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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
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
entitlement in this. That point is now made. Nobody is above the law,
particularly admin and other people in "high ofice".

There is a reason why I hardly edit Wikipedia and it is because I feel not
at home with all the aggression used in stead of arguments.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 at 00:47, George Herbert 
wrote:

> 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 volunteers volunteer their time and
> interest.  Things get done either because they think it's important, or
> they're willing to contribute some fraction of their total effort to things
> the community as a whole agrees need doing.
>
> Whether there's any legality involved or not, doing something that
> immediately alienates a large portion of the most dedicated most
> experienced volunteer base of the English language Wikipedia is ... at best
> misguided, at worst horrifically counterproductive for the goals and long
> term survival of the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> I'm not going far out on a limb speculating that S did this because they
> felt they could, felt they should, and felt it was not going to cause
> widespread outrage and pushback.
>
> Pushback is clear and shiningly evident now.  The reasoning why they should
> has been challenged, based on the public statements, and is at the very
> least challenged and in doubt.
>
>
> The Foundation damaging volunteer interest in the projects this profoundly
> is not a minor glitch.
>
>
> -george
>
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 3:35 PM Thomas Townsend 
> wrote:
>
> > 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 getting locked up in prison for his actions, let's drop the
> > absurd
> > > hyperbole that this is somehow a human rights violation.
> >
> >
> > The Foundation has explicitly stated at
> > https://wikimediafoundation.org/advocacy/ that
> > "everyone has the right to seek and share knowledge." and at
> >
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/05/23/wikimedia-foundation-petitions-the-european-court-of-human-rights-to-lift-the-block-of-wikipedia-in-turkey/
> > that the ability to contribute to Wikipedia is a matter for the
> > European Court of Human Rights.
> >
> > So it seems that Dan is incorrect -- this *is* a human rights matter.
> > All the more reason, then, to have it supervised by the competent
> > professionals of the Foundation.
> >
> > The Turnip
> >
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
>
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herb...@gmail.com
> ___
> 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]

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
sanctions"; if anything, they're watched more closely than others.

On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 4:36 PM Isaac Olatunde 
wrote:

> 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 Commons
> where there has to be two different RfC/votes to get an admin desysoped.
>
> Isaac
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 1:46 PM camelia boban  wrote:
>
> > I quote David and Isaac.
> > Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any
> wiki
> > behavior.
> > Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin,
> > all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves
> > why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to
> > stop it.
> >
> >
> > Camelia
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Camelia Boban*
> >
> > *| Java EE Developer |*
> >
> > *Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation
> > Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030
> > Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project ideator*
> >
> > *Diversity Space @ Wikimania 2019 Co-Lead*
> > WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
> >
> > M. +39 3383385545
> > camelia.bo...@gmail.com
> > *Aissa Technologies* * | *Twitter
> >  *|* *LinkedIn
> > *
> > *Wikipedia  **|
> > **WikiDonne
> > UG * | *WikiDonne Project
> >  *
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Il giorno ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> > > Fæ
> > >
> > > [...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> > > > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > > > banning bad behaviour on our projects.
> > >
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English
> > Wikipedia
> > > community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
> > >
> > >
> > > > If the English
> > > > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> > > > policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
> > >
> > >
> > > Indeed.  Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram
> > > suggests
> > > that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to happen
> or
> > be
> > > productive.
> > >
> > > Thrapostibongles
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[George Herbert]

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 volunteers volunteer their time and
interest.  Things get done either because they think it's important, or
they're willing to contribute some fraction of their total effort to things
the community as a whole agrees need doing.

Whether there's any legality involved or not, doing something that
immediately alienates a large portion of the most dedicated most
experienced volunteer base of the English language Wikipedia is ... at best
misguided, at worst horrifically counterproductive for the goals and long
term survival of the Wikimedia Foundation.

I'm not going far out on a limb speculating that S did this because they
felt they could, felt they should, and felt it was not going to cause
widespread outrage and pushback.

