My name is BrillLyle. My voice is my passport (I'm banned)

[Alex Shih]

Hang in there, Erika. There is no fucking way you should be blocked.

Arbcom lurkers, esp. GW: FIX THIS SHIT.

WMF banning Erika was a far bigger transgression on community self-governance than was their partial-banning of Fram.

Get on the back channel and YELL.

RfB

Without commenting on the merits of the ban- There are levels of block / ban.

1) en.wp blocked by an admin
2) en.wp blocked by an admin and no one willing to unblock after discussion
3) en.wp banned by community
4) en.wp banned by Arbcom
5) globally blocked
6) WMF banned

Arbcom and individual arbs have no power past 4. Fram was a special case - WMF tried to put in something between 4 and 5 and the community went into uproar. BrillLyle is a 6.
As I understand it, to get to 6, they go through many layers of internal bureaucracy, including regular sign off by CEO. We have no backchannel to overturn that.

This is a gross oversimplification if not downright misleading characterization. In this case, you don't need to "get to" 6, sometimes WMF will start at 6, which is what happened here (same with Fram's case, and you should know this). Arbcom and individual arbs may not have actual power in WMF bans per se, but they have the ability to influence, raise concerns and be more informed directly at monthly calls with the Foundation; they have the ability to compile reports and file recommendations, in which T&S and the Foundation will often take at face value (or take them into their consideration in their final decision, which also happened here).

The fact is that, you, despite of being in a position capable of doing something (more so than majority of the community and the committee), frequently chooses to shy away from responsibility. Just admit it instead of the usual bullshit please. One of these days you need to actually do the right things, instead of enjoying the comfort of bureaucracy and the self-appointed role of "getting everyone to agree" whether or not the end result is right or wrong.

[Alex Shih]

Hang in there, Erika. There is no fucking way you should be blocked.

Arbcom lurkers, esp. GW: FIX THIS SHIT.

WMF banning Erika was a far bigger transgression on community self-governance than was their partial-banning of Fram.

Get on the back channel and YELL.

RfB

To be fair, if what WMF said about Erika is true, she should definitely be banned from WMF events. I don't know the exact details, but if someone have concerns with individual Wikimedia members IRL, you should raise concerns with proper channels instead of doing them yourselves. But there's no reason for Erika to be blocked from editing, seems AFAIC there's no problem with their editing, and the community should be the one deciding the block, as per Tim. And I think this is consistent with what the WMF is trying to implement with the partial ban, even though at the current state it is a pile of garbage.

As a general point though, these kind of process should and must be transparent to have a sense of legitimacy. Throwing terms along the lines of "wrecking reputations", "hounding" or "harassment" without actually providing substantiated evidence and without allowing the accused party to refute seems terribly too familiar. Overblowing trivialities to protect vested interest is far more serious, and these accusing terms should not be used lightly like candies.

[turnedworm]

This is a gross oversimplification if not downright misleading characterization. In this case, you don't need to "get to" 6, sometimes WMF will start at 6, which is what happened here (same with Fram's case, and you should know this). Arbcom and individual arbs may not have actual power in WMF bans per se, but they have the ability to influence, raise concerns and be more informed directly at monthly calls with the Foundation; they have the ability to compile reports and file recommendations, in which T&S and the Foundation will often take at face value (or take them into their consideration in their final decision, which also happened here).

The fact is that, you, despite of being in a position capable of doing something (more so than majority of the community and the committee), frequently chooses to shy away from responsibility. Just admit it instead of the usual bullshit please. One of these days you need to actually do the right things, instead of enjoying the comfort of bureaucracy and the self-appointed role of "getting everyone to agree" whether or not the end result is right or wrong.

What I meant by "get to 6" is "to have 6 applied" - there's no 1 -> 6 follow through, you're absolutely right and I didn't mean to give that impression. I was putting the levels in to show the difference between Fram and this case, rather than anything else. We may have influence (and that's tenuous - it's quite possible that we don't) prior to the application of a ban, but certainly not after one has been applied.

I'm surprised you think I have any more status than the rest of the committee - or indeed any quite a high number of community members (functionaries especially). I really don't. I'm not a power player, nor a "thought leader". I'm willing to throw my weight around when I see an issue that concerns me, but I prefer to do that behind the scenes. I'm no good at being a public face - I frequently say the wrong thing and regret it when I do.

