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

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
196 messages Options
12345 ... 10
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Mister Thrapostibongles
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <
> > [hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 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/Noticeboard#Request_for_ArbCom_to_comment_publicly_on_Fram's_ban
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=901300528
> > > > <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 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_from_the_WMF_Trust_&_Safety_Team
> > > > >
> > > > > Techman224
> > > > >
> > > > >> Begin forwarded message:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> From: George Herbert <[hidden email]>
> > > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > >> To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 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
> > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > >> 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Chris Keating-2
In reply to this post by Yair Rand
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, <[hidden email]> 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 <‪
> [hidden email]‬‏>:‬
>
> > 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Amir, yes, ArbCom members must sign the WMF confidentiality agreement
> > for
> > > > nonpublic information (
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information
> > > > )
> > > > , 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 <[hidden email]
> >
> > > > 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 <
> > > > > [hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 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/Noticeboard#Request_for_ArbCom_to_comment_publicly_on_Fram's_ban
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=901300528
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 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_from_the_WMF_Trust_&_Safety_Team
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Techman224
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Begin forwarded message:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> From: George Herbert <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > > > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > > > > >> To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> 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
> > > > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >> 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?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: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > --
> > Philippe Beaudette
> > [hidden email]
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Andy Mabbett-2
In reply to this post by Yair Rand
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 07:43, Yair Rand <[hidden email]> 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?
--
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Martijn Hoekstra
In reply to this post by Chris Keating-2
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 <[hidden email]>
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, <[hidden email]> 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 <‪
> > [hidden email]‬‏>:‬
> >
> > > 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Amir, yes, ArbCom members must sign the WMF confidentiality
> agreement
> > > for
> > > > > nonpublic information (
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information
> > > > > )
> > > > > , 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 <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > [hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 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/Noticeboard#Request_for_ArbCom_to_comment_publicly_on_Fram's_ban
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=901300528
> > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 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_from_the_WMF_Trust_&_Safety_Team
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Techman224
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> Begin forwarded message:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> From: George Herbert <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > > > > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > > > > > >> To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]
> >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> 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
> > > > > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > >> 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > ?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: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Philippe Beaudette
> > > [hidden email]
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Chris Keating-2
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:[hidden email]] 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, <[hidden email]> 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 <‪
> [hidden email]‬‏>:‬
>
> > 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Amir, yes, ArbCom members must sign the WMF confidentiality agreement
> > for
> > > > nonpublic information (
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information
> > > > )
> > > > , 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 <[hidden email]
> >
> > > > 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 <
> > > > > [hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 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/Noticeboard#Request_for_ArbCom_to_comment_publicly_on_Fram's_ban
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=901300528
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 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_from_the_WMF_Trust_&_Safety_Team
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Techman224
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Begin forwarded message:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> From: George Herbert <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > > > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > > > > >> To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> 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
> > > > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >> 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?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: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > --
> > Philippe Beaudette
> > [hidden email]
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Fæ
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
--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 12:13, Peter Southwood
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> 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
<><>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Mister Thrapostibongles
I would guess that "expertise" is one of them.
Cheers,
P

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] 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 <[hidden email]>
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 <
> [hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > <
> > >
> >
> 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/Noticeboard#Request_for_ArbCom_to_comment_publicly_on_Fram's_ban
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=901300528
> > > <
> > >
> >
> 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_from_the_WMF_Trust_&_Safety_Team
> > >
> > > Techman224
> > >
> > > > Begin forwarded message:
> > > >
> > > > From: George Herbert <[hidden email]>
> > > > Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > > Reply-To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > >
> > > > 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Paulo Santos Perneta
In reply to this post by Isaac Olatunde
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 <[hidden email]>
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 <
> [hidden email]
> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > <
> > >
> >
> 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/Noticeboard#Request_for_ArbCom_to_comment_publicly_on_Fram's_ban
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=901300528
> > > <
> > >
> >
> 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_from_the_WMF_Trust_&_Safety_Team
> > > >
> > > > Techman224
> > > >
> > > >> Begin forwarded message:
> > > >>
> > > >> From: George Herbert <[hidden email]>
> > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > >> To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > >>
> > > >> 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > >>
> > > >> 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
> > > >> [hidden email]
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > >> [hidden email]
> > > >> 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: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Paulo Santos Perneta
In reply to this post by Mister Thrapostibongles
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 <
[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <
> > > [hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > > 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > > <
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 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/Noticeboard#Request_for_ArbCom_to_comment_publicly_on_Fram's_ban
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=901300528
> > > > > <
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 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_from_the_WMF_Trust_&_Safety_Team
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Techman224
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Begin forwarded message:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> From: George Herbert <[hidden email]>
> > > > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > > >> To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 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
> > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > >> 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Robert Fernandez
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
<[hidden email]> 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 <
> [hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > 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 <
> > > > [hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > > > 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > > > <
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > 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/Noticeboard#Request_for_ArbCom_to_comment_publicly_on_Fram's_ban
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=901300528
> > > > > > <
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > 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_from_the_WMF_Trust_&_Safety_Team
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Techman224
