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

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
196 messages Options
123456 ... 10
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Robert Fernandez
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:07 PM Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Robert,
>
> These two aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, Wikipedia belongs to everyone. Specifically, a place in the community of Wikipedia editors is open to anyone who would like to join. Those of us here have already done that. But it is natural in any community or organization to give more weight to respected, long-term members than those who just joined up yesterday. They've learned the ropes and demonstrated a commitment to it.
>
> However, the project categorically does not belong to the WMF. The WMF exists to serve and assist Wikimedia projects, not lord it over and rule them. And since "Wikipedia belongs to everyone", we certainly shouldn't be throwing people out in secret Star Chamber-style proceedings, where apparently even the accused is not permitted to know all the evidence against them. That is utterly antithetical to the open, community-run ethos of the project.
>
> Todd
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:09 AM Robert Fernandez <[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

Robert Fernandez
In reply to this post by Todd Allen
Of course it doesn't belong to the WMF.  It belongs to everyone, and
that includes the victims of harassment who have no one to turn to
except the WMF.  I am not aware of the circumstances of this office
action, but I am of a couple of the others, and there was nothing
involving the star chamber hyperbole you describe.  Transparency is
key to the project in terms of policy making and article creation, but
the project cannot ethically demand transparency as you define it in
private matters involving things like (for example) off wiki
harassment and sexual abuse.  This process involves multiple layers of
investigation and approval.  The only thing it lacks is the ability
for you to pore over salacious details of someone's victimization.

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:07 PM Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Robert,
>
> These two aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, Wikipedia belongs to everyone. Specifically, a place in the community of Wikipedia editors is open to anyone who would like to join. Those of us here have already done that. But it is natural in any community or organization to give more weight to respected, long-term members than those who just joined up yesterday. They've learned the ropes and demonstrated a commitment to it.
>
> However, the project categorically does not belong to the WMF. The WMF exists to serve and assist Wikimedia projects, not lord it over and rule them. And since "Wikipedia belongs to everyone", we certainly shouldn't be throwing people out in secret Star Chamber-style proceedings, where apparently even the accused is not permitted to know all the evidence against them. That is utterly antithetical to the open, community-run ethos of the project.
>
> Todd
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:09 AM Robert Fernandez <[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

Paulo Santos Perneta
If the WMF is protecting us, who is protecting us from WMF when due process
is not followed, and false accusations and arbitrary punishments start
being issued by them?

To who /what can we appeal?

Paulo

A quarta, 12 de jun de 2019, 17:35, Robert Fernandez <[hidden email]>
escreveu:

> Of course it doesn't belong to the WMF.  It belongs to everyone, and
> that includes the victims of harassment who have no one to turn to
> except the WMF.  I am not aware of the circumstances of this office
> action, but I am of a couple of the others, and there was nothing
> involving the star chamber hyperbole you describe.  Transparency is
> key to the project in terms of policy making and article creation, but
> the project cannot ethically demand transparency as you define it in
> private matters involving things like (for example) off wiki
> harassment and sexual abuse.  This process involves multiple layers of
> investigation and approval.  The only thing it lacks is the ability
> for you to pore over salacious details of someone's victimization.
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:07 PM Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Robert,
> >
> > These two aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, Wikipedia belongs to everyone.
> Specifically, a place in the community of Wikipedia editors is open to
> anyone who would like to join. Those of us here have already done that. But
> it is natural in any community or organization to give more weight to
> respected, long-term members than those who just joined up yesterday.
> They've learned the ropes and demonstrated a commitment to it.
> >
> > However, the project categorically does not belong to the WMF. The WMF
> exists to serve and assist Wikimedia projects, not lord it over and rule
> them. And since "Wikipedia belongs to everyone", we certainly shouldn't be
> throwing people out in secret Star Chamber-style proceedings, where
> apparently even the accused is not permitted to know all the evidence
> against them. That is utterly antithetical to the open, community-run ethos
> of the project.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:09 AM Robert Fernandez <[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>
_______________________________________________
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
The board, including its community representatives.

