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

2019-06-14 Thread David Goodman
I do not think any of the present or recent past arb com members are at all bothered by insults, however unjustified. People involved in arb cases often tend to get emotional and even a little irrational. We just ignore them. On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:37 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <

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

2019-06-14 Thread David Goodman
From my perspective of 4 years on enWP arb com, there is no question that the enWP does not deal well with routine low-level harassment in the absence of something really awful. If it were done by the WMF using in-camera proceedings, , there would probably be more actual problem editors

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

2019-06-14 Thread Todd Allen
You ought to read the entire paragraph. Such as the part where I explicitly acknowledged that Fram's version of events may be inaccurate or incomplete. Todd On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 5:03 PM David Gerard wrote: > If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible, > let alone the

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

2019-06-14 Thread David Gerard
If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible, let alone the story, then you're less competent than I have previously considered you to be. On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Todd Allen wrote: > > According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for > maintenance

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

2019-06-14 Thread effe iets anders
For those trying to grasp what's going on, some more links: - Statement by the SuSa team manager, explaining the WMF viewpoint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram#Statement_from_Jan_Eissfeldt,_Lead_Manager_of_Trust_&_Safety -

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

2019-06-14 Thread Dan Rosenthal
Wow, that logs page is something else. Pretty ironic that Bishonen would accuse the Office account of "wheel warring", when the wheel warring policy explicitly states that reversing an Office Action is indicative of wheel warring. So I'm *sure* we'll see suitable discussions of sanctions for the

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

2019-06-14 Thread effe iets anders
Great, now we have a wheelwar going on ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block=Fram ). I have a hard time seeing how this would help anyone. A massive discussion where everyone tries to say something and nobody really reads everything (because how could you) is not going to

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

2019-06-14 Thread Todd Allen
Well, you'll get no argument from me that I wish people wouldn't be gratuitously rude. (Or use that word; nothing good ever comes of that.) I am certainly not endorsing that. At the same time, some of the most disruptive editors I've seen were unfailingly polite. Todd On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 3:40

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

2019-06-14 Thread Robert Fernandez
Framing it as "competence over politeness" is convenient for the people who do not want the latter and imagine they are the former. It also insults the editors who have managed to do both. I know an en.wp editor who has dozens of FAs and somehow managed the herculean feat of not referring to

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

2019-06-14 Thread Vi to
Sometimes is hard to tell a harsh dispute from lack of civility. Generally it's easy to focus on form rather than on substance. Some issues are very complex to handle, for example some weeks ago, criticizing someone (who wrote an aggravating email on this thread) brought me to receive some truly

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

2019-06-14 Thread Andy Mabbett
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 19:18, Kirill Lokshin wrote: > Rather, the problem occurs when a *popular* competent editor violates the > civility policy (or, for particularly popular editors, virtually any other > policy); the traditional consensus-based approach to policy enforcement > makes it

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

2019-06-14 Thread Kirill Lokshin
That's overstating the community's position a bit, I think. Despite the occasional attempt to get rid of the civility policy, the community has continued to support it -- at least in the abstract -- and generally has no problem whatsoever in sanctioning an ordinary, run-of-the-mill editor for

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

2019-06-14 Thread Todd Allen
"Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin, all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to stop it." First, if Fram were a well-known editor but not an admin, yes,

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

2019-06-14 Thread Todd Allen
According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs, the maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is lying or omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not challenging him on

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

2019-06-14 Thread Anders Wennersten
+1 We need to make a reality that Wikipedia workspace is without langauge that intimidate users. Anders Den 2019-06-14 kl. 14:45, skrev camelia boban: I quote David and Isaac. Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any wiki behavior. Before asking why WMF has

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

2019-06-14 Thread Martijn Hoekstra
if Fram was not an admin, all these discussions would not have been done) [citation needed] why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to > stop it. > > > Camelia > > > -- > *Camelia Boban* > > *| Java EE Developer |* > > *Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia

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

2019-06-14 Thread
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

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

2019-06-14 Thread camelia boban
I quote David and Isaac. Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any wiki behavior. Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin, all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves why we (other users) have allowed such an

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

2019-06-14 Thread Mister Thrapostibongles
Fæ [...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for > banning bad behaviour on our projects. Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English Wikipedia community processes are not "perfectly

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

2019-06-14 Thread Isaac Olatunde
I have seen a known user attacking me on one of Wikipedia's criticism site during my ArbCom case on the English Wikipedia but when it was report, they said there is nothing they can do about off-wiki attacks/harassment. That event alone gives me an impression that the English Wikipedia community

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

2019-06-14 Thread Isaac Olatunde
Nobody deserves to be harassed on any Wikimedia project. Unfortunately once you are mobbed on the English Wikipedia, some people thinks it's fine to harass you. They don't care how you feel, your personal life does not matter to them. Imagine someone want the name of the person behind the WMF

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

2019-06-14 Thread Paulo Santos Perneta
At this point, it certainly looks like that. That, and the "f*** Arbcom" thing. If you know otherwise, please explain. Paulo David Gerard escreveu no dia sexta, 14/06/2019 à(s) 11:37: > and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for > doing only what you describe? > > On

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

2019-06-14 Thread David Gerard
and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for doing only what you describe? On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen wrote: > > The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept writing > garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage! Harassment!

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

2019-06-14 Thread Todd Allen
The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept writing garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage! Harassment! Bad!" If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR SOURCES PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement

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

2019-06-14 Thread Chris Keating
Hi all, I just wanted to note that the facilitators have now posted their meeting notes from the election process: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2019/notes These clearly raise some issues. Hopefully these issues can be addressed before any future similar

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

2019-06-14 Thread Paulo Santos Perneta
I've not been on those dumping grounds, open air sewages and troll hives were that stuff is said to be happening, and only know that from Fae and Raystorm accounts. What is going on at those places possibly is the same as what happened with GamerGate, I've not confirmed, and frankly I'm not

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

2019-06-14 Thread Pine W
I think that I understand the GamerGate reference. A decentralized swarm of harassment can be a major problem, and in this case I am concerned (I haven't attempted to review the evidence) that at least one person is being hounded off-wiki regarding their alleged involvement in this matter in a way