyone offwiki, and everything he was warned about was onwiki?
And if he really is lying, why can't they even say so?
On Jun 28, 2019, at 12:14 PM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
I do.
It just doesn’t make any sense. His account is either wrong or leaving out much of the truth.
I have some idea (from unfortunate experience) how long office bans take, how much work goes into them, and how many people have to sign off on them.
So we’re either saying one person with a checkered history is lying or a large number of professionals lied, conspired, and lashed out.
Occam’s razor.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:15 AM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Why do you doubt Fram? What do you think happened? And why can't the WMF say even so much as a, "That's not accurate."?
You really think he's just outright lying?
On Jun 14, 2019, at 4:03 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible, let alone the story, then you're less competent than I have previously considered you to be.
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs,
the
maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is lying
or
omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not challenging him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for
what
they told him they sanctioned him for.
Todd
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for doing only what you describe?
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
writing
garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
Harassment!
Bad!"
If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
SOURCES
PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement
anyway.
The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had
her
articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
"harassment"
rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
policies.
Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
only
after she has them in hand.
Todd
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
wikigamaliel@gmail.com>
wrote:
> If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done
then
> clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate” > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote: > >> This misses the point, as others have highlighted already. >> >> The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles, >> terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
death
>> threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and >> understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
and
>> threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
criminal
>> stuff. >> >> The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project >> specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
goes
>> against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace >> existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for >> banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees >> start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
then
>> we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the >> same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of >> administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free >> in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time >> employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie? >> >> If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is >> because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's >> Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should >> be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English >> Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of >> policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether >> Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not >> worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on >> Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other >> Wikimedia projects. >> >> Fae >> -- >> faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae >> >> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com
wrote:
>>> >>> When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be, >> consequences. >>> An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So
what? The
>>> only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do > whatever >>> they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes
ballistic
>> when >>> consequences happen. >>> >>> I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if
that
>> did >>> not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year
is
>> like >>> telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is
clearly
>> overly >>> sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 _______________________________________________ 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
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
Because they'd be immediately accused of libeling him and it would turn into a he said/they said.
Also, while I do think the WMF should be in the business of blocking problem-causing users, it shouldn't be in the business of speaking out against them publicly.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 3:39 PM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Do you at least believe him when he says he hasn't contacted anyone offwiki, and everything he was warned about was onwiki?
And if he really is lying, why can't they even say so?
On Jun 28, 2019, at 12:14 PM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
I do.
It just doesn’t make any sense. His account is either wrong or leaving out much of the truth.
I have some idea (from unfortunate experience) how long office bans take, how much work goes into them, and how many people have to sign off on them.
So we’re either saying one person with a checkered history is lying or a large number of professionals lied, conspired, and lashed out.
Occam’s razor.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:15 AM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Why do you doubt Fram? What do you think happened? And why can't the WMF say even so much as a, "That's not accurate."?
You really think he's just outright lying?
On Jun 14, 2019, at 4:03 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible, let alone the story, then you're less competent than I have previously considered you to be.
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs,
the
maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is lying
or
omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not challenging him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for
what
they told him they sanctioned him for.
Todd
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for doing only what you describe?
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote: > > The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
writing
> garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
Harassment!
> Bad!" > > If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR SOURCES > PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement
anyway.
> The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had
her
> articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as "harassment" > rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
policies.
> Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article only > after she has them in hand. > > Todd > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez < wikigamaliel@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done
then
>> clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate” >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> This misses the point, as others have highlighted already. >>> >>> The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles, >>> terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki death >>> threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and >>> understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks and >>> threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or criminal >>> stuff. >>> >>> The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project >>> specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which goes >>> against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace >>> existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for >>> banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees >>> start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do, then >>> we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the >>> same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of >>> administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free >>> in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time >>> employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie? >>> >>> If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is >>> because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's >>> Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should >>> be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English >>> Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of >>> policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether >>> Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not >>> worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on >>> Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other >>> Wikimedia projects. >>> >>> Fae >>> -- >>> faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae >>> >>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote: >>>> >>>> When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be, >>> consequences. >>>> An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So what? The >>>> only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do >> whatever >>>> they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes ballistic >>> when >>>> consequences happen. >>>> >>>> I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if that >>> did >>>> not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year is >>> like >>>> telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is clearly >>> overly >>>> sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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
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
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 3:58 PM Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
Because they'd be immediately accused of libeling him and it would turn into a he said/they said.
Also, while I do think the WMF should be in the business of blocking problem-causing users, it shouldn't be in the business of speaking out against them publicly.
Robert, I don't follow your arguments here. You think the only two possible explanations are that one or the other side is lying, and prefer a practice where the WMF silently bans people and never offers an explanation? Neither position seems reasonable in my opinion.
And you are suggesting that the WMF are taking admin status into account something I can't seem them agreeing with.
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:37, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for doing only what you describe?
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept writing garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage! Harassment! Bad!"
I think there is general agreement that such flagging could have been handled better.
If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR SOURCES PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement anyway.
Ah questionable. If you look at Prod blp the standard is at least one source. This is one of the reasons that DKY is such a flashpoint. Its meant to be a fairly light weight thing for new editors but at the same time it's often the first time people encounter more extensive standards and at the same time the fact it appears on the main page means that at least some people view it as rather important. On top of that you have more experienced editors using as GA lite who struggle to understand why other editors have such a hard time meeting what are to them such miminal standards.
I think it is important that the WMF is taking the question of harassment seriously. If the community processes are not adequate, it is not an incorrect response to take direct action to protect the individuals that are being harassed. Ideally, community processes should be improved and WMF can give a hint, but it would be too much to expect the victim to continue to be harassed while the long discussion around changing community processes takes place.
As I understand, community health is an important element of the on-going strategy work and WMF has repeatedly drawn attention to solving the issue of harassment on wiki[1], so it is not like they have not told the communities that this is an issue that should be dealt with or that the community discussions needed to empower the communities to do so are not happening at all.
Best regards, Bence
[1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/tag/harassment/
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 17:36, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles, terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki death threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks and threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or criminal stuff.
The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which goes against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do, then we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other Wikimedia projects.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be,
consequences.
An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So what? The only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do whatever they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes ballistic
when
consequences happen.
I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if that
did
not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year is
like
telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is clearly
overly
sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong. _______________________________________________ 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
The inapposite and totally inapt intervention of the WMF, a la bull in a china shop, caused a Streisand effect on the alleged harassment that is stated to have take place. I do not knew the editor which has been pointed as the source of the denounce, or if she has made any denounce at all, but I certainly would not want to be in her shoes right now. She seems to have become the target of secere harassment off wiki, and at minimum a lot of pressure on wiki. She completely stopped editing since this case began. If the idea was to combat and prevent harassment, I must say WMF has failed completely and miserably, on all accounts. And God save me of being "protected" this way, if I ever find myself in a situation that I have to appeal to the WMF for protection.
I absolutely agree that something has to be done to fight onwiki harassment, including this kind of picking some victim and going after all their editions tagging, reverting, copyediting, so that the person feels constantly under vigilance. I personally know of a case very much like this at the Portuguese Wikipedia happening right now, and going on for years, also with a woman as a victim of victim . The community systematically tolerates and protects the harassers (a group of 3 or 4 "umblockables") , and stops short of banning the victim. She constantly contacts me and other editors asking for help, and I sincerely don't know what to do. Last time I and others requested the intervention of the WMF (T&S) at Wikipedia, in a rampage of cases of harassment and even blackmail, the result was absolutely disastrous, with public exposure of the victims, destruction of the editors involved in denouncing the situation, and an actual empowerment of the aggressors.
I do not know what the solution is, and I really would like to know to where one could appeal on such situation. WMF does not seem to be a good option, as they have a solid record of making the problem way worse than what it already is.
I also would like to know what means to T&S "risk of harm to himself", as the last time a fellow editor confidenced to me they were about to kill themselves, I felt completely lost with the answer I have received from the official T&S account, and ended up dealing with the situation myself the best I could. Fortunately the person is alive.
Paulo
A quinta, 13 de jun de 2019, 17:27, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com escreveu:
I think it is important that the WMF is taking the question of harassment seriously. If the community processes are not adequate, it is not an incorrect response to take direct action to protect the individuals that are being harassed. Ideally, community processes should be improved and WMF can give a hint, but it would be too much to expect the victim to continue to be harassed while the long discussion around changing community processes takes place.
As I understand, community health is an important element of the on-going strategy work and WMF has repeatedly drawn attention to solving the issue of harassment on wiki[1], so it is not like they have not told the communities that this is an issue that should be dealt with or that the community discussions needed to empower the communities to do so are not happening at all.
Best regards, Bence
[1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/tag/harassment/
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 17:36, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles, terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki death threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks and threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or criminal stuff.
The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which goes against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do, then we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other Wikimedia projects.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be,
consequences.
An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So what? The only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do
whatever
they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes ballistic
when
consequences happen.
I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if that
did
not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year is
like
telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is clearly
overly
sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong. _______________________________________________ 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
I'm sad to hear that. I would not want a victim to go with a request for help to WMF, local functionaries, an arbitration committee, or anyone else, and have the situation end up worse rather than better. I don't know what to recommend. Perhaps you could ask the stewards what they think.
I am also sad to hear about the difficulties regarding the situation in which you think that someone was at risk of self-harm. I think that the situation you described is probably appropriate for review by the management of WMF Trust and Safety so that they can take a second look. I encourage you to contact them.
I am finding this conversation to be rather depressing, but I am glad that we are having it, because this is one way of developing solutions.
Pine
I think the problem is that the pathological people, having been called out on being pathological, decided to double down on the original complainant. See also: Gamergate, a clearly apt and apposite comparison.
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 19:48, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sad to hear that. I would not want a victim to go with a request for help to WMF, local functionaries, an arbitration committee, or anyone else, and have the situation end up worse rather than better. I don't know what to recommend. Perhaps you could ask the stewards what they think.
I am also sad to hear about the difficulties regarding the situation in which you think that someone was at risk of self-harm. I think that the situation you described is probably appropriate for review by the management of WMF Trust and Safety so that they can take a second look. I encourage you to contact them.
I am finding this conversation to be rather depressing, but I am glad that we are having it, because this is one way of developing solutions.
Pine _______________________________________________ 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
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 19:52, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I think the problem is that the pathological people, having been called out on being pathological, decided to double down on the original complainant.
The supposed original complainant.
We have seen scant evdience to suggest any basis of truth in this.
See also: Gamergate, a clearly apt and apposite comparison.
Indeed.
And blaiming WMF for this is ridiculous.
