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:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Bill Takatoshi
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 4:51 AM
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
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: 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

[Bill Takatoshi]

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

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

[George 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: This is an emerging consensus that not only was this clumsy, but was 
legitimately an overstep of the authority that the community granted T 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 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 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 
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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

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 
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  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: 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

[Andy Mabbett]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 19:52, David Gerard  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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Peter Southwood]

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:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] 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 <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> 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:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] 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 <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> 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:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] 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
> >  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 

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

[David Gerard]

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

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

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

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) 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 "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 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 
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  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 

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: 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'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=prev=901424172=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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[John Erling Blad]

So much for not quoting anyone.

/jeblad

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 5:36 PM Fæ  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
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad  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: 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] Results of the Affiliate Selected Board Seats voting

[Jan-Bart de Vreede]

Hi All

Thanks to the election committee for facilitating this election, and all
those who voted. And as Pierre said: thanks to all those who put their name
forward, it is a lot of work and involves a lot of responsibility.

Congrats to Nataliia and Shani!

And thank you so much to Christophe for serving!

Jan-Bart “recycled” de Vreede ;)
Board Member Wikimedia Netherlands



On 13 June 2019 at 00:56:18, Ad Huikeshoven (a...@huikeshoven.org) wrote:

*Dear Wikimedians, We are writing to let you know the result of the
election for the 2 Affiliate Selected Board Seats on the Wikimedia
Foundation board. The successful candidates were Nataliia Tymkiv and Shani
Evenstein Sigalov. A total of 122 affiliates voted, 85% of the 143 eligible
to vote, which is a record. As you know the election was conducted under a
variation of the Single Transferable Vote, which meant that prorated votes
were redistributed between candidates to come up with the final result. In
the 10th step of counting the final place, after Nataliia Tymkiv was
elected, was between Shani Evenstein Sigalov (40.519678) and Richard Knipel
(40.480322). We have put the full count narrative on meta so that others
can verify it if they wish.[1] It is the closest ASBS result for some time,
and all candidates brought very valuable perspectives to the work of the
WMF. In the 9th step of counting Reda Kerbouche lost by a very small
margin. Adding a ballot with rank #1 for Richard or Reda would result in
them being elected instead of Shani. The same goes for removing a ballot.
Changing the ranking on one of the ballots in a specific can way can result
in a different outcome for the second seat. This is an election in which
every vote counts. As in any election, there is a chance that some voters
misinterpreted the instructions and voted wrongly. We don't see a
justification for an action as extraordinary and controversial as opening
votes for review after the vote period is over. The instructions were
visible and clear: "Rank any candidate from 1 (your preferred candidate) to
11 (your least preferred candidate)." After voting, voters received a
confirmation email stating the name of each candidate they voted with the
number of their rank: Rank 1, Rank 2, ... The agency of voters should be
respected. As part of the retrospective we may identify areas of
improvements on our side, but still the process was quite simple and
documented. Some voters realized they made a mistake and requested a new
ballot. New ballots were issued in those cases. This choice was done
because of the specific situation of this election, since the process was
complex for new affiliates and participation, diversity and inclusion were
a clear goal.[2] We have published on meta information about who got a new
ballot within the voting deadline.[3] The Election Facilitators have been
available nearly 24 hours a day monitoring the various communication
channels to answer any questions affiliates might have. We did our best at
answering all of them. After our own scrutiny of the data, and based on our
experience in community processes, we strongly advise the community to
respect the integrity of the process, and advise against allowing any
modifications of votes at this point. If the votes had been reopened for
modification with or without publishing vote results, that would have
caused significant confusion and criticism that could have jeopardized the
entire election. We will publish a debrief with recommendations for a next
ASBS process on meta.[4] We invite all representatives of affiliates to a
feedback session at Wikimania.[5] We would like to congratulate Nataliia
Tymkiv and Shani Evenstein Sigalov and thank everyone who stood. Regards,
Ad Huikeshoven, Lane Rasberry, Jeffrey Keefer, Neal McBurnett, Abhinav
Srivastava, Alessandor MarchettiElection Facilitators [1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Results

[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_2019
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_2019
>
[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/New_ballots
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/New_ballots
>
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Debrief

[5]
https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/ASBS_Feedback
*
___
Wikimedia-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

[Peter Southwood]

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:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] 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  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
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad  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: 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, 


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

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

[Bence Damokos]

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  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
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad  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: 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]

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  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
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad  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: 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

[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
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad  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: 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] ¿Qué te hace feliz esta semana? / What's making you happy this week?

