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

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
196 messages Options
12345678 ... 10
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Paulo Santos Perneta
I do not doubt that, but dismissing the current issue of project autonomy
as GamerGate stuff without providing any evidence to support it does not
seem helpful at all.

Paulo

A quinta, 13 de jun de 2019, 13:10, Robert Fernandez <[hidden email]>
escreveu:

> A number of people in our community literally are Gamergaters,
> including editors with tools.
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 3:15 AM Chris Keating
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:48 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Going there dismissing the whole issue as a sexist mob doing GamerGate
> kind
> > > of stuff, what was she expecting, really.
> > >
> > >
> > Maybe she was expecting people to read what she actually said, and engage
> > with it, rather than twist her words so they're easy to dismiss?
> >
> > Maybe she was hoping people might think about whether there WAS some
> sexist
> > harrassment happening, and whether parts of our community were actually
> > behaving a bit like Gamergaters?
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

John Erling Blad
In reply to this post by Techman224-3
When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be, consequences.
An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So what? The
only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do whatever
they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes ballistic when
consequences happen.

I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if that did
not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year is like
telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is clearly overly
sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Fæ
This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.

The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki death
threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks and
threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or criminal
stuff.

The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which goes
against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees
start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do, then
we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the
same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free
in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time
employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?

If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is
because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's
Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should
be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English
Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether
Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not
worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on
Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other
Wikimedia projects.

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

On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be, consequences.
> An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So what? The
> only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do whatever
> they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes ballistic when
> consequences happen.
>
> I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if that did
> not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year is like
> telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is clearly overly
> sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

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

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

Mister Thrapostibongles


[...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> banning bad behaviour on our projects.


Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English Wikipedia
community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.


> If the English
> Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion


Indeed.  Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram
suggests
that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to happen or be
productive.

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

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

Robert Fernandez
In reply to this post by Fæ
If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done then
clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
>
> The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
> terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki death
> threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
> understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks and
> threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or criminal
> stuff.
>
> The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
> specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which goes
> against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees
> start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do, then
> we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the
> same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
> administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free
> in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time
> employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
>
> If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is
> because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's
> Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should
> be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English
> Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether
> Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not
> worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on
> Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other
> Wikimedia projects.
>
> Fae
> --
> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be,
> consequences.
> > An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So what? The
> > only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do whatever
> > they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes ballistic
> when
> > consequences happen.
> >
> > I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if that
> did
> > not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year is
> like
> > telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is clearly
> overly
> > sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

Bence Damokos
In reply to this post by Fæ
I think it is important that the WMF is taking the question of harassment
seriously.
If the community processes are not adequate, it is not an incorrect
response to take direct action to protect the individuals that are being
harassed. Ideally, community processes should be improved and WMF can give
a hint, but it would be too much to expect the victim to continue to be
harassed while the long discussion around changing community processes
takes place.

As I understand, community health is an important element of the on-going
strategy work and WMF has repeatedly drawn attention to solving the issue
of harassment on wiki[1], so it is not like they have not told the
communities that this is an issue that should be dealt with or that the
community discussions needed to empower the communities to do so are not
happening at all.

Best regards,
Bence

[1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/tag/harassment/

On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 17:36, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
>
> The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
> terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki death
> threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
> understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks and
> threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or criminal
> stuff.
>
> The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
> specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which goes
> against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees
> start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do, then
> we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the
> same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
> administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free
> in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time
> employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
>
> If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is
> because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's
> Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should
> be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English
> Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether
> Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not
> worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on
> Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other
> Wikimedia projects.
>
> Fae
> --
> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be,
> consequences.
> > An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So what? The
> > only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do whatever
> > they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes ballistic
> when
> > consequences happen.
> >
> > I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if that
> did
> > not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year is
> like
> > telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is clearly
> overly
> > sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

Isaac Olatunde
In reply to this post by Robert Fernandez
Nobody deserves to be harassed on any Wikimedia project.

