4 ms·

That doesn’t really apply here. There was no rule before about temp bans prior to this. Of course it was in poor taste, but it should have not have resulted in

That doesn’t really apply here. There was no rule before about temp bans prior to this. Of course it was in poor taste, but it should have not have resulted in temp banning since there were no prior rules in place. In your situation what if I now had misspoke and when expecting a temp ban, somehow get perms banned due to new rules? Their was no due process and the wikimedia foundation is no better than an authoritarian government.

Barrin92 7y ago
To my knowledge my chess club has no formal rules about insults either, but I know that if I started to say "fuck you" to the owner, he'd throw me out. If the person in question needs formal rules to not behave anti-social, maybe staying a year off wikipedia is a good opportunity to figure that out. Seriously we're dealing with adults here, not children. Which actually goes to the root of the problem, the type of personality that spends so much time on editing the website seems to have a problem with very basic civility.
- turtlecloud 7y ago
  Well I personally don’t like the self censorship approach. You must come from a more authoritarian culture. In the US, there is the 1st amendment of free speech (something that other countries can not stomach). This includes the ability to criticize and insult our government, country, and president. The purpose of free speech is to speak without free of being reprimanded for saying the wrong thing in order to communicate more effectively. Only insecure organizations ban dedicated community members for speaking out of line. In a more open and democratic organization, the governing committee should just acknowledge statement and move on with the shared goals of the community. Especially with Wikipedia where controversy is expected, admins should not self censor with fear of being reprimanded for “thinking/talking” out of line. And with regards to your chess club, that is your insecurity speaking - your chess club leader may welcome the feedback and try to understand what made you say that in the first place. If the organization is open to feedback and criticism, and if you are a valued member then it should be concerning why u spoke out, since it may affect others too. A club is only as valuable as its members - please remember that.
  - alex_young 7y ago
    Do you think you could get away with standing in front of a courthouse shouting "fuck the government" for long without getting arrested? The first amendment doesn't protect you from a disorderly conduct charge. Behavior matters in society, and we're not talking about the government here. If you want to behave like an asshole you will have a hard time in a lot of places, and that's a good thing for the most part IMHO.
    - PavlovsCat 7y ago
      > for long Just the fact that all these weasel words have to get added should answer the question without them. Of course nobody would even give a shit if you said it once, like said admin said it once. And the best part is, it's totally speculation whether the ban has anything to do with it. So it's basically just a bunch of people saying "I don't know or care why this happened, because I know something for which they would deserve it", which is saying "fuck arbcom" -- not that we know or care about any of the context, at all. Not even saying "fuck you" to a person. I guess if he had said "fuck wikipedia" it should have been more than one year, because after all, that includes arbcom by definition. I'm pretty sure I said "fuck HN" in other words before, one time I was so mad I actually took a break from posting, and after a year came back with a lot of upvotes on my last comment and a supportive reply. > Behavior matters in society This includes the ban, and arguing "my chess club owner would throw anyone giving them lip out instantly, so" with a straight face. edit: actually, while we don't know for sure what the ban is for, it's pretty obvious it has nothing to do with "fuck arbcom": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram#Further_comment_from_the_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_t... > What we can say in this case is that the issues reported to us fell under section 4 of the terms of use, as noted above, specifically under the first provision entitled “harassing and abusing others.” My description of much of this as "I don't know or care why this happened, because I know something for which they would deserve it" is correct - it's just not flattering.
    - jki275 7y ago
      You can pretty much do that as long as you want anywhere in the US. That’s not disorderly conduct.
- dahdum 7y ago
  It sounds like your chess club owner would be acting as a benevolent dictator, deciding the rules and punishment after the fact. Works well enough as long as he remains benevolent. Wikimedia simply promised to be better than that. The ban isn’t the problem, the process getting there is.
  - xref 7y ago
    Benevolent dictator? Really? Seems like getting bounced for cursing people out is a very basic and mild response in society, not “ho ho this monarch is making up the rules from whole cloth!”
    - finnthehuman 7y ago
      "Benevolent dictator" is a fairly well known term from the open source world that (taken generically) means the person in charge of something so informally organized there is no process for decision making beyond the person in charge doing as they wish.
      - xref 7y ago
        Right, that’s why I said it wasn’t an apt comparison
        dahdum 7y ago
        Would the owner bounce their significant other for that behavior? Their sibling or close friend? Would they give more chances to those they favor and less to those they dislike? No one expects the owner to be truly impartial in that scenario, but we do expect that of Wikimedia foundation.
DanBC 7y ago
For clarity: "fuck arbcom" wasn't what led to the banning. The sustained pattern of behaviour that the community failed to deal with was what caused the ban. "Fuck arbcom" is the reason the ban was handed out by WMF and not arbcom.

