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

[Pine W]

 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
benefits that are associated with this incident will outweigh the harms.

Below I share some comments that I selected from the lists of resignations
,
retirements
,
and strikes
.
Some of the people who made these comments may return to activity or
reclaim their permissions, but my guess is that some of them will not.

A minority of the statements protested the community's actions.

* "I cannot support a community that undermines T"
* "...the enwiki community is like the world's largest dysfunctional
family, and I no longer wish to hold a position of responsibility here"
* "... no interest in helping a project that willfully allows and condones
harassment, intimidation and stalking."

The majority protested WMF's actions.

* "the whole WMF ban mess was the straw that broke the camel's back"
* "in protest of the Wikimedia Foundation's inconsistent, opaque, oblivious
and inadequate handling of user conduct issues"
* "dispirited by the recent action of T, and even more so by their
refusal to explain their action in any meaningful way, to provide any
mechanism for an appeal, or to negotiate on a compromise"
* "I am not willing to serve Jan and the T team … under undisclosed new
rules and under threat of unappealable sanctions should I (or those I
interact with) violate those undisclosed rules, rather than serving the
Wikipedia Community under its imperfect but transparent and accountable
rules."
* "We are not subjects of the WMF ... you have to give us the same respect
you demand for yourselves."
* "YeahI handed in my bit too; somehow I can feel a change in the
windcommunity seems to matter less and less."
* "There's not much to say that hasn't already been said better by others,
so I'll spare everyone my own manifesto except to say there are a lot of
good people who edit here, and I will miss working with you all very much"
* "I have thought long and hard about this, but do not feel able to
continue to contribute in the current environment. I had hoped it would be
resolved satisfactorily by now, but this is looking increasingly unlikely.
Please accept my resignation and remove the admin tools. Thank you and best
wishes"
* "I am resigning my adminship to protest the contempt the WMF organization
and CEO have for WP's volunteers"
* "I would like to express my disappointment at the way the WMF has handled
this matter so far"
* "I'm out unless and until the foundation repairs it's relationship with
this community."
* "...an utterly empty shell statement. ... When (if?) this resolves I will
consider to ask it back, but currently it is of no use for me. WMF can do
it by themselves in the meantime."
* "I found the Board's response to the Fram affair disappointing to put it
mildly..."
* "enough. Email me when the WMF takes steps to actually fix this place
instead of destroy it."
* "retiring until WMF provide suitable explanation for their behaviour"
* "One of the great things about volunteering is that when an organisation
supposedly devoted to supporting you shows itself incapable of providing a
level of support that you consider adequate, there are no adverse
consequence from simply withdrawing your labour, which is what I am now
doing"
* "I have decided to not edit in content for a period commensurate with
Fram's ban, . .not out of solidarity with F. Out of outrage for the WMF's
kangaroo court encroachment."
* "I am 100% OUT on doing another site maintenance task of any type until
this is resolved properly. This includes for me particularly New Page
Patrolling, Articles for Deletion, RFA commentary, vandal revision (of
which I do very, very little anyway), and notice board participation. I am
not your unpaid intern, WMF."
* "I learned about this late, but I don't work for bullies. I'll not be
editing mainspace until this is satisfactorily resolved."

Personally, I think that the community's ideals are amazing, and the fact
that English Wikipedia works as well as it does reminds me of an eternal
flame . But that flame
operates with a complex web of trust, and if its highly privileged
caretakers attack it or handle it carelessly, then I think that its future
is in doubt.

Hopefully this will give the WMF Board something to contemplate.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

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

[Pine W]

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
participants in this mailing list thread:

* Discussion about related issues continues on English Wikipedia at [1
],
[2
],
[3 ], and
elsewhere.

* Arbcom has passed a related motion
,
and there is a related case that is under consideration but might be
declined
.
(Disclosure: I made a statement in the latter case, and also participated
in the related discussion at ANI).

* The English Wikipedia page that describes WMF Office actions
 has been changed
,
including being changed to communicate that it describes a WMF policy
 and not an English
Wikipedia community policy
. There
may be further changes to that page; some related discussion may be found
on the associated talk page
.

Regards,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
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

[Aron Manning]

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 Ikuta  wrote:

>
>
> 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 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 with "populated places" and the like too.
> >
> > NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub
> > "article".
> >
> > As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any
> > editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate
> > sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet
> > ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an
> > article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to
> > show sourcing immediately.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers <
> werespielchequ...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> 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 English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because
> we
> >> have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
> >> sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last
> >> year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information,
> >> these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs.
> I
> >> would have voted to accept cases , and  and
> >> these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction
> ,
> >> z"
> >>
> >> Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
> >> community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued
> >> for, among other things:
> >>
> >>
> >>   1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
> >>   to blocks.
> >>   2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
> >>   creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins
> find
> >>   them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
> >>   3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing
> edits.
> >>
> >>
> >> None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
> >> environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for
> example
> >> some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit
> conflict
> >> understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents
> where
> >> people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one
> >> the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some
> deletionists
> >> even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
> >> deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
> >>
> >> My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
> >> ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter
> people
> >> you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different
> versions
> >> of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their
> >> native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some
> other
> >> Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture
> might
> >> think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm
> being
> >> nuanced and diplomatic.
> >>
> >> Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have
> communicated
> >> before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
> >> would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem
> >> was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some
> >> Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on
> Wikipedia.
> >> But other Wikipedians might have agreed with  the WMF if only we knew
> what
> >> the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might
> >> support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support
> >> empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed
> reason
> >> where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was
> now
> >> an 

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

[Anders Wennersten]

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 
he sum of all version articles, if any version see a a subject worth to 
have a Wikipedia article it will also exist a WDobject for it.


In practice it has meant  for us working in a small version, that we are 
in general going the inclusionist way. We focus more that there exist 
good sources and that the facts will not be changes over time (but it 
must also be known to a substitutional number of people)


I perceive enwp is lagging in the embracing of Wikidata. It could be 
understood considering that enwp has less need to lean on WD objects in 
their article writing then smaller versions, but is interesting it could 
also effect secondary issues like the debate of  inclusionism and 
deletionism.


In my personal vision, in 5-10 years there will exist techniques that 
enable readers to access Wikidata fact in an interface as in Wikipedia, 
extending number of articles you can access in "Wikipedia" in a given 
language  to multiply by perhaps a factor 10  or more, a higher factor 
for a small language an lower for like enwp - truly a way to "spread 
knowledge to all humankind"


Anders



Den 2019-07-06 kl. 12:14, skrev Benjamin Ikuta:


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 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 with "populated places" and the like too.

NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub
"article".

As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any
editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate
sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet
ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an
article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to
show sourcing immediately.

Todd

On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers 
wrote:


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 English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we
have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last
year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information,
these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I
would have voted to accept cases , and  and
these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction ,
z"

Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued
for, among other things:


   1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
   to blocks.
   2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
   creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins find
   them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
   3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing edits.


None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for example
some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict
understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents where
people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one
the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some deletionists
even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.

My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter people
you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different versions
of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their
native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some other
Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture might
think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm being
nuanced and diplomatic.

Specifically in the case of 

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

[Benjamin Ikuta]

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 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 with "populated places" and the like too.
> 
> NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub
> "article".
> 
> As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any
> editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate
> sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet
> ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an
> article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to
> show sourcing immediately.
> 
> Todd
> 
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers 
> wrote:
> 
>> 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 English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we
>> have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
>> sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last
>> year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information,
>> these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I
>> would have voted to accept cases , and  and
>> these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction ,
>> z"
>> 
>> Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
>> community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued
>> for, among other things:
>> 
>> 
>>   1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
>>   to blocks.
>>   2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
>>   creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins find
>>   them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
>>   3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing edits.
>> 
>> 
>> None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
>> environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for example
>> some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict
>> understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents where
>> people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one
>> the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some deletionists
>> even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
>> deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
>> 
>> My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
>> ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter people
>> you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different versions
>> of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their
>> native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some other
>> Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture might
>> think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm being
>> nuanced and diplomatic.
>> 
>> Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have communicated
>> before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
>> would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem
>> was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some
>> Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on Wikipedia.
>> But other Wikipedians might have agreed with  the WMF if only we knew what
>> the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might
>> support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support
>> empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason
>> where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was now
>> an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but
>> enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in
>> trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a  toxic way.
>> 
>> Jonathan
>> 
>> 
 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 and
 finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no 

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

[Samuel Klein]

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 Wikipedia a friendlier place?...

There is no such place... Have you been to a city?


Yes. Some disarmingly well-designed and welcoming, despite their density.
The question is not whether better equilibria exist; they do.  It is why
they are often hard to recognize, try out, and adopt.  Your insistence that
'there is no such place' is quite extraordinary, really: and highlights the
challenge.

Todd Allen writes:
> Well, inclusionism generally is toxic.

  Smooth redefinition of terms.  Jonathan's proposal was so kind +
specific, and you're spoiling for a fight.
Most of us have an opinion on inclu/delight, and would be glad to debate
it, but this thread isn't the place.

Pierre-Selim:
> can people participating to this thread respect the soft limit of this
mailing list, i.e. this is not a chat

Thanks for the reminder.  More than one post per day in a thread is
probably too much...
___
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 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. 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 with "populated places" and the like too.
> >
> > NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub
> > "article".
> >
> > As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any
> > editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate
> > sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet
> > ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an
> > article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to
> > show sourcing immediately.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers <
> > werespielchequ...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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 English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because
> we
> > > have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
> > > sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the
> last
> > > year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private
> information,
> > > these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing
> arbs. I
> > > would have voted to accept cases , and  and
> > > these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction
> ,
> > > z"
> > >
> > > Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
> > > community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have
> argued
> > > for, among other things:
> > >
> > >
> > >1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so
> quickly
> > >to blocks.
> > >2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
> > >creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins
> > find
> > >them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
> > >3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing
> > edits.
> > >
> > >
> > > None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
> > > environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for
> > example
> > > some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit
> conflict
> > > understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents
> > where
> > > people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit
> one
> > > the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some
> > deletionists
> > > even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
> > > deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
> > >
> > > My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
> > > ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter
> > people
> > > you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different
> > versions
> > > of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in
> their
> > > native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some
> > other
> > > Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture
> > might
> > > think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm
> > being
> > > nuanced and diplomatic.
> > >
> > > Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have
> > communicated
> > > before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
> > > would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their
> problem
> > > was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some
> > > Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on
> > Wikipedia.
> > > But other Wikipedians might have agreed with  the WMF if only we knew
> > what
> > > the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might
> > > support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support
> > > empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed
> reason
> > > where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was
> > now
> > > an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but
> > > enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in
> > > trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself 

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

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

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
> "football" in the sense of American and otherwise. We'll sooner or later
> get it done with "populated places" and the like too.
>
> NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub
> "article".
>
> As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any
> editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate
> sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet
> ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an
> article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to
> show sourcing immediately.
>
> Todd
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers <
> werespielchequ...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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 English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we
> > have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
> > sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last
> > year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information,
> > these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I
> > would have voted to accept cases , and  and
> > these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction ,
> > z"
> >
> > Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
> > community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued
> > for, among other things:
> >
> >
> >1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
> >to blocks.
> >2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
> >creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins
> find
> >them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
> >3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing
> edits.
> >
> >
> > None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
> > environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for
> example
> > some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict
> > understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents
> where
> > people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one
> > the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some
> deletionists
> > even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
> > deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
> >
> > My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
> > ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter
> people
> > you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different
> versions
> > of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their
> > native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some
> other
> > Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture
> might
> > think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm
> being
> > nuanced and diplomatic.
> >
> > Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have
> communicated
> > before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
> > would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem
> > was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some
> > Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on
> Wikipedia.
> > But other Wikipedians might have agreed with  the WMF if only we knew
> what
> > the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might
> > support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support
> > empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason
> > where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was
> now
> > an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but
> > enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in
> > trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a  toxic way.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> > > > 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 and
> > > > finally has to deal with 

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

[Pierre-Selim]

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 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 with "populated places" and the like too.
>
> NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub
> "article".
>
> As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any
> editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate
> sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet
> ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an
> article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to
> show sourcing immediately.
>
> Todd
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers <
> werespielchequ...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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 English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we
> > have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
> > sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last
> > year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information,
> > these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I
> > would have voted to accept cases , and  and
> > these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction ,
> > z"
> >
> > Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
> > community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued
> > for, among other things:
> >
> >
> >1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
> >to blocks.
> >2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
> >creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins
> find
> >them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
> >3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing
> edits.
> >
> >
> > None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
> > environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for
> example
> > some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict
> > understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents
> where
> > people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one
> > the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some
> deletionists
> > even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
> > deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
> >
> > My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
> > ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter
> people
> > you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different
> versions
> > of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their
> > native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some
> other
> > Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture
> might
> > think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm
> being
> > nuanced and diplomatic.
> >
> > Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have
> communicated
> > before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
> > would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem
> > was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some
> > Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on
> Wikipedia.
> > But other Wikipedians might have agreed with  the WMF if only we knew
> what
> > the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might
> > support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support
> > empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason
> > where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was
> now
> > an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but
> > enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in
> > trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a  toxic way.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this.
> What I
> > > > find is that 

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

[Robert Fernandez]