I'm sure you've got a laundry list of my failures. Indeed, I think there's an old one on this forum, if not feel free to create one. I won't hide from it.

[BrillLyle]

It was pretty silly to file at ANI against Ca2James if you wanted to stay hidden.

Yes it was. I never claimed to be smart.

Though the fact she had followed me on two pages, doing the same thing (deleting content, throwing WIKIRulez, following my edits page to page even though she said she wasn’t) was triggering my PTSD with her. It also clearly meant she was onto me. I was stupid and too relaxed. I also naively thought, let me try an experiment and try to be reasonable, appeal to rational good will and ask for help. Something I was too hot under the collar to do before.

Hell, with Art+Feminism I didn’t document any of the nastiness, and only until the end when Winifred Oliff came to NYC and we sat down and had lunch did I think to mention all the bad stuff that happen in real life that led to my (poor) decisions. She was exasperated that I only then told her some of the stuff. By then I think she could not or would not help me. I am still confused why she took that hour of time to sup with me if it was so far along the beaten path.

As far as Ca2james goes, she says she doesn’t harass and bully, but her consistent bad actions in my experience are quite clear. She behaves badly - I really don’t think she can help it - and then says she’s not doing anything wrong. And her thug fellow editors then also act like yellow shirts and support her. Because if not then they would have to examine their behavior. Honestly, Ca2james does nothing but trim pages of content. I don’t think she knows how to add content. She obviously has no compassion for how much time and effort it does take.

But yes. Very silly. Agree.

I am just so grateful that Folake has a page again. I am sure it will get pruned back to a stub, and I’m sort of surprised it wasn’t pushed back to the 4 credits stage. But I am grateful she’s no longer a red link.

No matter how stupid and self-sabotaging I am (I acknowledge I am), my goal is to do no harm. And I believe Folake would’ve been the one to pay here. So again, thank you.

[Ritchie333]

You want to access Wikipedia to improve articles. That's pretty obvious. Yeah, you want to bang people's heads together and slag them off, but let's be fair - the people you want to do this to are the people who need this sort of cluebat being applied to their head, so I can't really complain about that.

If I could work out how on earth I could get this ban reviewed or appealed, I would do it, but if a longstanding Arbcom member doesn't know how to do it, I sure as heck don't know how to do it either, unfortunately. It's possible that post-Framgate, the WMF may be more amenable to reviewing earlier bans and listening to evidence why permanent expulsion from the project is draconian and complete overkill.

I see that Bbb23 reverts questions he doesn't want to answer quite a bit. And yes, that's violating WP:ADMINACCT (T-H-L) "Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions.". I would ask Bbb23 directly, but I'm thinking "why bother, he'll just stick his fingers in his ears", so I'll do it here instead.

[Osborne]

I see that Bbb23 reverts questions he doesn't want to answer quite a bit. And yes, that's violating WP:ADMINACCT (T-H-L) "Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions.". I would ask Bbb23 directly, but I'm thinking "why bother, he'll just stick his fingers in his ears", so I'll do it here instead.

Though can it be proven that refusing to answer that specific ^^ request is against ADMINACCT?
The following I find easier to prove. He does this routinely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... emorea_CUs
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... hty_Hammer

[Poetlister]

As I understand it, to get to 6, they go through many layers of internal bureaucracy, including regular sign off by CEO. We have no backchannel to overturn that.

Anything is possible. If there is a will, there is a way. WP is not a bureaucracy (so says the legend).

Maybe WP isn't, but as sure as eggs are eggs the WMF is. And as we've seen, T&S don't take kindly to being criticised by volunteers. Kumioko might be right that Fram only got the treatment he did because he was an admin. Who would make that much fuss over say BrillLyle, however worthy she undoubtedly is?

[Osborne]

WP is not a bureaucracy (so says the legend).

Maybe WP isn't, but as sure as eggs are eggs the WMF is.

I was sarcastic, if it wasn't obvious (so says the legend). WP is a bureaucratic mess, with kangaroo courts, and content decisions made based on how many users vote/lobby for a specific (possibly undue, or nonsense) interpretation of one of too many rules, that often contradict each other in specific cases.

And as we've seen, T&S don't take kindly to being criticised by volunteers.

I don't know how this comes to BrillLyle, however, generally criticism of wmf is not punished. Just look at the rage on the community conversations. Do you see 20 banned people?
Criticize cleverly. Maybe don't stick to always and extremely criticizing money matters (that's not the only thing to criticize..., nor the primary interest of the majority), and you are good.
The same cannot be said about criticism of abusive admins, however. A few of whom, have steered BryllLyle's fate.