Pushback is clear and shiningly evident now.  The reasoning why they should
has been challenged, based on the public statements, and is at the very
least challenged and in doubt.


The Foundation damaging volunteer interest in the projects this profoundly
is not a minor glitch.


-george

On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 3:35 PM Thomas Townsend 
wrote:

> 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 getting locked up in prison for his actions, let's drop the
> absurd
> > hyperbole that this is somehow a human rights violation.
>
>
> The Foundation has explicitly stated at
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/advocacy/ that
> "everyone has the right to seek and share knowledge." and at
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/05/23/wikimedia-foundation-petitions-the-european-court-of-human-rights-to-lift-the-block-of-wikipedia-in-turkey/
> that the ability to contribute to Wikipedia is a matter for the
> European Court of Human Rights.
>
> So it seems that Dan is incorrect -- this *is* a human rights matter.
> All the more reason, then, to have it supervised by the competent
> professionals of the Foundation.
>
> The Turnip
>
> ___
> 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,
> 



-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
___
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]

Paulo

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 accuse one of the people involved in this case of "real
crimes".  While that tweet has been, quite properly, removed, it
illustrates how extremely damaging to all possibilities of civil discourse
and constructive debate it is to discuss the details of this case from what
can only be a position of ignorance.

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]

All,

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
refrain from doing so.  Since no-one with reliable information about
exactly what the complaints to T were is going to post here, and no-one
who posts here has any reliable information about them, all such
discussions here are based on guesses, assumptions, rumours or
confabulations, and can be of precisely no value whatsoever.

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:
> 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

[Isaac Olatunde]

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

I don't think this is entirely incorrect. Chances are that people would not
notice or care if Fram was not an admin.

Isaac

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 2:05 PM Martijn Hoekstra   if Fram was not an admin, all these discussions would not have been done)
> [citation needed]
>
>
>
>
> why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to
> > stop it.
> >
> >
> > Camelia
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Camelia Boban*
> >
> > *| Java EE Developer |*
> >
> > *Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation
> > Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030
> > Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project ideator*
> >
> > *Diversity Space @ Wikimania 2019 Co-Lead*
> > WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
> >
> > M. +39 3383385545
> > camelia.bo...@gmail.com
> > *Aissa Technologies* * | *Twitter
> >  *|* *LinkedIn
> > *
> > *Wikipedia  **|
> > **WikiDonne
> > UG * | *WikiDonne Project
> >  *
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Il giorno ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> > thrapostibong...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> > > Fæ
> > >
> > > [...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> > > > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > > > banning bad behaviour on our projects.
> > >
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English
> > Wikipedia
> > > community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
> > >
> > >
> > > > If the English
> > > > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> > > > policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
> > >
> > >
> > > Indeed.  Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram
> > > suggests
> > > that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to happen
> or
> > be
> > > productive.
> > >
> > > Thrapostibongles
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Isaac Olatunde]

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 Commons
where there has to be two different RfC/votes to get an admin desysoped.

Isaac

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 1:46 PM camelia boban  I quote David and Isaac.
> Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any wiki
> behavior.
> Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin,
> all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves
> why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to
> stop it.
>
>
> Camelia
>
>
> --
> *Camelia Boban*
>
> *| Java EE Developer |*
>
> *Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation
> Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030
> Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project ideator*
>
> *Diversity Space @ Wikimania 2019 Co-Lead*
> WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
>
> M. +39 3383385545
> camelia.bo...@gmail.com
> *Aissa Technologies* * | *Twitter
>  *|* *LinkedIn
> *
> *Wikipedia  **|
> **WikiDonne
> UG * | *WikiDonne Project
>  *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Il giorno ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> thrapostibong...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
> > Fæ
> >
> > [...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> > > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > > banning bad behaviour on our projects.
> >
> >
> > Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English
> Wikipedia
> > community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
> >
> >
> > > If the English
> > > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> > > policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
> >
> >
> > Indeed.  Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
> >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram
> > suggests
> > that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to happen or
> be
> > productive.
> >
> > Thrapostibongles
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Isaac Olatunde]

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 activities
of the victim.