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 lore" has resulted in the largest educational work ever
> produced by humanity, and free for everyone both as in speech and as in
> beer.
>
> So I think we need to consider carefully before radically changing it. It
> has worked, and worked unimaginably well, for most of two decades. That's
> not to say it can't still be improved, but the proof is in the results. If
> the English Wikipedia were badly broken, it wouldn't be a fixture of modern
> life.
>
> Todd
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 11:54 PM Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> > 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 and keep
> > others out. Just consider, I read a thread where it was put that a Jess
> > Wade would not make administrator because (all kinds of repressive
> > arguments that make my skin crawl). Just consider, I have formulated as a
> > problem that 6% of list items in English Wikipedia refer to false friends
> > and or do not link to the right article. I have formulated a solution
> that
> > involves Wikidata and find that it is not even considered. Just consider,
> > in an arbcom case where I have a beef I included my point of view. It was
> > not accepted because it did not comply with a set format and was
> threatened
> > that I could be banned because (I did not get the legalese).
> >
> > English Wikipedia is toxic and we can lose a substantial number of people
> > when the result is that we open up and allow for new, other arguments. It
> > is toxic because it considers itself complete as it is and consequently
> > does a substandard job in "sharing the sum of all knowledge".
> >
> > Keeping things as they were is not an option.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 01:27, Nathan  wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  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 think there's a kernel here of something really important. An
> argument
> > > can be made (and has been, I'm sure) that the English Wikipedia is a
> > modern
> > > Wonder of the World. It's a towering achievement of technology and
> > > humanity. It's humanity means that, like all of our towering
> > achievements,
> > > it can't escape our flaws. The world is full of toxic people. Released
> > from
> > > the risk of being iced out of society or punched in the face, they let
> > that
> > > toxicity reign on the Internet and all of its spaces - including
> > Wikipedia.
> > > The idea that the WMF or the Wikipedia community is going to solve this
> > > problem is earnest and well-meaning but foolish.
> > >
> > > Yet Wikipedia was brought into being despite the toxicity, and has
> > survived
> > > and thrived all this time alongside the struggles of human interaction.
> > So
> > > maybe what we really need is for the WMF to be hands off and let the
> > forces
> > > that created this "miracle" keep doing their work, and for the
> community
> > of
> > > the English Wikipedia to keep struggling but with the practical
> > realization
> > > that success means just keeping temps below a rolling boil.
> > > ___
> > > 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

[Todd Allen]

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 with "populated places" and the like too.

NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub
"article".

As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any
editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate
sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet
ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an
article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to
show sourcing immediately.

Todd

On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers 
wrote:

> 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 English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we
> have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
> sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last
> year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information,
> these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I
> would have voted to accept cases , and  and
> these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction ,
> z"
>
> Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
> community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued
> for, among other things:
>
>
>1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
>to blocks.
>2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
>creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins find
>them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
>3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing edits.
>
>
> None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
> environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for example
> some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict
> understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents where
> people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one
> the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some deletionists
> even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
> deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
>
> My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
> ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter people
> you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different versions
> of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their
> native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some other
> Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture might
> think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm being
> nuanced and diplomatic.
>
> Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have communicated
> before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
> would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem
> was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some
> Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on Wikipedia.
> But other Wikipedians might have agreed with  the WMF if only we knew what
> the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might
> support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support
> empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason
> where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was now
> an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but
> enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in
> trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a  toxic way.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> > > 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 and
> > > finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on
> > en.wp
> > > practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere.
> > > Thanks,
> > >  GerardM
> > >
> >
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and

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

[Thomas Townsend]

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 needs. Have you
> been to a city? Have you seen Reddit or 4chan? Participated in a national
> election? If so, do you really think that the WMF is going to institute
> some sort of culture program that will solve problems inherent in human
> nature?

Nathan

I think we in agreement that people en masse rarely organise
themselves effectively to achieve a common goal.  The examples you
cite, together with Wikipedia and the other projects demonstrate that
well.  The solution, then is not for some attempt to tweak the culture
so that the desired effective organisation happens spontaneously, but
for an external structure to be imposed.   There are models for
organising tens of thousands of people to create, curate and
disseminate knowledge -- universities, schools, libraries, academies,
leaned societies, ...

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

[Peter Southwood]

Hi Pine, 
I more often find myself agreeing with you than not, but there are often 
nuanced differences in that opinion, which is generally not a problem. 
I agree that the board could have expressed their consensus opinion 
differently, but the fact that it is a consensus opinion will necessarily 
affect the expression, and what they have said fits into the range I find 
acceptable.  I maintain that the Board is not the nanny of WMF and that where 
the WMF does something surprising the board is not necessarily culpable. This 
is one of those cases. Opinions obviously vary considerably here, from those 
who think WMF handled it well to those who will not be satisfied until heads 
roll. That again is Wikipedia, and Nathan expresses the situation quite well. 
The board is accountable, but not necessarily at fault for failing to prevent 
this case. It is now their duty to fix it, and I support then in such efforts. 
We still don't have enough information to make a fair judgement on WMF. They 
will not give it to us, so must not be surprised when a history of blunders is 
held against them. We must necessarily judge on the available evidence, and we 
will pass judgement. It is what we do all the time on Wikipedia, it is a 
necessary part of building an encyclopedia. They do good work too, but that 
good, as Shakespeare said, is oft interred with their bones.
As you say, community members are not servants, and I agree with the rest of 
that paragraph.
Cheers,
Peter

-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.

I was trying to think of a better word than "supervising" for the concept
that I had in mind. After further consideration, I think that "governing"
would have been a better choice.

I am disappointed by the WMF Board's tone and its lack of apology. In the
Board's words, "The Board views this as part of a much-needed community
debate on toxic behavior. In spite of the considerable disruption this has
caused for many, we hope this serves as a catalyzing moment for us to move
forward together to ensure the health and vitality of our communities." In
other words, the Board thinks that the "considerable disruption" is
acceptable, perhaps even good in the big picture. Also, the Board
apologizes for nothing.

I believe that community members are not servants, and are not okay to
ignore, mistreat, or throw away casually. 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 )


On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 00:32 Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> The board does not manage WMF. It is not their fault when a department
> does something stupid if they had no warning that it was likely to happen.
> People who signed off on the ban decision may have reason to apologise,
> others not.  The board is responsible for ensuring that the damage is fixed
> and taking reasonably practicable precautions for preventing a recurrence.
> Due diligence is their duty, not exhaustive diligence or micromanagement.
> Cheers, Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@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 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 that was directed to the WMF Board
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram=904149076=904147649
> >.
> I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some
> updates, and finally making some personal comments.
>
> I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.
>
> * "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk, and
> a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired from
> Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."
>
> * "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no
> community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with
> harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally
> misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness, consensus

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

[Peter Southwood]

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

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 have anything better to do with your time, arguing over mundane
article details while being attacked/insulted by the other side becomes
undesirable very quickly.
- Admins are often some of the worst offenders.
- ANI follows none of the best practices for dispute resolution.

For solutions:
- Hold people accountable for their behaviour regardless of whether or not
they are correct.
- And ultimately just try other approaches. It's an internet website, we
can change or amend things if they don't work.

Adrian Raddatz


On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:39 AM WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we
> have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
> sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last
> year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information,
> these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I
> would have voted to accept cases , and  and
> these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction ,
> z"
>
> Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
> community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued
> for, among other things:
>
>
>1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
>to blocks.
>2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
>creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins find
>them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
>3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing edits.
>
>
> None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
> environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for example
> some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict
> understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents where
> people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one
> the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some deletionists
> even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
> deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
>
> My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
> ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter people
> you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different versions
> of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their
> native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some other
> Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture might
> think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm being
> nuanced and diplomatic.
>
> Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have communicated
> before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
> would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem
> was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some
> Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on Wikipedia.
> But other Wikipedians might have agreed with  the WMF if only we knew what
> the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might
> support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support
> empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason
> where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was now
> an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but
> enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in
> trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a  toxic way.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> > > Hoi,
> > > I am astounded that

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

[Gerard Meijssen]

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 and keep
others out. Just consider, I read a thread where it was put that a Jess
Wade would not make administrator because (all kinds of repressive
arguments that make my skin crawl). Just consider, I have formulated as a
problem that 6% of list items in English Wikipedia refer to false friends
and or do not link to the right article. I have formulated a solution that
involves Wikidata and find that it is not even considered. Just consider,
in an arbcom case where I have a beef I included my point of view. It was
not accepted because it did not comply with a set format and was threatened
that I could be banned because (I did not get the legalese).

English Wikipedia is toxic and we can lose a substantial number of people
when the result is that we open up and allow for new, other arguments. It
is toxic because it considers itself complete as it is and consequently
does a substandard job in "sharing the sum of all knowledge".

Keeping things as they were is not an option.
Thanks,
GerardM

On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 01:27, Nathan  wrote:

> >
> >
> >  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 think there's a kernel here of something really important. An argument
> can be made (and has been, I'm sure) that the English Wikipedia is a modern
> Wonder of the World. It's a towering achievement of technology and
> humanity. It's humanity means that, like all of our towering achievements,
> it can't escape our flaws. The world is full of toxic people. Released from
> the risk of being iced out of society or punched in the face, they let that
> toxicity reign on the Internet and all of its spaces - including Wikipedia.
> The idea that the WMF or the Wikipedia community is going to solve this
> problem is earnest and well-meaning but foolish.
>
> Yet Wikipedia was brought into being despite the toxicity, and has survived
> and thrived all this time alongside the struggles of human interaction. So
> maybe what we really need is for the WMF to be hands off and let the forces
> that created this "miracle" keep doing their work, and for the community of
> the English Wikipedia to keep struggling but with the practical realization
> that success means just keeping temps below a rolling boil.
> ___
> 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

[Robert Fernandez]

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 going to happen. There is no such place, at least not with
> the critical mass of human participants that this project needs. Have you
> been to a city? Have you seen Reddit or 4chan? Participated in a national
> election? If so, do you really think that the WMF is going to institute
> some sort of culture program that will solve problems inherent in human
> nature?
>
>
___
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

[Nathan]

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 many considerations possible but it is not this committee that is at
> fault it is the community itself. Many people are indignant that they are
> told that it has to stop. FRAM may be the "victim" in this but hey why not
> him? A point is being made.



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 needs. Have you
been to a city? Have you seen Reddit or 4chan? Participated in a national
election? If so, do you really think that the WMF is going to institute
some sort of culture program that will solve problems inherent in human
nature?
___
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

[Nathan]

>
>
>  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 think there's a kernel here of something really important. An argument
can be made (and has been, I'm sure) that the English Wikipedia is a modern
Wonder of the World. It's a towering achievement of technology and
humanity. It's humanity means that, like all of our towering achievements,
it can't escape our flaws. The world is full of toxic people. Released from
the risk of being iced out of society or punched in the face, they let that
toxicity reign on the Internet and all of its spaces - including Wikipedia.
The idea that the WMF or the Wikipedia community is going to solve this
problem is earnest and well-meaning but foolish.

Yet Wikipedia was brought into being despite the toxicity, and has survived
and thrived all this time alongside the struggles of human interaction. So
maybe what we really need is for the WMF to be hands off and let the forces
that created this "miracle" keep doing their work, and for the community of
the English Wikipedia to keep struggling but with the practical realization
that success means just keeping temps below a rolling boil.
___
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

[Pine W]

Hi Peter,

My view is that accountability should start at the top of an organization.

I was trying to think of a better word than "supervising" for the concept
that I had in mind. After further consideration, I think that "governing"
would have been a better choice.

I am disappointed by the WMF Board's tone and its lack of apology. In the
Board's words, "The Board views this as part of a much-needed community
debate on toxic behavior. In spite of the considerable disruption this has
caused for many, we hope this serves as a catalyzing moment for us to move
forward together to ensure the health and vitality of our communities." In
other words, the Board thinks that the "considerable disruption" is
acceptable, perhaps even good in the big picture. Also, the Board
apologizes for nothing.

I believe that community members are not servants, and are not okay to
ignore, mistreat, or throw away casually. 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 )


On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 00:32 Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> The board does not manage WMF. It is not their fault when a department
> does something stupid if they had no warning that it was likely to happen.
> People who signed off on the ban decision may have reason to apologise,
> others not.  The board is responsible for ensuring that the damage is fixed
> and taking reasonably practicable precautions for preventing a recurrence.
> Due diligence is their duty, not exhaustive diligence or micromanagement.
> Cheers, Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@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 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 that was directed to the WMF Board
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram=904149076=904147649
> >.
> I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some
> updates, and finally making some personal comments.
>
> I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.
>
> * "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk, and
> a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired from
> Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."
>
> * "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no
> community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with
> harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally
> misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness, consensus,
> and self-governance."
>
> * "*We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints
> pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local processes.*
> Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the
> Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the
> WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations
> of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in the
> arbitration policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be
> referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the
> Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases, they
> should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an
> equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would
> appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to
> harassment and hostility on the English Wikipedia
>
> * "We feel strongly that this commitment is necessary for the Arbitration
> Committee to continue to perform the role it is assigned by the English
> Wikipedia community. If we are unable to find a satisfactory resolution, at
> least four members of the committee have expressed the intention to
> resign."
>
> The following are more recent updates.
>
> * The WMF Board has made a statement
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram=904552644=904551569
> >
>
> * The WMF Executive Director (Katherine Maher) has also made a statement
> <

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

[Gerard Meijssen]

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 matter is
that the arbitration committee is not able to do something about it. There
are many considerations possible but it is not this committee that is at
fault it is the community itself. Many people are indignant that they are
told that it has to stop. FRAM may be the "victim" in this but hey why not
him? A point is being made.