[Midsize Jake]

I don't know how this comes to BrillLyle, however, generally criticism of wmf is not punished. Just look at the rage on the community conversations. Do you see 20 banned people?
Criticize cleverly. Maybe don't stick to always and extremely criticizing money matters (that's not the only thing to criticize..., nor the primary interest of the majority), and you are good.
The same cannot be said about criticism of abusive admins, however. A few of whom, have steered BryllLyle's fate.

Each case is different, and it's a small sample size to begin with, but the impression I've gotten (and I think a fair number of our members would agree) is that if you do criticize the WMF and how things are run in general, then their normally-hesitant trigger finger becomes very itchy and twitchy as they wait for you to provide them with a flimsy ban-rationale. In other words, you still have to do something "bad," but for critics, they won't give you a second or third chance once you're on their radar screen.

I don't think it matters much if you're criticizing them about finances as opposed to something like software quality or dishonest PR or their definition of "friendly spaces," though I suppose I could be wrong. IMO they're most offended when you call them "incompetent," especially by name, and they really don't like it when you suggest they're handing out sinecures to their friends, which is another thing Erika here did. You're right about criticizing the admins, which is what pushed them over the edge with Kumioko, but again, each case is different.

And I hate to say this, but if we're really talking about raising some sort of formal appeal, they're going to want to use her participation here on Wikipediocracy against her. Fram didn't actually do that (the blog post he wrote for us didn't name any names and wasn't about en.wiki anyway, so I guess Arbcom gave him a pass). They'll be less likely to overlook that with Erika, just based on this thread alone.

Last but not least, there's the whole issue of User:Ca2james - there would have to be a 2-way interaction ban, because Ca2james isn't going to stop, and there's going to be a lot of pushback on that from her wikifriends who will try to argue (contrary to all evidence) that she's entirely innocent in this affair. That will probably involve some sort of Arbcom case, but of course, it probably should have been an Arbcom case in the first place - or at least allowed to become one, after various lower-order remedies were exhausted.

My personal position on these questions tends to be, "nobody should ever participate there in the first place, so nobody should ever want to go back," but I guess if the person in question really enjoys it, ehh, whatever. And in this case they do need more experienced people writing articles about women, in addition to all the new recruits that they're just one more {policy change, admin ban, grant-funded user study, etc.} away from getting.

[BrillLyle]

IMO they're most offended when you call them "incompetent," especially by name, and they really don't like it when you suggest they're handing out sinecures to their friends, which is another thing Erika here did.

And I hate to say this, but if we're really talking about raising some sort of formal appeal, they're going to want to use her participation here on Wikipediocracy against her. Fram didn't actually do that (the blog post he wrote for us didn't name any names and wasn't about en.wiki anyway, so I guess Arbcom gave him a pass). They'll be less likely to overlook that with Erika, just based on this thread alone.

Last but not least, there's the whole issue of User:Ca2james - there would have to be a 2-way interaction ban, because Ca2james isn't going to stop[...]

Yes. I did that.

I was going to make a list of my mistakes and the things I've done that pushed the WMF and my local chapter WM NYC to ban me from events, but then that just exhausted me.... with the intention of advice of what not to do for other editors who might have the mis-impression that Wikipedia is a safe open space....

Yes. This forum has pulled me back from the brink of depression and the closest I've come to suicidal thoughts. So if the cost is I never can edit again without socking, I'll take that. I'd rather be alive, have a community of people who get what happened and are generally pretty decent than be a full reinstated editor.

Though I would love to be able to edit again.

Yep. Ca2james is never going to stop.

[BrillLyle]

The biggest problem is that I know where the bodies are buried, as it were.

I understand generally what was/is going on, met a lot of the players in real life because of the visibility of NYC events -- and because Dario was nice enough to let me attend WikiCite in Berlin.

I had a critical eye on what I perceived to be abuses of power, inequalities, and weird funding. And questioned things publicly because I thought open access / open data / free use culture = safe space to be innovating, pushing for excellence, pushing for transparency, pushing for the best in everyone in the community.

As an aside, I'll never forget when Lane asked me what transparency was. I was flabbergasted.

I was elected to the Board of Directors of Wikimedia NYC, and was the Secretary of the Board before that.

