WMF Global Ban Policy

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:01 pm

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy:

Pursuant to our Terms of Use Wikimedia Foundation global bans are carried out by the Wikimedia Foundation to address multi-project misconduct, to help ensure the trust and safety of the users of all Wikimedia sites, or to assist in preventing prohibited behavior that interferes with contributions and dialogue. The bans are applied to individuals in their own capacity or as agents of others. A WMF global ban is an extraordinary action that only supplements, without replacing, the community global ban process.

For the safety and privacy of users, the projects, and itself, the Wikimedia Foundation refers potential criminal violations to the relevant authorities when appropriate. Also, to protect the privacy of all involved, the Wikimedia Foundation generally will not publicly comment on the reason for any specific banning action.

For further information about Wikimedia Foundation global bans, questions may be left on the discussion page, or sent by email to the Community Advocacy team at ca@wikimedia.org. Please note that questions about specific WMF global bans will not be addressed, to protect the privacy of all involved.

Submitted by Philippe yesterday.

Also,

For the safety and privacy of users, the projects, and itself, the Wikimedia Foundation refers potential criminal violations to the relevant authorities when appropriate. Also, to protect the privacy of all involved, the Wikimedia Foundation generally will not publicly comment on the reason for any specific banning action.

[...]

Please note that questions about specific WMF global bans will not be addressed, to protect the privacy of all involved.

I wonder if this was a response to our blog entry, the subsequent coverage by The Daily Dot, and the flood of Emails that likely resulted. The WMF is saying 1) they'll report pedophiles and such to police 2) they will not tell the public anything. These three sentences seem to be responses to the concerns raised.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:42 pm

I've never heard of a Terms of Use Wikimedia Foundation [sic] before. I wonder how it is related to the bog-standard Wikimedia Foundation.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:48 pm

Notvelty wrote:I've never heard of a Terms of Use Wikimedia Foundation [sic] before. I wonder how it is related to the bog-standard Wikimedia Foundation.

Like all bodies, arms and compartments of the WMF, it would be completely unrelated, for purposes of reporting, damage limitation, responsibility avoidance and general "ball dodging".
HTH

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 10:08 pm

And what about all the names in the actual log of global locks? Who the hell are they and why aren't they on the "official list"?

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 10:19 pm

EricBarbour wrote:And what about all the names in the actual log of global locks? Who the hell are they and why aren't they on the "official list"?

22:01, 4 December 2014 WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:The Wikipedia Adventure@global": Set locked; Unset (none) (Account operated by WMF banned user [verified that it is no longer used for original purpose])
22:34, 3 December 2014 WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:Test47821741929@global": Set locked; Unset (none) (Account operated by WMF banned user)
22:34, 3 December 2014 WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:Test47821741928@global": Set locked; Unset (none) (Account operated by WMF banned user)
22:34, 3 December 2014 WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:Test782197575192@global": Set locked; Unset (none) (Account operated by WMF banned user)
22:34, 3 December 2014 WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:LyricsBot@global": Set locked; Unset (none) (Account operated by WMF banned user)
22:33, 3 December 2014 WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:TestUser748239741@global": Set locked; Unset (none) (Account operated by WMF banned user)
22:33, 3 December 2014 WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:TestUser3582039582@global": Set locked; Unset (none) (Account operated by WMF banned user)
22:33, 3 December 2014 WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:TestUser9823059238@global": Set locked; Unset (none) (Account operated by WMF banned user)
22:32, 3 December 2014 WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:TestUser893048209@global": Set locked; Unset (none) (Account operated by WMF banned user)
22:32, 3 December 2014 WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:TestUser9385209@global": Set locked; Unset (none) (Account operated by WMF banned user)
22:23, 3 December 2014 WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:Deco-old@global": Set locked; Unset (none) (Account operated by WMF banned user)
22:20, 3 December 2014 WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:Demiurge1001@global": Set locked; Unset (none) (Account operated by WMF banned user)
22:12, 3 December 2014 WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:The Test12345@global": Set locked; Unset (none) (Account operated by WMF banned user)
22:11, 3 December 2014 WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:CaraSpivey@global": Set locked; Unset (none) (Account operated by WMF banned user)
22:10, 3 December 2014 WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:Commons fair use upload bot@global": Set locked; Unset (none) (Account operated by WMF banned user)
22:10, 3 December 2014 WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:Picasa Review Bot@global": Set locked; Unset (none) (Account operated by WMF banned user)
22:06, 3 December 2014 WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:DcoetzeeDemo@global": Set locked; Unset (none) (Account operated by WMF banned user)
22:05, 3 December 2014 WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:DcoetzeeDemo3@global": Set locked; Unset (none) (Account operated by WMF banned user)
22:04, 3 December 2014 WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:Derrick Coetzee@global": Set locked; Unset (none) (Account operated by WMF banned user)
20:39, 3 December 2014 WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:Dcoetzee@global": Set locked; Unset (none) (Global ban per WMF. Do not reinstate.)
20:33, 3 December 2014 WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:Demiurge1000@global": Set locked; Unset (none) (Global ban per WMF. Do not reinstate.)
16:40, 22 October 2014 WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:EternalFloette@global": Set locked; Unset (none) (LCA action: threatening the President of the US. Do not unlock without talking to LCA.)
17:40, 9 December 2013 WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:Генадийлепота@global": Set locked; Unset (none) (WMF Office Action.)
00:13, 16 March 2012 WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:Beta M@global": Set locked; Unset (none) (OFFICE action: please contact legal@wikimedia.org with questions.)
00:12, 16 March 2012 WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:Beta M@global": Set (none); Unset locked (OFFICE action: please contact legal@wikimedia.org with questions.)
00:12, 16 March 2012 WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:Beta M@global": Set locked; Unset (none) (OFFICE action: please contact legal@wikimedia.org with questions.)

