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

[Peter Southwood]

Check your facts. 
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Mister Thrapostibongles
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 5:48 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Peter

You say that Wikipedia belongs to "us".  You are mistaken.  In so far as it
belongs to anyone, it belongs to the Foundation.

Thrapostibongles

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 3:35 PM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> "We" are a subset of everyone. If Wikipedia belongs to everyone, it
> belongs to "us" as well.  It seems that Fram who was one of us has just
> been excluded from our community by questionable process. I agree that this
> should not happen, but suggest that it is sometimes necessary to exclude
> people from our community when they are shown in fair process to be unable
> to cooperate in furthering the purposes of the project. Some of us try to
> make it reasonably easy and pleasant to join the community and help build
> the project, but it is not compulsory, either to make it pleasant, or to
> join. However credibility and respect beyond that which should be afforded
> to anyone by virtue of being human are earned.
> Cheers,
> P
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Robert Fernandez
> Sent: 12 June 2019 16:08
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
>
> > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and find
> that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
>
> This is part of the problem right here.  This isn't our project and we
> shouldn't be trying to exclude people from our community.  Wikipedia
> belongs to everyone.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:53 AM Peter Southwood
>  wrote:
> >
> > Thrapostibongles,
> > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and find
> that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
> > While it is possible that you have a long and distinguished edit history
> under a previous name or as an IP editor, it leads me to wonder just how
> familiar you are with the customs and culture of enwiki, which I freely
> agree are non-optimal, but have evolved to sort of work in an environment
> which was predicted to be impossible. Yet here we are, dysfunctionally
> surviving when we are theoretically long extinct. Our dysfunctional mores
> function as they do and evolve through surviving and occasional
> modification by consensus of those who care enough to take part in the
> process, within the environment in which we work. We are somewhere between
> an anarchy and a community, and we do not generally appreciate
> pontification from outsiders, which is what you appear to be, and to a
> large extent, what we consider WMF to be. It is a problem. If WMF chooses
> to rule by fiat it will have interesting consequences. So far they have
> mostly avoided that, and when they have it has not ended well. If you
> consider yourself an expert in something relevant I invite you to show
> evidence of your credentials. Otherwise we will take your comments as we do
> those of any other unproven internet commentator.
> > This is just my personal take, I do not presume to represent anyone
> else. You are as free to ignore me as I am to ignore you, but engaging in
> this discussion has its consequences, and one of them is to be questioned.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter Southwood
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles
> > Sent: 12 June 2019 09:06
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> >
> > Yaroslav,
> >
> > I think it's reasonably clear that the English Wikipedia community and
> its
> > community structures, such as its Arbitration Committee, and processes
> are
> > not capable of maintaining a productive, harassment-free environment for
> > the volunteer workers.  For example, they have consistently failed, after
> > several attempts, to handle the case of a volunteer who used the word
> > "Cxxx" about a fellow worker, and the community has agreed that telling
> > others to "Fxxx off" is acceptable.  These are symptoms of a
> dysfunctional
> > community, which tolerates behaviour that is unacceptable in any
> collegial
> > working environment, and it is right that the Foundation should step in.
> >
> > Thrapostibongles
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:56 PM Yaroslav Blanter 
> wrote:
> >
> > > The point made by pretty much everyone is not that Fram should or
> should
> > > not be banned, but that the process in this case should have followed
> the
> > > standard dispute resolution avenues, More specifically, the case should
> > > have been communicated to the Arbitration Committee, whose members did
> sign
> > > the non-disclosure 

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

[Peter Southwood]

Not that Peter Southwood.
Are you a different Thrapostibongles? I couldn’t find one.
Cheers,
Peter Southwood.


-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Mister Thrapostibongles
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 4:22 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Peter

Thank you for raising that issue.  Since user Peter Southwood has just one
recorded edit on English Wikipedia, from 2012, (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Peter_Southwood) I'm
puzzled by your speaking on behalf of the volunteer community. ("we do not
generally appreciate pontification from outsiders")

Thrapostibongles

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 2:53 PM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Thrapostibongles,
> I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and find
> that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
> While it is possible that you have a long and distinguished edit history
> under a previous name or as an IP editor, it leads me to wonder just how
> familiar you are with the customs and culture of enwiki, which I freely
> agree are non-optimal, but have evolved to sort of work in an environment
> which was predicted to be impossible. Yet here we are, dysfunctionally
> surviving when we are theoretically long extinct. Our dysfunctional mores
> function as they do and evolve through surviving and occasional
> modification by consensus of those who care enough to take part in the
> process, within the environment in which we work. We are somewhere between
> an anarchy and a community, and we do not generally appreciate
> pontification from outsiders, which is what you appear to be, and to a
> large extent, what we consider WMF to be. It is a problem. If WMF chooses
> to rule by fiat it will have interesting consequences. So far they have
> mostly avoided that, and when they have it has not ended well. If you
> consider yourself an expert in something relevant I invite you to show
> evidence of your credentials. Otherwise we will take your comments as we do
> those of any other unproven internet commentator.
> This is just my personal take, I do not presume to represent anyone else.
> You are as free to ignore me as I am to ignore you, but engaging in this
> discussion has its consequences, and one of them is to be questioned.
> Cheers,
> Peter Southwood
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles
> Sent: 12 June 2019 09:06
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
>
> Yaroslav,
>
> I think it's reasonably clear that the English Wikipedia community and its
> community structures, such as its Arbitration Committee, and processes are
> not capable of maintaining a productive, harassment-free environment for
> the volunteer workers.  For example, they have consistently failed, after
> several attempts, to handle the case of a volunteer who used the word
> "Cxxx" about a fellow worker, and the community has agreed that telling
> others to "Fxxx off" is acceptable.  These are symptoms of a dysfunctional
> community, which tolerates behaviour that is unacceptable in any collegial
> working environment, and it is right that the Foundation should step in.
>
> Thrapostibongles
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:56 PM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
> > The point made by pretty much everyone is not that Fram should or should
> > not be banned, but that the process in this case should have followed the
> > standard dispute resolution avenues, More specifically, the case should
> > have been communicated to the Arbitration Committee, whose members did
> sign
> > the non-disclosure agreement.
> >
> > This is different from the past cases when users were banned by WMF,
> since
> > in this case it was made clear the case is based on on-wiki open activity
> > of Fram (and, specifically, only on the English Wikipedia). The on-wiki
> > activity is subject to the community policies.
> >
> > To be clear, I am not a friend of Fram, and in the past supported desysop
> > on a number of occasions.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:46 PM Amir Sarabadani 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > People who oppose the ban: Are you aware of all aspects and things Fram
> > has
> > > done? Do you have the full picture? It's really saddening to see how
> fast
> > > people jump to conclusion in page mentioned in the email. I personally,
> > > don't know what happened so I neither can support or oppose the ban. As
> > > simple as that.
> > >
> > > So what should be done IMO. If enwiki wants to know more, a community
> > body
> > > can ask for more information, if body satisfy two things:
> > >  - They had signed NDA not to disclose the case
> > >  - They are trusted by the community
> > >
> > > I think the only body can sorta work with this 

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

[Rajeeb Dutta]

Great new!! Congratulations to Nataliia, Shani and the current board members  
who took the initiative and launched this
process of election. Last but not the least, I like to thank election 
facilitators as well.

Best Regards,
Rajeeb Dutta.
(U: Marajozkee).
Sent from my iPhone

> On 13-Jun-2019, at 5:13 AM, João Alexandre Peschanski  
> wrote:
> 
> The ASBS voting was an exciting process, as it was a first and important
> step to deepen and broaden participatory decision making in our movement. I
> thank the current board members who have been bold and launched this
> process. I also thank the election facilitators who have worked restlessly
> to make this happen. Thanks to candidates who have contributed to a
> productive, engaging exchange of ideas with community members.
> 
> The election of Nataliia and Shani is of course wonderful. Congratulations!
> From what I can tell, the Brazilian community --which has gone through such
> a hard period in recent times-- is wholeheartedly celebrating for you!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> João
> User:Joalpe
> 
> 
> Em qua, 12 de jun de 2019 às 19:56, Ad Huikeshoven 
> escreveu:
> 
>> *Dear Wikimedians, We are writing to let you know the result of the
>> election for the 2 Affiliate Selected Board Seats on the Wikimedia
>> Foundation board. The successful candidates were Nataliia Tymkiv and Shani
>> Evenstein Sigalov. A total of 122 affiliates voted, 85% of the 143 eligible
>> to vote, which is a record. As you know the election was conducted under a
>> variation of the Single Transferable Vote, which meant that prorated votes
>> were redistributed between candidates to come up with the final result. In
>> the 10th step of counting the final place, after Nataliia Tymkiv was
>> elected, was between Shani Evenstein Sigalov (40.519678) and Richard Knipel
>> (40.480322).  We have put the full count narrative on meta so that others
>> can verify it if they wish.[1] It is the closest ASBS result for some time,
>> and all candidates brought very valuable perspectives to the work of the
>> WMF.  In the 9th step of counting Reda Kerbouche lost by a very small
>> margin. Adding a ballot with rank #1 for Richard or Reda would result in
>> them being elected instead of Shani. The same goes for removing a ballot.
>> Changing the ranking on one of the ballots in a specific can way can result
>> in a different outcome for the second seat. This is an election in which
>> every vote counts.  As in any election, there is a chance that some voters
>> misinterpreted the instructions and voted wrongly. We don't see a
>> justification for an action as extraordinary and controversial as opening
>> votes for review after the vote period is over. The instructions were
>> visible and clear: "Rank any candidate from 1 (your preferred candidate) to
>> 11 (your least preferred candidate)." After voting, voters received a
>> confirmation email stating the name of each candidate they voted with the
>> number of their rank: Rank 1, Rank 2, ... The agency of voters should be
>> respected. As part of the retrospective we may identify areas of
>> improvements on our side, but still the process was quite simple and
>> documented. Some voters realized they made a mistake and requested a new
>> ballot. New ballots were issued in those cases. This choice was done
>> because of the specific situation of this election, since the process was
>> complex for new affiliates and participation, diversity and inclusion were
>> a clear goal.[2] We have published on meta information about who got a new
>> ballot within the voting deadline.[3] The Election Facilitators have been
>> available nearly 24 hours a day monitoring the various communication
>> channels to answer any questions affiliates might have. We did our best at
>> answering all of them. After our own scrutiny of the data, and based on our
>> experience in community processes, we strongly advise the community to
>> respect the integrity of the process, and advise against allowing any
>> modifications of votes at this point. If the votes had been reopened for
>> modification with or without publishing vote results, that would have
>> caused significant confusion and criticism that could have jeopardized the
>> entire election.  We will publish a debrief with recommendations for a next
>> ASBS process on meta.[4] We invite all representatives of affiliates to a
>> feedback session at Wikimania.[5] We would like to congratulate Nataliia
>> Tymkiv and Shani Evenstein Sigalov and thank everyone who stood.  Regards,
>> Ad Huikeshoven, Lane Rasberry, Jeffrey Keefer, Neal McBurnett, Abhinav
>> Srivastava, Alessandor MarchettiElection Facilitators [1]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Results
>> <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Results
>>> 
>> [2]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_2019
>> <
>> 

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

[Pine W]

Thanks for the concern, Dennis, but I am not feeling threatened and I don't
fully understand the source of your concern. I suggest that we not increase
the tension any further, please.

(I need to go do something else besides participate in this thread, but
anyone is welcome to email me off list or leave a note on my talk page if
they want to talk to me in particular.)

Thank you,

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

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

[Dennis During]

This seems like a mighty menacing line of discourse, coming from someone in
a position to initiate a block.  I don't think I should participate in any
WP or WMF or Commons or WikiData discussions if such menace is the norm.

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:05 PM Rebecca O'Neill 
wrote:

> It wasn't hostile Pine, but it wasn't a great idea to call out one of the
> few women on the chain for assuming bad faith given some of the other
> statements and assertions on the thread.
>
> I did not make any assumptions on the motivations of those who take part in
> the on wiki discussions, I just stated that the results were often hostile
> environments which make engagement difficult or intimidating. And then I am
> name checked for making this rather mundane and oft cited issue. It was
> just a poor choice given the circumstances overall.
>
> I don't take part as a I don't want my "card to be marked" or have certain
> editors monitoring my on wiki contributions based on assumptions made about
> me and my editing motivations.
>
> On Thu 13 Jun 2019, 00:33 Pine W,  wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry if my post sounded hostile. I wish that I knew what to say.
> >
> >
> > Pine
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 16:19 Rebecca O'Neill 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Pine,
> > >
> > > While I appreciate your attempt at guidance here, given some of the
> > > messages in the chain the fact that you are calling me out as assuming
> > bad
> > > faith out of all the participants does not inspire me to take part at
> > all.
> > >
> > > Thanks, but I feel that I might just go back to deleting these onerous
> > > threads as has been my custom in the past rather than be singled out in
> > > such a manner.
> > >
> > > If I had wanted to be tone policed o would have engaged with the
> on-wiki
> > > conversation.
> > >
> > > Rebecca
> > >
> > > On Wed 12 Jun 2019, 23:58 Pine W,  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Rebecca,
> > > >
> > > > These conversations can be stressful for many of us, including me.
> > > >
> > > > Speaking up in public can take courage. Thank you for participating
> > here,
> > > > and I encourage you to continue to participate even if you are in the
> > > > minority regarding a certain discussion.
> > > >
> > > > I know that this can be difficult to do, and it's sometimes difficult
> > for
> > > > me to do, but please be careful about linking strong opinions with
> > > assuming
> > > > bad faith on the part of the people who state those opinions.
> Sometimes
> > > > there are good reasons for assuming bad faith, but I think that it's
> > easy
> > > > for many of us, including me, to rush to the conclusion that someone
> > who
> > > > disagrees with me may be acting in bad faith.
> > > >
> > > > I am sorry if you feel that you are not welcome here. Public
> > discussions
> > > > can be rough, but personally I think that they are usually for the
> > best.
> > > >
> > > > I hope that my comments here are somehow encouraging.
> > > >
> > > > Pine
> > > > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> 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,
> 



-- 
Dennis C. During
___
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

[Pine W]

Nathan,

Continuing on my theme of assuming good faith:

I think that the assumption of good faith needs to go in all ways, which
includes that WMF should assume good faith of ENWP and that ENWP should
assume good faith of WMF. I had some very critical comments in mind earlier
but I am trying to take my own advice regarding not rushing to judgement.
Also, I think that WMF might be more willing to listen to me in this case
if I don't go too far with my critique.

I think that WMF should not have done this, but I also was very unhappy to
read an allegation that some people at ENWP are being aggressive about
looking for individual people to blame. I hope that we (and I include
myself) can discuss this situation civilly and without going too far.

Sincerely, another imperfect person,

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


On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 16:19 Nathan  wrote:

> A lot of different issues are being conflated by commenters on-wiki and
> here, muddying the issue. The WMF responses and some others think that this
> is about policing conduct, and the perennial difficulty of doing that
> against people who have entrenched support and lots of positive
> contributions. But that's not really it - even in the discussion, many
> people acknowledge that Fram can be a jerk and has a lot of distance to
> cover before they reach the community norm of appropriate behavior.
>
> The problem is that most people were surprised by the blunt assertion of
> WMF authority in a realm where they have mostly been absent. The appearance
> is that an insider with a connection to Trust & Safety went outside
> community processes to report what she viewed as (on-wiki) harassment. The
> T team made a very token effort to intervene, and then imposed a high
> profile ban with the flimsy excuse of a diff that says "fuck arbcom". They
> then used that diff to excuse not including ArbCom, as if ArbCom had never
> been subjected to any abuse before.
>
> And then predictably the WMF can't ven figure out how to help
> themselves once the screw up has occurred. I take Philippe's point that
> multiple levels of people contributed to the screw up, and the silly
> meaningless responses (and the tepid defense of some other insiders) only
> exacerbated the issue. The bottom line is that if WMF wants to change the
> rules of who in en.wp is responsible for what, and lift conduct policing
> from the community's responsibility, it has a duty to let people know in
> advance. This is an echo of the lesson that the WMF has clearly failed to
> learn despite many chances over the years (superprotect, LiquidThreads, a
> dozen other features and changes people didn't like, and so on). When will
> they learn? Philippe moved on, so the easy solution - put him in charge of
> everything - isn't going to work.
> ___
> 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

[Rebecca O'Neill]

It wasn't hostile Pine, but it wasn't a great idea to call out one of the
few women on the chain for assuming bad faith given some of the other
statements and assertions on the thread.

I did not make any assumptions on the motivations of those who take part in
the on wiki discussions, I just stated that the results were often hostile
environments which make engagement difficult or intimidating. And then I am
name checked for making this rather mundane and oft cited issue. It was
just a poor choice given the circumstances overall.

I don't take part as a I don't want my "card to be marked" or have certain
editors monitoring my on wiki contributions based on assumptions made about
me and my editing motivations.

On Thu 13 Jun 2019, 00:33 Pine W,  wrote:

> I'm sorry if my post sounded hostile. I wish that I knew what to say.
>
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 16:19 Rebecca O'Neill 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Pine,
> >
> > While I appreciate your attempt at guidance here, given some of the
> > messages in the chain the fact that you are calling me out as assuming
> bad
> > faith out of all the participants does not inspire me to take part at
> all.
> >
> > Thanks, but I feel that I might just go back to deleting these onerous
> > threads as has been my custom in the past rather than be singled out in
> > such a manner.
> >
> > If I had wanted to be tone policed o would have engaged with the on-wiki
> > conversation.
> >
> > Rebecca
> >
> > On Wed 12 Jun 2019, 23:58 Pine W,  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Rebecca,
> > >
> > > These conversations can be stressful for many of us, including me.
> > >
> > > Speaking up in public can take courage. Thank you for participating
> here,
> > > and I encourage you to continue to participate even if you are in the
> > > minority regarding a certain discussion.
> > >
> > > I know that this can be difficult to do, and it's sometimes difficult
> for
> > > me to do, but please be careful about linking strong opinions with
> > assuming
> > > bad faith on the part of the people who state those opinions. Sometimes
> > > there are good reasons for assuming bad faith, but I think that it's
> easy
> > > for many of us, including me, to rush to the conclusion that someone
> who
> > > disagrees with me may be acting in bad faith.
> > >
> > > I am sorry if you feel that you are not welcome here. Public
> discussions
> > > can be rough, but personally I think that they are usually for the
> best.
> > >
> > > I hope that my comments here are somehow encouraging.
> > >
> > > Pine
> > > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
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

[Philippe Beaudette]

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:20 PM Nathan  wrote:

>   Philippe moved on, so the easy solution - put him in charge of
> everything - isn't going to work.



I laughed. Thank you for this. But remember, I was in front of Arbcomm for
a not too dissimilar case, being accused of overreaching and an unhelpful
response and tone (false, true and true, in that order). I learned from my
mistakes. More importantly, I hope (and believe) that the WMF learned from
my mistakes.

The people on the T team are neither dumb nor disconnected. Quite the
opposite. I hired and worked with a couple  of them and know them to be
talented, thoughtful and deliberate. I know Katherine to be the same.

On the basis of that “insider” knowledge - and that is truly all the
insider knowledge that I have here - I trust that there is more here that I
do not and can not know.

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

I wish we could put away the pitchforks - and also (on the wmf side) make
ourselves available and open to listening and sharing whatever we can - if
there is anything and try like hell to deescalate this thing.


Or give me time to go buy more popcorn. One or the other.

Philippe



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

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

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

[João Alexandre Peschanski]

The ASBS voting was an exciting process, as it was a first and important
step to deepen and broaden participatory decision making in our movement. I
thank the current board members who have been bold and launched this
process. I also thank the election facilitators who have worked restlessly
to make this happen. Thanks to candidates who have contributed to a
productive, engaging exchange of ideas with community members.

The election of Nataliia and Shani is of course wonderful. Congratulations!
From what I can tell, the Brazilian community --which has gone through such
a hard period in recent times-- is wholeheartedly celebrating for you!

Cheers,

João
User:Joalpe


Em qua, 12 de jun de 2019 às 19:56, Ad Huikeshoven 
escreveu:

> *Dear Wikimedians, We are writing to let you know the result of the
> election for the 2 Affiliate Selected Board Seats on the Wikimedia
> Foundation board. The successful candidates were Nataliia Tymkiv and Shani
> Evenstein Sigalov. A total of 122 affiliates voted, 85% of the 143 eligible
> to vote, which is a record. As you know the election was conducted under a
> variation of the Single Transferable Vote, which meant that prorated votes
> were redistributed between candidates to come up with the final result. In
> the 10th step of counting the final place, after Nataliia Tymkiv was
> elected, was between Shani Evenstein Sigalov (40.519678) and Richard Knipel
> (40.480322).  We have put the full count narrative on meta so that others
> can verify it if they wish.[1] It is the closest ASBS result for some time,
> and all candidates brought very valuable perspectives to the work of the
> WMF.  In the 9th step of counting Reda Kerbouche lost by a very small
> margin. Adding a ballot with rank #1 for Richard or Reda would result in
> them being elected instead of Shani. The same goes for removing a ballot.
> Changing the ranking on one of the ballots in a specific can way can result
> in a different outcome for the second seat. This is an election in which
> every vote counts.  As in any election, there is a chance that some voters
> misinterpreted the instructions and voted wrongly. We don't see a
> justification for an action as extraordinary and controversial as opening
> votes for review after the vote period is over. The instructions were
> visible and clear: "Rank any candidate from 1 (your preferred candidate) to
> 11 (your least preferred candidate)." After voting, voters received a
> confirmation email stating the name of each candidate they voted with the
> number of their rank: Rank 1, Rank 2, ... The agency of voters should be
> respected. As part of the retrospective we may identify areas of
> improvements on our side, but still the process was quite simple and
> documented. Some voters realized they made a mistake and requested a new
> ballot. New ballots were issued in those cases. This choice was done
> because of the specific situation of this election, since the process was
> complex for new affiliates and participation, diversity and inclusion were
> a clear goal.[2] We have published on meta information about who got a new
> ballot within the voting deadline.[3] The Election Facilitators have been
> available nearly 24 hours a day monitoring the various communication
> channels to answer any questions affiliates might have. We did our best at
> answering all of them. After our own scrutiny of the data, and based on our
> experience in community processes, we strongly advise the community to
> respect the integrity of the process, and advise against allowing any
> modifications of votes at this point. If the votes had been reopened for
> modification with or without publishing vote results, that would have
> caused significant confusion and criticism that could have jeopardized the
> entire election.  We will publish a debrief with recommendations for a next
> ASBS process on meta.[4] We invite all representatives of affiliates to a
> feedback session at Wikimania.[5] We would like to congratulate Nataliia
> Tymkiv and Shani Evenstein Sigalov and thank everyone who stood.  Regards,
>  Ad Huikeshoven, Lane Rasberry, Jeffrey Keefer, Neal McBurnett, Abhinav
> Srivastava, Alessandor MarchettiElection Facilitators [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Results
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Results
> >
> [2]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_2019
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_2019
> >
> [3]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/New_ballots
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/New_ballots
> >
> [4]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Debrief
> <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Debrief
> >
> [5]
> https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/ASBS_Feedback
> 

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

[Pine W]

I'm sorry if my post sounded hostile. I wish that I knew what to say.


