Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

[Nathan]

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 3:58 PM Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> Because they'd be immediately accused of libeling him and it would
> turn into a he said/they said.
>
> Also, while I do think the WMF should be in the business of blocking
> problem-causing users, it shouldn't be in the business of speaking out
> against them publicly.


Robert, I don't follow your arguments here. You think the only two possible
explanations are that one or the other side is lying, and prefer a practice
where the WMF silently bans people and never offers an explanation? Neither
position seems reasonable in my opinion.
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

[Robert Fernandez]

Because they'd be immediately accused of libeling him and it would
turn into a he said/they said.

Also, while I do think the WMF should be in the business of blocking
problem-causing users, it shouldn't be in the business of speaking out
against them publicly.

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 3:39 PM Benjamin Ikuta  wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Do you at least believe him when he says he hasn't contacted anyone offwiki, 
> and everything he was warned about was onwiki?
>
> And if he really is lying, why can't they even say so?
>
>
>
> On Jun 28, 2019, at 12:14 PM, Robert Fernandez  wrote:
>
> > I do.
> >
> > It just doesn’t make any sense.  His account is either wrong or leaving out
> > much of the truth.
> >
> > I have some idea (from unfortunate experience) how long office bans take,
> > how much work goes into them, and how many people have to sign off on them.
> >
> > So we’re either saying one person with a checkered history is lying or a
> > large number of professionals lied, conspired, and lashed out.
> >
> > Occam’s razor.
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:15 AM Benjamin Ikuta 
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Why do you doubt Fram? What do you think happened? And why can't the WMF
> >> say even so much as a, "That's not accurate."?
> >>
> >> You really think he's just outright lying?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jun 14, 2019, at 4:03 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
> >>
> >>> If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible,
> >>> let alone the story, then you're less competent than I have previously
> >>> considered you to be.
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Todd Allen  wrote:
> 
>  According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for
>  maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs,
> >> the
>  maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is lying
> >> or
>  omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not challenging
>  him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for
> >> what
>  they told him they sanctioned him for.
> 
>  Todd
> 
>  On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard  wrote:
> 
> > and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> > doing only what you describe?
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen  wrote:
> >>
> >> The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
> >> writing
> >> garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
> >> Harassment!
> >> Bad!"
> >>
> >> If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
> > SOURCES
> >> PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement
> >> anyway.
> >> The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had
> >> her
> >> articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> > "harassment"
> >> rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
> >> policies.
> >> Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
> > only
> >> after she has them in hand.
> >>
> >> Todd
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
> > wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done
> >> then
> >>> clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> >>>
>  This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
> 
>  The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
>  terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
> > death
>  threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
>  understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
> > and
>  threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
> > criminal
>  stuff.
> 
>  The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
>  specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
> > goes
>  against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
>  existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
>  banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees
>  start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
> > then
>  we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the
>  same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
>  administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free
>  in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time
>  employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
> 
>  If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is
>  

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Do you at least believe him when he says he hasn't contacted anyone offwiki, 
and everything he was warned about was onwiki? 

And if he really is lying, why can't they even say so? 



On Jun 28, 2019, at 12:14 PM, Robert Fernandez  wrote:

> I do.
> 
> It just doesn’t make any sense.  His account is either wrong or leaving out
> much of the truth.
> 
> I have some idea (from unfortunate experience) how long office bans take,
> how much work goes into them, and how many people have to sign off on them.
> 
> So we’re either saying one person with a checkered history is lying or a
> large number of professionals lied, conspired, and lashed out.
> 
> Occam’s razor.
> 
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:15 AM Benjamin Ikuta 
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Why do you doubt Fram? What do you think happened? And why can't the WMF
>> say even so much as a, "That's not accurate."?
>> 
>> You really think he's just outright lying?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 14, 2019, at 4:03 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
>> 
>>> If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible,
>>> let alone the story, then you're less competent than I have previously
>>> considered you to be.
>>> 
>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Todd Allen  wrote:
 
 According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for
 maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs,
>> the
 maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is lying
>> or
 omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not challenging
 him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for
>> what
 they told him they sanctioned him for.
 
 Todd
 
 On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard  wrote:
 
> and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> doing only what you describe?
> 
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen  wrote:
>> 
>> The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
>> writing
>> garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
>> Harassment!
>> Bad!"
>> 
>> If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
> SOURCES
>> PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement
>> anyway.
>> The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had
>> her
>> articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> "harassment"
>> rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
>> policies.
>> Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
> only
>> after she has them in hand.
>> 
>> Todd
>> 
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
> wikigamal...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done
>> then
>>> clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
>>> 
 This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
 
 The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
 terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
> death
 threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
 understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
> and
 threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
> criminal
 stuff.
 
