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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>