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:38 PM Paulo Santos Perneta
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> If the WMF is protecting us, who is protecting us from WMF when due process is not followed, and false accusations and arbitrary punishments start being issued by them?
>
> To who /what can we appeal?
>
> Paulo
>
> A quarta, 12 de jun de 2019, 17:35, Robert Fernandez <[hidden email]> escreveu:
>>
>> Of course it doesn't belong to the WMF.  It belongs to everyone, and
>> that includes the victims of harassment who have no one to turn to
>> except the WMF.  I am not aware of the circumstances of this office
>> action, but I am of a couple of the others, and there was nothing
>> involving the star chamber hyperbole you describe.  Transparency is
>> key to the project in terms of policy making and article creation, but
>> the project cannot ethically demand transparency as you define it in
>> private matters involving things like (for example) off wiki
>> harassment and sexual abuse.  This process involves multiple layers of
>> investigation and approval.  The only thing it lacks is the ability
>> for you to pore over salacious details of someone's victimization.
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:07 PM Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Robert,
>> >
>> > These two aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, Wikipedia belongs to everyone. Specifically, a place in the community of Wikipedia editors is open to anyone who would like to join. Those of us here have already done that. But it is natural in any community or organization to give more weight to respected, long-term members than those who just joined up yesterday. They've learned the ropes and demonstrated a commitment to it.
>> >
>> > However, the project categorically does not belong to the WMF. The WMF exists to serve and assist Wikimedia projects, not lord it over and rule them. And since "Wikipedia belongs to everyone", we certainly shouldn't be throwing people out in secret Star Chamber-style proceedings, where apparently even the accused is not permitted to know all the evidence against them. That is utterly antithetical to the open, community-run ethos of the project.
>> >
>> > Todd
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:09 AM Robert Fernandez <[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>

_______________________________________________
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
I think that's more than a bit hyperbolic.

If it's a case of off-wiki harassment, of course that should get reviewed
privately. (Though by ArbCom, NOT WMF.) But it is not a violation of
anyone's privacy for the person who is accused to be told what they
supposedly did. If they did in fact do it--they already know exactly what
they did. If I send you some kind of harassing email, I already know I sent
it to you, so telling me "You sent Robert an email saying he's a _________
and a _________ and a _____________ while we're at it" is not news to me. I
already know I did.

On the other hand, if I didn't send that, knowing what was alleged allows
me to say "I absolutely did not do that." If I did send something, but it
were misinterpreted or misconstrued, I can offer an explanation of what was
actually meant. It is not always necessary for everyone to see everything,
but it is crucial for the accused party to. They have the right to defend
themself.

However, if the alleged bad conduct all took place on-wiki, it is already
all public, so there is no privacy to protect (unless it involves
suppressed material). In that case, yes, any procedures should be public
and transparent, and that should be the default.

Todd

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:35 AM Robert Fernandez <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Of course it doesn't belong to the WMF.  It belongs to everyone, and
> that includes the victims of harassment who have no one to turn to
> except the WMF.  I am not aware of the circumstances of this office
> action, but I am of a couple of the others, and there was nothing
> involving the star chamber hyperbole you describe.  Transparency is
> key to the project in terms of policy making and article creation, but
> the project cannot ethically demand transparency as you define it in
> private matters involving things like (for example) off wiki
> harassment and sexual abuse.  This process involves multiple layers of
> investigation and approval.  The only thing it lacks is the ability
> for you to pore over salacious details of someone's victimization.
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:07 PM Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Robert,
> >
> > These two aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, Wikipedia belongs to everyone.
> Specifically, a place in the community of Wikipedia editors is open to
> anyone who would like to join. Those of us here have already done that. But
> it is natural in any community or organization to give more weight to
> respected, long-term members than those who just joined up yesterday.
> They've learned the ropes and demonstrated a commitment to it.
> >
> > However, the project categorically does not belong to the WMF. The WMF
> exists to serve and assist Wikimedia projects, not lord it over and rule
> them. And since "Wikipedia belongs to everyone", we certainly shouldn't be
> throwing people out in secret Star Chamber-style proceedings, where
> apparently even the accused is not permitted to know all the evidence
> against them. That is utterly antithetical to the open, community-run ethos
> of the project.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:09 AM Robert Fernandez <[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>
_______________________________________________
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
But star chamber rhetoric is not hyperbolic?