 The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
 specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
> goes
 against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
 existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
 banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees
 start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
> then
 we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the
 same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
 administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free
 in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time
 employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
 
 If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is
 because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's
 Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should
 be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English
 Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
 policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether
 Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not
 worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

[Robert Fernandez]

I do.

It just doesn’t make any sense.  His account is either wrong or leaving out
much of the truth.

I have some idea (from unfortunate experience) how long office bans take,
how much work goes into them, and how many people have to sign off on them.

So we’re either saying one person with a checkered history is lying or a
large number of professionals lied, conspired, and lashed out.

Occam’s razor.

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:15 AM Benjamin Ikuta 
wrote:

>
>
>
> Why do you doubt Fram? What do you think happened? And why can't the WMF
> say even so much as a, "That's not accurate."?
>
> You really think he's just outright lying?
>
>
>
> On Jun 14, 2019, at 4:03 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
>
> > If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible,
> > let alone the story, then you're less competent than I have previously
> > considered you to be.
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Todd Allen  wrote:
> >>
> >> According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for
> >> maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs,
> the
> >> maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is lying
> or
> >> omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not challenging
> >> him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for
> what
> >> they told him they sanctioned him for.
> >>
> >> Todd
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard  wrote:
> >>
> >>> and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> >>> doing only what you describe?
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen  wrote:
> 
>  The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
> writing
>  garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
> Harassment!
>  Bad!"
> 
>  If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
> >>> SOURCES
>  PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement
> anyway.
>  The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had
> her
>  articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> >>> "harassment"
>  rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
> policies.
>  Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
> >>> only
>  after she has them in hand.
> 
>  Todd
> 
>  On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
> >>> wikigamal...@gmail.com>
>  wrote:
> 
> > If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done
> then
> > clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> >
> >> This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
> >>
> >> The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
> >> terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
> >>> death
> >> threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
> >> understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
> >>> and
> >> threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
> >>> criminal
> >> stuff.
> >>
> >> The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
> >> specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
> >>> goes
> >> against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> >> existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> >> banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees
> >> start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
> >>> then
> >> we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the
> >> same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
> >> administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free
> >> in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time
> >> employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
> >>
> >> If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is
> >> because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's
> >> Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should
> >> be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English
> >> Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
> >> policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether
> >> Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not
> >> worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on
> >> Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other
> >> Wikimedia projects.
> >>
> >> Fae
> >> --
> >> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >>
> >> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> When you bad 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiJournals: A proposal to become a new sister project

[Samuel Klein]

Indeed... there is no wikiversity phd.  Nor is one planned in the near
future in any language, as far as I know.
Getting WV courses onto accredited platforms seems like a step towards
alignment (or perhaps first: working w/ an existing set of accredited
courses and getting their materials onto WV as a non-accredited space to
find and learn from those materials!)

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 8:35 PM Thomas Shafee 
wrote:

> Hi Amirouche,
>
> It's definitely possible to write articles in WikiJournals without a PhD (
> example ). External peer reviewers
> are invited in the same way whether the author is some top prof or an
> undergrad.
>
> I definitely think that WikiJournal articles can be useful for Wikiversity
> courses (example , example
> ). Bu I think that the two projects
> have different technical needs.
>
> As far as I know, Wikiversity is currently not accredited in any country -
> a process usually tightly regulated by governments (Australia example
> ). Wikiversity is therefore more like P2PU
>  than Open University
> , in that it can offer courses and
> provide completion badges, but not yet award formal PhDs. I don't now
> whether there are any users working on it, but accreditation for
> Wikiversity courses would probably be most easily achieved by partnering
> with established accredited universities, a bit like coursera
> , but that would still be a pretty major
> project.
>
> Hope that is useful info!
> All the best,
> Thomas
>
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 15:39, Amirouche Boubekki <
> amirouche.boube...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> >
> > I am new to the mailing list and more generaly on wikipedia as
> contributor
> > and as student in wikiversity.
> >
> > I did not know about WikiJournals as part of Wikiversity. My only remark
> > will be that the wikiveristy
> > PhD program is in poor shape. I was lost in the various tools I had to
> use
> > and broken links.
> > Most if not all conversation are old-ish and doesn't say the PhD program
> is
> > active or working
> > at all. (French wikiveristy is in much better shape).
> >
> > I am certain that the implementation of wikijournal as sister project
> will
> > have more impact for WikiJournal.
> > My point is with a better english wikiversity, both could have more
> impact.
> >
> >
> > I think, forking wikijournals outside wikiverity will have a bad impact
> on
> > wikiversity.
> >
> > Also, is it possible to write a publication in the journal without prior
> > PhD?
> > Can publication in the wikijournal help obtain the wikiveristy PhD?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Amirouche ~ amz3
> > ___
> > 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,
> > 
> ___
> 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,
> 



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

The files were mainly kept because most of them were considered to be
utilitarian objects, but IMO the rationale was correct, as all of them are
modern props from the Lord of the Rings movie series.