[Rocio Consales]

Hola!

On Friday we have planned an edit-a-thon #WikiGap[*1*] at the Gabriela
Mistral Cultural Center (GAM)[*2*] in Santiago of Chile. The team has
worked enormously. And thanks to the fact that we were able to hire two
people, we can finally organize the times for the volunteers and the
directory. The Embassy of Sweden in Chile has also done a great job, with
the support of "Hay Mujeres".[*3*] This edit-a-thon #WikiGap tries to
increase the number and quality of the articles of Chilean and Swedish
women athletes.

Best!
Rocío



*1*[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D88YjlcXkAAw8uX?format=jpg=large]

*2*[https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centro_Cultural_Gabriela_Mistral]

*3*[http://haymujeres.cl/]



El mié., 12 jun. 2019 a las 3:06, Gerard Meijssen (<
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>) escribió:

> Hoi,
> What makes me happy is that a public discussion is happening about the
> performance and the future performance of the query engine of the Wikidata
> query engine. Not only are things in the open but it has triggered
> responses from knowledgeable people making it plain that there is room for
> future growth.
>
> Oh and Magnus is sprinkling his magic making his software perform better,
> taking less of a toll to the update process of the query engine..
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
>
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 08:01, Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > What’s making me happy is also sad (how can one separate hapiness from
> > sadness as you obviously need one to measure the other). My mom is in
> > hospital, her breath cancer spreaded again with metastasis. Yep, looks
> bad.
> >
> > But I discovered a thread which was shared on twitter by francophone
> > wikipedians by the sixth form poet and we laughed so much... I had to
> stop
> > reading the puns as she held her sides telling me it was hurting her.
> >
> > It was great she could forget the pain for a moment. #metoo
> >
> > Here is one of his puns :
> > https://twitter.com/sixthformpoet/status/617649146841989120?s=21
> >
> > People found guilty of not using punctuation deserve the longest sentence
> > possible.
> >
> > We also appreciated the story of the cemetary. Weird but sweet.
> > https://twitter.com/sixthformpoet/status/1137658720698228736?s=21
> >
> >
> > And another thing, in times of great pressure, I take time to make myself
> > a vegan jogurt, very very slowly. This is how it looks like :
> > Cos wikimedian geeks need to get involved in some kind of earthly
> > activities for a change and to balance the sometimes extreme emotions we
> > experience in our heated debates. I will also at one point when it stops
> > raining take a book and wander of the Rhone with my kayak to find moments
> > of peace :
> >
> >
> >
> > If you come to Geneva and you want a ride, shout (you will probably have
> > to bring earplugs too if you want a peaceful ride as I am an awful
> > chatterbox).
> >
> > That’s all geeks!
> >
> > Nattes à chat
> >
> > > Le 11 juin 2019 à 22:09, Pine W  a écrit :
> > >
> > > 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
> > > <
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aratinga_solstitialis_-_Loro_Parque_01.jpg
> > >
> > > Commons Picture of the Day. The photo is of a sun parakeet. The photo
> was
> > > taken on the Canary Islands.
> > >
> > > The May issue <
> > https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/May_2019>
> > > 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,
> > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-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

[John Erling Blad]

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

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 
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
>  wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:48 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > paulospern...@gmail.com> 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: 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] Results of the Affiliate Selected Board Seats voting

[camelia boban]

These result fully confirm our initial decision
,
so we cannot be happier than this. So many congrats to Nat & Shani  .
We congratulate all the candidates for their wiki commitment.
A big thank you to the facilitators; their help was essential for better
understand and the good development of this process.

Camelia


--
*Camelia Boban*

*| Java EE Developer |*

*Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation
Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030
Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project ideator*

*Diversity Space @ Wikimania 2019 Co-Lead*
WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member

M. +39 3383385545
camelia.bo...@gmail.com
*Aissa Technologies* * | *Twitter
 *|* *LinkedIn
*
*Wikipedia  **| **WikiDonne
UG * | *WikiDonne Project
 *











Il giorno gio 13 giu 2019 alle ore 14:11 Pierre-Selim <
pierre-se...@huard.info> ha scritto:

> First of all congratulations to all candidates, it's hard to put your name
> forward, it takes courage and time to write a candidacy.
> I also want to thanks Christophe for his 3 years term.
>
> And last but not least, Nataliaa and Shani, I wish you all the best for
> your role as Trustees (and congrats for being elected!).
>
> Le jeu. 13 juin 2019 à 13:43, Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής <
> anonymuswikiped...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> > Congratulations to the new members!
> >
> > Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής
> >
> > Στις Πέμ, 13 Ιουν 2019 - 6:16 π.μ. ο χρήστης Rajeeb Dutta <
> > marajoz...@gmail.com> έγραψε:
> >
> > > Great new!! Congratulations to Nataliia, Shani and the current board
> > > members  who took the initiative and launched this
> > > process of election. Last but not the least, I like to thank election
> > > facilitators as well.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Rajeeb Dutta.
> > > (U: Marajozkee).
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > > On 13-Jun-2019, at 5:13 AM, João Alexandre Peschanski <
> > joa...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The ASBS voting was an exciting process, as it was a first and
> > important
> > > > step to deepen and broaden participatory decision making in our
> > > movement. I
> > > > thank the current board members who have been bold and launched this
> > > > process. I also thank the election facilitators who have worked
> > > restlessly
> > > > to make this happen. Thanks to candidates who have contributed to a
> > > > productive, engaging exchange of ideas with community members.
> > > >
> > > > The election of Nataliia and Shani is of course wonderful.
> > > Congratulations!
> > > > From what I can tell, the Brazilian community --which has gone
> through
> > > such
> > > > a hard period in recent times-- is wholeheartedly celebrating for
> you!
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > João
> > > > User:Joalpe
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Em qua, 12 de jun de 2019 às 19:56, Ad Huikeshoven <
> a...@huikeshoven.org
> > >
> > > > escreveu:
> > > >
> > > >> *Dear Wikimedians, We are writing to let you know the result of the
> > > >> election for the 2 Affiliate Selected Board Seats on the Wikimedia
> > > >> Foundation board. The successful candidates were Nataliia Tymkiv and
> > > Shani
> > > >> Evenstein Sigalov. A total of 122 affiliates voted, 85% of the 143
> > > eligible
> > > >> to vote, which is a record. As you know the election was conducted
> > > under a
> > > >> variation of the Single Transferable Vote, which meant that prorated
> > > votes
> > > >> were redistributed between candidates to come up with the final
> > result.
> > > In
> > > >> the 10th step of counting the final place, after Nataliia Tymkiv was
> > > >> elected, was between Shani Evenstein Sigalov (40.519678) and Richard
> > > Knipel
> > > >> (40.480322).  We have put the full count narrative on meta so that
> > > others
> > > >> can verify it if they wish.[1] It is the closest ASBS result for
> some
> > > time,
> > > >> and all candidates brought very valuable perspectives to the work of
> > the
> > > >> WMF.  In the 9th step of counting Reda Kerbouche lost by a very
> small
> > > >> margin. Adding a ballot with rank #1 for Richard or Reda would
> result
> > in
> > > >> them being elected instead of Shani. The same goes for removing a
> > > ballot.
> > > >> Changing the ranking on one of the ballots in a specific can way can
> > > result
> > > >> in a different outcome for the second seat. This is an election in
> > which
> > > >> every vote counts.  As in any election, there is a chance that some
> > > voters
> > > >> misinterpreted the instructions and voted wrongly. We don't see a
> > > >> justification for an action as extraordinary and controversial as
> > > opening
> > > >> votes for review after 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Results of the Affiliate Selected Board Seats voting

[Pierre-Selim]

First of all congratulations to all candidates, it's hard to put your name
forward, it takes courage and time to write a candidacy.
I also want to thanks Christophe for his 3 years term.

And last but not least, Nataliaa and Shani, I wish you all the best for
your role as Trustees (and congrats for being elected!).

Le jeu. 13 juin 2019 à 13:43, Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής <
anonymuswikiped...@gmail.com> a écrit :