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Begin forwarded message:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> From: George Herbert <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > > > >> To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 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
> > > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > >> 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Mister Thrapostibongles
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:[hidden email]] 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <
> > [hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 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/Noticeboard#Request_for_ArbCom_to_comment_publicly_on_Fram's_ban
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=901300528
> > > > <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 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_from_the_WMF_Trust_&_Safety_Team
> > > > >
> > > > > Techman224
> > > > >
> > > > >> Begin forwarded message:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> From: George Herbert <[hidden email]>
> > > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > >> To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 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
> > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > >> 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Robert Fernandez
> 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
<[hidden email]> 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:[hidden email]] 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <
> > > [hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > > 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > > <
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > 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/Noticeboard#Request_for_ArbCom_to_comment_publicly_on_Fram's_ban
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=901300528
> > > > > <
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > 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_from_the_WMF_Trust_&_Safety_Team
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Techman224
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Begin forwarded message:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> From: George Herbert <[hidden email]>
> > > > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > > >> To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 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
> > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > >> 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Paulo Santos Perneta
In reply to this post by Robert Fernandez
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 <[hidden email]>
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
> <[hidden email]> 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 <
> > [hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]
> >
> > > > 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 <
> > > > > [hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> 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/Noticeboard#Request_for_ArbCom_to_comment_publicly_on_Fram's_ban
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=901300528
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> 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_from_the_WMF_Trust_&_Safety_Team
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Techman224
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Begin forwarded message:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> From: George Herbert <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > > > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > > > > >> To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> 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
> > > > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >> 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?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: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Mister Thrapostibongles
In reply to this post by Peter Southwood
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 <
[hidden email]> 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:[hidden email]] 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <
> > > [hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > > 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > > <
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 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/Noticeboard#Request_for_ArbCom_to_comment_publicly_on_Fram's_ban
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=901300528
> > > > > <
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 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_from_the_WMF_Trust_&_Safety_Team
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Techman224
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Begin forwarded message:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> From: George Herbert <[hidden email]>
> > > > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > > >> To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 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
> > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > >> 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Robert Fernandez
"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:[hidden email]] 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
<[hidden email]> 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:[hidden email]] 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <
> > > [hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > > 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > > <
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > 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/Noticeboard#Request_for_ArbCom_to_comment_publicly_on_Fram's_ban
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=901300528
> > > > > <
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > 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_from_the_WMF_Trust_&_Safety_Team
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Techman224
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Begin forwarded message:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> From: George Herbert <[hidden email]>
> > > > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > > >> To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 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
> > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > >> 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Todd Allen
In reply to this post by Mister Thrapostibongles
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 <
[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <
> > [hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 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/Noticeboard#Request_for_ArbCom_to_comment_publicly_on_Fram's_ban
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=901300528
> > > > <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 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_from_the_WMF_Trust_&_Safety_Team
> > > >
> > > > Techman224
> > > >
> > > > > Begin forwarded message:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: George Herbert <[hidden email]>
> > > > > Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > > Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > > To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > > > Reply-To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > > >
> > > > > 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > 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: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -george william herbert
> > [hidden email]
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Mister Thrapostibongles
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
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Mister Thrapostibongles
In reply to this post by Peter Southwood
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 <
[hidden email]> 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:[hidden email]] 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
> <[hidden email]> 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:[hidden email]] 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > 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 <
> > > > [hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > > > <
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> 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/Noticeboard#Request_for_ArbCom_to_comment_publicly_on_Fram's_ban
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=901300528
> > > > > > <
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> 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_from_the_WMF_Trust_&_Safety_Team
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Techman224
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Begin forwarded message:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> From: George Herbert <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > > > >> To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 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
> > > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > >> 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?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: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Todd Allen
In reply to this post by Robert Fernandez
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 <[hidden email]>
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
> <[hidden email]> 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:[hidden email]] 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > 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 <
> > > > [hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > > > <
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> 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/Noticeboard#Request_for_ArbCom_to_comment_publicly_on_Fram's_ban
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=901300528
> > > > > > <
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> 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_from_the_WMF_Trust_&_Safety_Team
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Techman224
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Begin forwarded message:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> From: George Herbert <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > > > >> To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 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_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 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
> > > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > >> 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?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: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Dennis During
In reply to this post by Mister Thrapostibongles
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 <
[hidden email]> 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
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12345 ... 10