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

The pace of discussions about this incident appear to be slowing, both here and on ENWP. Discussions on ENWP seems to be turning towards longer term topics. I think that some of these discussions could instead have happened in better circumstances. I do not envision any likely outcome where the

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

I'm continuing to think about the WMF Board's handling of this matter, but I am experiencing considerable difficulty with wording my comments in a way that is diplomatic. Hopefully I'll have further comments to share here next week. In the meantime, and perhaps of greater interest to other

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

One could say that deletionism is just as toxic, cutting off valuable off-springs at the root, based on the balance of different views present at the birth. Walking around with the intent to cut for a long time, has an effect on how one relates to the world. On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 12:15, Benjamin

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

I see the main and most important trend just now is the broad usage and introduction  of Wikidata in strengthening and extending Wikipedia content. And Wikidata works against deletionism. All Pokemons shall have separate WD objects, independency how it is in Wikipedia articles. And as WD is

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

As a strong inclusionist myself, I'm a bit disappointed to see this. See also: https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism On Jul 5, 2019, at 3:15 AM, Todd Allen wrote: > Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of garbage > pile up. Deletionism just takes out the

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

Jonathan + Adrian -- thank you for the thoughtful ideas. Seconding that: ~ We could use warmer, less confusing ways to handle edit conflicts, deletion, and edit wars ~ We have the luxury of trying many approaches in different places, and iterating Nathan wrote: > You want a revolution to make

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

I wish that it were. Unfortunately, it is actually the case. Todd On Fri, Jul 5, 2019, 5:42 AM Michel Vuijlsteke wrote: > This is sarcasm, right? Right? > > On Fri, 5 Jul 2019, 12:16 Todd Allen, wrote: > > > Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of garbage > > pile up.

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

This is sarcasm, right? Right? On Fri, 5 Jul 2019, 12:16 Todd Allen, wrote: > Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of garbage > pile up. Deletionism just takes out the trash. We did it with damn Pokemon, > and we'll eventually do it with junk football "biographies", with

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

How open minded ... That said can people participating to this thread respect the soft limit of this mailing list, i.e. this is not a chat, and I'm pretty sure your answers can wait 24 hours. Thank you. Le ven. 5 juil. 2019 à 12:16, Todd Allen a écrit : > Well, inclusionism generally is

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

It isn't magic. People have studied how and why it was successful and other projects were not. Wikipedia 2019 isn't the same as Wikipedia 2001. We've made lots of changes that we thought at the time were radical along the way. On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 6:01 AM Todd Allen wrote: > That "arcane

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

Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of garbage pile up. Deletionism just takes out the trash. We did it with damn Pokemon, and we'll eventually do it with junk football "biographies", with "football" in the sense of American and otherwise. We'll sooner or later get it done

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

Nathan > Yes, the environment is full of toxic people. This has always been true, > and yet it exists. You want a revolution to make Wikipedia a friendlier > place? It isn't going to happen. There is no such place, at least not with > the critical mass of human participants that this project

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

-Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pine W Sent: 05 July 2019 01:11 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block Hi Peter, My view is that accountability should start at the top of an organization

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

Some training and assessment might be useful. P -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Raddatz Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2019 3:56 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

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

Hoi, Sorry but there is no reflection and all I read is an apologist telling us that English Wikipedia is the best there is. It is not, not by far. What is thought of as the English Wikipedia community are the old hands steeped in the arcane lore that are the policies that defend the status quo

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

Thankfully the gamut of human nature is far wider than just 4chan and Reddit. On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 7:31 PM Nathan wrote: > > > Yes, the environment is full of toxic people. This has always been true, > and yet it exists. You want a revolution to make Wikipedia a friendlier > place? It isn't

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

On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 10:56 AM Gerard Meijssen wrote: > > > It is well known that English Wikipedia is considered a toxic environment > This has been known by all for a very long time. The fact of the matter is > that the arbitration committee is not able to do something about it. There > are

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

> > > Also, I believe that the > near-miracle of English Wikipedia should be tended with great care, and > that the scars from this incident will be with us for a long time. > > Pine > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) > I

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

...@lists.wikimedia.org] On > Behalf Of Pine W > Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 10:29 PM > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block > > Hello Wikimedia-l colleagues, > > I hope that your day is going well. > > There ar

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

Hoi, Let me be simple. A friend of mine was banned for life by the WMF, there was no room for discussion so the notion that this is a first is not accurate. It is well known that English Wikipedia is considered a toxic environment This has been known by all for a very long time. The fact of the

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

Defining the problem and solutions is easy too. Getting the core editing community to agree to any change is the difficult part. Problems: - Discussions favour the loudest voice and the people who refuse to walk away. Wiki people often say that there are no barriers to participation, but if you

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

Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic editing environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples. On the

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

To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block Hoi, I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What I find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost the community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable

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

t; > Cheers, > > Peter > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On > > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen > > Sent: 04 July 2019 09:59 > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [Wiki

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

l Message- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On > Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen > Sent: 04 July 2019 09:59 > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block > > Hoi, > The community is responsib

