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

[David Goodman]

I do not think any of the present or recent past arb com members are at all
bothered by insults, however unjustified. People involved in arb cases
often tend to get emotional and even a little irrational. We just ignore
them.

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:37 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> At this point, it certainly looks like that. That, and the "f*** Arbcom"
> thing. If you know otherwise, please explain.
>
> Paulo
>
> David Gerard  escreveu no dia sexta, 14/06/2019 à(s)
> 11:37:
>
> > and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> > doing only what you describe?
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen  wrote:
> > >
> > > The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept writing
> > > garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
> Harassment!
> > > Bad!"
> > >
> > > If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
> > SOURCES
> > > PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement
> anyway.
> > > The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had her
> > > articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> > "harassment"
> > > rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's policies.
> > > Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
> > only
> > > after she has them in hand.
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
> > wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done
> then
> > > > clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  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 threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or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:
> > > > > 

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

[David Goodman]

From my perspective of 4 years on enWP arb com, there is no question that
the enWP does not deal well with routine low-level harassment in the
absence of something really awful. If it were done by the WMF using
in-camera proceedings, , there would probably be more actual problem
editors sanctioned, and  probably more over-reaction and sanctions based on
unfair accusations. Opinions vary about the relative importance of those
two, but as for me, the probability of unfairness from secret proceeding by
anonymous paid staff is by far the worse, and I see it as in direct
opposition to the principles underlying the entire wikipedia effort.

If the WMF would assist the enWP to develop its own procedures, towards
something that would be both effective and fair, *that* would be useful.
The nature of this event causes me to doubt they could do it.  For one
thing, they do not seem to understand that sanctions of this sort teach the
lesson only if they are closely related in time to the offense, not follow
months afterwards--otherwise it is punitive, not corrective.  Much worse,
it seems  they do not  understand or value the concept of basic fairness.

I am not however saying that I personally find the actual sanction here
totally unwarranted.  The problem is rather that it sets a terrible
precedent.

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:14 PM Todd Allen  wrote:

> You ought to read the entire paragraph. Such as the part where I explicitly
> acknowledged that Fram's version of events may be inaccurate or incomplete.
>
> Todd
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 5:03 PM David Gerard  wrote:
>
> > If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible,
> > let alone the story, then you're less competent than I have previously
> > considered you to be.
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Todd Allen  wrote:
> > >
> > > According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for
> > > maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs,
> > the
> > > maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is lying
> > or
> > > omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not
> challenging
> > > him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for
> > what
> > > they told him they sanctioned him for.
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> > > > doing only what you describe?
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
> > writing
> > > > > garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
> > Harassment!
> > > > > Bad!"
> > > > >
> > > > > If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
> > > > SOURCES
> > > > > PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement
> > anyway.
> > > > > The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had
> > her
> > > > > articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> > > > "harassment"
> > > > > rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
> > policies.
> > > > > Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the
> article
> > > > only
> > > > > after she has them in hand.
> > > > >
> > > > > Todd
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
> > > > wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is
> done
> > then
> > > > > > clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  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
> > > > > > > 

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

[Todd Allen]

You ought to read the entire paragraph. Such as the part where I explicitly
acknowledged that Fram's version of events may be inaccurate or incomplete.

Todd

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 5:03 PM David Gerard  wrote:

> If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible,
> let alone the story, then you're less competent than I have previously
> considered you to be.
>
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> > According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for
> > maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs,
> the
> > maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is lying
> or
> > omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not challenging
> > him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for
> what
> > they told him they sanctioned him for.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard  wrote:
> >
> > > and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> > > doing only what you describe?
> > >
> > > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
> writing
> > > > garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
> Harassment!
> > > > Bad!"
> > > >
> > > > If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
> > > SOURCES
> > > > PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement
> anyway.
> > > > The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had
> her
> > > > articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> > > "harassment"
> > > > rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
> policies.
> > > > Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
> > > only
> > > > after she has them in hand.
> > > >
> > > > Todd
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
> > > wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done
> then
> > > > > clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  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
> > 

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

[David Gerard]

If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible,
let alone the story, then you're less competent than I have previously
considered you to be.

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for
> maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs, the
> maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is lying or
> omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not challenging
> him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for what
> they told him they sanctioned him for.
>
> Todd
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard  wrote:
>
> > and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> > doing only what you describe?
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen  wrote:
> > >
> > > The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept writing
> > > garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage! Harassment!
> > > Bad!"
> > >
> > > If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
> > SOURCES
> > > PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement anyway.
> > > The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had her
> > > articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> > "harassment"
> > > rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's policies.
> > > Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
> > only
> > > after she has them in hand.
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
> > wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done then
> > > > clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  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.
> > > > > > 

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

[effe iets anders]

For those trying to grasp what's going on, some more links:
- Statement by the SuSa team manager, explaining the WMF viewpoint:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram#Statement_from_Jan_Eissfeldt,_Lead_Manager_of_Trust_&_Safety

- Arbcom case around the desysop/resysop of WJBscribe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#WJBscribe

I haven't read everything in detail, but these seem the snippets most
relevant to the global community. I'm still struggling to find a good
summary of what the new (global) processes/policies of SuSa to address
harassment in the broad sense of the word are - Jan only linked to an
annual plan announcing them. But then, given the sheer amount of text, I
probably missed it if anyone posted a link.

