I don’t think that is the point at all. For justice to be accepted as justice, it must be comprehensible. The process was badly flawed, and instead of sending a message that T&S was looking after our trust and safety, it sent a message that anyone could be blocked without reference to our internal processes and without explanation of the reasons. The notification supplied after the fact was by an unidentified functionary and consisted of a boilerplate non-explanation. Not helping either. This could reasonably be described as a PR blunder. An exercise in opacity. A failure to communicate of noteworthy proportions. Another brick in the wall between the enwiki community and WMF. Maybe WMF just don’t care, and consider us all expendable. It certainly looks like it. That is kind of worrying to those of us actually trying to build an encyclopaedia. In spite of all his alleged defects, I see Fram as one of those. Anyone reasonably familiar with the dramaboards will recognise that not everyone taking exception to this action are friends of Fram. Several would probably have supported a desysopping and/or a block, but never without due and visible process and not without talk page access or no right to appeal. Your mileage may differ. I judge on what information is available to me. I do not just accept what someone tells me, I try to check. One gets that way after working on Wikipedia for a while. One gets to know what a reliable source is likely to look like, and keeps a lookout for disinformation and non-answers. Read what is available before passing judgement on those who have taken that step. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Chris Keating Sent: 12 June 2019 09:56 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block I think we should probably reflect on the fact we've got to the point where arguments along the lines of "This guy shouldn't be blocked, he was only telling people to fuck themselves" are sort of normal. This kind of behaviour wouldn't be acceptable in any other movement or community or workplace... Why here? (Also I think it's clear this was not the only issue... so while I have some concerns about the "how" here, I'm struggling to disagree with the outcome) Chris On Wed, 12 Jun 2019, 07:44 Yair Rand, <yyairr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Philippe, the email from Trust & Safety said quite clearly that the ban was > triggered by edit 895438118. I assume that T&S would not lie about their > reasons for something like this. > > בתאריך יום ג׳, 11 ביוני 2019 ב-22:35 מאת Philippe Beaudette < > phili...@beaudette.me>: > > > Nathan writes: > > > > *“Why are WMF staffers so* > > > > *deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they feel > > the* > > *right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?”* > > > > > > I’ve seen no evidence that this is the case here and would be utterly > > shocked if a t&s staff member had indeed banned for saying that. > > > > If the situation is anything like what it was when I was at WMF, a ban > such > > as this requires multiple levels of review by a couple of different teams > > (in my time, we would not have considered a ban such as this without sign > > off from the community and legal teams, for instance). I don’t know if > the > > process is the same now but I would be surprised to hear that any single > > staff member would feel comfortable banning on his or her authority > alone. > > Multiple levels of review exist in order to ensure that ban reasons are > > valid and appropriate. > > > > Philippe > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 6:55 PM Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Wow, what a cluster. How does the WMF get themselves into these > things? I > > > have ten edits to en.wp since 2018 and even I could have 100% predicted > > the > > > entire spectrum, and scale, of the reaction here. Why are WMF staffers > so > > > deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they feel > > the > > > right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"? > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:49 PM Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > Amir, yes, ArbCom members must sign the WMF confidentiality agreement > > for > > > > nonpublic information ( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information > > > > ) > > > > , as must all functionaries (checkuser, oversight, etc.). I was on > the > > > > English Wikipedia ArbCom for two years, and it was routine for us to > > deal > > > > with sensitive, private information. > > > > > > > > Todd > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:46 AM Amir Sarabadani <ladsgr...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > People who oppose the ban: Are you aware of all aspects and things > > Fram > > > > has > > > > > done? Do you have the full picture? It's really saddening to see > how > > > fast > > > > > people jump to conclusion in page mentioned in the email. I > > personally, > > > > > don't know what happened so I neither can support or oppose the > ban. > > As > > > > > simple as that. > > > > > > > > > > So what should be done IMO. If enwiki wants to know more, a > community > > > > body > > > > > can ask for more information, if body satisfy two things: > > > > > - They had signed NDA not to disclose the case > > > > > - They are trusted by the community > > > > > > > > > > I think the only body can sorta work with this is stewards but not > > sure > > > > > (Does ArbCom NDA'ed?) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:58 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < > > > > > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Lack of transparency from the WMF, whatelse is new. > > > > > > I'm currently under a funding ban secretly decided (by who?) > based > > > on a > > > > > > false accusation, without providing any evidence. Until now I'm > > > waiting > > > > > for > > > > > > an explanation from the WMF. So, this sort of attitude doesn't > > > surprise > > > > > me > > > > > > at all. > > > > > > It is very unfortunate that the WMF apparently thrives in this > kind > > > of > > > > > > medieval obscurity, the opposite of the values of the Wikimedia > > > > Movement. > > > > > > Matter for Roles & Reponsibilities. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Paulo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Benjamin Ikuta <benjaminik...@gmail.com> escreveu no dia terça, > > > > > 11/06/2019 > > > > > > à(s) 05:45: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm glad to see I'm not the only one dismayed by the > > unilateralism > > > > and > > > > > > > lack of transparency. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 2019, at 8:25 PM, Techman224 < > > techman...@techman224.ca> > > > > > > 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&diff=prev&oldid=901300528 > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=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 <george.herb...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block > > > > > > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT > > > > > > > >> To: English Wikipedia <wikie...@lists.wikimedia.org> > > > > > > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikie...@lists.wikimedia.org> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> In case you're not following on-wiki - Office S&T 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, > > > > > > > <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> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > 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> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Amir (he/him) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > 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> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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> > > > > -- > > Philippe Beaudette > > phili...@beaudette.me > > _______________________________________________ > > 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> _______________________________________________ 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> --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