No idea what could be the relation with GamerGate and the current issue onwiki at wiki en. Would you care to elaborate?
Paulo
A quinta, 13 de jun de 2019, 19:53, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com escreveu:
I think the problem is that the pathological people, having been called out on being pathological, decided to double down on the original complainant. See also: Gamergate, a clearly apt and apposite comparison.
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 19:48, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sad to hear that. I would not want a victim to go with a request for help to WMF, local functionaries, an arbitration committee, or anyone
else,
and have the situation end up worse rather than better. I don't know what to recommend. Perhaps you could ask the stewards what they think.
I am also sad to hear about the difficulties regarding the situation in which you think that someone was at risk of self-harm. I think that the situation you described is probably appropriate for review by the management of WMF Trust and Safety so that they can take a second look. I encourage you to contact them.
I am finding this conversation to be rather depressing, but I am glad
that
we are having it, because this is one way of developing solutions.
Pine _______________________________________________ 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
Quoting seraphimblade onwiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_...
“Very well, here's the feedback: Don't ever again take an action of this nature. Take office actions only where the community has agreed you may: United States legal requirements, child protection, or threats of harm to oneself or others. Otherwise, leave control entirely local, and refer any complaints to local English Wikipedia authorities, even if you grit your teeth while you do it.”
WMF T&S: This is an emerging consensus that not only was this clumsy, but was legitimately an overstep of the authority that the community granted T&S and the Foundation, and in fact damages your credibility in enforcing things like threats of violence or child protection issues or legal/law enforcement issues.
There were several claims that handing this issue to Arbcom was problematic because Fram had prior conflicts with Arbcom. Arbcom deals with actual or potential conflicts and people they dislike every day. That hasn’t stopped it in well over a decade.
I believe that you were convinced that was a legitimate reason not to let Arbcom and the community handle this. But that’s not true.
The “but we had this complaint and couldn’t forward it without breaking confidence!” claim is also legitimate but misguided. You might not be allowed to forward it, but you could tell the complainer to make their own report to Arbcom in private. That someone complains to you doesn’t necessarily make it your problem to solve. Sometimes you can and should direct them to someone else. Forcing yourself to solve it is part of how you got into this mess.
It wasn’t clearly your job or authority.
The Wikipedia community created the Foundation, not the other way around. The Foundation exists to support the community and projects. When you go beyond support into trying to run it for us you fail.
When several key Administrators and a Bureaucrat overturned things, that showed that you’d lost the community authority to exercise your T&S role without oversight.
There are credible efforts to ban Office, or desysop it, though I hope those fail.
Foundation owns the servers; that’s different than owning the community and project. Owning the servers gives you the capability to override the community but not the authority.
This can go in extremely unfortunate directions from here. I hope it doesn’t. Foundation and particularly T&S staff need to slow down your responses and get a handle on your loss of authority. I for one don’t want the job of dealing with death threats or pedophiles or subpoenas back on Admins and Arbcom, and would be happy to reestablish Foundation authority over such traditional T&S roles. Help us trust you enough to give it back.
-george
I think that I understand the GamerGate reference. A decentralized swarm of harassment can be a major problem, and in this case I am concerned (I haven't attempted to review the evidence) that at least one person is being hounded off-wiki regarding their alleged involvement in this matter in a way that would receive a firm response by ENWP administrators if the same hounding was happening on ENWP.
Fear of being hounded can discourage people from reporting problems.
On English Wikipedia we have some administrators who are willing to make politically difficult blocks, and we have an arbitration committee that has been willing to review alleged misconduct by high profile people including administrators, but I'm not sure that all wikis have a sufficient number of competent and good faith administrators to address allegations of misconduct, especially misconduct by people who have relatively high levels of local political support.
Even more challenging to moderate are off-wiki activities in places which do not honor ENWP norms. I do not know of a robust solution to this problem, and my guess is that there is no robust solution unless we want governments to have more ability to proactively filter and to suppress Internet content that does not meet with their approval.
I think that ENWP is more like a busy, diverse, and loud public square than a quiet office with tight control of what everyone does and a central authority that quickly gets rid of people who make statements that are not acceptable within narrow parameters. I worry that the concept of "safe spaces" may come to mean something like: "People are only allowed to participate on Wikimedia sites if they act according to WMF's opinions regarding politically correct behavior and create content that does not offend WMF". Political correctness and safety are not characteristics that I would associate with Wikimedia sites, for better and for worse, and I think that attempting to create more political correctness and safety can come at too much expense of honesty, due process, freedom of expression, and editorial independence. As mentioned by others, WMF’s recent power grab calls into question the editorial independence of the Wikimedia communities.
This does not mean that I would give a free pass to Fram or that I am OK with someone hounding a person who makes a complaint, whether on wiki or off wiki.
I think that a good conversation for the ENWP community to have would be regarding how we can increase confidence by victims of harassment in the integrity of ENWP's investigation and enforcement systems. Courage is sometimes necessary to speak up in public, as many of us are doing in this thread and on wiki with various degrees of personal risk. I am concerned about community members possibly deciding not to report problems because they lack confidence that their reports will be taken seriously by ENWP's community authorities and lack confidence that they will be protected from further harm to the extent that the ENWP community can protect them. (Protecting people from off wiki hounding is, unfortunately, probably impossible if aggressors are determined to hound someone.)
I have concerns regarding a system for anonymous complaints because I generally support transparent enforcement and due process. However, if victims are not reporting problems due to fear and if there is a way that we can provide due process protections for the accused while increasing the confidence of victims in ENWP's investigations and enforcement systems then I think that we should consider making modifications. This does not require any involvement from WMF, although we might want to ask WMF for technical support if needed for a system that we design or agree to implement. Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
P.S. I need to stop posting in this thread so that I do not exceed my limit of Wikimedia-l posts for the month, but my silence does not indicate lack of interest.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 16:24 Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
No idea what could be the relation with GamerGate and the current issue onwiki at wiki en. Would you care to elaborate?
Paulo
A quinta, 13 de jun de 2019, 19:53, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com escreveu:
I think the problem is that the pathological people, having been called out on being pathological, decided to double down on the original complainant. See also: Gamergate, a clearly apt and apposite comparison.
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 19:48, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sad to hear that. I would not want a victim to go with a request
for
help to WMF, local functionaries, an arbitration committee, or anyone
else,
and have the situation end up worse rather than better. I don't know
what
to recommend. Perhaps you could ask the stewards what they think.
I am also sad to hear about the difficulties regarding the situation in which you think that someone was at risk of self-harm. I think that the situation you described is probably appropriate for review by the management of WMF Trust and Safety so that they can take a second
look. I
encourage you to contact them.
I am finding this conversation to be rather depressing, but I am glad
that
we are having it, because this is one way of developing solutions.
Pine _______________________________________________ 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
I have seen a known user attacking me on one of Wikipedia's criticism site during my ArbCom case on the English Wikipedia but when it was report, they said there is nothing they can do about off-wiki attacks/harassment. That event alone gives me an impression that the English Wikipedia community cannot protect anyone from off-wiki harassment. Why would people feel comfortable to report a case of harassment to a community or group that can not protect them?
Isaac
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 8:33 AM Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I think that I understand the GamerGate reference. A decentralized swarm of harassment can be a major problem, and in this case I am concerned (I haven't attempted to review the evidence) that at least one person is being hounded off-wiki regarding their alleged involvement in this matter in a way that would receive a firm response by ENWP administrators if the same hounding was happening on ENWP.
Fear of being hounded can discourage people from reporting problems.
On English Wikipedia we have some administrators who are willing to make politically difficult blocks, and we have an arbitration committee that has been willing to review alleged misconduct by high profile people including administrators, but I'm not sure that all wikis have a sufficient number of competent and good faith administrators to address allegations of misconduct, especially misconduct by people who have relatively high levels of local political support.
Even more challenging to moderate are off-wiki activities in places which do not honor ENWP norms. I do not know of a robust solution to this problem, and my guess is that there is no robust solution unless we want governments to have more ability to proactively filter and to suppress Internet content that does not meet with their approval.
I think that ENWP is more like a busy, diverse, and loud public square than a quiet office with tight control of what everyone does and a central authority that quickly gets rid of people who make statements that are not acceptable within narrow parameters. I worry that the concept of "safe spaces" may come to mean something like: "People are only allowed to participate on Wikimedia sites if they act according to WMF's opinions regarding politically correct behavior and create content that does not offend WMF". Political correctness and safety are not characteristics that I would associate with Wikimedia sites, for better and for worse, and I think that attempting to create more political correctness and safety can come at too much expense of honesty, due process, freedom of expression, and editorial independence. As mentioned by others, WMF’s recent power grab calls into question the editorial independence of the Wikimedia communities.
This does not mean that I would give a free pass to Fram or that I am OK with someone hounding a person who makes a complaint, whether on wiki or off wiki.
I think that a good conversation for the ENWP community to have would be regarding how we can increase confidence by victims of harassment in the integrity of ENWP's investigation and enforcement systems. Courage is sometimes necessary to speak up in public, as many of us are doing in this thread and on wiki with various degrees of personal risk. I am concerned about community members possibly deciding not to report problems because they lack confidence that their reports will be taken seriously by ENWP's community authorities and lack confidence that they will be protected from further harm to the extent that the ENWP community can protect them. (Protecting people from off wiki hounding is, unfortunately, probably impossible if aggressors are determined to hound someone.)
I have concerns regarding a system for anonymous complaints because I generally support transparent enforcement and due process. However, if victims are not reporting problems due to fear and if there is a way that we can provide due process protections for the accused while increasing the confidence of victims in ENWP's investigations and enforcement systems then I think that we should consider making modifications. This does not require any involvement from WMF, although we might want to ask WMF for technical support if needed for a system that we design or agree to implement. Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
P.S. I need to stop posting in this thread so that I do not exceed my limit of Wikimedia-l posts for the month, but my silence does not indicate lack of interest.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 16:24 Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
No idea what could be the relation with GamerGate and the current issue onwiki at wiki en. Would you care to elaborate?
Paulo
A quinta, 13 de jun de 2019, 19:53, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com escreveu:
I think the problem is that the pathological people, having been called out on being pathological, decided to double down on the original complainant. See also: Gamergate, a clearly apt and apposite comparison.
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 19:48, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sad to hear that. I would not want a victim to go with a request
for
help to WMF, local functionaries, an arbitration committee, or anyone
else,
and have the situation end up worse rather than better. I don't know
what
to recommend. Perhaps you could ask the stewards what they think.
I am also sad to hear about the difficulties regarding the situation
in
which you think that someone was at risk of self-harm. I think that
the
situation you described is probably appropriate for review by the management of WMF Trust and Safety so that they can take a second
look. I
encourage you to contact them.
I am finding this conversation to be rather depressing, but I am glad
that
we are having it, because this is one way of developing solutions.
