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

[Philippe Beaudette]

Nathan writes:

*“Why are WMF staffers so*

*deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they feel
the*
*right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?”*


I’ve seen no evidence that this is the case here and would be utterly
shocked if a t staff member had indeed banned for saying that.

If the situation is anything like what it was when I was at WMF, a ban such
as this requires multiple levels of review by a couple of different teams
(in my time, we would not have considered a ban such as this without sign
off from the community and legal teams, for instance). I don’t know if the
process is the same now but I would be surprised to hear that any single
staff member would feel comfortable banning on his or her authority alone.
Multiple levels of review exist in order to ensure that ban reasons are
valid and appropriate.

Philippe

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 6:55 PM Nathan  wrote:

> Wow, what a cluster. How does the WMF get themselves into these things? I
> have ten edits to en.wp since 2018 and even I could have 100% predicted the
> entire spectrum, and scale, of the reaction here. Why are WMF staffers so
> deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they feel the
> right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:49 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> > Amir, yes, ArbCom members must sign the WMF confidentiality agreement for
> > nonpublic information (
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information
> > )
> > , as must all functionaries (checkuser, oversight, etc.). I was on the
> > English Wikipedia ArbCom for two years, and it was routine for us to deal
> > with sensitive, private information.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:46 AM Amir Sarabadani 
> > 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 <
> > > paulospern...@gmail.com> 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  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 
> > > > 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]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 

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

[Nathan]

Wow, what a cluster. How does the WMF get themselves into these things? I
have ten edits to en.wp since 2018 and even I could have 100% predicted the
entire spectrum, and scale, of the reaction here. Why are WMF staffers so
deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they feel the
right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:49 PM Todd Allen  wrote:

> Amir, yes, ArbCom members must sign the WMF confidentiality agreement for
> nonpublic information (
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information
> )
> , as must all functionaries (checkuser, oversight, etc.). I was on the
> English Wikipedia ArbCom for two years, and it was routine for us to deal
> with sensitive, private information.
>
> Todd
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:46 AM Amir Sarabadani 
> 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 <
> > paulospern...@gmail.com> 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  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 
> > > 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=prev=901300528
> > > > <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=prev=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 
> > > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > >> To: English Wikipedia 
> > > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia 
> > > > >>
> > > > >> In case you're not following on-wiki - Office S 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.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 for FY 2017-2018 now on-wiki

[Jaime Villagomez]

Hello everyone,

The Wikimedia Foundation has submitted our annual Form 990 to the US
Internal Revenue Service
 (IRS) and posted
on-wiki[1]. The Form 990 is the annual financial reporting, known as an
“information return,” which the federal government  requires nonprofit
organizations in the United States to file.

In addition to posting the Form 990 on-wiki, we have also posted an
accompanying page with answers to frequently asked questions related to the
form and information we reported.[2]

Here are a few key highlights on this year’s Form 990:

-  The Wikimedia Foundation's total revenue in our  fiscal year
2017-2018 was US $101,575,555. Our total expenses during  this period were
US $78,731,219 and our total net assets at the end of the fiscal year were
US $134,949,570.

-  During fiscal year 2017-2018, we experienced growth in our
fundraising revenue and success that was attributed to our fundraising
campaigns.

-  We continue to invest in programmatic activities and evaluate to
ensure that our allocation percentage is at or above the standard benchmark
of 65%. During the fiscal year 2016-2017, we invested 74% in programmatic
activities, 14% in Management & General activities, and 12% in fundraising
activities.

-  Our expenses increased due to the addition of 26 new staff and
contractors which was reflective of the growth outlined in the Annual Plan

.

-  Our Governance, Management, and Disclosure practices are
consistent with best practices for non-profit charitable organizations and
meet the IRS requirements as applicable.

Through reports and discussions like these, the Wikimedia Foundation will
continue to strive to provide a responsible level of transparency and
accountability. I imagine there are other questions, and I invite you to
review the on-wiki FAQ[2], or email me if your question is not answered
there.