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


On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 16:19 Rebecca O'Neill  wrote:

> Hi Pine,
>
> While I appreciate your attempt at guidance here, given some of the
> messages in the chain the fact that you are calling me out as assuming bad
> faith out of all the participants does not inspire me to take part at all.
>
> Thanks, but I feel that I might just go back to deleting these onerous
> threads as has been my custom in the past rather than be singled out in
> such a manner.
>
> If I had wanted to be tone policed o would have engaged with the on-wiki
> conversation.
>
> Rebecca
>
> On Wed 12 Jun 2019, 23:58 Pine W,  wrote:
>
> > Hi Rebecca,
> >
> > These conversations can be stressful for many of us, including me.
> >
> > Speaking up in public can take courage. Thank you for participating here,
> > and I encourage you to continue to participate even if you are in the
> > minority regarding a certain discussion.
> >
> > I know that this can be difficult to do, and it's sometimes difficult for
> > me to do, but please be careful about linking strong opinions with
> assuming
> > bad faith on the part of the people who state those opinions. Sometimes
> > there are good reasons for assuming bad faith, but I think that it's easy
> > for many of us, including me, to rush to the conclusion that someone who
> > disagrees with me may be acting in bad faith.
> >
> > I am sorry if you feel that you are not welcome here. Public discussions
> > can be rough, but personally I think that they are usually for the best.
> >
> > I hope that my comments here are somehow encouraging.
> >
> > Pine
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Nathan]

A lot of different issues are being conflated by commenters on-wiki and
here, muddying the issue. The WMF responses and some others think that this
is about policing conduct, and the perennial difficulty of doing that
against people who have entrenched support and lots of positive
contributions. But that's not really it - even in the discussion, many
people acknowledge that Fram can be a jerk and has a lot of distance to
cover before they reach the community norm of appropriate behavior.

The problem is that most people were surprised by the blunt assertion of
WMF authority in a realm where they have mostly been absent. The appearance
is that an insider with a connection to Trust & Safety went outside
community processes to report what she viewed as (on-wiki) harassment. The
T team made a very token effort to intervene, and then imposed a high
profile ban with the flimsy excuse of a diff that says "fuck arbcom". They
then used that diff to excuse not including ArbCom, as if ArbCom had never
been subjected to any abuse before.

And then predictably the WMF can't ven figure out how to help
themselves once the screw up has occurred. I take Philippe's point that
multiple levels of people contributed to the screw up, and the silly
meaningless responses (and the tepid defense of some other insiders) only
exacerbated the issue. The bottom line is that if WMF wants to change the
rules of who in en.wp is responsible for what, and lift conduct policing
from the community's responsibility, it has a duty to let people know in
advance. This is an echo of the lesson that the WMF has clearly failed to
learn despite many chances over the years (superprotect, LiquidThreads, a
dozen other features and changes people didn't like, and so on). When will
they learn? Philippe moved on, so the easy solution - put him in charge of
everything - isn't going to work.
___
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

[Rebecca O'Neill]

Hi Pine,

While I appreciate your attempt at guidance here, given some of the
messages in the chain the fact that you are calling me out as assuming bad
faith out of all the participants does not inspire me to take part at all.

Thanks, but I feel that I might just go back to deleting these onerous
threads as has been my custom in the past rather than be singled out in
such a manner.

If I had wanted to be tone policed o would have engaged with the on-wiki
conversation.

Rebecca

On Wed 12 Jun 2019, 23:58 Pine W,  wrote:

> Hi Rebecca,
>
> These conversations can be stressful for many of us, including me.
>
> Speaking up in public can take courage. Thank you for participating here,
> and I encourage you to continue to participate even if you are in the
> minority regarding a certain discussion.
>
> I know that this can be difficult to do, and it's sometimes difficult for
> me to do, but please be careful about linking strong opinions with assuming
> bad faith on the part of the people who state those opinions. Sometimes
> there are good reasons for assuming bad faith, but I think that it's easy
> for many of us, including me, to rush to the conclusion that someone who
> disagrees with me may be acting in bad faith.
>
> I am sorry if you feel that you are not welcome here. Public discussions
> can be rough, but personally I think that they are usually for the best.
>
> I hope that my comments here are somehow encouraging.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Pine W]

Hi Rebecca,

These conversations can be stressful for many of us, including me.

Speaking up in public can take courage. Thank you for participating here,
and I encourage you to continue to participate even if you are in the
minority regarding a certain discussion.

I know that this can be difficult to do, and it's sometimes difficult for
me to do, but please be careful about linking strong opinions with assuming
bad faith on the part of the people who state those opinions. Sometimes
there are good reasons for assuming bad faith, but I think that it's easy
for many of us, including me, to rush to the conclusion that someone who
disagrees with me may be acting in bad faith.

I am sorry if you feel that you are not welcome here. Public discussions
can be rough, but personally I think that they are usually for the best.

I hope that my comments here are somehow encouraging.

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

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

[Ad Huikeshoven]

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

[2] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/Resolution_2019

[3]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/New_ballots

[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/Debrief

[5]
https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/ASBS_Feedback
*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Going there dismissing the whole issue as a sexist mob doing GamerGate kind
of stuff, what was she expecting, really.

Paulo

A quarta, 12 de jun de 2019, 22:39, Chris Keating <
chriskeatingw...@gmail.com> escreveu:

> >
> > So, pretty much every discussion is decided by those who choose to
> > participate in it. I don't know any way around that; we can't force
> people
> > to participate. At some point, if you don't stick your hand up, you don't
> > get counted.
> >
> >
> Well, Maria Sefidari (Raystorm) showed up and ended up being faced with a
> torrent of abuse.
>
> If you don't stick your hand up, your views are invalid. If you do stick
> your hand up, people will shout at you about how invalid your views are.
> Particularly if you're a woman.
>
> I don't know what lesson we're all supposed to draw from this
> ___
> 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

[Rebecca O'Neill]

I didn't make any speculation as to the potential views of any
non-participating editors. I didn't even proffer my own view.

I do find it telling that the assumption was made as to what side I would
fall on. My problem with how these discussions unfold is that there is a
vocal minority that dominate every single last one of them which does
nothing to inspire me to engage (along with many other editors I know). You
are right that the length and tone of the discussions is a huge factor in
that, along with the general fatigue brought on by the wall of text effect.

There is a strong element of certain editors continuously setting the tone
of these discussions which is unbearably adversarial and exclusionary.

On Wed 12 Jun 2019, 22:33 Todd Allen,  wrote:

> I don't believe we can presume everyone who hasn't participated in the
> discussion would like to disagree but is afraid to.
>
> Among all active contributors, I suspect non-participants are mostly a mix
> of unaware of the issue, don't have a strong opinion about the issue, don't
> understand what's happening and don't want to devote the time to
> understanding it, or don't care. Given the WMF's actions, there may indeed
> even be some who do not like what they've done, but are afraid to be seen
> speaking against them--look what happened to the last guy! And of course
> some people on both sides might be hesitant to enter a discussion that's
> rather heated and very fast-moving, not to mention the sheer size of the
> page to read just to catch up on what already happened.
>
> So, pretty much every discussion is decided by those who choose to
> participate in it. I don't know any way around that; we can't force people
> to participate. At some point, if you don't stick your hand up, you don't
> get counted.
>
> Todd
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 3:10 PM Rebecca O'Neill 
> wrote:
>
> > Just you reply to your point on how many people are speaking out against
> > this decision, I'm a relatively active and interested editor and I have
> no
> > interest in voicing my opinion there as the atmosphere is so toxic. There
> > is always a danger of the tyranny of a vocal and motivated minority
> > appearing to be the dominant opinion of the community as a whole. I would
> > proffer that that is a deeply flawed premise, if we were to take into
> > account the number of people engaged in this discussion and compare it to
> > the number of regular contributors.
> >
> > On Wed 12 Jun 2019, 22:01 Yaroslav Blanter,  wrote:
> >
> > > Just to summarize the difference between WMF and ArbCom, in view of the
> > > majority of the en.wiki community:
> > >
> > > We elect ArbCom, and if they do not do what they should be doing, they
> do
> > > not get re-elected in two years, which happens on a regular basis
> > >
> > > We do not elect WMF and in fact we have no means of influencing WMF
> > (apart
> > > of the three Trustees we elect every three years who are themselves
> > > typically alienated from the community). Short of taking down the
> > > fundraiser banner or of organizing a Wikipedia blackout.
> > >
> > > This is the difference, and this is why virtually everybody who had to
> > say
> > > smth about this episode was unhappy with the process. Without looking
> at
> > > the diffs, I only remember three users who were perfectly happy with
> what
> > > happened, out of hundreds who said smth.
> > >
> > > One unfortunate consequence of the whole episode was, whoever is right
> > and
> > > whoever is wrong, the general opinion about WMF in the community is
> > > all-time low, with people generally not prepared to believe to anything
> > > communicated to them. If WMF is not interested in getting very
> unpleasant
> > > surprises, they should start working towards building the community
> > trust.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Yaroslav
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:48 PM GorillaWarfare <
> > > gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Any Arbcom approved sanction against Fram based on the evidence
> would
> > > not
> > > > > be controversial for anyone.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for coming in late to this conversation; I've mostly been
> > following
> > > > the sicussion happening on-wiki. But I wanted to pipe up to say that
> I
> > > > absolutely do not believe this is true (see also my comment here
> > > > <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=revision=901559520=901559137=source
> > > > >).
> > > > To repeat my comment somewhat, the English Wikipedia ArbCom has in
> the
> > > past
> > > > had to place similar bans: that is, ones against long-term
> contributors
> > > > with many supporters, and ones in which the full details behind what
> > led
> > > to
> > > > the ban cannot be revealed publicly. The reaction has been quite
> > similar
> > > to
> > > > the one the WMF is currently experiencing—"star chamber" 

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

[Chris Keating]

>
> So, pretty much every discussion is decided by those who choose to
> participate in it. I don't know any way around that; we can't force people
> to participate. At some point, if you don't stick your hand up, you don't
> get counted.
>
>
Well, Maria Sefidari (Raystorm) showed up and ended up being faced with a
torrent of abuse.

If you don't stick your hand up, your views are invalid. If you do stick
your hand up, people will shout at you about how invalid your views are.
Particularly if you're a woman.

I don't know what lesson we're all supposed to draw from this
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Yaroslav Blanter]

I think it would. I see many people in the discussions, myself included,
who would not have any objections to a ban by ArbCom but who oppose the WMF
ban. Having a PhD in math and physics, I can not theoretically exclude that
there are active community members who are happy now and would object the
ArbCom ban, but, to be honest, I still would like to see one.

The amount of shit could indeed be approximately the same.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:31 PM GorillaWarfare <
gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yaroslav,
>
> I understand the difference. I'm simply raising an objection to the claim
> that this would've gone over much better had it been the ArbCom and not the
> WMF who placed a ban.
>
> – Molly White (GorillaWarfare)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 5:01 PM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
> > Just to summarize the difference between WMF and ArbCom, in view of the
> > majority of the en.wiki community:
> >
> > We elect ArbCom, and if they do not do what they should be doing, they do
> > not get re-elected in two years, which happens on a regular basis
> >
> > We do not elect WMF and in fact we have no means of influencing WMF
> (apart
> > of the three Trustees we elect every three years who are themselves
> > typically alienated from the community). Short of taking down the
> > fundraiser banner or of organizing a Wikipedia blackout.
> >
> > This is the difference, and this is why virtually everybody who had to
> say
> > smth about this episode was unhappy with the process. Without looking at
> > the diffs, I only remember three users who were perfectly happy with what
> > happened, out of hundreds who said smth.
> >
> > One unfortunate consequence of the whole episode was, whoever is right
> and
> > whoever is wrong, the general opinion about WMF in the community is
> > all-time low, with people generally not prepared to believe to anything
> > communicated to them. If WMF is not interested in getting very unpleasant
> > surprises, they should start working towards building the community
> trust.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:48 PM GorillaWarfare <
> > gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Any Arbcom approved sanction against Fram based on the evidence would
> > not
> > > > be controversial for anyone.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry for coming in late to this conversation; I've mostly been
> following
> > > the sicussion happening on-wiki. But I wanted to pipe up to say that I
> > > absolutely do not believe this is true (see also my comment here
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=revision=901559520=901559137=source
> > > >).
> > > To repeat my comment somewhat, the English Wikipedia ArbCom has in the
> > past
> > > had to place similar bans: that is, ones against long-term contributors
> > > with many supporters, and ones in which the full details behind what
> led
> > to
> > > the ban cannot be revealed publicly. The reaction has been quite
> similar
> > to
> > > the one the WMF is currently experiencing—"star chamber" accusations,
> > > claims that we've abused our power or the process, and assumptions that
> > the
> > > ban is unwarranted unless everyone is allowed to scrutinize the private
> > > evidence. The ArbCom is empowered to take action based off of
> > > privately-submitted evidence and private discussion, but in practice it
> > is
> > > extremely poorly-received when we do, basically across-the-board.
> > >
> > > – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare
> > > ___
> > > 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]

I don't believe we can presume everyone who hasn't participated in the
discussion would like to disagree but is afraid to.

Among all active contributors, I suspect non-participants are mostly a mix
of unaware of the issue, don't have a strong opinion about the issue, don't
understand what's happening and don't want to devote the time to
understanding it, or don't care. Given the WMF's actions, there may indeed
even be some who do not like what they've done, but are afraid to be seen
speaking against them--look what happened to the last guy! And of course
some people on both sides might be hesitant to enter a discussion that's
rather heated and very fast-moving, not to mention the sheer size of the
page to read just to catch up on what already happened.

So, pretty much every discussion is decided by those who choose to
participate in it. I don't know any way around that; we can't force people
to participate. At some point, if you don't stick your hand up, you don't
get counted.

Todd

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 3:10 PM Rebecca O'Neill 
wrote:

> Just you reply to your point on how many people are speaking out against
> this decision, I'm a relatively active and interested editor and I have no
> interest in voicing my opinion there as the atmosphere is so toxic. There
> is always a danger of the tyranny of a vocal and motivated minority
> appearing to be the dominant opinion of the community as a whole. I would
> proffer that that is a deeply flawed premise, if we were to take into
> account the number of people engaged in this discussion and compare it to
> the number of regular contributors.
>
> On Wed 12 Jun 2019, 22:01 Yaroslav Blanter,  wrote:
>
> > Just to summarize the difference between WMF and ArbCom, in view of the
> > majority of the en.wiki community:
> >
> > We elect ArbCom, and if they do not do what they should be doing, they do
> > not get re-elected in two years, which happens on a regular basis
> >
> > We do not elect WMF and in fact we have no means of influencing WMF
> (apart
> > of the three Trustees we elect every three years who are themselves
> > typically alienated from the community). Short of taking down the
> > fundraiser banner or of organizing a Wikipedia blackout.
> >
> > This is the difference, and this is why virtually everybody who had to
> say
> > smth about this episode was unhappy with the process. Without looking at
> > the diffs, I only remember three users who were perfectly happy with what
> > happened, out of hundreds who said smth.
> >
> > One unfortunate consequence of the whole episode was, whoever is right
> and
> > whoever is wrong, the general opinion about WMF in the community is
> > all-time low, with people generally not prepared to believe to anything
> > communicated to them. If WMF is not interested in getting very unpleasant
> > surprises, they should start working towards building the community
> trust.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:48 PM GorillaWarfare <
> > gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Any Arbcom approved sanction against Fram based on the evidence would
> > not
> > > > be controversial for anyone.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry for coming in late to this conversation; I've mostly been
> following
> > > the sicussion happening on-wiki. But I wanted to pipe up to say that I
> > > absolutely do not believe this is true (see also my comment here
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=revision=901559520=901559137=source
> > > >).
> > > To repeat my comment somewhat, the English Wikipedia ArbCom has in the
> > past
> > > had to place similar bans: that is, ones against long-term contributors
> > > with many supporters, and ones in which the full details behind what
> led
> > to
> > > the ban cannot be revealed publicly. The reaction has been quite
> similar
> > to
> > > the one the WMF is currently experiencing—"star chamber" accusations,
> > > claims that we've abused our power or the process, and assumptions that
> > the
> > > ban is unwarranted unless everyone is allowed to scrutinize the private
> > > evidence. The ArbCom is empowered to take action based off of
> > > privately-submitted evidence and private discussion, but in practice it
> > is
> > > extremely poorly-received when we do, basically across-the-board.
> > >
> > > – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> 

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

[David Gerard]

Seconded. These pages appear to have a substantial population of
raving obsessives I have no intention of bothering to deal with.


- d.

On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 22:10, Rebecca O'Neill  wrote:
>
> Just you reply to your point on how many people are speaking out against
> this decision, I'm a relatively active and interested editor and I have no
> interest in voicing my opinion there as the atmosphere is so toxic. There
> is always a danger of the tyranny of a vocal and motivated minority
> appearing to be the dominant opinion of the community as a whole. I would
> proffer that that is a deeply flawed premise, if we were to take into
> account the number of people engaged in this discussion and compare it to
> the number of regular contributors.
>
> On Wed 12 Jun 2019, 22:01 Yaroslav Blanter,  wrote:
>
> > Just to summarize the difference between WMF and ArbCom, in view of the
> > majority of the en.wiki community:
> >
> > We elect ArbCom, and if they do not do what they should be doing, they do
> > not get re-elected in two years, which happens on a regular basis
> >
> > We do not elect WMF and in fact we have no means of influencing WMF (apart
> > of the three Trustees we elect every three years who are themselves
> > typically alienated from the community). Short of taking down the
> > fundraiser banner or of organizing a Wikipedia blackout.
> >
> > This is the difference, and this is why virtually everybody who had to say
> > smth about this episode was unhappy with the process. Without looking at
> > the diffs, I only remember three users who were perfectly happy with what
> > happened, out of hundreds who said smth.
> >
> > One unfortunate consequence of the whole episode was, whoever is right and
> > whoever is wrong, the general opinion about WMF in the community is
> > all-time low, with people generally not prepared to believe to anything
> > communicated to them. If WMF is not interested in getting very unpleasant
> > surprises, they should start working towards building the community trust.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:48 PM GorillaWarfare <
> > gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Any Arbcom approved sanction against Fram based on the evidence would
> > not
> > > > be controversial for anyone.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry for coming in late to this conversation; I've mostly been following
> > > the sicussion happening on-wiki. But I wanted to pipe up to say that I
> > > absolutely do not believe this is true (see also my comment here
> > > <
> > >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=revision=901559520=901559137=source
> > > >).
> > > To repeat my comment somewhat, the English Wikipedia ArbCom has in the
> > past
> > > had to place similar bans: that is, ones against long-term contributors
> > > with many supporters, and ones in which the full details behind what led
> > to
> > > the ban cannot be revealed publicly. The reaction has been quite similar
> > to
> > > the one the WMF is currently experiencing—"star chamber" accusations,
> > > claims that we've abused our power or the process, and assumptions that
> > the
> > > ban is unwarranted unless everyone is allowed to scrutinize the private
> > > evidence. The ArbCom is empowered to take action based off of
> > > privately-submitted evidence and private discussion, but in practice it
> > is
> > > extremely poorly-received when we do, basically across-the-board.
> > >
> > > – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare
> > > ___
> > > 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: 

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

[GorillaWarfare]

Yaroslav,

I understand the difference. I'm simply raising an objection to the claim
that this would've gone over much better had it been the ArbCom and not the
WMF who placed a ban.

– Molly White (GorillaWarfare)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare


On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 5:01 PM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> Just to summarize the difference between WMF and ArbCom, in view of the
> majority of the en.wiki community:
>
> We elect ArbCom, and if they do not do what they should be doing, they do
> not get re-elected in two years, which happens on a regular basis
>
> We do not elect WMF and in fact we have no means of influencing WMF (apart
> of the three Trustees we elect every three years who are themselves
> typically alienated from the community). Short of taking down the
> fundraiser banner or of organizing a Wikipedia blackout.
>
> This is the difference, and this is why virtually everybody who had to say
> smth about this episode was unhappy with the process. Without looking at
> the diffs, I only remember three users who were perfectly happy with what
> happened, out of hundreds who said smth.
>
> One unfortunate consequence of the whole episode was, whoever is right and
> whoever is wrong, the general opinion about WMF in the community is
> all-time low, with people generally not prepared to believe to anything
> communicated to them. If WMF is not interested in getting very unpleasant
> surprises, they should start working towards building the community trust.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:48 PM GorillaWarfare <
> gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> >
> > > Any Arbcom approved sanction against Fram based on the evidence would
> not
> > > be controversial for anyone.
> >
> >
> > Sorry for coming in late to this conversation; I've mostly been following
> > the sicussion happening on-wiki. But I wanted to pipe up to say that I
> > absolutely do not believe this is true (see also my comment here
> > <
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=revision=901559520=901559137=source
> > >).
> > To repeat my comment somewhat, the English Wikipedia ArbCom has in the
> past
> > had to place similar bans: that is, ones against long-term contributors
> > with many supporters, and ones in which the full details behind what led
> to
> > the ban cannot be revealed publicly. The reaction has been quite similar
> to
> > the one the WMF is currently experiencing—"star chamber" accusations,
> > claims that we've abused our power or the process, and assumptions that
> the
> > ban is unwarranted unless everyone is allowed to scrutinize the private
> > evidence. The ArbCom is empowered to take action based off of
> > privately-submitted evidence and private discussion, but in practice it
> is
> > extremely poorly-received when we do, basically across-the-board.
> >
> > – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare
> > ___
> > 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

[Rebecca O'Neill]

Just you reply to your point on how many people are speaking out against
this decision, I'm a relatively active and interested editor and I have no
interest in voicing my opinion there as the atmosphere is so toxic. There
is always a danger of the tyranny of a vocal and motivated minority
appearing to be the dominant opinion of the community as a whole. I would
proffer that that is a deeply flawed premise, if we were to take into
account the number of people engaged in this discussion and compare it to
the number of regular contributors.