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:50 PM Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I think that's more than a bit hyperbolic.
>
> If it's a case of off-wiki harassment, of course that should get reviewed privately. (Though by ArbCom, NOT WMF.) But it is not a violation of anyone's privacy for the person who is accused to be told what they supposedly did. If they did in fact do it--they already know exactly what they did. If I send you some kind of harassing email, I already know I sent it to you, so telling me "You sent Robert an email saying he's a _________ and a _________ and a _____________ while we're at it" is not news to me. I already know I did.
>
> On the other hand, if I didn't send that, knowing what was alleged allows me to say "I absolutely did not do that." If I did send something, but it were misinterpreted or misconstrued, I can offer an explanation of what was actually meant. It is not always necessary for everyone to see everything, but it is crucial for the accused party to. They have the right to defend themself.
>
> However, if the alleged bad conduct all took place on-wiki, it is already all public, so there is no privacy to protect (unless it involves suppressed material). In that case, yes, any procedures should be public and transparent, and that should be the default.
>
> Todd
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:35 AM Robert Fernandez <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Of course it doesn't belong to the WMF.  It belongs to everyone, and
>> that includes the victims of harassment who have no one to turn to
>> except the WMF.  I am not aware of the circumstances of this office
>> action, but I am of a couple of the others, and there was nothing
>> involving the star chamber hyperbole you describe.  Transparency is
>> key to the project in terms of policy making and article creation, but
>> the project cannot ethically demand transparency as you define it in
>> private matters involving things like (for example) off wiki
>> harassment and sexual abuse.  This process involves multiple layers of
>> investigation and approval.  The only thing it lacks is the ability
>> for you to pore over salacious details of someone's victimization.
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:07 PM Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Robert,
>> >
>> > These two aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, Wikipedia belongs to everyone. Specifically, a place in the community of Wikipedia editors is open to anyone who would like to join. Those of us here have already done that. But it is natural in any community or organization to give more weight to respected, long-term members than those who just joined up yesterday. They've learned the ropes and demonstrated a commitment to it.
>> >
>> > However, the project categorically does not belong to the WMF. The WMF exists to serve and assist Wikimedia projects, not lord it over and rule them. And since "Wikipedia belongs to everyone", we certainly shouldn't be throwing people out in secret Star Chamber-style proceedings, where apparently even the accused is not permitted to know all the evidence against them. That is utterly antithetical to the open, community-run ethos of the project.
>> >
>> > Todd
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:09 AM Robert Fernandez <[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>

_______________________________________________
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
That one I'll give you. I suppose we could all turn it down a couple
notches.

Todd

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:56 AM Robert Fernandez <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> But star chamber rhetoric is not hyperbolic?
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:50 PM Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > I think that's more than a bit hyperbolic.
> >
> > If it's a case of off-wiki harassment, of course that should get
> reviewed privately. (Though by ArbCom, NOT WMF.) But it is not a violation
> of anyone's privacy for the person who is accused to be told what they
> supposedly did. If they did in fact do it--they already know exactly what
> they did. If I send you some kind of harassing email, I already know I sent
> it to you, so telling me "You sent Robert an email saying he's a _________
> and a _________ and a _____________ while we're at it" is not news to me. I
> already know I did.
> >
> > On the other hand, if I didn't send that, knowing what was alleged
> allows me to say "I absolutely did not do that." If I did send something,
> but it were misinterpreted or misconstrued, I can offer an explanation of
> what was actually meant. It is not always necessary for everyone to see
> everything, but it is crucial for the accused party to. They have the right
> to defend themself.
> >
> > However, if the alleged bad conduct all took place on-wiki, it is
> already all public, so there is no privacy to protect (unless it involves
> suppressed material). In that case, yes, any procedures should be public
> and transparent, and that should be the default.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:35 AM Robert Fernandez <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Of course it doesn't belong to the WMF.  It belongs to everyone, and
> >> that includes the victims of harassment who have no one to turn to
> >> except the WMF.  I am not aware of the circumstances of this office
> >> action, but I am of a couple of the others, and there was nothing
> >> involving the star chamber hyperbole you describe.  Transparency is
> >> key to the project in terms of policy making and article creation, but
> >> the project cannot ethically demand transparency as you define it in
> >> private matters involving things like (for example) off wiki
> >> harassment and sexual abuse.  This process involves multiple layers of
> >> investigation and approval.  The only thing it lacks is the ability
> >> for you to pore over salacious details of someone's victimization.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:07 PM Todd Allen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Robert,
> >> >
> >> > These two aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, Wikipedia belongs to
> everyone. Specifically, a place in the community of Wikipedia editors is
> open to anyone who would like to join. Those of us here have already done
> that. But it is natural in any community or organization to give more
> weight to respected, long-term members than those who just joined up
> yesterday. They've learned the ropes and demonstrated a commitment to it.
> >> >
> >> > However, the project categorically does not belong to the WMF. The
> WMF exists to serve and assist Wikimedia projects, not lord it over and
> rule them. And since "Wikipedia belongs to everyone", we certainly
> shouldn't be throwing people out in secret Star Chamber-style proceedings,
> where apparently even the accused is not permitted to know all the evidence
> against them. That is utterly antithetical to the open, community-run ethos
> of the project.
> >> >
> >> > Todd
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:09 AM Robert Fernandez <
> [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>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
The board does not even has a proper contact or way to get to them. Only
way seems to try to reach the few members of the board who disclosed their
personal emails. And even if we manage to reach them, it is not an appeal
in the least, as it continues not following any proper procedure, and is
entirely dependent on the good will of the particular board member we
manage to get to, if any at all.