Lodewijk

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 3:16 PM Dan Rosenthal  wrote:

> Wow, that logs page is something else. Pretty ironic that Bishonen would
> accuse the Office account of "wheel warring", when the wheel warring policy
> explicitly states that reversing an Office Action is indicative of wheel
> warring. So I'm *sure* we'll see suitable discussions of sanctions for the
> knowing, planned, intentional reversal of an office action against policy,
> right?
>
> Possible indications of an incipient wheel war:
>
>- An administrator getting too distressed to discuss calmly.
>- Deliberately ignoring an existing discussion in favor of a
>unilateral preferred action.
>- Abruptly undoing administrator actions without consultation.
>- *Reversal of a Wikimedia Foundation office action
>.*
>
>
> Dan Rosenthal
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:06 PM effe iets anders 
> wrote:
>
>> Great, now we have a wheelwar going on (
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block=Fram
>> ). I
>> have a hard time seeing how this would help anyone.
>>
>> A massive discussion where everyone tries to say something and nobody
>> really reads everything (because how could you) is not going to lead to
>> any
>> constructive outcome. I hope that someone picks up the challenge and
>> brings
>> together the WMF and community before this spins further out of control.
>> (I'm naively assuming that the WMF would be willing to engage at least
>> privately in conversation if it relies on private information, or publicly
>> if it does not).
>>
>> Lodewijk
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:40 PM Robert Fernandez 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Framing it as "competence over politeness" is convenient for the
>> > people who do not want the latter and imagine they are the former.
>> >
>> > It also insults the editors who have managed to do both.  I know an
>> > en.wp editor who has dozens of FAs and somehow managed the herculean
>> > feat of not referring to anyone on Wikipedia using the c-word.
>> >
>> > Framing it as "the culture of the community" leaves out of the
>> > community all of us who are sick of this behavior, including long-time
>> > veterans of the community like myself (fifteen years), and community
>> > victims of harassment asking T for help.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:58 PM Todd Allen 
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an
>> admin,
>> > > all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask
>> ourselves
>> > > why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without
>> intervening to
>> > > stop it."
>> > >
>> > > First, if Fram were a well-known editor but not an admin, yes, there
>> > > absolutely would be such a discussion. But as to why, the answer, very
>> > > simply, is that the English Wikipedia community values competence over
>> > > politeness, and probably always will. That is part of the culture of
>> the
>> > > community, and the WMF has no right to override that.
>> > >
>> > > Todd
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:46 AM camelia boban <
>> camelia.bo...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I quote David and Isaac.
>> > > > Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of
>> any
>> > wiki
>> > > > behavior.
>> > > > Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an
>> > admin,
>> > > > all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask
>> > ourselves
>> > > > why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without
>> intervening
>> > to
>> > > > stop it.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > 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* 

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

[Dan Rosenthal]

Wow, that logs page is something else. Pretty ironic that Bishonen would
accuse the Office account of "wheel warring", when the wheel warring policy
explicitly states that reversing an Office Action is indicative of wheel
warring. So I'm *sure* we'll see suitable discussions of sanctions for the
knowing, planned, intentional reversal of an office action against policy,
right?

Possible indications of an incipient wheel war:

   - An administrator getting too distressed to discuss calmly.
   - Deliberately ignoring an existing discussion in favor of a unilateral
   preferred action.
   - Abruptly undoing administrator actions without consultation.
   - *Reversal of a Wikimedia Foundation office action
   .*


Dan Rosenthal


On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:06 PM effe iets anders 
wrote:

> Great, now we have a wheelwar going on (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block=Fram ).
> I
> have a hard time seeing how this would help anyone.
>
> A massive discussion where everyone tries to say something and nobody
> really reads everything (because how could you) is not going to lead to any
> constructive outcome. I hope that someone picks up the challenge and brings
> together the WMF and community before this spins further out of control.
> (I'm naively assuming that the WMF would be willing to engage at least
> privately in conversation if it relies on private information, or publicly
> if it does not).
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:40 PM Robert Fernandez 
> wrote:
>
> > Framing it as "competence over politeness" is convenient for the
> > people who do not want the latter and imagine they are the former.
> >
> > It also insults the editors who have managed to do both.  I know an
> > en.wp editor who has dozens of FAs and somehow managed the herculean
> > feat of not referring to anyone on Wikipedia using the c-word.
> >
> > Framing it as "the culture of the community" leaves out of the
> > community all of us who are sick of this behavior, including long-time
> > veterans of the community like myself (fifteen years), and community
> > victims of harassment asking T for help.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:58 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
> > >
> > > "Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an
> admin,
> > > all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask
> ourselves
> > > why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening
> to
> > > stop it."
> > >
> > > First, if Fram were a well-known editor but not an admin, yes, there
> > > absolutely would be such a discussion. But as to why, the answer, very
> > > simply, is that the English Wikipedia community values competence over
> > > politeness, and probably always will. That is part of the culture of
> the
> > > community, and the WMF has no right to override that.
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:46 AM camelia boban  >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I quote David and Isaac.
> > > > Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any
> > wiki
> > > > behavior.
> > > > Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an
> > admin,
> > > > all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask
> > ourselves
> > > > why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without
> intervening
> > to
> > > > stop it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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 ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> > > >
> > > > > Fæ
> > > > >
> > > > > [...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> > > > > > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > > > > > banning bad behaviour on our projects.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English
> > > > Wikipedia
> > > > > community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
> > > > >
> > > > 