> Congratulations to the new members!
>
> Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής
>
> Στις Πέμ, 13 Ιουν 2019 - 6:16 π.μ. ο χρήστης Rajeeb Dutta <
> marajoz...@gmail.com> έγραψε:
>
> > Great new!! Congratulations to Nataliia, Shani and the current board
> > members  who took the initiative and launched this
> > process of election. Last but not the least, I like to thank election
> > facilitators as well.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Rajeeb Dutta.
> > (U: Marajozkee).
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On 13-Jun-2019, at 5:13 AM, João Alexandre Peschanski <
> joa...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The ASBS voting was an exciting process, as it was a first and
> important
> > > step to deepen and broaden participatory decision making in our
> > movement. I
> > > thank the current board members who have been bold and launched this
> > > process. I also thank the election facilitators who have worked
> > restlessly
> > > to make this happen. Thanks to candidates who have contributed to a
> > > productive, engaging exchange of ideas with community members.
> > >
> > > The election of Nataliia and Shani is of course wonderful.
> > Congratulations!
> > > From what I can tell, the Brazilian community --which has gone through
> > such
> > > a hard period in recent times-- is wholeheartedly celebrating for you!
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > João
> > > User:Joalpe
> > >
> > >
> > > Em qua, 12 de jun de 2019 às 19:56, Ad Huikeshoven  >
> > > escreveu:
> > >
> > >> *Dear Wikimedians, We are writing to let you know the result of the
> > >> election for the 2 Affiliate Selected Board Seats on the Wikimedia
> > >> Foundation board. The successful candidates were Nataliia Tymkiv and
> > Shani
> > >> Evenstein Sigalov. A total of 122 affiliates voted, 85% of the 143
> > eligible
> > >> to vote, which is a record. As you know the election was conducted
> > under a
> > >> variation of the Single Transferable Vote, which meant that prorated
> > votes
> > >> were redistributed between candidates to come up with the final
> result.
> > In
> > >> the 10th step of counting the final place, after Nataliia Tymkiv was
> > >> elected, was between Shani Evenstein Sigalov (40.519678) and Richard
> > Knipel
> > >> (40.480322).  We have put the full count narrative on meta so that
> > others
> > >> can verify it if they wish.[1] It is the closest ASBS result for some
> > time,
> > >> and all candidates brought very valuable perspectives to the work of
> the
> > >> WMF.  In the 9th step of counting Reda Kerbouche lost by a very small
> > >> margin. Adding a ballot with rank #1 for Richard or Reda would result
> in
> > >> them being elected instead of Shani. The same goes for removing a
> > ballot.
> > >> Changing the ranking on one of the ballots in a specific can way can
> > result
> > >> in a different outcome for the second seat. This is an election in
> which
> > >> every vote counts.  As in any election, there is a chance that some
> > voters
> > >> misinterpreted the instructions and voted wrongly. We don't see a
> > >> justification for an action as extraordinary and controversial as
> > opening
> > >> votes for review after the vote period is over. The instructions were
> > >> visible and clear: "Rank any candidate from 1 (your preferred
> > candidate) to
> > >> 11 (your least preferred candidate)." After voting, voters received a
> > >> confirmation email stating the name of each candidate they voted with
> > the
> > >> number of their rank: Rank 1, Rank 2, ... The agency of voters should
> be
> > >> respected. As part of the retrospective we may identify areas of
> > >> improvements on our side, but still the process was quite simple and
> > >> documented. Some voters realized they made a mistake and requested a
> new
> > >> ballot. New ballots were issued in those cases. This choice was done
> > >> because of the specific situation of this election, since the process
> > was
> > >> complex for new affiliates and participation, diversity and inclusion
> > were
> > >> a clear goal.[2] We have published on meta information about who got a
> > new
> > >> ballot within the voting deadline.[3] The Election Facilitators have
> > been
> > >> available nearly 24 hours a day monitoring the various communication
> > >> channels to answer any questions affiliates might have. We did our
> best
> > at
> > >> answering all of them. After our own scrutiny of the data, and based
> on
> > our
> > >> experience in community processes, we strongly advise the community to
> > >> respect the integrity of the process, and advise against allowing any
> > >> 

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

[Robert Fernandez]

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
 wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:48 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> 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: 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] Results of the Affiliate Selected Board Seats voting

[Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής]

Congratulations to the new members!

Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής

Στις Πέμ, 13 Ιουν 2019 - 6:16 π.μ. ο χρήστης Rajeeb Dutta <
marajoz...@gmail.com> έγραψε:

> Great new!! Congratulations to Nataliia, Shani and the current board
> members  who took the initiative and launched this
> process of election. Last but not the least, I like to thank election
> facilitators as well.
>
> Best Regards,
> Rajeeb Dutta.
> (U: Marajozkee).
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 13-Jun-2019, at 5:13 AM, João Alexandre Peschanski 
> wrote:
> >
> > The ASBS voting was an exciting process, as it was a first and important
> > step to deepen and broaden participatory decision making in our
> movement. I
> > thank the current board members who have been bold and launched this
> > process. I also thank the election facilitators who have worked
> restlessly
> > to make this happen. Thanks to candidates who have contributed to a
> > productive, engaging exchange of ideas with community members.
> >
> > The election of Nataliia and Shani is of course wonderful.
> Congratulations!
> > From what I can tell, the Brazilian community --which has gone through
> such
> > a hard period in recent times-- is wholeheartedly celebrating for you!
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > João
> > User:Joalpe
> >
> >
> > Em qua, 12 de jun de 2019 às 19:56, Ad Huikeshoven 
> > escreveu:
> >
> >> *Dear Wikimedians, We are writing to let you know the result of the
> >> election for the 2 Affiliate Selected Board Seats on the Wikimedia
> >> Foundation board. The successful candidates were Nataliia Tymkiv and
> Shani
> >> Evenstein Sigalov. A total of 122 affiliates voted, 85% of the 143
> eligible
> >> to vote, which is a record. As you know the election was conducted
> under a
> >> variation of the Single Transferable Vote, which meant that prorated
> votes
> >> were redistributed between candidates to come up with the final result.
> In
> >> the 10th step of counting the final place, after Nataliia Tymkiv was
> >> elected, was between Shani Evenstein Sigalov (40.519678) and Richard
> Knipel
> >> (40.480322).  We have put the full count narrative on meta so that
> others
> >> can verify it if they wish.[1] It is the closest ASBS result for some
> time,
> >> and all candidates brought very valuable perspectives to the work of the
> >> WMF.  In the 9th step of counting Reda Kerbouche lost by a very small
> >> margin. Adding a ballot with rank #1 for Richard or Reda would result in
> >> them being elected instead of Shani. The same goes for removing a
> ballot.
> >> Changing the ranking on one of the ballots in a specific can way can
> result
> >> in a different outcome for the second seat. This is an election in which
> >> every vote counts.  As in any election, there is a chance that some
> voters
> >> misinterpreted the instructions and voted wrongly. We don't see a
> >> justification for an action as extraordinary and controversial as
> opening
> >> votes for review after the vote period is over. The instructions were
> >> visible and clear: "Rank any candidate from 1 (your preferred
> candidate) to
> >> 11 (your least preferred candidate)." After voting, voters received a
> >> confirmation email stating the name of each candidate they voted with
> the
> >> number of their rank: Rank 1, Rank 2, ... The agency of voters should be
> >> respected. As part of the retrospective we may identify areas of
> >> improvements on our side, but still the process was quite simple and
> >> documented. Some voters realized they made a mistake and requested a new
> >> ballot. New ballots were issued in those cases. This choice was done
> >> because of the specific situation of this election, since the process
> was
> >> complex for new affiliates and participation, diversity and inclusion
> were
> >> a clear goal.[2] We have published on meta information about who got a
> new
> >> ballot within the voting deadline.[3] The Election Facilitators have
> been
> >> available nearly 24 hours a day monitoring the various communication
> >> channels to answer any questions affiliates might have. We did our best
> at
> >> answering all of them. After our own scrutiny of the data, and based on
> our
> >> experience in community processes, we strongly advise the community to
> >> respect the integrity of the process, and advise against allowing any
> >> modifications of votes at this point. If the votes had been reopened for
> >> modification with or without publishing vote results, that would have
> >> caused significant confusion and criticism that could have jeopardized
> the
> >> entire election.  We will publish a debrief with recommendations for a
> next
> >> ASBS process on meta.[4] We invite all representatives of affiliates to
> a
> >> feedback session at Wikimania.[5] We would like to congratulate Nataliia
> >> Tymkiv and Shani Evenstein Sigalov and thank everyone who stood.
> Regards,
> >> Ad Huikeshoven, Lane Rasberry, Jeffrey Keefer, Neal McBurnett, Abhinav
> >> Srivastava, Alessandor 

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

[Mister Thrapostibongles]

Peter

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 6:45 AM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> 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:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] 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 <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> 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:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] 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
> >  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:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] 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
> > > 

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

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

What is the point of addressing and lecturing an onwiki community about
harassment happening offwiki, and then using that to imply all happening on
that situation onwiki was about sexism and GamerGate stuff?

Really, going into an already very escalated situation and making such
baseless and inflammatory comments does not seem like the wisest thing to
do.