On Wed 12 Jun 2019, 22:01 Yaroslav Blanter,  wrote:

> Just to summarize the difference between WMF and ArbCom, in view of the
> majority of the en.wiki community:
>
> We elect ArbCom, and if they do not do what they should be doing, they do
> not get re-elected in two years, which happens on a regular basis
>
> We do not elect WMF and in fact we have no means of influencing WMF (apart
> of the three Trustees we elect every three years who are themselves
> typically alienated from the community). Short of taking down the
> fundraiser banner or of organizing a Wikipedia blackout.
>
> This is the difference, and this is why virtually everybody who had to say
> smth about this episode was unhappy with the process. Without looking at
> the diffs, I only remember three users who were perfectly happy with what
> happened, out of hundreds who said smth.
>
> One unfortunate consequence of the whole episode was, whoever is right and
> whoever is wrong, the general opinion about WMF in the community is
> all-time low, with people generally not prepared to believe to anything
> communicated to them. If WMF is not interested in getting very unpleasant
> surprises, they should start working towards building the community trust.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:48 PM GorillaWarfare <
> gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> >
> > > Any Arbcom approved sanction against Fram based on the evidence would
> not
> > > be controversial for anyone.
> >
> >
> > Sorry for coming in late to this conversation; I've mostly been following
> > the sicussion happening on-wiki. But I wanted to pipe up to say that I
> > absolutely do not believe this is true (see also my comment here
> > <
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=revision=901559520=901559137=source
> > >).
> > To repeat my comment somewhat, the English Wikipedia ArbCom has in the
> past
> > had to place similar bans: that is, ones against long-term contributors
> > with many supporters, and ones in which the full details behind what led
> to
> > the ban cannot be revealed publicly. The reaction has been quite similar
> to
> > the one the WMF is currently experiencing—"star chamber" accusations,
> > claims that we've abused our power or the process, and assumptions that
> the
> > ban is unwarranted unless everyone is allowed to scrutinize the private
> > evidence. The ArbCom is empowered to take action based off of
> > privately-submitted evidence and private discussion, but in practice it
> is
> > extremely poorly-received when we do, basically across-the-board.
> >
> > – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Yaroslav Blanter]

Just to summarize the difference between WMF and ArbCom, in view of the
majority of the en.wiki community:

We elect ArbCom, and if they do not do what they should be doing, they do
not get re-elected in two years, which happens on a regular basis

We do not elect WMF and in fact we have no means of influencing WMF (apart
of the three Trustees we elect every three years who are themselves
typically alienated from the community). Short of taking down the
fundraiser banner or of organizing a Wikipedia blackout.

This is the difference, and this is why virtually everybody who had to say
smth about this episode was unhappy with the process. Without looking at
the diffs, I only remember three users who were perfectly happy with what
happened, out of hundreds who said smth.

One unfortunate consequence of the whole episode was, whoever is right and
whoever is wrong, the general opinion about WMF in the community is
all-time low, with people generally not prepared to believe to anything
communicated to them. If WMF is not interested in getting very unpleasant
surprises, they should start working towards building the community trust.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:48 PM GorillaWarfare <
gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > Any Arbcom approved sanction against Fram based on the evidence would not
> > be controversial for anyone.
>
>
> Sorry for coming in late to this conversation; I've mostly been following
> the sicussion happening on-wiki. But I wanted to pipe up to say that I
> absolutely do not believe this is true (see also my comment here
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=revision=901559520=901559137=source
> >).
> To repeat my comment somewhat, the English Wikipedia ArbCom has in the past
> had to place similar bans: that is, ones against long-term contributors
> with many supporters, and ones in which the full details behind what led to
> the ban cannot be revealed publicly. The reaction has been quite similar to
> the one the WMF is currently experiencing—"star chamber" accusations,
> claims that we've abused our power or the process, and assumptions that the
> ban is unwarranted unless everyone is allowed to scrutinize the private
> evidence. The ArbCom is empowered to take action based off of
> privately-submitted evidence and private discussion, but in practice it is
> extremely poorly-received when we do, basically across-the-board.
>
> – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare
> ___
> 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

[GorillaWarfare]

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Fæ  wrote:

> Any Arbcom approved sanction against Fram based on the evidence would not
> be controversial for anyone.


Sorry for coming in late to this conversation; I've mostly been following
the sicussion happening on-wiki. But I wanted to pipe up to say that I
absolutely do not believe this is true (see also my comment here
).
To repeat my comment somewhat, the English Wikipedia ArbCom has in the past
had to place similar bans: that is, ones against long-term contributors
with many supporters, and ones in which the full details behind what led to
the ban cannot be revealed publicly. The reaction has been quite similar to
the one the WMF is currently experiencing—"star chamber" accusations,
claims that we've abused our power or the process, and assumptions that the
ban is unwarranted unless everyone is allowed to scrutinize the private
evidence. The ArbCom is empowered to take action based off of
privately-submitted evidence and private discussion, but in practice it is
extremely poorly-received when we do, basically across-the-board.

– Molly (GorillaWarfare)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare
___
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]

If you're suggesting we become in any way like Facebook, Twitter, or
Flickr...then, please, gods help us no.

Todd

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:34 PM Andy Mabbett 
wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 18:51, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> > It is not always necessary for everyone to see everything,
> > but it is crucial for the accused party to. They have the right to defend
> > themself.
>
> Do they, really?
>
> If your local restaurant or supermarket decides to ban you, do you
> have that right then?
>
> What about Facebook, Twitter, or Flickr?
>
> --
> 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

[Dennis During]

Did WMF have to get involved because the complainant was part of ARBCOM?
___
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] Odp: Re: Fram en.wp office yearlock block

[Michał Buczyński]

Hi, just to clarify this particular off-topic:  Dnia 12 czerwca 2019 21:35 Andy 
Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk napisał(a):  On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 
18:51, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:   It is not always 
necessary for everyone to see everything,  but it is crucial for the accused 
party to. They have the right to defend  themself.   Do they, really?   If your 
local restaurant or supermarket decides to ban you, do you  have that right 
then?   Yes, you have. In many countries you have laws controlling this issue 
and you can go to court, e.g. citing antidiscriminatory regulations or other 
terms of contract/service. Then your case is settled by a third party and 
usually the parties know the claims of the other side.   aclu-co.org 
aclu-co.orgWhat about Facebook, Twitter, or Flickr?   IMO regulation of 
Facebook, Twitter and other big Internet services is just a question of time 
(in Western world) or already happened (some places elsewhere, U.S. national 
security). Besides that I thought we are striving for the best practice.
Best,   michał aegis maelstrom buczyński
___
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

[Michael Peel]

Hi all,

I'm torn on this issue.

I'm not a fan of Fram. Having been attacked by them in the past, I'm somewhat 
relieved to hear that they have been banned from enwp. I’m also dismayed by the 
poor response from the enwp community about this issue, particularly the 
inflammatory remarks and proposals that are intended to make the situation 
worse, rather than to work towards a solution.

Fundamentally, though, I think the WMF has missed something very important in 
the process that has taken place here: community representation. If an outside 
group makes a decision that impacts a community, without involving that 
community in the decision, then of course the community will be upset, even if 
the decision ultimately improves the community.

The WMF does a good job with involving the community in some of its processes - 
particularly in grantmaking, where elected community members are directly 
involved in the decision-making processes. In other cases, it uses ombudsmen 
quite effectively to investigate complaints, and to course-correct as 
necessary. In this case, though, the community has been deliberately excluded, 
and that’s not OK. And even worse, there is explicitly no appeals process, 
which is crazy.

The next step here really needs to involve the community. Enwp’s ArbCom would 
be the obvious community-elected group to involve here if at all possible,* but 
there are other groups available if needed (e.g., Bureaucrats, Stewards, 
Ombudsman commission). That doesn’t scale across all languages, or for all 
complaints, but it might work for this situation, providing that there is a 
commitment from the WMF to developing something better in the future (at least 
a community-elected ombudsman for this process!).

Thanks,
Mike

* Regardless of Fram’s opinions about ArbCom, which seem to have led to this 
block, it’s still enwp’s community-elected group that handles serious disputes.
___
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 Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 18:51, Todd Allen  wrote:

> It is not always necessary for everyone to see everything,
> but it is crucial for the accused party to. They have the right to defend
> themself.

Do they, really?

If your local restaurant or supermarket decides to ban you, do you
have that right then?

What about Facebook, Twitter, or Flickr?

-- 
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

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

The board does not even has a proper contact or way to get to them. Only
way seems to try to reach the few members of the board who disclosed their
personal emails. And even if we manage to reach them, it is not an appeal
in the least, as it continues not following any proper procedure, and is
entirely dependent on the good will of the particular board member we
manage to get to, if any at all.

This is not acceptable in the least for an organization like WMF. We may
live with this state of affairs, but it is clearly not a trustworthy
organization, at least at this point in time. I don't like all the
aggressiveness I am seeing at wiki.en,but I can understand the revolt. I do
hope things improve.

Paulo

A quarta, 12 de jun de 2019, 18:47, Robert Fernandez 
escreveu:

> The board, including its community representatives.
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:38 PM Paulo Santos Perneta
>  wrote:
> >
> > If the WMF is protecting us, who is protecting us from WMF when due
> process is not followed, and false accusations and arbitrary punishments
> start being issued by them?
> >
> > To who /what can we appeal?
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> > A quarta, 12 de jun de 2019, 17:35, Robert Fernandez <
> wikigamal...@gmail.com> escreveu:
> >>
> >> Of course it doesn't belong to the WMF.  It belongs to everyone, and
> >> that includes the victims of harassment who have no one to turn to
> >> except the WMF.  I am not aware of the circumstances of this office
> >> action, but I am of a couple of the others, and there was nothing
> >> involving the star chamber hyperbole you describe.  Transparency is
> >> key to the project in terms of policy making and article creation, but
> >> the project cannot ethically demand transparency as you define it in
> >> private matters involving things like (for example) off wiki
> >> harassment and sexual abuse.  This process involves multiple layers of
> >> investigation and approval.  The only thing it lacks is the ability
> >> for you to pore over salacious details of someone's victimization.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:07 PM Todd Allen 
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Robert,
> >> >
> >> > These two aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, Wikipedia belongs to
> everyone. Specifically, a place in the community of Wikipedia editors is
> open to anyone who would like to join. Those of us here have already done
> that. But it is natural in any community or organization to give more
> weight to respected, long-term members than those who just joined up
> yesterday. They've learned the ropes and demonstrated a commitment to it.
> >> >
> >> > However, the project categorically does not belong to the WMF. The
> WMF exists to serve and assist Wikimedia projects, not lord it over and
> rule them. And since "Wikipedia belongs to everyone", we certainly
> shouldn't be throwing people out in secret Star Chamber-style proceedings,
> where apparently even the accused is not permitted to know all the evidence
> against them. That is utterly antithetical to the open, community-run ethos
> of the project.
> >> >
> >> > Todd
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:09 AM Robert Fernandez <
> wikigamal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up,
> and find that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
> >> >>
> >> >> This is part of the problem right here.  This isn't our project and
> we
> >> >> shouldn't be trying to exclude people from our community.  Wikipedia
> >> >> belongs to everyone.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:53 AM Peter Southwood
> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thrapostibongles,
> >> >> > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up,
> and find that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
> >> >> > While it is possible that you have a long and distinguished edit
> history under a previous name or as an IP editor, it leads me to wonder
> just how familiar you are with the customs and culture of enwiki, which I
> freely agree are non-optimal, but have evolved to sort of work in an
> environment which was predicted to be impossible. Yet here we are,
> dysfunctionally surviving when we are theoretically long extinct. Our
> dysfunctional mores function as they do and evolve through surviving and
> occasional modification by consensus of those who care enough to take part
> in the process, within the environment in which we work. We are somewhere
> between an anarchy and a community, and we do not generally appreciate
> pontification from outsiders, which is what you appear to be, and to a
> large extent, what we consider WMF to be. It is a problem. If WMF chooses
> to rule by fiat it will have interesting consequences. So far they have
> mostly avoided that, and when they have it has not ended well. If you
> consider yourself an expert in something relevant I invite you to show
> evidence of your credentials. Otherwise we will take your comments as we do
> those of any other 

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

[Todd Allen]

That one I'll give you. I suppose we could all turn it down a couple
notches.

Todd

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:56 AM Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> But star chamber rhetoric is not hyperbolic?
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:50 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> > I think that's more than a bit hyperbolic.
> >
> > If it's a case of off-wiki harassment, of course that should get
> reviewed privately. (Though by ArbCom, NOT WMF.) But it is not a violation
> of anyone's privacy for the person who is accused to be told what they
> supposedly did. If they did in fact do it--they already know exactly what
> they did. If I send you some kind of harassing email, I already know I sent
> it to you, so telling me "You sent Robert an email saying he's a _
> and a _ and a _ while we're at it" is not news to me. I
> already know I did.
> >
> > On the other hand, if I didn't send that, knowing what was alleged
> allows me to say "I absolutely did not do that." If I did send something,
> but it were misinterpreted or misconstrued, I can offer an explanation of
> what was actually meant. It is not always necessary for everyone to see
> everything, but it is crucial for the accused party to. They have the right
> to defend themself.
> >
> > However, if the alleged bad conduct all took place on-wiki, it is
> already all public, so there is no privacy to protect (unless it involves
> suppressed material). In that case, yes, any procedures should be public
> and transparent, and that should be the default.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:35 AM Robert Fernandez <
> wikigamal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Of course it doesn't belong to the WMF.  It belongs to everyone, and
> >> that includes the victims of harassment who have no one to turn to
> >> except the WMF.  I am not aware of the circumstances of this office
> >> action, but I am of a couple of the others, and there was nothing
> >> involving the star chamber hyperbole you describe.  Transparency is
> >> key to the project in terms of policy making and article creation, but
> >> the project cannot ethically demand transparency as you define it in
> >> private matters involving things like (for example) off wiki
> >> harassment and sexual abuse.  This process involves multiple layers of
> >> investigation and approval.  The only thing it lacks is the ability
> >> for you to pore over salacious details of someone's victimization.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:07 PM Todd Allen 
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Robert,
> >> >
> >> > These two aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, Wikipedia belongs to
> everyone. Specifically, a place in the community of Wikipedia editors is
> open to anyone who would like to join. Those of us here have already done
> that. But it is natural in any community or organization to give more
> weight to respected, long-term members than those who just joined up
> yesterday. They've learned the ropes and demonstrated a commitment to it.
> >> >
> >> > However, the project categorically does not belong to the WMF. The
> WMF exists to serve and assist Wikimedia projects, not lord it over and
> rule them. And since "Wikipedia belongs to everyone", we certainly
> shouldn't be throwing people out in secret Star Chamber-style proceedings,
> where apparently even the accused is not permitted to know all the evidence
> against them. That is utterly antithetical to the open, community-run ethos
> of the project.
> >> >
> >> > Todd
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:09 AM Robert Fernandez <
> wikigamal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up,
> and find that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
> >> >>
> >> >> This is part of the problem right here.  This isn't our project and
> we
> >> >> shouldn't be trying to exclude people from our community.  Wikipedia
> >> >> belongs to everyone.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:53 AM Peter Southwood
> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thrapostibongles,
> >> >> > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up,
> and find that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
> >> >> > While it is possible that you have a long and distinguished edit
> history under a previous name or as an IP editor, it leads me to wonder
> just how familiar you are with the customs and culture of enwiki, which I
> freely agree are non-optimal, but have evolved to sort of work in an
> environment which was predicted to be impossible. Yet here we are,
> dysfunctionally surviving when we are theoretically long extinct. Our
> dysfunctional mores function as they do and evolve through surviving and
> occasional modification by consensus of those who care enough to take part
> in the process, within the environment in which we work. We are somewhere
> between an anarchy and a community, and we do not generally appreciate
> pontification from outsiders, which is what you appear to 

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

[Robert Fernandez]

But star chamber rhetoric is not hyperbolic?

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:50 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> I think that's more than a bit hyperbolic.
>
> If it's a case of off-wiki harassment, of course that should get reviewed 
> privately. (Though by ArbCom, NOT WMF.) But it is not a violation of anyone's 
> privacy for the person who is accused to be told what they supposedly did. If 
> they did in fact do it--they already know exactly what they did. If I send 
> you some kind of harassing email, I already know I sent it to you, so telling 
> me "You sent Robert an email saying he's a _ and a _ and a 
> _ while we're at it" is not news to me. I already know I did.
>
> On the other hand, if I didn't send that, knowing what was alleged allows me 
> to say "I absolutely did not do that." If I did send something, but it were 
> misinterpreted or misconstrued, I can offer an explanation of what was 
> actually meant. It is not always necessary for everyone to see everything, 
> but it is crucial for the accused party to. They have the right to defend 
> themself.
>
> However, if the alleged bad conduct all took place on-wiki, it is already all 
> public, so there is no privacy to protect (unless it involves suppressed 
> material). In that case, yes, any procedures should be public and 
> transparent, and that should be the default.
>
> Todd
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:35 AM Robert Fernandez  
> wrote:
>>
>> Of course it doesn't belong to the WMF.  It belongs to everyone, and
>> that includes the victims of harassment who have no one to turn to
>> except the WMF.  I am not aware of the circumstances of this office
>> action, but I am of a couple of the others, and there was nothing
>> involving the star chamber hyperbole you describe.  Transparency is
>> key to the project in terms of policy making and article creation, but
>> the project cannot ethically demand transparency as you define it in
>> private matters involving things like (for example) off wiki
>> harassment and sexual abuse.  This process involves multiple layers of
>> investigation and approval.  The only thing it lacks is the ability
>> for you to pore over salacious details of someone's victimization.
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:07 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
>> >
>> > Robert,
>> >
>> > These two aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, Wikipedia belongs to everyone. 
>> > Specifically, a place in the community of Wikipedia editors is open to 
>> > anyone who would like to join. Those of us here have already done that. 
>> > But it is natural in any community or organization to give more weight to 
>> > respected, long-term members than those who just joined up yesterday. 
>> > They've learned the ropes and demonstrated a commitment to it.
>> >
>> > However, the project categorically does not belong to the WMF. The WMF 
>> > exists to serve and assist Wikimedia projects, not lord it over and rule 
>> > them. And since "Wikipedia belongs to everyone", we certainly shouldn't be 
>> > throwing people out in secret Star Chamber-style proceedings, where 
>> > apparently even the accused is not permitted to know all the evidence 
>> > against them. That is utterly antithetical to the open, community-run 
>> > ethos of the project.
>> >
>> > Todd
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:09 AM Robert Fernandez  
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and 
>> >> > find that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
>> >>
>> >> This is part of the problem right here.  This isn't our project and we
>> >> shouldn't be trying to exclude people from our community.  Wikipedia
>> >> belongs to everyone.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:53 AM Peter Southwood
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Thrapostibongles,
>> >> > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and 
>> >> > find that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
>> >> > While it is possible that you have a long and distinguished edit 
>> >> > history under a previous name or as an IP editor, it leads me to wonder 
>> >> > just how familiar you are with the customs and culture of enwiki, which 
>> >> > I freely agree are non-optimal, but have evolved to sort of work in an 
>> >> > environment which was predicted to be impossible. Yet here we are, 
>> >> > dysfunctionally surviving when we are theoretically long extinct. Our 
>> >> > dysfunctional mores function as they do and evolve through surviving 
>> >> > and occasional modification by consensus of those who care enough to 
>> >> > take part in the process, within the environment in which we work. We 
>> >> > are somewhere between an anarchy and a community, and we do not 
>> >> > generally appreciate pontification from outsiders, which is what you 
>> >> > appear to be, and to a large extent, what we consider WMF to be. It is 
>> >> > a problem. If WMF chooses to rule by fiat it will have interesting 
>> >> > 

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

[Todd Allen]

I think that's more than a bit hyperbolic.

If it's a case of off-wiki harassment, of course that should get reviewed
privately. (Though by ArbCom, NOT WMF.) But it is not a violation of
anyone's privacy for the person who is accused to be told what they
supposedly did. If they did in fact do it--they already know exactly what
they did. If I send you some kind of harassing email, I already know I sent
it to you, so telling me "You sent Robert an email saying he's a _
and a _ and a _ while we're at it" is not news to me. I
already know I did.

On the other hand, if I didn't send that, knowing what was alleged allows
me to say "I absolutely did not do that." If I did send something, but it
were misinterpreted or misconstrued, I can offer an explanation of what was
actually meant. It is not always necessary for everyone to see everything,
but it is crucial for the accused party to. They have the right to defend
themself.

However, if the alleged bad conduct all took place on-wiki, it is already
all public, so there is no privacy to protect (unless it involves
suppressed material). In that case, yes, any procedures should be public
and transparent, and that should be the default.

Todd

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:35 AM Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> Of course it doesn't belong to the WMF.  It belongs to everyone, and
> that includes the victims of harassment who have no one to turn to
> except the WMF.  I am not aware of the circumstances of this office
> action, but I am of a couple of the others, and there was nothing
> involving the star chamber hyperbole you describe.  Transparency is
> key to the project in terms of policy making and article creation, but
> the project cannot ethically demand transparency as you define it in
> private matters involving things like (for example) off wiki
> harassment and sexual abuse.  This process involves multiple layers of
> investigation and approval.  The only thing it lacks is the ability
> for you to pore over salacious details of someone's victimization.
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:07 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> > Robert,
> >
> > These two aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, Wikipedia belongs to everyone.
> Specifically, a place in the community of Wikipedia editors is open to
> anyone who would like to join. Those of us here have already done that. But
> it is natural in any community or organization to give more weight to
> respected, long-term members than those who just joined up yesterday.
> They've learned the ropes and demonstrated a commitment to it.
> >
> > However, the project categorically does not belong to the WMF. The WMF
> exists to serve and assist Wikimedia projects, not lord it over and rule
> them. And since "Wikipedia belongs to everyone", we certainly shouldn't be
> throwing people out in secret Star Chamber-style proceedings, where
> apparently even the accused is not permitted to know all the evidence
> against them. That is utterly antithetical to the open, community-run ethos
> of the project.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:09 AM Robert Fernandez 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and
> find that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
> >>
> >> This is part of the problem right here.  This isn't our project and we
> >> shouldn't be trying to exclude people from our community.  Wikipedia
> >> belongs to everyone.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:53 AM Peter Southwood
> >>  wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Thrapostibongles,
> >> > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and
> find that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
> >> > While it is possible that you have a long and distinguished edit
> history under a previous name or as an IP editor, it leads me to wonder
> just how familiar you are with the customs and culture of enwiki, which I
> freely agree are non-optimal, but have evolved to sort of work in an
> environment which was predicted to be impossible. Yet here we are,
> dysfunctionally surviving when we are theoretically long extinct. Our
> dysfunctional mores function as they do and evolve through surviving and
> occasional modification by consensus of those who care enough to take part
> in the process, within the environment in which we work. We are somewhere
> between an anarchy and a community, and we do not generally appreciate
> pontification from outsiders, which is what you appear to be, and to a
> large extent, what we consider WMF to be. It is a problem. If WMF chooses
> to rule by fiat it will have interesting consequences. So far they have
> mostly avoided that, and when they have it has not ended well. If you
> consider yourself an expert in something relevant I invite you to show
> evidence of your credentials. Otherwise we will take your comments as we do
> those of any other unproven internet commentator.
> >> > This is just my personal take, I do not 

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

[Robert Fernandez]

The board, including its community representatives.

