Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

12 Jun 2019

      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

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block