Your notion of toxic behaviour of the WMF is problematic. The point is that
English Wikipedia behaviour is to change. It did not help that you all were
told to mend your ways, now reflect and come up with what you consider will
make for a more friendly environment. The good news is, you are not in a
position that you can ignore this. The notion that the WMF has to bring you
new rules is imho wrong. Roll your own.
Thanks,
   GerardMM



On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 15:39, WereSpielChequers 
wrote:

> 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 English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we
> have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
> sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last
> year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information,
> these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I
> would have voted to accept cases , and  and
> these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction ,
> z"
>
> Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
> community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued
> for, among other things:
>
>
>1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
>to blocks.
>2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
>creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins find
>them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
>3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing edits.
>
>
> None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
> environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for example
> some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict
> understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents where
> people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one
> the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some deletionists
> even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
> deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
>
> My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
> ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter people
> you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different versions
> of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their
> native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some other
> Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture might
> think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm being
> nuanced and diplomatic.
>
> Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have communicated
> before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
> would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem
> was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some
> Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on Wikipedia.
> But other Wikipedians might have agreed with  the WMF if only we knew what
> the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might
> support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support
> empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason
> where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was now
> an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but
> enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in
> trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a  toxic way.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> > > 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 and
> > > finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on
> > en.wp
> > > 

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

[Adrian Raddatz]

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 have anything better to do with your time, arguing over mundane
article details while being attacked/insulted by the other side becomes
undesirable very quickly.
- Admins are often some of the worst offenders.
- ANI follows none of the best practices for dispute resolution.

For solutions:
- Hold people accountable for their behaviour regardless of whether or not
they are correct.
- And ultimately just try other approaches. It's an internet website, we
can change or amend things if they don't work.

Adrian Raddatz


On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:39 AM WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we
> have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
> sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last
> year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information,
> these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I
> would have voted to accept cases , and  and
> these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction ,
> z"
>
> Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
> community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued
> for, among other things:
>
>
>1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
>to blocks.
>2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
>creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins find
>them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
>3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing edits.
>
>
> None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
> environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for example
> some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict
> understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents where
> people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one
> the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some deletionists
> even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
> deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.
>
> My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
> ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter people
> you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different versions
> of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their
> native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some other
> Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture might
> think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm being
> nuanced and diplomatic.
>
> Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have communicated
> before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
> would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem
> was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some
> Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on Wikipedia.
> But other Wikipedians might have agreed with  the WMF if only we knew what
> the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might
> support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support
> empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason
> where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was now
> an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but
> enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in
> trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a  toxic way.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> > > 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 and
> > > finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on
> > en.wp
> > > practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere.
> > > Thanks,
> > >  GerardM
> > >
> >
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> 

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

[WereSpielChequers]

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 English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we
have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the
sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last
year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information,
these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I
would have voted to accept cases , and  and
these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction ,
z"

Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the
community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued
for, among other things:


   1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly
   to blocks.
   2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article
   creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins find
   them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours
   3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing edits.


None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic
environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for example
some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict
understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents where
people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one
the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some deletionists
even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline
deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct.

My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be
ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter people
you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different versions
of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their
native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some other
Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture might
think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm being
nuanced and diplomatic.

Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have communicated
before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF
would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem
was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some
Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on Wikipedia.
But other Wikipedians might have agreed with  the WMF if only we knew what
the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might
support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support
empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason
where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was now
an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but
enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in
trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a  toxic way.

Jonathan


> > 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 and
> > finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on
> en.wp
> > practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere.
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> >
>
>
___
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

[Peter Southwood]

Gerard,
Did you read and understand my first comment in this thread?
You may be surprised to find that the board has indicated that WMF (or parts 
thereof, we should not tar everyone there with the same brush) was indeed at 
fault in their handling of this issue. I am inclined to accept this finding. I 
do not at any point claim that the English Wikipedia community is without 
fault, which seems to be your implication. 
Cheers,
Peter


-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Gerard Meijssen
Sent: 04 July 2019 11:11
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 and
finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on en.wp
practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 10:48, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Gerard,
> Is your response to my email intended to have any relevance to my
> statement? If so please clarify.
> 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: [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 where the community if forced to reflect. Sadly, the English
> Wikipedia has proven to be unable to get its house in order nor does it
> show reflection that give hope for a better future.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 09:32, Peter Southwood  >
> wrote:
>
> > The board does not manage WMF. It is not their fault when a department
> > does something stupid if they had no warning that it was likely to
> happen.
> > People who signed off on the ban decision may have reason to apologise,
> > others not.  The board is responsible for ensuring that the damage is
> fixed
> > and taking reasonably practicable precautions for preventing a
> recurrence.
> > Due diligence is their duty, not exhaustive diligence or micromanagement.
> > Cheers, Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@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 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 that was directed to the WMF Board
> > <
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram=904149076=904147649
> > >.
> > I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some
> > updates, and finally making some personal comments.
> >
> > I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.
> >
> > * "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk,
> and
> > a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired
> from
> > Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."
> >
> > * "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no
> > community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with
> > harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally
> > misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness,
> consensus,
> > and self-governance."
> >
> > * "*We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints
> > pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local
> processes.*
> > Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the
> > Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the
> > WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations
> > of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in
> the
> > arbitration policy. Complaints that can b

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

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

What exactly has the English Wikipedia accepted? As far as I know we don't
known on what the WMF thinks they failed. It is just speculation and
personal opinions.

Paulo

A quinta, 4 de jul de 2019, 10:11, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> escreveu:

> 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 and
> finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on en.wp
> practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 10:48, Peter Southwood  >
> wrote:
>
> > Gerard,
> > Is your response to my email intended to have any relevance to my
> > statement? If so please clarify.
> > 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: [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 where the community if forced to reflect. Sadly, the English
> > Wikipedia has proven to be unable to get its house in order nor does it
> > show reflection that give hope for a better future.
> > Thanks,
> >GerardM
> >
> > On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 09:32, Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The board does not manage WMF. It is not their fault when a department
> > > does something stupid if they had no warning that it was likely to
> > happen.
> > > People who signed off on the ban decision may have reason to apologise,
> > > others not.  The board is responsible for ensuring that the damage is
> > fixed
> > > and taking reasonably practicable precautions for preventing a
> > recurrence.
> > > Due diligence is their duty, not exhaustive diligence or
> micromanagement.
> > > Cheers, Peter
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@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 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 that was directed to the WMF Board
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram=904149076=904147649
> > > >.
> > > I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some
> > > updates, and finally making some personal comments.
> > >
> > > I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.
> > >
> > > * "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk,
> > and
> > > a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired
> > from
> > > Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."
> > >
> > > * "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no
> > > community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing
> with
> > > harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally
> > > misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness,
> > consensus,
> > > and self-governance."
> > >
> > > * "*We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints
> > > pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local
> > processes.*
> > > Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the
> > > Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and
> the
> > > WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential
> allegations
&

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

[Gerard Meijssen]

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 and
finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on en.wp
practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 10:48, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> Gerard,
> Is your response to my email intended to have any relevance to my
> statement? If so please clarify.
> 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: [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 where the community if forced to reflect. Sadly, the English
> Wikipedia has proven to be unable to get its house in order nor does it
> show reflection that give hope for a better future.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 09:32, Peter Southwood  >
> wrote:
>
> > The board does not manage WMF. It is not their fault when a department
> > does something stupid if they had no warning that it was likely to
> happen.
> > People who signed off on the ban decision may have reason to apologise,
> > others not.  The board is responsible for ensuring that the damage is
> fixed
> > and taking reasonably practicable precautions for preventing a
> recurrence.
> > Due diligence is their duty, not exhaustive diligence or micromanagement.
> > Cheers, Peter
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@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 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 that was directed to the WMF Board
> > <
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram=904149076=904147649
> > >.
> > I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some
> > updates, and finally making some personal comments.
> >
> > I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.
> >
> > * "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk,
> and
> > a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired
> from
> > Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."
> >
> > * "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no
> > community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with
> > harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally
> > misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness,
> consensus,
> > and self-governance."
> >
> > * "*We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints
> > pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local
> processes.*
> > Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the
> > Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the
> > WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations
> > of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in
> the
> > arbitration policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be
> > referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the
> > Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases, they
> > should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an
> > equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would
> > appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to
> > harassment and hostility on the English Wikipedia
> >
> > * "We feel strongly that this commitment is necessary for the Arbitration
> > Committee to continue to perform the role it is assigned by the En

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

[Peter Southwood]

Gerard,
Is your response to my email intended to have any relevance to my statement? If 
so please clarify. 
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: [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 where the community if forced to reflect. Sadly, the English
Wikipedia has proven to be unable to get its house in order nor does it
show reflection that give hope for a better future.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 09:32, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> The board does not manage WMF. It is not their fault when a department
> does something stupid if they had no warning that it was likely to happen.
> People who signed off on the ban decision may have reason to apologise,
> others not.  The board is responsible for ensuring that the damage is fixed
> and taking reasonably practicable precautions for preventing a recurrence.
> Due diligence is their duty, not exhaustive diligence or micromanagement.
> Cheers, Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@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 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 that was directed to the WMF Board
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram=904149076=904147649
> >.
> I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some
> updates, and finally making some personal comments.
>
> I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.
>
> * "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk, and
> a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired from
> Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."
>
> * "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no
> community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with
> harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally
> misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness, consensus,
> and self-governance."
>
> * "*We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints
> pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local processes.*
> Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the
> Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the
> WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations
> of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in the
> arbitration policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be
> referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the
> Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases, they
> should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an
> equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would
> appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to
> harassment and hostility on the English Wikipedia
>
> * "We feel strongly that this commitment is necessary for the Arbitration
> Committee to continue to perform the role it is assigned by the English
> Wikipedia community. If we are unable to find a satisfactory resolution, at
> least four members of the committee have expressed the intention to
> resign."
>
> The following are more recent updates.
>
> * The WMF Board has made a statement
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram=904552644=904551569
> >
>
> * The WMF Executive Director (Katherine Maher) has also made a statement
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Katherine_(WMF)=904607134=904605950
> >
> .
>
> My personal comments follow.
>
> I appreciate the WMF Executive Director's statement. I think that her
> statement is a good starting point for further communications between the
> staff and the community, particularly the English Wik

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

[Gerard Meijssen]

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 where the community if forced to reflect. Sadly, the English
Wikipedia has proven to be unable to get its house in order nor does it
show reflection that give hope for a better future.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 09:32, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> The board does not manage WMF. It is not their fault when a department
> does something stupid if they had no warning that it was likely to happen.
> People who signed off on the ban decision may have reason to apologise,
> others not.  The board is responsible for ensuring that the damage is fixed
> and taking reasonably practicable precautions for preventing a recurrence.
> Due diligence is their duty, not exhaustive diligence or micromanagement.
> Cheers, Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@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 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 that was directed to the WMF Board
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram=904149076=904147649
> >.
> I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some
> updates, and finally making some personal comments.
>
> I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.
>
> * "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk, and
> a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired from
> Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."
>
> * "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no
> community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with
> harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally
> misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness, consensus,
> and self-governance."
>
> * "*We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints
> pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local processes.*
> Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the
> Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the
> WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations
> of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in the
> arbitration policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be
> referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the
> Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases, they
> should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an
> equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would
> appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to
> harassment and hostility on the English Wikipedia
>
> * "We feel strongly that this commitment is necessary for the Arbitration
> Committee to continue to perform the role it is assigned by the English
> Wikipedia community. If we are unable to find a satisfactory resolution, at
> least four members of the committee have expressed the intention to
> resign."
>
> The following are more recent updates.
>
> * The WMF Board has made a statement
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram=904552644=904551569
> >
>
> * The WMF Executive Director (Katherine Maher) has also made a statement
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Katherine_(WMF)=904607134=904605950
> >
> .
>
> My personal comments follow.
>
> I appreciate the WMF Executive Director's statement. I think that her
> statement is a good starting point for further communications between the
> staff and the community, particularly the English Wikipedia community.
>
> I was hoping for a statement from the WMF Board that was humble and
> apologetic regarding recent disruption that has stressed many people in the
> community, led to numerous resignations, and consumed countless hours of
> volunteers' valuable time. Perhaps I overlooked them, but I do not see the
> words "apology&q

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

[Peter Southwood]

The board does not manage WMF. It is not their fault when a department does 
something stupid if they had no warning that it was likely to happen. People 
who signed off on the ban decision may have reason to apologise, others not.  
The board is responsible for ensuring that the damage is fixed and taking 
reasonably practicable precautions for preventing a recurrence. Due diligence 
is their duty, not exhaustive diligence or micromanagement. 
Cheers, Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@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 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 that was directed to the WMF Board
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram=904149076=904147649>.
I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some
updates, and finally making some personal comments.

I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.

* "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk, and
a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired from
Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."

* "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no
community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with
harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally
misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness, consensus,
and self-governance."

* "*We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints
pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local processes.*
Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the
Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the
WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations
of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in the
arbitration policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be
referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the
Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases, they
should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an
equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would
appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to
harassment and hostility on the English Wikipedia

* "We feel strongly that this commitment is necessary for the Arbitration
Committee to continue to perform the role it is assigned by the English
Wikipedia community. If we are unable to find a satisfactory resolution, at
least four members of the committee have expressed the intention to
resign."

The following are more recent updates.