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:38 PM Paulo Santos Perneta
 wrote:
>
> If the WMF is protecting us, who is protecting us from WMF when due process 
> is not followed, and false accusations and arbitrary punishments start being 
> issued by them?
>
> To who /what can we appeal?
>
> Paulo
>
> A quarta, 12 de jun de 2019, 17:35, Robert Fernandez  
> escreveu:
>>
>> Of course it doesn't belong to the WMF.  It belongs to everyone, and
>> that includes the victims of harassment who have no one to turn to
>> except the WMF.  I am not aware of the circumstances of this office
>> action, but I am of a couple of the others, and there was nothing
>> involving the star chamber hyperbole you describe.  Transparency is
>> key to the project in terms of policy making and article creation, but
>> the project cannot ethically demand transparency as you define it in
>> private matters involving things like (for example) off wiki
>> harassment and sexual abuse.  This process involves multiple layers of
>> investigation and approval.  The only thing it lacks is the ability
>> for you to pore over salacious details of someone's victimization.
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:07 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
>> >
>> > Robert,
>> >
>> > These two aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, Wikipedia belongs to everyone. 
>> > Specifically, a place in the community of Wikipedia editors is open to 
>> > anyone who would like to join. Those of us here have already done that. 
>> > But it is natural in any community or organization to give more weight to 
>> > respected, long-term members than those who just joined up yesterday. 
>> > They've learned the ropes and demonstrated a commitment to it.
>> >
>> > However, the project categorically does not belong to the WMF. The WMF 
>> > exists to serve and assist Wikimedia projects, not lord it over and rule 
>> > them. And since "Wikipedia belongs to everyone", we certainly shouldn't be 
>> > throwing people out in secret Star Chamber-style proceedings, where 
>> > apparently even the accused is not permitted to know all the evidence 
>> > against them. That is utterly antithetical to the open, community-run 
>> > ethos of the project.
>> >
>> > Todd
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:09 AM Robert Fernandez  
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and 
>> >> > find that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
>> >>
>> >> This is part of the problem right here.  This isn't our project and we
>> >> shouldn't be trying to exclude people from our community.  Wikipedia
>> >> belongs to everyone.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:53 AM Peter Southwood
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Thrapostibongles,
>> >> > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and 
>> >> > find that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
>> >> > While it is possible that you have a long and distinguished edit 
>> >> > history under a previous name or as an IP editor, it leads me to wonder 
>> >> > just how familiar you are with the customs and culture of enwiki, which 
>> >> > I freely agree are non-optimal, but have evolved to sort of work in an 
>> >> > environment which was predicted to be impossible. Yet here we are, 
>> >> > dysfunctionally surviving when we are theoretically long extinct. Our 
>> >> > dysfunctional mores function as they do and evolve through surviving 
>> >> > and occasional modification by consensus of those who care enough to 
>> >> > take part in the process, within the environment in which we work. We 
>> >> > are somewhere between an anarchy and a community, and we do not 
>> >> > generally appreciate pontification from outsiders, which is what you 
>> >> > appear to be, and to a large extent, what we consider WMF to be. It is 
>> >> > a problem. If WMF chooses to rule by fiat it will have interesting 
>> >> > consequences. So far they have mostly avoided that, and when they have 
>> >> > it has not ended well. If you consider yourself an expert in something 
>> >> > relevant I invite you to show evidence of your credentials. Otherwise 
>> >> > we will take your comments as we do those of any other unproven 
>> >> > internet commentator.
>> >> > This is just my personal take, I do not presume to represent anyone 
>> >> > else. You are as free to ignore me as I am to ignore you, but engaging 
>> >> > in this discussion has its consequences, and one of them is to be 
>> >> > questioned.
>> >> > Cheers,
>> >> > Peter Southwood
>> >> >
>> >> > -Original Message-
>> >> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
>> >> > Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles
>> >> > Sent: 12 June 2019 09:06
>> >> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>> >> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
>> >> >
>> >> > Yaroslav,
>> >> >
>> >> > I think it's reasonably clear that the English Wikipedia community and 
>> >> > 

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

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

If the WMF is protecting us, who is protecting us from WMF when due process
is not followed, and false accusations and arbitrary punishments start
being issued by them?

To who /what can we appeal?

Paulo

A quarta, 12 de jun de 2019, 17:35, Robert Fernandez 
escreveu:

> Of course it doesn't belong to the WMF.  It belongs to everyone, and
> that includes the victims of harassment who have no one to turn to
> except the WMF.  I am not aware of the circumstances of this office
> action, but I am of a couple of the others, and there was nothing
> involving the star chamber hyperbole you describe.  Transparency is
> key to the project in terms of policy making and article creation, but
> the project cannot ethically demand transparency as you define it in
> private matters involving things like (for example) off wiki
> harassment and sexual abuse.  This process involves multiple layers of
> investigation and approval.  The only thing it lacks is the ability
> for you to pore over salacious details of someone's victimization.
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:07 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> > Robert,
> >
> > These two aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, Wikipedia belongs to everyone.
> Specifically, a place in the community of Wikipedia editors is open to
> anyone who would like to join. Those of us here have already done that. But
> it is natural in any community or organization to give more weight to
> respected, long-term members than those who just joined up yesterday.
> They've learned the ropes and demonstrated a commitment to it.
> >
> > However, the project categorically does not belong to the WMF. The WMF
> exists to serve and assist Wikimedia projects, not lord it over and rule
> them. And since "Wikipedia belongs to everyone", we certainly shouldn't be
> throwing people out in secret Star Chamber-style proceedings, where
> apparently even the accused is not permitted to know all the evidence
> against them. That is utterly antithetical to the open, community-run ethos
> of the project.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:09 AM Robert Fernandez 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and
> find that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
> >>
> >> This is part of the problem right here.  This isn't our project and we
> >> shouldn't be trying to exclude people from our community.  Wikipedia
> >> belongs to everyone.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:53 AM Peter Southwood
> >>  wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Thrapostibongles,
> >> > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and
> find that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
> >> > While it is possible that you have a long and distinguished edit
> history under a previous name or as an IP editor, it leads me to wonder
> just how familiar you are with the customs and culture of enwiki, which I
> freely agree are non-optimal, but have evolved to sort of work in an
> environment which was predicted to be impossible. Yet here we are,
> dysfunctionally surviving when we are theoretically long extinct. Our
> dysfunctional mores function as they do and evolve through surviving and
> occasional modification by consensus of those who care enough to take part
> in the process, within the environment in which we work. We are somewhere
> between an anarchy and a community, and we do not generally appreciate
> pontification from outsiders, which is what you appear to be, and to a
> large extent, what we consider WMF to be. It is a problem. If WMF chooses
> to rule by fiat it will have interesting consequences. So far they have
> mostly avoided that, and when they have it has not ended well. If you
> consider yourself an expert in something relevant I invite you to show
> evidence of your credentials. Otherwise we will take your comments as we do
> those of any other unproven internet commentator.
> >> > This is just my personal take, I do not presume to represent anyone
> else. You are as free to ignore me as I am to ignore you, but engaging in
> this discussion has its consequences, and one of them is to be questioned.
> >> > Cheers,
> >> > Peter Southwood
> >> >
> >> > -Original Message-
> >> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> On Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles
> >> > Sent: 12 June 2019 09:06
> >> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> >> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> >> >
> >> > Yaroslav,
> >> >
> >> > I think it's reasonably clear that the English Wikipedia community
> and its
> >> > community structures, such as its Arbitration Committee, and
> processes are
> >> > not capable of maintaining a productive, harassment-free environment
> for
> >> > the volunteer workers.  For example, they have consistently failed,
> after
> >> > several attempts, to handle the case of a volunteer who used the word
> >> > "Cxxx" about a fellow worker, and the community has agreed that
> 

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

[Robert Fernandez]

Of course it doesn't belong to the WMF.  It belongs to everyone, and
that includes the victims of harassment who have no one to turn to
except the WMF.  I am not aware of the circumstances of this office
action, but I am of a couple of the others, and there was nothing
involving the star chamber hyperbole you describe.  Transparency is
key to the project in terms of policy making and article creation, but
the project cannot ethically demand transparency as you define it in
private matters involving things like (for example) off wiki
harassment and sexual abuse.  This process involves multiple layers of
investigation and approval.  The only thing it lacks is the ability
for you to pore over salacious details of someone's victimization.

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:07 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> Robert,
>
> These two aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, Wikipedia belongs to everyone. 
> Specifically, a place in the community of Wikipedia editors is open to anyone 
> who would like to join. Those of us here have already done that. But it is 
> natural in any community or organization to give more weight to respected, 
> long-term members than those who just joined up yesterday. They've learned 
> the ropes and demonstrated a commitment to it.
>
> However, the project categorically does not belong to the WMF. The WMF exists 
> to serve and assist Wikimedia projects, not lord it over and rule them. And 
> since "Wikipedia belongs to everyone", we certainly shouldn't be throwing 
> people out in secret Star Chamber-style proceedings, where apparently even 
> the accused is not permitted to know all the evidence against them. That is 
> utterly antithetical to the open, community-run ethos of the project.
>
> Todd
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:09 AM Robert Fernandez  
> wrote:
>>
>> > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and find 
>> > that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
>>
>> This is part of the problem right here.  This isn't our project and we
>> shouldn't be trying to exclude people from our community.  Wikipedia
>> belongs to everyone.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:53 AM Peter Southwood
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > Thrapostibongles,
>> > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and find 
>> > that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
>> > While it is possible that you have a long and distinguished edit history 
>> > under a previous name or as an IP editor, it leads me to wonder just how 
>> > familiar you are with the customs and culture of enwiki, which I freely 
>> > agree are non-optimal, but have evolved to sort of work in an environment 
>> > which was predicted to be impossible. Yet here we are, dysfunctionally 
>> > surviving when we are theoretically long extinct. Our dysfunctional mores 
>> > function as they do and evolve through surviving and occasional 
>> > modification by consensus of those who care enough to take part in the 
>> > process, within the environment in which we work. We are somewhere between 
>> > an anarchy and a community, and we do not generally appreciate 
>> > pontification from outsiders, which is what you appear to be, and to a 
>> > large extent, what we consider WMF to be. It is a problem. If WMF chooses 
>> > to rule by fiat it will have interesting consequences. So far they have 
>> > mostly avoided that, and when they have it has not ended well. If you 
>> > consider yourself an expert in something relevant I invite you to show 
>> > evidence of your credentials. Otherwise we will take your comments as we 
>> > do those of any other unproven internet commentator.
>> > This is just my personal take, I do not presume to represent anyone else. 
>> > You are as free to ignore me as I am to ignore you, but engaging in this 
>> > discussion has its consequences, and one of them is to be questioned.
>> > Cheers,
>> > Peter Southwood
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
>> > Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles
>> > Sent: 12 June 2019 09:06
>> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
>> >
>> > Yaroslav,
>> >
>> > I think it's reasonably clear that the English Wikipedia community and its
>> > community structures, such as its Arbitration Committee, and processes are
>> > not capable of maintaining a productive, harassment-free environment for
>> > the volunteer workers.  For example, they have consistently failed, after
>> > several attempts, to handle the case of a volunteer who used the word
>> > "Cxxx" about a fellow worker, and the community has agreed that telling
>> > others to "Fxxx off" is acceptable.  These are symptoms of a dysfunctional
>> > community, which tolerates behaviour that is unacceptable in any collegial
>> > working environment, and it is right that the Foundation should step in.
>> >
>> > Thrapostibongles
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 11, 

[Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 for FY 2017-2018 now on-wiki (w/updated FAQ link)

[Jaime Villagomez]

Hello everyone,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

Saludos,

Jaime

[1] Link to PDF


[2] 2017 (FY 2017-2018) Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 FAQs



Jaime Villagomez

Chief Financial Officer

Wikimedia Foundation 


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

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

[Robert Fernandez]

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:07 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> Robert,
>
> These two aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, Wikipedia belongs to everyone. 
> Specifically, a place in the community of Wikipedia editors is open to anyone 
> who would like to join. Those of us here have already done that. But it is 
> natural in any community or organization to give more weight to respected, 
> long-term members than those who just joined up yesterday. They've learned 
> the ropes and demonstrated a commitment to it.
>
> However, the project categorically does not belong to the WMF. The WMF exists 
> to serve and assist Wikimedia projects, not lord it over and rule them. And 
> since "Wikipedia belongs to everyone", we certainly shouldn't be throwing 
> people out in secret Star Chamber-style proceedings, where apparently even 
> the accused is not permitted to know all the evidence against them. That is 
> utterly antithetical to the open, community-run ethos of the project.
>
> Todd
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:09 AM Robert Fernandez  
> wrote:
>>
>> > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and find 
>> > that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
>>
>> This is part of the problem right here.  This isn't our project and we
>> shouldn't be trying to exclude people from our community.  Wikipedia
>> belongs to everyone.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:53 AM Peter Southwood
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > Thrapostibongles,
>> > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and find 
>> > that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
>> > While it is possible that you have a long and distinguished edit history 
>> > under a previous name or as an IP editor, it leads me to wonder just how 
>> > familiar you are with the customs and culture of enwiki, which I freely 
>> > agree are non-optimal, but have evolved to sort of work in an environment 
>> > which was predicted to be impossible. Yet here we are, dysfunctionally 
>> > surviving when we are theoretically long extinct. Our dysfunctional mores 
>> > function as they do and evolve through surviving and occasional 
>> > modification by consensus of those who care enough to take part in the 
>> > process, within the environment in which we work. We are somewhere between 
>> > an anarchy and a community, and we do not generally appreciate 
>> > pontification from outsiders, which is what you appear to be, and to a 
>> > large extent, what we consider WMF to be. It is a problem. If WMF chooses 
>> > to rule by fiat it will have interesting consequences. So far they have 
>> > mostly avoided that, and when they have it has not ended well. If you 
>> > consider yourself an expert in something relevant I invite you to show 
>> > evidence of your credentials. Otherwise we will take your comments as we 
>> > do those of any other unproven internet commentator.
>> > This is just my personal take, I do not presume to represent anyone else. 
>> > You are as free to ignore me as I am to ignore you, but engaging in this 
>> > discussion has its consequences, and one of them is to be questioned.
>> > Cheers,
>> > Peter Southwood
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
>> > Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles
>> > Sent: 12 June 2019 09:06
>> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
>> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
>> >
>> > Yaroslav,
>> >
>> > I think it's reasonably clear that the English Wikipedia community and its
>> > community structures, such as its Arbitration Committee, and processes are
>> > not capable of maintaining a productive, harassment-free environment for
>> > the volunteer workers.  For example, they have consistently failed, after
>> > several attempts, to handle the case of a volunteer who used the word
>> > "Cxxx" about a fellow worker, and the community has agreed that telling
>> > others to "Fxxx off" is acceptable.  These are symptoms of a dysfunctional
>> > community, which tolerates behaviour that is unacceptable in any collegial
>> > working environment, and it is right that the Foundation should step in.
>> >
>> > Thrapostibongles
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:56 PM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>> >
>> > > The point made by pretty much everyone is not that Fram should or should
>> > > not be banned, but that the process in this case should have followed the
>> > > standard dispute resolution avenues, More specifically, the case should
>> > > have been communicated to the Arbitration Committee, whose members did 
>> > > sign
>> > > the non-disclosure agreement.
>> > >
>> > > This is different from the past cases when users were banned by WMF, 
>> > > since
>> > > in this case it was made clear the case is based on on-wiki open activity
>> > > of Fram (and, specifically, only on the English Wikipedia). The on-wiki
>> > > activity is subject to the community policies.
>> > >
>> > > To be 

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

[Dennis During]

Is posting 'fuck random' "behaviour that is unacceptable in any
collegial working
environment"? I think not. In many work environments frank expressions of
anger are a consequence of high levels of engagement in the work.

It may be that in order to encourage participation by those who are very
sensitive to potentially hostile environments (We used to say
thin-skinned.), the community needs to ban behavior that is often  viewed
as normal in other environments.  But something is likely to be lost in the
process: the deep commitment of some talented contributors. I, for one,
will regret this and may prefer disengagement from this community to
walking on eggshells.

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 08:46 Mister Thrapostibongles <
thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yaroslav,
>
> I think it's reasonably clear that the English Wikipedia community and its
> community structures, such as its Arbitration Committee, and processes are
> not capable of maintaining a productive, harassment-free environment for
> the volunteer workers.  For example, they have consistently failed, after
> several attempts, to handle the case of a volunteer who used the word
> "Cxxx" about a fellow worker, and the community has agreed that telling
> others to "Fxxx off" is acceptable.  These are symptoms of a dysfunctional
> community, which tolerates behaviour that is unacceptable in any collegial
> working environment, and it is right that the Foundation should step in.
>
> Thrapostibongles
>
___
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]

Peter

You say that Wikipedia belongs to "us".  You are mistaken.  In so far as it
belongs to anyone, it belongs to the Foundation.

Thrapostibongles

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 3:35 PM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> "We" are a subset of everyone. If Wikipedia belongs to everyone, it
> belongs to "us" as well.  It seems that Fram who was one of us has just
> been excluded from our community by questionable process. I agree that this
> should not happen, but suggest that it is sometimes necessary to exclude
> people from our community when they are shown in fair process to be unable
> to cooperate in furthering the purposes of the project. Some of us try to
> make it reasonably easy and pleasant to join the community and help build
> the project, but it is not compulsory, either to make it pleasant, or to
> join. However credibility and respect beyond that which should be afforded
> to anyone by virtue of being human are earned.
> Cheers,
> P
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Robert Fernandez
> Sent: 12 June 2019 16:08
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
>
> > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and find
> that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
>
> This is part of the problem right here.  This isn't our project and we
> shouldn't be trying to exclude people from our community.  Wikipedia
> belongs to everyone.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:53 AM Peter Southwood
>  wrote:
> >
> > Thrapostibongles,
> > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and find
> that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
> > While it is possible that you have a long and distinguished edit history
> under a previous name or as an IP editor, it leads me to wonder just how
> familiar you are with the customs and culture of enwiki, which I freely
> agree are non-optimal, but have evolved to sort of work in an environment
> which was predicted to be impossible. Yet here we are, dysfunctionally
> surviving when we are theoretically long extinct. Our dysfunctional mores
> function as they do and evolve through surviving and occasional
> modification by consensus of those who care enough to take part in the
> process, within the environment in which we work. We are somewhere between
> an anarchy and a community, and we do not generally appreciate
> pontification from outsiders, which is what you appear to be, and to a
> large extent, what we consider WMF to be. It is a problem. If WMF chooses
> to rule by fiat it will have interesting consequences. So far they have
> mostly avoided that, and when they have it has not ended well. If you
> consider yourself an expert in something relevant I invite you to show
> evidence of your credentials. Otherwise we will take your comments as we do
> those of any other unproven internet commentator.
> > This is just my personal take, I do not presume to represent anyone
> else. You are as free to ignore me as I am to ignore you, but engaging in
> this discussion has its consequences, and one of them is to be questioned.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter Southwood
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles
> > Sent: 12 June 2019 09:06
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> >
> > Yaroslav,
> >
> > I think it's reasonably clear that the English Wikipedia community and
> its
> > community structures, such as its Arbitration Committee, and processes
> are
> > not capable of maintaining a productive, harassment-free environment for
> > the volunteer workers.  For example, they have consistently failed, after
> > several attempts, to handle the case of a volunteer who used the word
> > "Cxxx" about a fellow worker, and the community has agreed that telling
> > others to "Fxxx off" is acceptable.  These are symptoms of a
> dysfunctional
> > community, which tolerates behaviour that is unacceptable in any
> collegial
> > working environment, and it is right that the Foundation should step in.
> >
> > Thrapostibongles
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:56 PM Yaroslav Blanter 
> wrote:
> >
> > > The point made by pretty much everyone is not that Fram should or
> should
> > > not be banned, but that the process in this case should have followed
> the
> > > standard dispute resolution avenues, More specifically, the case should
> > > have been communicated to the Arbitration Committee, whose members did
> sign
> > > the non-disclosure agreement.
> > >
> > > This is different from the past cases when users were banned by WMF,
> since
> > > in this case it was made clear the case is based on on-wiki open
> activity
> > > of Fram (and, specifically, only on the English Wikipedia). The on-wiki
> > > activity is subject 

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

[Mister Thrapostibongles]

Todd

They certainly don't have the expertise. Most of them aren't regular
> participants on the English Wikipedia, and even those who are often dial
> back after joining the WMF. The most relevant expertise is participation in
> the project itself, and familiarity with how things are supposed to be done
> on it.
>

This seems to assume that dealing with harassment and community dysfunction
on the English Wikipedia is quite different to dealing with any other
community that exists in the world today.  Well, to misquote Tolstoy, every
dysfunctional community is indeed dysfunctional in its own way.  But the
problems of correcting that dysfunction are pretty similar across a broad
range of online community, and English Wikipedia is not special.  The
notion that it is, and that nobody who is not deeply embedded in its
dysfunctional culture can possibly know anything, say anything or do
anything about it is simply colossal arrogance and is part of what has led
us into the mess we are in today.


> It takes no money to evaluate an ANI complaint or file an ArbCom case. So,
> while the WMF may have money, that's irrelevant.
>

It takes money to hire people who know what they are doing and to give them
time and space to do it.  Volunteers plainly do not, and the evidence is
before us.