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

List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block Hoi, The community is responsible for its actions. It is widely acknowledged that the English Wikipedia is a toxic environment. The community has not taken this on board, has not fixed the damage. At some stage an inflection point exists

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

List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block > > Hello Wikimedia-l colleagues, > > I hope that your day is going well. > > There are some updates regarding the topics that we are discussing in this > thread. I am writing this email in a personal

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

, July 3, 2019 10:29 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block Hello Wikimedia-l colleagues, I hope that your day is going well. There are some updates regarding the topics that we are discussing in this thread. I am writing this email in a personal

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

Katherine, a wonderful reply, including: "*Members of this community have spent thousands of hours... developing the processes, roles, and governance structures that are critical to sustaining English Wikipedia. In doing so, you have not only made English Wikipedia possible, but shaped the

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

Hello Wikimedia-l colleagues, I hope that your day is going well. There are some updates regarding the topics that we are discussing in this thread. I am writing this email in a personal capacity. As a reminder, the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee published an open letter on 30 June

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

Hoi, Bans that cannot be appealed against are nothing new. A friend of mine has a lifetime ban and there are mitigating circumstances (imho). Having said that; for me a person who shuns Wikipedia as an editor for its negativity, this has been a long time coming and is very welcome. When people

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

I would urge anyone who is following this thread to read and contemplate the Arbcom open letter to the WMF, posted early on June 30th. Link:

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

I agree that it is completely counterproductive to discuss issues like who filed the complaint. What is however important to understand, especially for those who are not English Wikipedia insiders, is that the reaction which this event caused in unprecedent. For example, by now 19 active admins

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

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019, 14:48 Thomas Townsend wrote: Considering that nobody posting has any information about the facts of the case, would it not be better to cease from speculation which can have no positive aspects but will certainly be offensive or even defamatory to named individuals.

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

Astonishing the amount of speculation on this list about what might have happened and who might or might not be telling the truth. Considering that nobody posting here has any information about the facts of the case, would it not be better to cease from speculation which can have no positive

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

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 3:58 PM Robert Fernandez wrote: > Because they'd be immediately accused of libeling him and it would > turn into a he said/they said. > > Also, while I do think the WMF should be in the business of blocking > problem-causing users, it shouldn't be in the business of

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

Because they'd be immediately accused of libeling him and it would turn into a he said/they said. Also, while I do think the WMF should be in the business of blocking problem-causing users, it shouldn't be in the business of speaking out against them publicly. On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 3:39 PM

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

Do you at least believe him when he says he hasn't contacted anyone offwiki, and everything he was warned about was onwiki? And if he really is lying, why can't they even say so? On Jun 28, 2019, at 12:14 PM, Robert Fernandez wrote: > I do. > > It just doesn’t make any sense. His

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

I do. It just doesn’t make any sense. His account is either wrong or leaving out much of the truth. I have some idea (from unfortunate experience) how long office bans take, how much work goes into them, and how many people have to sign off on them. So we’re either saying one person with a

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

The files were mainly kept because most of them were considered to be utilitarian objects, but IMO the rationale was correct, as all of them are modern props from the Lord of the Rings movie series. Personally, I think it could be interpreted or construed as some kind of petty revenge from Fram

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

I think many Commons users would be flatly insulted by the idea that they wouldn't take action against something done on Commons because an English Wikipedia admin did it. Commons is as fiercely protective of its independence as EN-WP is. And this elides a crucial question: Were the deletion

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

Not really demonizing WMF, but healthily not trusting at face value what they say, specially given WMF quite messy record at that. The WMF interference in that Wikipedia community was completely out of process, and to the moment lacking any justification worth of that name. IMO it is OK for that

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

- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Isaac Olatunde Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 12:01 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block Nobody seems to be insinuating that Fram is lying. It's just plain stupidity

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

Nobody seems to be insinuating that Fram is lying. It's just plain stupidity to demonize the WMF's action solely on their part of the story alone. Fram has penchant for irritating people he disagrees with and it's possible they have crossed the line. Recently there was an AbCom case against

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

Why do you doubt Fram? What do you think happened? And why can't the WMF say even so much as a, "That's not accurate."? You really think he's just outright lying? On Jun 14, 2019, at 4:03 PM, David Gerard wrote: > If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible, >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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 >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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

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

+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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

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

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

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

: Friday, June 14, 2019 4:51 AM To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block > No idea what could be the relation with GamerGate I too see nothing in common, and since at least a handful of people hold this view, could the parallels that they

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

> No idea what could be the relation with GamerGate I too see nothing in common, and since at least a handful of people hold this view, could the parallels that they see to be made explicit, please? > pathological people, having been called out on being pathological I am having trouble finding

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

Quoting seraphimblade onwiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram#Editorial_independence_of_the_English_Wikipedia_community_and_response_to_Jan “Very well, here's the feedback: Don't ever again take an action of this nature. Take

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

No idea what could be the relation with GamerGate and the current issue onwiki at wiki en. Would you care to elaborate? Paulo A quinta, 13 de jun de 2019, 19:53, David Gerard escreveu: > I think the problem is that the pathological people, having been > called out on being pathological,

  1   2   >