Obviously racial criticisms and so forth are awful like Pax said, but on the 
matter of "troublemakers who are banned" I say it's a greatly overblown issue 
chiefly emphasized by administrative participants who feel their authority is 
threatened. One should really look to the nature of the ban-evading edits. If 
they are productive edits, I quarrel with the actions of those that revert them 
because of the supposed villainous character of any bannee or their 
psychological need to "teach the bannee a lesson" or temperamental or 
intellectual inability to actually appraise the edits.

Take a look at Russavia. He did an immense amount of contributions. He's banned 
by WMF  for, what, an escapade in which he got Australian novelty artist 
"Pricasso" who paints with his penis to do a portrait of Jimbo Wales, who 
quickly alleged "sexual harassment?" (That's one theory, but I'd argue that 
he's actually banned for, in his capacity as Wikimedia Commons administrator, 
attempting to investigate the real-life stalking of Dutch Wikipedia's 
MoiraMoira, which I say was a case that WMF wanted to quickly go away.) 
Russavia was an immensely productive participant, and he's been shabbily 

Consider that the makeup of (at least) English Wikipedia administrative 
structure is in fact a bullyocracy. There are so few controls on what are 
essentially "imperial administrators." There're an hundred more examples, but I 
think right now of "BWilkins" who actually told some poor editor to "rot in the 
hell that is is eternal block." And nobody even blinked at it. It and an array 
of his other horrific actions went to Arbcom, and they wouldn't even consent to 
hear it the first time. He ran amok for like two more years, before an 
genuinely Herculean effort by some editors, assisted by off-wiki criticicism, 
finally resulted in his desysoping. But what of all the good editors he'd done 
away with by that time. There's no repair system for that.

And WMF "san-fran-bans" are one thing. If you people are talking about 
"community bans," that's a complete misnomer for the actions of the regulars at 
WP:AN/ANI. There's no charter for WP:AN/ANI, there's no rules-based process for 
its "vote him or her off the island" mob violence, it's completely illegitimate 
mainly from the sadistic tendencies of some of those regulars that, I dunno, 
also want to feel superior and important.

Anyhow, I'm just trying to illuminate a different perspective on the hundreds 
and hundreds of wrongly perma-blocked editors, and as well the thousands and 
thousands of perma-blocked IP editors in this nearly completely unaccountable 
administrative system that attracts some of the worse kind of psychologies 

