Mailing List Archive

[Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
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.herbert@gmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@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.herbert@gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block [ In reply to ]
Benjamin Ikuta wrote:
>Thanks for this.
>
>I'm glad to see I'm not the only one dismayed by the unilateralism and
>lack of transparency.

My thanks as well.

SarahSV on the English Wikipedia writes:

> [...] something serious enough to warrant WMF action should not attract
>a one-year block on this site only. Anything not serious enough for a
>permanent global block by the WMF should be handled by the community or
>ArbCom. We therefore need a fuller statement, signed by an individual, as
>soon as possible. [...]

Well said and agreed.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block [ In reply to ]
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 <techman224@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.herbert@gmail.com>
>> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
>> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
>> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@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.herbert@gmail.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] en.wp office yearlock block [ In reply to ]
Frankly, I'm surprised by how surprised everyone is. The Foundation has
the responsibility to support the community, and the time, the expertise,
the money and the people to do so. Individual volunteers, however
well-meaning, do not. The Foundation has determined that in this
particular case the community;s own processes were unable to provide the
support that the community needed, and so the Foundation has acted to do
so, as you would expect.

Thrapostibongles

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:26 AM Techman224 <techman224@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.herbert@gmail.com>
> > Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@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.herbert@gmail.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block [ In reply to ]
I am trying to have an open mind regarding this matter.

I'm supportive of local and global bans in a variety of circumstances, and
if WMF thinks that sanctions are appropriate then I generally would expect
WMF to present the relevant evidence to community authorities. English
Wikipedia has ways of dealing with editors who are accused of misconduct,
and we have experienced administrators who are capable of investigating
situations and implementing bans including cases which involve nonpublic
evidence.

In the absence of convincing evidence that demonstrates a major problem
with a Wikimedia community's competence and willingness to adjudicate cases
in a fair manner, I think that WMF interventions such as this are difficult
to justify. Based on the limited information that I have, I disagree with
WMF's process for this specific case, and in general I have ongoing
concerns about WMF's process for WMF-initiated bans. WMF's lack of faith in
the English Wikipedia community authorities' competence to adjudicate a
case such as this is discouraging and, as far as I know, not justified.
Even if a local community has well known problems with its self-governance,
I think that the appropriate recourse would be to the global community.
While the global community seems generally opposed to reviewing appeals of
specific local cases, I think that evidence of systemic problems would
likely get more attention and perhaps even a request from the global
community for WMF intervention.

Based on the information that I know, I would reverse this WMF action and
move the case to the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee for its
consideration.

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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] en.wp office yearlock block [ In reply to ]
I think that you are making a number of assertions about the community,
individuals, the Foundation, and the power and roles and responsibilities
that aren't warranted.



On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 2:15 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
thrapostibongles@gmail.com> wrote:

> Frankly, I'm surprised by how surprised everyone is. The Foundation has
> the responsibility to support the community, and the time, the expertise,
> the money and the people to do so. Individual volunteers, however
> well-meaning, do not. The Foundation has determined that in this
> particular case the community;s own processes were unable to provide the
> support that the community needed, and so the Foundation has acted to do
> so, as you would expect.
>
> Thrapostibongles
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:26 AM Techman224 <techman224@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.herbert@gmail.com>
> > > Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@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.herbert@gmail.com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>



--
-george william herbert
george.herbert@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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block [ In reply to ]
Through various means I'm aware of the partial or full circumstances
of a number of office bans. In all cases, T&S investigated thoroughly
and acted appropriately. I don't know why this case would be any
different, or warrants pitchforks and torches from vocal members of
the community, but these are the same community members who break them
out at every opportunity in any case.

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:06 AM Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I am trying to have an open mind regarding this matter.
>
> I'm supportive of local and global bans in a variety of circumstances, and
> if WMF thinks that sanctions are appropriate then I generally would expect
> WMF to present the relevant evidence to community authorities. English
> Wikipedia has ways of dealing with editors who are accused of misconduct,
> and we have experienced administrators who are capable of investigating
> situations and implementing bans including cases which involve nonpublic
> evidence.
>
> In the absence of convincing evidence that demonstrates a major problem
> with a Wikimedia community's competence and willingness to adjudicate cases
> in a fair manner, I think that WMF interventions such as this are difficult
> to justify. Based on the limited information that I have, I disagree with
> WMF's process for this specific case, and in general I have ongoing
> concerns about WMF's process for WMF-initiated bans. WMF's lack of faith in
> the English Wikipedia community authorities' competence to adjudicate a
> case such as this is discouraging and, as far as I know, not justified.
> Even if a local community has well known problems with its self-governance,
> I think that the appropriate recourse would be to the global community.
> While the global community seems generally opposed to reviewing appeals of
> specific local cases, I think that evidence of systemic problems would
> likely get more attention and perhaps even a request from the global
> community for WMF intervention.
>
> Based on the information that I know, I would reverse this WMF action and
> move the case to the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee for its
> consideration.
>
> 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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block [ In reply to ]
As a housekeeping note, discussion has moved to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram


On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 09:37 Robert Fernandez <wikigamaliel@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Through various means I'm aware of the partial or full circumstances
> of a number of office bans. In all cases, T&S investigated thoroughly
> and acted appropriately. I don't know why this case would be any
> different, or warrants pitchforks and torches from vocal members of
> the community, but these are the same community members who break them
> out at every opportunity in any case.
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:06 AM Pine W <wiki.pine@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I am trying to have an open mind regarding this matter.
> >
> > I'm supportive of local and global bans in a variety of circumstances,
> and
> > if WMF thinks that sanctions are appropriate then I generally would
> expect
> > WMF to present the relevant evidence to community authorities. English
> > Wikipedia has ways of dealing with editors who are accused of misconduct,
> > and we have experienced administrators who are capable of investigating
> > situations and implementing bans including cases which involve nonpublic
> > evidence.
> >
> > In the absence of convincing evidence that demonstrates a major problem
> > with a Wikimedia community's competence and willingness to adjudicate
> cases
> > in a fair manner, I think that WMF interventions such as this are
> difficult
> > to justify. Based on the limited information that I have, I disagree with
> > WMF's process for this specific case, and in general I have ongoing
> > concerns about WMF's process for WMF-initiated bans. WMF's lack of faith
> in
> > the English Wikipedia community authorities' competence to adjudicate a
> > case such as this is discouraging and, as far as I know, not justified.
> > Even if a local community has well known problems with its
> self-governance,
> > I think that the appropriate recourse would be to the global community.
> > While the global community seems generally opposed to reviewing appeals
> of
> > specific local cases, I think that evidence of systemic problems would
> > likely get more attention and perhaps even a request from the global
> > community for WMF intervention.
> >
> > Based on the information that I know, I would reverse this WMF action and
> > move the case to the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee for its
> > consideration.
> >
> > 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block [ In reply to ]
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 <benjaminikuta@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 <techman224@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.herbert@gmail.com>
> >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> >> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@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.herbert@gmail.com
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l@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-request@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block [ In reply to ]
It seems the English Wikipedia community is concern with whether WMF has
jurisdiction to ban a user in a single project with active arbitration
committee and if they may do so without any obligation to notify the
project Arbitration committee or the community.

Well, I don't know the specifics of this particular ban but I believe WMF
took the best decision in banning Fram considering the Foundation has acted
approximately in dealing with similar issues in the past.

Regards,

Isaac



On Tue, Jun 11, 2019, 2:58 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <paulosperneta@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 <benjaminikuta@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 <techman224@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.herbert@gmail.com>
> > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > >> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@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.herbert@gmail.com
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > >> WikiEN-l@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block [ In reply to ]
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 <
paulosperneta@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 <benjaminikuta@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 <techman224@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.herbert@gmail.com>
> > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > >> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@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.herbert@gmail.com
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > >> WikiEN-l@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block [ In reply to ]
The point made by pretty much everyone is not that Fram should or should
not be banned, but that the process in this case should have followed the
standard dispute resolution avenues, More specifically, the case should
have been communicated to the Arbitration Committee, whose members did sign
the non-disclosure agreement.

This is different from the past cases when users were banned by WMF, since
in this case it was made clear the case is based on on-wiki open activity
of Fram (and, specifically, only on the English Wikipedia). The on-wiki
activity is subject to the community policies.

To be clear, I am not a friend of Fram, and in the past supported desysop
on a number of occasions.

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:46 PM Amir Sarabadani <ladsgroup@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 <
> paulosperneta@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 <benjaminikuta@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 <techman224@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.herbert@gmail.com>
> > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > >> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@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.herbert@gmail.com
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > >> WikiEN-l@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block [ In reply to ]
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 <ladsgroup@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 <
> paulosperneta@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 <benjaminikuta@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 <techman224@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.herbert@gmail.com>
> > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > >> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@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.herbert@gmail.com
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > >> WikiEN-l@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block [ In reply to ]
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 <toddmallen@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 <ladsgroup@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 <
> > paulosperneta@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 <benjaminikuta@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 <techman224@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.herbert@gmail.com>
> > > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > >> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@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.herbert@gmail.com
> > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > >> WikiEN-l@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block [ In reply to ]
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 <nawrich@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 <toddmallen@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 <ladsgroup@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 <
> > > paulosperneta@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 <benjaminikuta@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 <techman224@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.herbert@gmail.com>
> > > > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > > >> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@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.herbert@gmail.com
> > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > > >> WikiEN-l@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

--
Philippe Beaudette
philippe@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block [ In reply to ]
Phillipe,

Can you imagine a hypothetical situation where it would have been
appropriate for this WMF office action to exist though - that is to say,
not serious enough to ban a user from any other wiki than en. and serious
enough to take direct action outside of the community?

