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threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or criminal

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.


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: 
> and 
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:, 
> <>

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to