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

[effe iets anders]

Great, now we have a wheelwar going on (
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block=Fram ). I
have a hard time seeing how this would help anyone.

A massive discussion where everyone tries to say something and nobody
really reads everything (because how could you) is not going to lead to any
constructive outcome. I hope that someone picks up the challenge and brings
together the WMF and community before this spins further out of control.
(I'm naively assuming that the WMF would be willing to engage at least
privately in conversation if it relies on private information, or publicly
if it does not).

Lodewijk

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:40 PM Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> Framing it as "competence over politeness" is convenient for the
> people who do not want the latter and imagine they are the former.
>
> It also insults the editors who have managed to do both.  I know an
> en.wp editor who has dozens of FAs and somehow managed the herculean
> feat of not referring to anyone on Wikipedia using the c-word.
>
> Framing it as "the culture of the community" leaves out of the
> community all of us who are sick of this behavior, including long-time
> veterans of the community like myself (fifteen years), and community
> victims of harassment asking T for help.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:58 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> > "Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin,
> > all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves
> > why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to
> > stop it."
> >
> > First, if Fram were a well-known editor but not an admin, yes, there
> > absolutely would be such a discussion. But as to why, the answer, very
> > simply, is that the English Wikipedia community values competence over
> > politeness, and probably always will. That is part of the culture of the
> > community, and the WMF has no right to override that.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:46 AM camelia boban 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I quote David and Isaac.
> > > Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any
> wiki
> > > behavior.
> > > Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an
> admin,
> > > all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask
> ourselves
> > > why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening
> to
> > > stop it.
> > >
> > >
> > > 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 ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> > >
> > > > Fæ
> > > >
> > > > [...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> > > > > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > > > > banning bad behaviour on our projects.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > If the English
> > > > > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> > > > > policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Indeed.  Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram
> > > > suggests
> > > > that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to
> happen or
> > > be
> > > > productive.
> > > >
> > > > Thrapostibongles
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines 

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

[Todd Allen]

Well, you'll get no argument from me that I wish people wouldn't be
gratuitously rude. (Or use that word; nothing good ever comes of that.)

I am certainly not endorsing that. At the same time, some of the most
disruptive editors I've seen were unfailingly polite.

Todd

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 3:40 PM Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> Framing it as "competence over politeness" is convenient for the
> people who do not want the latter and imagine they are the former.
>
> It also insults the editors who have managed to do both.  I know an
> en.wp editor who has dozens of FAs and somehow managed the herculean
> feat of not referring to anyone on Wikipedia using the c-word.
>
> Framing it as "the culture of the community" leaves out of the
> community all of us who are sick of this behavior, including long-time
> veterans of the community like myself (fifteen years), and community
> victims of harassment asking T for help.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:58 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> > "Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin,
> > all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves
> > why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to
> > stop it."
> >
> > First, if Fram were a well-known editor but not an admin, yes, there
> > absolutely would be such a discussion. But as to why, the answer, very
> > simply, is that the English Wikipedia community values competence over
> > politeness, and probably always will. That is part of the culture of the
> > community, and the WMF has no right to override that.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:46 AM camelia boban 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I quote David and Isaac.
> > > Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any
> wiki
> > > behavior.
> > > Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an
> admin,
> > > all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask
> ourselves
> > > why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening
> to
> > > stop it.
> > >
> > >
> > > 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 ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> > >
> > > > Fæ
> > > >
> > > > [...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> > > > > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > > > > banning bad behaviour on our projects.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > If the English
> > > > > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> > > > > policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Indeed.  Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram
> > > > suggests
> > > > that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to
> happen or
> > > be
> > > > productive.
> > > >
> > > > Thrapostibongles
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: 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]

Framing it as "competence over politeness" is convenient for the
people who do not want the latter and imagine they are the former.

It also insults the editors who have managed to do both.  I know an
en.wp editor who has dozens of FAs and somehow managed the herculean
feat of not referring to anyone on Wikipedia using the c-word.

Framing it as "the culture of the community" leaves out of the
community all of us who are sick of this behavior, including long-time
veterans of the community like myself (fifteen years), and community
victims of harassment asking T for help.