I took the duties and responsibilities as they were explained to me seriously (like, our chapter has to support Art+Feminism, we have to collect detailed metrics to have grant funding, etc.) -- and wanted to get the WM NYC Meetup space organized and coherent. So I got so that I understood effective outreach (and saw firsthand the godawful outreach A+F did). I tried to automate the outreach. I learned a lot from Pharos / Richard Knipel, even if I now realize he was a huge part of the problem, not Mandiberg.

When Pharos told me I was banned from going to the big nodal event at MoMA for A+F's annual editathon, we were at this teriyaki place near Union Square. He was like, I want to stay friends with you despite this. I know I shocked him when I got loud and angry and said, I don't want to be your friend if you're going to treat me so unfairly (I saw red so I'm not sure what my exact words were).

But yeah, I have working knowledge of how a lot of the end user / outreach stuff in real life and virtually works. I was trained well. So I'm a problem.

And I seriously doubt they will forgive any of that.

I only now read the BuzzFeed article about Fram. I know he was an Admin but he gets to come back in a year. And I am WMF permanently banned. It doesn't compute. I had spats and made mistakes, but I don't think I've used the language and had the abusive behavior, etc. they did.

ugh.

[Midsize Jake]

I only now read the BuzzFeed article about Fram. I know he was an Admin but he gets to come back in a year. And I am WMF permanently banned. It doesn't compute. I had spats and made mistakes, but I don't think I've used the language and had the abusive behavior, etc. they did.

Well, before half our membership comes down on you like a ton of bricks for comparing the two situations, this is why I keep saying "every case is different." It actually was enough that he was an admin, but in addition to that, the Buzzfeed article came out before we learned that the person who was by far the most likely complainant against Fram was married to the Chairperson of the WMF Board of Trustees. It's probably understandable that they hadn't wanted to disclose it, but once that came out, the outcry against the WMF just got to be too much for them (and it was pretty bad already).

The other thing about Fram, aside from all the white-knighting he used to do against various forms of abuse (especially abuse that involved DYKs and other main-page links), was that he would always insist that there was a distinct line between "incivility" and "personal attacks" - the implication being that incivility is inevitable and should be forgiven, but personal attacks cross the aforementioned line (and therefore should not be). Occasionally he'd post helpful examples... I could find some, I suppose, but you get the idea. The basic takeaway there is that despite his often-vulgar language, he rarely, if ever, attacked people (at least in writing) who hadn't clearly attacked him first. The result was that he picked up plenty of enemies, but most of them are even less popular than he is. And again, he never, ever went off-site in any way whatsoever - no forums, no blog, no meetups, no chapter involvement, nothing. We don't even really know if he's male.

And of course he's Belgian, and everybody loves waffles, so qu'attendez-vous.

[BrillLyle]

Well, before half our membership comes down on you like a ton of bricks for comparing the two situations, this is why I keep saying "every case is different." It actually was enough that he was an admin, but in addition to that, the Buzzfeed article came out before we learned that the person who was by far the most likely complainant against Fram was married to the Chairperson of the WMF Board of Trustees. It's probably understandable that they hadn't wanted to disclose it, but once that came out, the outcry against the WMF just got to be too much for them (and it was pretty bad already).
[/i]

Apologies. Thanks for the heads up. I just started to read the Fram thread but it's massive. I really don't know anything about it or Fram so I should probably STFU.

As for María Sefidari, during my time with WM NYC, I met Sefidari in person and had at least one social yet Wiki (ugh, right?) interaction with her. Sefidari was in NYC for a WMF Board Meeting (she was just on the board, not the Chair at that point) and the chapter went for beers with them.

I think her significant other was there as well. Sefidari was very coy about that and painstakingly made it clear to communicate she was gay, etc., which I thought was odd because (a) who really cares and (b) my mom was gay and it's not a big deal, especially in NYC -- vs. Nebraska where we lived which let's just say we didn't talk about it.

The whole interaction just turned me off. I was not impressed with her. And on Twitter she's a bit of a zero. She seems ineffective and just into herself / her s.o.

And I guess I'm not surprised that this happened, after meeting them. And after dealing with other couples like this it's always a freaking nightmare with bad boundaries and abuses of power.

[BrillLyle]

Heavy sigh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... ember_2019

[Randy from Boise]

Heavy sigh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... ember_2019

Sorry about that, Erika. Anyone taking a look at that edit history would know at a glance what an absurd, criminal travesty your SanFranBanning was.