Unfortunately once you are mobbed on the English Wikipedia, some people
thinks it's fine to harass you. They don't care how you feel, your personal
life does not matter to them.

Imagine someone want the name of the person behind the WMF Office account
revealed. What purpose will this serve if not to harass the staff member?


Isaac



On Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 5:14 PM Robert Fernandez <[hidden email]
wrote:

> If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done then
> clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
> >
> > The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
> > terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki death
> > threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
> > understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks and
> > threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or criminal
> > stuff.
> >
> > The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
> > specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which goes
> > against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees
> > start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do, then
> > we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the
> > same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
> > administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free
> > in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time
> > employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
> >
> > If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is
> > because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's
> > Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should
> > be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English
> > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> > policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether
> > Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not
> > worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on
> > Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other
> > Wikimedia projects.
> >
> > Fae
> > --
> > [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be,
> > consequences.
> > > An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So what? The
> > > only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do
> whatever
> > > they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes ballistic
> > when
> > > consequences happen.
> > >
> > > I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if that
> > did
> > > not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year is
> > like
> > > telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is clearly
> > overly
> > > sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Robert Fernandez
Is there evidence that this is the reason for the block? If so where is it stated?
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Fernandez
Sent: 13 June 2019 18:14
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done then
clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
>
> The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
> terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki death
> threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
> understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks and
> threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or criminal
> stuff.
>
> The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
> specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which goes
> against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees
> start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do, then
> we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the
> same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
> administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free
> in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time
> employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
>
> If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is
> because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's
> Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should
> be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English
> Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether
> Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not
> worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on
> Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other
> Wikimedia projects.
>
> Fae
> --
> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be,
> consequences.
> > An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So what? The
> > only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do whatever
> > they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes ballistic
> when
> > consequences happen.
> >
> > I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if that
> did
> > not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year is
> like
> > telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is clearly
> overly
> > sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


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

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

John Erling Blad
In reply to this post by Fæ
So much for not quoting anyone.

/jeblad

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 5:36 PM Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
>
> The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
> terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki death
> threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
> understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks and
> threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or criminal
> stuff.
>
> The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
> specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which goes
> against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees
> start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do, then
> we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the
> same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
> administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free
> in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time
> employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
>
> If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is
> because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's
> Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should
> be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English
> Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether
> Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not
> worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on
> Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other
> Wikimedia projects.
>
> Fae
> --
> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be, consequences.
> > An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So what? The
> > only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do whatever
> > they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes ballistic when
> > consequences happen.
> >
> > I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if that did
> > not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year is like
> > telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is clearly overly
> > sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

Pine W
In reply to this post by Peter Southwood
I'll note that WMF has provided a statement here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram&diff=prev&oldid=901424172&diffmode=source

I find WMF's justifications for its actions to be unpersuasive. WMF's
policies can (within some legal limits) be changed by WMF, so using WMF
policy is not a sufficient justification. I also am troubled that WMF
states that it lacked confidence in Arbcom's ability to handle a case but,
as far as I know, WMF did not present evidence of Arbcom's problems to the
ENWP community so that the community could address them. If there is a
problem with Arbcom then that is first and foremost for us as a community
to address, and WMF almost likely should not have bypassed Arbcom in an
individual case. An analogy would be the U.S. President bypassing U.S.
Federal courts in an individual case because he/she does not trust the
courts to handle the case in the manner that the President wants.

At the same time, I would not approve of criticizing someone for
communicating a concern to WMF. Sometimes people don't know where to
communicate their concerns, and someone might have had a legitimate concern
about Arbcom's ability to handle a case in an impartial manner. I think
that WMF should have handled this differently than it did, but that does
not mean that any original concern about Fram and/or Arbcom were invalid.