Personally, I think it could be interpreted or construed as some kind of
petty revenge from Fram on Rama (every day wikipolitics) , but technically
the nominations were correct, indeed.

And it is very true that the Commons community is completely independent
from the English Wikipedia, and fiercely adamant defenders of that
independence. Someone being a sysop on the English Wikipedia, or on any
other Wikipedia project generally count zero on content decisions there.

In this specific case, it is absolutely irrelevant that Fram is or was a
sysop at wiki.en.

Best,
Paulo

A sexta, 28 de jun de 2019, 15:09, Todd Allen 
escreveu:

> I think many Commons users would be flatly insulted by the idea that they
> wouldn't take action against something done on Commons because an English
> Wikipedia admin did it. Commons is as fiercely protective of its
> independence as EN-WP is.
>
> And this elides a crucial question: Were the deletion nominations largely
> correct or incorrect? If someone nominates a bunch of entirely appropriate
> files for deletion, that could certainly be construed as harassment or at
> minimum poor judgment on the nominator's part, but if the complaint is "I
> uploaded a bunch of inappropriate stuff and I got caught", that's
> appropriate maintenance work. So, were those files mainly deleted, or kept?
>
> Todd
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 4:22 AM Isaac Olatunde 
> wrote:
>
> > Nobody seems to be insinuating that Fram is lying. It's just plain
> > stupidity to demonize the WMF's action solely on their part of the story
> > alone. Fram has penchant  for irritating  people he disagrees  with and
> > it's possible they have crossed the line.
> >
> > Recently there was an AbCom case against Rama,  an English Wikipedia
> > administrator (now desysoped),  Commons administrator and oversighter.
> > While the case was ongoing,  Fram began to follow this user to an extent
> > that they began to mass-nominate for deletion the user's uploads on
> > Commons, a behavior the user considered as stalking and harassment. Some
> > users including myself requested that Fram stay away from Rama and their
> > uploads. A behavior  like this would normally  get users blocked but
> > nobody  felt the reason to ban or blocked Fram partly because they wear
> the
> > English Wikipedia's admin hat.
> >
> > This incident is barely a month ago.
> >
> > I am unsure if this form part of the reasons for the ban but I have no
> > enough reasons to think that the ban was unjustifiable.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Isaac
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 10:15 AM Benjamin Ikuta  > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Why do you doubt Fram? What do you think happened? And why can't the
> WMF
> > > say even so much as a, "That's not accurate."?
> > >
> > > You really think he's just outright lying?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Jun 14, 2019, at 4:03 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
> > >
> > > > If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible,
> > > > let alone the story, then you're less competent than I have
> previously
> > > > considered you to be.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Todd Allen 
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for
> > > >> maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the
> diffs,
> > > the
> > > >> maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is
> > lying
> > > or
> > > >> omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not
> > challenging
> > > >> him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him
> for
> > > what
> > > >> they told him they sanctioned him for.
> > > >>
> > > >> Todd
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard 
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> > > >>> doing only what you describe?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen 
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > >  The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
> > > writing
> > >  garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
> > > Harassment!
> > >  Bad!"
> > > 
> > >  If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND
> YOUR
> > > >>> SOURCES
> > >  PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement
> > > anyway.
> > >  The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly
> had
> > > her
> > >  articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> > > >>> "harassment"
> > >  rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
> > > policies.
> > >  Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the
> > article
> > > >>> only
> > >  after she has them in hand.
> > > 
> > >  Todd

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

[Todd Allen]

I think many Commons users would be flatly insulted by the idea that they
wouldn't take action against something done on Commons because an English
Wikipedia admin did it. Commons is as fiercely protective of its
independence as EN-WP is.

And this elides a crucial question: Were the deletion nominations largely
correct or incorrect? If someone nominates a bunch of entirely appropriate
files for deletion, that could certainly be construed as harassment or at
minimum poor judgment on the nominator's part, but if the complaint is "I
uploaded a bunch of inappropriate stuff and I got caught", that's
appropriate maintenance work. So, were those files mainly deleted, or kept?

