Sarah, I have a pretty good idea who you're talking about below. If I am correct, that user has now been banned from the #wikipedia-en IRC channel for behavioural reasons. Speak to the chanops of other channels to have this addressed as well; freenode is well aware of the concerns.
Risker/Anne On 7 October 2011 12:49, Sarah Stierch <[email protected]> wrote: > I think it just shows another aspect of Wikimedia that I think needs a > better examination - banning and blocks and activities of those members on > other projects. Extended blockings (1 year) and bannings mean that a user > can't participate on that one project - but they are welcome to participate > in other projects. I know many folks say "Oh, assume good faith - perhaps > they'll come back after their block a better, happier, healthier > contributor!" or "They might be messed up online but they're not offline," > (sorry Chris!) but this has not quite been what I have seen. I've seen > members banned or blocked on en.WP go to have unhealthy and unstable > relationships with the community on other projects, continue to express rage > and even at times sociopathic behavior to WMF and editors outside of > projects, and so forth. > > I've had an en.WP user stalk and verbally attack me off of Wikipedia > (including sexual harassment on social networking sites) to the point where > I am seriously afraid that if I see this user show up at WIkimania next year > or a regional event (he's regional to where I live) I won't know if I'll be > able to stay. This user currently contributes to other projects that I am > active on and makes a point to comment only on statements I say (in certain > arenas), leave comments on my talk page, and continue to try to "get my > attention" in other manners, including on IRC - where the user talks to > people I consider friends about me to them in order to convince them that > I'm not an adequate contributor. As someone who survived an extremely > abusive relationship, the last thing I want to do is worry about my personal > safety and the safety of others when attending events, editing or > contributing, or just "hanging out" online. I didn't know how to deal with > it when it happened, and I still don't. It's an unsettling experience. > > And while the survey I am preparing to wrap up confirms what the editor > survey said - most (female) users don't have problems with users escalate, > just under half have. Assuming good faith isn't always possible when anger > management, mental instability and off wiki or offline experiences just > solidify that some of these people do have problems. And while many users > often sit in the background and let the aggressive users like I've outlined > above keep on keepin' on - they continue to suffer silently, and those who > speak out actively have to suffer with even stronger and more prominent > attacks. > > Sorry to get so emotional about it, it's just...really frustrating for me.. > > -Sarah Stierch > > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Sydney Poore <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Risker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I am saying that you are questioning the decision of an independent body >>> to select a person for membership in the same way that he questioned the WMF >>> for selecting a person he did not consider appropriate. In short, he sought >>> a non-project sanction for on-project activities/concerns. I do not see a >>> difference between that behaviour, and members of this list seeking a >>> non-project sanction (i.e., removing someone from a chapter Board of >>> Directors) for on-project activities/concerns, particularly when the >>> on-project concern was....well, doing exactly what seems to be proposed >>> here.I agree that we need to be sensitive in general about how we discuss >>> these type of issues on a public mailing list. And in this case since one >>> party to the case is an active participate to this mailing list, we need to >>> take extra caution that we are not only hearing one side of the story. >>> >> >> That said, I don't think that it is actually a parallel comparison. We >> don't want users escalating disputes by calling employers because it can >> have loads of negative repercussions for Wikipedia as well as the person who >> is reported. But I see no reason that users shouldn't take into >> consideration whether they support having someone who has been banned on one >> WMF project in a position of trust in a WMF related organization or another >> wiki. ArbCom does the same type of thing when it vets users for positions of >> trust such as checkuser. People take into account an users past history when >> they vote for steward or WMF Board members. So, I don't have a problem with >> someone raising a concern about it in this situation. >> >> Sydney Poore >> User:FloNight >> >>> >>> Wikimedia chapters are not beholden to one specific project. There are >>> hundreds of people banned or blocked on one WMF project who are active, >>> respected members of other projects; in fact, even on English Wikipedia, >>> appropriate and valued work in another WMF project or area is usually >>> considered a mitigating factor when a user requests review of a sanction. >>> >>> (For the record, I am a member of the Arbitration Committee that voted to >>> ban the user in question, and did support a ban.) >>> >>> Risker/Anne >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7 October 2011 11:22, Sandra <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I dont understand what ur trying to express. Can u possibly clarify. >>>> >>>> Are you saying that this person should be allowed to represent the >>>> community in an official capacity even though he has been recently banned >>>> for inappropriate behavior and breaking community guidelines? >>>> >>>> I just want to make sure that im understanding your point of view >>>> correctly. >>>> >>>> On Oct 7, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Risker <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> I would recommend considerable caution in discussing this issue on this >>>> mailing list. One of the key "harassment" issues was that the now-banned >>>> user attempted to contact the WMF about another user whom he believed to >>>> beemployed by the WMF under some form of grant or contract. It raises an >>>> interesting question that some here would think it appropriate to try to >>>> affect that person's position in a Wikimedia chapter because of the English >>>> Wikipedia ban; it is parallel to the situation for which the user was >>>> banned >>>> in the first place. >>>> >>>> At least one other party under conditional sanctions in the same case is >>>> an active and respected member of this mailing list, and I can respect that >>>> it would be difficult for that individual to have this matter dissected >>>> here. Please proceed with caution. >>>> >>>> >>>> Risker/Anne >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7 October 2011 09:55, Sandra ordonez < <[email protected]> >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Currently banned and I think it wasn't that long ago. >>>>> >>>>> lets wait till aude responds to see if there is a way this list can >>>>> help. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Michael J. Lowrey <<[email protected]> >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 6:49 AM, Sandra ordonez >>>>>> <<[email protected]> >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> > Essentially, that someone has gotten a leadership position in the >>>>>> D.C. >>>>>> > chapter who has been banned from editing Wikipedia for year for >>>>>> things like >>>>>> > harassing people, disruptive behavior, and editing problems like >>>>>> copyright >>>>>> > violations. >>>>>> >>>>>> Banned in the past, and done their time; or currently banned? I've >>>>>> worked with ex-cons in the past. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey >>>>>> >>>>>> "When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food >>>>>> and clothes." >>>>>> -- Desiderius Erasmus >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Gendergap mailing list >>>>>> <[email protected]>[email protected] >>>>>> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap> >>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> *Sandra Ordonez* >>>>> *Web Astronaut* >>>>> (503)866-2697 >>>>> @Collaboracion >>>>> >>>>> "Helping you rock out in the virtual, collaborative world." >>>>> >>>>> * <http://www.collaborativenation.com>www.collaborativenation.com* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Gendergap mailing list >>>>> <[email protected]>[email protected] >>>>> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap> >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gendergap mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gendergap mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> >> > > > -- > GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia <http://www.glamwiki.org> > Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American > Art<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch> > and > Sarah Stierch Consulting > *Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.* > ------------------------------------------------------ > http://www.sarahstierch.com/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
