if Fram was not an admin, all these discussions would not have been done)
[citation needed]
why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to
> stop it.
>
>
> Camelia
>
>
> --
> *Camelia Boban*
>
> *| Java EE Developer |*
>
> *Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia
Fæ
[...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> banning bad behaviour on our projects.
Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English Wikipedia
community processes are not "perfectly
I quote David and Isaac.
Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any wiki
behavior.
Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin,
all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves
why we (other users) have allowed such an
At this point, it certainly looks like that. That, and the "f*** Arbcom"
thing. If you know otherwise, please explain.
Paulo
David Gerard escreveu no dia sexta, 14/06/2019 à(s)
11:37:
> and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> doing only what you describe?
>
> On
I have seen a known user attacking me on one of Wikipedia's criticism site
during my ArbCom case on the English Wikipedia but when it was report, they
said there is nothing they can do about off-wiki attacks/harassment. That
event alone gives me an impression that the English Wikipedia community
+1
We need to make a reality that Wikipedia workspace is without langauge
that intimidate users.
Anders
Den 2019-06-14 kl. 14:45, skrev camelia boban:
I quote David and Isaac.
Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any wiki
behavior.
Before asking why WMF has
Nobody deserves to be harassed on any Wikimedia project.
Unfortunately once you are mobbed on the English Wikipedia, some people
thinks it's fine to harass you. They don't care how you feel, your personal
life does not matter to them.
Imagine someone want the name of the person behind the WMF
WMF T will not do anything about off-wiki harassment either, apart
from banning on-wiki users or offering to block your account as the
target of harassment.
There's a lot that can be improved around harassment and civility, but
honestly, the WMF has no special answers or powers, they do not claim
"Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin,
all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves
why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to
stop it."
First, if Fram were a well-known editor but not an admin, yes,
According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for
maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs, the
maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is lying or
omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not challenging
him on
That's overstating the community's position a bit, I think. Despite the
occasional attempt to get rid of the civility policy, the community has
continued to support it -- at least in the abstract -- and generally has no
problem whatsoever in sanctioning an ordinary, run-of-the-mill editor for
From my perspective of 4 years on enWP arb com, there is no question that
the enWP does not deal well with routine low-level harassment in the
absence of something really awful. If it were done by the WMF using
in-camera proceedings, , there would probably be more actual problem
editors
For those trying to grasp what's going on, some more links:
- Statement by the SuSa team manager, explaining the WMF viewpoint:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram#Statement_from_Jan_Eissfeldt,_Lead_Manager_of_Trust_&_Safety
-
Well, you'll get no argument from me that I wish people wouldn't be
gratuitously rude. (Or use that word; nothing good ever comes of that.)
I am certainly not endorsing that. At the same time, some of the most
disruptive editors I've seen were unfailingly polite.
Todd
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 3:40
You ought to read the entire paragraph. Such as the part where I explicitly
acknowledged that Fram's version of events may be inaccurate or incomplete.
Todd
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 5:03 PM David Gerard wrote:
> If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible,
> let alone the
Great, now we have a wheelwar going on (
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block=Fram ). I
have a hard time seeing how this would help anyone.
A massive discussion where everyone tries to say something and nobody
really reads everything (because how could you) is not going to
Wow, that logs page is something else. Pretty ironic that Bishonen would
accuse the Office account of "wheel warring", when the wheel warring policy
explicitly states that reversing an Office Action is indicative of wheel
warring. So I'm *sure* we'll see suitable discussions of sanctions for the
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 19:18, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> Rather, the problem occurs when a *popular* competent editor violates the
> civility policy (or, for particularly popular editors, virtually any other
> policy); the traditional consensus-based approach to policy enforcement
> makes it
If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible,
let alone the story, then you're less competent than I have previously
considered you to be.
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Todd Allen wrote:
>
> According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for
> maintenance
I do not think any of the present or recent past arb com members are at all
bothered by insults, however unjustified. People involved in arb cases
often tend to get emotional and even a little irrational. We just ignore
them.
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:37 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
Sometimes is hard to tell a harsh dispute from lack of civility.
Generally it's easy to focus on form rather than on substance.
Some issues are very complex to handle, for example some weeks ago,
criticizing someone (who wrote an aggravating email on this thread) brought
me to receive some truly
Framing it as "competence over politeness" is convenient for the
people who do not want the latter and imagine they are the former.
It also insults the editors who have managed to do both. I know an
en.wp editor who has dozens of FAs and somehow managed the herculean
feat of not referring to
The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept writing
garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage! Harassment!
Bad!"
If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR SOURCES
PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement
and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
doing only what you describe?
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen wrote:
>
> The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept writing
> garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage! Harassment!
Hi all,
I just wanted to note that the facilitators have now posted their meeting
notes from the election process:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/notes
These clearly raise some issues. Hopefully these issues can be addressed
before any future similar
I've not been on those dumping grounds, open air sewages and troll hives
were that stuff is said to be happening, and only know that from Fae and
Raystorm accounts. What is going on at those places possibly is the same as
what happened with GamerGate, I've not confirmed, and frankly I'm not
I think that I understand the GamerGate reference. A decentralized swarm of
harassment can be a major problem, and in this case I am concerned (I
haven't attempted to review the evidence) that at least one person is being
hounded off-wiki regarding their alleged involvement in this matter in a
way
27 matches
Mail list logo