* The WMF Board has made a statement
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram=904552644=904551569>

* The WMF Executive Director (Katherine Maher) has also made a statement
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Katherine_(WMF)=904607134=904605950>
.

My personal comments follow.

I appreciate the WMF Executive Director's statement. I think that her
statement is a good starting point for further communications between the
staff and the community, particularly the English Wikipedia community.

I was hoping for a statement from the WMF Board that was humble and
apologetic regarding recent disruption that has stressed many people in the
community, led to numerous resignations, and consumed countless hours of
volunteers' valuable time. Perhaps I overlooked them, but I do not see the
words "apology", "sorry", "regret", or similar words in the statement from
the WMF Board.

In addition to an apology, I was hoping to see the WMF Board focus on
supervising the WMF organization, which I think is its principal job.

I feel that this statement is condescending: "We believe that the
communities should be able to deal with these types of situations and
should take this as a wake-up call to improve our enforcement processes to
deal with so-called "unblockables"." I think that many of us in the
communities are aware of these problems. I do not appreciate WMF creating
unnecessary and widely harmful disruption in its quest to do top-down
social engineering. I encourage the WMF Board to develop humility, refrain
from lecturing the communities, and consider how to support the communities
in our efforts to improve ourselves.

I would encourage the WMF Board to pon

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

[Samuel Klein]

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 principles of the broader Wikimedia movement.*"

Thousands of hours per person in some cases; millions of hours in all. True
of many global social organizations and frameworks, but particularly
prolific and granular in our case, as each step along the way was done in
publicly versioned text. Time invested does not guarantee a particular
result, nor does it avoid systemic bias. But it does mean that those
committed to the communities have thought intently about even the issues
they have not yet solved; can draw on a deep body of precedent to compress
complexities into references; and remain ready and able to put more time
into improving them.

We are generally ready to consider
 bias
 and its remedies.
And often good solutions to problems have already been written down, but
trip up over implementation.
Discussing who is pushed away by each of a set of behavioral policies --
and what the obstacles are to implementing known solutions to persistent
problems -- is not a terrible approach when working to update community
norms. (the 'AGF of policymaking'?)
/SJ

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 4:35 PM Pine W  wrote:

>  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 that was directed to the WMF Board
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram=904149076=904147649
> >.
> I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some
> updates, and finally making some personal comments.
>
> I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.
>
> * "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk, and
> a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired from
> Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."
>
> * "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no
> community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with
> harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally
> misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness, consensus,
> and self-governance."
>
> * "*We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints
> pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local processes.*
> Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the
> Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the
> WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations
> of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in the
> arbitration policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be
> referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the
> Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases, they
> should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an
> equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would
> appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to
> harassment and hostility on the English Wikipedia
>
> * "We feel strongly that this commitment is necessary for the Arbitration
> Committee to continue to perform the role it is assigned by the English
> Wikipedia community. If we are unable to find a satisfactory resolution, at
> least four members of the committee have expressed the intention to
> resign."
>
> The following are more recent updates.
>
> * The WMF Board has made a statement
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram=904552644=904551569
> >
>
> * The WMF Executive Director (Katherine Maher) has also made a statement
> <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Katherine_(WMF)=904607134=904605950
> >
> .
>
> My personal comments follow.
>
> I appreciate the WMF Executive Director's statement. I think that her
> statement is a good starting point for further communications between the
> staff and the community, particularly the English Wikipedia community.
>
> I was hoping for a statement from the WMF Board that was humble and
> apologetic regarding recent disruption that has stressed many people in the
> community, led to numerous resignations, and consumed countless hours of
> volunteers' valuable time. Perhaps I overlooked them, but I do not see the
> words "apology", "sorry", "regret", or similar 

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

[Pine W]

 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 that was directed to the WMF Board
.
I will share a few quotes from that statement before providing some
updates, and finally making some personal comments.

I am retaining the font styles that Arbcom used in its letter.

* "As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk, and
a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired from
Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue."

* "If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no
community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with
harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally
misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness, consensus,
and self-governance."

* "*We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints
pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local processes.*
Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the
Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the
WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations
of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in the
arbitration policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be
referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the
Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases, they
should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an
equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would
appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to
harassment and hostility on the English Wikipedia

* "We feel strongly that this commitment is necessary for the Arbitration
Committee to continue to perform the role it is assigned by the English
Wikipedia community. If we are unable to find a satisfactory resolution, at
least four members of the committee have expressed the intention to
resign."

The following are more recent updates.

* The WMF Board has made a statement


* The WMF Executive Director (Katherine Maher) has also made a statement

.

My personal comments follow.

I appreciate the WMF Executive Director's statement. I think that her
statement is a good starting point for further communications between the
staff and the community, particularly the English Wikipedia community.

I was hoping for a statement from the WMF Board that was humble and
apologetic regarding recent disruption that has stressed many people in the
community, led to numerous resignations, and consumed countless hours of
volunteers' valuable time. Perhaps I overlooked them, but I do not see the
words "apology", "sorry", "regret", or similar words in the statement from
the WMF Board.

In addition to an apology, I was hoping to see the WMF Board focus on
supervising the WMF organization, which I think is its principal job.

I feel that this statement is condescending: "We believe that the
communities should be able to deal with these types of situations and
should take this as a wake-up call to improve our enforcement processes to
deal with so-called "unblockables"." I think that many of us in the
communities are aware of these problems. I do not appreciate WMF creating
unnecessary and widely harmful disruption in its quest to do top-down
social engineering. I encourage the WMF Board to develop humility, refrain
from lecturing the communities, and consider how to support the communities
in our efforts to improve ourselves.

I would encourage the WMF Board to ponder the harms that have resulted from
WMF's actions. I hope that we see a public apology from the WMF Board.

Katherine, thank you for your willingness to have a dialogue regarding
these matters, and your willingness to have a more cautious and respectful
approach in the future.

Writing solely in a personal capacity,

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
___
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

[Gerard Meijssen]

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 leave
Wikipedia and we end up with a more civil environment it is well worth it.

Yes I read the statement and it does say ineffect  "we struggled and were
not able to cope".
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 at 12:17, Ariel Glenn WMF  wrote:

> 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:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram#Open_letter_from_the_Arbitration_Committee_to_the_WMF_Board
>
> This statement was sorely needed, as a means to create the space for the
> sort of frank and difficult discussions that must take place in order for
> the underlying issues to be resolved.
>
> Note that I am sending this email solely in my capacity as a sporadic
> volunteer on the projects, both by name and anonymously.
> ___
> 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

[Ariel Glenn WMF]

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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram#Open_letter_from_the_Arbitration_Committee_to_the_WMF_Board

This statement was sorely needed, as a means to create the space for the
sort of frank and difficult discussions that must take place in order for
the underlying issues to be resolved.

Note that I am sending this email solely in my capacity as a sporadic
volunteer on the projects, both by name and anonymously.
___
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

[Yaroslav Blanter]

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 resigned the tools over
the incident in two weeks. Depending on the point of view, one can call
this mass protest, or mass madness, or whatever, but this is clearly not an
ordinary run-of-the-mill event. It already lead to a lot of troubles and at
this point is actually dangerous for stability of the Wikimedia universe.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 9:27 PM Dennis During  wrote:

>  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.
>
> What you recommend is against human nature.  It is natural for one to try
> to anticipate what others might do, especially if it might have
> consequences for oneself.
>
> I'm not looking forward to a wikiworld where judgment and punishment
> rendered in camera by folks whose questionable interpretations of
> platitudinous Missions and Codes is apparently shaped by the values of an
> increasingly intolerant subculture.
> ___
> 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

[Dennis During]

 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.

What you recommend is against human nature.  It is natural for one to try
to anticipate what others might do, especially if it might have
consequences for oneself.

I'm not looking forward to a wikiworld where judgment and punishment
rendered in camera by folks whose questionable interpretations of
platitudinous Missions and Codes is apparently shaped by the values of an
increasingly intolerant subculture.
___
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]

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 aspects but will certainly be offensive or
even defamatory to named individuals?

The Turnip

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 13:53, Fæ  wrote:
>
> 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
> to be experts. As someone who has had blackmail and death threats,
> advice from the WMF was a lot worse than advice I had from the either
> the police or victim support.
>
> Though my experience is mostly dated, the WMF gave me bad advice which
> significantly delayed me from contacting the police, and I cannot
> recommend that a target of harassment put their faith in the WMF if
> they are targeted with harassment. The only reason I reported some
> nasty transphobic threats targeting me earlier this year was to ensure
> that the WMF had them logged, in case there was a wider pattern of
> abuse against other LGBT+ Wikipedians. WMF T have given me no useful
> feedback or updates on my own case in the months since.
>
> I am very sorry to say this so bluntly, but from personal experience
> though WMF senior management write a lot of nice soft words about
> harassment and safe spaces, in practice a user being targeted is
> better off having private chats on IRC with volunteer stewards and
> checkusers that they trust, rather than WMF employees.
>
> P.S. I encourage the use of the words "target of harassment". Being
> labelled as a "victim" which puts the focus on you just because you
> made a complaint, rather than the troll harassing others, is not
> helpful.
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
>
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 13:29, Isaac Olatunde  wrote:
> >
> > 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
> > cannot protect anyone from off-wiki harassment. Why would people feel
> > comfortable to report a case of harassment to a community or group that can
> > not protect them?
> >
> > Isaac
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 8:33 AM Pine W  >
> > > I think that I understand the GamerGate reference. A decentralized swarm 
> > > of
> > > harassment can be a major problem, and in this case I am concerned (I
> > > haven't attempted to review the evidence) that at least one person is 
> > > being
> > > hounded off-wiki regarding their alleged involvement in this matter in a
> > > way that would receive a firm response by ENWP administrators if the same
> > > hounding was happening on ENWP.
> > >
> > > Fear of being hounded can discourage people from reporting problems.
> > >
> > > On English Wikipedia we have some administrators who are willing to make
> > > politically difficult blocks, and we have an arbitration committee that 
> > > has
> > > been willing to review alleged misconduct by high profile people including
> > > administrators, but I'm not sure that all wikis have a sufficient number 
> > > of
> > > competent and good faith administrators to address allegations of
> > > misconduct, especially misconduct by people who have relatively high 
> > > levels
> > > of local political support.
> > >
> > > Even more challenging to moderate are off-wiki activities in places which
> > > do not honor ENWP norms. I do not know of a robust solution to this
> > > problem, and my guess is that there is no robust solution unless we want
> > > governments to have more ability to proactively filter and to suppress
> > > Internet content that does not meet with their approval.
> > >
> > > I think that ENWP is more like a busy, diverse, and loud public square 
> > > than
> > > a quiet office with tight control of what everyone does and a central
> > > authority that quickly gets rid of people who make statements that are not
> > > acceptable within narrow parameters. I worry that the concept of "safe
> > > spaces" may come to mean something like: "People are only allowed to
> > > participate on Wikimedia sites if they act according to WMF's opinions
> > > regarding politically correct behavior and create content that does not
> > > offend WMF". Political correctness and safety are not characteristics that
> > > I would associate with Wikimedia sites, for better and for worse, and I
> > > think that attempting to create more political correctness and safety can
> > > come at too much expense of honesty, due process, freedom of expression,
> > > and editorial 

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

[Nathan]

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 speaking out
> against them publicly.


Robert, I don't follow your arguments here. You think the only two possible
explanations are that one or the other side is lying, and prefer a practice
where the WMF silently bans people and never offers an explanation? Neither
position seems reasonable in my opinion.
___
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

[Robert Fernandez]

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 Benjamin Ikuta  wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 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 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 checkered history is lying or a
> > large number of professionals lied, conspired, and lashed out.
> >
> > Occam’s razor.
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:15 AM Benjamin Ikuta 
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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,
> >>> 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 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 it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for
> >> what
>  they told him they sanctioned him for.
> 
>  Todd
> 
>  On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard  wrote:
> 
> > and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> > doing only what you describe?
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen  wrote:
> >>
> >> The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
> >> writing
> >> garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
> >> Harassment!
> >> 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
> >> anyway.
> >> The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had
> >> her
> >> articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> > "harassment"
> >> rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
> >> policies.
> >> Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
> > only
> >> after she has them in hand.
> >>
> >> Todd
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
> > wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done
> >> then
> >>> clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> >>>
>  This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
> 
>  The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
>  terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
> > death
>  threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
>  understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
> > and
>  threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
> > criminal
>  stuff.
> 
>  The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
>  specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
> > goes
>  against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
>  existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
>  banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees
>  start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
> > then
>  we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the
>  same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
>  administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free
>  in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time
>  employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
> 
>  If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is
>  

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

[Benjamin Ikuta]

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 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 checkered history is lying or a
> large number of professionals lied, conspired, and lashed out.
> 
> Occam’s razor.
> 
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:15 AM Benjamin Ikuta 
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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,
>>> 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 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 it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for
>> what
 they told him they sanctioned him for.
 
 Todd
 
 On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard  wrote:
 
> and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> doing only what you describe?
> 
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen  wrote:
>> 
>> The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
>> writing
>> garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
>> Harassment!
>> 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
>> anyway.
>> The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had
>> her
>> articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> "harassment"
>> rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
>> policies.
>> Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
> only
>> after she has them in hand.
>> 
>> Todd
>> 
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
> wikigamal...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done
>> then
>>> clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
>>> 
 This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
 
 The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
 terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
> death
 threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
 understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
> and
 threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
> criminal
 stuff.
 