This is not acceptable in the least for an organization like WMF. We may
live with this state of affairs, but it is clearly not a trustworthy
organization, at least at this point in time. I don't like all the
aggressiveness I am seeing at wiki.en,but I can understand the revolt. I do
hope things improve.

Paulo

A quarta, 12 de jun de 2019, 18:47, Robert Fernandez <[hidden email]>
escreveu:

> The board, including its community representatives.
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:38 PM Paulo Santos Perneta
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > If the WMF is protecting us, who is protecting us from WMF when due
> process is not followed, and false accusations and arbitrary punishments
> start being issued by them?
> >
> > To who /what can we appeal?
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> > A quarta, 12 de jun de 2019, 17:35, Robert Fernandez <
> [hidden email]> escreveu:
> >>
> >> Of course it doesn't belong to the WMF.  It belongs to everyone, and
> >> that includes the victims of harassment who have no one to turn to
> >> except the WMF.  I am not aware of the circumstances of this office
> >> action, but I am of a couple of the others, and there was nothing
> >> involving the star chamber hyperbole you describe.  Transparency is
> >> key to the project in terms of policy making and article creation, but
> >> the project cannot ethically demand transparency as you define it in
> >> private matters involving things like (for example) off wiki
> >> harassment and sexual abuse.  This process involves multiple layers of
> >> investigation and approval.  The only thing it lacks is the ability
> >> for you to pore over salacious details of someone's victimization.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:07 PM Todd Allen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Robert,
> >> >
> >> > These two aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, Wikipedia belongs to
> everyone. Specifically, a place in the community of Wikipedia editors is
> open to anyone who would like to join. Those of us here have already done
> that. But it is natural in any community or organization to give more
> weight to respected, long-term members than those who just joined up
> yesterday. They've learned the ropes and demonstrated a commitment to it.
> >> >
> >> > However, the project categorically does not belong to the WMF. The
> WMF exists to serve and assist Wikimedia projects, not lord it over and
> rule them. And since "Wikipedia belongs to everyone", we certainly
> shouldn't be throwing people out in secret Star Chamber-style proceedings,
> where apparently even the accused is not permitted to know all the evidence
> against them. That is utterly antithetical to the open, community-run ethos
> of the project.
> >> >
> >> > Todd
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:09 AM Robert Fernandez <
> [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>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Todd Allen
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 18:51, Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It is not always necessary for everyone to see everything,
> but it is crucial for the accused party to. They have the right to defend
> themself.

Do they, really?

If your local restaurant or supermarket decides to ban you, do you
have that right then?

What about Facebook, Twitter, or Flickr?

--
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

Mike Peel
In reply to this post by Paulo Santos Perneta
Hi all,

I'm torn on this issue.

I'm not a fan of Fram. Having been attacked by them in the past, I'm somewhat relieved to hear that they have been banned from enwp. I’m also dismayed by the poor response from the enwp community about this issue, particularly the inflammatory remarks and proposals that are intended to make the situation worse, rather than to work towards a solution.

Fundamentally, though, I think the WMF has missed something very important in the process that has taken place here: community representation. If an outside group makes a decision that impacts a community, without involving that community in the decision, then of course the community will be upset, even if the decision ultimately improves the community.

The WMF does a good job with involving the community in some of its processes - particularly in grantmaking, where elected community members are directly involved in the decision-making processes. In other cases, it uses ombudsmen quite effectively to investigate complaints, and to course-correct as necessary. In this case, though, the community has been deliberately excluded, and that’s not OK. And even worse, there is explicitly no appeals process, which is crazy.

The next step here really needs to involve the community. Enwp’s ArbCom would be the obvious community-elected group to involve here if at all possible,* but there are other groups available if needed (e.g., Bureaucrats, Stewards, Ombudsman commission). That doesn’t scale across all languages, or for all complaints, but it might work for this situation, providing that there is a commitment from the WMF to developing something better in the future (at least a community-elected ombudsman for this process!).

Thanks,
Mike

* Regardless of Fram’s opinions about ArbCom, which seem to have led to this block, it’s still enwp’s community-elected group that handles serious disputes.
_______________________________________________
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
Did WMF have to get involved because the complainant was part of ARBCOM?
_______________________________________________
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 Andy Mabbett-2
If you're suggesting we become in any way like Facebook, Twitter, or
Flickr...then, please, gods help us no.