Pine _______________________________________________ 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
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
WMF T&S will not do anything about off-wiki harassment either, apart from banning on-wiki users or offering to block your account as the target of harassment.
There's a lot that can be improved around harassment and civility, but honestly, the WMF has no special answers or powers, they do not claim to be experts. As someone who has had blackmail and death threats, advice from the WMF was a lot worse than advice I had from the either the police or victim support.
Though my experience is mostly dated, the WMF gave me bad advice which significantly delayed me from contacting the police, and I cannot recommend that a target of harassment put their faith in the WMF if they are targeted with harassment. The only reason I reported some nasty transphobic threats targeting me earlier this year was to ensure that the WMF had them logged, in case there was a wider pattern of abuse against other LGBT+ Wikipedians. WMF T&S have given me no useful feedback or updates on my own case in the months since.
I am very sorry to say this so bluntly, but from personal experience though WMF senior management write a lot of nice soft words about harassment and safe spaces, in practice a user being targeted is better off having private chats on IRC with volunteer stewards and checkusers that they trust, rather than WMF employees.
P.S. I encourage the use of the words "target of harassment". Being labelled as a "victim" which puts the focus on you just because you made a complaint, rather than the troll harassing others, is not helpful.
Thanks, Fae
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 13:29, Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
I have seen a known user attacking me on one of Wikipedia's criticism site during my ArbCom case on the English Wikipedia but when it was report, they said there is nothing they can do about off-wiki attacks/harassment. That event alone gives me an impression that the English Wikipedia community cannot protect anyone from off-wiki harassment. Why would people feel comfortable to report a case of harassment to a community or group that can not protect them?
Isaac
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 8:33 AM Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I think that I understand the GamerGate reference. A decentralized swarm of harassment can be a major problem, and in this case I am concerned (I haven't attempted to review the evidence) that at least one person is being hounded off-wiki regarding their alleged involvement in this matter in a way that would receive a firm response by ENWP administrators if the same hounding was happening on ENWP.
Fear of being hounded can discourage people from reporting problems.
On English Wikipedia we have some administrators who are willing to make politically difficult blocks, and we have an arbitration committee that has been willing to review alleged misconduct by high profile people including administrators, but I'm not sure that all wikis have a sufficient number of competent and good faith administrators to address allegations of misconduct, especially misconduct by people who have relatively high levels of local political support.
Even more challenging to moderate are off-wiki activities in places which do not honor ENWP norms. I do not know of a robust solution to this problem, and my guess is that there is no robust solution unless we want governments to have more ability to proactively filter and to suppress Internet content that does not meet with their approval.
I think that ENWP is more like a busy, diverse, and loud public square than a quiet office with tight control of what everyone does and a central authority that quickly gets rid of people who make statements that are not acceptable within narrow parameters. I worry that the concept of "safe spaces" may come to mean something like: "People are only allowed to participate on Wikimedia sites if they act according to WMF's opinions regarding politically correct behavior and create content that does not offend WMF". Political correctness and safety are not characteristics that I would associate with Wikimedia sites, for better and for worse, and I think that attempting to create more political correctness and safety can come at too much expense of honesty, due process, freedom of expression, and editorial independence. As mentioned by others, WMF’s recent power grab calls into question the editorial independence of the Wikimedia communities.
This does not mean that I would give a free pass to Fram or that I am OK with someone hounding a person who makes a complaint, whether on wiki or off wiki.
I think that a good conversation for the ENWP community to have would be regarding how we can increase confidence by victims of harassment in the integrity of ENWP's investigation and enforcement systems. Courage is sometimes necessary to speak up in public, as many of us are doing in this thread and on wiki with various degrees of personal risk. I am concerned about community members possibly deciding not to report problems because they lack confidence that their reports will be taken seriously by ENWP's community authorities and lack confidence that they will be protected from further harm to the extent that the ENWP community can protect them. (Protecting people from off wiki hounding is, unfortunately, probably impossible if aggressors are determined to hound someone.)
I have concerns regarding a system for anonymous complaints because I generally support transparent enforcement and due process. However, if victims are not reporting problems due to fear and if there is a way that we can provide due process protections for the accused while increasing the confidence of victims in ENWP's investigations and enforcement systems then I think that we should consider making modifications. This does not require any involvement from WMF, although we might want to ask WMF for technical support if needed for a system that we design or agree to implement. Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
P.S. I need to stop posting in this thread so that I do not exceed my limit of Wikimedia-l posts for the month, but my silence does not indicate lack of interest.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 16:24 Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
No idea what could be the relation with GamerGate and the current issue onwiki at wiki en. Would you care to elaborate?
Paulo
A quinta, 13 de jun de 2019, 19:53, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com escreveu:
I think the problem is that the pathological people, having been called out on being pathological, decided to double down on the original complainant. See also: Gamergate, a clearly apt and apposite comparison.
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 19:48, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sad to hear that. I would not want a victim to go with a request
for
help to WMF, local functionaries, an arbitration committee, or anyone
else,
and have the situation end up worse rather than better. I don't know
what
to recommend. Perhaps you could ask the stewards what they think.
I am also sad to hear about the difficulties regarding the situation
in
which you think that someone was at risk of self-harm. I think that
the
situation you described is probably appropriate for review by the management of WMF Trust and Safety so that they can take a second
look. I
encourage you to contact them.
I am finding this conversation to be rather depressing, but I am glad
that
we are having it, because this is one way of developing solutions.
Pine _______________________________________________ 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
Astonishing the amount of speculation on this list about what might have happened and who might or might not be telling the truth. Considering that nobody posting here has any information about the facts of the case, would it not be better to cease from speculation which can have no positive aspects but will certainly be offensive or even defamatory to named individuals?
The Turnip
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 13:53, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
WMF T&S will not do anything about off-wiki harassment either, apart from banning on-wiki users or offering to block your account as the target of harassment.
There's a lot that can be improved around harassment and civility, but honestly, the WMF has no special answers or powers, they do not claim to be experts. As someone who has had blackmail and death threats, advice from the WMF was a lot worse than advice I had from the either the police or victim support.
Though my experience is mostly dated, the WMF gave me bad advice which significantly delayed me from contacting the police, and I cannot recommend that a target of harassment put their faith in the WMF if they are targeted with harassment. The only reason I reported some nasty transphobic threats targeting me earlier this year was to ensure that the WMF had them logged, in case there was a wider pattern of abuse against other LGBT+ Wikipedians. WMF T&S have given me no useful feedback or updates on my own case in the months since.
I am very sorry to say this so bluntly, but from personal experience though WMF senior management write a lot of nice soft words about harassment and safe spaces, in practice a user being targeted is better off having private chats on IRC with volunteer stewards and checkusers that they trust, rather than WMF employees.
P.S. I encourage the use of the words "target of harassment". Being labelled as a "victim" which puts the focus on you just because you made a complaint, rather than the troll harassing others, is not helpful.
Thanks, Fae
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 13:29, Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
I have seen a known user attacking me on one of Wikipedia's criticism site during my ArbCom case on the English Wikipedia but when it was report, they said there is nothing they can do about off-wiki attacks/harassment. That event alone gives me an impression that the English Wikipedia community cannot protect anyone from off-wiki harassment. Why would people feel comfortable to report a case of harassment to a community or group that can not protect them?
Isaac
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 8:33 AM Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I think that I understand the GamerGate reference. A decentralized swarm of harassment can be a major problem, and in this case I am concerned (I haven't attempted to review the evidence) that at least one person is being hounded off-wiki regarding their alleged involvement in this matter in a way that would receive a firm response by ENWP administrators if the same hounding was happening on ENWP.
Fear of being hounded can discourage people from reporting problems.
On English Wikipedia we have some administrators who are willing to make politically difficult blocks, and we have an arbitration committee that has been willing to review alleged misconduct by high profile people including administrators, but I'm not sure that all wikis have a sufficient number of competent and good faith administrators to address allegations of misconduct, especially misconduct by people who have relatively high levels of local political support.
Even more challenging to moderate are off-wiki activities in places which do not honor ENWP norms. I do not know of a robust solution to this problem, and my guess is that there is no robust solution unless we want governments to have more ability to proactively filter and to suppress Internet content that does not meet with their approval.
I think that ENWP is more like a busy, diverse, and loud public square than a quiet office with tight control of what everyone does and a central authority that quickly gets rid of people who make statements that are not acceptable within narrow parameters. I worry that the concept of "safe spaces" may come to mean something like: "People are only allowed to participate on Wikimedia sites if they act according to WMF's opinions regarding politically correct behavior and create content that does not offend WMF". Political correctness and safety are not characteristics that I would associate with Wikimedia sites, for better and for worse, and I think that attempting to create more political correctness and safety can come at too much expense of honesty, due process, freedom of expression, and editorial independence. As mentioned by others, WMF’s recent power grab calls into question the editorial independence of the Wikimedia communities.
This does not mean that I would give a free pass to Fram or that I am OK with someone hounding a person who makes a complaint, whether on wiki or off wiki.
I think that a good conversation for the ENWP community to have would be regarding how we can increase confidence by victims of harassment in the integrity of ENWP's investigation and enforcement systems. Courage is sometimes necessary to speak up in public, as many of us are doing in this thread and on wiki with various degrees of personal risk. I am concerned about community members possibly deciding not to report problems because they lack confidence that their reports will be taken seriously by ENWP's community authorities and lack confidence that they will be protected from further harm to the extent that the ENWP community can protect them. (Protecting people from off wiki hounding is, unfortunately, probably impossible if aggressors are determined to hound someone.)
I have concerns regarding a system for anonymous complaints because I generally support transparent enforcement and due process. However, if victims are not reporting problems due to fear and if there is a way that we can provide due process protections for the accused while increasing the confidence of victims in ENWP's investigations and enforcement systems then I think that we should consider making modifications. This does not require any involvement from WMF, although we might want to ask WMF for technical support if needed for a system that we design or agree to implement. Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
P.S. I need to stop posting in this thread so that I do not exceed my limit of Wikimedia-l posts for the month, but my silence does not indicate lack of interest.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 16:24 Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
No idea what could be the relation with GamerGate and the current issue onwiki at wiki en. Would you care to elaborate?
Paulo
A quinta, 13 de jun de 2019, 19:53, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com escreveu:
I think the problem is that the pathological people, having been called out on being pathological, decided to double down on the original complainant. See also: Gamergate, a clearly apt and apposite comparison.
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 19:48, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sad to hear that. I would not want a victim to go with a request
for
help to WMF, local functionaries, an arbitration committee, or anyone
else,
and have the situation end up worse rather than better. I don't know
what
to recommend. Perhaps you could ask the stewards what they think.
