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 <fae...@gmail.com> 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 threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or criminal 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 <jeb...@gmail.com> 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, > <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>