A lot/most of them look like Demi/Coetzee/BetaM sock/alt accounts, obviously.

Nice to see the Wikipedia Adventure in there again. Creepy as shit, that thing.

This is cute:

6:40, 22 October 2014 WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:EternalFloette@global": Set locked; Unset (none) (LCA action: threatening the President of the US. Do not unlock without talking to LCA.)

As to why they're not on the other list - well, I guess left hand would prefer not to be seen to know what right hand has been doing, maybe. See above.

If these are "alt" accounts, they probably like having (or feel they need to have) the "short list" to show people - "see, there were only ever 4 problems, we dealt with them".

I bet they're so happy they have these logs for us to peruse. Wikis are so wonderfully open.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 11:47 pm

Jim wrote:This is cute:
6:40, 22 October 2014 WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:EternalFloette@global": Set locked; Unset (none) (LCA action: threatening the President of the US. Do not unlock without talking to LCA.)
As to why they're not on the other list - well, I guess left hand would prefer not to be seen to know what right hand has been doing, maybe. See above.

If these are "alt" accounts, they probably like having (or feel they need to have) the "short list" to show people - "see, there were only ever 4 problems, we dealt with them".

I bet they're so happy they have these logs for us to peruse. Wikis are so wonderfully open.

Leucosticte actually did time for threatening to kill the president, is banned on enwiki (not with this account, though), and is a pedophile advocate, but is still editing away on several projects.

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 4:03 am

Notvelty wrote:I've never heard of a Terms of Use Wikimedia Foundation [sic] before. I wonder how it is related to the bog-standard Wikimedia Foundation.

Fixed.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 12:38 pm

tarantino wrote:
Jim wrote:This is cute:
6:40, 22 October 2014 WMFOffice (talk | contribs) changed status for global account "User:EternalFloette@global": Set locked; Unset (none) (LCA action: threatening the President of the US. Do not unlock without talking to LCA.)
As to why they're not on the other list - well, I guess left hand would prefer not to be seen to know what right hand has been doing, maybe. See above.

If these are "alt" accounts, they probably like having (or feel they need to have) the "short list" to show people - "see, there were only ever 4 problems, we dealt with them".

I bet they're so happy they have these logs for us to peruse. Wikis are so wonderfully open.
Leucosticte actually did time for threatening to kill the president, is banned on enwiki (not with this account, though), and is a pedophile advocate, but is still editing away on several projects.

I'm not sure calling him a "pedophile advocate" is precisely right. He's a looney fringe libertarian willing to push free speech boundaries to absurd extremes (and to suffer the consequences) to make a point.

RfB

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 2:15 pm

Oh, I forgot to add:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy

Wikimedia Foundation global bans are applied:

*when users engage in significant harassment off of the Wikimedia sites so as to genuinely threaten (emotionally or physically) users.