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

[Mister Thrapostibongles]

Peter

Thank you for raising that issue.  Since user Peter Southwood has just one
recorded edit on English Wikipedia, from 2012, (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Peter_Southwood) I'm
puzzled by your speaking on behalf of the volunteer community. ("we do not
generally appreciate pontification from outsiders")

Thrapostibongles

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 2:53 PM Peter Southwood <
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Thrapostibongles,
> I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and find
> that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
> While it is possible that you have a long and distinguished edit history
> under a previous name or as an IP editor, it leads me to wonder just how
> familiar you are with the customs and culture of enwiki, which I freely
> agree are non-optimal, but have evolved to sort of work in an environment
> which was predicted to be impossible. Yet here we are, dysfunctionally
> surviving when we are theoretically long extinct. Our dysfunctional mores
> function as they do and evolve through surviving and occasional
> modification by consensus of those who care enough to take part in the
> process, within the environment in which we work. We are somewhere between
> an anarchy and a community, and we do not generally appreciate
> pontification from outsiders, which is what you appear to be, and to a
> large extent, what we consider WMF to be. It is a problem. If WMF chooses
> to rule by fiat it will have interesting consequences. So far they have
> mostly avoided that, and when they have it has not ended well. If you
> consider yourself an expert in something relevant I invite you to show
> evidence of your credentials. Otherwise we will take your comments as we do
> those of any other unproven internet commentator.
> This is just my personal take, I do not presume to represent anyone else.
> You are as free to ignore me as I am to ignore you, but engaging in this
> discussion has its consequences, and one of them is to be questioned.
> Cheers,
> Peter Southwood
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles
> Sent: 12 June 2019 09:06
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
>
> Yaroslav,
>
> I think it's reasonably clear that the English Wikipedia community and its
> community structures, such as its Arbitration Committee, and processes are
> not capable of maintaining a productive, harassment-free environment for
> the volunteer workers.  For example, they have consistently failed, after
> several attempts, to handle the case of a volunteer who used the word
> "Cxxx" about a fellow worker, and the community has agreed that telling
> others to "Fxxx off" is acceptable.  These are symptoms of a dysfunctional
> community, which tolerates behaviour that is unacceptable in any collegial
> working environment, and it is right that the Foundation should step in.
>
> Thrapostibongles
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:56 PM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
> > The point made by pretty much everyone is not that Fram should or should
> > not be banned, but that the process in this case should have followed the
> > standard dispute resolution avenues, More specifically, the case should
> > have been communicated to the Arbitration Committee, whose members did
> sign
> > the non-disclosure agreement.
> >
> > This is different from the past cases when users were banned by WMF,
> since
> > in this case it was made clear the case is based on on-wiki open activity
> > of Fram (and, specifically, only on the English Wikipedia). The on-wiki
> > activity is subject to the community policies.
> >
> > To be clear, I am not a friend of Fram, and in the past supported desysop
> > on a number of occasions.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:46 PM Amir Sarabadani 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > People who oppose the ban: Are you aware of all aspects and things Fram
> > has
> > > done? Do you have the full picture? It's really saddening to see how
> fast
> > > people jump to conclusion in page mentioned in the email. I personally,
> > > don't know what happened so I neither can support or oppose the ban. As
> > > simple as that.
> > >
> > > So what should be done IMO. If enwiki wants to know more, a community
> > body
> > > can ask for more information, if body satisfy two things:
> > >  - They had signed NDA not to disclose the case
> > >  - They are trusted by the community
> > >
> > > I think the only body can sorta work with this is stewards but not sure
> > > (Does ArbCom NDA'ed?)
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Lack of transparency from the WMF, whatelse is new.
> > > > I'm currently under a funding ban secretly decided (by who?) based
> on a
> > > > false accusation, without providing any evidence. 

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

[Tony Le]

All,

Here is the correct link to the FAQ for our FY 17-18 Form 990

.

Apologies for the error.

Best,
Tony

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:14 PM Jaime Villagomez 
wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation has submitted our annual Form 990 to the US
> Internal Revenue Service
>  (IRS) and posted
> on-wiki[1]. The Form 990 is the annual financial reporting, known as an
> “information return,” which the federal government  requires nonprofit
> organizations in the United States to file.
>
> In addition to posting the Form 990 on-wiki, we have also posted an
> accompanying page with answers to frequently asked questions related to the
> form and information we reported.[2]
>
> Here are a few key highlights on this year’s Form 990:
>
> -  The Wikimedia Foundation's total revenue in our  fiscal year
> 2017-2018 was US $101,575,555. Our total expenses during  this period were
> US $78,731,219 and our total net assets at the end of the fiscal year were
> US $134,949,570.
>
> -  During fiscal year 2017-2018, we experienced growth in our
> fundraising revenue and success that was attributed to our fundraising
> campaigns.
>
> -  We continue to invest in programmatic activities and evaluate
> to ensure that our allocation percentage is at or above the standard
> benchmark of 65%. During the fiscal year 2016-2017, we invested 74% in
> programmatic activities, 14% in Management & General activities, and 12% in
> fundraising activities.
>
> -  Our expenses increased due to the addition of 26 new staff and
> contractors which was reflective of the growth outlined in the Annual Plan
> 
> .
>
> -  Our Governance, Management, and Disclosure practices are
> consistent with best practices for non-profit charitable organizations and
> meet the IRS requirements as applicable.
>
> Through reports and discussions like these, the Wikimedia Foundation will
> continue to strive to provide a responsible level of transparency and
> accountability. I imagine there are other questions, and I invite you to
> review the on-wiki FAQ[2], or email me if your question is not answered
> there.
>
> Thank you to the Foundation's Audit Committee for their oversight and our
> Staff for their work in developing this year's Form 990 and related
> communications for filing and public disclosure.
>
> Saludos,
>
> Jaime
>
> [1] Link to PDF
> 
>
> [2] Form 990 FAQ
> 
>
>
> Jaime Villagomez
>
> Chief Financial Officer
>
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>
>
> *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.Donate.
> *
>


-- 
Tony Le
Wikimedia Foundation
Ph: 415-839-6885 ext 6749
Fax:  415-882-0495
t...@wikimedia.org

*We've moved!  **Our new address:*

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104

This message is confidential and may be legally privileged or otherwise
protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please
telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any attachment
from your system; you must not copy or disclose the contents of this
message or any attachment to any other person.
___
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]

Robert,

These two aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, Wikipedia belongs to everyone.
Specifically, a place in the community of Wikipedia editors is open to
anyone who would like to join. Those of us here have already done that. But
it is natural in any community or organization to give more weight to
respected, long-term members than those who just joined up yesterday.
They've learned the ropes and demonstrated a commitment to it.

However, the project categorically does not belong to the WMF. The WMF
exists to serve and assist Wikimedia projects, not lord it over and rule
them. And since "Wikipedia belongs to everyone", we certainly shouldn't be
throwing people out in secret Star Chamber-style proceedings, where
apparently even the accused is not permitted to know all the evidence
against them. That is utterly antithetical to the open, community-run ethos
of the project.

Todd

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:09 AM Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and find
> that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
>
> This is part of the problem right here.  This isn't our project and we
> shouldn't be trying to exclude people from our community.  Wikipedia
> belongs to everyone.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:53 AM Peter Southwood
>  wrote:
> >
> > Thrapostibongles,
> > I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and find
> that you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
> > While it is possible that you have a long and distinguished edit history
> under a previous name or as an IP editor, it leads me to wonder just how
> familiar you are with the customs and culture of enwiki, which I freely
> agree are non-optimal, but have evolved to sort of work in an environment
> which was predicted to be impossible. Yet here we are, dysfunctionally
> surviving when we are theoretically long extinct. Our dysfunctional mores
> function as they do and evolve through surviving and occasional
> modification by consensus of those who care enough to take part in the
> process, within the environment in which we work. We are somewhere between
> an anarchy and a community, and we do not generally appreciate
> pontification from outsiders, which is what you appear to be, and to a
> large extent, what we consider WMF to be. It is a problem. If WMF chooses
> to rule by fiat it will have interesting consequences. So far they have
> mostly avoided that, and when they have it has not ended well. If you
> consider yourself an expert in something relevant I invite you to show
> evidence of your credentials. Otherwise we will take your comments as we do
> those of any other unproven internet commentator.
> > This is just my personal take, I do not presume to represent anyone
> else. You are as free to ignore me as I am to ignore you, but engaging in
> this discussion has its consequences, and one of them is to be questioned.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter Southwood
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles
> > Sent: 12 June 2019 09:06
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> >
> > Yaroslav,
> >
> > I think it's reasonably clear that the English Wikipedia community and
> its
> > community structures, such as its Arbitration Committee, and processes
> are
> > not capable of maintaining a productive, harassment-free environment for
> > the volunteer workers.  For example, they have consistently failed, after
> > several attempts, to handle the case of a volunteer who used the word
> > "Cxxx" about a fellow worker, and the community has agreed that telling
> > others to "Fxxx off" is acceptable.  These are symptoms of a
> dysfunctional
> > community, which tolerates behaviour that is unacceptable in any
> collegial
> > working environment, and it is right that the Foundation should step in.
> >
> > Thrapostibongles
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:56 PM Yaroslav Blanter 
> wrote:
> >
> > > The point made by pretty much everyone is not that Fram should or
> should
> > > not be banned, but that the process in this case should have followed
> the
> > > standard dispute resolution avenues, More specifically, the case should
> > > have been communicated to the Arbitration Committee, whose members did
> sign
> > > the non-disclosure agreement.
> > >
> > > This is different from the past cases when users were banned by WMF,
> since
> > > in this case it was made clear the case is based on on-wiki open
> activity
> > > of Fram (and, specifically, only on the English Wikipedia). The on-wiki
> > > activity is subject to the community policies.
> > >
> > > To be clear, I am not a friend of Fram, and in the past supported
> desysop
> > > on a number of occasions.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Yaroslav
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:46 PM Amir Sarabadani 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > People who 

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

[Todd Allen]

They certainly don't have the expertise. Most of them aren't regular
participants on the English Wikipedia, and even those who are often dial
back after joining the WMF. The most relevant expertise is participation in
the project itself, and familiarity with how things are supposed to be done
on it. They proved that they didn't have the relevant expertise, by
utilizing an opaque, closed-door process when that wasn't necessary. Anyone
with expertise in how the English Wikipedia operates would know that's a
major no-no.

It takes no money to evaluate an ANI complaint or file an ArbCom case. So,
while the WMF may have money, that's irrelevant.

The English Wikipedia community has far more people, in terms of Wikipedia
volunteers vs. WMF employees, than the Foundation could dream of.

The Foundation has the responsibility to support the community, yes. Never
to overrule it, except in cases of legal requirement, child protection, or
threats of harm to self or others. And in those cases, the WMF and
community are largely on the same page anyway--we don't want pedophiles
editing, copyright violations on our project, or editors threatening to
harm other editors, and the Foundation doesn't either. So in those
instances, we're partners, not antagonists.

If the job of the WMF is to support the community, it has failed
spectacularly and entirely to do so. It has done more damage to the
community than any number of mildly nasty comments about the ArbCom ever
could, with its ham-fisted, unexplained, unwarranted actions. It has also
done serious, perhaps irreparable, damage to that partnership between the
community and WMF, which was in none too great of shape to start with after
the Visual Editor and MediaViewer/Superprotect fiascos.

I thought that at that time, they had learned that the English Wikipedia
would not tolerate this type of action, having WMF actions crammed down our
throat. ENWP administrators have never, to my knowledge, even dreamed of
reversing an Office action before, because we trusted that they would be
taken rarely and only in extremis. Now, two have done so (so far), and both
have been enthusiastically supported in doing so. If that does not go to
show that the community's respect for WMF has been put right in the toilet,
I do not know what would.

Just look at what's happened there. I don't, to be frank, even like Fram
all that well, and I know I'm not the only one. But this is not about Fram.
It's about the community's editorial independence (and, from posts from
Chinese and German Wikipedia users, apparently the editorial independence
of their communities as well). And usurpation of that is not something we
will take lying down.

Todd

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 6:46 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:

> George,
>
> There are five things that I claimed the Foundation has and the volunteers
> do not:  responsibility to support the community, and the time, the
> expertise, the money and the people to do so.  So that's ten assertions.
> You claim that some of those are unwarranted.  There are over a thousand
> possible interpretations of your claim.  In the interests of a productive
> discussion, would you like to be more precise about which assertions you
> think might be incorrect, please?
>
> Thrapostibongles
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:22 AM George Herbert 
> wrote:
>
> > I think that you are making a number of assertions about the community,
> > individuals, the Foundation, and the power and roles and responsibilities
> > that aren't warranted.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 2:15 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Frankly, I'm surprised by how surprised everyone is.  The Foundation
> has
> > > the responsibility to support the community, and the time, the
> expertise,
> > > the money and the people to do so.  Individual volunteers, however
> > > well-meaning, do not.  The Foundation has determined that in this
> > > particular case the community;s own processes were unable to provide
> the
> > > support that the community needed, and so the Foundation has acted to
> do
> > > so, as you would expect.
> > >
> > > Thrapostibongles
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:26 AM Techman224 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Forwarding to WIkimedia-l since WikiEN-l is relatively dead.
> > > >
> > > > Since this message, an Arbcom member (SilkTork) stated that they
> > weren't
> > > > consulted, nor did this action was the result of Arbcom forwarding a
> > > > concern to the office. [1]
> > > >
> > > > The only non-response excuse from the WMF [2] was that "local
> > communities
> > > > consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous rules
> but
> > > the
> > > > Terms of Use, too.” even though there were no complaints on-wiki nor
> to
> > > > Arbcom privately.
> > > >
> > > > The on-wiki discussion is taking place at the Bureaucrats and the
> > Arbcom
> > > > noticeboards.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 

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

[Peter Southwood]

"We" are a subset of everyone. If Wikipedia belongs to everyone, it belongs to 
"us" as well.  It seems that Fram who was one of us has just been excluded from 
our community by questionable process. I agree that this should not happen, but 
suggest that it is sometimes necessary to exclude people from our community 
when they are shown in fair process to be unable to cooperate in furthering the 
purposes of the project. Some of us try to make it reasonably easy and pleasant 
to join the community and help build the project, but it is not compulsory, 
either to make it pleasant, or to join. However credibility and respect beyond 
that which should be afforded to anyone by virtue of being human are earned.
Cheers, 
P
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Robert Fernandez
Sent: 12 June 2019 16:08
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

> I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and find that 
> you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.

This is part of the problem right here.  This isn't our project and we
shouldn't be trying to exclude people from our community.  Wikipedia
belongs to everyone.


On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:53 AM Peter Southwood
 wrote:
>
> Thrapostibongles,
> I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and find that 
> you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
> While it is possible that you have a long and distinguished edit history 
> under a previous name or as an IP editor, it leads me to wonder just how 
> familiar you are with the customs and culture of enwiki, which I freely agree 
> are non-optimal, but have evolved to sort of work in an environment which was 
> predicted to be impossible. Yet here we are, dysfunctionally surviving when 
> we are theoretically long extinct. Our dysfunctional mores function as they 
> do and evolve through surviving and occasional modification by consensus of 
> those who care enough to take part in the process, within the environment in 
> which we work. We are somewhere between an anarchy and a community, and we do 
> not generally appreciate pontification from outsiders, which is what you 
> appear to be, and to a large extent, what we consider WMF to be. It is a 
> problem. If WMF chooses to rule by fiat it will have interesting 
> consequences. So far they have mostly avoided that, and when they have it has 
> not ended well. If you consider yourself an expert in something relevant I 
> invite you to show evidence of your credentials. Otherwise we will take your 
> comments as we do those of any other unproven internet commentator.
> This is just my personal take, I do not presume to represent anyone else. You 
> are as free to ignore me as I am to ignore you, but engaging in this 
> discussion has its consequences, and one of them is to be questioned.
> Cheers,
> Peter Southwood
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf 
> Of Mister Thrapostibongles
> Sent: 12 June 2019 09:06
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
>
> Yaroslav,
>
> I think it's reasonably clear that the English Wikipedia community and its
> community structures, such as its Arbitration Committee, and processes are
> not capable of maintaining a productive, harassment-free environment for
> the volunteer workers.  For example, they have consistently failed, after
> several attempts, to handle the case of a volunteer who used the word
> "Cxxx" about a fellow worker, and the community has agreed that telling
> others to "Fxxx off" is acceptable.  These are symptoms of a dysfunctional
> community, which tolerates behaviour that is unacceptable in any collegial
> working environment, and it is right that the Foundation should step in.
>
> Thrapostibongles
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:56 PM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
> > The point made by pretty much everyone is not that Fram should or should
> > not be banned, but that the process in this case should have followed the
> > standard dispute resolution avenues, More specifically, the case should
> > have been communicated to the Arbitration Committee, whose members did sign
> > the non-disclosure agreement.
> >
> > This is different from the past cases when users were banned by WMF, since
> > in this case it was made clear the case is based on on-wiki open activity
> > of Fram (and, specifically, only on the English Wikipedia). The on-wiki
> > activity is subject to the community policies.
> >
> > To be clear, I am not a friend of Fram, and in the past supported desysop
> > on a number of occasions.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:46 PM Amir Sarabadani 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > People who oppose the ban: Are you aware of all aspects and things Fram
> > has
> > > done? Do you have the full 

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

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

I agree that they look like a very aggressive community, but why should an
entity so disconnected from everything there and immersed on a culture of
obscurantism and secretiveness be the one appropriate to intervene?
Especially skipping due process, with a very shady ban, as seems to have
been the case there.

Paulo

A quarta, 12 de jun de 2019, 14:51, Robert Fernandez 
escreveu:

> Because the English Wikipedia community is a garbage fire, and is
> hellbent on demonstrating that this week.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:16 AM Paulo Santos Perneta
>  wrote:
> >
> > And why do you think the WMF would be the proper entity to step in on
> > community issues related to the English Wikipedia?
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> > A quarta, 12 de jun de 2019, 13:46, Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> escreveu:
> >
> > > Yaroslav,
> > >
> > > I think it's reasonably clear that the English Wikipedia community and
> its
> > > community structures, such as its Arbitration Committee, and processes
> are
> > > not capable of maintaining a productive, harassment-free environment
> for
> > > the volunteer workers.  For example, they have consistently failed,
> after
> > > several attempts, to handle the case of a volunteer who used the word
> > > "Cxxx" about a fellow worker, and the community has agreed that telling
> > > others to "Fxxx off" is acceptable.  These are symptoms of a
> dysfunctional
> > > community, which tolerates behaviour that is unacceptable in any
> collegial
> > > working environment, and it is right that the Foundation should step
> in.
> > >
> > > Thrapostibongles
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:56 PM Yaroslav Blanter 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The point made by pretty much everyone is not that Fram should or
> should
> > > > not be banned, but that the process in this case should have
> followed the
> > > > standard dispute resolution avenues, More specifically, the case
> should
> > > > have been communicated to the Arbitration Committee, whose members
> did
> > > sign
> > > > the non-disclosure agreement.
> > > >
> > > > This is different from the past cases when users were banned by WMF,
> > > since
> > > > in this case it was made clear the case is based on on-wiki open
> activity
> > > > of Fram (and, specifically, only on the English Wikipedia). The
> on-wiki
> > > > activity is subject to the community policies.
> > > >
> > > > To be clear, I am not a friend of Fram, and in the past supported
> desysop
> > > > on a number of occasions.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > > Yaroslav
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:46 PM Amir Sarabadani  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > People who oppose the ban: Are you aware of all aspects and things
> Fram
> > > > has
> > > > > done? Do you have the full picture? It's really saddening to see
> how
> > > fast
> > > > > people jump to conclusion in page mentioned in the email. I
> personally,
> > > > > don't know what happened so I neither can support or oppose the
> ban. As
> > > > > simple as that.
> > > > >
> > > > > So what should be done IMO. If enwiki wants to know more, a
> community
> > > > body
> > > > > can ask for more information, if body satisfy two things:
> > > > >  - They had signed NDA not to disclose the case
> > > > >  - They are trusted by the community
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the only body can sorta work with this is stewards but not
> sure
> > > > > (Does ArbCom NDA'ed?)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > > > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Lack of transparency from the WMF, whatelse is new.
> > > > > > I'm currently under a funding ban secretly decided (by who?)
> based
> > > on a
> > > > > > false accusation, without providing any evidence. Until now I'm
> > > waiting
> > > > > for
> > > > > > an explanation from the WMF. So, this sort of attitude doesn't
> > > surprise
> > > > > me
> > > > > > at all.
> > > > > > It is very unfortunate that the WMF apparently thrives in this
> kind
> > > of
> > > > > > medieval obscurity, the opposite of the values of the Wikimedia
> > > > Movement.
> > > > > > Matter for Roles & Reponsibilities.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Paulo
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Benjamin Ikuta  escreveu no dia terça,
> > > > > 11/06/2019
> > > > > > à(s) 05:45:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm glad to see I'm not the only one dismayed by the
> unilateralism
> > > > and
> > > > > > > lack of transparency.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Jun 10, 2019, at 8:25 PM, Techman224 <
> techman...@techman224.ca>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Forwarding to WIkimedia-l since WikiEN-l is relatively dead.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Since this message, an Arbcom member (SilkTork) stated that
> they
> > > > > > weren't
> > > > > > > consulted, nor did this action was the result of 

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

[Robert Fernandez]

> I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and find that 
> you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.

This is part of the problem right here.  This isn't our project and we
shouldn't be trying to exclude people from our community.  Wikipedia
belongs to everyone.