I am also sad to hear about the difficulties regarding the situation
in
which you think that someone was at risk of self-harm. I think that
the
situation you described is probably appropriate for review by the management of WMF Trust and Safety so that they can take a second
look. I
encourage you to contact them.
I am finding this conversation to be rather depressing, but I am glad
that
we are having it, because this is one way of developing solutions.
Pine _______________________________________________ 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
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019, 14:48 Thomas Townsend homesec1783@gmail.com wrote:
Considering that nobody posting has any information about the facts of the case, would it not be better to cease from speculation which can have no positive aspects but will certainly be offensive or even defamatory to named individuals.
What you recommend is against human nature. It is natural for one to try to anticipate what others might do, especially if it might have consequences for oneself.
I'm not looking forward to a wikiworld where judgment and punishment rendered in camera by folks whose questionable interpretations of platitudinous Missions and Codes is apparently shaped by the values of an increasingly intolerant subculture.
I agree that it is completely counterproductive to discuss issues like who filed the complaint.
What is however important to understand, especially for those who are not English Wikipedia insiders, is that the reaction which this event caused in unprecedent. For example, by now 19 active admins resigned the tools over the incident in two weeks. Depending on the point of view, one can call this mass protest, or mass madness, or whatever, but this is clearly not an ordinary run-of-the-mill event. It already lead to a lot of troubles and at this point is actually dangerous for stability of the Wikimedia universe.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 9:27 PM Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 29, 2019, 14:48 Thomas Townsend homesec1783@gmail.com wrote:
Considering that nobody posting has any information about the facts of the case, would it not be better to cease from speculation which can have no positive aspects but will certainly be offensive or even defamatory to named individuals.
What you recommend is against human nature. It is natural for one to try to anticipate what others might do, especially if it might have consequences for oneself.
I'm not looking forward to a wikiworld where judgment and punishment rendered in camera by folks whose questionable interpretations of platitudinous Missions and Codes is apparently shaped by the values of an increasingly intolerant subculture. _______________________________________________ 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
I would urge anyone who is following this thread to read and contemplate the Arbcom open letter to the WMF, posted early on June 30th. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_...
This statement was sorely needed, as a means to create the space for the sort of frank and difficult discussions that must take place in order for the underlying issues to be resolved.
Note that I am sending this email solely in my capacity as a sporadic volunteer on the projects, both by name and anonymously.
Hoi, Bans that cannot be appealed against are nothing new. A friend of mine has a lifetime ban and there are mitigating circumstances (imho). Having said that; for me a person who shuns Wikipedia as an editor for its negativity, this has been a long time coming and is very welcome. When people leave Wikipedia and we end up with a more civil environment it is well worth it.
Yes I read the statement and it does say ineffect "we struggled and were not able to cope". Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 at 12:17, Ariel Glenn WMF ariel@wikimedia.org wrote:
I would urge anyone who is following this thread to read and contemplate the Arbcom open letter to the WMF, posted early on June 30th. Link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_...
This statement was sorely needed, as a means to create the space for the sort of frank and difficult discussions that must take place in order for the underlying issues to be resolved.
Note that I am sending this email solely in my capacity as a sporadic volunteer on the projects, both by name and anonymously. _______________________________________________ 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
Hello Wikimedia-l colleagues,
I hope that your day is going well.
There are some updates regarding the topics that we are discussing in this thread. I am writing this email in a personal capacity.
As a reminder, the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee published an open letter on 30 June that was directed to the WMF Board https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram&diff=904149076&oldid=904147649. I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some updates, and finally making some personal comments.
I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.
* "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk, and a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired from Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."
* "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness, consensus, and self-governance."
* "*We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local processes.* Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in the arbitration policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases, they should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to harassment and hostility on the English Wikipedia
* "We feel strongly that this commitment is necessary for the Arbitration Committee to continue to perform the role it is assigned by the English Wikipedia community. If we are unable to find a satisfactory resolution, at least four members of the committee have expressed the intention to resign."
The following are more recent updates.
* The WMF Board has made a statement https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram&diff=904552644&oldid=904551569
* The WMF Executive Director (Katherine Maher) has also made a statement https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Katherine_(WMF)&diff=904607134&oldid=904605950 .
My personal comments follow.
I appreciate the WMF Executive Director's statement. I think that her statement is a good starting point for further communications between the staff and the community, particularly the English Wikipedia community.
I was hoping for a statement from the WMF Board that was humble and apologetic regarding recent disruption that has stressed many people in the community, led to numerous resignations, and consumed countless hours of volunteers' valuable time. Perhaps I overlooked them, but I do not see the words "apology", "sorry", "regret", or similar words in the statement from the WMF Board.
In addition to an apology, I was hoping to see the WMF Board focus on supervising the WMF organization, which I think is its principal job.
I feel that this statement is condescending: "We believe that the communities should be able to deal with these types of situations and should take this as a wake-up call to improve our enforcement processes to deal with so-called "unblockables"." I think that many of us in the communities are aware of these problems. I do not appreciate WMF creating unnecessary and widely harmful disruption in its quest to do top-down social engineering. I encourage the WMF Board to develop humility, refrain from lecturing the communities, and consider how to support the communities in our efforts to improve ourselves.
I would encourage the WMF Board to ponder the harms that have resulted from WMF's actions. I hope that we see a public apology from the WMF Board.
Katherine, thank you for your willingness to have a dialogue regarding these matters, and your willingness to have a more cautious and respectful approach in the future.
Writing solely in a personal capacity,
Katherine, a wonderful reply, including: "*Members of this community have spent thousands of hours... developing the processes, roles, and governance structures that are critical to sustaining English Wikipedia. In doing so, you have not only made English Wikipedia possible, but shaped the principles of the broader Wikimedia movement.*"
Thousands of hours per person in some cases; millions of hours in all. True of many global social organizations and frameworks, but particularly prolific and granular in our case, as each step along the way was done in publicly versioned text. Time invested does not guarantee a particular result, nor does it avoid systemic bias. But it does mean that those committed to the communities have thought intently about even the issues they have not yet solved; can draw on a deep body of precedent to compress complexities into references; and remain ready and able to put more time into improving them.
We are generally ready to consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emijrp/Systemic_bias and its remedies. And often good solutions to problems have already been written down, but trip up over implementation. Discussing who is pushed away by each of a set of behavioral policies -- and what the obstacles are to implementing known solutions to persistent problems -- is not a terrible approach when working to update community norms. (the 'AGF of policymaking'?) /SJ
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 4:35 PM Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Wikimedia-l colleagues,
I hope that your day is going well.
There are some updates regarding the topics that we are discussing in this thread. I am writing this email in a personal capacity.
As a reminder, the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee published an open letter on 30 June that was directed to the WMF Board < https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_t...
.
I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some updates, and finally making some personal comments.
I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.
- "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk, and
a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired from Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."
- "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no
community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness, consensus, and self-governance."
- "*We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints
pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local processes.* Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in the arbitration policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases, they should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to harassment and hostility on the English Wikipedia
- "We feel strongly that this commitment is necessary for the Arbitration
Committee to continue to perform the role it is assigned by the English Wikipedia community. If we are unable to find a satisfactory resolution, at least four members of the committee have expressed the intention to resign."
The following are more recent updates.
- The WMF Board has made a statement
< https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_t...
- The WMF Executive Director (Katherine Maher) has also made a statement
< https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Katherine_(WMF)&dif...
.
My personal comments follow.
I appreciate the WMF Executive Director's statement. I think that her statement is a good starting point for further communications between the staff and the community, particularly the English Wikipedia community.
I was hoping for a statement from the WMF Board that was humble and apologetic regarding recent disruption that has stressed many people in the community, led to numerous resignations, and consumed countless hours of volunteers' valuable time. Perhaps I overlooked them, but I do not see the words "apology", "sorry", "regret", or similar words in the statement from the WMF Board.
In addition to an apology, I was hoping to see the WMF Board focus on supervising the WMF organization, which I think is its principal job.
I feel that this statement is condescending: "We believe that the communities should be able to deal with these types of situations and should take this as a wake-up call to improve our enforcement processes to deal with so-called "unblockables"." I think that many of us in the communities are aware of these problems. I do not appreciate WMF creating unnecessary and widely harmful disruption in its quest to do top-down social engineering. I encourage the WMF Board to develop humility, refrain from lecturing the communities, and consider how to support the communities in our efforts to improve ourselves.
I would encourage the WMF Board to ponder the harms that have resulted from WMF's actions. I hope that we see a public apology from the WMF Board.
Katherine, thank you for your willingness to have a dialogue regarding these matters, and your willingness to have a more cautious and respectful approach in the future.
Writing solely in a personal capacity,
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
The board does not manage WMF. It is not their fault when a department does something stupid if they had no warning that it was likely to happen. People who signed off on the ban decision may have reason to apologise, others not. The board is responsible for ensuring that the damage is fixed and taking reasonably practicable precautions for preventing a recurrence. Due diligence is their duty, not exhaustive diligence or micromanagement. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pine W Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 10:29 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
Hello Wikimedia-l colleagues,
I hope that your day is going well.
There are some updates regarding the topics that we are discussing in this thread. I am writing this email in a personal capacity.
As a reminder, the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee published an open letter on 30 June that was directed to the WMF Board https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram&diff=904149076&oldid=904147649. I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some updates, and finally making some personal comments.
I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.
* "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk, and a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired from Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."
* "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness, consensus, and self-governance."
* "*We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local processes.* Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in the arbitration policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases, they should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to harassment and hostility on the English Wikipedia
* "We feel strongly that this commitment is necessary for the Arbitration Committee to continue to perform the role it is assigned by the English Wikipedia community. If we are unable to find a satisfactory resolution, at least four members of the committee have expressed the intention to resign."
The following are more recent updates.
* The WMF Board has made a statement https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram&diff=904552644&oldid=904551569
* The WMF Executive Director (Katherine Maher) has also made a statement https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Katherine_(WMF)&diff=904607134&oldid=904605950 .
My personal comments follow.
I appreciate the WMF Executive Director's statement. I think that her statement is a good starting point for further communications between the staff and the community, particularly the English Wikipedia community.
I was hoping for a statement from the WMF Board that was humble and apologetic regarding recent disruption that has stressed many people in the community, led to numerous resignations, and consumed countless hours of volunteers' valuable time. Perhaps I overlooked them, but I do not see the words "apology", "sorry", "regret", or similar words in the statement from the WMF Board.
In addition to an apology, I was hoping to see the WMF Board focus on supervising the WMF organization, which I think is its principal job.
I feel that this statement is condescending: "We believe that the communities should be able to deal with these types of situations and should take this as a wake-up call to improve our enforcement processes to deal with so-called "unblockables"." I think that many of us in the communities are aware of these problems. I do not appreciate WMF creating unnecessary and widely harmful disruption in its quest to do top-down social engineering. I encourage the WMF Board to develop humility, refrain from lecturing the communities, and consider how to support the communities in our efforts to improve ourselves.