Regards

Isaac

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 2:03 PM Isaac Olatunde  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 Commons where there has to be two different RfC/votes to get
> an admin desysoped.
>
> Isaac
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 1:46 PM camelia boban  wrote:
>
>> I quote David and Isaac.
>> Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any wiki
>> behavior.
>> Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin,
>> all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves
>> why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to
>> stop it.
>>
>>
>> Camelia
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Camelia Boban*
>>
>> *| Java EE Developer |*
>>
>> *Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation
>> Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030
>> Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project ideator*
>>
>> *Diversity Space @ Wikimania 2019 Co-Lead*
>> WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
>>
>> M. +39 3383385545
>> camelia.bo...@gmail.com
>> *Aissa Technologies* * | *Twitter
>>  *|* *LinkedIn
>> *
>> *Wikipedia  **|
>> **WikiDonne
>> UG * | *WikiDonne Project
>>  *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Il giorno ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles <
>> thrapostibong...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>>
>> > Fæ
>> >
>> > [...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
>> > > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
>> > > banning bad behaviour on our projects.
>> >
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English
>> Wikipedia
>> > community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
>> >
>> >
>> > > If the English
>> > > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
>> > > policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
>> >
>> >
>> > Indeed.  Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
>> >
>> >
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram
>> > suggests
>> > that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to happen
>> or be
>> > productive.
>> >
>> > Thrapostibongles
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Thomas Townsend]

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 getting locked up in prison for his actions, let's drop the absurd
> hyperbole that this is somehow a human rights violation.


The Foundation has explicitly stated at
https://wikimediafoundation.org/advocacy/ that
"everyone has the right to seek and share knowledge." and at
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/05/23/wikimedia-foundation-petitions-the-european-court-of-human-rights-to-lift-the-block-of-wikipedia-in-turkey/
that the ability to contribute to Wikipedia is a matter for the
European Court of Human Rights.

So it seems that Dan is incorrect -- this *is* a human rights matter.
All the more reason, then, to have it supervised by the competent
professionals of the Foundation.

The Turnip

___
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]

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
> with.
> For sanity sake it's always useful to remember this is just "a strange
> website".
>
> Vito
>
-- 
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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Vi 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
with.
For sanity sake it's always useful to remember this is just "a strange
website".

Vito

Il giorno sab 15 giu 2019 alle ore 21:55 Dennis During 
ha scritto:

> 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
> matters, from sports to baking.
>
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 3:32 PM Dan Rosenthal 
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > people who don't know they're being accused' and "very basic principle[s]
> > of Human Rights and dignity" over someone getting banned from a website
> > over bad conduct issues.  You need not reply -- I'm done with this
> portion
> > of the conversation.
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:03 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Of course you may argue that since the WMF is a private organization,
> > they
> > > are free to engage in this kind of secret trials, star chambers and
> > > kangaroo courts at will. As others already stated, the matter here is
> not
> > > if they can, but if they should be engaging on those schemes, as they
> are
> > > now.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Paulo
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > A sábado, 15 de jun de 2019, 18:39, Dan Rosenthal <
> swatjes...@gmail.com>
> > > escreveu:
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > > hyperbole that this is somehow a human rights violation.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dan Rosenthal
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 11:35 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > > > being forgotten.
> > > > > There is not the least appearance of due process happening there,
> but
> > > > that
> > > > > has not stopped people from finding themselves their guilty part of
> > > > > election, using their own bias to evaluate the case.
> > > > > Including some Wikipedia related social network accounts that
> should
> > be
> > > > > acting more responsible and wiser than joining the rabble in the
> > > offwiki
> > > > > harassment of their guilty part of choice.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Paulo
> > > > >
> > > > > geni  escreveu no dia sábado, 15/06/2019 à(s)
> > > 17:15:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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 improve behaviour through threat
> of
> > > > > > blocks not file a diff heavy arbcom case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  >let alone the story
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Given that the other versions of "the story" are T's PR waffle
> or
> > > > > > conspiracy theories it understandable that people are going to go
> > > with
> > > > > > the option that at least gives them something to work from.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > geni
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ___
> > > > > > 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]

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
more evidence (as he ALWAYS said) and Sue telling me that this required a
memo first, and I better have budgeted the money in the annual plan.