 The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
 specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
> goes
 against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
 existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
 banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees
 start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
> then
 we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the
 same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
 administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free
 in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time
 employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
 
 If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is
 because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's
 Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should
 be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English
 Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
 policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether
 Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not
 worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on

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

[Robert Fernandez]

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 checkered history is lying or a
large number of professionals lied, conspired, and lashed out.

Occam’s razor.

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:15 AM Benjamin Ikuta 
wrote:

>
>
>
> 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,
> > 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 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 it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for
> what
> >> they told him they sanctioned him for.
> >>
> >> Todd
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard  wrote:
> >>
> >>> and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> >>> doing only what you describe?
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen  wrote:
> 
>  The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
> writing
>  garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
> Harassment!
>  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
> anyway.
>  The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had
> her
>  articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> >>> "harassment"
>  rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
> policies.
>  Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
> >>> only
>  after she has them in hand.
> 
>  Todd
> 
>  On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
> >>> wikigamal...@gmail.com>
>  wrote:
> 
> > If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done
> then
> > clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> >
> >> This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
> >>
> >> The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
> >> terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
> >>> death
> >> threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
> >> understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
> >>> and
> >> threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
> >>> criminal
> >> stuff.
> >>
> >> The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
> >> specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
> >>> goes
> >> against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> >> existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> >> banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees
> >> start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
> >>> then
> >> we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the
> >> same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
> >> administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free
> >> in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time
> >> employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
> >>
> >> If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is
> >> because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's
> >> Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should
> >> be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English
> >> Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> >> policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether
> >> Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not
> >> worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on
> >> Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other
> >> Wikimedia projects.
> >>
> >> Fae
> >> --
> >> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >>
> >> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> When you bad 

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

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

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 on Rama (every day wikipolitics) , but technically
the nominations were correct, indeed.

And it is very true that the Commons community is completely independent
from the English Wikipedia, and fiercely adamant defenders of that
independence. Someone being a sysop on the English Wikipedia, or on any
other Wikipedia project generally count zero on content decisions there.

In this specific case, it is absolutely irrelevant that Fram is or was a
sysop at wiki.en.

Best,
Paulo

A sexta, 28 de jun de 2019, 15:09, Todd Allen 
escreveu:

> 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 nominations largely
> correct or incorrect? If someone nominates a bunch of entirely appropriate
> files for deletion, that could certainly be construed as harassment or at
> minimum poor judgment on the nominator's part, but if the complaint is "I
> uploaded a bunch of inappropriate stuff and I got caught", that's
> appropriate maintenance work. So, were those files mainly deleted, or kept?
>
> Todd
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 4:22 AM Isaac Olatunde 
> wrote:
>
> > 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 Rama,  an English Wikipedia
> > administrator (now desysoped),  Commons administrator and oversighter.
> > While the case was ongoing,  Fram began to follow this user to an extent
> > that they began to mass-nominate for deletion the user's uploads on
> > Commons, a behavior the user considered as stalking and harassment. Some
> > users including myself requested that Fram stay away from Rama and their
> > uploads. A behavior  like this would normally  get users blocked but
> > nobody  felt the reason to ban or blocked Fram partly because they wear
> the
> > English Wikipedia's admin hat.
> >
> > This incident is barely a month ago.
> >
> > I am unsure if this form part of the reasons for the ban but I have no
> > enough reasons to think that the ban was unjustifiable.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Isaac
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 10:15 AM Benjamin Ikuta  > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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,
> > > > 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 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 it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him
> for
> > > what
> > > >> they told him they sanctioned him for.
> > > >>
> > > >> Todd
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard 
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> > > >>> doing only what you describe?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen 
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > >  The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
> > > writing
> > >  garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
> > > Harassment!
> > >  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
> > > anyway.
> > >  The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly
> had
> > > her
> > >  articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> > > >>> "harassment"
> > >  rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
> > > policies.
> > >  Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the
> > article
> > > >>> only
> > >  after she has them in hand.
> > > 
> > >  Todd

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

[Todd Allen]

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 nominations largely
correct or incorrect? If someone nominates a bunch of entirely appropriate
files for deletion, that could certainly be construed as harassment or at
minimum poor judgment on the nominator's part, but if the complaint is "I
uploaded a bunch of inappropriate stuff and I got caught", that's
appropriate maintenance work. So, were those files mainly deleted, or kept?

Todd

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 4:22 AM Isaac Olatunde 
wrote:

> 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 Rama,  an English Wikipedia
> administrator (now desysoped),  Commons administrator and oversighter.
> While the case was ongoing,  Fram began to follow this user to an extent
> that they began to mass-nominate for deletion the user's uploads on
> Commons, a behavior the user considered as stalking and harassment. Some
> users including myself requested that Fram stay away from Rama and their
> uploads. A behavior  like this would normally  get users blocked but
> nobody  felt the reason to ban or blocked Fram partly because they wear the
> English Wikipedia's admin hat.
>
> This incident is barely a month ago.
>
> I am unsure if this form part of the reasons for the ban but I have no
> enough reasons to think that the ban was unjustifiable.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Isaac
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 10:15 AM Benjamin Ikuta  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > 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,
> > > 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 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 it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for
> > what
> > >> they told him they sanctioned him for.
> > >>
> > >> Todd
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> > >>> doing only what you describe?
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen 
> wrote:
> > 
> >  The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
> > writing
> >  garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
> > Harassment!
> >  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
> > anyway.
> >  The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had
> > her
> >  articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> > >>> "harassment"
> >  rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
> > policies.
> >  Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the
> article
> > >>> only
> >  after she has them in hand.
> > 
> >  Todd
> > 
> >  On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
> > >>> wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > > If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done
> > then
> > > clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > >
> > >> This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
> > >>
> > >> The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
> > >> terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
> > >>> death
> > >> threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
> > >> understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
> > >>> and
> > >> threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
> > >>> criminal
> > >> stuff.
> > >>
> > >> The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
> > >> specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
> > >>> goes
> > >> 

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

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

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 community to take the measures they deem as
appropriate to prevent such kind of interference in the future.

Best.
Paulo


A sexta, 28 de jun de 2019, 11:22, Isaac Olatunde 
escreveu:

> 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 Rama,  an English Wikipedia
> administrator (now desysoped),  Commons administrator and oversighter.
> While the case was ongoing,  Fram began to follow this user to an extent
> that they began to mass-nominate for deletion the user's uploads on
> Commons, a behavior the user considered as stalking and harassment. Some
> users including myself requested that Fram stay away from Rama and their
> uploads. A behavior  like this would normally  get users blocked but
> nobody  felt the reason to ban or blocked Fram partly because they wear the
> English Wikipedia's admin hat.
>
> This incident is barely a month ago.
>
> I am unsure if this form part of the reasons for the ban but I have no
> enough reasons to think that the ban was unjustifiable.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Isaac
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 10:15 AM Benjamin Ikuta  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > 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,
> > > 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 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 it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for
> > what
> > >> they told him they sanctioned him for.
> > >>
> > >> Todd
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> > >>> doing only what you describe?
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen 
> wrote:
> > 
> >  The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
> > writing
> >  garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
> > Harassment!
> >  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
> > anyway.
> >  The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had
> > her
> >  articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> > >>> "harassment"
> >  rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
> > policies.
> >  Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the
> article
> > >>> only
> >  after she has them in hand.
> > 
> >  Todd
> > 
> >  On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
> > >>> wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > > If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done
> > then
> > > clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > >
> > >> This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
> > >>
> > >> The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
> > >> terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
> > >>> death
> > >> threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
> > >> understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
> > >>> and
> > >> threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
> > >>> criminal
> > >> stuff.
> > >>
> > >> The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
> > >> specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
> > >>> goes
> > >> against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> > >> existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > >> banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF
> employees
> > >> start doing in parallel what 

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

[Peter Southwood]

Many of us take the opposing view that we do not have enough reason to think 
the ban was justifiable, and that the ban itself is a small part of the issue, 
which is seen as lack of due process, compounded by poor communication and bad 
crisis management. 
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
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 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 Rama,  an English Wikipedia
administrator (now desysoped),  Commons administrator and oversighter.
While the case was ongoing,  Fram began to follow this user to an extent
that they began to mass-nominate for deletion the user's uploads on
Commons, a behavior the user considered as stalking and harassment. Some
users including myself requested that Fram stay away from Rama and their
uploads. A behavior  like this would normally  get users blocked but
nobody  felt the reason to ban or blocked Fram partly because they wear the
English Wikipedia's admin hat.

This incident is barely a month ago.

I am unsure if this form part of the reasons for the ban but I have no
enough reasons to think that the ban was unjustifiable.


Regards,

Isaac


On Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 10:15 AM Benjamin Ikuta 
>
>
> 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,
> > 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 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 it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for
> what
> >> they told him they sanctioned him for.
> >>
> >> Todd
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard  wrote:
> >>
> >>> and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> >>> doing only what you describe?
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen  wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
> writing
> >>>> garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
> Harassment!
> >>>> 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
> anyway.
> >>>> The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had
> her
> >>>> articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> >>> "harassment"
> >>>> rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
> policies.
> >>>> Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
> >>> only
> >>>> after she has them in hand.
> >>>>
> >>>> Todd
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
> >>> wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done
> then
> >>>>> clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
> >>>>>> terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
> >>> death
> >>>>>> threats or threats of suicide. There are pe

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

[Isaac Olatunde]

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 Rama,  an English Wikipedia
administrator (now desysoped),  Commons administrator and oversighter.
While the case was ongoing,  Fram began to follow this user to an extent
that they began to mass-nominate for deletion the user's uploads on
Commons, a behavior the user considered as stalking and harassment. Some
users including myself requested that Fram stay away from Rama and their
uploads. A behavior  like this would normally  get users blocked but
nobody  felt the reason to ban or blocked Fram partly because they wear the
English Wikipedia's admin hat.

This incident is barely a month ago.

I am unsure if this form part of the reasons for the ban but I have no
enough reasons to think that the ban was unjustifiable.


Regards,

Isaac


On Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 10:15 AM Benjamin Ikuta 
>
>
> 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,
> > 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 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 it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for
> what
> >> they told him they sanctioned him for.
> >>
> >> Todd
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard  wrote:
> >>
> >>> and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> >>> doing only what you describe?
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen  wrote:
> 
>  The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
> writing
>  garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
> Harassment!
>  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
> anyway.
>  The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had
> her
>  articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> >>> "harassment"
>  rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
> policies.
>  Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
> >>> only
>  after she has them in hand.
> 
>  Todd
> 
>  On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
> >>> wikigamal...@gmail.com>
>  wrote:
> 
> > If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done
> then
> > clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> >
> >> This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
> >>
> >> The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
> >> terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
> >>> death
> >> threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
> >> understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
> >>> and
> >> threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
> >>> criminal
> >> stuff.
> >>
> >> The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
> >> specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
> >>> goes
> >> against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> >> existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> >> banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees
> >> start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
> >>> then
> >> we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the
> >> same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
> >> administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free
> >> in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time
> >> employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
> >>
> >> If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is
> >> because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's
> >> Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should
> >> be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English
> 

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

[Benjamin Ikuta]

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,
> 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 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 it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for what
>> they told him they sanctioned him for.
>> 
>> Todd
>> 
>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard  wrote:
>> 
>>> and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
>>> doing only what you describe?
>>> 
>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen  wrote:
 
 The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept writing
 garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage! Harassment!
 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 anyway.
 The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had her
 articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
>>> "harassment"
 rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's policies.
 Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
>>> only
 after she has them in hand.
 
 Todd
 
 On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
>>> wikigamal...@gmail.com>
 wrote:
 
> If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done then
> clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> 
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> 
>> This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
>> 
>> The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
>> terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
>>> death
>> threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
>> understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
>>> and
>> threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
>>> criminal
>> stuff.
>> 
>> The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
>> specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
>>> goes
>> against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
>> existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
>> banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees
>> start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
>>> then
>> we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the
>> same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
>> administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free
>> in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time
>> employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
>> 
>> If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is
>> because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's
>> Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should
>> be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English
>> Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
>> policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether
>> Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not
>> worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on
>> Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other
>> Wikimedia projects.
>> 
>> Fae
>> --
>> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>> 
>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be,
>> consequences.
>>> An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So
>>> what? The
>>> only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do
> whatever
>>> they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes
>>> ballistic
>> when
>>> consequences happen.
>>> 
>>> I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if
>>> that
>> did
>>> not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year
>>> is
>> like
>>> telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is
>>> clearly
>> overly
>>> 

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] 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, 

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

[David Goodman]

I do not think any of the present or recent past arb com members are at all
bothered by insults, however unjustified. People involved in arb cases
often tend to get emotional and even a little irrational. We just ignore
them.