The WMF officially has a Hurt Feelings Rapid Response Team for Wikipedians to abuse now.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:10 pm

Michaeldsuarez wrote:Oh, I forgot to add:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy

Wikimedia Foundation global bans are applied:

*when users engage in significant harassment off of the Wikimedia sites so as to genuinely threaten (emotionally or physically) users.
The WMF officially has a Hurt Feelings Rapid Response Team for Wikipedians to abuse now.

Priceless.
Wikimedia Foundation, World Police.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Jan 16, 2015 8:25 pm

Jim wrote:
Michaeldsuarez wrote:Oh, I forgot to add:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy

Wikimedia Foundation global bans are applied:

*when users engage in significant harassment off of the Wikimedia sites so as to genuinely threaten (emotionally or physically) users.
The WMF officially has a Hurt Feelings Rapid Response Team for Wikipedians to abuse now.
Priceless.
Wikimedia Foundation, World Police.

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 2:46 pm

Michaeldsuarez wrote:
Notvelty wrote:I've never heard of a Terms of Use Wikimedia Foundation [sic] before. I wonder how it is related to the bog-standard Wikimedia Foundation.
Fixed.

They deleted my edit summary. Now people reading the page history won't be able to learn about Notvelty's role in improving the page :(

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 3:27 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:I'm not sure calling him a "pedophile advocate" is precisely right. He's a looney fringe libertarian willing to push free speech boundaries to absurd extremes (and to suffer the consequences) to make a point.

RfB

I think of Tisane as a romantic figure, a modern-day Don Quixote. Not quite sane yet principled and heroic.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 3:51 pm

There's a new batch of global banees today -- WMF working on a Saturday?! Good for them!

Amorrow since 17 January 2015.
Leucosticte ‎ since 17 January 2015.
Poetlister since 17 January 2015.
Russavia since 17 January 2015.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 4:03 pm

Philippe's really working on his grammar. Only one mistake in his e-mail that must have surely come out of hours-long sessions with Legal to make sure everything was shipshape.

We are taking this action based upon because

TheRationalist · Unread post by **TheRationalist** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:28 pm

Hey guys I'm new here. I've been following Wikipedia for a while now but I'm sure I don't know as much as the members here who have been doing it for years. I was wondering why you guys think Russavia was banned. From what I've seen he's a trollish user who hangs around Commons but given the rarity of global bans I must be missing something.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:31 pm

TheRationalist wrote:Hey guys I'm new here. I've been following Wikipedia for a while now but I'm sure I don't know as much as the members here who have been doing it for years. I was wondering why you guys think Russavia was banned. From what I've seen he's a trollish user who hangs around Commons but given the rarity of global bans I must be missing something.

I think you are missing something, yes. I doubt we are, though.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:36 pm

TheRationalist.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 7:43 pm

Hex wrote: TheRationalist.

Oh, my manners - sorry, I forgot that.

:welcome:

TheRationalist

The Devil's Advocate · Unread post by **The Devil's Advocate** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 9:24 pm

Hmmmm . . .

when users engage in significant harassment off of the Wikimedia sites so as to genuinely threaten (emotionally or physically) users

Uh Oh, WO. Seems this is the basis for Russavia getting curb-stomped:

when users engage in significant harassment of users on multiple projects

The First Commandment of Wikipedia, thou shalt not take the Godking's image in vain. I suspect the Dear Leader finally got Russavia booted for his Lèse-majesté.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Sat Jan 17, 2015 9:32 pm

The Devil's Advocate wrote:The First Commandment of Wikipedia, thou shalt not take the Godking's image in vain. I suspect the Dear Leader finally got Russavia booted for his Lèse-majesté.

Russavia is amazing

Edit: NSFW, even though 'PG'

TheRationalist · Unread post by **TheRationalist** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 12:29 am

Thanks for the welcome Hex and Jim. Do you think the ban has anything to do with this? I know he pissed off Jimbo there. But if pissing off Jimbo is now a reason for a global ban why isn't Eric Corbett gone? It would be helpful if someone could fill me on what else Russavia has been up to. All I really know is he was banned on Wikipedia.