On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:53 AM Peter Southwood
 wrote:
>
> Thrapostibongles,
> I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and find that 
> you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
> While it is possible that you have a long and distinguished edit history 
> under a previous name or as an IP editor, it leads me to wonder just how 
> familiar you are with the customs and culture of enwiki, which I freely agree 
> are non-optimal, but have evolved to sort of work in an environment which was 
> predicted to be impossible. Yet here we are, dysfunctionally surviving when 
> we are theoretically long extinct. Our dysfunctional mores function as they 
> do and evolve through surviving and occasional modification by consensus of 
> those who care enough to take part in the process, within the environment in 
> which we work. We are somewhere between an anarchy and a community, and we do 
> not generally appreciate pontification from outsiders, which is what you 
> appear to be, and to a large extent, what we consider WMF to be. It is a 
> problem. If WMF chooses to rule by fiat it will have interesting 
> consequences. So far they have mostly avoided that, and when they have it has 
> not ended well. If you consider yourself an expert in something relevant I 
> invite you to show evidence of your credentials. Otherwise we will take your 
> comments as we do those of any other unproven internet commentator.
> This is just my personal take, I do not presume to represent anyone else. You 
> are as free to ignore me as I am to ignore you, but engaging in this 
> discussion has its consequences, and one of them is to be questioned.
> Cheers,
> Peter Southwood
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf 
> Of Mister Thrapostibongles
> Sent: 12 June 2019 09:06
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
>
> Yaroslav,
>
> I think it's reasonably clear that the English Wikipedia community and its
> community structures, such as its Arbitration Committee, and processes are
> not capable of maintaining a productive, harassment-free environment for
> the volunteer workers.  For example, they have consistently failed, after
> several attempts, to handle the case of a volunteer who used the word
> "Cxxx" about a fellow worker, and the community has agreed that telling
> others to "Fxxx off" is acceptable.  These are symptoms of a dysfunctional
> community, which tolerates behaviour that is unacceptable in any collegial
> working environment, and it is right that the Foundation should step in.
>
> Thrapostibongles
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:56 PM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
> > The point made by pretty much everyone is not that Fram should or should
> > not be banned, but that the process in this case should have followed the
> > standard dispute resolution avenues, More specifically, the case should
> > have been communicated to the Arbitration Committee, whose members did sign
> > the non-disclosure agreement.
> >
> > This is different from the past cases when users were banned by WMF, since
> > in this case it was made clear the case is based on on-wiki open activity
> > of Fram (and, specifically, only on the English Wikipedia). The on-wiki
> > activity is subject to the community policies.
> >
> > To be clear, I am not a friend of Fram, and in the past supported desysop
> > on a number of occasions.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:46 PM Amir Sarabadani 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > People who oppose the ban: Are you aware of all aspects and things Fram
> > has
> > > done? Do you have the full picture? It's really saddening to see how fast
> > > people jump to conclusion in page mentioned in the email. I personally,
> > > don't know what happened so I neither can support or oppose the ban. As
> > > simple as that.
> > >
> > > So what should be done IMO. If enwiki wants to know more, a community
> > body
> > > can ask for more information, if body satisfy two things:
> > >  - They had signed NDA not to disclose the case
> > >  - They are trusted by the community
> > >
> > > I think the only body can sorta work with this is stewards but not sure
> > > (Does ArbCom NDA'ed?)
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Lack of transparency from the WMF, whatelse is new.
> > > > I'm currently under a funding ban secretly decided (by who?) based on a
> > > > false accusation, without providing any evidence. Until now I'm waiting
> > > for
> > > > an explanation from the 

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

[Peter Southwood]

Thrapostibongles,
I am not familiar with your name on enwiki, so I looked you up, and find that 
you have a grand total of 11 edits on all projects since 2015.
While it is possible that you have a long and distinguished edit history under 
a previous name or as an IP editor, it leads me to wonder just how familiar you 
are with the customs and culture of enwiki, which I freely agree are 
non-optimal, but have evolved to sort of work in an environment which was 
predicted to be impossible. Yet here we are, dysfunctionally surviving when we 
are theoretically long extinct. Our dysfunctional mores function as they do and 
evolve through surviving and occasional modification by consensus of those who 
care enough to take part in the process, within the environment in which we 
work. We are somewhere between an anarchy and a community, and we do not 
generally appreciate pontification from outsiders, which is what you appear to 
be, and to a large extent, what we consider WMF to be. It is a problem. If WMF 
chooses to rule by fiat it will have interesting consequences. So far they have 
mostly avoided that, and when they have it has not ended well. If you consider 
yourself an expert in something relevant I invite you to show evidence of your 
credentials. Otherwise we will take your comments as we do those of any other 
unproven internet commentator.
This is just my personal take, I do not presume to represent anyone else. You 
are as free to ignore me as I am to ignore you, but engaging in this discussion 
has its consequences, and one of them is to be questioned.
Cheers,
Peter Southwood

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Mister Thrapostibongles
Sent: 12 June 2019 09:06
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Yaroslav,

I think it's reasonably clear that the English Wikipedia community and its
community structures, such as its Arbitration Committee, and processes are
not capable of maintaining a productive, harassment-free environment for
the volunteer workers.  For example, they have consistently failed, after
several attempts, to handle the case of a volunteer who used the word
"Cxxx" about a fellow worker, and the community has agreed that telling
others to "Fxxx off" is acceptable.  These are symptoms of a dysfunctional
community, which tolerates behaviour that is unacceptable in any collegial
working environment, and it is right that the Foundation should step in.

Thrapostibongles

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:56 PM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> The point made by pretty much everyone is not that Fram should or should
> not be banned, but that the process in this case should have followed the
> standard dispute resolution avenues, More specifically, the case should
> have been communicated to the Arbitration Committee, whose members did sign
> the non-disclosure agreement.
>
> This is different from the past cases when users were banned by WMF, since
> in this case it was made clear the case is based on on-wiki open activity
> of Fram (and, specifically, only on the English Wikipedia). The on-wiki
> activity is subject to the community policies.
>
> To be clear, I am not a friend of Fram, and in the past supported desysop
> on a number of occasions.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:46 PM Amir Sarabadani 
> wrote:
>
> > People who oppose the ban: Are you aware of all aspects and things Fram
> has
> > done? Do you have the full picture? It's really saddening to see how fast
> > people jump to conclusion in page mentioned in the email. I personally,
> > don't know what happened so I neither can support or oppose the ban. As
> > simple as that.
> >
> > So what should be done IMO. If enwiki wants to know more, a community
> body
> > can ask for more information, if body satisfy two things:
> >  - They had signed NDA not to disclose the case
> >  - They are trusted by the community
> >
> > I think the only body can sorta work with this is stewards but not sure
> > (Does ArbCom NDA'ed?)
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Lack of transparency from the WMF, whatelse is new.
> > > I'm currently under a funding ban secretly decided (by who?) based on a
> > > false accusation, without providing any evidence. Until now I'm waiting
> > for
> > > an explanation from the WMF. So, this sort of attitude doesn't surprise
> > me
> > > at all.
> > > It is very unfortunate that the WMF apparently thrives in this kind of
> > > medieval obscurity, the opposite of the values of the Wikimedia
> Movement.
> > > Matter for Roles & Reponsibilities.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Paulo
> > >
> > >
> > > Benjamin Ikuta  escreveu no dia terça,
> > 11/06/2019
> > > à(s) 05:45:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for this.
> > > >
> > > > I'm glad to see I'm not the only one dismayed by the unilateralism
> and
> > > > lack 

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

[Robert Fernandez]

Because the English Wikipedia community is a garbage fire, and is
hellbent on demonstrating that this week.


On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:16 AM Paulo Santos Perneta
 wrote:
>
> And why do you think the WMF would be the proper entity to step in on
> community issues related to the English Wikipedia?
>
> Paulo
>
> A quarta, 12 de jun de 2019, 13:46, Mister Thrapostibongles <
> thrapostibong...@gmail.com> escreveu:
>
> > Yaroslav,
> >
> > I think it's reasonably clear that the English Wikipedia community and its
> > community structures, such as its Arbitration Committee, and processes are
> > not capable of maintaining a productive, harassment-free environment for
> > the volunteer workers.  For example, they have consistently failed, after
> > several attempts, to handle the case of a volunteer who used the word
> > "Cxxx" about a fellow worker, and the community has agreed that telling
> > others to "Fxxx off" is acceptable.  These are symptoms of a dysfunctional
> > community, which tolerates behaviour that is unacceptable in any collegial
> > working environment, and it is right that the Foundation should step in.
> >
> > Thrapostibongles
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:56 PM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
> >
> > > The point made by pretty much everyone is not that Fram should or should
> > > not be banned, but that the process in this case should have followed the
> > > standard dispute resolution avenues, More specifically, the case should
> > > have been communicated to the Arbitration Committee, whose members did
> > sign
> > > the non-disclosure agreement.
> > >
> > > This is different from the past cases when users were banned by WMF,
> > since
> > > in this case it was made clear the case is based on on-wiki open activity
> > > of Fram (and, specifically, only on the English Wikipedia). The on-wiki
> > > activity is subject to the community policies.
> > >
> > > To be clear, I am not a friend of Fram, and in the past supported desysop
> > > on a number of occasions.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Yaroslav
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:46 PM Amir Sarabadani 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > People who oppose the ban: Are you aware of all aspects and things Fram
> > > has
> > > > done? Do you have the full picture? It's really saddening to see how
> > fast
> > > > people jump to conclusion in page mentioned in the email. I personally,
> > > > don't know what happened so I neither can support or oppose the ban. As
> > > > simple as that.
> > > >
> > > > So what should be done IMO. If enwiki wants to know more, a community
> > > body
> > > > can ask for more information, if body satisfy two things:
> > > >  - They had signed NDA not to disclose the case
> > > >  - They are trusted by the community
> > > >
> > > > I think the only body can sorta work with this is stewards but not sure
> > > > (Does ArbCom NDA'ed?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Lack of transparency from the WMF, whatelse is new.
> > > > > I'm currently under a funding ban secretly decided (by who?) based
> > on a
> > > > > false accusation, without providing any evidence. Until now I'm
> > waiting
> > > > for
> > > > > an explanation from the WMF. So, this sort of attitude doesn't
> > surprise
> > > > me
> > > > > at all.
> > > > > It is very unfortunate that the WMF apparently thrives in this kind
> > of
> > > > > medieval obscurity, the opposite of the values of the Wikimedia
> > > Movement.
> > > > > Matter for Roles & Reponsibilities.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Paulo
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Benjamin Ikuta  escreveu no dia terça,
> > > > 11/06/2019
> > > > > à(s) 05:45:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm glad to see I'm not the only one dismayed by the unilateralism
> > > and
> > > > > > lack of transparency.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Jun 10, 2019, at 8:25 PM, Techman224 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Forwarding to WIkimedia-l since WikiEN-l is relatively dead.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since this message, an Arbcom member (SilkTork) stated that they
> > > > > weren't
> > > > > > consulted, nor did this action was the result of Arbcom forwarding
> > a
> > > > > > concern to the office. [1]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The only non-response excuse from the WMF [2] was that "local
> > > > > > communities consistently struggle to uphold not just their own
> > > > autonomous
> > > > > > rules but the Terms of Use, too.” even though there were no
> > > complaints
> > > > > > on-wiki nor to Arbcom privately.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The on-wiki discussion is taking place at the Bureaucrats and the
> > > > > Arbcom
> > > > > > noticeboards.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > 

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

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

And why do you think the WMF would be the proper entity to step in on
community issues related to the English Wikipedia?

Paulo

A quarta, 12 de jun de 2019, 13:46, Mister Thrapostibongles <
thrapostibong...@gmail.com> escreveu:

> Yaroslav,
>
> I think it's reasonably clear that the English Wikipedia community and its
> community structures, such as its Arbitration Committee, and processes are
> not capable of maintaining a productive, harassment-free environment for
> the volunteer workers.  For example, they have consistently failed, after
> several attempts, to handle the case of a volunteer who used the word
> "Cxxx" about a fellow worker, and the community has agreed that telling
> others to "Fxxx off" is acceptable.  These are symptoms of a dysfunctional
> community, which tolerates behaviour that is unacceptable in any collegial
> working environment, and it is right that the Foundation should step in.
>
> Thrapostibongles
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:56 PM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
> > The point made by pretty much everyone is not that Fram should or should
> > not be banned, but that the process in this case should have followed the
> > standard dispute resolution avenues, More specifically, the case should
> > have been communicated to the Arbitration Committee, whose members did
> sign
> > the non-disclosure agreement.
> >
> > This is different from the past cases when users were banned by WMF,
> since
> > in this case it was made clear the case is based on on-wiki open activity
> > of Fram (and, specifically, only on the English Wikipedia). The on-wiki
> > activity is subject to the community policies.
> >
> > To be clear, I am not a friend of Fram, and in the past supported desysop
> > on a number of occasions.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:46 PM Amir Sarabadani 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > People who oppose the ban: Are you aware of all aspects and things Fram
> > has
> > > done? Do you have the full picture? It's really saddening to see how
> fast
> > > people jump to conclusion in page mentioned in the email. I personally,
> > > don't know what happened so I neither can support or oppose the ban. As
> > > simple as that.
> > >
> > > So what should be done IMO. If enwiki wants to know more, a community
> > body
> > > can ask for more information, if body satisfy two things:
> > >  - They had signed NDA not to disclose the case
> > >  - They are trusted by the community
> > >
> > > I think the only body can sorta work with this is stewards but not sure
> > > (Does ArbCom NDA'ed?)
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Lack of transparency from the WMF, whatelse is new.
> > > > I'm currently under a funding ban secretly decided (by who?) based
> on a
> > > > false accusation, without providing any evidence. Until now I'm
> waiting
> > > for
> > > > an explanation from the WMF. So, this sort of attitude doesn't
> surprise
> > > me
> > > > at all.
> > > > It is very unfortunate that the WMF apparently thrives in this kind
> of
> > > > medieval obscurity, the opposite of the values of the Wikimedia
> > Movement.
> > > > Matter for Roles & Reponsibilities.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Paulo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Benjamin Ikuta  escreveu no dia terça,
> > > 11/06/2019
> > > > à(s) 05:45:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for this.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm glad to see I'm not the only one dismayed by the unilateralism
> > and
> > > > > lack of transparency.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Jun 10, 2019, at 8:25 PM, Techman224 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Forwarding to WIkimedia-l since WikiEN-l is relatively dead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since this message, an Arbcom member (SilkTork) stated that they
> > > > weren't
> > > > > consulted, nor did this action was the result of Arbcom forwarding
> a
> > > > > concern to the office. [1]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The only non-response excuse from the WMF [2] was that "local
> > > > > communities consistently struggle to uphold not just their own
> > > autonomous
> > > > > rules but the Terms of Use, too.” even though there were no
> > complaints
> > > > > on-wiki nor to Arbcom privately.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The on-wiki discussion is taking place at the Bureaucrats and the
> > > > Arbcom
> > > > > noticeboards.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > > <
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Request_for_ArbCom_to_comment_publicly_on_Fram's_ban
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 

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

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Well, in my own case I can confirm the decision was completely secret,
issued by some unstated entity inside the WMF, and when I knew about it by
a third party , the reason presented was blatantly false. I have requested
an appeal, with no success till the moment. So, at this point, I am not so
prone to consider WMF attitude on this case above suspicion. The WMF has a
long history of using its culture of medieval obscurity as an excuse for
not having to explain what is perceived as abuse.

Best,
Paulo

A quarta, 12 de jun de 2019, 13:45, Isaac Olatunde 
escreveu:

> It seems the English Wikipedia community is concern with whether WMF has
> jurisdiction to ban a user in a single project with active arbitration
> committee and if they may do so without any obligation to notify the
> project Arbitration committee or the community.
>
> Well, I don't know the specifics of this particular ban but I believe WMF
> took the best decision in banning Fram considering the Foundation has acted
> approximately in dealing with similar issues in the past.
>
> Regards,
>
> Isaac
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019, 2:58 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> > Lack of transparency from the WMF, whatelse is new.
> > I'm currently under a funding ban secretly decided (by who?) based on a
> > false accusation, without providing any evidence. Until now I'm waiting
> for
> > an explanation from the WMF. So, this sort of attitude doesn't surprise
> me
> > at all.
> > It is very unfortunate that the WMF apparently thrives in this kind of
> > medieval obscurity, the opposite of the values of the Wikimedia Movement.
> > Matter for Roles & Reponsibilities.
> >
> > Best,
> > Paulo
> >
> >
> > Benjamin Ikuta  escreveu no dia terça,
> 11/06/2019
> > à(s) 05:45:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for this.
> > >
> > > I'm glad to see I'm not the only one dismayed by the unilateralism and
> > > lack of transparency.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Jun 10, 2019, at 8:25 PM, Techman224 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Forwarding to WIkimedia-l since WikiEN-l is relatively dead.
> > > >
> > > > Since this message, an Arbcom member (SilkTork) stated that they
> > weren't
> > > consulted, nor did this action was the result of Arbcom forwarding a
> > > concern to the office. [1]
> > > >
> > > > The only non-response excuse from the WMF [2] was that "local
> > > communities consistently struggle to uphold not just their own
> autonomous
> > > rules but the Terms of Use, too.” even though there were no complaints
> > > on-wiki nor to Arbcom privately.
> > > >
> > > > The on-wiki discussion is taking place at the Bureaucrats and the
> > Arbcom
> > > noticeboards.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Request_for_ArbCom_to_comment_publicly_on_Fram's_ban
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=prev=901300528
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=prev=901300528
> > > >
> > > > [2]
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#Statement_from_the_WMF_Trust_&_Safety_Team
> > > >
> > > > Techman224
> > > >
> > > >> Begin forwarded message:
> > > >>
> > > >> From: George Herbert 
> > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > >> To: English Wikipedia 
> > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia 
> > > >>
> > > >> In case you're not following on-wiki - Office S blocked English
> > > Wikipedia
> > > >> user / administrator Fram for a year and desysopped, for unspecified
> > > >> reasons in the Office purview.  There was a brief statement here
> from
> > > >> Office regarding it which gave no details other than that normal
> > policy
> > > and
> > > >> procedures for Office actions were followed, which under normal
> > > >> circumstances preclude public comments.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > >>
> > > >> Several people on Arbcom and board have commented they're making
> > private
> > > >> inquiries under normal reporting and communication channels, due to
> > the
> > > >> oddity and essentially uniqueness of the action.
> > > >>
> > > >> There was an initial surge of dismay which has mellowed IMHO into
> "Ok,
> > > >> responsible people following up".
> > > >>
> > > >> I understand the sensitivity of some of the topics under Office
> > actions,
> > > >> having done OTRS and other various had-to-stay-private stuff myself
> at
> > > >> times in the past.  A high 

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

[Peter Southwood]

I would guess that "expertise" is one of them.
Cheers,
P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Mister Thrapostibongles
Sent: 12 June 2019 08:58
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] en.wp office yearlock block

George,

There are five things that I claimed the Foundation has and the volunteers
do not:  responsibility to support the community, and the time, the
expertise, the money and the people to do so.  So that's ten assertions.
You claim that some of those are unwarranted.  There are over a thousand
possible interpretations of your claim.  In the interests of a productive
discussion, would you like to be more precise about which assertions you
think might be incorrect, please?

Thrapostibongles

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:22 AM George Herbert 
wrote:

> I think that you are making a number of assertions about the community,
> individuals, the Foundation, and the power and roles and responsibilities
> that aren't warranted.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 2:15 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Frankly, I'm surprised by how surprised everyone is.  The Foundation has
> > the responsibility to support the community, and the time, the expertise,
> > the money and the people to do so.  Individual volunteers, however
> > well-meaning, do not.  The Foundation has determined that in this
> > particular case the community;s own processes were unable to provide the
> > support that the community needed, and so the Foundation has acted to do
> > so, as you would expect.
> >
> > Thrapostibongles
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:26 AM Techman224 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Forwarding to WIkimedia-l since WikiEN-l is relatively dead.
> > >
> > > Since this message, an Arbcom member (SilkTork) stated that they
> weren't
> > > consulted, nor did this action was the result of Arbcom forwarding a
> > > concern to the office. [1]
> > >
> > > The only non-response excuse from the WMF [2] was that "local
> communities
> > > consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous rules but
> > the
> > > Terms of Use, too.” even though there were no complaints on-wiki nor to
> > > Arbcom privately.
> > >
> > > The on-wiki discussion is taking place at the Bureaucrats and the
> Arbcom
> > > noticeboards.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Request_for_ArbCom_to_comment_publicly_on_Fram's_ban
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=prev=901300528
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=prev=901300528
> > > >
> > > [2]
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#Statement_from_the_WMF_Trust_&_Safety_Team
> > >
> > > Techman224
> > >
> > > > Begin forwarded message:
> > > >
> > > > From: George Herbert 
> > > > Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > To: English Wikipedia 
> > > > Reply-To: English Wikipedia 
> > > >
> > > > In case you're not following on-wiki - Office S blocked English
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > user / administrator Fram for a year and desysopped, for unspecified
> > > > reasons in the Office purview.  There was a brief statement here from
> > > > Office regarding it which gave no details other than that normal
> policy
> > > and
> > > > procedures for Office actions were followed, which under normal
> > > > circumstances preclude public comments.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > >
> > > > Several people on Arbcom and board have commented they're making
> > private
> > > > inquiries under normal reporting and communication channels, due to
> the
> > > > oddity and essentially uniqueness of the action.
> > > >
> > > > There was an initial surge of dismay which has mellowed IMHO into
> "Ok,
> > > > responsible people following up".
> > > >
> > > > I understand the sensitivity of some of the topics under Office
> > actions,
> > > > having done OTRS and other various had-to-stay-private stuff myself
> at
> > > > times in the past.  A high profile investigation target is most
> unusual
> > > but
> > > > not unheard of.
> > > >
> > > > I did send email to Fram earlier today asking if they had any public
> > > > comment, no reply as yet.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > -george william herbert
> > > > george.herb...@gmail.com
> > > > ___
> > > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > 

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

[Mister Thrapostibongles]

Yaroslav,

I think it's reasonably clear that the English Wikipedia community and its
community structures, such as its Arbitration Committee, and processes are
not capable of maintaining a productive, harassment-free environment for
the volunteer workers.  For example, they have consistently failed, after
several attempts, to handle the case of a volunteer who used the word
"Cxxx" about a fellow worker, and the community has agreed that telling
others to "Fxxx off" is acceptable.  These are symptoms of a dysfunctional
community, which tolerates behaviour that is unacceptable in any collegial
working environment, and it is right that the Foundation should step in.

Thrapostibongles

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:56 PM Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> The point made by pretty much everyone is not that Fram should or should
> not be banned, but that the process in this case should have followed the
> standard dispute resolution avenues, More specifically, the case should
> have been communicated to the Arbitration Committee, whose members did sign
> the non-disclosure agreement.
>
> This is different from the past cases when users were banned by WMF, since
> in this case it was made clear the case is based on on-wiki open activity
> of Fram (and, specifically, only on the English Wikipedia). The on-wiki
> activity is subject to the community policies.
>
> To be clear, I am not a friend of Fram, and in the past supported desysop
> on a number of occasions.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:46 PM Amir Sarabadani 
> wrote:
>
> > People who oppose the ban: Are you aware of all aspects and things Fram
> has
> > done? Do you have the full picture? It's really saddening to see how fast
> > people jump to conclusion in page mentioned in the email. I personally,
> > don't know what happened so I neither can support or oppose the ban. As
> > simple as that.
> >
> > So what should be done IMO. If enwiki wants to know more, a community
> body
> > can ask for more information, if body satisfy two things:
> >  - They had signed NDA not to disclose the case
> >  - They are trusted by the community
> >
> > I think the only body can sorta work with this is stewards but not sure
> > (Does ArbCom NDA'ed?)
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Lack of transparency from the WMF, whatelse is new.
> > > I'm currently under a funding ban secretly decided (by who?) based on a
> > > false accusation, without providing any evidence. Until now I'm waiting
> > for
> > > an explanation from the WMF. So, this sort of attitude doesn't surprise
> > me
> > > at all.
> > > It is very unfortunate that the WMF apparently thrives in this kind of
> > > medieval obscurity, the opposite of the values of the Wikimedia
> Movement.
> > > Matter for Roles & Reponsibilities.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Paulo
> > >
> > >
> > > Benjamin Ikuta  escreveu no dia terça,
> > 11/06/2019
> > > à(s) 05:45:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for this.
> > > >
> > > > I'm glad to see I'm not the only one dismayed by the unilateralism
> and
> > > > lack of transparency.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Jun 10, 2019, at 8:25 PM, Techman224 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Forwarding to WIkimedia-l since WikiEN-l is relatively dead.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since this message, an Arbcom member (SilkTork) stated that they
> > > weren't
> > > > consulted, nor did this action was the result of Arbcom forwarding a
> > > > concern to the office. [1]
> > > > >
> > > > > The only non-response excuse from the WMF [2] was that "local
> > > > communities consistently struggle to uphold not just their own
> > autonomous
> > > > rules but the Terms of Use, too.” even though there were no
> complaints
> > > > on-wiki nor to Arbcom privately.
> > > > >
> > > > > The on-wiki discussion is taking place at the Bureaucrats and the
> > > Arbcom
> > > > noticeboards.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Request_for_ArbCom_to_comment_publicly_on_Fram's_ban
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=prev=901300528
> > > > <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=prev=901300528
> > > > >
> > > > > [2]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#Statement_from_the_WMF_Trust_&_Safety_Team
> > > > >
> > > > > Techman224
> > > > >
> > > > >> Begin forwarded message:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> From: George Herbert 
> > > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] 

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

[Mister Thrapostibongles]

George,

There are five things that I claimed the Foundation has and the volunteers
do not:  responsibility to support the community, and the time, the
expertise, the money and the people to do so.  So that's ten assertions.
You claim that some of those are unwarranted.  There are over a thousand
possible interpretations of your claim.  In the interests of a productive
discussion, would you like to be more precise about which assertions you
think might be incorrect, please?

