Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram

Is it time to archive the pinned statements?

They are taking up a lot of space on this page and I think everyone interested in this issue has read them at this point. I recommend archiving them and creating a section at the top of the page that has links to important statements from the WMF, ArbCom, and Fram. Anne drew (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Anne drew Andrew and Drew: I made the same suggestion. I therefore agree with you here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

There's no hurry. This is about community discussion, not about sweeping up. With the Signpost out today, there will likely be numerous editors looking here for the first time and wanting to get caught up. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think everything should be archived, something giving new readers the basic facts before launching into the WOT discussion is definitely needed. I just added the latest comment from Jimbo which seems to be a highly significant development and needs to be given some prominence. SpinningSpark 14:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Eventually this will stop being an active discussion page. I think it would be helpful to have the key developments retained for posterity then, rather than buried in an archive. – Joe (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello big bosses, someone asked below, and so I created a dedicated subpage for official statements and linked it in the topbox (found it myself from the code and the guessing ). I think I got'em all. So, please review and provide mild admonishment and major guidance if I did something wrong. Then, I think you can go ahead and archive the pinned statements.

@Joe Roe:, I think when the discussion is over, we can always redirect the most famous shortcuts (possibly WP:FRAM) to that subpage instead so your concerns about posterity are addressed. IMO. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 15:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Anne drew Andrew and Drew: "I think everyone interested in this issue has read them at this point." Not true. I, for one, an an example. And I assume others like me are comparatively less likely to comment here, so you should account for that. Benjamin (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Fear for Opinions

I wanted to share my opinion on this crisis, but I held back TWICE due to fears that if I stated my opinion, I would get pounded into a pulp with hate and harassment.... James-the-Charizard (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead, James, what's up? - Dank (push to talk) 12:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dank: Based on what I read from on online article (it managed to catch me up on this complete disaster)... I think Fram was acting seriously disruptive, and with concerning conduct. I understand why the WMF banned him, however I disagree with the length. I feel 1 year would cause more harm than help, and I would’ve preferred that he be blocked/banned via a community discussion (because then we could've judged conduct more accurately and had more opinions than one). So while I don’t support the WMF here (I felt they were outreaching here), I also am not in favor of any protesting. (As in, I will keep going my normal stuff on here.)

Thanks for listening. James-the-Charizard (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

James-the-Charizard, thank you for your opinion.

If you read these discussions, you will see that not many people loves Fram much but nearly all agree that he should have been subject to a fair trial held by the community :-) ∯WBG^converse 12:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: I wanted to shed light on the situation by looking at this from a unique angle (as an extended confirmed user, whom also has likely the least edits of all the people involved in this discussion lol.) but the reason I didn’t share my opinion until now was due to how heated things got on the main page. I was afraid people would misunderstand my opinion. James-the-Charizard (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It's no good that you felt you would be harassed if you posted on this page. Is there any behaviour in particular that you felt prevented you from sharing your opinion? – Teratix ₵ 13:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Teratix: I may have overdone it by saying harassment, but I still feared the possibility negative opinions. I think what prevented me from posting on the MAIN PAGE (not the talk page) was the fact that emotions were hot, and some people were openly outraging at the WMF. I just didn’t want to risk saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. James-the-Charizard (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. There's no obligation to jump into the metaphorical volcano and post your opinion if you don't wish to possibly receive negative feedback. I agree it can be a good idea to wait until heads cool. – Teratix ₵ 13:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

My opinion is out of the way now. Thanks for understanding. James-the-Charizard (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Better to say something and get it off your chest then to say nothing at all and regret it. Now Keep Calm and Carry On :) TomStar81 (Talk) 11:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Can't say I agree. If getting something off your chest means you later your life is hell because of what you said? Many people have found to their peril particularly when you are connected to your real life identity, saying something (or whatever) can come with massive risk. I've said before, while I think the WMF didn't handle this well, I'm not really in agreement with most commentators of this discussion on many aspects. Especially at the start of this, I very reluctant to share my opinions, having seen how people can behave on the internet including on wikipedia, worse on sites outside wikipedia which comment on wikipeida. (This was especially in the very early days when there were some vote/!votes which to that point in time were all support. I only dared vote/!vote oppose when others had already done so. Although even after I always greatly considered what I was posting least it cause problems for me.) While I feel I understand the anger about what went on here, I'm not sure if people understand that some of what went on here scared the shit out some of us (I suspect most of those who feel that way are who didn't really agree). Whether it was comments like 'scabs' (in reference to strike action), the nasty personal shit about the L editor and their relationships, or just tone etc of some of the comments. There is nothing wrong with having strong feeling about something, but unfortunately those strong feelings can sometimes cross the line into behaviour which has a strong negative effect on others. And frankly you only really need one person to make life hell for someone, although it is greatly amplified when the get some mob on their side (which sadly often isn't that hard and could easily be people who have nothing whatsoever to do with what it is). Of course, this is never one sided but when so much of the feeling is in one direction, you have far greater comfort that you are unlikely to be the target when what you're saying is in that direction. Nil Einne (talk) 02:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