RfB

[BrillLyle]

Sorry about that, Erika. Anyone taking a look at that edit history would know at a glance what an absurd, criminal travesty your SanFranBanning was.

RfB

Thanks for getting that.

On some level it should be embarrassing to them, right? To see that the edits are constructive. But that was never the point. It was never the point that I improved Wikimedia NYC, that I helped people edit, that I did a ton of heavy lifting w/r/t adding content. That's the prison in my mind about this. Because they don't give a damn about any of that stuff. I pissed too many people off at a personal level.

They blocked my IP now. I was waiting for that to happen. Blargh.

I am an addict for sure. When I get down in the dumps, which has been happening more as I get older, I was editing to calm down. It helped me a lot. I guess I'll need to find some other solution.

I wish I didn't like editing so much. I really feel like I help improve things. I know that's the seductiveness of editing, the trap of it all. And my co-dependence at play.

Aaaaagh.

[Vigilant]

Sorry about that, Erika. Anyone taking a look at that edit history would know at a glance what an absurd, criminal travesty your SanFranBanning was.

RfB

Thanks for getting that.

On some level it should be embarrassing to them, right? To see that the edits are constructive. But that was never the point. It was never the point that I improved Wikimedia NYC, that I helped people edit, that I did a ton of heavy lifting w/r/t adding content. That's the prison in my mind about this. Because they don't give a damn about any of that stuff. I pissed too many people off at a personal level.

They blocked my IP now. I was waiting for that to happen. Blargh.

I am an addict for sure. When I get down in the dumps, which has been happening more as I get older, I was editing to calm down. It helped me a lot. I guess I'll need to find some other solution.

I wish I didn't like editing so much. I really feel like I help improve things. I know that's the seductiveness of editing, the trap of it all. And my co-dependence at play.

Aaaaagh.

Have you thought about marrying a WMF board member?

I hear it's the panacea for these types of problems.

[BrillLyle]

Have you thought about marrying a WMF board member?

I hear it's the panacea for these types of problems.

Heh. I can't stop laughing here.

Thank you. I feel better to have a chuckle. Zing!

If you work your network right it's obvious you have full immunity. Egads!

[Randy from Boise]

Sorry about that, Erika. Anyone taking a look at that edit history would know at a glance what an absurd, criminal travesty your SanFranBanning was.

RfB

Thanks for getting that.

On some level it should be embarrassing to them, right? To see that the edits are constructive.

They blocked my IP now. I was waiting for that to happen. Blargh.

I am an addict for sure. When I get down in the dumps, which has been happening more as I get older, I was editing to calm down. It helped me a lot. I guess I'll need to find some other solution.

I wish I didn't like editing so much. I really feel like I help improve things. I know that's the seductiveness of editing, the trap of it all. And my co-dependence at play.

Aaaaagh.

There are other avenues for building freely-accessible information on the internet. I'd suggest you connect yourself with a tabloid-sized Epson scanner and start working on digitization of books and pamphlets, running them up on Archive.org. Or you might take a page from what I'm doing for Debs and get in touch with the people who are/were doing the Emma Goldman papers, which seem to have stalled out after volume 3. That might be an assumable project.

Being in the NYC area, the world is your oyster in terms of archives and libraries. Or, especially if you have the money to put a film scanner on a desk in your home, get into newspaper digitization. Those are just a few of the ways I have found to do stuff outside of the WP loop — and don't mistake me for saying there's anything wrong with coming up with a new IP a few months down the road and sneaking in again.

You've got ZERO incentive not to sock since the WMF Trust and Safety turds, in all their malicious glory, have seen fit to make your ban eternal and unappealable. So, talk to the socking experts and take your game up a notch when you've got a new IP up to speed.

Finally, you might take a page from the playbook of our friend the Gender Scribe and launch a WordPress blog. Don't obsess with Wikipolitics on it though, just find your area of interest and write write write. Either turn your research into a book or release everything to the public domain and come up with a friend or ten to "proxy for a banned editor" and bring the material into WP.

There is no need to get down about being locked out of WP by ignorant careerist powerplayers and their lackeys. Wikipedia is not all there is in the world in the way of free knowledge, it is only one avenue. Your intense hobbyist dedication — don't demean yourself as an "addict" — can be rechanneled to other avenues, arguably more impactful than low traffic articles lost among the 6 million items at WP.