I sure can't, yet here it happened. That means I also can't really
disqualify any other points that I can't imagine as surely false. Can you,
from your personal experience reconcile what happened here good enough, so
that when you say you can't imagine, that dismisses the issue? Or do you
maybe also have to suspend your judgement on what probably did or didn't
happen as you are also in the realm of "can't imagine" already?

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 04:35 Philippe Beaudette <philippe@beaudette.me>
wrote:

> 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 <nawrich@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 <toddmallen@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 <ladsgroup@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 <
> > > > paulosperneta@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 <benjaminikuta@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 <
> techman224@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.herbert@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > > > >> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@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.herbert@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > > > >> WikiEN-l@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> --
> Philippe Beaudette
> philippe@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block [ In reply to ]
Martian,

While it’s not something I could conjure up today, my time at WMF exposed
me to enough things that I could not have imagined prior to seeing them for
myself that I am unwilling to discount that such a situation could exist.

Philippe

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:25 PM Martijn Hoekstra <martijnhoekstra@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Phillipe,
>
> Can you imagine a hypothetical situation where it would have been
> appropriate for this WMF office action to exist though - that is to say,
> not serious enough to ban a user from any other wiki than en. and serious
> enough to take direct action outside of the community?
>
> I sure can't, yet here it happened. That means I also can't really
> disqualify any other points that I can't imagine as surely false. Can you,
> from your personal experience reconcile what happened here good enough, so
> that when you say you can't imagine, that dismisses the issue? Or do you
> maybe also have to suspend your judgement on what probably did or didn't
> happen as you are also in the realm of "can't imagine" already?
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 04:35 Philippe Beaudette <philippe@beaudette.me>
> wrote:
>
> > 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 <nawrich@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 <toddmallen@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 <ladsgroup@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 <
> > > > > paulosperneta@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 <benjaminikuta@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 <
> > techman224@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.herbert@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > > > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > > > > >> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > > > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@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.herbert@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > > > > >> WikiEN-l@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > --
> > Philippe Beaudette
> > philippe@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

--
Philippe Beaudette
philippe@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block [ In reply to ]
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.

??????? ??? ??, 11 ????? 2019 ?-22:35 ??? ?Philippe Beaudette?? <?
philippe@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 <nawrich@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 <toddmallen@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 <ladsgroup@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 <
> > > > paulosperneta@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 <benjaminikuta@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 <
> techman224@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.herbert@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > > > >> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@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.herbert@gmail.com
> > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > > > >> WikiEN-l@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> --
> Philippe Beaudette
> philippe@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] en.wp office yearlock block [ In reply to ]
George,

There are five things that I claimed the Foundation has and the volunteers
do not: responsibility to support the community, and the time, the
expertise, the money and the people to do so. So that's ten assertions.
You claim that some of those are unwarranted. There are over a thousand
possible interpretations of your claim. In the interests of a productive
discussion, would you like to be more precise about which assertions you
think might be incorrect, please?

Thrapostibongles

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:22 AM George Herbert <george.herbert@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I think that you are making a number of assertions about the community,
> individuals, the Foundation, and the power and roles and responsibilities
> that aren't warranted.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 2:15 AM Mister Thrapostibongles <
> thrapostibongles@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Frankly, I'm surprised by how surprised everyone is. The Foundation has
> > the responsibility to support the community, and the time, the expertise,
> > the money and the people to do so. Individual volunteers, however
> > well-meaning, do not. The Foundation has determined that in this
> > particular case the community;s own processes were unable to provide the
> > support that the community needed, and so the Foundation has acted to do
> > so, as you would expect.
> >
> > Thrapostibongles
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:26 AM Techman224 <techman224@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.herbert@gmail.com>
> > > > Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@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.herbert@gmail.com
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > WikiEN-l@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert@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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block [ In reply to ]
I have read several threads on this incident including Fram and T&S
statement on the English Wikipedia but I find it difficult to draw any
reasonable conclusion as WMF has not officially says that Fram was banned
for the fuck ArbCom comment. I really do not think we'll be fair to WMF if
we conclude based on Fram's statement alone.

I am also aware that the office action has been override by one of English
Wikipedia's administrator. Even though Jimbo and others asked the user not
to do so.

This whole event is scandalous and I am sad this is happening at the time.