P.S. And yes that did include wondering dare I post this for the above post? Nil Einne (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Any time you post in Wikipedia you run the risk of someone attempting to intimidate you. As I use my real name and other details about me are fairly easy to suss out, I am aware of the risk. I have received threats to sue me and threats of physical injury and death. The only times I have been the subject of such attempts at intimidation, though, have been when I was taking action against clear violations of policy, but never for !voting or voicing an opinion in a discussion. Maybe I haven't participated in the right discussions, but that is my personal experience. - Donald Albury 13:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

What a sorry state en.WP has reached. After 14 years and 170,000 edits, I find myself fading away because being here is so unpleasant. Tony (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Last month on the Italian twitter alone there were 40,000 attack posts on prominent people's 'pages' (if they can be called that). Relatives and friends who actually use other social media tell me abuse is a daily matter. I worked in the most 'toxic' area of Wikipedia for 13 years, and must have been formally reported for some rule violation about 30 times, yet my impression is that Wikipedia, generally, despite mother-lodes of bullshit artists, is a relatively tranquil pond. It looks litigious if one religiously follows AN/1, AE and related pages. If you just focus on article creation, even in demented areas, it strikes me as more than manageable, and, at the end of the week, each article is improved, with satisfaction outweighing the fact that one has to push a fair amount of loose crap up the north face of the Eiger, with slippy fingers. Wear a gas mask, check your crampons, ropes and deadman devices, and you will eventually breathe fresh air.Nishidani (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Official statements

Could someone please collate all the official statements (with diffs) on one page please? They are in one place here (mostly) but with discussion separating them and some in archives. The ones I can think of are the series from Jan Eissfeldt, the ArbCom Open Letter, the WMF Board statement, and the statement from Katherine Maher. By this I mean statements that have clearly been prepared for formal publication, not responses made on-wiki. I might do this if time, but maybe someone else can do it if they have time? The diffs are in the excellent timeline here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

And please include some kind of summary of Jimmy's statements, such as this summary. - Dank (push to talk) 13:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I started it here. Anyone's welcome to contribute. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 14:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Carcharoth (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I made the following two administrative edits: [1] and [2]. Carcharoth (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Off-wiki coverage

{{Archive top}}

• This section was re-opened due to a dispute regarding the RFC below.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

As a companion to

• Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Summary

and

• Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Official statements

I have created

• Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Off-wiki coverage

Please help to expand that page as new sources are published/discovered. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you intend to include the two Breitbart pieces or are those not to be mentioned?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

There's two? – Teratix ₵ 08:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I only found one.[3] and only the one is listed at [ https://www[dot]breitbart[dot]com/tag/wikipedia/ ] and [ https://www[dot]breitbart[dot]com/tag/wikimedia-foundation/ ]. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 08:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC) ( "." replaced with "[dot]" because those pages are on our spam list and cannot be linked to.)