On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:58 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> "Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin,
> all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves
> why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to
> stop it."
>
> First, if Fram were a well-known editor but not an admin, yes, there
> absolutely would be such a discussion. But as to why, the answer, very
> simply, is that the English Wikipedia community values competence over
> politeness, and probably always will. That is part of the culture of the
> community, and the WMF has no right to override that.
>
> Todd
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:46 AM camelia boban 
> wrote:
>
> > I quote David and Isaac.
> > Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any wiki
> > behavior.
> > Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin,
> > all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves
> > why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to
> > stop it.
> >
> >
> > 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 ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> > > Fæ
> > >
> > > [...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> > > > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > > > banning bad behaviour on our projects.
> > >
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English
> > Wikipedia
> > > community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
> > >
> > >
> > > > If the English
> > > > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> > > > policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
> > >
> > >
> > > Indeed.  Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
> > >
> > >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram
> > > suggests
> > > that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to happen or
> > be
> > > productive.
> > >
> > > Thrapostibongles
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: 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, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages 

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

[Vi to]

Sometimes is hard to tell a harsh dispute from lack of civility.

Generally it's easy to focus on form rather than on substance.

Some issues are very complex to handle, for example some weeks ago,
criticizing someone (who wrote an aggravating email on this thread) brought
me to receive some truly nice insults in a private email. It's a very
complex case of a behavior which is formally "right" but which is widely
considered as destructive within the involved community.

WMF bans are meant to handle issues which cannot be handled by ordinary
community means, above all because they involve out-of-wiki elements.

In a recent incident I advocated for some changes in WMF ban (namely,
giving a wider framework to people which are supposed to help enforcing
them) but in my experience none of WMF ban I have sufficient background to
judge was unjustified.

Vito

Il giorno ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 22:52 Andy Mabbett <
a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> ha scritto:

> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 19:18, Kirill Lokshin 
> wrote:
>
> > Rather, the problem occurs when a *popular* competent editor violates the
> > civility policy (or, for particularly popular editors, virtually any
> other
> > policy); the traditional consensus-based approach to policy enforcement
> > makes it difficult, if not impossible, to effectively sanction an editor
> > with a substantial contingent of vocal supporters who will argue against
> > any such sanctions whenever the opportunity arises.
>
> This.
>
> And a number (not everyone, of course) of those screaming loudest
> about the WMF's recent action are those whose style of behaviour would
> see them sanctioned if a civility policy were properly enforced.
>
> --
> 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,
> 
___
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 Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 19:18, Kirill Lokshin  wrote:

> Rather, the problem occurs when a *popular* competent editor violates the
> civility policy (or, for particularly popular editors, virtually any other
> policy); the traditional consensus-based approach to policy enforcement
> makes it difficult, if not impossible, to effectively sanction an editor
> with a substantial contingent of vocal supporters who will argue against
> any such sanctions whenever the opportunity arises.

This.

And a number (not everyone, of course) of those screaming loudest
about the WMF's recent action are those whose style of behaviour would
see them sanctioned if a civility policy were properly enforced.

-- 
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

[Kirill Lokshin]

That's overstating the community's position a bit, I think.  Despite the
occasional attempt to get rid of the civility policy, the community has
continued to support it -- at least in the abstract -- and generally has no
problem whatsoever in sanctioning an ordinary, run-of-the-mill editor for
being uncivil, even when that editor is perfectly competent.

Rather, the problem occurs when a *popular* competent editor violates the
civility policy (or, for particularly popular editors, virtually any other
policy); the traditional consensus-based approach to policy enforcement
makes it difficult, if not impossible, to effectively sanction an editor
with a substantial contingent of vocal supporters who will argue against
any such sanctions whenever the opportunity arises.

Kirill

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:58 PM Todd Allen  wrote:

> "Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin,
> all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves
> why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to
> stop it."
>
> First, if Fram were a well-known editor but not an admin, yes, there
> absolutely would be such a discussion. But as to why, the answer, very
> simply, is that the English Wikipedia community values competence over
> politeness, and probably always will. That is part of the culture of the
> community, and the WMF has no right to override that.
>
> Todd
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:46 AM camelia boban 
> wrote:
>
> > I quote David and Isaac.
> > Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any
> wiki
> > behavior.
> > Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin,
> > all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves
> > why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to
> > stop it.
> >
> >
> > 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 ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> > > Fæ
> > >
> > > [...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> > > > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > > > banning bad behaviour on our projects.
> > >
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English
> > Wikipedia
> > > community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
> > >
> > >
> > > > If the English
> > > > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> > > > policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
> > >
> > >
> > > Indeed.  Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram
> > > suggests
> > > that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to happen
> or
> > be
> > > productive.
> > >
> > > Thrapostibongles
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: 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

[Todd Allen]

"Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin,
all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves
why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to
stop it."

First, if Fram were a well-known editor but not an admin, yes, there
absolutely would be such a discussion. But as to why, the answer, very
simply, is that the English Wikipedia community values competence over
politeness, and probably always will. That is part of the culture of the
community, and the WMF has no right to override that.