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:37 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 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!"
> > >
> > > 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.
> > > The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had her
> > > articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> > "harassment"
> > > rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's policies.
> > > Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
> > only
> > > after she has them in hand.
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
> > wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done
> then
> > > > clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
> > > > >
> > > > > The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
> > > > > terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
> > death
> > > > > threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
> > > > > understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
> > and
> > > > > threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
> > criminal
> > > > > stuff.
> > > > >
> > > > > The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
> > > > > specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
> > goes
> > > > > against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> > > > > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > > > > banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees
> > > > > start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
> > then
> > > > > we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators
> the
> > > > > same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
> > > > > administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for
> free
> > > > > in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time
> > > > > employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
> > > > >
> > > > > If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is
> > > > > because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or
> Wikipedia's
> > > > > Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they
> should
> > > > > be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English
> > > > > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> > > > > policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than
> whether
> > > > > Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was
> not
> > > > > worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on
> > > > > Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on
> other
> > > > > Wikimedia projects.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fae
> > > > > --
> > > > > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad 
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be,
> > > > > consequences.
> > > > > > An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So
> > what? The
> > > > > > only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do
> > > > whatever
> > > > > > they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes
> > ballistic
> > > > > when
> > > > > > consequences happen.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if
> > that
> > > > > did
> > > > > > not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one
> year
> > is
> > > > > like
> > > > > > telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is
> > clearly
> > > > > overly
> > > > > > sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong.
> > > > > > ___
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > 

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

[David Goodman]

From my perspective of 4 years on enWP arb com, there is no question that
the enWP does not deal well with routine low-level harassment in the
absence of something really awful. If it were done by the WMF using
in-camera proceedings, , there would probably be more actual problem
editors sanctioned, and  probably more over-reaction and sanctions based on
unfair accusations. Opinions vary about the relative importance of those
two, but as for me, 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.

If the WMF would assist the enWP to develop its own procedures, towards
something that would be both effective and fair, *that* would be useful.
The nature of this event causes me to doubt they could do it.  For one
thing, they do not seem to understand that sanctions of this sort teach the
lesson only if they are closely related in time to the offense, not follow
months afterwards--otherwise it is punitive, not corrective.  Much worse,
it seems  they do not  understand or value the concept of basic fairness.

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.

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:14 PM Todd Allen  wrote:

> 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 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 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 it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for
> > what
> > > they told him they sanctioned him for.
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> > > > doing only what you describe?
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
> > writing
> > > > > garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
> > Harassment!
> > > > > 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
> > anyway.
> > > > > The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had
> > her
> > > > > articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> > > > "harassment"
> > > > > rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
> > policies.
> > > > > Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the
> article
> > > > only
> > > > > after she has them in hand.
> > > > >
> > > > > Todd
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
> > > > wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is
> done
> > then
> > > > > > clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban
> > paedophiles,
> > > > > > > terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple
> cross-wiki
> > > > death
> > > > > > > threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
> > > > > > > understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these
> > attacks
> > > > and
> > > > > > > threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
> > > > criminal
> > > > > > > stuff.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
> > > > > > > specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention,
> which
> > > > goes
> > > > > > > against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not
> > replace
> > > > > > > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > > > > > > banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF
> > employees
> > > > > > > start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already
> do,
> > > > then
> > > > > > > we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers
> administrators
> > the
> > > > > > > same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
> > > > > > > 

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

[Todd Allen]

You ought to read the entire paragraph. Such as the part where I explicitly
acknowledged that Fram's version of events may be inaccurate or incomplete.

Todd

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 5:03 PM David Gerard  wrote:

> If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible,
> let alone the 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 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 it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for
> what
> > they told him they sanctioned him for.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard  wrote:
> >
> > > and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> > > doing only what you describe?
> > >
> > > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
> writing
> > > > garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
> Harassment!
> > > > 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
> anyway.
> > > > The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had
> her
> > > > articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> > > "harassment"
> > > > rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
> policies.
> > > > Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
> > > only
> > > > after she has them in hand.
> > > >
> > > > Todd
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
> > > wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done
> then
> > > > > clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban
> paedophiles,
> > > > > > terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
> > > death
> > > > > > threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
> > > > > > understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these
> attacks
> > > and
> > > > > > threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
> > > criminal
> > > > > > stuff.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
> > > > > > specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
> > > goes
> > > > > > against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not
> replace
> > > > > > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > > > > > banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF
> employees
> > > > > > start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
> > > then
> > > > > > we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators
> the
> > > > > > same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
> > > > > > administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for
> free
> > > > > > in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time
> > > > > > employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is
> > > > > > because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or
> Wikipedia's
> > > > > > Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they
> should
> > > > > > be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English
> > > > > > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation
> of
> > > > > > policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than
> whether
> > > > > > Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was
> not
> > > > > > worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on
> > > > > > Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on
> other
> > > > > > Wikimedia projects.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fae
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad  >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be,
> > > > > > consequences.
> > > > > > > An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So
> > > what? The
> > > > > > > only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do
> > > > > whatever
> > > > > > > they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes
> > 

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

[David Gerard]

If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible,
let alone the story, then you're less competent than I have previously
considered you to be.

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for
> maintenance 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 it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for what
> they told him they sanctioned him for.
>
> Todd
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard  wrote:
>
> > and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> > doing only what you describe?
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen  wrote:
> > >
> > > The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept writing
> > > garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage! Harassment!
> > > 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 anyway.
> > > The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had her
> > > articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> > "harassment"
> > > rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's policies.
> > > Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
> > only
> > > after she has them in hand.
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
> > wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done then
> > > > clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
> > > > >
> > > > > The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
> > > > > terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
> > death
> > > > > threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
> > > > > understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
> > and
> > > > > threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
> > criminal
> > > > > stuff.
> > > > >
> > > > > The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
> > > > > specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
> > goes
> > > > > against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> > > > > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > > > > banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees
> > > > > start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
> > then
> > > > > we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the
> > > > > same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
> > > > > administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free
> > > > > in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time
> > > > > employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
> > > > >
> > > > > If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is
> > > > > because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's
> > > > > Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should
> > > > > be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English
> > > > > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> > > > > policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether
> > > > > Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not
> > > > > worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on
> > > > > Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other
> > > > > Wikimedia projects.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fae
> > > > > --
> > > > > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad 
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be,
> > > > > consequences.
> > > > > > An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So
> > what? The
> > > > > > only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do
> > > > whatever
> > > > > > they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes
> > ballistic
> > > > > when
> > > > > > consequences happen.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if
> > that
> > > > > did
> > > > > > not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year
> > is
> > > > > like
> > > > > > telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is
> > clearly
> > > > > overly
> > > > > > sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong.
> > > > > > 

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

[effe iets anders]

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

- Arbcom case around the desysop/resysop of WJBscribe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#WJBscribe

I haven't read everything in detail, but these seem the snippets most
relevant to the global community. I'm still struggling to find a good
summary of what the new (global) processes/policies of SuSa to address
harassment in the broad sense of the word are - Jan only linked to an
annual plan announcing them. But then, given the sheer amount of text, I
probably missed it if anyone posted a link.

Lodewijk

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 3:16 PM Dan Rosenthal  wrote:

> 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
> knowing, planned, intentional reversal of an office action against policy,
> right?
>
> Possible indications of an incipient wheel war:
>
>- An administrator getting too distressed to discuss calmly.
>- Deliberately ignoring an existing discussion in favor of a
>unilateral preferred action.
>- Abruptly undoing administrator actions without consultation.
>- *Reversal of a Wikimedia Foundation office action
>.*
>
>
> Dan Rosenthal
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:06 PM effe iets anders 
> wrote:
>
>> 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 lead to
>> any
>> constructive outcome. I hope that someone picks up the challenge and
>> brings
>> together the WMF and community before this spins further out of control.
>> (I'm naively assuming that the WMF would be willing to engage at least
>> privately in conversation if it relies on private information, or publicly
>> if it does not).
>>
>> Lodewijk
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:40 PM Robert Fernandez 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > 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 anyone on Wikipedia using the c-word.
>> >
>> > Framing it as "the culture of the community" leaves out of the
>> > community all of us who are sick of this behavior, including long-time
>> > veterans of the community like myself (fifteen years), and community
>> > victims of harassment asking T for help.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:58 PM Todd Allen 
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "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, there
>> > > absolutely would be such a discussion. But as to why, the answer, very
>> > > simply, is that the English Wikipedia community values competence over
>> > > politeness, and probably always will. That is part of the culture of
>> the
>> > > community, and the WMF has no right to override that.
>> > >
>> > > Todd
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:46 AM camelia boban <
>> camelia.bo...@gmail.com>
>> > > 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* 

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

[Dan Rosenthal]

Wow, that logs page is something else. Pretty ironic that Bishonen would
accuse the Office account of "wheel warring", when the wheel warring policy
explicitly states that reversing an Office Action is indicative of wheel
warring. So I'm *sure* we'll see suitable discussions of sanctions for the
knowing, planned, intentional reversal of an office action against policy,
right?

Possible indications of an incipient wheel war:

   - An administrator getting too distressed to discuss calmly.
   - Deliberately ignoring an existing discussion in favor of a unilateral
   preferred action.
   - Abruptly undoing administrator actions without consultation.
   - *Reversal of a Wikimedia Foundation office action
   .*


Dan Rosenthal


On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:06 PM effe iets anders 
wrote:

> 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 lead to any
> constructive outcome. I hope that someone picks up the challenge and brings
> together the WMF and community before this spins further out of control.
> (I'm naively assuming that the WMF would be willing to engage at least
> privately in conversation if it relies on private information, or publicly
> if it does not).
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:40 PM Robert Fernandez 
> wrote:
>
> > 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 anyone on Wikipedia using the c-word.
> >
> > Framing it as "the culture of the community" leaves out of the
> > community all of us who are sick of this behavior, including long-time
> > veterans of the community like myself (fifteen years), and community
> > victims of harassment asking T for help.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:58 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
> > >
> > > "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, there
> > > absolutely would be such a discussion. But as to why, the answer, very
> > > simply, is that the English Wikipedia community values competence over
> > > politeness, and probably always will. That is part of the culture of
> the
> > > community, and the WMF has no right to override that.
> > >
> > > Todd
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:46 AM 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.
> > > > >
> > > > 

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

[effe iets anders]

Great, now we have a wheelwar going on (
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block=Fram ). I
have a hard time seeing how this would help anyone.

A massive discussion where everyone tries to say something and nobody
really reads everything (because how could you) is not going to lead to any
constructive outcome. I hope that someone picks up the challenge and brings
together the WMF and community before this spins further out of control.
(I'm naively assuming that the WMF would be willing to engage at least
privately in conversation if it relies on private information, or publicly
if it does not).

Lodewijk

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:40 PM Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> 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 anyone on Wikipedia using the c-word.
>
> Framing it as "the culture of the community" leaves out of the
> community all of us who are sick of this behavior, including long-time
> veterans of the community like myself (fifteen years), and community
> victims of harassment asking T for help.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:58 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> > "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, there
> > absolutely would be such a discussion. But as to why, the answer, very
> > simply, is that the English Wikipedia community values competence over
> > politeness, and probably always will. That is part of the culture of the
> > community, and the WMF has no right to override that.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:46 AM 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 

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

[Todd Allen]

Well, you'll get no argument from me that I wish people wouldn't be
gratuitously rude. (Or use that word; nothing good ever comes of that.)

I am certainly not endorsing that. At the same time, some of the most
disruptive editors I've seen were unfailingly polite.

Todd

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 3:40 PM Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> 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 anyone on Wikipedia using the c-word.
>
> Framing it as "the culture of the community" leaves out of the
> community all of us who are sick of this behavior, including long-time
> veterans of the community like myself (fifteen years), and community
> victims of harassment asking T for help.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:58 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> > "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, there
> > absolutely would be such a discussion. But as to why, the answer, very
> > simply, is that the English Wikipedia community values competence over
> > politeness, and probably always will. That is part of the culture of the
> > community, and the WMF has no right to override that.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:46 AM 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,
> > > 
> > 

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

[Robert Fernandez]

Framing it as "competence over politeness" is convenient for the
people who do not want the latter and imagine they are the former.

It also insults the editors who have managed to do both.  I know an
en.wp editor who has dozens of FAs and somehow managed the herculean
feat of not referring to anyone on Wikipedia using the c-word.

Framing it as "the culture of the community" leaves out of the
community all of us who are sick of this behavior, including long-time
veterans of the community like myself (fifteen years), and community
victims of harassment asking T for help.


On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:58 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> "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, there
> absolutely would be such a discussion. But as to why, the answer, very
> simply, is that the English Wikipedia community values competence over
> politeness, and probably always will. That is part of the culture of the
> community, and the WMF has no right to override that.
>
> Todd
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:46 AM 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 

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

[Vi to]

Sometimes is hard to tell a harsh dispute from lack of civility.

Generally it's easy to focus on form rather than on substance.

Some issues are very complex to handle, for example some weeks ago,
criticizing someone (who wrote an aggravating email on this thread) brought
me to receive some truly nice insults in a private email. It's a very
complex case of a behavior which is formally "right" but which is widely
considered as destructive within the involved community.

WMF bans are meant to handle issues which cannot be handled by ordinary
community means, above all because they involve out-of-wiki elements.

In a recent incident I advocated for some changes in WMF ban (namely,
giving a wider framework to people which are supposed to help enforcing
them) but in my experience none of WMF ban I have sufficient background to
judge was unjustified.

Vito

Il giorno ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 22:52 Andy Mabbett <
a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> ha scritto:

> 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 difficult, if not impossible, to effectively sanction an editor
> > with a substantial contingent of vocal supporters who will argue against
> > any such sanctions whenever the opportunity arises.
>
> This.
>
> And a number (not everyone, of course) of those screaming loudest
> about the WMF's recent action are those whose style of behaviour would
> see them sanctioned if a civility policy were properly enforced.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> 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

[Andy Mabbett]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 19:18, Kirill Lokshin  wrote:

> Rather, the problem occurs when a *popular* competent editor violates the
> civility policy (or, for particularly popular editors, virtually any other
> policy); the traditional consensus-based approach to policy enforcement
> makes it difficult, if not impossible, to effectively sanction an editor
> with a substantial contingent of vocal supporters who will argue against
> any such sanctions whenever the opportunity arises.

