In answer to Sandra's original question: Yes, I'm deeply concerned about the prospects for Wikimania given the present situation.
However, Anne makes a good point below. There are a couple things it's important to keep in mind though: (1) Having a healthy Wikimania is something that's in all of our interest; I believe we all have a potential role to play in supporting the local chapter as it does something decidedly international, and (2) What happened to get this person on the board can't really be called a *decision* of the local group. According to the bylaws, the person in question nominated themselves, I believe without need for a second; there was no disclosure of the person's on-wiki identity (though it is both publicly available and known to this person's immediate peers); and finally, there was no vote at all -- because only 6 people were nominated for 7 seats, all self-nominees were simply seated *without* a decision-making process. I do think #2 is secondary, but it provides important context for #1. The local organization can do what it wants to; but when there are direct consequences to our broader movement at stake (in the form of Wikimania), I believe that gives us all a strong and legitimate interest in how things go. -Pete On Oct 7, 2011, at 8:37 AM, Risker wrote: > I am saying that you are questioning the decision of an independent body to > select a person for membership in the same way that he questioned the WMF for > selecting a person he did not consider appropriate. In short, he sought a > non-project sanction for on-project activities/concerns. I do not see a > difference between that behaviour, and members of this list seeking a > non-project sanction (i.e., removing someone from a chapter Board of > Directors) for on-project activities/concerns, particularly when the > on-project concern was....well, doing exactly what seems to be proposed here. > > Wikimedia chapters are not beholden to one specific project. There are > hundreds of people banned or blocked on one WMF project who are active, > respected members of other projects; in fact, even on English Wikipedia, > appropriate and valued work in another WMF project or area is usually > considered a mitigating factor when a user requests review of a sanction. > > (For the record, I am a member of the Arbitration Committee that voted to ban > the user in question, and did support a ban.) > > Risker/Anne > > > > On 7 October 2011 11:22, Sandra <sandratordo...@gmail.com> wrote: > I dont understand what ur trying to express. Can u possibly clarify. > > Are you saying that this person should be allowed to represent the community > in an official capacity even though he has been recently banned for > inappropriate behavior and breaking community guidelines? > > I just want to make sure that im understanding your point of view correctly. > > On Oct 7, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I would recommend considerable caution in discussing this issue on this >> mailing list. One of the key "harassment" issues was that the now-banned >> user attempted to contact the WMF about another user whom he believed to >> beemployed by the WMF under some form of grant or contract. It raises an >> interesting question that some here would think it appropriate to try to >> affect that person's position in a Wikimedia chapter because of the English >> Wikipedia ban; it is parallel to the situation for which the user was banned >> in the first place. >> >> At least one other party under conditional sanctions in the same case is an >> active and respected member of this mailing list, and I can respect that it >> would be difficult for that individual to have this matter dissected here. >> Please proceed with caution. >> >> >> Risker/Anne >> >> >> >> >> >> On 7 October 2011 09:55, Sandra ordonez <sandratordo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Currently banned and I think it wasn't that long ago. >> >> lets wait till aude responds to see if there is a way this list can help. >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Michael J. Lowrey <orangem...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 6:49 AM, Sandra ordonez <sandratordo...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Essentially, that someone has gotten a leadership position in the D.C. >> > chapter who has been banned from editing Wikipedia for year for things like >> > harassing people, disruptive behavior, and editing problems like copyright >> > violations. >> >> Banned in the past, and done their time; or currently banned? I've >> worked with ex-cons in the past. >> >> -- >> Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey >> >> "When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food >> and clothes." >> -- Desiderius Erasmus >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> >> >> >> -- >> Sandra Ordonez >> Web Astronaut >> (503)866-2697 >> @Collaboracion >> >> "Helping you rock out in the virtual, collaborative world." >> >> www.collaborativenation.com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com 503-383-9454 mobile
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