The image was very vivid for me.

As a Trust and Safety professional, with almost two decades of experience
under my belt, all I can say is this:  I freakin' wish.  Really.




Philippe

On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:16 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
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
> gulag.
>
>
___
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 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
gulag.

But the fact remains, those systems of justice are things we arrived at,
via deliberation and over a period of millennia since at least Hammurabi,
to determine how to fairly handle a situation where one person says "You
have done something wrong", and they reply "No, I have not." We could do
worse than to examine how those systems operate, why they have the
procedural safeguards that they do, and what abuses led to those safeguards
being proposed to begin with.

Todd

On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:55 PM Dennis During  wrote:

> 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
> matters, from sports to baking.
>
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 3:32 PM Dan Rosenthal 
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > people who don't know they're being accused' and "very basic principle[s]
> > of Human Rights and dignity" over someone getting banned from a website
> > over bad conduct issues.  You need not reply -- I'm done with this
> portion
> > of the conversation.
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:03 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Of course you may argue that since the WMF is a private organization,
> > they
> > > are free to engage in this kind of secret trials, star chambers and
> > > kangaroo courts at will. As others already stated, the matter here is
> not
> > > if they can, but if they should be engaging on those schemes, as they
> are
> > > now.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Paulo
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > A sábado, 15 de jun de 2019, 18:39, Dan Rosenthal <
> swatjes...@gmail.com>
> > > escreveu:
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > > hyperbole that this is somehow a human rights violation.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dan Rosenthal
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 11:35 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > > > being forgotten.
> > > > > There is not the least appearance of due process happening there,
> but
> > > > that
> > > > > has not stopped people from finding themselves their guilty part of
> > > > > election, using their own bias to evaluate the case.
> > > > > Including some Wikipedia related social network accounts that
> should
> > be
> > > > > acting more responsible and wiser than joining the rabble in the
> > > offwiki
> > > > > harassment of their guilty part of choice.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Paulo
> > > > >
> > > > > geni  escreveu no dia sábado, 15/06/2019 à(s)
> > > 17:15:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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 improve behaviour through threat
> of
> > > > > > blocks not file a diff heavy arbcom case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  >let alone the story
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Given that the other versions of "the story" are T's PR waffle
> or
> > > > > > conspiracy theories it understandable that people are going to go
> > > with
> > > > > > the option that at least gives them something to work from.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > geni
> 

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

[Dennis During]

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
matters, from sports to baking.

On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 3:32 PM Dan Rosenthal  wrote:

> 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
> people who don't know they're being accused' and "very basic principle[s]
> of Human Rights and dignity" over someone getting banned from a website
> over bad conduct issues.  You need not reply -- I'm done with this portion
> of the conversation.
>
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:03 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> > Of course you may argue that since the WMF is a private organization,
> they
> > are free to engage in this kind of secret trials, star chambers and
> > kangaroo courts at will. As others already stated, the matter here is not
> > if they can, but if they should be engaging on those schemes, as they are
> > now.
> >
> > Best,
> > Paulo
> >
> >
> >
> > A sábado, 15 de jun de 2019, 18:39, Dan Rosenthal 
> > escreveu:
> >
> > > 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
> > > hyperbole that this is somehow a human rights violation.
> > >
> > >
> > > Dan Rosenthal
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 11:35 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > > being forgotten.
> > > > There is not the least appearance of due process happening there, but
> > > that
> > > > has not stopped people from finding themselves their guilty part of
> > > > election, using their own bias to evaluate the case.
> > > > Including some Wikipedia related social network accounts that should
> be
> > > > acting more responsible and wiser than joining the rabble in the
> > offwiki
> > > > harassment of their guilty part of choice.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Paulo
> > > >
> > > > geni  escreveu no dia sábado, 15/06/2019 à(s)
> > 17:15:
> > > >
> > > > > 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 improve behaviour through threat of
> > > > > blocks not file a diff heavy arbcom case.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  >let alone the story
> > > > >
> > > > > Given that the other versions of "the story" are T's PR waffle or
> > > > > conspiracy theories it understandable that people are going to go
> > with
> > > > > the option that at least gives them something to work from.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > geni
> > > > >
> > > > > ___
> > > > > 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,
> > > > >  ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > ___
> > > > 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