I would not sanction someone who communicated a concern to WMF for doing
that. However, if I had the authority to do so, I would consider applying a
sanction against WMF for its handling of this matter.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
_______________________________________________
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

Pine W
*almost certainly. Reprimand to Pine for insufficient proofreading.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
_______________________________________________
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 Bence Damokos
The inapposite and totally inapt intervention of the WMF, a la bull in a
china shop, caused a Streisand effect on the alleged harassment that is
stated to have take place. I do not knew the editor which has been pointed
as the source of the denounce, or if she has made any denounce at all, but
I certainly would not want to be in her shoes right now. She seems to have
become the target of secere harassment off wiki, and at minimum a lot of
pressure on wiki. She completely stopped editing since this case began. If
the idea was to combat and prevent harassment, I must say WMF has failed
completely and miserably, on all accounts. And God save me of being
"protected" this way, if I ever find myself in a situation that I have to
appeal to the WMF for protection.

I absolutely agree that something has to be done to fight onwiki
harassment, including this kind of picking some victim and going after all
their editions tagging, reverting, copyediting, so that the person feels
constantly under vigilance. I personally know of a case very much like this
at the Portuguese Wikipedia happening right now, and going on for years,
also with a woman as a victim of victim . The community systematically
tolerates and protects the harassers (a group of 3 or 4 "umblockables") ,
and stops short of banning the victim. She constantly contacts me and other
editors asking for help, and I sincerely don't know what to do. Last time I
and others requested the intervention of the WMF (T&S) at Wikipedia, in a
rampage of cases of harassment and even blackmail, the result was
absolutely disastrous, with public exposure of the victims, destruction of
the editors involved in denouncing the situation, and an actual empowerment
of the aggressors.

I do not know what the solution is, and I really would like to know to
where one could appeal on such situation. WMF does not seem to be a good
option, as they have a solid record of making the problem way worse than
what it already is.

I also would like to know what means to T&S "risk of harm to himself", as
the last time a fellow editor confidenced to me they were about to kill
themselves, I felt completely lost with the answer I have received from the
official T&S account, and ended up dealing with the situation myself the
best I could. Fortunately the person is alive.

Paulo



A quinta, 13 de jun de 2019, 17:27, Bence Damokos <[hidden email]>
escreveu:

> I think it is important that the WMF is taking the question of harassment
> seriously.
> If the community processes are not adequate, it is not an incorrect
> response to take direct action to protect the individuals that are being
> harassed. Ideally, community processes should be improved and WMF can give
> a hint, but it would be too much to expect the victim to continue to be
> harassed while the long discussion around changing community processes
> takes place.
>
> As I understand, community health is an important element of the on-going
> strategy work and WMF has repeatedly drawn attention to solving the issue
> of harassment on wiki[1], so it is not like they have not told the
> communities that this is an issue that should be dealt with or that the
> community discussions needed to empower the communities to do so are not
> happening at all.
>
> Best regards,
> Bence
>
> [1] https://blog.wikimedia.org/tag/harassment/
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 17:36, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
> >
> > The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
> > terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki death
> > threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
> > understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks and
> > threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or criminal
> > stuff.
> >
> > The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
> > specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which goes
> > against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees
> > start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do, then
> > we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the
> > same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
> > administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free
> > in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time
> > employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
> >
> > If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is
> > because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's
> > Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should
> > be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English
> > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> > policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether
> > Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not
> > worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on
> > Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other
> > Wikimedia projects.
> >
> > Fae
> > --
> > [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be,
> > consequences.
> > > An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So what? The
> > > only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do
> whatever
> > > they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes ballistic
> > when
> > > consequences happen.
> > >
> > > I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if that
> > did
> > > not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year is
> > like
> > > telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is clearly
> > overly
> > > sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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

Pine W
I'm sad to hear that. I would not want a victim to go with a request for
help to WMF, local functionaries, an arbitration committee, or anyone else,
and have the situation end up worse rather than better. I don't know what
to recommend. Perhaps you could ask the stewards what they think.