Thank you to the Foundation's Audit Committee for their oversight and our
Staff for their work in developing this year's Form 990 and related
communications for filing and public disclosure.

Saludos,

Jaime

[1] Link to PDF


[2] Form 990 FAQ



Jaime Villagomez

Chief Financial Officer

Wikimedia Foundation 


*Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.Donate.
*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] ¿Qué te hace feliz esta semana? / What's making you happy this week?

[Pine W]

 Hello colleagues,

I hope that you feel welcome to add your own comments to this email thread.
Your participation would be appreciated, including starting these threads
in future weeks.

I like this

Commons Picture of the Day. The photo is of a sun parakeet. The photo was
taken on the Canary Islands.

The May issue 
of *This Month in GLAM* was published.

What's making you happy this week? You are welcome to comment in any
language.

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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Todd Allen]

Amir, yes, ArbCom members must sign the WMF confidentiality agreement for
nonpublic information (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information)
, as must all functionaries (checkuser, oversight, etc.). I was on the
English Wikipedia ArbCom for two years, and it was routine for us to deal
with sensitive, private information.

Todd

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:46 AM Amir Sarabadani  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 <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> 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  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 
> > 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=prev=901300528
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=prev=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 
> > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > >> To: English Wikipedia 
> > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia 
> > > >>
> > > >> In case you're not following on-wiki - Office S 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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Recognition of the Grupo de Usuários Wiki Movimento Brasil

[Philip Kopetzky]

Well, I just hope things turn out better this time. Fingers crossed!

On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 at 09:31, Paulo Santos Perneta 
wrote:

> Hey,
>
> The affiliate was originally formed in 2008 as the wannabe chapter
> Wikimedia Brasil, and made its life as a chapter until 2010 when it was
> noticed that it was not incorporated nor had any intention of becoming
> incorporated, and the whole thing was canceled.
>
> Some of its members and new volunteers in Brazil then immediately joined
> together to form the chapter again, and there even is a resolution in
> Wikimania Haifa 2011 about that. The negotiations with affcom took an awful
> lot of time and bureaucracy, and by 2013 they had already incorporated but
> were still waiting to have the chapter approved. They eventually managed to
> be approved as an user group by tlsummer 2013, which is the one that was
> reapproved now.
>
> Paulo
>
> A sexta, 7 de jun de 2019, 23:50, Nathan  escreveu:
>
> > Philip - as can be seen from the group's meta page, this is the former
> > Wikimedia Community User Group Brasil. Originally founded in 2013, this
> > organization was de-recognized by AffCom about one year ago.
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Yaroslav Blanter]

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  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 <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> 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  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 
> > 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=prev=901300528
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=prev=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 
> > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > >> To: English Wikipedia 
> > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia 
> > > >>
> > > >> In case you're not following on-wiki - Office S 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.
> > > >>
> 

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

[Amir Sarabadani]

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 <
paulospern...@gmail.com> 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  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 
> 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=prev=901300528
> > <
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=prev=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 
> > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > >> To: English Wikipedia 
> > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia 
> > >>
> > >> In case you're not following on-wiki - Office S 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
> > >> george.herb...@gmail.com
> > >> ___
> > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > >> wikie...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> 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
> > 

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

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

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  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  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=prev=901300528
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=prev=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 
> >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> >> To: English Wikipedia 
> >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia 
> >>
> >> In case you're not following on-wiki - Office S 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
> >> george.herb...@gmail.com
> >> ___
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> wikie...@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Robert Fernandez]

Through various means I'm aware of the partial or full circumstances
of a number of office bans.  In all cases, T investigated thoroughly
and acted appropriately.   I don't know why this case would be any
different, or warrants pitchforks and torches from vocal members of
the community, but these are the same community members who break them
out at every opportunity in any case.