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

"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 all
"guilty parts" of anyone's choice.

Of the parts purportedly involved in this: One editor banned for one year,
another editor not contributing to the project since the scandal began; and
the Wikimedia flagship project in severe disruption - that's what this
absolutely disastrous WMF intervention managed to achieve.

And "secret trials punishing people who don't even know they're being
accused, not of what they are being accused" is not hyperbole, is fact. And
I don't need this recent issue with Fram to state that. I've personally
dealt with at least two situations which were factually that.

Best,
Paulo

Dan Rosenthal  escreveu no dia sábado, 15/06/2019
à(s) 20:32:

> 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
> people who don't know they're being accused' and "very basic principle[s]
> of Human Rights and dignity" over someone getting banned from a website
> over bad conduct issues.  You need not reply -- I'm done with this portion
> of the conversation.
>
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:03 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> > Of course you may argue that since the WMF is a private organization,
> they
> > are free to engage in this kind of secret trials, star chambers and
> > kangaroo courts at will. As others already stated, the matter here is not
> > if they can, but if they should be engaging on those schemes, as they are
> > now.
> >
> > Best,
> > Paulo
> >
> >
> >
> > A sábado, 15 de jun de 2019, 18:39, Dan Rosenthal 
> > escreveu:
> >
> > > 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
> > > hyperbole that this is somehow a human rights violation.
> > >
> > >
> > > Dan Rosenthal
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 11:35 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > > being forgotten.
> > > > There is not the least appearance of due process happening there, but
> > > that
> > > > has not stopped people from finding themselves their guilty part of
> > > > election, using their own bias to evaluate the case.
> > > > Including some Wikipedia related social network accounts that should
> be
> > > > acting more responsible and wiser than joining the rabble in the
> > offwiki
> > > > harassment of their guilty part of choice.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Paulo
> > > >
> > > > geni  escreveu no dia sábado, 15/06/2019 à(s)
> > 17:15:
> > > >
> > > > > 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 improve behaviour through threat of
> > > > > blocks not file a diff heavy arbcom case.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  >let alone the story
> > > > >
> > > > > Given that the other versions of "the story" are T's PR waffle or
> > > > > conspiracy theories it understandable that people are going to go
> > with
> > > > > the option that at least gives them something to work from.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > geni
> > > > >
> > > > > ___
> > > > > 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

[Dan Rosenthal]

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
people who don't know they're being accused' and "very basic principle[s]
of Human Rights and dignity" over someone getting banned from a website
over bad conduct issues.  You need not reply -- I'm done with this portion
of the conversation.