There is https://wwwDOTbreitbartDOTcom/tech/2019/07/03/google-toxicity-detection-tool-rated-wikipedia-comments-to-women-as-more-hostile/. I have no opinion on whether they should be listed, I was simply asking.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The breitbart article you posted above is about Google Detox, and makes zero mention of Fram. Like I said, there is only one breitbart article about the fram ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's do a straw poll and see if there is a consensus for inclusion: --Guy Macon (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion: not a reliable source. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion: a bit like sourcing an interview with the Pope to Playboy magazine? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

But ... but ... the articles ...--Wehwalt (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion not a RS. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Include, it's not being used as a reference within an article so RS is irrelevant, the more coverage collated the better. Fish+Karate 08:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• So would you also include:

• Wikipediocracy?[4]
• Wiki Review?[5]
• Hacker News?[6]
• Reddit?[7]
• Twitter?[8]
• Gender Desk?[9]
• Reclaim the Net?[10]

Or is it only some unreliable sources that should be included? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

No (forum), no (forum), no (forum), no (basically a forum), no (tweet), don't care (blog), yes. Who are you to censor a talk page? Fish+Karate 10:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

More fuzzy thinking. "Who are you to censor a talk page?" makes it sound as if I am deciding on the criteria for inclusion when instead I am asking the community to form a consensus regarding the criteria for inclusion. More light and less heat, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I am also interested as to why you think that forums should not be allowed and yet wish to allow Breitbart, an alt-right website famous for publishing lies, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories. Could you please tell us exactly what your preferred criteria for inclusion is? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, Guy. My preferred criteria would be an article/opinion piece published in article form to a website. Not a forum post. As it's project space, I'm not particularly concerned about applying article space norms to what is and is not included. All that being said, I don't care about this anywhere near as much as you seem to do, and will find something else to do rather than pointlessly argue. Fish+Karate 12:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

And again, the term '(un)reliable sources' is only a term that applies to article space. This isn't article space. Fish+Karate 10:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

And again I tell you you are wrong. The term "reliable sources" is NOT a term that applies only to article space, and you repeatedly claiming that it is does not make it so. Project space pages are allowed to set criteria for inclusion, with the criteria decided by the consensus of the community. The community can decide to include everything, only include what is notable or the community can decide to only include reliable sources.

I have no idea, but I'm reminded about the story of the woman who congratulated Dr Johnson on not including dirty words in his Dictionary. Given that three articles, including the Breitbart, are linked at the head of this page, I would suggest a MfD as unnecessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Include everything. Are we seriously debating this? This is project space. Benjamin (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Project space pages are allowed to set criteria for inclusion, decided by the consensus of the community. So would you include all of the links I listed above, including Twitter and Reddit? That would mean that anyone reading this can add anything they want to the list simply by posting to Reddit or Twitter. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• I agree. Are we going to link every post on every media outlet, regardless of how poor they are at fact or source checking or doing their own research before going to print? What about sources that just copy and paste reliable sources? Of what benefit would that be to our discussion of this issue? We should set the bar for this at what would be ok for an article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, for what it's worth, I think it would be useful to have a comprehensive list, if for no other reason than to keep track of which sources are good and bad. But also, the various forums are a convenient gathering of links to discussions that I'm sure many people will find interesting or useful. If you don't want it on that page, fine, whatever, just link it to a user page or something. Benjamin (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Hmmm. Additional section, clearly labeled, that includes all sources, even of they are just Reddit posts? Might get too big but we can deal with that if it happens. And of course we cannot link to a source that vilates WP:BLP. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'm sure you'll come up with an appropriate trigger warning.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• I originally whitelisted the Breitbart article (in my admin time; a decision that has been overridden). I !vote to include it, but clearly noting that it is not written by an independent observer and possibly that it is on a site on which we generally regard material to be unreliable. It is however material that is 'out there', and people will run into. Not listing it here is like 'hiding' the piece.

I also would include a list of other notable material related to this like tweets or facebook posts by either WMF members or involved editors, or by notable people. Feel free to group the material and/or 'classify' them, and give prominence to the really independent, reliable material. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

That could work. I need to get some rack time, so I will get back to this tomorrow or the next day. No hurry deciding what to do here. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion: per The solution to online 'harassment' is simple: Women should log off and Gay rights have made us dumber, it's time to get back in the closet, if you are really arguing that Wikipedia project space needs entirely pointless Breitbart bigoted ranting as a source, then maybe you need to take a long hard look at WP:5P4. No, don't just glance at it, go back and actually think about it like your goal is to write an encyclopaedia in positive collaboration with everyone here. --Fæ (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• That's not what's being debated here. Benjamin (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• It kind of is. Those are actual Breitbart articles (other gems include "Birth control makes women unattractive and crazy" and "There's no hiring bias against women in tech, they just suck at interviews".) I am rejecting Breitbart as a source for a good reason. [unsigned comment]