I am also sad to hear about the difficulties regarding the situation in
which you think that someone was at risk of self-harm. I think that the
situation you described is probably appropriate for review by the
management of WMF Trust and Safety so that they can take a second look. I
encourage you to contact them.

I am finding this conversation to be rather depressing, but I am glad that
we are having it, because this is one way of developing solutions.

Pine
_______________________________________________
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
I think the problem is that the pathological people, having been
called out on being pathological, decided to double down on the
original complainant. See also: Gamergate, a clearly apt and apposite
comparison.

On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 19:48, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I'm sad to hear that. I would not want a victim to go with a request for
> help to WMF, local functionaries, an arbitration committee, or anyone else,
> and have the situation end up worse rather than better. I don't know what
> to recommend. Perhaps you could ask the stewards what they think.
>
> I am also sad to hear about the difficulties regarding the situation in
> which you think that someone was at risk of self-harm. I think that the
> situation you described is probably appropriate for review by the
> management of WMF Trust and Safety so that they can take a second look. I
> encourage you to contact them.
>
> I am finding this conversation to be rather depressing, but I am glad that
> we are having it, because this is one way of developing solutions.
>
> Pine
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

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

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

Peter Southwood
In reply to this post by Mister Thrapostibongles
The relevant facts to be checked were your assertion that I claimed that Wikipedia belongs to "us" Please do not misrepresent my words. I try to choose them with care.
The selection of other "facts" you list below do not appear to make WMF any more an owner of Wikipedia than any of the actual contributors. However as I am not a lawyer I actually make no claims as to who, if anyone, has a legal claim to ownership of any of the Wikipedias.
P

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 8:44 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Peter

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 6:45 AM Peter Southwood <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Check your facts.
> P
>

Well, the Wikipedia trademark is owned by the Foundation, along with a
variety of related marks, see
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_trademarks  The servers on
which the content of Wikipedia resides are rented and paid for by the
Foundation, see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers  The
intellectual property in that  content is very largely owned by the very
disparate individuals who contributed, each of whom owns the IPR in their
own individual contributons, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights  These are the facts, --
do you wish to dispute them?