Todd

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:46 AM camelia boban 
wrote:

> I quote David and Isaac.
> Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any wiki
> behavior.
> Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin,
> all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves
> why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to
> stop it.
>
>
> 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 ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> thrapostibong...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
> > Fæ
> >
> > [...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> > > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > > banning bad behaviour on our projects.
> >
> >
> > Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English
> Wikipedia
> > community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
> >
> >
> > > If the English
> > > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> > > policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
> >
> >
> > Indeed.  Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
> >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram
> > suggests
> > that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to happen or
> be
> > productive.
> >
> > Thrapostibongles
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: 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

[Todd Allen]

According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for
maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs, the
maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is lying or
omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not challenging
him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for what
they told him they sanctioned him for.

Todd

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard  wrote:

> and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> doing only what you describe?
>
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> > The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept writing
> > garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage! Harassment!
> > Bad!"
> >
> > If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
> SOURCES
> > PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement anyway.
> > The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had her
> > articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> "harassment"
> > rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's policies.
> > Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
> only
> > after she has them in hand.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
> wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done then
> > > clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  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,
> > > > 

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

[Anders Wennersten]

+1

We need to make a reality that Wikipedia workspace is without langauge 
that intimidate users.


Anders

Den 2019-06-14 kl. 14:45, skrev camelia boban:

I quote David and Isaac.
Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any wiki
behavior.
Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin,
all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves
why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to
stop it.


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 ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles <
thrapostibong...@gmail.com> ha scritto:


Fæ

[...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace

existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
banning bad behaviour on our projects.


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



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


Indeed.  Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at

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

Thrapostibongles
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 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

[Martijn Hoekstra]

 if Fram was not an admin, all these discussions would not have been done)
[citation needed]




why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to
> stop it.
>
>
> 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 ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> thrapostibong...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
> > Fæ
> >
> > [...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> > > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > > banning bad behaviour on our projects.
> >
> >
> > Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English
> Wikipedia
> > community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
> >
> >
> > > If the English
> > > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> > > policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
> >
> >
> > Indeed.  Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
> >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram
> > suggests
> > that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to happen or
> be
> > productive.
> >
> > Thrapostibongles
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: 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]

WMF T will not do anything about off-wiki harassment either, apart
from banning on-wiki users or offering to block your account as the
target of harassment.

There's a lot that can be improved around harassment and civility, but
honestly, the WMF has no special answers or powers, they do not claim
to be experts. As someone who has had blackmail and death threats,
advice from the WMF was a lot worse than advice I had from the either
the police or victim support.

Though my experience is mostly dated, the WMF gave me bad advice which
significantly delayed me from contacting the police, and I cannot
recommend that a target of harassment put their faith in the WMF if
they are targeted with harassment. The only reason I reported some
nasty transphobic threats targeting me earlier this year was to ensure
that the WMF had them logged, in case there was a wider pattern of
abuse against other LGBT+ Wikipedians. WMF T have given me no useful
feedback or updates on my own case in the months since.

I am very sorry to say this so bluntly, but from personal experience
though WMF senior management write a lot of nice soft words about
harassment and safe spaces, in practice a user being targeted is
better off having private chats on IRC with volunteer stewards and
checkusers that they trust, rather than WMF employees.

P.S. I encourage the use of the words "target of harassment". Being
labelled as a "victim" which puts the focus on you just because you
made a complaint, rather than the troll harassing others, is not
helpful.

Thanks,
Fae

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 13:29, Isaac Olatunde  wrote:
>
> I have seen a known user attacking me on one of Wikipedia's criticism site
> during my ArbCom case on the English Wikipedia but when it was report, they
> said there is nothing they can do about off-wiki attacks/harassment. That
> event alone gives me an impression that the English Wikipedia community
> cannot protect anyone from off-wiki harassment. Why would people feel
> comfortable to report a case of harassment to a community or group that can
> not protect them?
>
> Isaac
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 8:33 AM Pine W 
> > I think that I understand the GamerGate reference. A decentralized swarm of
> > harassment can be a major problem, and in this case I am concerned (I
> > haven't attempted to review the evidence) that at least one person is being
> > hounded off-wiki regarding their alleged involvement in this matter in a
> > way that would receive a firm response by ENWP administrators if the same
> > hounding was happening on ENWP.
> >
> > Fear of being hounded can discourage people from reporting problems.
> >
> > On English Wikipedia we have some administrators who are willing to make
> > politically difficult blocks, and we have an arbitration committee that has
> > been willing to review alleged misconduct by high profile people including
> > administrators, but I'm not sure that all wikis have a sufficient number of
> > competent and good faith administrators to address allegations of
> > misconduct, especially misconduct by people who have relatively high levels
> > of local political support.
> >
> > Even more challenging to moderate are off-wiki activities in places which
> > do not honor ENWP norms. I do not know of a robust solution to this
> > problem, and my guess is that there is no robust solution unless we want
> > governments to have more ability to proactively filter and to suppress
> > Internet content that does not meet with their approval.
> >
> > I think that ENWP is more like a busy, diverse, and loud public square than
> > a quiet office with tight control of what everyone does and a central
> > authority that quickly gets rid of people who make statements that are not
> > acceptable within narrow parameters. I worry that the concept of "safe
> > spaces" may come to mean something like: "People are only allowed to
> > participate on Wikimedia sites if they act according to WMF's opinions
> > regarding politically correct behavior and create content that does not
> > offend WMF". Political correctness and safety are not characteristics that
> > I would associate with Wikimedia sites, for better and for worse, and I
> > think that attempting to create more political correctness and safety can
> > come at too much expense of honesty, due process, freedom of expression,
> > and editorial independence. As mentioned by others, WMF’s recent power grab
> > calls into question the editorial independence of the Wikimedia
> > communities.
> >
> > This does not mean that I would give a free pass to Fram or that I am OK
> > with someone hounding a person who makes a complaint, whether on wiki or
> > off wiki.
> >
> > I think that a good conversation for the ENWP community to have would be
> > regarding how we can increase confidence by victims of harassment in the
> > integrity of ENWP's investigation and enforcement systems. Courage is
> > sometimes necessary to speak up in public, as many of us are doing in this
> 