Isaac

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 7:28 AM Philippe Beaudette <philippe@beaudette.me
wrote:

> Martian,
>
> While it’s not something I could conjure up today, my time at WMF exposed
> me to enough things that I could not have imagined prior to seeing them for
> myself that I am unwilling to discount that such a situation could exist.
>
> Philippe
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:25 PM Martijn Hoekstra <
> martijnhoekstra@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Phillipe,
> >
> > Can you imagine a hypothetical situation where it would have been
> > appropriate for this WMF office action to exist though - that is to say,
> > not serious enough to ban a user from any other wiki than en. and serious
> > enough to take direct action outside of the community?
> >
> > I sure can't, yet here it happened. That means I also can't really
> > disqualify any other points that I can't imagine as surely false. Can
> you,
> > from your personal experience reconcile what happened here good enough,
> so
> > that when you say you can't imagine, that dismisses the issue? Or do you
> > maybe also have to suspend your judgement on what probably did or didn't
> > happen as you are also in the realm of "can't imagine" already?
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 04:35 Philippe Beaudette <philippe@beaudette.me>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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 <nawrich@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 <toddmallen@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 <
> ladsgroup@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 <
> > > > > > paulosperneta@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 <benjaminikuta@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 <
> > > techman224@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.herbert@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > > > > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > > > > > >> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > > > > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@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.herbert@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > > > > > >> WikiEN-l@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Philippe Beaudette
> > > philippe@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> --
> Philippe Beaudette
> philippe@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block [ In reply to ]
Yaroslav,

I think it's reasonably clear that the English Wikipedia community and its
community structures, such as its Arbitration Committee, and processes are
not capable of maintaining a productive, harassment-free environment for
the volunteer workers. For example, they have consistently failed, after
several attempts, to handle the case of a volunteer who used the word
"Cxxx" about a fellow worker, and the community has agreed that telling
others to "Fxxx off" is acceptable. These are symptoms of a dysfunctional
community, which tolerates behaviour that is unacceptable in any collegial
working environment, and it is right that the Foundation should step in.

Thrapostibongles

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 4:56 PM Yaroslav Blanter <ymbalt@gmail.com> wrote:

> The point made by pretty much everyone is not that Fram should or should
> not be banned, but that the process in this case should have followed the
> standard dispute resolution avenues, More specifically, the case should
> have been communicated to the Arbitration Committee, whose members did sign
> the non-disclosure agreement.
>
> This is different from the past cases when users were banned by WMF, since
> in this case it was made clear the case is based on on-wiki open activity
> of Fram (and, specifically, only on the English Wikipedia). The on-wiki
> activity is subject to the community policies.
>
> To be clear, I am not a friend of Fram, and in the past supported desysop
> on a number of occasions.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:46 PM Amir Sarabadani <ladsgroup@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 <
> > paulosperneta@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 <benjaminikuta@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 <techman224@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.herbert@gmail.com>
> > > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > >> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@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.herbert@gmail.com
> > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > >> WikiEN-l@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block [ In reply to ]
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, <yyairrand@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.
>
> ??????? ??? ??, 11 ????? 2019 ?-22:35 ??? ?Philippe Beaudette?? <?
> philippe@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 <nawrich@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 <toddmallen@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 <ladsgroup@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 <
> > > > > paulosperneta@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 <benjaminikuta@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 <
> > techman224@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.herbert@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > > > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > > > > >> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > > > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@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.herbert@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > > > > >> WikiEN-l@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > --
> > Philippe Beaudette
> > philippe@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-request@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block [ In reply to ]
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 07:43, Yair Rand <yyairrand@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.

I haven't seen this email. Have you? If so, where?
--
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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block [ In reply to ]
I would like to reserve the right to say "fuck arbcom", "fuck the WMF", or
"fuck the admins", just like I deserve the right to say "fuck the police"
or "fuck the judiciary system".

Regardless whether you think so or not, I dont think that's within WMFs
remit to police and enforce.

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 10:09 Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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, <yyairrand@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.
> >
> > ??????? ??? ??, 11 ????? 2019 ?-22:35 ??? ?Philippe Beaudette?? <?
> > philippe@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 <nawrich@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 <toddmallen@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 <
> ladsgroup@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 <
> > > > > > paulosperneta@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 <benjaminikuta@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 <
> > > techman224@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.herbert@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > > > > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > > > > > >> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > > > > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@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.herbert@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > > > > > >> WikiEN-l@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Philippe Beaudette
> > > philippe@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block [ In reply to ]
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-bounces@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, <yyairrand@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.
>
> ??????? ??? ??, 11 ????? 2019 ?-22:35 ??? ?Philippe Beaudette?? <?
> philippe@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 <nawrich@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 <toddmallen@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 <ladsgroup@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 <
> > > > > paulosperneta@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 <benjaminikuta@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 <
> > techman224@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.herbert@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block
> > > > > > > >> Date: June 10, 2019 at 8:54:34 PM CDT
> > > > > > > >> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > > > > >> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@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.herbert@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > > > > >> WikiEN-l@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> > --
> > Philippe Beaudette
> > philippe@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-request@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-request@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-request@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-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  View All