Todd

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 4:22 AM Isaac Olatunde 
wrote:

> Nobody seems to be insinuating that Fram is lying. It's just plain
> stupidity to demonize the WMF's action solely on their part of the story
> alone. Fram has penchant  for irritating  people he disagrees  with and
> it's possible they have crossed the line.
>
> Recently there was an AbCom case against Rama,  an English Wikipedia
> administrator (now desysoped),  Commons administrator and oversighter.
> While the case was ongoing,  Fram began to follow this user to an extent
> that they began to mass-nominate for deletion the user's uploads on
> Commons, a behavior the user considered as stalking and harassment. Some
> users including myself requested that Fram stay away from Rama and their
> uploads. A behavior  like this would normally  get users blocked but
> nobody  felt the reason to ban or blocked Fram partly because they wear the
> English Wikipedia's admin hat.
>
> This incident is barely a month ago.
>
> I am unsure if this form part of the reasons for the ban but I have no
> enough reasons to think that the ban was unjustifiable.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Isaac
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 10:15 AM Benjamin Ikuta  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Why do you doubt Fram? What do you think happened? And why can't the WMF
> > say even so much as a, "That's not accurate."?
> >
> > You really think he's just outright lying?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jun 14, 2019, at 4:03 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
> >
> > > If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible,
> > > let alone the story, then you're less competent than I have previously
> > > considered you to be.
> > >
> > > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Todd Allen  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for
> > >> maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs,
> > the
> > >> maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is
> lying
> > or
> > >> omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not
> challenging
> > >> him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for
> > what
> > >> they told him they sanctioned him for.
> > >>
> > >> Todd
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> > >>> doing only what you describe?
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen 
> wrote:
> > 
> >  The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
> > writing
> >  garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
> > Harassment!
> >  Bad!"
> > 
> >  If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
> > >>> SOURCES
> >  PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement
> > anyway.
> >  The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had
> > her
> >  articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> > >>> "harassment"
> >  rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
> > policies.
> >  Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the
> article
> > >>> only
> >  after she has them in hand.
> > 
> >  Todd
> > 
> >  On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
> > >>> wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > > If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done
> > then
> > > clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > >
> > >> This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
> > >>
> > >> The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
> > >> terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
> > >>> death
> > >> threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
> > >> understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
> > >>> and
> > >> threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
> > >>> criminal
> > >> stuff.
> > >>
> > >> The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
> > >> specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
> > >>> goes
> > >> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

[Paulo Santos Perneta]

Not really demonizing WMF, but healthily not trusting at face value what
they say, specially given WMF quite messy record at that.

The WMF interference in that Wikipedia community was completely out of
process, and to the moment lacking any justification worth of that name.
IMO it is OK for that community to take the measures they deem as
appropriate to prevent such kind of interference in the future.

Best.
Paulo


A sexta, 28 de jun de 2019, 11:22, Isaac Olatunde 
escreveu:

> Nobody seems to be insinuating that Fram is lying. It's just plain
> stupidity to demonize the WMF's action solely on their part of the story
> alone. Fram has penchant  for irritating  people he disagrees  with and
> it's possible they have crossed the line.
>
> Recently there was an AbCom case against Rama,  an English Wikipedia
> administrator (now desysoped),  Commons administrator and oversighter.
> While the case was ongoing,  Fram began to follow this user to an extent
> that they began to mass-nominate for deletion the user's uploads on
> Commons, a behavior the user considered as stalking and harassment. Some
> users including myself requested that Fram stay away from Rama and their
> uploads. A behavior  like this would normally  get users blocked but
> nobody  felt the reason to ban or blocked Fram partly because they wear the
> English Wikipedia's admin hat.
>
> This incident is barely a month ago.
>
> I am unsure if this form part of the reasons for the ban but I have no
> enough reasons to think that the ban was unjustifiable.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Isaac
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 10:15 AM Benjamin Ikuta  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Why do you doubt Fram? What do you think happened? And why can't the WMF
> > say even so much as a, "That's not accurate."?
> >
> > You really think he's just outright lying?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jun 14, 2019, at 4:03 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
> >
> > > If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible,
> > > let alone the story, then you're less competent than I have previously
> > > considered you to be.
> > >
> > > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Todd Allen  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for
> > >> maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs,
> > the
> > >> maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is
> lying
> > or
> > >> omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not
> challenging
> > >> him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for
> > what
> > >> they told him they sanctioned him for.
> > >>
> > >> Todd
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> > >>> doing only what you describe?
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen 
> wrote:
> > 
> >  The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
> > writing
> >  garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
> > Harassment!
> >  Bad!"
> > 
> >  If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
> > >>> SOURCES
> >  PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement
> > anyway.
> >  The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had
> > her
> >  articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> > >>> "harassment"
> >  rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
> > policies.
> >  Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the
> article
> > >>> only
> >  after she has them in hand.
> > 
> >  Todd
> > 
> >  On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
> > >>> wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > > If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done
> > then
> > > clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> > >
> > >> This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
> > >>
> > >> The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
> > >> terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
> > >>> death
> > >> threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
> > >> understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
> > >>> and
> > >> threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
> > >>> criminal
> > >> stuff.
> > >>
> > >> The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
> > >> specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
> > >>> goes
> > >> against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> > >> existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> > >> banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF
> employees
> > >> start doing in parallel what 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

