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