Il giorno sab 15 giu 2019 alle ore 04:32 David Goodman
> From my perspective of 4 years on enWP arb com, there is no question that
> the enWP does not deal well with routine low-level harassment in the
> absence of something really awful.
This happens everywhere, though I don't
Far better that editors deal with unfairness from secret proceedings
by untrained and unqualified volunteers of varying degrees of
incompetence elected in a popularity contest.
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 10:32 PM David Goodman wrote:
> the probability of unfairness from secret proceeding by
Congratulations to Nat and Shani! And big thanks to Christophe for your
energy and care.
Being on the Board is a very tough job and a huge commitment of time and
energy, and thanks to all who ran.
I'm also glad the voting has been expanded; in addition to the points Chris
Keating makes about
Both systems are horrible. Secret trials punishing people who don't even
know they are being accused, and of what they are being accused, without
any chance to appeal afterwards, are nothing short of horrible and
inhumane. That, yes, is plain harassment against the victims of those
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 00:04, David Gerard wrote:
> If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible,
What you are calling Fram's framing appears to be a the WMF's version
of events as told to fram. The WMF does look slightly better if you
remember that T arw trying to
People shouldn't be going with any random option, but rather presume the
innocence of others unless guilt is proven by some legit process.
It seems that this very basic principle of Human Rights and dignity is
There is not the least appearance of due process happening there, but
There is no "very basic principle of Human Rights and dignity" to be free
from the presumption of guilt by others. You may be confusing Article 11
of the UHDR, but this applies explicitly only to "penal offenses." Unless
Fram is getting locked up in prison for his actions, let's drop the absurd
It seems perfectly reasonable to use metaphors based on legal systems,
including human rights, in discussing these matters, which do, after all,
involve rules of human behavior and their adjudication by authorities.
Fairness and justice are constantly invoked in all sorts of everyday
And you are suggesting that the WMF are taking admin status into
account something I can't seem them agreeing with.
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:37, David Gerard wrote:
> and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> doing only what you describe?
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen wrote:
> The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept writing
> garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage! Harassment!
I think there is general agreement that such flagging could have been
I have never said that this is a human rights violation, so please don't
put your words on my mouth.
I have said that the general principles of equality, right to fair trial,
not having ones honor damaged by baseless accusations, etc. which are
present at the UDHR are being forgotten here.
"someone getting banned from a website over bad conduct issue" - Since the
WMF has not clarified what that "bad conduct" has been, I wonder what was
the educative value of that. Seems to have been only purely disruptive, and
opened the door for all kinds of assumptions, and offwiki harassment of
I think that's true too; such things are very often used metaphorically. I
think everyone here is clear that no one is literally going to be drug off
in a white van by a balaclava-wearing goon squad from the WMF and sent to a
But the fact remains, those systems of justice are things we
I didn't put my words in your mouth -- I quoted your own words precisely,
and the implication you were trying to make is obvious; so respectfully,
please refrain from gaslighting here. I simply suggested dropping the
hyperbole of "star chambers and kangaroo courts", "secret trials punishing
Todd, I have to tell you, this comment made me absolutely LOL. All I could
imagine was Sue Gardner (from my WMF days) and Geoff Brigham interrogating
me about my desire to send out a goon squad after, i dunno, Risker and
Newyorkbrad or something. I could imagine Geoff telling me that I needed
A suggestion that I think might help to focus the discussion.
I suggest that anyone who wants to discuss what Fram might or might not
have done, and whether or not some acts that Frame might or might not have
done, or failed to do, merits the punishment that has been meted out should
I've not been on those dumping grounds, open air sewages and troll hives
> were that stuff is said to be happening,
Unfortunately one of those dumping grounds now appears to be the official
Twitter account of Wiki Women in Red, a recognised Wikipedia Project, where
a member chose to
if Fram was not an admin, all these discussions would not have been done)
I don't think this is entirely incorrect. Chances are that people would not
notice or care if Fram was not an admin.
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 2:05 PM Martijn Hoekstra if Fram was not an admin, all
No they're not. Just within the last month or thereabouts, the English
Wikipedia ArbCom desysopped three administrators. One for poor tool use and
communication, one for simple misuse and aggressive communication
afterward, and one for socking. Admins are by no means "immune to
I disagree with using this kind of metaphor as long as they imply an
overestimation of the importance of the fictional universe we're dealing
For sanity sake it's always useful to remember this is just "a strange
Il giorno sab 15 giu 2019 alle ore 21:55 Dennis During
I think the legalities are distracting, but to be more on point and blunt:
Wikipedia is a volunteer organization.
Wikimedia Foundation is the professional support arm of in some ways the
world's largest collection of similar goal volunteer organizations.
Volunteer organizations happen because
For me it is not about Fram, it is about who you are as a community how you
rate as friendly cooperative inviting. At that Wikipedia sucks and as it
says in the book Max Havelaar, "Barbertje moet hangen". This case is a
clear sign that not everything can be said and done and that there is no
Just so long as we don't make exaggeration/hyperbole a violation of the
Code of Conduct.
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 5:28 PM Vi to wrote:
> I disagree with using this kind of metaphor as long as they imply an
> overestimation of the importance of the fictional universe we're dealing
Sadly, people with advanced permissions (admin, checkuser etc) on Wikimedia
projects are almost immune to sanctions. You could imagine a behavior that
would normally lead to a site ban for people with no permission will only
result in a desysop for an administrator. Worst of it is Wikimedia
I do think that people should be sanctioned for off-wiki harassment if the
harassment is a result of the on-wiki activities of the victim. It doesn't
matter if it was done on-wiki or off-wiki, if we can identify the harasser
and we are confident that their actions are motivated by onwiki
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 18:39, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> There is no "very basic principle of Human Rights and dignity" to be free
> from the presumption of guilt by others. You may be confusing Article 11
> of the UHDR, but this applies explicitly only to "penal offenses." Unless
> Fram is
Mail list logo