I would encourage the WMF Board to ponder the harms that have resulted from WMF's actions. I hope that we see a public apology from the WMF Board.
Katherine, thank you for your willingness to have a dialogue regarding these matters, and your willingness to have a more cautious and respectful approach in the future.
Writing solely in a personal capacity,
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
Hoi, The community is responsible for its actions. It is widely acknowledged that the English Wikipedia is a toxic environment. The community has not taken this on board, has not fixed the damage. At some stage an inflection point exists where the community if forced to reflect. Sadly, the English Wikipedia has proven to be unable to get its house in order nor does it show reflection that give hope for a better future. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 09:32, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
The board does not manage WMF. It is not their fault when a department does something stupid if they had no warning that it was likely to happen. People who signed off on the ban decision may have reason to apologise, others not. The board is responsible for ensuring that the damage is fixed and taking reasonably practicable precautions for preventing a recurrence. Due diligence is their duty, not exhaustive diligence or micromanagement. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pine W Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 10:29 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
Hello Wikimedia-l colleagues,
I hope that your day is going well.
There are some updates regarding the topics that we are discussing in this thread. I am writing this email in a personal capacity.
As a reminder, the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee published an open letter on 30 June that was directed to the WMF Board < https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_t...
.
I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some updates, and finally making some personal comments.
I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.
- "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk, and
a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired from Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."
- "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no
community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness, consensus, and self-governance."
- "*We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints
pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local processes.* Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in the arbitration policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases, they should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to harassment and hostility on the English Wikipedia
- "We feel strongly that this commitment is necessary for the Arbitration
Committee to continue to perform the role it is assigned by the English Wikipedia community. If we are unable to find a satisfactory resolution, at least four members of the committee have expressed the intention to resign."
The following are more recent updates.
- The WMF Board has made a statement
< https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_t...
- The WMF Executive Director (Katherine Maher) has also made a statement
< https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Katherine_(WMF)&dif...
.
My personal comments follow.
I appreciate the WMF Executive Director's statement. I think that her statement is a good starting point for further communications between the staff and the community, particularly the English Wikipedia community.
I was hoping for a statement from the WMF Board that was humble and apologetic regarding recent disruption that has stressed many people in the community, led to numerous resignations, and consumed countless hours of volunteers' valuable time. Perhaps I overlooked them, but I do not see the words "apology", "sorry", "regret", or similar words in the statement from the WMF Board.
In addition to an apology, I was hoping to see the WMF Board focus on supervising the WMF organization, which I think is its principal job.
I feel that this statement is condescending: "We believe that the communities should be able to deal with these types of situations and should take this as a wake-up call to improve our enforcement processes to deal with so-called "unblockables"." I think that many of us in the communities are aware of these problems. I do not appreciate WMF creating unnecessary and widely harmful disruption in its quest to do top-down social engineering. I encourage the WMF Board to develop humility, refrain from lecturing the communities, and consider how to support the communities in our efforts to improve ourselves.
I would encourage the WMF Board to ponder the harms that have resulted from WMF's actions. I hope that we see a public apology from the WMF Board.
Katherine, thank you for your willingness to have a dialogue regarding these matters, and your willingness to have a more cautious and respectful approach in the future.
Writing solely in a personal capacity,
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
Gerard, Is your response to my email intended to have any relevance to my statement? If so please clarify. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: 04 July 2019 09:59 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
Hoi, The community is responsible for its actions. It is widely acknowledged that the English Wikipedia is a toxic environment. The community has not taken this on board, has not fixed the damage. At some stage an inflection point exists where the community if forced to reflect. Sadly, the English Wikipedia has proven to be unable to get its house in order nor does it show reflection that give hope for a better future. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 09:32, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
The board does not manage WMF. It is not their fault when a department does something stupid if they had no warning that it was likely to happen. People who signed off on the ban decision may have reason to apologise, others not. The board is responsible for ensuring that the damage is fixed and taking reasonably practicable precautions for preventing a recurrence. Due diligence is their duty, not exhaustive diligence or micromanagement. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pine W Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 10:29 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
Hello Wikimedia-l colleagues,
I hope that your day is going well.
There are some updates regarding the topics that we are discussing in this thread. I am writing this email in a personal capacity.
As a reminder, the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee published an open letter on 30 June that was directed to the WMF Board < https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_t...
.
I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some updates, and finally making some personal comments.
I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.
- "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk, and
a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired from Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."
- "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no
community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness, consensus, and self-governance."
- "*We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints
pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local processes.* Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in the arbitration policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases, they should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to harassment and hostility on the English Wikipedia
- "We feel strongly that this commitment is necessary for the Arbitration
Committee to continue to perform the role it is assigned by the English Wikipedia community. If we are unable to find a satisfactory resolution, at least four members of the committee have expressed the intention to resign."
The following are more recent updates.
- The WMF Board has made a statement
< https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_t...
- The WMF Executive Director (Katherine Maher) has also made a statement
< https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Katherine_(WMF)&dif...
.
My personal comments follow.
I appreciate the WMF Executive Director's statement. I think that her statement is a good starting point for further communications between the staff and the community, particularly the English Wikipedia community.
I was hoping for a statement from the WMF Board that was humble and apologetic regarding recent disruption that has stressed many people in the community, led to numerous resignations, and consumed countless hours of volunteers' valuable time. Perhaps I overlooked them, but I do not see the words "apology", "sorry", "regret", or similar words in the statement from the WMF Board.
In addition to an apology, I was hoping to see the WMF Board focus on supervising the WMF organization, which I think is its principal job.
I feel that this statement is condescending: "We believe that the communities should be able to deal with these types of situations and should take this as a wake-up call to improve our enforcement processes to deal with so-called "unblockables"." I think that many of us in the communities are aware of these problems. I do not appreciate WMF creating unnecessary and widely harmful disruption in its quest to do top-down social engineering. I encourage the WMF Board to develop humility, refrain from lecturing the communities, and consider how to support the communities in our efforts to improve ourselves.
I would encourage the WMF Board to ponder the harms that have resulted from WMF's actions. I hope that we see a public apology from the WMF Board.
Katherine, thank you for your willingness to have a dialogue regarding these matters, and your willingness to have a more cautious and respectful approach in the future.
Writing solely in a personal capacity,
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
Hoi, I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What I find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost the community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on en.wp practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 10:48, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Gerard, Is your response to my email intended to have any relevance to my statement? If so please clarify. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: 04 July 2019 09:59 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
Hoi, The community is responsible for its actions. It is widely acknowledged that the English Wikipedia is a toxic environment. The community has not taken this on board, has not fixed the damage. At some stage an inflection point exists where the community if forced to reflect. Sadly, the English Wikipedia has proven to be unable to get its house in order nor does it show reflection that give hope for a better future. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 09:32, Peter Southwood <peter.southwood@telkomsa.net
wrote:
The board does not manage WMF. It is not their fault when a department does something stupid if they had no warning that it was likely to
happen.
People who signed off on the ban decision may have reason to apologise, others not. The board is responsible for ensuring that the damage is
fixed
and taking reasonably practicable precautions for preventing a
recurrence.
Due diligence is their duty, not exhaustive diligence or micromanagement. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pine W Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 10:29 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
Hello Wikimedia-l colleagues,
I hope that your day is going well.
There are some updates regarding the topics that we are discussing in
this
thread. I am writing this email in a personal capacity.
As a reminder, the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee published an open letter on 30 June that was directed to the WMF Board <
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_t...
.
I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some updates, and finally making some personal comments.
I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.
- "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk,
and
a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired
from
Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."
- "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no
community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness,
consensus,
and self-governance."
- "*We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints
pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local
processes.*
Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in
the
arbitration policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases, they should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to harassment and hostility on the English Wikipedia
- "We feel strongly that this commitment is necessary for the Arbitration
Committee to continue to perform the role it is assigned by the English Wikipedia community. If we are unable to find a satisfactory resolution,
at
least four members of the committee have expressed the intention to resign."
The following are more recent updates.
- The WMF Board has made a statement
<
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_t...
- The WMF Executive Director (Katherine Maher) has also made a statement
<
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Katherine_(WMF)&dif...
.
My personal comments follow.
I appreciate the WMF Executive Director's statement. I think that her statement is a good starting point for further communications between the staff and the community, particularly the English Wikipedia community.
I was hoping for a statement from the WMF Board that was humble and apologetic regarding recent disruption that has stressed many people in
the
community, led to numerous resignations, and consumed countless hours of volunteers' valuable time. Perhaps I overlooked them, but I do not see
the
words "apology", "sorry", "regret", or similar words in the statement
from
the WMF Board.
In addition to an apology, I was hoping to see the WMF Board focus on supervising the WMF organization, which I think is its principal job.
I feel that this statement is condescending: "We believe that the communities should be able to deal with these types of situations and should take this as a wake-up call to improve our enforcement processes
to
deal with so-called "unblockables"." I think that many of us in the communities are aware of these problems. I do not appreciate WMF creating unnecessary and widely harmful disruption in its quest to do top-down social engineering. I encourage the WMF Board to develop humility,
refrain
from lecturing the communities, and consider how to support the
communities
in our efforts to improve ourselves.
I would encourage the WMF Board to ponder the harms that have resulted
from
WMF's actions. I hope that we see a public apology from the WMF Board.
Katherine, thank you for your willingness to have a dialogue regarding these matters, and your willingness to have a more cautious and
respectful
approach in the future.
Writing solely in a personal capacity,
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
What exactly has the English Wikipedia accepted? As far as I know we don't known on what the WMF thinks they failed. It is just speculation and personal opinions.
Paulo
A quinta, 4 de jul de 2019, 10:11, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> escreveu:
Hoi, I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What I find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost the community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on en.wp practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 10:48, Peter Southwood <peter.southwood@telkomsa.net
wrote:
Gerard, Is your response to my email intended to have any relevance to my statement? If so please clarify. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: 04 July 2019 09:59 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
Hoi, The community is responsible for its actions. It is widely acknowledged that the English Wikipedia is a toxic environment. The community has not taken this on board, has not fixed the damage. At some stage an
inflection
point exists where the community if forced to reflect. Sadly, the English Wikipedia has proven to be unable to get its house in order nor does it show reflection that give hope for a better future. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 09:32, Peter Southwood <
peter.southwood@telkomsa.net
wrote:
The board does not manage WMF. It is not their fault when a department does something stupid if they had no warning that it was likely to
happen.
People who signed off on the ban decision may have reason to apologise, others not. The board is responsible for ensuring that the damage is
fixed
and taking reasonably practicable precautions for preventing a
recurrence.