Don't get down on yourself or your intellectual prospects. Adapt.

Drop me an email if you ever need to talk.

tim

[Eric Corbett]

I wish I didn't like editing so much. I really feel like I help improve things. I know that's the seductiveness of editing, the trap of it all.

There is no need to get down about being locked out of WP by ignorant careerist powerplayers and their lackeys. Wikipedia is not all there is in the world in the way of free knowledge, it is only one avenue. Your intense hobbyist dedication — don't demean yourself as an "addict" — can be rechanneled to other avenues, arguably more impactful than low traffic articles lost among the 6 million items at WP.

That's really good advice.

About the only thing Wikipedia has to offer serious contributors is the opportunity to have their work available via Google search almost instantaneously, but that comes at too heavy a price.

[Poetlister]

The takeaway message is that improving the encyclopaedia is not the highest priority for many people, otherwise IAR would mean that Erika should be allowed to continue. But of course we all knew that already.

[Randy from Boise]

The takeaway message is that improving the encyclopaedia is not the highest slightest priority for many some people, otherwise IAR would mean that Erika should be allowed to continue. But of course we all knew that already.

Fixed it for you.

RfB

[Ritchie333]

Piss poor block.

Can somebody summarise exactly what Erika did to get booted off? Did she vandalise the wiki? Nope. Did she disrupt articles? Doubt it, but existing admins do that just as well (ZOMG G5 *bang* G5 *bang* G5 *bang*). Did she get embroiled in an Arbcom case that sends mere mortals running full speed in the opposite direction? Nope.

In the light of Framgate, this needs to be reviewed.

[Osborne]

It's time to introduce the appeals process for the SanFranBans. That was suggested in the "community consultation" of the Office Actions. I wonder if it will be mentioned in the close, that would be a sign of improvement.

[Vigilant]

Piss poor block.

Can somebody summarise exactly what Erika did to get booted off? Did she vandalise the wiki? Nope. Did she disrupt articles? Doubt it, but existing admins do that just as well (ZOMG G5 *bang* G5 *bang* G5 *bang*). Did she get embroiled in an Arbcom case that sends mere mortals running full speed in the opposite direction? Nope.

In the light of Framgate, this needs to be reviewed.

She exposed fraudulent, nepotistic spending at WMDC.

[Poetlister]

Piss poor block.

Can somebody summarise exactly what Erika did to get booted off? Did she vandalise the wiki? Nope. Did she disrupt articles? Doubt it, but existing admins do that just as well (ZOMG G5 *bang* G5 *bang* G5 *bang*). Did she get embroiled in an Arbcom case that sends mere mortals running full speed in the opposite direction? Nope.

In the light of Framgate, this needs to be reviewed.

She rubbed up a few people the wrong way by publicising the gender gap in article creation and showing how it was partly due to the culture on the site.

[Randy from Boise]

Piss poor block.

Can somebody summarise exactly what Erika did to get booted off?

Check out the very first post in this thread.

Officially, she used the real name of someone she had on-wiki disagreements with, even though it was not much of a mystery, and became a notorious practitioner of the capital crime of "doxxing."

Unofficially, she pissed off the wrong people in the WMNY gravy train and threatened their place at the trough.
I'm sure she's got a few rough edges, as do we all, and not all real life interactions were strictly collegial. And so her enemies took advantage of their brief opportunity and had her wacked by San Francisco.

How's that Erika, is that the essence of it?

RfB

[Midsize Jake]

Officially, she used the real name of someone she had on-wiki disagreements with...

She was being rather severely "wiki-hounded" by User:Ca2james (T-C-L), and it had been going on for several months. Since both BrillLyle and Ca2james are women, at the time I suspected the WMF folks were getting pressure to prove they weren't showing favoritism to women (i.e., they might have been accused of that by the overwhelmingly-male WP majority if they'd let it slide). I'm still not totally convinced there wasn't some of that going on, but nobody else seems to agree with this particular theory, so I've tried not to mention it outside of its immediate context (i.e., this thread).

[BrillLyle]

It’s clear from Alex Shih’s post here that there’s a list of stuff I did to get WMF banned. I would be curious what’s on the list.

I know that they said I violated friendly space because I emailed people to try to talk about what was happening.

I know the first step was being banned from attending the main node event of Art + Feminism. Unprecedented.

Then I got the email from the Board saying I would not be allowed to contact the Board or attend WM MYC events. Also unprecedented.