On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:03 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
> Of course you may argue that since the WMF is a private organization, they
> are free to engage in this kind of secret trials, star chambers and
> kangaroo courts at will. As others already stated, the matter here is not
> if they can, but if they should be engaging on those schemes, as they are
> now.
>
> Best,
> Paulo
>
>
>
> A sábado, 15 de jun de 2019, 18:39, Dan Rosenthal 
> escreveu:
>
> > 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
> > hyperbole that this is somehow a human rights violation.
> >
> >
> > Dan Rosenthal
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 11:35 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > > being forgotten.
> > > There is not the least appearance of due process happening there, but
> > that
> > > has not stopped people from finding themselves their guilty part of
> > > election, using their own bias to evaluate the case.
> > > Including some Wikipedia related social network accounts that should be
> > > acting more responsible and wiser than joining the rabble in the
> offwiki
> > > harassment of their guilty part of choice.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Paulo
> > >
> > > geni  escreveu no dia sábado, 15/06/2019 à(s)
> 17:15:
> > >
> > > > 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 improve behaviour through threat of
> > > > blocks not file a diff heavy arbcom case.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  >let alone the story
> > > >
> > > > Given that the other versions of "the story" are T's PR waffle or
> > > > conspiracy theories it understandable that people are going to go
> with
> > > > the option that at least gives them something to work from.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > geni
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > 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: 

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

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

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.

Of course you may argue that since the WMF is a private organization, they
are free to engage in this kind of secret trials, star chambers and
kangaroo courts at will. As others already stated, the matter here is not
if they can, but if they should be engaging on those schemes, as they are
now.

Best,
Paulo



A sábado, 15 de jun de 2019, 18:39, Dan Rosenthal 
escreveu:

> 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
> hyperbole that this is somehow a human rights violation.
>
>
> Dan Rosenthal
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 11:35 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
> paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > being forgotten.
> > There is not the least appearance of due process happening there, but
> that
> > has not stopped people from finding themselves their guilty part of
> > election, using their own bias to evaluate the case.
> > Including some Wikipedia related social network accounts that should be
> > acting more responsible and wiser than joining the rabble in the offwiki
> > harassment of their guilty part of choice.
> >
> > Best,
> > Paulo
> >
> > geni  escreveu no dia sábado, 15/06/2019 à(s) 17:15:
> >
> > > 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 improve behaviour through threat of
> > > blocks not file a diff heavy arbcom case.
> > >
> > >
> > >  >let alone the story
> > >
> > > Given that the other versions of "the story" are T's PR waffle or
> > > conspiracy theories it understandable that people are going to go with
> > > the option that at least gives them something to work from.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > geni
> > >
> > > ___
> > > 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

[Dan Rosenthal]

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
hyperbole that this is somehow a human rights violation.


Dan Rosenthal


On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 11:35 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> being forgotten.
> There is not the least appearance of due process happening there, but that
> has not stopped people from finding themselves their guilty part of
> election, using their own bias to evaluate the case.
> Including some Wikipedia related social network accounts that should be
> acting more responsible and wiser than joining the rabble in the offwiki
> harassment of their guilty part of choice.
>
> Best,
> Paulo
>
> geni  escreveu no dia sábado, 15/06/2019 à(s) 17:15:
>
> > 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 improve behaviour through threat of
> > blocks not file a diff heavy arbcom case.
> >
> >
> >  >let alone the story
> >
> > Given that the other versions of "the story" are T's PR waffle or
> > conspiracy theories it understandable that people are going to go with
> > the option that at least gives them something to work from.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > geni
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

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
being forgotten.
There is not the least appearance of due process happening there, but that
has not stopped people from finding themselves their guilty part of
election, using their own bias to evaluate the case.
Including some Wikipedia related social network accounts that should be
acting more responsible and wiser than joining the rabble in the offwiki
harassment of their guilty part of choice.

Best,
Paulo

geni  escreveu no dia sábado, 15/06/2019 à(s) 17:15:

> 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 improve behaviour through threat of
> blocks not file a diff heavy arbcom case.
>
>
>  >let alone the story
>
> Given that the other versions of "the story" are T's PR waffle or
> conspiracy theories it understandable that people are going to go with
> the option that at least gives them something to work from.
>
>
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> ___
> 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

[geni]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept writing
> garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage! Harassment!
> Bad!"
>

I think there is general agreement that such flagging could have been
handled better.


> If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR SOURCES
> PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement anyway.