Due diligence is their duty, not exhaustive diligence or
micromanagement.
Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pine W Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 10:29 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
Hello Wikimedia-l colleagues,
I hope that your day is going well.
There are some updates regarding the topics that we are discussing in
this
thread. I am writing this email in a personal capacity.
As a reminder, the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee published an open letter on 30 June that was directed to the WMF Board <
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_t...
.
I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some updates, and finally making some personal comments.
I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.
- "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk,
and
a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired
from
Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."
- "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no
community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing
with
harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness,
consensus,
and self-governance."
- "*We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints
pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local
processes.*
Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and
the
WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential
allegations
of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in
the
arbitration policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases,
they
should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to harassment and hostility on the English Wikipedia
- "We feel strongly that this commitment is necessary for the
Arbitration
Committee to continue to perform the role it is assigned by the English Wikipedia community. If we are unable to find a satisfactory
resolution,
at
least four members of the committee have expressed the intention to resign."
The following are more recent updates.
- The WMF Board has made a statement
<
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_t...
- The WMF Executive Director (Katherine Maher) has also made a
statement
<
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Katherine_(WMF)&dif...
.
My personal comments follow.
I appreciate the WMF Executive Director's statement. I think that her statement is a good starting point for further communications between
the
staff and the community, particularly the English Wikipedia community.
I was hoping for a statement from the WMF Board that was humble and apologetic regarding recent disruption that has stressed many people in
the
community, led to numerous resignations, and consumed countless hours
of
volunteers' valuable time. Perhaps I overlooked them, but I do not see
the
words "apology", "sorry", "regret", or similar words in the statement
from
the WMF Board.
In addition to an apology, I was hoping to see the WMF Board focus on supervising the WMF organization, which I think is its principal job.
I feel that this statement is condescending: "We believe that the communities should be able to deal with these types of situations and should take this as a wake-up call to improve our enforcement processes
to
deal with so-called "unblockables"." I think that many of us in the communities are aware of these problems. I do not appreciate WMF
creating
unnecessary and widely harmful disruption in its quest to do top-down social engineering. I encourage the WMF Board to develop humility,
refrain
from lecturing the communities, and consider how to support the
communities
in our efforts to improve ourselves.
I would encourage the WMF Board to ponder the harms that have resulted
from
WMF's actions. I hope that we see a public apology from the WMF Board.
Katherine, thank you for your willingness to have a dialogue regarding these matters, and your willingness to have a more cautious and
respectful
approach in the future.
Writing solely in a personal capacity,
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
Gerard, Did you read and understand my first comment in this thread? You may be surprised to find that the board has indicated that WMF (or parts thereof, we should not tar everyone there with the same brush) was indeed at fault in their handling of this issue. I am inclined to accept this finding. I do not at any point claim that the English Wikipedia community is without fault, which seems to be your implication. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: 04 July 2019 11:11 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
Hoi, I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What I find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost the community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on en.wp practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 10:48, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
Gerard, Is your response to my email intended to have any relevance to my statement? If so please clarify. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: 04 July 2019 09:59 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
Hoi, The community is responsible for its actions. It is widely acknowledged that the English Wikipedia is a toxic environment. The community has not taken this on board, has not fixed the damage. At some stage an inflection point exists where the community if forced to reflect. Sadly, the English Wikipedia has proven to be unable to get its house in order nor does it show reflection that give hope for a better future. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 09:32, Peter Southwood <peter.southwood@telkomsa.net
wrote:
The board does not manage WMF. It is not their fault when a department does something stupid if they had no warning that it was likely to
happen.
People who signed off on the ban decision may have reason to apologise, others not. The board is responsible for ensuring that the damage is
fixed
and taking reasonably practicable precautions for preventing a
recurrence.
Due diligence is their duty, not exhaustive diligence or micromanagement. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pine W Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 10:29 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
Hello Wikimedia-l colleagues,
I hope that your day is going well.
There are some updates regarding the topics that we are discussing in
this
thread. I am writing this email in a personal capacity.
As a reminder, the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee published an open letter on 30 June that was directed to the WMF Board <
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_t...
.
I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some updates, and finally making some personal comments.
I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.
- "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk,
and
a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired
from
Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."
- "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no
community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness,
consensus,
and self-governance."
- "*We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints
pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local
processes.*
Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in
the
arbitration policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases, they should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to harassment and hostility on the English Wikipedia
- "We feel strongly that this commitment is necessary for the Arbitration
Committee to continue to perform the role it is assigned by the English Wikipedia community. If we are unable to find a satisfactory resolution,
at
least four members of the committee have expressed the intention to resign."
The following are more recent updates.
- The WMF Board has made a statement
<
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_t...
- The WMF Executive Director (Katherine Maher) has also made a statement
<
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Katherine_(WMF)&dif...
.
My personal comments follow.
I appreciate the WMF Executive Director's statement. I think that her statement is a good starting point for further communications between the staff and the community, particularly the English Wikipedia community.
I was hoping for a statement from the WMF Board that was humble and apologetic regarding recent disruption that has stressed many people in
the
community, led to numerous resignations, and consumed countless hours of volunteers' valuable time. Perhaps I overlooked them, but I do not see
the
words "apology", "sorry", "regret", or similar words in the statement
from
the WMF Board.
In addition to an apology, I was hoping to see the WMF Board focus on supervising the WMF organization, which I think is its principal job.
I feel that this statement is condescending: "We believe that the communities should be able to deal with these types of situations and should take this as a wake-up call to improve our enforcement processes
to
deal with so-called "unblockables"." I think that many of us in the communities are aware of these problems. I do not appreciate WMF creating unnecessary and widely harmful disruption in its quest to do top-down social engineering. I encourage the WMF Board to develop humility,
refrain
from lecturing the communities, and consider how to support the
communities
in our efforts to improve ourselves.
I would encourage the WMF Board to ponder the harms that have resulted
from
WMF's actions. I hope that we see a public apology from the WMF Board.
Katherine, thank you for your willingness to have a dialogue regarding these matters, and your willingness to have a more cautious and
respectful
approach in the future.
Writing solely in a personal capacity,
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Peter,
My view is that accountability should start at the top of an organization.
I was trying to think of a better word than "supervising" for the concept that I had in mind. After further consideration, I think that "governing" would have been a better choice.
I am disappointed by the WMF Board's tone and its lack of apology. In the Board's words, "The Board views this as part of a much-needed community debate on toxic behavior. In spite of the considerable disruption this has caused for many, we hope this serves as a catalyzing moment for us to move forward together to ensure the health and vitality of our communities." In other words, the Board thinks that the "considerable disruption" is acceptable, perhaps even good in the big picture. Also, the Board apologizes for nothing.
I believe that community members are not servants, and are not okay to ignore, mistreat, or throw away casually. Also, I believe that the near-miracle of English Wikipedia should be tended with great care, and that the scars from this incident will be with us for a long time.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 00:32 Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
The board does not manage WMF. It is not their fault when a department does something stupid if they had no warning that it was likely to happen. People who signed off on the ban decision may have reason to apologise, others not. The board is responsible for ensuring that the damage is fixed and taking reasonably practicable precautions for preventing a recurrence. Due diligence is their duty, not exhaustive diligence or micromanagement. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pine W Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 10:29 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
Hello Wikimedia-l colleagues,
I hope that your day is going well.
There are some updates regarding the topics that we are discussing in this thread. I am writing this email in a personal capacity.
As a reminder, the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee published an open letter on 30 June that was directed to the WMF Board < https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_t...
.
I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some updates, and finally making some personal comments.
I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.
- "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk, and
a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired from Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."
- "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no
community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness, consensus, and self-governance."
- "*We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints
pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local processes.* Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in the arbitration policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases, they should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to harassment and hostility on the English Wikipedia
- "We feel strongly that this commitment is necessary for the Arbitration
Committee to continue to perform the role it is assigned by the English Wikipedia community. If we are unable to find a satisfactory resolution, at least four members of the committee have expressed the intention to resign."
The following are more recent updates.
- The WMF Board has made a statement
< https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_t...
- The WMF Executive Director (Katherine Maher) has also made a statement
< https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Katherine_(WMF)&dif...
.
My personal comments follow.
I appreciate the WMF Executive Director's statement. I think that her statement is a good starting point for further communications between the staff and the community, particularly the English Wikipedia community.
I was hoping for a statement from the WMF Board that was humble and apologetic regarding recent disruption that has stressed many people in the community, led to numerous resignations, and consumed countless hours of volunteers' valuable time. Perhaps I overlooked them, but I do not see the words "apology", "sorry", "regret", or similar words in the statement from the WMF Board.
In addition to an apology, I was hoping to see the WMF Board focus on supervising the WMF organization, which I think is its principal job.
I feel that this statement is condescending: "We believe that the communities should be able to deal with these types of situations and should take this as a wake-up call to improve our enforcement processes to deal with so-called "unblockables"." I think that many of us in the communities are aware of these problems. I do not appreciate WMF creating unnecessary and widely harmful disruption in its quest to do top-down social engineering. I encourage the WMF Board to develop humility, refrain from lecturing the communities, and consider how to support the communities in our efforts to improve ourselves.
I would encourage the WMF Board to ponder the harms that have resulted from WMF's actions. I hope that we see a public apology from the WMF Board.
Katherine, thank you for your willingness to have a dialogue regarding these matters, and your willingness to have a more cautious and respectful approach in the future.
Writing solely in a personal capacity,
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
Also, I believe that the near-miracle of English Wikipedia should be tended with great care, and that the scars from this incident will be with us for a long time.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
I think there's a kernel here of something really important. An argument can be made (and has been, I'm sure) that the English Wikipedia is a modern Wonder of the World. It's a towering achievement of technology and humanity. It's humanity means that, like all of our towering achievements, it can't escape our flaws. The world is full of toxic people. Released from the risk of being iced out of society or punched in the face, they let that toxicity reign on the Internet and all of its spaces - including Wikipedia. The idea that the WMF or the Wikipedia community is going to solve this problem is earnest and well-meaning but foolish.
Yet Wikipedia was brought into being despite the toxicity, and has survived and thrived all this time alongside the struggles of human interaction. So maybe what we really need is for the WMF to be hands off and let the forces that created this "miracle" keep doing their work, and for the community of the English Wikipedia to keep struggling but with the practical realization that success means just keeping temps below a rolling boil.
Hoi, Sorry but there is no reflection and all I read is an apologist telling us that English Wikipedia is the best there is. It is not, not by far. What is thought of as the English Wikipedia community are the old hands steeped in the arcane lore that are the policies that defend the status quo and keep others out. Just consider, I read a thread where it was put that a Jess Wade would not make administrator because (all kinds of repressive arguments that make my skin crawl). Just consider, I have formulated as a problem that 6% of list items in English Wikipedia refer to false friends and or do not link to the right article. I have formulated a solution that involves Wikidata and find that it is not even considered. Just consider, in an arbcom case where I have a beef I included my point of view. It was not accepted because it did not comply with a set format and was threatened that I could be banned because (I did not get the legalese).