Trillium Corsage        

05.06.2016, 17:49, "Pine W" <email clipped>:
> Hi Pax and Pete,
> It sounds like part of the issue in this case may be that may we need more
> effective tools for dealing with troublemakers who are banned but continue
> to return and cause problems. I'm wondering if Patrick Early can comment on
> what efforts WMF is making in terms of dealing with persistent block
> evasion.
> Pine
> On Jun 5, 2016 07:13, "Pax Ahimsa Gethen" <email clipped>
> wrote:
>>  I am defining harassment primarily as personal attacks, not merely
>>  disputes (even strongly-worded disagreement) over content.
>>  Some examples of what I consider harassment:
>>  - Vandalizing an editor's user or talk page (hence my Inspire proposal:
>>  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Protect_user_space_by_default
>>  )
>>  - Making derogatory comments about an editor's gender, sex, race,
>>  ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or (dis)ability
>>  - Posting personal information about an editor that was gathered off-Wiki
>>  - Evading bans with IP-hopping to do any of the above.
>>  These actions not only cause "net harm to community health," they cause
>>  unnecessary, avoidable harm to specific individuals, and discourage
>>  marginalized people from participating in the project.
>>  - Pax
>>  On 6/5/16 5:09 AM, Pine W wrote:
>>>  Hi Pax,
>>>  I agree that blaming the victim is an unsatisfactory resolution.
>>>  On the other hand, defining what is meant by "incivility" and "harassment"
>>>  can be very tricky. Just because there is a strong disagreement doesn't
>>>  imply that people are being uncivil, and we cannot expect that no one will
>>>  ever lose his or her temper when provoked. Similarly, a pattern of
>>>  disagreement doesn't necessarily imply harassment, and the presumption of
>>>  good faith is rebuttable which means that questioning the motives of
>>>  others
>>>  is occasionally OK.
>>>  So, as Sumana once said, we have a tricky situation with regards to
>>>  balancing free speech with hospitality.
>>>  I think there are situations in which behavior is egregious enough that it
>>>  is a net harm to community health and cannot be excused. For example,
>>>  comments that demean someone on the basis of race, gender, age,
>>>  nationality, or religious or political beliefs, are generally out of
>>>  bounds.
>>>  I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about how we should define
>>>  harassment, and how we should seek to reduce the frequency of it on
>>>  Wikimedia sites.
>>>  Thank you for speaking up.
>>>  Pine
>>>  On Jun 4, 2016 19:15, "Pax Ahimsa Gethen" <email clipped>
>>>  wrote:
>>>  Hi all, I'm Pax aka Funcrunch [1]. I've been a Wikipedian since 2008, but
>>>>  this is my first post to this mailing list. (I've been reading list
>>>>  messages on the archives page occasionally for the last several months.)
>>>>  I'm writing because of a concern I have about the community's attitude
>>>>  toward harassment on Wikipedia. I got a Wikinotice about this month's
>>>>  Inspire Campaign, which specifically asks: "What ideas do you have that
>>>>  can
>>>>  help prevent and generally address cases of harassment?" [2] As a victim
>>>>  of
>>>>  several of the harassing behaviors mentioned as examples - " name
>>>>  calling,
>>>>  threats, discrimination, stalking, and impersonation" - I was encouraged
>>>>  to
>>>>  see that this problem was (hopefully) being taken seriously by the
>>>>  Foundation, and submitted a proposal.
>>>>  Looking at the other proposals submitted, I soon noticed that the most
>>>>  popular "ideas" on the list included complaints of "political
>>>>  correctness"
>>>>  and suggesting we shouldn't be so sensitive [3], and that we should just
>>>>  get some sleep and exercise and reconsider why we're so offended. [4]
>>>>  (That
>>>>  first "idea" has since been recategorized by a WMF staffer to remove it
>>>>  from the current campaign.)
>>>>  It really bothers me that a campaign specifically designed to combat
>>>>  harassment - which is a very serious and real problem for people of
>>>>  marginalized identities like myself [5]- is being co-opted by people
>>>>  saying
>>>>  things like " Harassment doesn't cause actual damage," " The existence of
>>>>  harassment is an opportunity to improve ourselves further through
>>>>  self-discipline," and " Harassment on Wikimedia has been exaggerated." I
>>>>  suggest that people who honestly believe this, but are willing to accept
>>>>  that they might be wrong, read a recent essay about online harassment by
>>>>  Anil Dash: "The Immortal Myths About Online Abuse." [6]
>>>>  I'm not "looking to be offended," and I'm not trying to "censor" people
>>>>  who simply disagree with me. I'm trying to help build an encyclopedia,
>>>>  without being harassed by block-evading stalkers hurling hate speech my
>>>>  way. The existing tools and policies are *not* sufficient to deal with
>>>>  this. That's (what I thought was) the point of this Inspire campaign, not
>>>>  complaining about censorship and " crybullying."
>>>>  I've posted a much shorter version of this concern on the Inspire
>>>>  Campaign
>>>>  talk page [7], so feel free to weigh in there instead of here on the list
>>>>  if that's more appropriate. Thank you for reading.
>>>>  - Pax, aka Funcrunch
>>>>  [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Funcrunch
>>>>  [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire
>>>>  [3]
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Stop_%22Political_Correctness%22_as_gauge
>>>>  !
>>>>  [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Don't_feed_the_trolls
>>>>  [5] Queer, trans, and black, in my case.
>>>>  [6]
>>>> https://medium.com/humane-tech/the-immortal-myths-about-online-abuse-a156e3370aee
>>>>  [7]
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Inspire/Meta#Blaming_the_victim
>>  --
>>  Pax Ahimsa Gethen | p...@funcrunch.org | http://funcrunch.org
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>  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
> 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: 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to