Ah questionable. If you look at Prod blp the standard is at least one
source. This is one of the reasons that DKY is such a flashpoint. Its
meant to be a fairly light weight thing for new editors but at the
same time it's often the first time people encounter more extensive
standards and at the same time the fact it appears on the main page
means that at least some people view it as rather important. On top of
that you have more experienced editors using as GA lite who struggle
to understand why other editors have such a hard time meeting what are
to them such miminal standards.

-- 
geni

___
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

[geni]

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?
>


-- 
geni

___
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

[geni]

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 improve behaviour through threat of
blocks not file a diff heavy arbcom case.


 >let alone the story

Given that the other versions of "the story" are T's PR waffle or
conspiracy theories it understandable that people are going to go with
the option that at least gives them something to work from.




--
geni

___
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]

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
secret trials.

As far as I know, Arbcom is not doing that, but the WMF is.

Paulo


A sábado, 15 de jun de 2019, 15:37, Robert Fernandez 
escreveu:

> 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
> > anonymous paid staff is by far the worse, and I see it as in direct
> > opposition to the principles underlying the entire wikipedia effort.
>
> ___
> 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] Results of the Affiliate Selected Board Seats voting

[phoebe ayers]

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 improving the election, I hope that in the next round
we will share good practices for how affiliates can use the elections to
get their members and friends more involved in thinking about strategy and
Wikimedia. It's a great opportunity for groups!

Thanks to everyone involved,
Phoebe

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 6:56 PM Ad Huikeshoven  wrote:

> *Dear Wikimedians, We are writing to let you know the result of the
> election for the 2 Affiliate Selected Board Seats on the Wikimedia
> Foundation board. The successful candidates were Nataliia Tymkiv and Shani
> Evenstein Sigalov. A total of 122 affiliates voted, 85% of the 143 eligible
> to vote, which is a record. As you know the election was conducted under a
> variation of the Single Transferable Vote, which meant that prorated votes
> were redistributed between candidates to come up with the final result. In
> the 10th step of counting the final place, after Nataliia Tymkiv was
> elected, was between Shani Evenstein Sigalov (40.519678) and Richard Knipel
> (40.480322).  We have put the full count narrative on meta so that others
> can verify it if they wish.[1] It is the closest ASBS result for some time,
> and all candidates brought very valuable perspectives to the work of the
> WMF.  In the 9th step of counting Reda Kerbouche lost by a very small
> margin. Adding a ballot with rank #1 for Richard or Reda would result in
> them being elected instead of Shani. The same goes for removing a ballot.
> Changing the ranking on one of the ballots in a specific can way can result
> in a different outcome for the second seat. This is an election in which
> every vote counts.  As in any election, there is a chance that some voters
> misinterpreted the instructions and voted wrongly. We don't see a
> justification for an action as extraordinary and controversial as opening
> votes for review after the vote period is over. The instructions were
> visible and clear: "Rank any candidate from 1 (your preferred candidate) to
> 11 (your least preferred candidate)." After voting, voters received a
> confirmation email stating the name of each candidate they voted with the
> number of their rank: Rank 1, Rank 2, ... The agency of voters should be
> respected. As part of the retrospective we may identify areas of
> improvements on our side, but still the process was quite simple and
> documented. Some voters realized they made a mistake and requested a new
> ballot. New ballots were issued in those cases. This choice was done
> because of the specific situation of this election, since the process was
> complex for new affiliates 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

[Robert Fernandez]

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
> anonymous paid staff is by far the worse, and I see it as in direct
> opposition to the principles underlying the entire wikipedia effort.

___
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

[Vi to]

Il giorno sab 15 giu 2019 alle ore 04:32 David Goodman 
ha scritto:

> 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 have out of the box solutions at
all.


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


The precedent is already set, the difference seems to be in collective
perception. I'm not aware of the rationale for this ban and it seems
community members complaining about it don't have a clue too.

Vito
___
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,