English Wikipedia is toxic and we can lose a substantial number of people when the result is that we open up and allow for new, other arguments. It is toxic because it considers itself complete as it is and consequently does a substandard job in "sharing the sum of all knowledge".
Keeping things as they were is not an option. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 01:27, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Also, I believe that the near-miracle of English Wikipedia should be tended with great care, and that the scars from this incident will be with us for a long time.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
I think there's a kernel here of something really important. An argument can be made (and has been, I'm sure) that the English Wikipedia is a modern Wonder of the World. It's a towering achievement of technology and humanity. It's humanity means that, like all of our towering achievements, it can't escape our flaws. The world is full of toxic people. Released from the risk of being iced out of society or punched in the face, they let that toxicity reign on the Internet and all of its spaces - including Wikipedia. The idea that the WMF or the Wikipedia community is going to solve this problem is earnest and well-meaning but foolish.
Yet Wikipedia was brought into being despite the toxicity, and has survived and thrived all this time alongside the struggles of human interaction. So maybe what we really need is for the WMF to be hands off and let the forces that created this "miracle" keep doing their work, and for the community of the English Wikipedia to keep struggling but with the practical realization that success means just keeping temps below a rolling boil. _______________________________________________ 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
That "arcane lore" has resulted in the largest educational work ever produced by humanity, and free for everyone both as in speech and as in beer.
So I think we need to consider carefully before radically changing it. It has worked, and worked unimaginably well, for most of two decades. That's not to say it can't still be improved, but the proof is in the results. If the English Wikipedia were badly broken, it wouldn't be a fixture of modern life.
Todd
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 11:54 PM Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Sorry but there is no reflection and all I read is an apologist telling us that English Wikipedia is the best there is. It is not, not by far. What is thought of as the English Wikipedia community are the old hands steeped in the arcane lore that are the policies that defend the status quo and keep others out. Just consider, I read a thread where it was put that a Jess Wade would not make administrator because (all kinds of repressive arguments that make my skin crawl). Just consider, I have formulated as a problem that 6% of list items in English Wikipedia refer to false friends and or do not link to the right article. I have formulated a solution that involves Wikidata and find that it is not even considered. Just consider, in an arbcom case where I have a beef I included my point of view. It was not accepted because it did not comply with a set format and was threatened that I could be banned because (I did not get the legalese).
English Wikipedia is toxic and we can lose a substantial number of people when the result is that we open up and allow for new, other arguments. It is toxic because it considers itself complete as it is and consequently does a substandard job in "sharing the sum of all knowledge".
Keeping things as they were is not an option. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 01:27, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Also, I believe that the near-miracle of English Wikipedia should be tended with great care, and that the scars from this incident will be with us for a long time.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
I think there's a kernel here of something really important. An argument can be made (and has been, I'm sure) that the English Wikipedia is a
modern
Wonder of the World. It's a towering achievement of technology and humanity. It's humanity means that, like all of our towering
achievements,
it can't escape our flaws. The world is full of toxic people. Released
from
the risk of being iced out of society or punched in the face, they let
that
toxicity reign on the Internet and all of its spaces - including
Wikipedia.
The idea that the WMF or the Wikipedia community is going to solve this problem is earnest and well-meaning but foolish.
Yet Wikipedia was brought into being despite the toxicity, and has
survived
and thrived all this time alongside the struggles of human interaction.
So
maybe what we really need is for the WMF to be hands off and let the
forces
that created this "miracle" keep doing their work, and for the community
of
the English Wikipedia to keep struggling but with the practical
realization
that success means just keeping temps below a rolling boil. _______________________________________________ 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
It isn't magic. People have studied how and why it was successful and other projects were not.
Wikipedia 2019 isn't the same as Wikipedia 2001. We've made lots of changes that we thought at the time were radical along the way.
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 6:01 AM Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
That "arcane lore" has resulted in the largest educational work ever produced by humanity, and free for everyone both as in speech and as in beer.
So I think we need to consider carefully before radically changing it. It has worked, and worked unimaginably well, for most of two decades. That's not to say it can't still be improved, but the proof is in the results. If the English Wikipedia were badly broken, it wouldn't be a fixture of modern life.
Todd
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 11:54 PM Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Sorry but there is no reflection and all I read is an apologist telling
us
that English Wikipedia is the best there is. It is not, not by far. What
is
thought of as the English Wikipedia community are the old hands steeped
in
the arcane lore that are the policies that defend the status quo and keep others out. Just consider, I read a thread where it was put that a Jess Wade would not make administrator because (all kinds of repressive arguments that make my skin crawl). Just consider, I have formulated as a problem that 6% of list items in English Wikipedia refer to false friends and or do not link to the right article. I have formulated a solution
that
involves Wikidata and find that it is not even considered. Just consider, in an arbcom case where I have a beef I included my point of view. It was not accepted because it did not comply with a set format and was
threatened
that I could be banned because (I did not get the legalese).
English Wikipedia is toxic and we can lose a substantial number of people when the result is that we open up and allow for new, other arguments. It is toxic because it considers itself complete as it is and consequently does a substandard job in "sharing the sum of all knowledge".
Keeping things as they were is not an option. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 01:27, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Also, I believe that the near-miracle of English Wikipedia should be tended with great care,
and
that the scars from this incident will be with us for a long time.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
I think there's a kernel here of something really important. An
argument
can be made (and has been, I'm sure) that the English Wikipedia is a
modern
Wonder of the World. It's a towering achievement of technology and humanity. It's humanity means that, like all of our towering
achievements,
it can't escape our flaws. The world is full of toxic people. Released
from
the risk of being iced out of society or punched in the face, they let
that
toxicity reign on the Internet and all of its spaces - including
Wikipedia.
The idea that the WMF or the Wikipedia community is going to solve this problem is earnest and well-meaning but foolish.
Yet Wikipedia was brought into being despite the toxicity, and has
survived
and thrived all this time alongside the struggles of human interaction.
So
maybe what we really need is for the WMF to be hands off and let the
forces
that created this "miracle" keep doing their work, and for the
community
of
the English Wikipedia to keep struggling but with the practical
realization
that success means just keeping temps below a rolling boil. _______________________________________________ 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
I'm continuing to think about the WMF Board's handling of this matter, but I am experiencing considerable difficulty with wording my comments in a way that is diplomatic. Hopefully I'll have further comments to share here next week. In the meantime, and perhaps of greater interest to other participants in this mailing list thread:
* Discussion about related issues continues on English Wikipedia at [1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram], [2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram], [3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Katherine_(WMF)], and elsewhere.
* Arbcom has passed a related motion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversion_of_office_actions#6)_Reversion_of_office_actions_(II), and there is a related case that is under consideration but might be declined https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Disputed_Signpost_article. (Disclosure: I made a statement in the latter case, and also participated in the related discussion at ANI).
* The English Wikipedia page that describes WMF Office actions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_actions has been changed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AOffice_actions&type=revision&diff=903709635&oldid=902584562, including being changed to communicate that it describes a WMF policy https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions and not an English Wikipedia community policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines. There may be further changes to that page; some related discussion may be found on the associated talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Office_actions.
Regards,
The pace of discussions about this incident appear to be slowing, both here and on ENWP. Discussions on ENWP seems to be turning towards longer term topics.
I think that some of these discussions could instead have happened in better circumstances. I do not envision any likely outcome where the benefits that are associated with this incident will outweigh the harms.
Below I share some comments that I selected from the lists of resignations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram/Summary#Resignations, retirements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram/Summary#Retirements, and strikes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram/Summary#Editors_on_strike. Some of the people who made these comments may return to activity or reclaim their permissions, but my guess is that some of them will not.
A minority of the statements protested the community's actions.
* "I cannot support a community that undermines T&S." * "...the enwiki community is like the world's largest dysfunctional family, and I no longer wish to hold a position of responsibility here" * "... no interest in helping a project that willfully allows and condones harassment, intimidation and stalking."
The majority protested WMF's actions.
* "the whole WMF ban mess was the straw that broke the camel's back" * "in protest of the Wikimedia Foundation's inconsistent, opaque, oblivious and inadequate handling of user conduct issues" * "dispirited by the recent action of T&S, and even more so by their refusal to explain their action in any meaningful way, to provide any mechanism for an appeal, or to negotiate on a compromise" * "I am not willing to serve Jan and the T&S team … under undisclosed new rules and under threat of unappealable sanctions should I (or those I interact with) violate those undisclosed rules, rather than serving the Wikipedia Community under its imperfect but transparent and accountable rules." * "We are not subjects of the WMF ... you have to give us the same respect you demand for yourselves." * "Yeah....I handed in my bit too; somehow I can feel a change in the wind....community seems to matter less and less." * "There's not much to say that hasn't already been said better by others, so I'll spare everyone my own manifesto except to say there are a lot of good people who edit here, and I will miss working with you all very much" * "I have thought long and hard about this, but do not feel able to continue to contribute in the current environment. I had hoped it would be resolved satisfactorily by now, but this is looking increasingly unlikely. Please accept my resignation and remove the admin tools. Thank you and best wishes" * "I am resigning my adminship to protest the contempt the WMF organization and CEO have for WP's volunteers" * "I would like to express my disappointment at the way the WMF has handled this matter so far" * "I'm out unless and until the foundation repairs it's relationship with this community." * "...an utterly empty shell statement. ... When (if?) this resolves I will consider to ask it back, but currently it is of no use for me. WMF can do it by themselves in the meantime." * "I found the Board's response to the Fram affair disappointing to put it mildly..." * "enough. Email me when the WMF takes steps to actually fix this place instead of destroy it." * "retiring until WMF provide suitable explanation for their behaviour" * "One of the great things about volunteering is that when an organisation supposedly devoted to supporting you shows itself incapable of providing a level of support that you consider adequate, there are no adverse consequence from simply withdrawing your labour, which is what I am now doing" * "I have decided to not edit in content for a period commensurate with Fram's ban, . .not out of solidarity with F. Out of outrage for the WMF's kangaroo court encroachment." * "I am 100% OUT on doing another site maintenance task of any type until this is resolved properly. This includes for me particularly New Page Patrolling, Articles for Deletion, RFA commentary, vandal revision (of which I do very, very little anyway), and notice board participation. I am not your unpaid intern, WMF." * "I learned about this late, but I don't work for bullies. I'll not be editing mainspace until this is satisfactorily resolved."