All things considered, I had pretty good relations with many of the folks at WM NYC. If I wasn’t so traumatized from what happened I would still be in touch with a lot of the people in the chapter. A few either gave me hugs after I got kicked from the chapter and saw them later or they emailed me to hang out. I was too raw and upset to follow up. And mad.

I probably did a ton of stupid things. I honestly can’t remember. I know a lot of bad things were done to me - either being treated like I was an idiot or ghosted. Ghosting was really bad in the chapter. Pharos disappears, yet holds all the cards.

Though I am still grateful to Pharos. He was usually pretty friendly and taught me a lot about how to edit, believe it or not. The guidelines I understand today are because of him. I’m glad for that.

I am a contrary pain the the ass. I don’t do well in groups. And I lost my temper while editing a lot.

I am not sure how the homeless guy who grabbed the mic from a speaker’s hand at an event and had a fistfight an actual fistfight with someone at a getogether is still in good graces and part of the chapter and editing but yeah me and my big yap is violating friendly space.

Sorry. Just rambling. Still trying to wrap my head around all this. Years later. Sad.

[Poetlister]

If the WMF don't like you, they can always find some excuse or at least hide behind alleged confidentiality concerns. If they do like you, you're probably pretty safe and your opponents aren't.

[BrillLyle]

So I had been working on this cross Wikidata to Wikipedia (and vice versa) project a while back before I was banned.*

I had made a bunch of mistakes that resulted in constraint violations. So even though I was SanFran global banned, I really wanted to fix those errors -- and also possibly try to continue and hopefully finish the project. I think it would've been about 1,100 Wikidata items.

Long story short, I was able to fix the previous errors and remove the constraint violation problem. And had gotten over 275 items in total.

Then my very quiet editing got exposed as a sock and it's over.

Because of the specificity of the editing I think the whole thing is a lost cause.

I've probably mentioned it before that this has been a very rough year with my dad (and other important people in my life) dying, which a large amount of drama around him being sick toward the end and mishegas at his funeral (hateful stepmom and potential half sister were lowlights). So I am having a pretty muted holiday season after a truly crap year.

This SPI has not helped. I am not especially up rn. Now I'm hitting a low again, which has happened a lot with respect to Wikipedia.

So I think I will give up socking, and for real this time. Just totally give up.

I think it's the only way forward without Wiki being more harmful to me than it has been in the past, even. I can't have these kinds of emotional lows and stay healthy -- or even stay status quo low.

It's just too disheartening.

I've said it ad nauseum that I made a ton of mistakes. I also trusted people who were untrustworthy etc. and didn't get good advice (like many of you have offered on and off forum - so very much appreciated) until it was too late.

I am not the monster or master manipulator with a dirty agenda like how I've been portrayed.

I don't think what I've done has justified the ban. I hope my experience can help others to not do as I did and be a warning sign that things are not fair on Wiki -- and they never will be.

So letting go. Moving on. Etc.

And as a logical part of this I will probably stop checking the forum here as well. To not get further depressed and frustrated.

Really want to thank everyone for their kindness and help. It has meant the world.

- Erika


* Project

I. Wikidata: Adding descriptions to Yad Vashem Encyclopedia of the Ghettos ID (P3735) - https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P3735

a. Pulled from this list https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?ti ... &limit=500

2. Wikidata: Then taking the town names and adding

a. JewishGen Locality IDs - https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P3198

b. VIAF identifier information - http://viaf.org/

3. Wikipedia: Adding Template:JewishGen-LocalityPage - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template: ... calityPage

a. Adding to external links of town pages

b. Making sure there was an {{Authority control}} tag in footer as well

- All this was time consuming and quite manual as many towns have the same name, and it was necessary to confirm the longitude and latitude often....

[Midsize Jake]

Well, I think I can speak for all of us here when I say that I'm sorry you've had a rough year, not to mention all the Wikipedia stuff. But of course, in all probability, things can only improve once you've fully disengaged from Wikiland.

Regardless, you'll always be welcome here as far as we're concerned.

[The Garbage Scow]

Erika, I'm not sure if you're interested in genealogy at all, but I am and I've found that to be a much more rewarding and worthwhile endeavor than Wikipedia. It requires about the same level of focus and research ability, and if you're not super into researching your own family, you can help other people with theirs. I spend most of my time at Find-a-Grave now, helping correct and complete cemetery and memorial info for my family and other folks. I spend a lot of time on Familysearch, too, working on family trees. If you're looking for something much more positive where your efforts will not be picked at, where you won't be banned for stupid political reasons and you can work quietly and at your own pace, I highly recommend. If you need help getting started or any questions, just let me know.