[Peter Southwood]

Many of us take the opposing view that we do not have enough reason to think 
the ban was justifiable, and that the ban itself is a small part of the issue, 
which is seen as lack of due process, compounded by poor communication and bad 
crisis management. 
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Isaac Olatunde
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 12:01 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Nobody seems to be insinuating that Fram is lying. It's just plain
stupidity to demonize the WMF's action solely on their part of the story
alone. Fram has penchant  for irritating  people he disagrees  with and
it's possible they have crossed the line.

Recently there was an AbCom case against Rama,  an English Wikipedia
administrator (now desysoped),  Commons administrator and oversighter.
While the case was ongoing,  Fram began to follow this user to an extent
that they began to mass-nominate for deletion the user's uploads on
Commons, a behavior the user considered as stalking and harassment. Some
users including myself requested that Fram stay away from Rama and their
uploads. A behavior  like this would normally  get users blocked but
nobody  felt the reason to ban or blocked Fram partly because they wear the
English Wikipedia's admin hat.

This incident is barely a month ago.

I am unsure if this form part of the reasons for the ban but I have no
enough reasons to think that the ban was unjustifiable.


Regards,

Isaac


On Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 10:15 AM Benjamin Ikuta 
>
>
> Why do you doubt Fram? What do you think happened? And why can't the WMF
> say even so much as a, "That's not accurate."?
>
> You really think he's just outright lying?
>
>
>
> On Jun 14, 2019, at 4:03 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
>
> > If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible,
> > let alone the story, then you're less competent than I have previously
> > considered you to be.
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Todd Allen  wrote:
> >>
> >> According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for
> >> maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs,
> the
> >> maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is lying
> or
> >> omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not challenging
> >> him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for
> what
> >> they told him they sanctioned him for.
> >>
> >> Todd
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard  wrote:
> >>
> >>> and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> >>> doing only what you describe?
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen  wrote:
> 
>  The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
> writing
>  garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
> Harassment!
>  Bad!"
> 
>  If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
> >>> SOURCES
>  PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement
> anyway.
>  The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had
> her
>  articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> >>> "harassment"
>  rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
> policies.
>  Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
> >>> only
>  after she has them in hand.
> 
>  Todd
> 
>  On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
> >>> wikigamal...@gmail.com>
>  wrote:
> 
> > If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done
> then
> > clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> >
> >> This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
> >>
> >> The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
> >> terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
> >>> death
> >> threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
> >> understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
> >>> and
> >> threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
> >>> criminal
> >> stuff.
> >>
> >> The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
> >> specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
> >>> goes
> >> against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> >> existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> >> banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees
> >> start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
> >>> then
> >> we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the
> >> same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
> >> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

[Isaac Olatunde]

Nobody seems to be insinuating that Fram is lying. It's just plain
stupidity to demonize the WMF's action solely on their part of the story
alone. Fram has penchant  for irritating  people he disagrees  with and
it's possible they have crossed the line.

Recently there was an AbCom case against Rama,  an English Wikipedia
administrator (now desysoped),  Commons administrator and oversighter.
While the case was ongoing,  Fram began to follow this user to an extent
that they began to mass-nominate for deletion the user's uploads on
Commons, a behavior the user considered as stalking and harassment. Some
users including myself requested that Fram stay away from Rama and their
uploads. A behavior  like this would normally  get users blocked but
nobody  felt the reason to ban or blocked Fram partly because they wear the
English Wikipedia's admin hat.

This incident is barely a month ago.

I am unsure if this form part of the reasons for the ban but I have no
enough reasons to think that the ban was unjustifiable.