Todd

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:34 PM Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 18:51, Todd Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > It is not always necessary for everyone to see everything,
> > but it is crucial for the accused party to. They have the right to defend
> > themself.
>
> Do they, really?
>
> If your local restaurant or supermarket decides to ban you, do you
> have that right then?
>
> What about Facebook, Twitter, or Flickr?
>
> --
> 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>
_______________________________________________
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

GorillaWarfare
In reply to this post by Fæ
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Any Arbcom approved sanction against Fram based on the evidence would not
> be controversial for anyone.


Sorry for coming in late to this conversation; I've mostly been following
the sicussion happening on-wiki. But I wanted to pipe up to say that I
absolutely do not believe this is true (see also my comment here
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&type=revision&diff=901559520&oldid=901559137&diffmode=source>).
To repeat my comment somewhat, the English Wikipedia ArbCom has in the past
had to place similar bans: that is, ones against long-term contributors
with many supporters, and ones in which the full details behind what led to
the ban cannot be revealed publicly. The reaction has been quite similar to
the one the WMF is currently experiencing—"star chamber" accusations,
claims that we've abused our power or the process, and assumptions that the
ban is unwarranted unless everyone is allowed to scrutinize the private
evidence. The ArbCom is empowered to take action based off of
privately-submitted evidence and private discussion, but in practice it is
extremely poorly-received when we do, basically across-the-board.

– Molly (GorillaWarfare)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare
_______________________________________________
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

Yaroslav Blanter
Just to summarize the difference between WMF and ArbCom, in view of the
majority of the en.wiki community:

We elect ArbCom, and if they do not do what they should be doing, they do
not get re-elected in two years, which happens on a regular basis

We do not elect WMF and in fact we have no means of influencing WMF (apart
of the three Trustees we elect every three years who are themselves
typically alienated from the community). Short of taking down the
fundraiser banner or of organizing a Wikipedia blackout.

This is the difference, and this is why virtually everybody who had to say
smth about this episode was unhappy with the process. Without looking at
the diffs, I only remember three users who were perfectly happy with what
happened, out of hundreds who said smth.

One unfortunate consequence of the whole episode was, whoever is right and
whoever is wrong, the general opinion about WMF in the community is
all-time low, with people generally not prepared to believe to anything
communicated to them. If WMF is not interested in getting very unpleasant
surprises, they should start working towards building the community trust.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:48 PM GorillaWarfare <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Any Arbcom approved sanction against Fram based on the evidence would not
> > be controversial for anyone.
>
>
> Sorry for coming in late to this conversation; I've mostly been following
> the sicussion happening on-wiki. But I wanted to pipe up to say that I
> absolutely do not believe this is true (see also my comment here
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&type=revision&diff=901559520&oldid=901559137&diffmode=source
> >).
> To repeat my comment somewhat, the English Wikipedia ArbCom has in the past
> had to place similar bans: that is, ones against long-term contributors
> with many supporters, and ones in which the full details behind what led to
> the ban cannot be revealed publicly. The reaction has been quite similar to
> the one the WMF is currently experiencing—"star chamber" accusations,
> claims that we've abused our power or the process, and assumptions that the
> ban is unwarranted unless everyone is allowed to scrutinize the private
> evidence. The ArbCom is empowered to take action based off of
> privately-submitted evidence and private discussion, but in practice it is
> extremely poorly-received when we do, basically across-the-board.
>
> – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Rebecca O'Neill
Just you reply to your point on how many people are speaking out against
this decision, I'm a relatively active and interested editor and I have no
interest in voicing my opinion there as the atmosphere is so toxic. There
is always a danger of the tyranny of a vocal and motivated minority
appearing to be the dominant opinion of the community as a whole. I would
proffer that that is a deeply flawed premise, if we were to take into
account the number of people engaged in this discussion and compare it to
the number of regular contributors.

