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

12 Jun 2019

      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

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