Barrin92 7y ago

To my knowledge my chess club has no formal rules about insults either, but I know that if I started to say "fuck you" to the owner, he'd throw me out. If the person in question needs formal rules to not behave anti-social, maybe staying a year off wikipedia is a good opportunity to figure that out. Seriously we're dealing with adults here, not children. Which actually goes to the root of the problem, the type of personality that spends so much time on editing the website seems to have a problem with very basic civility.

turtlecloud 7y ago
Well I personally don’t like the self censorship approach. You must come from a more authoritarian culture. In the US, there is the 1st amendment of free speech (something that other countries can not stomach). This includes the ability to criticize and insult our government, country, and president. The purpose of free speech is to speak without free of being reprimanded for saying the wrong thing in order to communicate more effectively. Only insecure organizations ban dedicated community members for speaking out of line. In a more open and democratic organization, the governing committee should just acknowledge statement and move on with the shared goals of the community. Especially with Wikipedia where controversy is expected, admins should not self censor with fear of being reprimanded for “thinking/talking” out of line. And with regards to your chess club, that is your insecurity speaking - your chess club leader may welcome the feedback and try to understand what made you say that in the first place. If the organization is open to feedback and criticism, and if you are a valued member then it should be concerning why u spoke out, since it may affect others too. A club is only as valuable as its members - please remember that.
- alex_young 7y ago
  Do you think you could get away with standing in front of a courthouse shouting "fuck the government" for long without getting arrested? The first amendment doesn't protect you from a disorderly conduct charge. Behavior matters in society, and we're not talking about the government here. If you want to behave like an asshole you will have a hard time in a lot of places, and that's a good thing for the most part IMHO.
  - PavlovsCat 7y ago
    > for long Just the fact that all these weasel words have to get added should answer the question without them. Of course nobody would even give a shit if you said it once, like said admin said it once. And the best part is, it's totally speculation whether the ban has anything to do with it. So it's basically just a bunch of people saying "I don't know or care why this happened, because I know something for which they would deserve it", which is saying "fuck arbcom" -- not that we know or care about any of the context, at all. Not even saying "fuck you" to a person. I guess if he had said "fuck wikipedia" it should have been more than one year, because after all, that includes arbcom by definition. I'm pretty sure I said "fuck HN" in other words before, one time I was so mad I actually took a break from posting, and after a year came back with a lot of upvotes on my last comment and a supportive reply. > Behavior matters in society This includes the ban, and arguing "my chess club owner would throw anyone giving them lip out instantly, so" with a straight face. edit: actually, while we don't know for sure what the ban is for, it's pretty obvious it has nothing to do with "fuck arbcom": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram#Further_comment_from_the_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_t... > What we can say in this case is that the issues reported to us fell under section 4 of the terms of use, as noted above, specifically under the first provision entitled “harassing and abusing others.” My description of much of this as "I don't know or care why this happened, because I know something for which they would deserve it" is correct - it's just not flattering.
  - jki275 7y ago
    You can pretty much do that as long as you want anywhere in the US. That’s not disorderly conduct.
dahdum 7y ago
It sounds like your chess club owner would be acting as a benevolent dictator, deciding the rules and punishment after the fact. Works well enough as long as he remains benevolent. Wikimedia simply promised to be better than that. The ban isn’t the problem, the process getting there is.
- xref 7y ago
  Benevolent dictator? Really? Seems like getting bounced for cursing people out is a very basic and mild response in society, not “ho ho this monarch is making up the rules from whole cloth!”
  - finnthehuman 7y ago
    "Benevolent dictator" is a fairly well known term from the open source world that (taken generically) means the person in charge of something so informally organized there is no process for decision making beyond the person in charge doing as they wish.
    - xref 7y ago
      Right, that’s why I said it wasn’t an apt comparison
      - dahdum 7y ago
        Would the owner bounce their significant other for that behavior? Their sibling or close friend? Would they give more chances to those they favor and less to those they dislike? No one expects the owner to be truly impartial in that scenario, but we do expect that of Wikimedia foundation.

DanBC 7y ago

For clarity: "fuck arbcom" wasn't what led to the banning. The sustained pattern of behaviour that the community failed to deal with was what caused the ban. "Fuck arbcom" is the reason the ban was handed out by WMF and not arbcom.