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

[camelia boban]

I quote David and Isaac.
Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any wiki
behavior.
Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin,
all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves
why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to
stop it.


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 ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles <
thrapostibong...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> Fæ
>
> [...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > banning bad behaviour on our projects.
>
>
> Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English Wikipedia
> community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
>
>
> > If the English
> > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> > policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
>
>
> Indeed.  Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram
> suggests
> that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to happen or be
> productive.
>
> Thrapostibongles
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 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

[Mister Thrapostibongles]

Fæ

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


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


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


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

Thrapostibongles
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Isaac Olatunde]

I have seen a known user attacking me on one of Wikipedia's criticism site
during my ArbCom case on the English Wikipedia but when it was report, they
said there is nothing they can do about off-wiki attacks/harassment. That
event alone gives me an impression that the English Wikipedia community
cannot protect anyone from off-wiki harassment. Why would people feel
comfortable to report a case of harassment to a community or group that can
not protect them?

Isaac

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 8:33 AM Pine W  I think that I understand the GamerGate reference. A decentralized swarm of
> harassment can be a major problem, and in this case I am concerned (I
> haven't attempted to review the evidence) that at least one person is being
> hounded off-wiki regarding their alleged involvement in this matter in a
> way that would receive a firm response by ENWP administrators if the same
> hounding was happening on ENWP.
>
> Fear of being hounded can discourage people from reporting problems.
>
> On English Wikipedia we have some administrators who are willing to make
> politically difficult blocks, and we have an arbitration committee that has
> been willing to review alleged misconduct by high profile people including
> administrators, but I'm not sure that all wikis have a sufficient number of
> competent and good faith administrators to address allegations of
> misconduct, especially misconduct by people who have relatively high levels
> of local political support.
>
> Even more challenging to moderate are off-wiki activities in places which
> do not honor ENWP norms. I do not know of a robust solution to this
> problem, and my guess is that there is no robust solution unless we want
> governments to have more ability to proactively filter and to suppress
> Internet content that does not meet with their approval.
>
> I think that ENWP is more like a busy, diverse, and loud public square than
> a quiet office with tight control of what everyone does and a central
> authority that quickly gets rid of people who make statements that are not
> acceptable within narrow parameters. I worry that the concept of "safe
> spaces" may come to mean something like: "People are only allowed to
> participate on Wikimedia sites if they act according to WMF's opinions
> regarding politically correct behavior and create content that does not
> offend WMF". Political correctness and safety are not characteristics that
> I would associate with Wikimedia sites, for better and for worse, and I
> think that attempting to create more political correctness and safety can
> come at too much expense of honesty, due process, freedom of expression,
> and editorial independence. As mentioned by others, WMF’s recent power grab
> calls into question the editorial independence of the Wikimedia
> communities.
>
> This does not mean that I would give a free pass to Fram or that I am OK
> with someone hounding a person who makes a complaint, whether on wiki or
> off wiki.
>
> I think that a good conversation for the ENWP community to have would be
> regarding how we can increase confidence by victims of harassment in the
> integrity of ENWP's investigation and enforcement systems. Courage is
> sometimes necessary to speak up in public, as many of us are doing in this
> thread and on wiki with various degrees of personal risk. I am concerned
> about community members possibly deciding not to report problems because
> they lack confidence that their reports will be taken seriously by ENWP's
> community authorities and lack confidence that they will be protected from
> further harm to the extent that the ENWP community can protect them.
> (Protecting people from off wiki hounding is, unfortunately, probably
> impossible if aggressors are determined to hound someone.)
>
> I have concerns regarding a system for anonymous complaints because I
> generally support transparent enforcement and due process. However, if
> victims are not reporting problems due to fear and if there is a way that
> we can provide due process protections for the accused while increasing the
> confidence of victims in ENWP's investigations and enforcement systems then
> I think that we should consider making modifications. This does not require
> any involvement from WMF, although we might want to ask WMF for technical
> support if needed for a system that we design or agree to implement.
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> P.S. I need to stop posting in this thread so that I do not exceed my limit
> of Wikimedia-l posts for the month, but my silence does not indicate lack
> of interest.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 16:24 Paulo Santos Perneta 
> wrote:
>
> > 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 

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

[Isaac Olatunde]

Nobody deserves to be harassed on any Wikimedia project.