This.

And a number (not everyone, of course) of those screaming loudest
about the WMF's recent action are those whose style of behaviour would
see them sanctioned if a civility policy were properly enforced.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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

[Kirill Lokshin]

That's overstating the community's position a bit, I think.  Despite the
occasional attempt to get rid of the civility policy, the community has
continued to support it -- at least in the abstract -- and generally has no
problem whatsoever in sanctioning an ordinary, run-of-the-mill editor for
being uncivil, even when that editor is perfectly competent.

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 difficult, if not impossible, to effectively sanction an editor
with a substantial contingent of vocal supporters who will argue against
any such sanctions whenever the opportunity arises.

Kirill

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:58 PM Todd Allen  wrote:

> "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, there
> absolutely would be such a discussion. But as to why, the answer, very
> simply, is that the English Wikipedia community values competence over
> politeness, and probably always will. That is part of the culture of the
> community, and the WMF has no right to override that.
>
> Todd
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:46 AM 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

[Todd Allen]

"Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin,
all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves
why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to
stop it."

First, if Fram were a well-known editor but not an admin, yes, there
absolutely would be such a discussion. But as to why, the answer, very
simply, is that the English Wikipedia community values competence over
politeness, and probably always will. That is part of the culture of the
community, and the WMF has no right to override that.

Todd

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:46 AM 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

[Todd Allen]

According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for
maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs, the
maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is lying or
omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not challenging
him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for what
they told him they sanctioned him for.

Todd

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard  wrote:

> and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> doing only what you describe?
>
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen  wrote:
> >
> > The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept writing
> > garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage! Harassment!
> > 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 anyway.
> > The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had her
> > articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> "harassment"
> > rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's policies.
> > Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
> only
> > after she has them in hand.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
> wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done then
> > > clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > >
> > > > This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
> > > >
> > > > The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
> > > > terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
> death
> > > > threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
> > > > understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
> and
> > > > threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
> criminal
> > > > stuff.
> > > >
> > > > The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
> > > > specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
> goes
> > > > against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> > > > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > > > banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees
> > > > start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
> then
> > > > we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the
> > > > same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
> > > > administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free
> > > > in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time
> > > > employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
> > > >
> > > > If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is
> > > > because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's
> > > > Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should
> > > > be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English
> > > > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> > > > policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether
> > > > Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not
> > > > worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on
> > > > Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other
> > > > Wikimedia projects.
> > > >
> > > > Fae
> > > > --
> > > > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be,
> > > > consequences.
> > > > > An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So
> what? The
> > > > > only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do
> > > whatever
> > > > > they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes
> ballistic
> > > > when
> > > > > consequences happen.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if
> that
> > > > did
> > > > > not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year
> is
> > > > like
> > > > > telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is
> clearly
> > > > overly
> > > > > sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong.
> > > > > ___
> > > > > 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

[Anders Wennersten]

+1

We need to make a reality that Wikipedia workspace is without langauge 
that intimidate users.


Anders

Den 2019-06-14 kl. 14:45, skrev camelia boban:

I quote David and Isaac.
Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any wiki
behavior.
Before asking why WMF has 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

[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, 

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

[Fæ]

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
to be experts. As someone who has had blackmail and death threats,
advice from the WMF was a lot worse than advice I had from the either
the police or victim support.

Though my experience is mostly dated, the WMF gave me bad advice which
significantly delayed me from contacting the police, and I cannot
recommend that a target of harassment put their faith in the WMF if
they are targeted with harassment. The only reason I reported some
nasty transphobic threats targeting me earlier this year was to ensure
that the WMF had them logged, in case there was a wider pattern of
abuse against other LGBT+ Wikipedians. WMF T have given me no useful
feedback or updates on my own case in the months since.

I am very sorry to say this so bluntly, but from personal experience
though WMF senior management write a lot of nice soft words about
harassment and safe spaces, in practice a user being targeted is
better off having private chats on IRC with volunteer stewards and
checkusers that they trust, rather than WMF employees.

P.S. I encourage the use of the words "target of harassment". Being
labelled as a "victim" which puts the focus on you just because you
made a complaint, rather than the troll harassing others, is not
helpful.

Thanks,
Fae

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 13:29, Isaac Olatunde  wrote:
>
> 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
> cannot protect anyone from off-wiki harassment. Why would people feel
> comfortable to report a case of harassment to a community or group that can
> not protect them?
>
> Isaac
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 8:33 AM Pine W 
> > I think that I understand the GamerGate reference. A decentralized swarm of
> > harassment can be a major problem, and in this case I am concerned (I
> > haven't attempted to review the evidence) that at least one person is being
> > hounded off-wiki regarding their alleged involvement in this matter in a
> > way that would receive a firm response by ENWP administrators if the same
> > hounding was happening on ENWP.
> >
> > Fear of being hounded can discourage people from reporting problems.
> >
> > On English Wikipedia we have some administrators who are willing to make
> > politically difficult blocks, and we have an arbitration committee that has
> > been willing to review alleged misconduct by high profile people including
> > administrators, but I'm not sure that all wikis have a sufficient number of
> > competent and good faith administrators to address allegations of
> > misconduct, especially misconduct by people who have relatively high levels
> > of local political support.
> >
> > Even more challenging to moderate are off-wiki activities in places which
> > do not honor ENWP norms. I do not know of a robust solution to this
> > problem, and my guess is that there is no robust solution unless we want
> > governments to have more ability to proactively filter and to suppress
> > Internet content that does not meet with their approval.
> >
> > I think that ENWP is more like a busy, diverse, and loud public square than
> > a quiet office with tight control of what everyone does and a central
> > authority that quickly gets rid of people who make statements that are not
> > acceptable within narrow parameters. I worry that the concept of "safe
> > spaces" may come to mean something like: "People are only allowed to
> > participate on Wikimedia sites if they act according to WMF's opinions
> > regarding politically correct behavior and create content that does not
> > offend WMF". Political correctness and safety are not characteristics that
> > I would associate with Wikimedia sites, for better and for worse, and I
> > think that attempting to create more political correctness and safety can
> > come at too much expense of honesty, due process, freedom of expression,
> > and editorial independence. As mentioned by others, WMF’s recent power grab
> > calls into question the editorial independence of the Wikimedia
> > communities.
> >
> > This does not mean that I would give a free pass to Fram or that I am OK
> > with someone hounding a person who makes a complaint, whether on wiki or
> > off wiki.
> >
> > I think that a good conversation for the ENWP community to have would be
> > regarding how we can increase confidence by victims of harassment in the
> > integrity of ENWP's investigation and enforcement systems. Courage is
> > sometimes necessary to speak up in public, as many of us are doing in this
> 

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

[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, 

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

[Mister Thrapostibongles]

Fæ

[...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> banning bad behaviour on our projects.


Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English Wikipedia
community processes are not "perfectly 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, 

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

[Isaac Olatunde]

I have seen a known user attacking me on one of Wikipedia's criticism site
during my ArbCom case on the English Wikipedia but when it was report, they
said there is nothing they can do about off-wiki attacks/harassment. That
event alone gives me an impression that the English Wikipedia community
cannot protect anyone from off-wiki harassment. Why would people feel
comfortable to report a case of harassment to a community or group that can
not protect them?

Isaac

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 8:33 AM Pine W  I think that I understand the GamerGate reference. A decentralized swarm of
> harassment can be a major problem, and in this case I am concerned (I
> haven't attempted to review the evidence) that at least one person is being
> hounded off-wiki regarding their alleged involvement in this matter in a
> way that would receive a firm response by ENWP administrators if the same
> hounding was happening on ENWP.
>
> Fear of being hounded can discourage people from reporting problems.
>
> On English Wikipedia we have some administrators who are willing to make
> politically difficult blocks, and we have an arbitration committee that has
> been willing to review alleged misconduct by high profile people including
> administrators, but I'm not sure that all wikis have a sufficient number of
> competent and good faith administrators to address allegations of
> misconduct, especially misconduct by people who have relatively high levels
> of local political support.
>
> Even more challenging to moderate are off-wiki activities in places which
> do not honor ENWP norms. I do not know of a robust solution to this
> problem, and my guess is that there is no robust solution unless we want
> governments to have more ability to proactively filter and to suppress
> Internet content that does not meet with their approval.
>
> I think that ENWP is more like a busy, diverse, and loud public square than
> a quiet office with tight control of what everyone does and a central
> authority that quickly gets rid of people who make statements that are not
> acceptable within narrow parameters. I worry that the concept of "safe
> spaces" may come to mean something like: "People are only allowed to
> participate on Wikimedia sites if they act according to WMF's opinions
> regarding politically correct behavior and create content that does not
> offend WMF". Political correctness and safety are not characteristics that
> I would associate with Wikimedia sites, for better and for worse, and I
> think that attempting to create more political correctness and safety can
> come at too much expense of honesty, due process, freedom of expression,
> and editorial independence. As mentioned by others, WMF’s recent power grab
> calls into question the editorial independence of the Wikimedia
> communities.
>
> This does not mean that I would give a free pass to Fram or that I am OK
> with someone hounding a person who makes a complaint, whether on wiki or
> off wiki.
>
> I think that a good conversation for the ENWP community to have would be
> regarding how we can increase confidence by victims of harassment in the
> integrity of ENWP's investigation and enforcement systems. Courage is
> sometimes necessary to speak up in public, as many of us are doing in this
> thread and on wiki with various degrees of personal risk. I am concerned
> about community members possibly deciding not to report problems because
> they lack confidence that their reports will be taken seriously by ENWP's
> community authorities and lack confidence that they will be protected from
> further harm to the extent that the ENWP community can protect them.
> (Protecting people from off wiki hounding is, unfortunately, probably
> impossible if aggressors are determined to hound someone.)
>
> I have concerns regarding a system for anonymous complaints because I
> generally support transparent enforcement and due process. However, if
> victims are not reporting problems due to fear and if there is a way that
> we can provide due process protections for the accused while increasing the
> confidence of victims in ENWP's investigations and enforcement systems then
> I think that we should consider making modifications. This does not require
> any involvement from WMF, although we might want to ask WMF for technical
> support if needed for a system that we design or agree to implement.
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> P.S. I need to stop posting in this thread so that I do not exceed my limit
> of Wikimedia-l posts for the month, but my silence does not indicate lack
> of interest.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 16:24 Paulo Santos Perneta 
> wrote:
>
> > 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 

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

[Isaac Olatunde]

Nobody deserves to be harassed on any Wikimedia project.

Unfortunately once you are mobbed on the English Wikipedia, some people
thinks it's fine to harass you. They don't care how you feel, your personal
life does not matter to them.

Imagine someone want the name of the person behind the WMF Office account
revealed. What purpose will this serve if not to harass the staff member?


Isaac



On Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 5:14 PM Robert Fernandez  If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done then
> clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
> >
> > The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
> > terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki death
> > threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
> > understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks and
> > threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or criminal
> > stuff.
> >
> > The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
> > specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which goes
> > against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees
> > start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do, then
> > we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the
> > same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
> > administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free
> > in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time
> > employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
> >
> > If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is
> > because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's
> > Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should
> > be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English
> > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> > policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether
> > Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not
> > worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on
> > Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other
> > Wikimedia projects.
> >
> > Fae
> > --
> > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad  wrote:
> > >
> > > When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be,
> > consequences.
> > > An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So what? The
> > > only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do
> whatever
> > > they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes ballistic
> > when
> > > consequences happen.
> > >
> > > I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if that
> > did
> > > not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year is
> > like
> > > telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is clearly
> > overly
> > > sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong.
> > > ___
> > > 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

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

At this point, it certainly looks like that. That, and the "f*** Arbcom"
thing. If you know otherwise, please explain.

Paulo

David Gerard  escreveu no dia sexta, 14/06/2019 à(s)
11:37:

> and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> doing only what you describe?
>
> On 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!"
> >
> > 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.
> > The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had her
> > articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> "harassment"
> > rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's policies.
> > Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
> only
> > after she has them in hand.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
> wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done then
> > > clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > >
> > > > This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
> > > >
> > > > The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
> > > > terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
> death
> > > > threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
> > > > understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
> and
> > > > threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
> criminal
> > > > stuff.
> > > >
> > > > The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
> > > > specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
> goes
> > > > against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> > > > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > > > banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees
> > > > start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
> then
> > > > we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the
> > > > same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
> > > > administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free
> > > > in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time
> > > > employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
> > > >
> > > > If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is
> > > > because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's
> > > > Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should
> > > > be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English
> > > > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> > > > policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether
> > > > Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not
> > > > worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on
> > > > Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other
> > > > Wikimedia projects.
> > > >
> > > > Fae
> > > > --
> > > > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be,
> > > > consequences.
> > > > > An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So
> what? The
> > > > > only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do
> > > whatever
> > > > > they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes
> ballistic
> > > > when
> > > > > consequences happen.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if
> that
> > > > did
> > > > > not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year
> is
> > > > like
> > > > > telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is
> clearly
> > > > overly
> > > > > sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong.
> > > > > ___
> > > > > 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: 

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

[David Gerard]

and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
doing only what you describe?