On Wed 12 Jun 2019, 22:01 Yaroslav Blanter, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Just to summarize the difference between WMF and ArbCom, in view of the
> majority of the en.wiki community:
>
> We elect ArbCom, and if they do not do what they should be doing, they do
> not get re-elected in two years, which happens on a regular basis
>
> We do not elect WMF and in fact we have no means of influencing WMF (apart
> of the three Trustees we elect every three years who are themselves
> typically alienated from the community). Short of taking down the
> fundraiser banner or of organizing a Wikipedia blackout.
>
> This is the difference, and this is why virtually everybody who had to say
> smth about this episode was unhappy with the process. Without looking at
> the diffs, I only remember three users who were perfectly happy with what
> happened, out of hundreds who said smth.
>
> One unfortunate consequence of the whole episode was, whoever is right and
> whoever is wrong, the general opinion about WMF in the community is
> all-time low, with people generally not prepared to believe to anything
> communicated to them. If WMF is not interested in getting very unpleasant
> surprises, they should start working towards building the community trust.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:48 PM GorillaWarfare <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Any Arbcom approved sanction against Fram based on the evidence would
> not
> > > be controversial for anyone.
> >
> >
> > Sorry for coming in late to this conversation; I've mostly been following
> > the sicussion happening on-wiki. But I wanted to pipe up to say that I
> > absolutely do not believe this is true (see also my comment here
> > <
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&type=revision&diff=901559520&oldid=901559137&diffmode=source
> > >).
> > To repeat my comment somewhat, the English Wikipedia ArbCom has in the
> past
> > had to place similar bans: that is, ones against long-term contributors
> > with many supporters, and ones in which the full details behind what led
> to
> > the ban cannot be revealed publicly. The reaction has been quite similar
> to
> > the one the WMF is currently experiencing—"star chamber" accusations,
> > claims that we've abused our power or the process, and assumptions that
> the
> > ban is unwarranted unless everyone is allowed to scrutinize the private
> > evidence. The ArbCom is empowered to take action based off of
> > privately-submitted evidence and private discussion, but in practice it
> is
> > extremely poorly-received when we do, basically across-the-board.
> >
> > – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

GorillaWarfare
In reply to this post by Yaroslav Blanter
Yaroslav,

I understand the difference. I'm simply raising an objection to the claim
that this would've gone over much better had it been the ArbCom and not the
WMF who placed a ban.

– Molly White (GorillaWarfare)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare


On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 5:01 PM Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Just to summarize the difference between WMF and ArbCom, in view of the
> majority of the en.wiki community:
>
> We elect ArbCom, and if they do not do what they should be doing, they do
> not get re-elected in two years, which happens on a regular basis
>
> We do not elect WMF and in fact we have no means of influencing WMF (apart
> of the three Trustees we elect every three years who are themselves
> typically alienated from the community). Short of taking down the
> fundraiser banner or of organizing a Wikipedia blackout.
>
> This is the difference, and this is why virtually everybody who had to say
> smth about this episode was unhappy with the process. Without looking at
> the diffs, I only remember three users who were perfectly happy with what
> happened, out of hundreds who said smth.
>
> One unfortunate consequence of the whole episode was, whoever is right and
> whoever is wrong, the general opinion about WMF in the community is
> all-time low, with people generally not prepared to believe to anything
> communicated to them. If WMF is not interested in getting very unpleasant
> surprises, they should start working towards building the community trust.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:48 PM GorillaWarfare <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Any Arbcom approved sanction against Fram based on the evidence would
> not
> > > be controversial for anyone.
> >
> >
> > Sorry for coming in late to this conversation; I've mostly been following
> > the sicussion happening on-wiki. But I wanted to pipe up to say that I
> > absolutely do not believe this is true (see also my comment here
> > <
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&type=revision&diff=901559520&oldid=901559137&diffmode=source
> > >).
> > To repeat my comment somewhat, the English Wikipedia ArbCom has in the
> past
> > had to place similar bans: that is, ones against long-term contributors
> > with many supporters, and ones in which the full details behind what led
> to
> > the ban cannot be revealed publicly. The reaction has been quite similar
> to
> > the one the WMF is currently experiencing—"star chamber" accusations,
> > claims that we've abused our power or the process, and assumptions that
> the
> > ban is unwarranted unless everyone is allowed to scrutinize the private
> > evidence. The ArbCom is empowered to take action based off of
> > privately-submitted evidence and private discussion, but in practice it
> is
> > extremely poorly-received when we do, basically across-the-board.
> >
> > – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Rebecca O'Neill
Seconded. These pages appear to have a substantial population of
raving obsessives I have no intention of bothering to deal with.


- d.