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

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


Isaac



On Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 5:14 PM Robert Fernandez  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,
> 
___
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]

At this point, it certainly looks like that. That, and the "f*** Arbcom"
thing. If you know otherwise, please explain.

Paulo

David Gerard  escreveu no dia sexta, 14/06/2019 à(s)
11:37:

> and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> doing only what you describe?
>
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> > The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept writing
> > garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage! Harassment!
> > Bad!"
> >
> > If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
> SOURCES
> > PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement anyway.
> > The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had her
> > articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> "harassment"
> > rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's policies.
> > Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
> only
> > after she has them in hand.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
> wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done then
> > > clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  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: 

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

[David Gerard]

and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
doing only what you describe?

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept writing
> garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage! Harassment!
> Bad!"
>
> If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR SOURCES
> PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement anyway.
> The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had her
> articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as "harassment"
> rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's policies.
> Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article only
> after she has them in hand.
>
> Todd
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez 
> wrote:
>
> > If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done then
> > clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  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: 

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

[Todd Allen]

The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept writing
garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage! Harassment!
Bad!"

If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR SOURCES
PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement anyway.
The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had her
articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as "harassment"
rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's policies.
Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article only
after she has them in hand.

Todd

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done then
> clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  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,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 

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

[Chris Keating]

Hi all,

I just wanted to note that the facilitators have now posted their meeting
notes from the election process:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/notes

These clearly raise some issues. Hopefully these issues can be addressed
before any future similar elections (in fact, I think some solutions are
relatively simple):

1) Evidently not all voters understood the voting system - a small number
appear to have allocated 'points' rather than preferences e.g. "this
candidate got 10 votes from our members so we are putting 10 in the box" -
which had the effect of giving them 10th preference (pretty low)
- This can probably be addressed by improving ballot paper design, e.g. by
asking voters to select "First" "Second" etc etc rather than type numbers
into boxes.

2) There seem to have been some issues around affiliates realising they had
mis-voted, and then changing their minds and asking for replacement ballot
papers. This is kind of what you'd expect, but there appears to have been
at least one case where a replacement ballot was requested using an
unexpected channel and then not issued.
- I'm not sure how thorough the instructions/communication on this issue
were but strikes me as a learning point for the future.

3) There appear to have been some challenges in the relationship between
the WMF staff involved and the election facilitators, including
(apparently) at one point a possibly inaccurate election result being
circulated  within WMF before the facilitators had counted it
- This was the first time the WMF staff had assisted with the ASBS process
and I'm not sure how clear the boundaries of the different roles were.
Certainly one to clarify in future...

If I read these notes correctly, it is the case that if the election
facilitators had taken different interpretations of how to handle points 1
and 2, the result might well have been different.

However, so far as I can see the facilitators have done as much as they can
to report the result accurately. Ultimately, facilitators can only count
the votes that are actually received through the election process, and
can't start double-guessing voters' intentions.

Chris






On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 5:59 PM Jan-Bart de Vreede 
wrote:

> 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 

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

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

I've not been on those dumping grounds, open air sewages and troll hives
were that stuff is said to be happening, and only know that from Fae and
Raystorm accounts. What is going on at those places possibly is the same as
what happened with GamerGate, I've not confirmed, and frankly I'm not
interested in the least in going to such troll dens. What I fail to
understand is what's the point of the chair of the BoT dropping into an
already very much escalated discussion, first stating she's not part of
that community, then that she is not interested in their current situation,
and would not take part on addressing that issue even if she had not been
involved in it. And then proceeding to lecture the onwiki community, the
vast majority of which is not involved in that offwiki stuff and not even
aware of it, dismissing the whole case about editorial independence of
Wikipedia as a sexist mob doing GamerGate stuff. It only made everything
worse than what already was.

Best,
Paulo





Pine W  escreveu no dia sexta, 14/06/2019 à(s) 08:33:

> I think that I understand the GamerGate reference. A decentralized swarm of
> harassment can be a major problem, and in this case I am concerned (I
> haven't attempted to review the evidence) that at least one person is being
> hounded off-wiki regarding their alleged involvement in this matter in a
> way that would receive a firm response by ENWP administrators if the same
> hounding was happening on ENWP.
>
> Fear of being hounded can discourage people from reporting problems.
>
> On English Wikipedia we have some administrators who are willing to make
> politically difficult blocks, and we have an arbitration committee that has
> been willing to review alleged misconduct by high profile people including
> administrators, but I'm not sure that all wikis have a sufficient number of
> competent and good faith administrators to address allegations of
> misconduct, especially misconduct by people who have relatively high levels
> of local political support.
>
> Even more challenging to moderate are off-wiki activities in places which
> do not honor ENWP norms. I do not know of a robust solution to this
> problem, and my guess is that there is no robust solution unless we want
> governments to have more ability to proactively filter and to suppress
> Internet content that does not meet with their approval.
>
> I think that ENWP is more like a busy, diverse, and loud public square than
> a quiet office with tight control of what everyone does and a central
> authority that quickly gets rid of people who make statements that are not
> acceptable within narrow parameters. I worry that the concept of "safe
> spaces" may come to mean something like: "People are only allowed to
> participate on Wikimedia sites if they act according to WMF's opinions
> regarding politically correct behavior and create content that does not
> offend WMF". Political correctness and safety are not characteristics that
> I would associate with Wikimedia sites, for better and for worse, and I
> think that attempting to create more political correctness and safety can
> come at too much expense of honesty, due process, freedom of expression,
> and editorial independence. As mentioned by others, WMF’s recent power grab
> calls into question the editorial independence of the Wikimedia
> communities.
>
> This does not mean that I would give a free pass to Fram or that I am OK
> with someone hounding a person who makes a complaint, whether on wiki or
> off wiki.
>
> I think that a good conversation for the ENWP community to have would be
> regarding how we can increase confidence by victims of harassment in the
> integrity of ENWP's investigation and enforcement systems. Courage is
> sometimes necessary to speak up in public, as many of us are doing in this
> thread and on wiki with various degrees of personal risk. I am concerned
> about community members possibly deciding not to report problems because
> they lack confidence that their reports will be taken seriously by ENWP's
> community authorities and lack confidence that they will be protected from
> further harm to the extent that the ENWP community can protect them.
> (Protecting people from off wiki hounding is, unfortunately, probably
> impossible if aggressors are determined to hound someone.)
>
> I have concerns regarding a system for anonymous complaints because I
> generally support transparent enforcement and due process. However, if
> victims are not reporting problems due to fear and if there is a way that
> we can provide due process protections for the accused while increasing the
> confidence of victims in ENWP's investigations and enforcement systems then
> I think that we should consider making modifications. This does not require
> any involvement from WMF, although we might want to ask WMF for technical
> support if needed for a system that we design or agree to implement.
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> P.S. I 

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

[Pine W]

I think that I understand the GamerGate reference. A decentralized swarm of
harassment can be a major problem, and in this case I am concerned (I
haven't attempted to review the evidence) that at least one person is being
hounded off-wiki regarding their alleged involvement in this matter in a
way that would receive a firm response by ENWP administrators if the same
hounding was happening on ENWP.

Fear of being hounded can discourage people from reporting problems.

On English Wikipedia we have some administrators who are willing to make
politically difficult blocks, and we have an arbitration committee that has
been willing to review alleged misconduct by high profile people including
administrators, but I'm not sure that all wikis have a sufficient number of
competent and good faith administrators to address allegations of
misconduct, especially misconduct by people who have relatively high levels
of local political support.

Even more challenging to moderate are off-wiki activities in places which
do not honor ENWP norms. I do not know of a robust solution to this
problem, and my guess is that there is no robust solution unless we want
governments to have more ability to proactively filter and to suppress
Internet content that does not meet with their approval.

I think that ENWP is more like a busy, diverse, and loud public square than
a quiet office with tight control of what everyone does and a central
authority that quickly gets rid of people who make statements that are not
acceptable within narrow parameters. I worry that the concept of "safe
spaces" may come to mean something like: "People are only allowed to
participate on Wikimedia sites if they act according to WMF's opinions
regarding politically correct behavior and create content that does not
offend WMF". Political correctness and safety are not characteristics that
I would associate with Wikimedia sites, for better and for worse, and I
think that attempting to create more political correctness and safety can
come at too much expense of honesty, due process, freedom of expression,
and editorial independence. As mentioned by others, WMF’s recent power grab
calls into question the editorial independence of the Wikimedia communities.

This does not mean that I would give a free pass to Fram or that I am OK
with someone hounding a person who makes a complaint, whether on wiki or
off wiki.

I think that a good conversation for the ENWP community to have would be
regarding how we can increase confidence by victims of harassment in the
integrity of ENWP's investigation and enforcement systems. Courage is
sometimes necessary to speak up in public, as many of us are doing in this
thread and on wiki with various degrees of personal risk. I am concerned
about community members possibly deciding not to report problems because
they lack confidence that their reports will be taken seriously by ENWP's
community authorities and lack confidence that they will be protected from
further harm to the extent that the ENWP community can protect them.
(Protecting people from off wiki hounding is, unfortunately, probably
impossible if aggressors are determined to hound someone.)

I have concerns regarding a system for anonymous complaints because I
generally support transparent enforcement and due process. However, if
victims are not reporting problems due to fear and if there is a way that
we can provide due process protections for the accused while increasing the
confidence of victims in ENWP's investigations and enforcement systems then
I think that we should consider making modifications. This does not require
any involvement from WMF, although we might want to ask WMF for technical
support if needed for a system that we design or agree to implement.
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

P.S. I need to stop posting in this thread so that I do not exceed my limit
of Wikimedia-l posts for the month, but my silence does not indicate lack
of interest.




On Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 16:24 Paulo Santos Perneta 
wrote:

> 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.