Edit: Embarrassing spelling mistake.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 12:35 am

TheRationalist wrote:Thanks for the welcome Hex and Jim. Do you think the ban has anything to do with this? I know he pissed off Jimbo there. But if pissing off Jimbo is now a reason for a global ban why isn't Eric Corbett gone? It would be helpful if someone could fill me on what else Russavia has been up to. All I really know is we was banned on Wikipedia.

Hmmm...

TheRationalist · Unread post by **TheRationalist** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 1:01 am

Ugh, thanks for catching that. As you can see I need to proof read before I post.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 1:10 am

TheRationalist wrote:Ugh, thanks for catching that. As you can see I need to proof read before I post.

Well, the mandatory hazing for new members is complete.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 5:28 am

Zoloft wrote:
TheRationalist wrote:Ugh, thanks for catching that. As you can see I need to proof read before I post.
Well, the mandatory hazing for new members is complete.

Not so fast, hoss...

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 7:40 am

Vigilant wrote:
Zoloft wrote:
TheRationalist wrote:Ugh, thanks for catching that. As you can see I need to proof read before I post.
Well, the mandatory hazing for new members is complete.
Not so fast, hoss...

There's always the optional hazing.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 11:25 am

when users (other than those of the body) engage in significant harassment off of the Wikimedia sites so as to genuinely threaten (emotionally or physically) users

FTFY.

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 6:18 pm

TheRationalist wrote:Thanks for the welcome Hex and Jim. Do you think the ban has anything to do with this? I know he pissed off Jimbo there. But if pissing off Jimbo is now a reason for a global ban why isn't Eric Corbett gone? It would be helpful if someone could fill me on what else Russavia has been up to. All I really know is he was banned on Wikipedia.

Something strange is going on when the WMF doesn't ban hardly anybody for years, and now six in a month-and-an-half. With Demiurge1000 and Dcoetzee in December, though the WMF declined to state the reason in other than "violations of the terms of use" terms, it was clear from the record if one scoured it hard enough, or just reading Wikipediocracy, that it was child protection concerns. Suspicious interactions with child editors.

So yesterday another four are banned, the same sort of generic notice is given, but the reasons to those that follow the cases are apparently individualized and less clear. Russavia for example has not been noticed suspiciously interacting with child editors. But, by his block-evading and otherwise public protests since yesterday, he's pissed off. Basically "you're lumping me in with those suspiciously child-interacting creeps, and everybody knows that's what your generic explanations imply."

Just to speculate, it occurred to me that the opposite might be true, that WMF bans these new four in fact to show that it bans for a variety of reasons, although to be masked by a generic explanation. So they reduce their vulnerability to being sued by somebody who says "by God, you called me a pedophile, even if you didn't clearly say so." Which is what Russavia now says.

Whatever is going on, it's certainly popcorn-munching times again for those of us that track this stuff.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 6:23 pm

Triptych wrote:
TheRationalist wrote:Thanks for the welcome Hex and Jim. Do you think the ban has anything to do with this? I know he pissed off Jimbo there. But if pissing off Jimbo is now a reason for a global ban why isn't Eric Corbett gone? It would be helpful if someone could fill me on what else Russavia has been up to. All I really know is he was banned on Wikipedia.
Something strange is going on when the WMF doesn't ban hardly anybody for years, and now six in a month-and-an-half. With Demiurge1000 and Dcoetzee in December, though the WMF declined to state the reason in other than "violations of the terms of use" terms, it was clear from the record if one scoured it hard enough, or just reading Wikipediocracy, that it was child protection concerns. Suspicious interactions with child editors.

So yesterday another four are banned, the same sort of generic notice is given, but the reasons to those that follow the cases are apparently individualized and less clear. Russavia for example has not been noticed suspiciously interacting with child editors. But, by his block-evading and otherwise public protests since yesterday, he's pissed off. Basically "you're lumping me in with those suspiciously child-interacting creeps, and everybody knows that's what your generic explanations imply."

Just to speculate, it occurred to me that the opposite might be true, that WMF bans these new four in fact to show that it bans for a variety of reasons, although to be masked by a generic explanation. So they reduce their vulnerability to being sued by somebody who says "by God, you called me a pedophile, even if you didn't clearly say so." Which is what Russavia now says.

Whatever is going on, it's certainly popcorn-munching times again for those of us that track this stuff.