Thrapostibongles

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 5:48 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
>
> Peter
>
> You say that Wikipedia belongs to "us".  You are mistaken.  In so far as it
> belongs to anyone, it belongs to the Foundation.
>
> Thrapostibongles
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 3:35 PM Peter Southwood <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > "We" are a subset of everyone. If Wikipedia belongs to everyone, it
> > belongs to "us" as well.  It seems that Fram who was one of us has just
> > been excluded from our community by questionable process. I agree that
> this
> > should not happen, but suggest that it is sometimes necessary to exclude
> > people from our community when they are shown in fair process to be
> unable
> > to cooperate in furthering the purposes of the project. Some of us try to
> > make it reasonably easy and pleasant to join the community and help build
> > the project, but it is not compulsory, either to make it pleasant, or to
> > join. However credibility and respect beyond that which should be
> afforded
> > to anyone by virtue of being human are earned.
> > Cheers,
> > P
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > Behalf Of Robert Fernandez
> > Sent: 12 June 2019 16:08
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> >
> > > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and
> find
> > that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
> >
> > This is part of the problem right here.  This isn't our project and we
> > shouldn't be trying to exclude people from our community.  Wikipedia
> > belongs to everyone.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:53 AM Peter Southwood
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thrapostibongles,
> > > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and
> find
> > that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
> > > While it is possible that you have a long and distinguished edit
> history
> > under a previous name or as an IP editor, it leads me to wonder just how
> > familiar you are with the customs and culture of enwiki, which I freely
> > agree are non-optimal, but have evolved to sort of work in an environment
> > which was predicted to be impossible. Yet here we are, dysfunctionally
> > surviving when we are theoretically long extinct. Our dysfunctional mores
> > function as they do and evolve through surviving and occasional
> > modification by consensus of those who care enough to take part in the
> > process, within the environment in which we work. We are somewhere
> between
> > an anarchy and a community, and we do not generally appreciate
> > pontification from outsiders, which is what you appear to be, and to a
> > large extent, what we consider WMF to be. It is a problem. If WMF chooses
> > to rule by fiat it will have interesting consequences. So far they have
> > mostly avoided that, and when they have it has not ended well. If you
> > consider yourself an expert in something relevant I invite you to show
> > evidence of your credentials. Otherwise we will take your comments as we
> do
> > those of any other unproven internet commentator.
> > > This is just my personal take, I do not presume to represent anyone
> > else. You are as free to ignore me as I am to ignore you, but engaging in
> > this discussion has its consequences, and one of them is to be
> questioned.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter Southwood
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> > Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles
> > > Sent: 12 June 2019 09:06
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > >
> > > Yaroslav,
> > >
> > > I think it's reasonably clear that the English Wikipedia community and
> > its
> > > community structures, such as its Arbitration Committee, and processes
> > are
> > > not capable of maintaining a productive, harassment-free environment
> for
> > > the volunteer workers.  For example, they have consistently failed,
> after
> > > several attempts, to handle the case of a volunteer who used the word
> > > "Cxxx" about a fellow worker, and the community has agreed that telling
> > > others to "Fxxx off" is acceptable.  These are symptoms of a
> > dysfunctional
> > > community, which tolerates behaviour that is unacceptable in any
> > collegial
> > > working environment, and it is right that the Foundation should step
> in.
> > >
> > > Thrapostibongles
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:56 PM Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The point made by pretty much everyone is not that Fram should or
> > should
> > > > not be banned, but that the process in this case should have followed
> > the
> > > > standard dispute resolution avenues, More specifically, the case
> should
> > > > have been communicated to the Arbitration Committee, whose members
> did
> > sign
> > > > the non-disclosure agreement.
> > > >
> > > > This is different from the past cases when users were banned by WMF,
> > since
> > > > in this case it was made clear the case is based on on-wiki open
> > activity
> > > > of Fram (and, specifically, only on the English Wikipedia). The
> on-wiki
> > > > activity is subject to the community policies.
> > > >
> > > > To be clear, I am not a friend of Fram, and in the past supported
> > desysop
> > > > on a number of occasions.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Yaroslav
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:46 PM Amir Sarabadani <[hidden email]
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > People who oppose the ban: Are you aware of all aspects and things
> > Fram
> > > > has
> > > > > done? Do you have the full picture? It's really saddening to see
> how
> > fast
> > > > > people jump to conclusion in page mentioned in the email. I
> > personally,
> > > > > don't know what happened so I neither can support or oppose the
> ban.
> > As
> > > > > simple as that.
> > > > >
> > > > > So what should be done IMO. If enwiki wants to know more, a
> community
> > > > body
> > > > > can ask for more information, if body satisfy two things:
> > > > >  - They had signed NDA not to disclose the case
> > > > >  - They are trusted by the community
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the only body can sorta work with this is stewards but not
> > sure
> > > > > (Does ArbCom NDA'ed?)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Lack of transparency from the WMF, whatelse is new.
> > > > > > I'm currently under a funding ban secretly decided (by who?)
> based
> > on a
> > > > > > false accusation, without providing any evidence. Until now I'm
> > waiting
> > > > > for
> > > > > > an explanation from the WMF. So, this sort of attitude doesn't
> > surprise
> > > > > me
> > > > > > at all.
> > > > > > It is very unfortunate that the WMF apparently thrives in this
> > kind of
> > > > > > medieval obscurity, the opposite of the values of the Wikimedia
> > > > Movement.
> > > > > > Matter for Roles & Reponsibilities.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Paulo
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Benjamin Ikuta <[hidden email]> escreveu no dia terça,
> > > > > 11/06/2019
> > > > > > à(s) 05:45:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm glad to see I'm not the only one dismayed by the
> > unilateralism
> > > > and
> > > > > > > lack of transparency.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Jun 10, 2019, at 8:25 PM, Techman224 <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Forwarding to WIkimedia-l since WikiEN-l is relatively dead.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Since this message, an Arbcom member (SilkTork) stated that
> > they
> > > > > > weren't
> > > > > > > consulted, nor did this action was the result of Arbcom
> > forwarding a
> > > > > > > concern to the office. [1]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The only non-response excuse from the WMF [2] was that "local
> > > > > > > communities consistently struggle to uphold not just their own
> > > > > autonomous
> > > > > > > rules but the Terms of Use, too.” even though there were no
> > > > complaints
> > > > > > > on-wiki nor to Arbcom privately.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The on-wiki discussion is taking place at the Bureaucrats and
> > the
> > > > > > Arbcom
> > > > > > > noticeboards.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Request_for_ArbCom_to_comment_publicly_on_Fram's_ban
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=901300528
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=901300528
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#Statement_from_the_WMF_Trust_&_Safety_Team
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Techman224
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Begin forwarded message:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> From: George Herbert <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > > > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > > > > >> To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> In case you're not following on-wiki - Office S&T blocked
> > English
> > > > > > > Wikipedia
> > > > > > > >> user / administrator Fram for a year and desysopped, for
> > > > unspecified
> > > > > > > >> reasons in the Office purview.  There was a brief statement
> > here
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > >> Office regarding it which gave no details other than that
> > normal
> > > > > > policy
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> procedures for Office actions were followed, which under
> > normal
> > > > > > > >> circumstances preclude public comments.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Several people on Arbcom and board have commented they're
> > making
> > > > > > private
> > > > > > > >> inquiries under normal reporting and communication channels,
> > due
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> oddity and essentially uniqueness of the action.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> There was an initial surge of dismay which has mellowed IMHO
> > into
> > > > > "Ok,
> > > > > > > >> responsible people following up".
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I understand the sensitivity of some of the topics under
> > Office
> > > > > > actions,
> > > > > > > >> having done OTRS and other various had-to-stay-private stuff
> > > > myself
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > >> times in the past.  A high profile investigation target is
> > most
> > > > > > unusual
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > >> not unheard of.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I did send email to Fram earlier today asking if they had
> any
> > > > public
> > > > > > > >> comment, no reply as yet.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > > >> -george william herbert
> > > > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > > > > >> [hidden email]
> > > > > > > >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > > > > > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Amir (he/him)
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > ---
> > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > > https://www.avg.com
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 David Gerard-2
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 19:52, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think the problem is that the pathological people, having been
> called out on being pathological, decided to double down on the
> original complainant.

