Nathan, Continuing on my theme of assuming good faith:
I think that the assumption of good faith needs to go in all ways, which includes that WMF should assume good faith of ENWP and that ENWP should assume good faith of WMF. I had some very critical comments in mind earlier but I am trying to take my own advice regarding not rushing to judgement. Also, I think that WMF might be more willing to listen to me in this case if I don't go too far with my critique. I think that WMF should not have done this, but I also was very unhappy to read an allegation that some people at ENWP are being aggressive about looking for individual people to blame. I hope that we (and I include myself) can discuss this situation civilly and without going too far. Sincerely, another imperfect person, Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) On Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 16:19 Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote: > A lot of different issues are being conflated by commenters on-wiki and > here, muddying the issue. The WMF responses and some others think that this > is about policing conduct, and the perennial difficulty of doing that > against people who have entrenched support and lots of positive > contributions. But that's not really it - even in the discussion, many > people acknowledge that Fram can be a jerk and has a lot of distance to > cover before they reach the community norm of appropriate behavior. > > The problem is that most people were surprised by the blunt assertion of > WMF authority in a realm where they have mostly been absent. The appearance > is that an insider with a connection to Trust & Safety went outside > community processes to report what she viewed as (on-wiki) harassment. The > T&S team made a very token effort to intervene, and then imposed a high > profile ban with the flimsy excuse of a diff that says "fuck arbcom". They > then used that diff to excuse not including ArbCom, as if ArbCom had never > been subjected to any abuse before. > > And then predictably the WMF can't eeeeven figure out how to help > themselves once the screw up has occurred. I take Philippe's point that > multiple levels of people contributed to the screw up, and the silly > meaningless responses (and the tepid defense of some other insiders) only > exacerbated the issue. The bottom line is that if WMF wants to change the > rules of who in en.wp is responsible for what, and lift conduct policing > from the community's responsibility, it has a duty to let people know in > advance. This is an echo of the lesson that the WMF has clearly failed to > learn despite many chances over the years (superprotect, LiquidThreads, a > dozen other features and changes people didn't like, and so on). When will > they learn? Philippe moved on, so the easy solution - put him in charge of > everything - isn't going to work. > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