Truly.

The problem now is that we have an embarrassment of riches.
You have the corrupt, puerile and ridiculous admin corps on commons vs the corrupt, puerile and ridiculous community liaison corps at the WMF.

Who to root for?!

I guess I'll just fall back into my default mode which is throw stones at the idiots.

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 7:47 pm

Triptych wrote:Russavia for example has not been noticed suspiciously interacting with child editors. But, by his block-evading and otherwise public protests since yesterday, he's pissed off. Basically "you're lumping me in with those suspiciously child-interacting creeps, and everybody knows that's what your generic explanations imply."

Dont be silly.

Anyone who doesnt know (everyone who isnt involved in wikipedia, and a fair number who are) why the people on the banned list were banned is not going to leap to 'pedophile'. Those who do know why the people were banned knows Russavia got it for harrassing people (justly or unjustly). Some of the stuff he did would get him a conviction for online bullying in a couple of years the way the law is going... I am not sure it wouldnt now in the UK.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 12:07 am

I'm certain Russavia was banned for being a persistent annoyance to WMF Legal. I doubt there's anything more to it than that. While his history of tendentiousness and harassment probably played a role, it was his tendency to try to involve the Legal team in his disputes that almost certainly spelled his doom.

Of the four recently banned, his certainly has the weakest case behind it. Amorrow's ban is pro forma as he's prohibited from editing any Wikimedia project by a permanent restraining order anyway, and Leucosticte's history is well-established (and since his post-release probation is over he's likely off his meds again and will be doing nutball stuff and end up back in custody before long anyway). I personally wouldn't have banned Poetlister, mainly because, while his conduct was reprehensible, so was that of the Arbitration Committee (and specifically FT2), and so they have sufficiently unclean hands that would seem to merit a negotiated settlement with Mr. B instead of just slapping a ban down. All three of these bans can be justified as either child protection or "making Wikipedia more friendly to female editors", which are obvious agenda items.

Russavia, though, is just a garden variety asshole, albeit a very aggressive one, and if Wikimedia is going to ban all the garden variety assholes, they're going to have to ban a whole lot of people. Banning Russavia doesn't serve a public relations purpose the way the other three do, either; as far as I know, he's not specifically targeted women for harassment. His ban seems to mainly serve the specific interests of the Legal team, rather than those of Wikimedia as a whole.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 1:11 am

Kelly Martin wrote:I'm certain Russavia was banned for being a persistent annoyance to WMF Legal. I doubt there's anything more to it than that. While his history of tendentiousness and harassment probably played a role, it was his tendency to try to involve the Legal team in his disputes that almost certainly spelled his doom.

Of the four recently banned, his certainly has the weakest case behind it. Amorrow's ban is pro forma as he's prohibited from editing any Wikimedia project by a permanent restraining order anyway, and Leucosticte's history is well-established (and since his post-release probation is over he's likely off his meds again and will be doing nutball stuff and end up back in custody before long anyway). I personally wouldn't have banned Poetlister, mainly because, while his conduct was reprehensible, so was that of the Arbitration Committee (and specifically FT2), and so they have sufficiently unclean hands that would seem to merit a negotiated settlement with Mr. B instead of just slapping a ban down. All three of these bans can be justified as either child protection or "making Wikipedia more friendly to female editors", which are obvious agenda items.

Russavia, though, is just a garden variety asshole, albeit a very aggressive one, and if Wikimedia is going to ban all the garden variety assholes, they're going to have to ban a whole lot of people. Banning Russavia doesn't serve a public relations purpose the way the other three do, either; as far as I know, he's not specifically targeted women for harassment. His ban seems to mainly serve the specific interests of the Legal team, rather than those of Wikimedia as a whole.

I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree here.

I think burning the dick-in-chief at the stake will serve as a very powerful reminder to the commons cuckoo brigade that their heads are now on the block.

Konveyor Belt · Unread post by **Konveyor Belt** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:59 am

I think it boils down to little more than the WMF making an example out of these banned users. It sets a precedent (a dangerous one, but still a precedent) and allows them to answer queries about future bans by hand waving that "The situation was similar to these earlier bans".

I asked Jimbo whether he was involved in it, and he said no, but that he welcomed it.