Thrapostibongles

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:22 AM George Herbert 
wrote:

> I think that you are making a number of assertions about the community,
> individuals, the Foundation, and the power and roles and responsibilities
> that aren't warranted.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 2:15 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Frankly, I'm surprised by how surprised everyone is.  The Foundation has
> > the responsibility to support the community, and the time, the expertise,
> > the money and the people to do so.  Individual volunteers, however
> > well-meaning, do not.  The Foundation has determined that in this
> > particular case the community;s own processes were unable to provide the
> > support that the community needed, and so the Foundation has acted to do
> > so, as you would expect.
> >
> > Thrapostibongles
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:26 AM Techman224 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Forwarding to WIkimedia-l since WikiEN-l is relatively dead.
> > >
> > > Since this message, an Arbcom member (SilkTork) stated that they
> weren't
> > > consulted, nor did this action was the result of Arbcom forwarding a
> > > concern to the office. [1]
> > >
> > > The only non-response excuse from the WMF [2] was that "local
> communities
> > > consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous rules but
> > the
> > > Terms of Use, too.” even though there were no complaints on-wiki nor to
> > > Arbcom privately.
> > >
> > > The on-wiki discussion is taking place at the Bureaucrats and the
> Arbcom
> > > noticeboards.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Request_for_ArbCom_to_comment_publicly_on_Fram's_ban
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=prev=901300528
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=prev=901300528
> > > >
> > > [2]
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#Statement_from_the_WMF_Trust_&_Safety_Team
> > >
> > > Techman224
> > >
> > > > Begin forwarded message:
> > > >
> > > > From: George Herbert 
> > > > Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > To: English Wikipedia 
> > > > Reply-To: English Wikipedia 
> > > >
> > > > In case you're not following on-wiki - Office S blocked English
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > user / administrator Fram for a year and desysopped, for unspecified
> > > > reasons in the Office purview.  There was a brief statement here from
> > > > Office regarding it which gave no details other than that normal
> policy
> > > and
> > > > procedures for Office actions were followed, which under normal
> > > > circumstances preclude public comments.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > > >
> > > > Several people on Arbcom and board have commented they're making
> > private
> > > > inquiries under normal reporting and communication channels, due to
> the
> > > > oddity and essentially uniqueness of the action.
> > > >
> > > > There was an initial surge of dismay which has mellowed IMHO into
> "Ok,
> > > > responsible people following up".
> > > >
> > > > I understand the sensitivity of some of the topics under Office
> > actions,
> > > > having done OTRS and other various had-to-stay-private stuff myself
> at
> > > > times in the past.  A high profile investigation target is most
> unusual
> > > but
> > > > not unheard of.
> > > >
> > > > I did send email to Fram earlier today asking if they had any public
> > > > comment, no reply as yet.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > -george william herbert
> > > > george.herb...@gmail.com
> > > > ___
> > > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > wikie...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > 

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

[Isaac Olatunde]

I have read several threads on this incident including Fram and T
statement on the English Wikipedia but I find it difficult to draw any
reasonable conclusion as WMF has not officially says that Fram was banned
for the fuck ArbCom comment. I really do not think we'll be fair to WMF if
we conclude based on Fram's statement alone.

I am also aware that the office action has been override by one of English
Wikipedia's administrator. Even though Jimbo and others asked the user not
to do so.

This whole event is scandalous and I am sad this is happening at the time.

Isaac

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 7:28 AM Philippe Beaudette  Martian,
>
> While it’s not something I could conjure up today, my time at WMF exposed
> me to enough things that I could not have imagined prior to seeing them for
> myself that I am unwilling to discount that such a situation could exist.
>
> Philippe
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:25 PM Martijn Hoekstra <
> martijnhoeks...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Phillipe,
> >
> > Can you imagine a hypothetical situation where it would have been
> > appropriate for this WMF office action to exist though - that is to say,
> > not serious enough to ban a user from any other wiki than en. and serious
> > enough to take direct action outside of the community?
> >
> > I sure can't, yet here it happened. That means I also can't really
> > disqualify any other points that I can't imagine as surely false. Can
> you,
> > from your personal experience reconcile what happened here good enough,
> so
> > that when you say you can't imagine, that dismisses the issue? Or do you
> > maybe also have to suspend your judgement on what probably did or didn't
> > happen as you are also in the realm of "can't imagine" already?
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 04:35 Philippe Beaudette 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Nathan writes:
> > >
> > > *“Why are WMF staffers so*
> > >
> > > *deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they
> feel
> > > the*
> > > *right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?”*
> > >
> > >
> > > I’ve seen no evidence that this is the case here and would be utterly
> > > shocked if a t staff member had indeed banned for saying that.
> > >
> > > If the situation is anything like what it was when I was at WMF, a ban
> > such
> > > as this requires multiple levels of review by a couple of different
> teams
> > > (in my time, we would not have considered a ban such as this without
> sign
> > > off from the community and legal teams, for instance). I don’t know if
> > the
> > > process is the same now but I would be surprised to hear that any
> single
> > > staff member would feel comfortable banning on his or her authority
> > alone.
> > > Multiple levels of review exist in order to ensure that ban reasons are
> > > valid and appropriate.
> > >
> > > Philippe
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 6:55 PM Nathan  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wow, what a cluster. How does the WMF get themselves into these
> > things? I
> > > > have ten edits to en.wp since 2018 and even I could have 100%
> predicted
> > > the
> > > > entire spectrum, and scale, of the reaction here. Why are WMF
> staffers
> > so
> > > > deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they
> feel
> > > the
> > > > right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:49 PM Todd Allen 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Amir, yes, ArbCom members must sign the WMF confidentiality
> agreement
> > > for
> > > > > nonpublic information (
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information
> > > > > )
> > > > > , as must all functionaries (checkuser, oversight, etc.). I was on
> > the
> > > > > English Wikipedia ArbCom for two years, and it was routine for us
> to
> > > deal
> > > > > with sensitive, private information.
> > > > >
> > > > > Todd
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:46 AM Amir Sarabadani <
> ladsgr...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > People who oppose the ban: Are you aware of all aspects and
> things
> > > Fram
> > > > > has
> > > > > > done? Do you have the full picture? It's really saddening to see
> > how
> > > > fast
> > > > > > people jump to conclusion in page mentioned in the email. I
> > > personally,
> > > > > > don't know what happened so I neither can support or oppose the
> > ban.
> > > As
> > > > > > simple as that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So what should be done IMO. If enwiki wants to know more, a
> > community
> > > > > body
> > > > > > can ask for more information, if body satisfy two things:
> > > > > >  - They had signed NDA not to disclose the case
> > > > > >  - They are trusted by the community
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think the only body can sorta work with this is stewards but
> not
> > > sure
> > > > > > (Does ArbCom NDA'ed?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > > > > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >

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

[Isaac Olatunde]

It seems the English Wikipedia community is concern with whether WMF has
jurisdiction to ban a user in a single project with active arbitration
committee and if they may do so without any obligation to notify the
project Arbitration committee or the community.

Well, I don't know the specifics of this particular ban but I believe WMF
took the best decision in banning Fram considering the Foundation has acted
approximately in dealing with similar issues in the past.

Regards,

Isaac



On Tue, Jun 11, 2019, 2:58 PM Paulo Santos Perneta  Lack of transparency from the WMF, whatelse is new.
> I'm currently under a funding ban secretly decided (by who?) based on a
> false accusation, without providing any evidence. Until now I'm waiting for
> an explanation from the WMF. So, this sort of attitude doesn't surprise me
> at all.
> It is very unfortunate that the WMF apparently thrives in this kind of
> medieval obscurity, the opposite of the values of the Wikimedia Movement.
> Matter for Roles & Reponsibilities.
>
> Best,
> Paulo
>
>
> Benjamin Ikuta  escreveu no dia terça, 11/06/2019
> à(s) 05:45:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks for this.
> >
> > I'm glad to see I'm not the only one dismayed by the unilateralism and
> > lack of transparency.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jun 10, 2019, at 8:25 PM, Techman224 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Forwarding to WIkimedia-l since WikiEN-l is relatively dead.
> > >
> > > Since this message, an Arbcom member (SilkTork) stated that they
> weren't
> > consulted, nor did this action was the result of Arbcom forwarding a
> > concern to the office. [1]
> > >
> > > The only non-response excuse from the WMF [2] was that "local
> > communities consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous
> > rules but the Terms of Use, too.” even though there were no complaints
> > on-wiki nor to Arbcom privately.
> > >
> > > The on-wiki discussion is taking place at the Bureaucrats and the
> Arbcom
> > noticeboards.
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > <
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Request_for_ArbCom_to_comment_publicly_on_Fram's_ban
> > >
> > > [1]
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=prev=901300528
> > <
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard=prev=901300528
> > >
> > > [2]
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#Statement_from_the_WMF_Trust_&_Safety_Team
> > >
> > > Techman224
> > >
> > >> Begin forwarded message:
> > >>
> > >> From: George Herbert 
> > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > >> To: English Wikipedia 
> > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia 
> > >>
> > >> In case you're not following on-wiki - Office S blocked English
> > Wikipedia
> > >> user / administrator Fram for a year and desysopped, for unspecified
> > >> reasons in the Office purview.  There was a brief statement here from
> > >> Office regarding it which gave no details other than that normal
> policy
> > and
> > >> procedures for Office actions were followed, which under normal
> > >> circumstances preclude public comments.
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#User:Fram_banned_for_1_year_by_WMF_office
> > >>
> > >> Several people on Arbcom and board have commented they're making
> private
> > >> inquiries under normal reporting and communication channels, due to
> the
> > >> oddity and essentially uniqueness of the action.
> > >>
> > >> There was an initial surge of dismay which has mellowed IMHO into "Ok,
> > >> responsible people following up".
> > >>
> > >> I understand the sensitivity of some of the topics under Office
> actions,
> > >> having done OTRS and other various had-to-stay-private stuff myself at
> > >> times in the past.  A high profile investigation target is most
> unusual
> > but
> > >> not unheard of.
> > >>
> > >> I did send email to Fram earlier today asking if they had any public
> > >> comment, no reply as yet.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> -george william herbert
> > >> george.herb...@gmail.com
> > >> ___
> > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > >> wikie...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 

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

[AntiCompositeNumber]

As a housekeeping note, discussion has moved to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram


On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 09:37 Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> Through various means I'm aware of the partial or full circumstances
> of a number of office bans.  In all cases, T investigated thoroughly
> and acted appropriately.   I don't know why this case would be any
> different, or warrants pitchforks and torches from vocal members of
> the community, but these are the same community members who break them
> out at every opportunity in any case.
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:06 AM Pine W  wrote:
> >
> >  I am trying to have an open mind regarding this matter.
> >
> > I'm supportive of local and global bans in a variety of circumstances,
> and
> > if WMF thinks that sanctions are appropriate then I generally would
> expect
> > WMF to present the relevant evidence to community authorities. English
> > Wikipedia has ways of dealing with editors who are accused of misconduct,
> > and we have experienced administrators who are capable of investigating
> > situations and implementing bans including cases which involve nonpublic
> > evidence.
> >
> > In the absence of convincing evidence that demonstrates a major problem
> > with a Wikimedia community's competence and willingness to adjudicate
> cases
> > in a fair manner, I think that WMF interventions such as this are
> difficult
> > to justify. Based on the limited information that I have, I disagree with
> > WMF's process for this specific case, and in general I have ongoing
> > concerns about WMF's process for WMF-initiated bans. WMF's lack of faith
> in
> > the English Wikipedia community authorities' competence to adjudicate a
> > case such as this is discouraging and, as far as I know, not justified.
> > Even if a local community has well known problems with its
> self-governance,
> > I think that the appropriate recourse would be to the global community.
> > While the global community seems generally opposed to reviewing appeals
> of
> > specific local cases, I think that evidence of systemic problems would
> > likely get more attention and perhaps even a request from the global
> > community for WMF intervention.
> >
> > Based on the information that I know, I would reverse this WMF action and
> > move the case to the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee for its
> > consideration.
> >
> > Pine
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
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] Seeking feedback on the initial design of the Contraband tool

[Rammanoj Potla]

Hello folks,

I am Rammanoj, a Google Summer of Code 2019 student for Wikimedia. As part
of the program, I am developing a tool to track developer activity on three
different platforms: Gerrit, Phabricator and Github. Potential users of
this tool will be event organizers, especially scholarship committee
reviewers who need developer contribution statistics while reviewing
applications for Wikimedia events and juggle between different platforms
like Github, Gerrit, Phabricator to view developer activity for deciding on
an applicant.

As a first step, I’ve developed some mockups that explain the proposed
workflow of the tool: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Contraband#Mockups.
It would be helpful if you could provide me with feedback to continue
further and develop the tool. Please leave your feedback/comments/questions
on the talk page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Contraband.

You can also keep an eye on the technical updates on Phabricator:
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T220254.

Thanks & Regards,

Rammanoj
___
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]

There are some non-controversial facts that apply:
* The WMF was created to operationally support the projects, by design
it is not a police force for social conduct, even though it may have a
duty to remove unlawful content
* There is no consensus with the English Wikipedia community for WMF
employees to use role accounts for social conduct issues that might be
otherwise handled by other administrators, oversight or Arbcom
requests
* Policies developed away from the English Wikipedia community such as
for Safe Spaces and the Technical Code of Conduct would require
consensus on the English Wikipedia to become applicable on that
project

The one year WMF Office English Wikipedia ban of Fram overturns these
prior understandings of how our community works collegially with the
WMF. It is hard to conceive of any eventuality where Fram's months in
advance WMF warnings could not have been reviewed with Arbcom, and if
WMF T then thought action was needed, that there was some new legal
or confidential issue that stopped them choosing to escalate as a
confidential request to Arbcom. Any Arbcom approved sanction against
Fram based on the evidence would not be controversial for anyone.

The fundamental difference between an Arbcom sanction and a WMF Office
ban, is that:
1. Fram would have the opportunity to contribute to the review of evidence
2. Fram would be able to follow a well defined appeal procedure
3. The English Wikipedia community elected Arbcom for this specific
role, and consequently actions taken via Arbcom motion have automatic
community support
4. If the English Wikipedia's policies are inadequate or not being
implemented correctly, including administrator conduct, Arbcom can and
does recommend improvement to the community

Peter's comments below are just factually correct. For sanctions to be
considered "justice", there has to be governing processes that ensure
all evidence which can be safely published is published and subject to
public scrutiny and all sanctions must have a process for appeal. As
the Wikipedia article on natural justice puts it "The right to a fair
hearing requires that individuals should not be penalized by decisions
affecting their rights or legitimate expectations unless they have
been given prior notice of the case, a fair opportunity to answer it,
and the opportunity to present their own case." The current and
significantly extended use of the secretive WMF Office role account,
fails to meet those basic expectations.

After the dramah dies down, let's hope that meaningful lessons are
learned and the WMF takes the opportunity to revisit whether they want
to pay employees to act as social police officers with ban hammers, or
instead solve these problems by working with the community to improve
local policies to make the projects more welcoming and more civil
places to volunteer our time.

Links
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_justice
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 12:13, Peter Southwood
 wrote:
>
> I don’t think that is the point at all.
> For justice to be accepted as justice, it must be comprehensible. The process 
> was badly flawed, and instead of sending a message that  T was looking 
> after our trust and safety, it sent a message that anyone could be blocked 
> without reference to our internal processes and without explanation of the 
> reasons. The notification supplied after the fact was by an unidentified 
> functionary  and consisted of a boilerplate non-explanation. Not helping 
> either.
> This could reasonably be described as a PR blunder. An exercise in opacity. A 
> failure to communicate of noteworthy proportions. Another brick in the wall 
> between the enwiki community and WMF. Maybe WMF just don’t care, and consider 
> us all expendable. It certainly looks like it. That is kind of worrying to 
> those of us actually trying to build an encyclopaedia. In spite of all his 
> alleged defects, I see Fram as one of those.
> Anyone reasonably familiar with the dramaboards will recognise that not 
> everyone taking exception to this action are friends of Fram. Several would 
> probably have supported a desysopping and/or a block, but never without due 
> and visible process and not without talk page access or no right to appeal.
> Your mileage may differ. I judge on what information is available to me. I do 
> not just accept what someone tells me, I try to check. One gets that way 
> after working on Wikipedia for a while. One gets to know what a reliable 
> source is likely to look like, and keeps a lookout for disinformation and 
> non-answers. Read what is available before passing judgement on those who 
> have taken that step.
> Cheers,
> Peter
<><>

___
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

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

[Peter Southwood]

I don’t think that is the point at all.
For justice to be accepted as justice, it must be comprehensible. The process 
was badly flawed, and instead of sending a message that  T was looking after 
our trust and safety, it sent a message that anyone could be blocked without 
reference to our internal processes and without explanation of the reasons. The 
notification supplied after the fact was by an unidentified functionary  and 
consisted of a boilerplate non-explanation. Not helping either.
This could reasonably be described as a PR blunder. An exercise in opacity. A 
failure to communicate of noteworthy proportions. Another brick in the wall 
between the enwiki community and WMF. Maybe WMF just don’t care, and consider 
us all expendable. It certainly looks like it. That is kind of worrying to 
those of us actually trying to build an encyclopaedia. In spite of all his 
alleged defects, I see Fram as one of those. 
Anyone reasonably familiar with the dramaboards will recognise that not 
everyone taking exception to this action are friends of Fram. Several would 
probably have supported a desysopping and/or a block, but never without due and 
visible process and not without talk page access or no right to appeal.
Your mileage may differ. I judge on what information is available to me. I do 
not just accept what someone tells me, I try to check. One gets that way after 
working on Wikipedia for a while. One gets to know what a reliable source is 
likely to look like, and keeps a lookout for disinformation and non-answers. 
Read what is available before passing judgement on those who have taken that 
step.
Cheers, 
Peter


-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Chris Keating
Sent: 12 June 2019 09:56
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

I think we should probably reflect on the fact we've got to the point where
arguments along the lines of

"This guy shouldn't be blocked, he was only telling people to fuck
themselves"

are sort of normal.

This kind of behaviour wouldn't be acceptable in any other movement or
community or workplace... Why here?

(Also I think it's clear this was not the only issue... so while I have
some  concerns about the "how" here, I'm struggling to disagree with the
outcome)

Chris

On Wed, 12 Jun 2019, 07:44 Yair Rand,  wrote:

> Philippe, the email from Trust & Safety said quite clearly that the ban was
> triggered by edit 895438118. I assume that T would not lie about their
> reasons for something like this.
>
> ‫בתאריך יום ג׳, 11 ביוני 2019 ב-22:35 מאת ‪Philippe Beaudette‬‏ <‪
> phili...@beaudette.me‬‏>:‬
>
> > Nathan writes:
> >
> > *“Why are WMF staffers so*
> >
> > *deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they feel
> > the*
> > *right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?”*
> >
> >
> > I’ve seen no evidence that this is the case here and would be utterly
> > shocked if a t staff member had indeed banned for saying that.
> >
> > If the situation is anything like what it was when I was at WMF, a ban
> such
> > as this requires multiple levels of review by a couple of different teams
> > (in my time, we would not have considered a ban such as this without sign
> > off from the community and legal teams, for instance). I don’t know if
> the
> > process is the same now but I would be surprised to hear that any single
> > staff member would feel comfortable banning on his or her authority
> alone.
> > Multiple levels of review exist in order to ensure that ban reasons are
> > valid and appropriate.
> >
> > Philippe
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 6:55 PM Nathan  wrote:
> >
> > > Wow, what a cluster. How does the WMF get themselves into these
> things? I
> > > have ten edits to en.wp since 2018 and even I could have 100% predicted
> > the
> > > entire spectrum, and scale, of the reaction here. Why are WMF staffers
> so
> > > deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they feel
> > the
> > > right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:49 PM Todd Allen 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Amir, yes, ArbCom members must sign the WMF confidentiality agreement
> > for
> > > > nonpublic information (
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information
> > > > )
> > > > , as must all functionaries (checkuser, oversight, etc.). I was on
> the
> > > > English Wikipedia ArbCom for two years, and it was routine for us to
> > deal
> > > > with sensitive, private information.
> > > >
> > > > Todd
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:46 AM Amir Sarabadani  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > People who oppose the ban: Are you aware of all aspects and things
> > Fram
> > > > has
> > > > > done? Do you have the full picture? It's really saddening to see
> how
> > > fast
> > > > > people jump to conclusion in page mentioned in the email. I
> > 

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

[Martijn Hoekstra]

I would like to reserve the right to say "fuck arbcom", "fuck the WMF", or
"fuck the admins", just like I deserve the right to say "fuck the police"
or "fuck the judiciary system".

Regardless whether you think so or not, I dont think that's within WMFs
remit to police and enforce.