On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 22:10, Rebecca O'Neill <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Just you reply to your point on how many people are speaking out against
> this decision, I'm a relatively active and interested editor and I have no
> interest in voicing my opinion there as the atmosphere is so toxic. There
> is always a danger of the tyranny of a vocal and motivated minority
> appearing to be the dominant opinion of the community as a whole. I would
> proffer that that is a deeply flawed premise, if we were to take into
> account the number of people engaged in this discussion and compare it to
> the number of regular contributors.
>
> On Wed 12 Jun 2019, 22:01 Yaroslav Blanter, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Just to summarize the difference between WMF and ArbCom, in view of the
> > majority of the en.wiki community:
> >
> > We elect ArbCom, and if they do not do what they should be doing, they do
> > not get re-elected in two years, which happens on a regular basis
> >
> > We do not elect WMF and in fact we have no means of influencing WMF (apart
> > of the three Trustees we elect every three years who are themselves
> > typically alienated from the community). Short of taking down the
> > fundraiser banner or of organizing a Wikipedia blackout.
> >
> > This is the difference, and this is why virtually everybody who had to say
> > smth about this episode was unhappy with the process. Without looking at
> > the diffs, I only remember three users who were perfectly happy with what
> > happened, out of hundreds who said smth.
> >
> > One unfortunate consequence of the whole episode was, whoever is right and
> > whoever is wrong, the general opinion about WMF in the community is
> > all-time low, with people generally not prepared to believe to anything
> > communicated to them. If WMF is not interested in getting very unpleasant
> > surprises, they should start working towards building the community trust.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:48 PM GorillaWarfare <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Any Arbcom approved sanction against Fram based on the evidence would
> > not
> > > > be controversial for anyone.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry for coming in late to this conversation; I've mostly been following
> > > the sicussion happening on-wiki. But I wanted to pipe up to say that I
> > > absolutely do not believe this is true (see also my comment here
> > > <
> > >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&type=revision&diff=901559520&oldid=901559137&diffmode=source
> > > >).
> > > To repeat my comment somewhat, the English Wikipedia ArbCom has in the
> > past
> > > had to place similar bans: that is, ones against long-term contributors
> > > with many supporters, and ones in which the full details behind what led
> > to
> > > the ban cannot be revealed publicly. The reaction has been quite similar
> > to
> > > the one the WMF is currently experiencing—"star chamber" accusations,
> > > claims that we've abused our power or the process, and assumptions that
> > the
> > > ban is unwarranted unless everyone is allowed to scrutinize the private
> > > evidence. The ArbCom is empowered to take action based off of
> > > privately-submitted evidence and private discussion, but in practice it
> > is
> > > extremely poorly-received when we do, basically across-the-board.
> > >
> > > – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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 Rebecca O'Neill
I don't believe we can presume everyone who hasn't participated in the
discussion would like to disagree but is afraid to.

Among all active contributors, I suspect non-participants are mostly a mix
of unaware of the issue, don't have a strong opinion about the issue, don't
understand what's happening and don't want to devote the time to
understanding it, or don't care. Given the WMF's actions, there may indeed
even be some who do not like what they've done, but are afraid to be seen
speaking against them--look what happened to the last guy! And of course
some people on both sides might be hesitant to enter a discussion that's
rather heated and very fast-moving, not to mention the sheer size of the
page to read just to catch up on what already happened.

So, pretty much every discussion is decided by those who choose to
participate in it. I don't know any way around that; we can't force people
to participate. At some point, if you don't stick your hand up, you don't
get counted.

Todd

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 3:10 PM Rebecca O'Neill <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Just you reply to your point on how many people are speaking out against
> this decision, I'm a relatively active and interested editor and I have no
> interest in voicing my opinion there as the atmosphere is so toxic. There
> is always a danger of the tyranny of a vocal and motivated minority
> appearing to be the dominant opinion of the community as a whole. I would
> proffer that that is a deeply flawed premise, if we were to take into
> account the number of people engaged in this discussion and compare it to
> the number of regular contributors.
>
> On Wed 12 Jun 2019, 22:01 Yaroslav Blanter, <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Just to summarize the difference between WMF and ArbCom, in view of the
> > majority of the en.wiki community:
> >
> > We elect ArbCom, and if they do not do what they should be doing, they do
> > not get re-elected in two years, which happens on a regular basis
> >
> > We do not elect WMF and in fact we have no means of influencing WMF
> (apart
> > of the three Trustees we elect every three years who are themselves
> > typically alienated from the community). Short of taking down the
> > fundraiser banner or of organizing a Wikipedia blackout.
> >
> > This is the difference, and this is why virtually everybody who had to
> say
> > smth about this episode was unhappy with the process. Without looking at
> > the diffs, I only remember three users who were perfectly happy with what
> > happened, out of hundreds who said smth.
> >
> > One unfortunate consequence of the whole episode was, whoever is right
> and
> > whoever is wrong, the general opinion about WMF in the community is
> > all-time low, with people generally not prepared to believe to anything
> > communicated to them. If WMF is not interested in getting very unpleasant
> > surprises, they should start working towards building the community
> trust.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:48 PM GorillaWarfare <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Any Arbcom approved sanction against Fram based on the evidence would
> > not
> > > > be controversial for anyone.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry for coming in late to this conversation; I've mostly been
> following
> > > the sicussion happening on-wiki. But I wanted to pipe up to say that I
> > > absolutely do not believe this is true (see also my comment here
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&type=revision&diff=901559520&oldid=901559137&diffmode=source
> > > >).
> > > To repeat my comment somewhat, the English Wikipedia ArbCom has in the
> > past
> > > had to place similar bans: that is, ones against long-term contributors
> > > with many supporters, and ones in which the full details behind what
> led
> > to
> > > the ban cannot be revealed publicly. The reaction has been quite
> similar
> > to
> > > the one the WMF is currently experiencing—"star chamber" accusations,
> > > claims that we've abused our power or the process, and assumptions that
> > the
> > > ban is unwarranted unless everyone is allowed to scrutinize the private
> > > evidence. The ArbCom is empowered to take action based off of
> > > privately-submitted evidence and private discussion, but in practice it
> > is
> > > extremely poorly-received when we do, basically across-the-board.
> > >
> > > – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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