The supposed original complainant.

We have seen scant evdience to suggest any basis of truth in this.

> See also: Gamergate, a clearly apt and apposite
> comparison.

Indeed.

And blaiming WMF for this is ridiculous.

--
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

Paulo Santos Perneta
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
No idea what could be the relation with GamerGate and the current issue
onwiki at wiki en. Would you care to elaborate?

Paulo

A quinta, 13 de jun de 2019, 19:53, David Gerard <[hidden email]>
escreveu:

> I think the problem is that the pathological people, having been
> called out on being pathological, decided to double down on the
> original complainant. See also: Gamergate, a clearly apt and apposite
> comparison.
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 19:48, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > I'm sad to hear that. I would not want a victim to go with a request for
> > help to WMF, local functionaries, an arbitration committee, or anyone
> else,
> > and have the situation end up worse rather than better. I don't know what
> > to recommend. Perhaps you could ask the stewards what they think.
> >
> > I am also sad to hear about the difficulties regarding the situation in
> > which you think that someone was at risk of self-harm. I think that the
> > situation you described is probably appropriate for review by the
> > management of WMF Trust and Safety so that they can take a second look. I
> > encourage you to contact them.
> >
> > I am finding this conversation to be rather depressing, but I am glad
> that
> > we are having it, because this is one way of developing solutions.
> >
> > Pine
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

George William Herbert
Quoting seraphimblade onwiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram#Editorial_independence_of_the_English_Wikipedia_community_and_response_to_Jan

“Very well, here's the feedback: Don't ever again take an action of this nature. Take office actions only where the community has agreed you may: United States legal requirements, child protection, or threats of harm to oneself or others. Otherwise, leave control entirely local, and refer any complaints to local English Wikipedia authorities, even if you grit your teeth while you do it.”