[BrillLyle]

Maher on Twitter today, when asked about my WMF global ban:

https://twitter.com/krmaher/status/1249839101915697152

Our Trust & Safety policies are continuously reviewed for best practices. We take bans very seriously and utilize them only judiciously, often after prior warning. We do not discuss specific cases.

top of thread
https://twitter.com/OpenSexism/status/1 ... 4863224832

[Poetlister]

Maher on Twitter today, when asked about my WMF global ban:

https://twitter.com/krmaher/status/1249839101915697152

Our Trust & Safety policies are continuously reviewed for best practices. We take bans very seriously and utilize them only judiciously, often after prior warning. We do not discuss specific cases.

top of thread
https://twitter.com/OpenSexism/status/1 ... 4863224832

Translation: We can't possibly defend this ban, so we'll waffle and stonewall.

[Vigilant]

Maher on Twitter today, when asked about my WMF global ban:

https://twitter.com/krmaher/status/1249839101915697152

Our Trust & Safety policies are continuously reviewed for best practices. We take bans very seriously and utilize them only judiciously, often after prior warning. We do not discuss specific cases.

top of thread
https://twitter.com/OpenSexism/status/1 ... 4863224832

More proof that Katherine Maher is the Tony Blair of wikipedia.

Another smiler.

[Poetlister]

More proof that Katherine Maher is the Tony Blair of wikipedia.

She's made it so popular that it's been the market leader for 13 years? An impressive achievement.

[BrillLyle]

Agree. It's a non-answer. The safe route.

Katherine Maher has never made an effort to exert herself outside her comfort zone of press-friendly soundbite filled presentations and comments -- and the omnipresent ad nauseam fundraising.

There were times when the NYC chapter was imploding, when her guidance and input would have immediately shut down the conflict(s). Where Winifred Oliff, our WMF grant officer, was clearly over her head. Was not up to the job. Because this was not just a community issue. It was a WMF organizational and resource issue on every level.

I also introduced myself to Maher when she spoke at a UN-WMNYC event. She was more concerned with her talk and her personal logistics -- and I've mentioned before, had her personal photographer front and center to "cover" the event -- than she was in talking to anyone on the Board, or any of the volunteer folks organizing the event. Volunteers who were responsible for the most prolific outreach being done in the United States. It was about servicing her PR versus making connections with the community members working so hard on the event.

Maher just couldn't be bothered. Because her focus is not on the user community unless there's a political impetus.

Her agenda here is clear. I'm surprised she deigned to respond, actually.

[Vigilant]

Well, then she's clearly jimbo's spiritual successor.

Empty and banal.

[Poetlister]

Katherine Maher has never made an effort to exert herself outside her comfort zone of press-friendly soundbite filled presentations and comments -- and the omnipresent ad nauseam fundraising.

That may well be her job description. After all, the WMF's main aim in life is fundraising.

[Zoloft]

Maher was a lightweight before, she's ineffectual now.

As a figurehead, she's perfect.

At one point people will turn to her for leadership, and her bubble will pop.

[Vigilant]

Maher was a lightweight before, she's ineffectual now.

As a figurehead, she's perfect.

At one point people will turn to her for leadership, and her bubble will pop.

Why do you suppose she hired a chief of staff?

[Zoloft]

Maher was a lightweight before, she's ineffectual now.

As a figurehead, she's perfect.

At one point people will turn to her for leadership, and her bubble will pop.

Why do you suppose she hired a chief of staff?

“I don't take responsibility at all.”
"The buck stops there."

[Vigilant]

Maher was a lightweight before, she's ineffectual now.

As a figurehead, she's perfect.

At one point people will turn to her for leadership, and her bubble will pop.

Why do you suppose she hired a chief of staff?

“I don't take responsibility at all.”
"The buck stops there."

If I were being generous, I'd say she recognized her own lack of ability and talent and hired someone who has a better chance of having one or both to do her job.

[Poetlister]

Maher was a lightweight before, she's ineffectual now.

As a figurehead, she's perfect.

At one point people will turn to her for leadership, and her bubble will pop.

I supose Jimbo likes her, for his own reasons.