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 10:09 Chris Keating 
wrote:

> I think we should probably reflect on the fact we've got to the point where
> arguments along the lines of
>
> "This guy shouldn't be blocked, he was only telling people to fuck
> themselves"
>
> are sort of normal.
>
> This kind of behaviour wouldn't be acceptable in any other movement or
> community or workplace... Why here?
>
> (Also I think it's clear this was not the only issue... so while I have
> some  concerns about the "how" here, I'm struggling to disagree with the
> outcome)
>
> Chris
>
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2019, 07:44 Yair Rand,  wrote:
>
> > Philippe, the email from Trust & Safety said quite clearly that the ban
> was
> > triggered by edit 895438118. I assume that T would not lie about their
> > reasons for something like this.
> >
> > ‫בתאריך יום ג׳, 11 ביוני 2019 ב-22:35 מאת ‪Philippe Beaudette‬‏ <‪
> > phili...@beaudette.me‬‏>:‬
> >
> > > Nathan writes:
> > >
> > > *“Why are WMF staffers so*
> > >
> > > *deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they
> feel
> > > the*
> > > *right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?”*
> > >
> > >
> > > I’ve seen no evidence that this is the case here and would be utterly
> > > shocked if a t staff member had indeed banned for saying that.
> > >
> > > If the situation is anything like what it was when I was at WMF, a ban
> > such
> > > as this requires multiple levels of review by a couple of different
> teams
> > > (in my time, we would not have considered a ban such as this without
> sign
> > > off from the community and legal teams, for instance). I don’t know if
> > the
> > > process is the same now but I would be surprised to hear that any
> single
> > > staff member would feel comfortable banning on his or her authority
> > alone.
> > > Multiple levels of review exist in order to ensure that ban reasons are
> > > valid and appropriate.
> > >
> > > Philippe
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 6:55 PM Nathan  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wow, what a cluster. How does the WMF get themselves into these
> > things? I
> > > > have ten edits to en.wp since 2018 and even I could have 100%
> predicted
> > > the
> > > > entire spectrum, and scale, of the reaction here. Why are WMF
> staffers
> > so
> > > > deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they
> feel
> > > the
> > > > right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:49 PM Todd Allen 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Amir, yes, ArbCom members must sign the WMF confidentiality
> agreement
> > > for
> > > > > nonpublic information (
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information
> > > > > )
> > > > > , as must all functionaries (checkuser, oversight, etc.). I was on
> > the
> > > > > English Wikipedia ArbCom for two years, and it was routine for us
> to
> > > deal
> > > > > with sensitive, private information.
> > > > >
> > > > > Todd
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:46 AM Amir Sarabadani <
> ladsgr...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > People who oppose the ban: Are you aware of all aspects and
> things
> > > Fram
> > > > > has
> > > > > > done? Do you have the full picture? It's really saddening to see
> > how
> > > > fast
> > > > > > people jump to conclusion in page mentioned in the email. I
> > > personally,
> > > > > > don't know what happened so I neither can support or oppose the
> > ban.
> > > As
> > > > > > simple as that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So what should be done IMO. If enwiki wants to know more, a
> > community
> > > > > body
> > > > > > can ask for more information, if body satisfy two things:
> > > > > >  - They had signed NDA not to disclose the case
> > > > > >  - They are trusted by the community
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think the only body can sorta work with this is stewards but
> not
> > > sure
> > > > > > (Does ArbCom NDA'ed?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > > > > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lack of transparency from the WMF, whatelse is new.
> > > > > > > I'm currently under a funding ban secretly decided (by who?)
> > based
> > > > on a
> > > > > > > false accusation, without providing any evidence. Until now I'm
> > > > waiting
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > an explanation from the WMF. So, this sort of attitude doesn't
> > > > surprise
> > > > > > me
> > > > > > > at all.
> > > > > > > It is very unfortunate that the WMF apparently thrives in this
> > kind
> > > > of
> > > > > > > medieval obscurity, the opposite of the values of the Wikimedia
> > > > > Movement.
> > > > > > > 

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

[Andy Mabbett]

On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 07:43, Yair Rand  wrote:

> Philippe, the email from Trust & Safety said quite clearly that the ban was
> triggered by edit 895438118. I assume that T would not lie about their
> reasons for something like this.

I haven't seen this email. Have you? If so, where?
-- 
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

[Chris Keating]

I think we should probably reflect on the fact we've got to the point where
arguments along the lines of

"This guy shouldn't be blocked, he was only telling people to fuck
themselves"

are sort of normal.

This kind of behaviour wouldn't be acceptable in any other movement or
community or workplace... Why here?

(Also I think it's clear this was not the only issue... so while I have
some  concerns about the "how" here, I'm struggling to disagree with the
outcome)

Chris

On Wed, 12 Jun 2019, 07:44 Yair Rand,  wrote:

> Philippe, the email from Trust & Safety said quite clearly that the ban was
> triggered by edit 895438118. I assume that T would not lie about their
> reasons for something like this.
>
> ‫בתאריך יום ג׳, 11 ביוני 2019 ב-22:35 מאת ‪Philippe Beaudette‬‏ <‪
> phili...@beaudette.me‬‏>:‬
>
> > Nathan writes:
> >
> > *“Why are WMF staffers so*
> >
> > *deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they feel
> > the*
> > *right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?”*
> >
> >
> > I’ve seen no evidence that this is the case here and would be utterly
> > shocked if a t staff member had indeed banned for saying that.
> >
> > If the situation is anything like what it was when I was at WMF, a ban
> such
> > as this requires multiple levels of review by a couple of different teams
> > (in my time, we would not have considered a ban such as this without sign
> > off from the community and legal teams, for instance). I don’t know if
> the
> > process is the same now but I would be surprised to hear that any single
> > staff member would feel comfortable banning on his or her authority
> alone.
> > Multiple levels of review exist in order to ensure that ban reasons are
> > valid and appropriate.
> >
> > Philippe
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 6:55 PM Nathan  wrote:
> >
> > > Wow, what a cluster. How does the WMF get themselves into these
> things? I
> > > have ten edits to en.wp since 2018 and even I could have 100% predicted
> > the
> > > entire spectrum, and scale, of the reaction here. Why are WMF staffers
> so
> > > deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they feel
> > the
> > > right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:49 PM Todd Allen 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Amir, yes, ArbCom members must sign the WMF confidentiality agreement
> > for
> > > > nonpublic information (
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information
> > > > )
> > > > , as must all functionaries (checkuser, oversight, etc.). I was on
> the
> > > > English Wikipedia ArbCom for two years, and it was routine for us to
> > deal
> > > > with sensitive, private information.
> > > >
> > > > Todd
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:46 AM Amir Sarabadani  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > People who oppose the ban: Are you aware of all aspects and things
> > Fram
> > > > has
> > > > > done? Do you have the full picture? It's really saddening to see
> how
> > > fast
> > > > > people jump to conclusion in page mentioned in the email. I
> > personally,
> > > > > don't know what happened so I neither can support or oppose the
> ban.
> > As
> > > > > simple as that.
> > > > >
> > > > > So what should be done IMO. If enwiki wants to know more, a
> community
> > > > body
> > > > > can ask for more information, if body satisfy two things:
> > > > >  - They had signed NDA not to disclose the case
> > > > >  - They are trusted by the community
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the only body can sorta work with this is stewards but not
> > sure
> > > > > (Does ArbCom NDA'ed?)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > > > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Lack of transparency from the WMF, whatelse is new.
> > > > > > I'm currently under a funding ban secretly decided (by who?)
> based
> > > on a
> > > > > > false accusation, without providing any evidence. Until now I'm
> > > waiting
> > > > > for
> > > > > > an explanation from the WMF. So, this sort of attitude doesn't
> > > surprise
> > > > > me
> > > > > > at all.
> > > > > > It is very unfortunate that the WMF apparently thrives in this
> kind
> > > of
> > > > > > medieval obscurity, the opposite of the values of the Wikimedia
> > > > Movement.
> > > > > > Matter for Roles & Reponsibilities.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Paulo
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Benjamin Ikuta  escreveu no dia terça,
> > > > > 11/06/2019
> > > > > > à(s) 05:45:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm glad to see I'm not the only one dismayed by the
> > unilateralism
> > > > and
> > > > > > > lack of transparency.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Jun 10, 2019, at 8:25 PM, Techman224 <
> > techman...@techman224.ca>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Forwarding to WIkimedia-l since 

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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
What makes me happy is that a public discussion is happening about the
performance and the future performance of the query engine of the Wikidata
query engine. Not only are things in the open but it has triggered
responses from knowledgeable people making it plain that there is room for
future growth.

Oh and Magnus is sprinkling his magic making his software perform better,
taking less of a toll to the update process of the query engine..
Thanks,
 GerardM


On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 08:01, Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> What’s making me happy is also sad (how can one separate hapiness from
> sadness as you obviously need one to measure the other). My mom is in
> hospital, her breath cancer spreaded again with metastasis. Yep, looks bad.
>
> But I discovered a thread which was shared on twitter by francophone
> wikipedians by the sixth form poet and we laughed so much... I had to stop
> reading the puns as she held her sides telling me it was hurting her.
>
> It was great she could forget the pain for a moment. #metoo
>
> Here is one of his puns :
> https://twitter.com/sixthformpoet/status/617649146841989120?s=21
>
> People found guilty of not using punctuation deserve the longest sentence
> possible.
>
> We also appreciated the story of the cemetary. Weird but sweet.
> https://twitter.com/sixthformpoet/status/1137658720698228736?s=21
>
>
> And another thing, in times of great pressure, I take time to make myself
> a vegan jogurt, very very slowly. This is how it looks like :
> Cos wikimedian geeks need to get involved in some kind of earthly
> activities for a change and to balance the sometimes extreme emotions we
> experience in our heated debates. I will also at one point when it stops
> raining take a book and wander of the Rhone with my kayak to find moments
> of peace :
>
>
>
> If you come to Geneva and you want a ride, shout (you will probably have
> to bring earplugs too if you want a peaceful ride as I am an awful
> chatterbox).
>
> That’s all geeks!
>
> Nattes à chat
>
> > Le 11 juin 2019 à 22:09, Pine W  a écrit :
> >
> > Hello colleagues,
> >
> > I hope that you feel welcome to add your own comments to this email
> thread.
> > Your participation would be appreciated, including starting these threads
> > in future weeks.
> >
> > I like this
> > <
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aratinga_solstitialis_-_Loro_Parque_01.jpg
> >
> > Commons Picture of the Day. The photo is of a sun parakeet. The photo was
> > taken on the Canary Islands.
> >
> > The May issue <
> https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/May_2019>
> > of *This Month in GLAM* was published.
> >
> > What's making you happy this week? You are welcome to comment in any
> > language.
> >
> > Pine
> > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Yair Rand]

Philippe, the email from Trust & Safety said quite clearly that the ban was
triggered by edit 895438118. I assume that T would not lie about their
reasons for something like this.

‫בתאריך יום ג׳, 11 ביוני 2019 ב-22:35 מאת ‪Philippe Beaudette‬‏ <‪
phili...@beaudette.me‬‏>:‬

> Nathan writes:
>
> *“Why are WMF staffers so*
>
> *deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they feel
> the*
> *right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?”*
>
>
> I’ve seen no evidence that this is the case here and would be utterly
> shocked if a t staff member had indeed banned for saying that.
>
> If the situation is anything like what it was when I was at WMF, a ban such
> as this requires multiple levels of review by a couple of different teams
> (in my time, we would not have considered a ban such as this without sign
> off from the community and legal teams, for instance). I don’t know if the
> process is the same now but I would be surprised to hear that any single
> staff member would feel comfortable banning on his or her authority alone.
> Multiple levels of review exist in order to ensure that ban reasons are
> valid and appropriate.
>
> Philippe
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 6:55 PM Nathan  wrote:
>
> > Wow, what a cluster. How does the WMF get themselves into these things? I
> > have ten edits to en.wp since 2018 and even I could have 100% predicted
> the
> > entire spectrum, and scale, of the reaction here. Why are WMF staffers so
> > deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they feel
> the
> > right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:49 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> > > Amir, yes, ArbCom members must sign the WMF confidentiality agreement
> for
> > > nonpublic information (
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information
> > > )
> > > , as must all functionaries (checkuser, oversight, etc.). I was on the
> > > English Wikipedia ArbCom for two years, and it was routine for us to
> deal
> > > with sensitive, private information.
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:46 AM Amir Sarabadani 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > People who oppose the ban: Are you aware of all aspects and things
> Fram
> > > has
> > > > done? Do you have the full picture? It's really saddening to see how
> > fast
> > > > people jump to conclusion in page mentioned in the email. I
> personally,
> > > > don't know what happened so I neither can support or oppose the ban.
> As
> > > > simple as that.
> > > >
> > > > So what should be done IMO. If enwiki wants to know more, a community
> > > body
> > > > can ask for more information, if body satisfy two things:
> > > >  - They had signed NDA not to disclose the case
> > > >  - They are trusted by the community
> > > >
> > > > I think the only body can sorta work with this is stewards but not
> sure
> > > > (Does ArbCom NDA'ed?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Lack of transparency from the WMF, whatelse is new.
> > > > > I'm currently under a funding ban secretly decided (by who?) based
> > on a
> > > > > false accusation, without providing any evidence. Until now I'm
> > waiting
> > > > for
> > > > > an explanation from the WMF. So, this sort of attitude doesn't
> > surprise
> > > > me
> > > > > at all.
> > > > > It is very unfortunate that the WMF apparently thrives in this kind
> > of
> > > > > medieval obscurity, the opposite of the values of the Wikimedia
> > > Movement.
> > > > > Matter for Roles & Reponsibilities.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Paulo
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Benjamin Ikuta  escreveu no dia terça,
> > > > 11/06/2019
> > > > > à(s) 05:45:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm glad to see I'm not the only one dismayed by the
> unilateralism
> > > and
> > > > > > lack of transparency.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Jun 10, 2019, at 8:25 PM, Techman224 <
> techman...@techman224.ca>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Forwarding to WIkimedia-l since WikiEN-l is relatively dead.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since this message, an Arbcom member (SilkTork) stated that
> they
> > > > > weren't
> > > > > > consulted, nor did this action was the result of Arbcom
> forwarding
> > a
> > > > > > concern to the office. [1]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The only non-response excuse from the WMF [2] was that "local
> > > > > > communities consistently struggle to uphold not just their own
> > > > autonomous
> > > > > > rules but the Terms of Use, too.” even though there were no
> > > complaints
> > > > > > on-wiki nor to Arbcom privately.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The on-wiki discussion is taking place at the Bureaucrats and
> the
> > > > > Arbcom
> > > > > > noticeboards.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 

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

[Philippe Beaudette]

Martian,

While it’s not something I could conjure up today, my time at WMF exposed
me to enough things that I could not have imagined prior to seeing them for
myself that I am unwilling to discount that such a situation could exist.

Philippe

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:25 PM Martijn Hoekstra 
wrote:

> Phillipe,
>
> Can you imagine a hypothetical situation where it would have been
> appropriate for this WMF office action to exist though - that is to say,
> not serious enough to ban a user from any other wiki than en. and serious
> enough to take direct action outside of the community?
>
> I sure can't, yet here it happened. That means I also can't really
> disqualify any other points that I can't imagine as surely false. Can you,
> from your personal experience reconcile what happened here good enough, so
> that when you say you can't imagine, that dismisses the issue? Or do you
> maybe also have to suspend your judgement on what probably did or didn't
> happen as you are also in the realm of "can't imagine" already?
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 04:35 Philippe Beaudette 
> wrote:
>
> > Nathan writes:
> >
> > *“Why are WMF staffers so*
> >
> > *deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they feel
> > the*
> > *right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?”*
> >
> >
> > I’ve seen no evidence that this is the case here and would be utterly
> > shocked if a t staff member had indeed banned for saying that.
> >
> > If the situation is anything like what it was when I was at WMF, a ban
> such
> > as this requires multiple levels of review by a couple of different teams
> > (in my time, we would not have considered a ban such as this without sign
> > off from the community and legal teams, for instance). I don’t know if
> the
> > process is the same now but I would be surprised to hear that any single
> > staff member would feel comfortable banning on his or her authority
> alone.
> > Multiple levels of review exist in order to ensure that ban reasons are
> > valid and appropriate.
> >
> > Philippe
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 6:55 PM Nathan  wrote:
> >
> > > Wow, what a cluster. How does the WMF get themselves into these
> things? I
> > > have ten edits to en.wp since 2018 and even I could have 100% predicted
> > the
> > > entire spectrum, and scale, of the reaction here. Why are WMF staffers
> so
> > > deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they feel
> > the
> > > right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:49 PM Todd Allen 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Amir, yes, ArbCom members must sign the WMF confidentiality agreement
> > for
> > > > nonpublic information (
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information
> > > > )
> > > > , as must all functionaries (checkuser, oversight, etc.). I was on
> the
> > > > English Wikipedia ArbCom for two years, and it was routine for us to
> > deal
> > > > with sensitive, private information.
> > > >
> > > > Todd
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:46 AM Amir Sarabadani  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > People who oppose the ban: Are you aware of all aspects and things
> > Fram
> > > > has
> > > > > done? Do you have the full picture? It's really saddening to see
> how
> > > fast
> > > > > people jump to conclusion in page mentioned in the email. I
> > personally,
> > > > > don't know what happened so I neither can support or oppose the
> ban.
> > As
> > > > > simple as that.
> > > > >
> > > > > So what should be done IMO. If enwiki wants to know more, a
> community
> > > > body
> > > > > can ask for more information, if body satisfy two things:
> > > > >  - They had signed NDA not to disclose the case
> > > > >  - They are trusted by the community
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the only body can sorta work with this is stewards but not
> > sure
> > > > > (Does ArbCom NDA'ed?)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > > > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Lack of transparency from the WMF, whatelse is new.
> > > > > > I'm currently under a funding ban secretly decided (by who?)
> based
> > > on a
> > > > > > false accusation, without providing any evidence. Until now I'm
> > > waiting
> > > > > for
> > > > > > an explanation from the WMF. So, this sort of attitude doesn't
> > > surprise
> > > > > me
> > > > > > at all.
> > > > > > It is very unfortunate that the WMF apparently thrives in this
> kind
> > > of
> > > > > > medieval obscurity, the opposite of the values of the Wikimedia
> > > > Movement.
> > > > > > Matter for Roles & Reponsibilities.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Paulo
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Benjamin Ikuta  escreveu no dia terça,
> > > > > 11/06/2019
> > > > > > à(s) 05:45:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm glad to see I'm not the only one 

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

[Martijn Hoekstra]

Phillipe,

Can you imagine a hypothetical situation where it would have been
appropriate for this WMF office action to exist though - that is to say,
not serious enough to ban a user from any other wiki than en. and serious
enough to take direct action outside of the community?

I sure can't, yet here it happened. That means I also can't really
disqualify any other points that I can't imagine as surely false. Can you,
from your personal experience reconcile what happened here good enough, so
that when you say you can't imagine, that dismisses the issue? Or do you
maybe also have to suspend your judgement on what probably did or didn't
happen as you are also in the realm of "can't imagine" already?

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 04:35 Philippe Beaudette 
wrote:

> Nathan writes:
>
> *“Why are WMF staffers so*
>
> *deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they feel
> the*
> *right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?”*
>
>
> I’ve seen no evidence that this is the case here and would be utterly
> shocked if a t staff member had indeed banned for saying that.
>
> If the situation is anything like what it was when I was at WMF, a ban such
> as this requires multiple levels of review by a couple of different teams
> (in my time, we would not have considered a ban such as this without sign
> off from the community and legal teams, for instance). I don’t know if the
> process is the same now but I would be surprised to hear that any single
> staff member would feel comfortable banning on his or her authority alone.
> Multiple levels of review exist in order to ensure that ban reasons are
> valid and appropriate.
>
> Philippe
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 6:55 PM Nathan  wrote:
>
> > Wow, what a cluster. How does the WMF get themselves into these things? I
> > have ten edits to en.wp since 2018 and even I could have 100% predicted
> the
> > entire spectrum, and scale, of the reaction here. Why are WMF staffers so
> > deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they feel
> the
> > right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:49 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> > > Amir, yes, ArbCom members must sign the WMF confidentiality agreement
> for
> > > nonpublic information (
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information
> > > )
> > > , as must all functionaries (checkuser, oversight, etc.). I was on the
> > > English Wikipedia ArbCom for two years, and it was routine for us to
> deal
> > > with sensitive, private information.
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:46 AM Amir Sarabadani 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > People who oppose the ban: Are you aware of all aspects and things
> Fram
> > > has
> > > > done? Do you have the full picture? It's really saddening to see how
> > fast
> > > > people jump to conclusion in page mentioned in the email. I
> personally,
> > > > don't know what happened so I neither can support or oppose the ban.
> As
> > > > simple as that.
> > > >
> > > > So what should be done IMO. If enwiki wants to know more, a community
> > > body
> > > > can ask for more information, if body satisfy two things:
> > > >  - They had signed NDA not to disclose the case
> > > >  - They are trusted by the community
> > > >
> > > > I think the only body can sorta work with this is stewards but not
> sure
> > > > (Does ArbCom NDA'ed?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Lack of transparency from the WMF, whatelse is new.
> > > > > I'm currently under a funding ban secretly decided (by who?) based
> > on a
> > > > > false accusation, without providing any evidence. Until now I'm
> > waiting
> > > > for
> > > > > an explanation from the WMF. So, this sort of attitude doesn't
> > surprise
> > > > me
> > > > > at all.
> > > > > It is very unfortunate that the WMF apparently thrives in this kind
> > of
> > > > > medieval obscurity, the opposite of the values of the Wikimedia
> > > Movement.
> > > > > Matter for Roles & Reponsibilities.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Paulo
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Benjamin Ikuta  escreveu no dia terça,
> > > > 11/06/2019
> > > > > à(s) 05:45:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm glad to see I'm not the only one dismayed by the
> unilateralism
> > > and
> > > > > > lack of transparency.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Jun 10, 2019, at 8:25 PM, Techman224 <
> techman...@techman224.ca>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Forwarding to WIkimedia-l since WikiEN-l is relatively dead.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since this message, an Arbcom member (SilkTork) stated that
> they
> > > > > weren't
> > > > > > consulted, nor did this action was the result of Arbcom
> forwarding
> > a
> > > > > > concern to the office. [1]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The only 

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

[Natacha Rault via Wikimedia-l]

What’s making me happy is also sad (how can one separate hapiness from sadness 
as you obviously need one to measure the other). My mom is in hospital, her 
breath cancer spreaded again with metastasis. Yep, looks bad. 

But I discovered a thread which was shared on twitter by francophone 
wikipedians by the sixth form poet and we laughed so much... I had to stop 
reading the puns as she held her sides telling me it was hurting her. 

It was great she could forget the pain for a moment. #metoo

Here is one of his puns : 
https://twitter.com/sixthformpoet/status/617649146841989120?s=21

People found guilty of not using punctuation deserve the longest sentence 
possible.

We also appreciated the story of the cemetary. Weird but sweet. 
https://twitter.com/sixthformpoet/status/1137658720698228736?s=21


And another thing, in times of great pressure, I take time to make myself a 
vegan jogurt, very very slowly. This is how it looks like : 
Cos wikimedian geeks need to get involved in some kind of earthly activities 
for a change and to balance the sometimes extreme emotions we experience in our 
heated debates. I will also at one point when it stops raining take a book and 
wander of the Rhone with my kayak to find moments of peace : 



If you come to Geneva and you want a ride, shout (you will probably have to 
bring earplugs too if you want a peaceful ride as I am an awful chatterbox). 

That’s all geeks! 

Nattes à chat

> Le 11 juin 2019 à 22:09, Pine W  a écrit :
> 
> Hello colleagues,
> 
> I hope that you feel welcome to add your own comments to this email thread.
> Your participation would be appreciated, including starting these threads
> in future weeks.
> 
> I like this
> 
> Commons Picture of the Day. The photo is of a sun parakeet. The photo was
> taken on the Canary Islands.
> 
> The May issue 
> of *This Month in GLAM* was published.
> 
> What's making you happy this week? You are welcome to comment in any
> language.
> 
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 
___
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,