WMF T&S: This is an emerging consensus that not only was this clumsy, but was legitimately an overstep of the authority that the community granted T&S and the Foundation, and in fact damages your credibility in enforcing things like threats of violence or child protection issues or legal/law enforcement issues.

There were several claims that handing this issue to Arbcom was problematic because Fram had prior conflicts with Arbcom.  Arbcom deals with actual or potential conflicts and people they dislike every day.  That hasn’t stopped it in well over a decade.

I believe that you were convinced that was a legitimate reason not to let Arbcom and the community handle this.  But that’s not true.

The “but we had this complaint and couldn’t forward it without breaking confidence!” claim is also legitimate but misguided.  You might not be allowed to forward it, but you could tell the complainer to make their own report to Arbcom in private.  That someone complains to you doesn’t necessarily make it your problem to solve.  Sometimes you can and should direct them to someone else.  Forcing yourself to solve it is part of how you got into this mess.

It wasn’t clearly your job or authority.

The Wikipedia community created the Foundation, not the other way around.  The Foundation exists to support the community and projects.  When you go beyond support into trying to run it for us you fail.

When several key Administrators and a Bureaucrat overturned things, that showed that you’d lost the community authority to exercise your T&S role without oversight.

There are credible efforts to ban Office, or desysop it, though I hope those fail.

Foundation owns the servers; that’s different than owning the community and project.  Owning the servers gives you the capability to override the community but not the authority.

This can go in extremely unfortunate directions from here.  I hope it doesn’t.  Foundation and particularly T&S staff need to slow down your responses and get a handle on your loss of authority.  I for one don’t want the job of dealing with death threats or pedophiles or subpoenas back on Admins and Arbcom, and would be happy to reestablish Foundation authority over such traditional T&S roles.  Help us trust you enough to give it back.

-george
_______________________________________________
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

Bill Takatoshi
In reply to this post by Techman224-3
> No idea what could be the relation with GamerGate

I too see nothing in common, and since at least a handful of people
hold this view, could the parallels that they see to be made explicit,
please?

> pathological people, having been called out on being pathological

I am having trouble finding anything more than hundreds upon hundreds
of kilobytes of very civil, if considerably indignant, discussion
around the issue, and several people taking principled stances at
great risk to their own standing. So I would also like to see an
example of someone being called out on being pathological, please.

> 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

Again (after two years and four months) this is why we need regular,
periodic, scientific, carefully sampled surveys of the community:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-February/086576.html

Is there any reason that the Community Engagement team thinks such
surveys aren't worth the time and effort?

-Will

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

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

Peter Southwood
This seems fair comment and a useful proposal. I would support the concept of such independent surveys, and them being funded by the foundation. I see a need.
Cheers, P

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Bill Takatoshi
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 4:51 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

> No idea what could be the relation with GamerGate

I too see nothing in common, and since at least a handful of people
hold this view, could the parallels that they see to be made explicit,
please?

> pathological people, having been called out on being pathological

I am having trouble finding anything more than hundreds upon hundreds
of kilobytes of very civil, if considerably indignant, discussion
around the issue, and several people taking principled stances at
great risk to their own standing. So I would also like to see an
example of someone being called out on being pathological, please.

> 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

Again (after two years and four months) this is why we need regular,
periodic, scientific, carefully sampled surveys of the community:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-February/086576.html

Is there any reason that the Community Engagement team thinks such
surveys aren't worth the time and effort?

-Will

_______________________________________________
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>
12345678 ... 10