Personally, I think that the community's ideals are amazing, and the fact that English Wikipedia works as well as it does reminds me of an eternal flame https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_flame. But that flame operates with a complex web of trust, and if its highly privileged caretakers attack it or handle it carelessly, then I think that its future is in doubt.
Hopefully this will give the WMF Board something to contemplate.
Hi Pine, I more often find myself agreeing with you than not, but there are often nuanced differences in that opinion, which is generally not a problem. I agree that the board could have expressed their consensus opinion differently, but the fact that it is a consensus opinion will necessarily affect the expression, and what they have said fits into the range I find acceptable. I maintain that the Board is not the nanny of WMF and that where the WMF does something surprising the board is not necessarily culpable. This is one of those cases. Opinions obviously vary considerably here, from those who think WMF handled it well to those who will not be satisfied until heads roll. That again is Wikipedia, and Nathan expresses the situation quite well. The board is accountable, but not necessarily at fault for failing to prevent this case. It is now their duty to fix it, and I support then in such efforts. We still don't have enough information to make a fair judgement on WMF. They will not give it to us, so must not be surprised when a history of blunders is held against them. We must necessarily judge on the available evidence, and we will pass judgement. It is what we do all the time on Wikipedia, it is a necessary part of building an encyclopedia. They do good work too, but that good, as Shakespeare said, is oft interred with their bones. As you say, community members are not servants, and I agree with the rest of that paragraph. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pine W Sent: 05 July 2019 01:11 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
Hi Peter,
My view is that accountability should start at the top of an organization.
I was trying to think of a better word than "supervising" for the concept that I had in mind. After further consideration, I think that "governing" would have been a better choice.
I am disappointed by the WMF Board's tone and its lack of apology. In the Board's words, "The Board views this as part of a much-needed community debate on toxic behavior. In spite of the considerable disruption this has caused for many, we hope this serves as a catalyzing moment for us to move forward together to ensure the health and vitality of our communities." In other words, the Board thinks that the "considerable disruption" is acceptable, perhaps even good in the big picture. Also, the Board apologizes for nothing.
I believe that community members are not servants, and are not okay to ignore, mistreat, or throw away casually. Also, I believe that the near-miracle of English Wikipedia should be tended with great care, and that the scars from this incident will be with us for a long time.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 00:32 Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net wrote:
The board does not manage WMF. It is not their fault when a department does something stupid if they had no warning that it was likely to happen. People who signed off on the ban decision may have reason to apologise, others not. The board is responsible for ensuring that the damage is fixed and taking reasonably practicable precautions for preventing a recurrence. Due diligence is their duty, not exhaustive diligence or micromanagement. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pine W Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 10:29 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
Hello Wikimedia-l colleagues,
I hope that your day is going well.
There are some updates regarding the topics that we are discussing in this thread. I am writing this email in a personal capacity.
As a reminder, the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee published an open letter on 30 June that was directed to the WMF Board < https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_t...
.
I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some updates, and finally making some personal comments.
I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.
- "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk, and
a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired from Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."
- "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no
community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness, consensus, and self-governance."
- "*We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints
pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local processes.* Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in the arbitration policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases, they should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to harassment and hostility on the English Wikipedia
- "We feel strongly that this commitment is necessary for the Arbitration
Committee to continue to perform the role it is assigned by the English Wikipedia community. If we are unable to find a satisfactory resolution, at least four members of the committee have expressed the intention to resign."
The following are more recent updates.
- The WMF Board has made a statement
< https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_t...
- The WMF Executive Director (Katherine Maher) has also made a statement
< https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Katherine_(WMF)&dif...
.
My personal comments follow.
I appreciate the WMF Executive Director's statement. I think that her statement is a good starting point for further communications between the staff and the community, particularly the English Wikipedia community.
I was hoping for a statement from the WMF Board that was humble and apologetic regarding recent disruption that has stressed many people in the community, led to numerous resignations, and consumed countless hours of volunteers' valuable time. Perhaps I overlooked them, but I do not see the words "apology", "sorry", "regret", or similar words in the statement from the WMF Board.
In addition to an apology, I was hoping to see the WMF Board focus on supervising the WMF organization, which I think is its principal job.
I feel that this statement is condescending: "We believe that the communities should be able to deal with these types of situations and should take this as a wake-up call to improve our enforcement processes to deal with so-called "unblockables"." I think that many of us in the communities are aware of these problems. I do not appreciate WMF creating unnecessary and widely harmful disruption in its quest to do top-down social engineering. I encourage the WMF Board to develop humility, refrain from lecturing the communities, and consider how to support the communities in our efforts to improve ourselves.
I would encourage the WMF Board to ponder the harms that have resulted from WMF's actions. I hope that we see a public apology from the WMF Board.
Katherine, thank you for your willingness to have a dialogue regarding these matters, and your willingness to have a more cautious and respectful approach in the future.
Writing solely in a personal capacity,
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) _______________________________________________ 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
I've not been on those dumping grounds, open air sewages and troll hives were that stuff is said to be happening, and only know that from Fae and Raystorm accounts. What is going on at those places possibly is the same as what happened with GamerGate, I've not confirmed, and frankly I'm not interested in the least in going to such troll dens. What I fail to understand is what's the point of the chair of the BoT dropping into an already very much escalated discussion, first stating she's not part of that community, then that she is not interested in their current situation, and would not take part on addressing that issue even if she had not been involved in it. And then proceeding to lecture the onwiki community, the vast majority of which is not involved in that offwiki stuff and not even aware of it, dismissing the whole case about editorial independence of Wikipedia as a sexist mob doing GamerGate stuff. It only made everything worse than what already was.
Best, Paulo
Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com escreveu no dia sexta, 14/06/2019 à(s) 08:33:
I think that I understand the GamerGate reference. A decentralized swarm of harassment can be a major problem, and in this case I am concerned (I haven't attempted to review the evidence) that at least one person is being hounded off-wiki regarding their alleged involvement in this matter in a way that would receive a firm response by ENWP administrators if the same hounding was happening on ENWP.
Fear of being hounded can discourage people from reporting problems.
On English Wikipedia we have some administrators who are willing to make politically difficult blocks, and we have an arbitration committee that has been willing to review alleged misconduct by high profile people including administrators, but I'm not sure that all wikis have a sufficient number of competent and good faith administrators to address allegations of misconduct, especially misconduct by people who have relatively high levels of local political support.
Even more challenging to moderate are off-wiki activities in places which do not honor ENWP norms. I do not know of a robust solution to this problem, and my guess is that there is no robust solution unless we want governments to have more ability to proactively filter and to suppress Internet content that does not meet with their approval.
I think that ENWP is more like a busy, diverse, and loud public square than a quiet office with tight control of what everyone does and a central authority that quickly gets rid of people who make statements that are not acceptable within narrow parameters. I worry that the concept of "safe spaces" may come to mean something like: "People are only allowed to participate on Wikimedia sites if they act according to WMF's opinions regarding politically correct behavior and create content that does not offend WMF". Political correctness and safety are not characteristics that I would associate with Wikimedia sites, for better and for worse, and I think that attempting to create more political correctness and safety can come at too much expense of honesty, due process, freedom of expression, and editorial independence. As mentioned by others, WMF’s recent power grab calls into question the editorial independence of the Wikimedia communities.
This does not mean that I would give a free pass to Fram or that I am OK with someone hounding a person who makes a complaint, whether on wiki or off wiki.
I think that a good conversation for the ENWP community to have would be regarding how we can increase confidence by victims of harassment in the integrity of ENWP's investigation and enforcement systems. Courage is sometimes necessary to speak up in public, as many of us are doing in this thread and on wiki with various degrees of personal risk. I am concerned about community members possibly deciding not to report problems because they lack confidence that their reports will be taken seriously by ENWP's community authorities and lack confidence that they will be protected from further harm to the extent that the ENWP community can protect them. (Protecting people from off wiki hounding is, unfortunately, probably impossible if aggressors are determined to hound someone.)
I have concerns regarding a system for anonymous complaints because I generally support transparent enforcement and due process. However, if victims are not reporting problems due to fear and if there is a way that we can provide due process protections for the accused while increasing the confidence of victims in ENWP's investigations and enforcement systems then I think that we should consider making modifications. This does not require any involvement from WMF, although we might want to ask WMF for technical support if needed for a system that we design or agree to implement. Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
P.S. I need to stop posting in this thread so that I do not exceed my limit of Wikimedia-l posts for the month, but my silence does not indicate lack of interest.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 16:24 Paulo Santos Perneta paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
No idea what could be the relation with GamerGate and the current issue onwiki at wiki en. Would you care to elaborate?
Paulo
A quinta, 13 de jun de 2019, 19:53, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com escreveu:
I think the problem is that the pathological people, having been called out on being pathological, decided to double down on the original complainant. See also: Gamergate, a clearly apt and apposite comparison.
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 19:48, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sad to hear that. I would not want a victim to go with a request
for
help to WMF, local functionaries, an arbitration committee, or anyone
else,
and have the situation end up worse rather than better. I don't know
what
to recommend. Perhaps you could ask the stewards what they think.
I am also sad to hear about the difficulties regarding the situation
in
which you think that someone was at risk of self-harm. I think that
the
situation you described is probably appropriate for review by the management of WMF Trust and Safety so that they can take a second
look. I
encourage you to contact them.
I am finding this conversation to be rather depressing, but I am glad
that
we are having it, because this is one way of developing solutions.
Pine _______________________________________________ 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
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
Paulo
I've not been on those dumping grounds, open air sewages and troll hives
were that stuff is said to be happening,
Unfortunately one of those dumping grounds now appears to be the official Twitter account of Wiki Women in Red, a recognised Wikipedia Project, where a member chose to accuse one of the people involved in this case of "real crimes". While that tweet has been, quite properly, removed, it illustrates how extremely damaging to all possibilities of civil discourse and constructive debate it is to discuss the details of this case from what can only be a position of ignorance.
Thrapostibongles
So much for not quoting anyone.
/jeblad
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 5:36 PM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles, terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki death threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks and threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or criminal stuff.
The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which goes against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do, then we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other Wikimedia projects.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be, consequences. An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So what? The only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do whatever they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes ballistic when consequences happen.
I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if that did not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year is like telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is clearly overly sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong. _______________________________________________ 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
All,
A suggestion that I think might help to focus the discussion.
I suggest that anyone who wants to discuss what Fram might or might not have done, and whether or not some acts that Frame might or might not have done, or failed to do, merits the punishment that has been meted out should refrain from doing so. Since no-one with reliable information about exactly what the complaints to T&S were is going to post here, and no-one who posts here has any reliable information about them, all such discussions here are based on guesses, assumptions, rumours or confabulations, and can be of precisely no value whatsoever.
Thrapostibongles
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:26 AM 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@lists.wikimedia.org