On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept writing
> garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage! Harassment!
> 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 anyway.
> The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had her
> articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as "harassment"
> rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's policies.
> Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article only
> after she has them in hand.
>
> Todd
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez 
> wrote:
>
> > If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done then
> > clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> >
> > > This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
> > >
> > > The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
> > > terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki death
> > > threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
> > > understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks and
> > > threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or criminal
> > > stuff.
> > >
> > > The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
> > > specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which goes
> > > against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> > > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > > banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees
> > > start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do, then
> > > we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the
> > > same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
> > > administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free
> > > in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time
> > > employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
> > >
> > > If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is
> > > because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's
> > > Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should
> > > be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English
> > > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> > > policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether
> > > Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not
> > > worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on
> > > Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other
> > > Wikimedia projects.
> > >
> > > Fae
> > > --
> > > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> > >
> > > On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be,
> > > consequences.
> > > > An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So what? The
> > > > only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do
> > whatever
> > > > they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes ballistic
> > > when
> > > > consequences happen.
> > > >
> > > > I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if that
> > > did
> > > > not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year is
> > > like
> > > > telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is clearly
> > > overly
> > > > sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong.
> > > > ___
> > > > 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: 

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

[Todd Allen]

The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept writing
garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage! Harassment!
Bad!"

If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR SOURCES
PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement anyway.
The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had her
articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as "harassment"
rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's policies.
Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article only
after she has them in hand.

Todd

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done then
> clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
>
> > This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
> >
> > The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
> > terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki death
> > threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
> > understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks and
> > threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or criminal
> > stuff.
> >
> > The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
> > specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which goes
> > against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> > existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees
> > start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do, then
> > we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the
> > same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
> > administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free
> > in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time
> > employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
> >
> > If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is
> > because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's
> > Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should
> > be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English
> > Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> > policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether
> > Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not
> > worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on
> > Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other
> > Wikimedia projects.
> >
> > Fae
> > --
> > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad  wrote:
> > >
> > > When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be,
> > consequences.
> > > An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So what? The
> > > only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do
> whatever
> > > they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes ballistic
> > when
> > > consequences happen.
> > >
> > > I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if that
> > did
> > > not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year is
> > like
> > > telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is clearly
> > overly
> > > sensitive, but not reacting would also be wrong.
> > > ___
> > > 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 

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

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

I've not been on those dumping grounds, open air sewages and troll hives
were that stuff is said to be happening, and only know that from Fae and
Raystorm accounts. What is going on at those places possibly is the same as
what happened with GamerGate, I've not confirmed, and frankly I'm not
interested in the least in going to such troll dens. What I fail to
understand is what's the point of the chair of the BoT dropping into an
already very much escalated discussion, first stating she's not part of
that community, then that she is not interested in their current situation,
and would not take part on addressing that issue even if she had not been
involved in it. And then proceeding to lecture the onwiki community, the
vast majority of which is not involved in that offwiki stuff and not even
aware of it, dismissing the whole case about editorial independence of
Wikipedia as a sexist mob doing GamerGate stuff. It only made everything
worse than what already was.

Best,
Paulo





Pine W  escreveu no dia sexta, 14/06/2019 à(s) 08:33:

> 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 that would receive a firm response by ENWP administrators if the same
> hounding was happening on ENWP.
>
> Fear of being hounded can discourage people from reporting problems.
>
> On English Wikipedia we have some administrators who are willing to make
> politically difficult blocks, and we have an arbitration committee that has
> been willing to review alleged misconduct by high profile people including
> administrators, but I'm not sure that all wikis have a sufficient number of
> competent and good faith administrators to address allegations of
> misconduct, especially misconduct by people who have relatively high levels
> of local political support.
>
> Even more challenging to moderate are off-wiki activities in places which
> do not honor ENWP norms. I do not know of a robust solution to this
> problem, and my guess is that there is no robust solution unless we want
> governments to have more ability to proactively filter and to suppress
> Internet content that does not meet with their approval.
>
> I think that ENWP is more like a busy, diverse, and loud public square than
> a quiet office with tight control of what everyone does and a central
> authority that quickly gets rid of people who make statements that are not
> acceptable within narrow parameters. I worry that the concept of "safe
> spaces" may come to mean something like: "People are only allowed to
> participate on Wikimedia sites if they act according to WMF's opinions
> regarding politically correct behavior and create content that does not
> offend WMF". Political correctness and safety are not characteristics that
> I would associate with Wikimedia sites, for better and for worse, and I
> think that attempting to create more political correctness and safety can
> come at too much expense of honesty, due process, freedom of expression,
> and editorial independence. As mentioned by others, WMF’s recent power grab
> calls into question the editorial independence of the Wikimedia
> communities.
>
> This does not mean that I would give a free pass to Fram or that I am OK
> with someone hounding a person who makes a complaint, whether on wiki or
> off wiki.
>
> I think that a good conversation for the ENWP community to have would be
> regarding how we can increase confidence by victims of harassment in the
> integrity of ENWP's investigation and enforcement systems. Courage is
> sometimes necessary to speak up in public, as many of us are doing in this
> thread and on wiki with various degrees of personal risk. I am concerned
> about community members possibly deciding not to report problems because
> they lack confidence that their reports will be taken seriously by ENWP's
> community authorities and lack confidence that they will be protected from
> further harm to the extent that the ENWP community can protect them.
> (Protecting people from off wiki hounding is, unfortunately, probably
> impossible if aggressors are determined to hound someone.)
>
> I have concerns regarding a system for anonymous complaints because I
> generally support transparent enforcement and due process. However, if
> victims are not reporting problems due to fear and if there is a way that
> we can provide due process protections for the accused while increasing the
> confidence of victims in ENWP's investigations and enforcement systems then
> I think that we should consider making modifications. This does not require
> any involvement from WMF, although we might want to ask WMF for technical
> support if needed for a system that we design or agree to implement.
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> P.S. I 

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

[Pine W]

I think that I understand the GamerGate reference. A decentralized swarm of
harassment can be a major problem, and in this case I am concerned (I
haven't attempted to review the evidence) that at least one person is being
hounded off-wiki regarding their alleged involvement in this matter in a
way that would receive a firm response by ENWP administrators if the same
hounding was happening on ENWP.

Fear of being hounded can discourage people from reporting problems.

On English Wikipedia we have some administrators who are willing to make
politically difficult blocks, and we have an arbitration committee that has
been willing to review alleged misconduct by high profile people including
administrators, but I'm not sure that all wikis have a sufficient number of
competent and good faith administrators to address allegations of
misconduct, especially misconduct by people who have relatively high levels
of local political support.

Even more challenging to moderate are off-wiki activities in places which
do not honor ENWP norms. I do not know of a robust solution to this
problem, and my guess is that there is no robust solution unless we want
governments to have more ability to proactively filter and to suppress
Internet content that does not meet with their approval.

I think that ENWP is more like a busy, diverse, and loud public square than
a quiet office with tight control of what everyone does and a central
authority that quickly gets rid of people who make statements that are not
acceptable within narrow parameters. I worry that the concept of "safe
spaces" may come to mean something like: "People are only allowed to
participate on Wikimedia sites if they act according to WMF's opinions
regarding politically correct behavior and create content that does not
offend WMF". Political correctness and safety are not characteristics that
I would associate with Wikimedia sites, for better and for worse, and I
think that attempting to create more political correctness and safety can
come at too much expense of honesty, due process, freedom of expression,
and editorial independence. As mentioned by others, WMF’s recent power grab
calls into question the editorial independence of the Wikimedia communities.

This does not mean that I would give a free pass to Fram or that I am OK
with someone hounding a person who makes a complaint, whether on wiki or
off wiki.

I think that a good conversation for the ENWP community to have would be
regarding how we can increase confidence by victims of harassment in the
integrity of ENWP's investigation and enforcement systems. Courage is
sometimes necessary to speak up in public, as many of us are doing in this
thread and on wiki with various degrees of personal risk. I am concerned
about community members possibly deciding not to report problems because
they lack confidence that their reports will be taken seriously by ENWP's
community authorities and lack confidence that they will be protected from
further harm to the extent that the ENWP community can protect them.
(Protecting people from off wiki hounding is, unfortunately, probably
impossible if aggressors are determined to hound someone.)

I have concerns regarding a system for anonymous complaints because I
generally support transparent enforcement and due process. However, if
victims are not reporting problems due to fear and if there is a way that
we can provide due process protections for the accused while increasing the
confidence of victims in ENWP's investigations and enforcement systems then
I think that we should consider making modifications. This does not require
any involvement from WMF, although we might want to ask WMF for technical
support if needed for a system that we design or agree to implement.
Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

P.S. I need to stop posting in this thread so that I do not exceed my limit
of Wikimedia-l posts for the month, but my silence does not indicate lack
of interest.




On Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 16:24 Paulo Santos Perneta 
wrote:

> 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, decided to double down on the
> > original complainant. See also: Gamergate, a clearly apt and apposite
> > comparison.
> >
> > On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 19:48, Pine W  wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm sad to hear that. I would not want a victim to go with a request
> for
> > > help to WMF, local functionaries, an arbitration committee, or anyone
> > else,
> > > and have the situation end up worse rather than better. I don't know
> what
> > > to recommend. Perhaps you could ask the stewards what they think.
> > >
> > > I am also sad to hear about the difficulties regarding the situation in
> > > which you think that someone was at risk of self-harm. 

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

[Peter Southwood]

This seems fair comment and a useful proposal. I would support the concept of 
such independent surveys, and them being funded by the foundation. I see a need.
Cheers, P

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Bill Takatoshi
Sent: 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 see to be made explicit,
please?

> pathological people, having been called out on being pathological

I am having trouble finding anything more than hundreds upon hundreds
of kilobytes of very civil, if considerably indignant, discussion
around the issue, and several people taking principled stances at
great risk to their own standing. So I would also like to see an
example of someone being called out on being pathological, please.

> There is always a danger of the tyranny of a vocal and motivated minority 
> appearing to be the dominant opinion of the community as a whole

Again (after two years and four months) this is why we need regular,
periodic, scientific, carefully sampled surveys of the community:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-February/086576.html

Is there any reason that the Community Engagement team thinks such
surveys aren't worth the time and effort?

-Will

___
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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?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, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Bill Takatoshi]

> 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 anything more than hundreds upon hundreds
of kilobytes of very civil, if considerably indignant, discussion
around the issue, and several people taking principled stances at
great risk to their own standing. So I would also like to see an
example of someone being called out on being pathological, please.

> There is always a danger of the tyranny of a vocal and motivated minority 
> appearing to be the dominant opinion of the community as a whole

Again (after two years and four months) this is why we need regular,
periodic, scientific, carefully sampled surveys of the community:

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-February/086576.html

Is there any reason that the Community Engagement team thinks such
surveys aren't worth the time and effort?

-Will

___
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]

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 office actions only where the community has agreed you may: United 
States legal requirements, child protection, or threats of harm to oneself or 
others. Otherwise, leave control entirely local, and refer any complaints to 
local English Wikipedia authorities, even if you grit your teeth while you do 
it.”

WMF T: This is an emerging consensus that not only was this clumsy, but was 
legitimately an overstep of the authority that the community granted T and 
the Foundation, and in fact damages your credibility in enforcing things like 
threats of violence or child protection issues or legal/law enforcement issues.

There were several claims that handing this issue to Arbcom was problematic 
because Fram had prior conflicts with Arbcom.  Arbcom deals with actual or 
potential conflicts and people they dislike every day.  That hasn’t stopped it 
in well over a decade.

I believe that you were convinced that was a legitimate reason not to let 
Arbcom and the community handle this.  But that’s not true.

The “but we had this complaint and couldn’t forward it without breaking 
confidence!” claim is also legitimate but misguided.  You might not be allowed 
to forward it, but you could tell the complainer to make their own report to 
Arbcom in private.  That someone complains to you doesn’t necessarily make it 
your problem to solve.  Sometimes you can and should direct them to someone 
else.  Forcing yourself to solve it is part of how you got into this mess.

It wasn’t clearly your job or authority.

The Wikipedia community created the Foundation, not the other way around.  The 
Foundation exists to support the community and projects.  When you go beyond 
support into trying to run it for us you fail.

When several key Administrators and a Bureaucrat overturned things, that showed 
that you’d lost the community authority to exercise your T role without 
oversight.

There are credible efforts to ban Office, or desysop it, though I hope those 
fail.

Foundation owns the servers; that’s different than owning the community and 
project.  Owning the servers gives you the capability to override the community 
but not the authority.

This can go in extremely unfortunate directions from here.  I hope it doesn’t.  
Foundation and particularly T staff need to slow down your responses and get 
a handle on your loss of authority.  I for one don’t want the job of dealing 
with death threats or pedophiles or subpoenas back on Admins and Arbcom, and 
would be happy to reestablish Foundation authority over such traditional T 
roles.  Help us trust you enough to give it back.

-george 
___
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]

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, decided to double down on the
> original complainant. See also: Gamergate, a clearly apt and apposite
> comparison.
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 19:48, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > I'm sad to hear that. I would not want a victim to go with a request for
> > help to WMF, local functionaries, an arbitration committee, or anyone
> else,
> > and have the situation end up worse rather than better. I don't know what
> > to recommend. Perhaps you could ask the stewards what they think.
> >
> > I am also sad to hear about the difficulties regarding the situation in
> > which you think that someone was at risk of self-harm. I think that the
> > situation you described is probably appropriate for review by the
> > management of WMF Trust and Safety so that they can take a second look. I
> > encourage you to contact them.
> >
> > I am finding this conversation to be rather depressing, but I am glad
> that
> > we are having it, because this is one way of developing solutions.
> >
> > Pine
> > ___
> > 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,