The true community created, community driven system of a community or website will never last long before a central power comes to prominence and enacts their own authoritarian vision of just how things ought to be done.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 5:51 am

Vigilant wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:Russavia, though, is just a garden variety asshole, albeit a very aggressive one, and if Wikimedia is going to ban all the garden variety assholes, they're going to have to ban a whole lot of people. Banning Russavia doesn't serve a public relations purpose the way the other three do, either; as far as I know, he's not specifically targeted women for harassment. His ban seems to mainly serve the specific interests of the Legal team, rather than those of Wikimedia as a whole.
I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree here.

I think burning the dick-in-chief at the stake will serve as a very powerful reminder to the commons cuckoo brigade that their heads are now on the block.

That's not a "public relations purpose". It's an internal relations purpose. Banning Russavia doesn't help them to go to donors and say that they're getting rid of the perverts and the women-haters, but (they hope, at least) that it will make life a bit easier for the Legal Team itself.

I still don't think they give a damn about the morons at Commons, except as much as they create a furor within the big-ticket donor community, and I don't think we have a good sense of what that group of donors cares about.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 5:55 am

Kelly Martin wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:Russavia, though, is just a garden variety asshole, albeit a very aggressive one, and if Wikimedia is going to ban all the garden variety assholes, they're going to have to ban a whole lot of people. Banning Russavia doesn't serve a public relations purpose the way the other three do, either; as far as I know, he's not specifically targeted women for harassment. His ban seems to mainly serve the specific interests of the Legal team, rather than those of Wikimedia as a whole.
I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree here.

I think burning the dick-in-chief at the stake will serve as a very powerful reminder to the commons cuckoo brigade that their heads are now on the block.
That's not a "public relations purpose". It's an internal relations purpose. Banning Russavia doesn't help them to go to donors and say that they're getting rid of the perverts and the women-haters, but (they hope, at least) that it will make life a bit easier for the Legal Team itself.

I still don't think they give a damn about the morons at Commons, except as much as they create a furor within the big-ticket donor community, and I don't think we have a good sense of what that group of donors cares about.

I would imagine that the WMF cringes every time someone forwards them a news article that talks, in any way, about commons.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 6:58 am

Kelly Martin wrote: Russavia, though, is just a garden variety asshole, albeit a very aggressive one, and if Wikimedia is going to ban all the garden variety assholes, they're going to have to ban a whole lot of people. Banning Russavia doesn't serve a public relations purpose the way the other three do, either; as far as I know, he's not specifically targeted women for harassment. His ban seems to mainly serve the specific interests of the Legal team, rather than those of Wikimedia as a whole.

Prior to the recent banning Poetlister and Russavia the list was for child protections. The NPG thief's inclusion gives rise to speculation that he was banned for similar reasons. The addition of Poetlister, Russavia, and Amorrow serves the purpose of making the list less toxic. Recall that there was a recent Gawker(?) article that equated the list to pedophiles. "They may not say it but every one knows that global banning means pedo" is something that WMF legal needed to squash.

Triptych · Unread post by **Triptych** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 11:31 am

lilburne wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote: Russavia, though, is just a garden variety asshole, albeit a very aggressive one, and if Wikimedia is going to ban all the garden variety assholes, they're going to have to ban a whole lot of people. Banning Russavia doesn't serve a public relations purpose the way the other three do, either; as far as I know, he's not specifically targeted women for harassment. His ban seems to mainly serve the specific interests of the Legal team, rather than those of Wikimedia as a whole.
Prior to the recent banning Poetlister and Russavia the list was for child protections. The NPG thief's inclusion gives rise to speculation that he was banned for similar reasons. The addition of Poetlister, Russavia, and Amorrow serves the purpose of making the list less toxic. Recall that there was a recent Gawker(?) article that equated the list to pedophiles. "They may not say it but every one knows that global banning means pedo" is something that WMF legal needed to squash.

That's what occurred to me as well. They wanted cover in case a banned editor sued claiming "you labeled me a pedophile."

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 2:21 pm

Vigilant wrote:I think burning the dick-in-chief at the stake will serve as a very powerful reminder to the commons cuckoo brigade that their heads are now on the block.

The WMF shouldn't operate through fear and intimidation.