Regards,

Isaac


On Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 10:15 AM Benjamin Ikuta 
>
>
> Why do you doubt Fram? What do you think happened? And why can't the WMF
> say even so much as a, "That's not accurate."?
>
> You really think he's just outright lying?
>
>
>
> On Jun 14, 2019, at 4:03 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
>
> > If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible,
> > let alone the story, then you're less competent than I have previously
> > considered you to be.
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Todd Allen  wrote:
> >>
> >> According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for
> >> maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs,
> the
> >> maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is lying
> or
> >> omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not challenging
> >> him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for
> what
> >> they told him they sanctioned him for.
> >>
> >> Todd
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard  wrote:
> >>
> >>> and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> >>> doing only what you describe?
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen  wrote:
> 
>  The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept
> writing
>  garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage!
> Harassment!
>  Bad!"
> 
>  If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
> >>> SOURCES
>  PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement
> anyway.
>  The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had
> her
>  articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
> >>> "harassment"
>  rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's
> policies.
>  Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
> >>> only
>  after she has them in hand.
> 
>  Todd
> 
>  On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
> >>> wikigamal...@gmail.com>
>  wrote:
> 
> > If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done
> then
> > clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> >
> >> This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
> >>
> >> The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
> >> terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
> >>> death
> >> threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
> >> understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
> >>> and
> >> threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
> >>> criminal
> >> stuff.
> >>
> >> The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
> >> specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
> >>> goes
> >> against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
> >> existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
> >> banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees
> >> start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
> >>> then
> >> we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the
> >> same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
> >> administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free
> >> in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time
> >> employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
> >>
> >> If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is
> >> because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's
> >> Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should
> >> be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing Wikimedia Space: A space for movement news and conversations

[Adrian Raddatz]

Yes, like Samuel I'm excited to see some experimentation with alternative
(and hopefully better) mediums for community engagement.

Adrian Raddatz


On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 7:05 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:

> I love the idea of experimenting like this.
> More like this please.  The simpler and lighter weight experiments can be
> (w little drama ;) the more of possibility space we can explore.
>
> And that's a space we should all be excited by.
>
> On Wed., Jun. 26, 2019, 12:47 p.m. Quim Gil,  wrote:
>
> > Hi, thank you for your feedback about Wikimedia Space.
> >
> > So far, there have been many comments focusing on _who_ has released
> _what_
> > and _how_. Let me tell you _why_ we are proposing Wikimedia Space. People
> > agreeing on _why_ can agree on the rest way easier.
> >
> > Wikimedia Space is all about Wikimedia growth. If you are supporting
> > newcomers or you are contributing to the growth of the Wikimedia movement
> > in other ways, we are very interested in your opinions, your suggestions,
> > your needs. And we are especially interested in hearing from you if you
> are
> > a promoter of movement diversity and/or part of any kind of group
> > underrepresented in Wikimedia.
> >
> > Why Wikimedia Space, in more detail:
> >
> > From the Wikimedia movement strategic direction -
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20
> >
> > * Knowledge equity
> >
> >
> > From the Wikimedia Foundation medium-term plan -
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-term_plan_2019
> >
> > * Grow participation globally, focusing on emerging markets
> > * Thriving movement
> > * Support to newcomers
> > * Strong, diverse, and innovative communities that represent the World
> > * Strong and empowered movement leaders and affiliates
> > * Safe, secure spaces and equitable, efficient processes for all
> > participants
> >
> > I hope this explains our _why_. About some of the points mentioned...
> >
> > Wikimedia Space is a proposal to the movement in the form of a prototype
> > https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/what-do-mean-here-by-prototype/188/4
> .
> > We believe it will generate interest, feedback, criticism and
> contributions
> > in a number of ways that a text-only proposal in (say) Meta Wiki wouldn't
> > achieve.
> >
> > For instance, while we discuss here in a black & white and text-only
> > environment, more than 60 colorful users have signed up already and
> > Wikimedia Space and are getting their own impressions about it.
> > https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/u .
> >
> > Or for instance, several event organizers just signed up and added their
> > event to the Wikimedia Space map, which, if you ask me, after just one
> day
> > already looks fresh, beautiful and interesting:
> > https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/c/events/l/map
> >
> > We are happy to discuss possibilities for connection / integration /
> > migration between Wikimedia Space and existing community channels. As a
> > matter of fact, wikimedia-l could potentially benefit from the features
> > offered by Wikimedia Space (a conversation started in this list by
> > volunteers years ago):
> >
> >
> https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/integrating-mailing-lists-to-wikimedia-space/136
> >
> > Wikimedia Space doesn't prevent improvements in Meta or other places. If
> > anything, we believe it will become an incentive for improvements in all
> > community channels willing to keep up. In our opinion, potential
> > improvements in Meta shouldn't prevent the release of Wikimedia Space.
> What
> > you see today is the result of about three weeks of part time work by
> four
> > people. Now consider how much time would it take to discuss, agree,
> > resource and implement an equivalent feature set in MediaWiki, and (just
> as
> > important) equivalent social expectations and norms in the Meta
> community.
> >
> > We are just starting to promote Wikimedia Space. Yesterday we did an
> > initial announcement to get a first wave of users, see how the prototype
> > would take hold, and gauge the initial response. We plan to continue
> > promoting Wikimedia Space in more channels. In fact, you can help. If
> there
> > is a channel missing, please point to its URL, or (even better) feel free
> > to forward the announcement yourself.
> >
> > If you have found an actionable problem, we welcome bug reports and
> feature
> > requests: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/space/
> >
> > We encourage you to give Wikimedia Space a try. Even if today someone
> > remains unconvinced, signing up won't hurt them. Then give it a week, and
> > let us know. We really mean it! Prototypes always contribute to better
> > discussions.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > --
> > Quim Gil
> > Senior Manager of Community Relations @ Wikimedia Foundation
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Qgil-WMF
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > 