Paulo

A quinta, 13 de jun de 2019, 08:15, Chris Keating <
chriskeatingw...@gmail.com> escreveu:

> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:48 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> 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: 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

[Chris Keating]

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:48 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[George Herbert]

Phillipe wrote in part:

I trust the people and the process. I wish I could find a way to share that
> trust in such a way that it would be adopted by more. Maybe you have to
> live it to develop it,  but these are talented staff making hard decisions.
> No doubt they will err some - but it’s not because they didn’t try
> everything they know to get it right.


When I sent my first email on all this, I tried to be as trusting and open
as possible.  But something troubled me greatly and I have still not seen
any hypotheticals or specifics to address it.

In the past, as I understood it, there was a null set of things that could
be done by someone that would justify Office taking action like this and
wouldn't result in a lifetime permanent ban.

Everything else, to my knowledge, was safe to handle somewhere between
privately in Arbcom and normally on-Wiki.

The combination of "Something Office needed to do" and "It's only for a
year" breaks my head and my heart.  There obviously has to be an
explanation here.  If that's not really an empty set of things that Office
could need to do in this manner and might not result in permanent bans,
then Office and the Foundation staff really really owe the community a
clear explanation of the criteria used to determine that.

I should not be sitting here days later wondering even what category of
problem this could be in that resulted in the action.

I don't need this answered today, but it does need to get answered.  The
difference between a court which sometimes has to act in secret and a Star
Chamber is that people can tell what the rules are for the court that
sometimes has to act in secret.  Either Office are acting like a court that
sometimes has to act in secret, or Office and En.Wikipedia do in fact have
a catastrophic problem.  We need to know the parameters.

-george


On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 5:02 PM Philippe Beaudette 
wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:20 PM Nathan  wrote:
>
> >   Philippe moved on, so the easy solution - put him in charge of
> > everything - isn't going to work.
>
>
>
> I laughed. Thank you for this. But remember, I was in front of Arbcomm for
> a not too dissimilar case, being accused of overreaching and an unhelpful
> response and tone (false, true and true, in that order). I learned from my
> mistakes. More importantly, I hope (and believe) that the WMF learned from
> my mistakes.
>
> The people on the T team are neither dumb nor disconnected. Quite the
> opposite. I hired and worked with a couple  of them and know them to be
> talented, thoughtful and deliberate. I know Katherine to be the same.
>
> On the basis of that “insider” knowledge - and that is truly all the
> insider knowledge that I have here - I trust that there is more here that I
> do not and can not know.
>
> I trust the people and the process. I wish I could find a way to share that
> trust in such a way that it would be adopted by more. Maybe you have to
> live it to develop it,  but these are talented staff making hard decisions.
> No doubt they will err some - but it’s not because they didn’t try
> everything they know to get it right.
>
> I wish we could put away the pitchforks - and also (on the wmf side) make
> ourselves available and open to listening and sharing whatever we can - if
> there is anything and try like hell to deescalate this thing.
>
>
> Or give me time to go buy more popcorn. One or the other.
>
> Philippe
>
>
>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-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,
> > 
>
> --
> Philippe Beaudette
> phili...@beaudette.me
> ___
> Wikimedia-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, 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

[Yair Rand]

User:Fram posted on Commons a slice of what is purportedly the email from
T, which says that "this ban has been triggered following your recent
abusive communications on the project, as seen here" linking to the diff in
question (#895438118). The WMFOffice account has made three statements
since the discussion of the post began (these statements made on the same
page where that discussion occured), none of which denied (or referenced at
all) the accuracy of the snippet. That's all we know.

-- Yair Rand

‫בתאריך יום ה׳, 13 ביוני 2019 ב-1:59 מאת ‪David Gerard‬‏ <‪dger...@gmail.com
‬‏>:‬

> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 00:19, Nathan  wrote:
>
> >  The
> > T team made a very token effort to intervene, and then imposed a high
> > profile ban with the flimsy excuse of a diff that says "fuck arbcom".
> They
> > then used that diff to excuse not including ArbCom, as if ArbCom had
> never
> > been subjected to any abuse before.
>
> Did they actually do that, or was that Fram claiming it was the cause?
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-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

[David Gerard]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 00:19, Nathan  wrote:

>  The
> T team made a very token effort to intervene, and then imposed a high
> profile ban with the flimsy excuse of a diff that says "fuck arbcom". They
> then used that diff to excuse not including ArbCom, as if ArbCom had never
> been subjected to any abuse before.

Did they actually do that, or was that Fram claiming it was the cause?


- d.

___
Wikimedia-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,