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:06 AM Pine W  wrote:
>
>  I am trying to have an open mind regarding this matter.
>
> I'm supportive of local and global bans in a variety of circumstances, and
> if WMF thinks that sanctions are appropriate then I generally would expect
> WMF to present the relevant evidence to community authorities. English
> Wikipedia has ways of dealing with editors who are accused of misconduct,
> and we have experienced administrators who are capable of investigating
> situations and implementing bans including cases which involve nonpublic
> evidence.
>
> In the absence of convincing evidence that demonstrates a major problem
> with a Wikimedia community's competence and willingness to adjudicate cases
> in a fair manner, I think that WMF interventions such as this are difficult
> to justify. Based on the limited information that I have, I disagree with
> WMF's process for this specific case, and in general I have ongoing
> concerns about WMF's process for WMF-initiated bans. WMF's lack of faith in
> the English Wikipedia community authorities' competence to adjudicate a
> case such as this is discouraging and, as far as I know, not justified.
> Even if a local community has well known problems with its self-governance,
> I think that the appropriate recourse would be to the global community.
> While the global community seems generally opposed to reviewing appeals of
> specific local cases, I think that evidence of systemic problems would
> likely get more attention and perhaps even a request from the global
> community for WMF intervention.
>
> Based on the information that I know, I would reverse this WMF action and
> move the case to the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee for its
> consideration.
>
> 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[George Herbert]

I think that you are making a number of assertions about the community,
individuals, the Foundation, and the power and roles and responsibilities
that aren't warranted.



On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 2:15 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Frankly, I'm surprised by how surprised everyone is.  The Foundation has
> the responsibility to support the community, and the time, the expertise,
> the money and the people to do so.  Individual volunteers, however
> well-meaning, do not.  The Foundation has determined that in this
> particular case the community;s own processes were unable to provide the
> support that the community needed, and so the Foundation has acted to do
> so, as you would expect.
>
> Thrapostibongles
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:26 AM Techman224 
> 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=prev=901300528
> > <
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=prev=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 
> > > Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > To: English Wikipedia 
> > > Reply-To: English Wikipedia 
> > >
> > > In case you're not following on-wiki - Office S 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
> > > george.herb...@gmail.com
> > > ___
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > wikie...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 



-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, 

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

[Mister Thrapostibongles]

Frankly, I'm surprised by how surprised everyone is.  The Foundation has
the responsibility to support the community, and the time, the expertise,
the money and the people to do so.  Individual volunteers, however
well-meaning, do not.  The Foundation has determined that in this
particular case the community;s own processes were unable to provide the
support that the community needed, and so the Foundation has acted to do
so, as you would expect.

Thrapostibongles

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:26 AM Techman224  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=prev=901300528
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=prev=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 
> > Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > To: English Wikipedia 
> > Reply-To: English Wikipedia 
> >
> > In case you're not following on-wiki - Office S 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
> > george.herb...@gmail.com
> > ___
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > wikie...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Pine W]

 I am trying to have an open mind regarding this matter.

I'm supportive of local and global bans in a variety of circumstances, and
if WMF thinks that sanctions are appropriate then I generally would expect
WMF to present the relevant evidence to community authorities. English
Wikipedia has ways of dealing with editors who are accused of misconduct,
and we have experienced administrators who are capable of investigating
situations and implementing bans including cases which involve nonpublic
evidence.

In the absence of convincing evidence that demonstrates a major problem
with a Wikimedia community's competence and willingness to adjudicate cases
in a fair manner, I think that WMF interventions such as this are difficult
to justify. Based on the limited information that I have, I disagree with
WMF's process for this specific case, and in general I have ongoing
concerns about WMF's process for WMF-initiated bans. WMF's lack of faith in
the English Wikipedia community authorities' competence to adjudicate a
case such as this is discouraging and, as far as I know, not justified.
Even if a local community has well known problems with its self-governance,
I think that the appropriate recourse would be to the global community.
While the global community seems generally opposed to reviewing appeals of
specific local cases, I think that evidence of systemic problems would
likely get more attention and perhaps even a request from the global
community for WMF intervention.

Based on the information that I know, I would reverse this WMF action and
move the case to the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee for its
consideration.

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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,