[Wikimedia-l] Extended call for submissions for Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2019

[Kiril Simeonovski]

Dear all,

I would like to announce that the call for submissions for the Wikimedia
CEE Meeting 2019, which will take place in Belgrade from 11-13 October, has
been extended until 10 August. If you have some learning in mind that you
think should be shared with the CEE communities, this is a very good
opportunity to do so and do not hesitate to take this chance.

For detailed information, please see:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CEE_Meeting_2019/Submissions

Best regards,
Kiril
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?

[Leila Zia]

An update on this thread:

* We have launched the survey on 2019-06-26 in 15 languages and we
intend to stop the surveys 7 days after launch time. The current flow
of responses is as expected.

* The participating languages are: ar, de, en (sampling from all
countries), en (sampling from countries in Africa), es, fa, fr
(sampling from all countries), fr (sampling from countries in Africa),
he, hu, no, ro, ru, uk, zh. (A big thank you to the volunteers in
these language communities who worked with us to make the translations
and announcements on village pumps happen.)

* Please watch 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Demographics_and_Wikipedia_use_cases
if you're interested to receive updates about the research as we go
through the analysis. (Please expect, roughly, a monthly update
frequency. If we can do more frequently, we will.)

* If you want the survey to run in your language community, there is a
chance that we run the same survey in a few weeks time in a few of
more languages. You can express your interest by adding a line item as
the last row of the table in
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Behaviour/Demographics_and_Wikipedia_use_cases#Interested_languages
. Priority is given to languages who have signed up prior to this
announcement. We can't guarantee that we can run these extra surveys.

And one logistical announcement: As some of you know, Isaac Johnson
from the Research team is working heavily on this stage of the
research (demographics+motivation/needs). As a result, some or all of
the future announcements about this stage of the research may come
from him instead of me. :)

Best,
Leila

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 11:07 PM David Goodman  wrote:
>
> Peter, all of these would be useful .  The most useful of all would be a
> list of those that have been deleted as drafts that were not improved for 6
> months--I havre a partial list, but there is no easy way of screening it. A
> spreadsheet with links to the deleted versions and to the google scholar
> and worldcat records would be an enormous help--I became an admin 12 years
> ago specifically to rescue deleted articles, but there is no systematic way
> of finding them.
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 1:33 AM Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> > David,
> > Would your work be influenced by an analysis of the academic biographies
> > which are most searched for that are not on Wikipedia yet? (assuming that
> > such an targeted analysis was available)
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> >
> > PS. An analysis that included a check of whether the topic was likely to
> > be notable and a listing of possible sources would also save a lot of
> > wasted effort. Also a check against articles that have been deleted for
> > good reasons, and articles in other languages with a reasonable accessible
> > reference list.
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of David Goodman
> > Sent: 12 March 2019 07:15
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] How diverse are your readers?
> >
> > "with popular topics cannibalizing resources."
> >
> > What resources can be cannibalized?   The limiting resource in WP is
> > interested people writing, improving, and validating  articles.  People
> > choose their own topics.  This is different from an organization where
> > staff can be directed to work on what the management think is important.
> >
> > I, for example, almost totally avoid most aspects of what is popular
> > culture--I am neither competent nor interested. ) The topics I work on are
> > those that interest me, mainly academic biographies. I'm sure most  people
> > do not think them important.  We're volunteers, and must tolerate each
> > others interests.
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 5:06 PM John Erling Blad  wrote:
> >
> > > We should be using a grid for what people are reading about, instead
> > > of using countries. That will give a better representation of large
> > > countries vs small countries. It will also better reflect local ethnic
> > > groups.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 1:53 PM Amir E. Aharoni
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ‫בתאריך יום א׳, 10 במרץ 2019 ב-23:27 מאת ‪Gerard Meijssen‬‏ <‪
> > > > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬
> > > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > I have been thinking about it.. There is a place for research but
> > > really
> > > > > why can we not have the data that allows us to seek out what people
> > are
> > > > > actually looking for and do not find.. Why can we not promote what
> > > proves
> > > > > to be of interest [1] ?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Actually, there was some work done around it. Here are some examples:
> > > >
> > > > 1. The Discovery (Search) team in the Foundation researched searches in
> > > > Wikimedia sites' search box that yielded zero results. This was done in
> > > > 2016 or so, led by Dan 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