Yaroslav Blanter
In reply to this post by GorillaWarfare
I think it would. I see many people in the discussions, myself included,
who would not have any objections to a ban by ArbCom but who oppose the WMF
ban. Having a PhD in math and physics, I can not theoretically exclude that
there are active community members who are happy now and would object the
ArbCom ban, but, to be honest, I still would like to see one.

The amount of shit could indeed be approximately the same.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:31 PM GorillaWarfare <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Yaroslav,
>
> I understand the difference. I'm simply raising an objection to the claim
> that this would've gone over much better had it been the ArbCom and not the
> WMF who placed a ban.
>
> – Molly White (GorillaWarfare)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 5:01 PM Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Just to summarize the difference between WMF and ArbCom, in view of the
> > majority of the en.wiki community:
> >
> > We elect ArbCom, and if they do not do what they should be doing, they do
> > not get re-elected in two years, which happens on a regular basis
> >
> > We do not elect WMF and in fact we have no means of influencing WMF
> (apart
> > of the three Trustees we elect every three years who are themselves
> > typically alienated from the community). Short of taking down the
> > fundraiser banner or of organizing a Wikipedia blackout.
> >
> > This is the difference, and this is why virtually everybody who had to
> say
> > smth about this episode was unhappy with the process. Without looking at
> > the diffs, I only remember three users who were perfectly happy with what
> > happened, out of hundreds who said smth.
> >
> > One unfortunate consequence of the whole episode was, whoever is right
> and
> > whoever is wrong, the general opinion about WMF in the community is
> > all-time low, with people generally not prepared to believe to anything
> > communicated to them. If WMF is not interested in getting very unpleasant
> > surprises, they should start working towards building the community
> trust.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:48 PM GorillaWarfare <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Any Arbcom approved sanction against Fram based on the evidence would
> > not
> > > > be controversial for anyone.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry for coming in late to this conversation; I've mostly been
> following
> > > the sicussion happening on-wiki. But I wanted to pipe up to say that I
> > > absolutely do not believe this is true (see also my comment here
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&type=revision&diff=901559520&oldid=901559137&diffmode=source
> > > >).
> > > To repeat my comment somewhat, the English Wikipedia ArbCom has in the
> > past
> > > had to place similar bans: that is, ones against long-term contributors
> > > with many supporters, and ones in which the full details behind what
> led
> > to
> > > the ban cannot be revealed publicly. The reaction has been quite
> similar
> > to
> > > the one the WMF is currently experiencing—"star chamber" accusations,
> > > claims that we've abused our power or the process, and assumptions that
> > the
> > > ban is unwarranted unless everyone is allowed to scrutinize the private
> > > evidence. The ArbCom is empowered to take action based off of
> > > privately-submitted evidence and private discussion, but in practice it
> > is
> > > extremely poorly-received when we do, basically across-the-board.
> > >
> > > – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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

Chris Keating-2
In reply to this post by Todd Allen
>
> So, pretty much every discussion is decided by those who choose to
> participate in it. I don't know any way around that; we can't force people
> to participate. At some point, if you don't stick your hand up, you don't
> get counted.
>
>
Well, Maria Sefidari (Raystorm) showed up and ended up being faced with a
torrent of abuse.

If you don't stick your hand up, your views are invalid. If you do stick
your hand up, people will shout at you about how invalid your views are.
Particularly if you're a woman.

I don't know what lesson we're all supposed to draw from this....
_______________________________________________
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>
123456 ... 10