Lukeno94 · Unread post by **Lukeno94** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 3:17 pm

Michaeldsuarez wrote:
Vigilant wrote:I think burning the dick-in-chief at the stake will serve as a very powerful reminder to the commons cuckoo brigade that their heads are now on the block.
The WMF shouldn't operate through fear and intimidation.

Well, sometimes you have to fight fire with fire...

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:23 pm

Lukeno94 wrote:
Michaeldsuarez wrote:
Vigilant wrote:I think burning the dick-in-chief at the stake will serve as a very powerful reminder to the commons cuckoo brigade that their heads are now on the block.
The WMF shouldn't operate through fear and intimidation.
Well, sometimes you have to fight fire with fire...

Perhaps better leadership could have found a way to "reset" Commons. Perhaps a series of Webinars that included the WMF Board and leaders from other projects to redefine the mission statement of Commons. Commons is really ancillary to the overall mission of WMF. Commons is creating problems because the set of volunteers who are willing to curate a collection of photos is not representative of the broader set of WMF volunteers. In turn, the current set of Commons volunteers is not representative of the standards of society as a whole. Society as a whole wants to shield children from sexually explicit images. People who pose for such photos cannot appreciate that fact and the complications that flow from ignoring the norms of the society beyond Commons.

The WMF could find a way to install an image filter without fear and intimidation. But currently we have fear and intimidation but no image filter.

Lukeno94 · Unread post by **Lukeno94** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:47 pm

I think any image filter the WMF created would do the inverse of what it should, would slow down every single project, and would crash every 30 seconds. I think that Commons is pretty much a lost cause for the most part, because it needs a total nuking of the entrenched editors, and yet there would be no-one to take their place, which would not improve things at all.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:53 pm

Lukeno94 wrote:I think that Commons is pretty much a lost cause for the most part, because it needs a total nuking of the entrenched editors, and yet there would be no-one to take their place, which would not improve things at all.

Nah, 20, maybe 25, maybe less, main bad actors. That's all you need to excise. The rest would be grateful, expand, and more than cope, given support and guidance. There's a lot of good, well-qualified, sensible folks there who just stay away because of the loonies. You need to factor them, and the effect of their potential renewed interest in too.

Lukeno94 · Unread post by **Lukeno94** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 5:05 pm

That's true enough, I guess. The issue is just how quickly they can get installed before a new batch of nutjobs take the place of the current ones.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 5:14 pm

Lukeno94 wrote:That's true enough, I guess. The issue is just how quickly they can get installed before a new batch of nutjobs take the place of the current ones.

Ah, that's "culture change". Partially established in the act of making it obvious who was persona non grata, and why they, and their ilk, are no longer welcome. The other part is the support and guidance which I, and eagle, mentioned.
I'm not saying the WMF can do it - but that's how it's done.

Neotarf · Unread post by **Neotarf** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 5:23 pm

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/g ... 04998.html
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/g ... 05328.html

Vigilant wrote:I think burning the dick-in-chief at the stake will serve as a very powerful reminder to the commons cuckoo brigade that their heads are now on the block.

I am often in sympathy with Vigilant's sentiments, but in this case, all I can think of is "First, they came for Russavia"....

Once you start down the path of defining a problem as political and imposing a political solution, instead of examining the actions of the individual in question, you have started down a slippery slope that can only lead to double standards. Better to define criteria that can be applied evenly.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 5:26 pm

Neotarf wrote:but in this case, all I can think of is "First, they came for Russavia"....

Yes, I expect it is.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 5:28 pm

Jim wrote:
Neotarf wrote:but in this case, all I can think of is "First, they came for Russavia"....
Yes, I expect it is.

My view on that is, "When are you coming for odder and Fae?" :tapping my foot:

Neotarf · Unread post by **Neotarf** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 6:19 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Jim wrote:
Neotarf wrote:but in this case, all I can think of is "First, they came for Russavia"....
Yes, I expect it is.
My view on that is, "When are you coming for odder and Fae?" :tapping my foot:

A rather short list, under the circumstances, don't you think? But it still smacks of "sentence first, verdict later."

This situation is a poster child for why the Foundation needs to hire moderators, give them some objective criteria, and the authority to act.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 6:41 pm

Neotarf wrote:This situation is a poster child for why the Foundation needs to hire moderators, give them some objective criteria, and the authority to act.

Well, seems they did some of that here. Hopefully the rest will come soon.