[Benjamin Ikuta]

Why do you doubt Fram? What do you think happened? And why can't the WMF say 
even so much as a, "That's not accurate."? 

You really think he's just outright lying? 



On Jun 14, 2019, at 4:03 PM, David Gerard  wrote:

> If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible,
> let alone the story, then you're less competent than I have previously
> considered you to be.
> 
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Todd Allen  wrote:
>> 
>> According to Fram, the WMF told him his "interaction ban" was for
>> maintenance tagging two articles, yes (and when I looked at the diffs, the
>> maintenance tags were accurate and necessary). So, either Fram is lying or
>> omitting something (and the WMF, for whatever reason, is not challenging
>> him on it), the WMF lied to Fram, or they did indeed sanction him for what
>> they told him they sanctioned him for.
>> 
>> Todd
>> 
>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard  wrote:
>> 
>>> and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
>>> doing only what you describe?
>>> 
>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen  wrote:
 
 The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept writing
 garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage! Harassment!
 Bad!"
 
 If you don't want your articles to be flagged as garbage, FIND YOUR
>>> SOURCES
 PRIOR TO WRITING THEM, AND CITE THEM. That's rather a requirement anyway.
 The editor in question repeatedly failed to do that, repeatedly had her
 articles flagged for failure to do that, and regarded that as
>>> "harassment"
 rather than her own failure to follow the English Wikipedia's policies.
 Next time, she needs to find the sources first, and write the article
>>> only
 after she has them in hand.
 
 Todd
 
 On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:14 AM Robert Fernandez <
>>> wikigamal...@gmail.com>
 wrote:
 
> If someone is able to harass someone for years and nothing is done then
> clearly community procedures are not “perfectly adequate”
> 
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:36 AM Fæ  wrote:
> 
>> This misses the point, as others have highlighted already.
>> 
>> The WMF can and /should/ globally and permanently ban paedophiles,
>> terrorists, system hackers and people making multiple cross-wiki
>>> death
>> threats or threats of suicide. There are perfectly good and
>> understandable reasons as to why the evidence behind these attacks
>>> and
>> threats would be kept unpublished, it's seriously personal or
>>> criminal
>> stuff.
>> 
>> The WMF making topic bans, interaction bans and limited project
>> specific bans against Wikipedians is a brand new invention, which
>>> goes
>> against the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
>> existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for
>> banning bad behaviour on our projects. Once full time WMF employees
>> start doing in parallel what volunteer administrators already do,
>>> then
>> we should question why we do not *pay* volunteers administrators the
>> same hourly rate and we are likely to see a mass exodus of
>> administrators. After all, would you, say, deliver the post for free
>> in your area for fun, but thereby take away decent full time
>> employment with a guaranteed pension for your local postie?
>> 
>> If the reason for the WMF stepping in to ban Fram for a year is
>> because the WMF do not trust Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia's
>> Arbcom to take sensible action in harassment cases, then they should
>> be raising that honestly and openly with Arbcom. If the English
>> Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of
>> policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion than whether
>> Fram did something so terrible it cannot be named, but oddly was not
>> worth a global ban but only the equivalent of a 12 month block on
>> Wikipedia while they are free to do whatever they feel like on other
>> Wikimedia projects.
>> 
>> Fae
>> --
>> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>> 
>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 15:35, John Erling Blad 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> When you bad mouth other users there should be, and will be,
>> consequences.
>>> An admin got desysoped and banned after repeated warnings? So
>>> what? The
>>> only ting to be learned is that some people believe they can do
> whatever
>>> they want and it has no consequences, and other people goes
>>> ballistic
>> when
>>> consequences happen.
>>> 
>>> I would have given desysoped fram and 14 days to cool off, and if
>>> that
>> did
>>> not work out repeated with one month. Banning someone for one year
>>> is
>> like
>>> telling them to leave and don't come back. Someone at WMF is
>>> clearly
>> overly
>>>