• No, this has nothing to do with anything. The author (The Devil's Advocate) has never written anything even remotely resembling the things you've put in quotation marks above in the time I've read his articles at Breitbart or on Medium. Let's not be smearing folks... Incidentally, farther up I saw a list of forums, one of which is long dead (Wikipedia Review), though the history has not been deleted. Wikipedia Sucks and wikirev are two that missed the reductio ad absurdum list of places where you can read more about the case (if you really needed to). The GenderDesk blog has also done some reporting on FramGate (and Fae for that matter).🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 08:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Include it The entire point is to show what people outside of Wikipedia think about this mess. We shouldn't toss some sources simply because some of us don't like them. Jtrainor (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion per Fæ. Miniapolis 15:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Maybe a compromise solution is to mention those articles without linking to them. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Am I right, this discussion is only about whether to include the Breitbart article in the Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Off-wiki coverage subpage? If so I find it a little weird we may exclude/include it from there but do something different in the Template:Press. Especially since at the moment we are excluding it from that subpage but including it in the template. And frankly I suspect but have no evidence that people are more likely to see it in the template. But if that's how people feel so be it. Nil Einne (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  I see that besides being on the template of this page, it's also at Wikipedia:Press coverage 2019 Nil Einne (talk) 03:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

This is now the topic on an RfC (see below). Please respond there. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that it is, the way you've phrased it only covers whether BB is a RS.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

(Reluctantly responding to someone I don't want to interact with to correct a false claim about what I did and did not write)

No it doesn't. The RfC question is quite clear. If I had wanted it to ask whether Breitbart News is a reliable source I would have written that. Please stop stuffing words in my mouth. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}

+ 1 admin to leave

User:Voice of Clam has handed their admin tools in and imposed a 3-month selfblock. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Should we use Breitbart News as a source regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram?

Summary for the RFC listing: Should we use Breitbart News as a source regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram?

Proposer: Guy Macon (talk) 05:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Closing comments

Reserved for closing comments by uninvolved closer. Do not edit here.

Background

As of 04 July 2019 the following external sources mention the the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram:

• Wikipedia’s "Constitutional Crisis" Pits Community Against Foundation -- Slate
• The Culture War Has Finally Come For Wikipedia -- Buzzfeed News
• Wikipedia Editors Revolt over Site’s Ban of Veteran Administrator --Breitbart News
• Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year --Wikipediocracy
• Fram banned by WMF --Wiki Review
• Open Letter to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees --Hacker News
• Fram, a high profile Wikipedian, was banned from editing Wikipedia for a year by the Wikimedia Foundation... --Facebook
• Fram, a high profile Wikipedian, was banned from editing Wikipedia for a year by the Wikimedia Foundation... --Reddit
• Fram, a high profile Wikipedian, was banned from editing Wikipedia for a year by the Wikimedia Foundation... --Twitter
• Wikipedia administrator and editor has been banned from Wikipedia amongst criticism of the foundation --Reclaim the Net
• Wiki update – 4th of July edition --Gender Desk

(Some of the sources listed above are also listed at Template:Press at the top of Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram, at Wikipedia:Press coverage 2019 (June and July) and at Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Off-wiki coverage)

Sources from after 04 July 2019:

• Stop abuse by Big Tech: Wikipedia co-founder issues ‘Declaration of Digital Independence’ ==RT (Russian international television network funded by the Russian government)
• Fram controversy --Know Your Meme
• What is going on with Wikipedia's ban on Fram? --Quora
• Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Community conduct --Penzington
• Fram --Wikipedia Sucks!
• The Culture War Has Finally Come For Wikipedia --Infinite Bits

Ground Rules

Please keep threaded discussions in the threaded discussions section. Replying in the !voting section makes the section too long, makes the !votes hard to count, and gives more prominence to whoever is willing to make the most noise.

Any editor is free to move any threaded comment posted in the !voting section to the Threaded Discussion section.

Support / Oppose

Question: Should we use Breitbart News as a source regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram?

• No As proposer. Besides the low quality of Breitbart as a source, the many examples of them publishing fake news and clickbait, this particular Breitbart article reposts material from Wikipediocracy that in my opinion violates a person's privacy and thus cannot be linked to per WP:OUTING and WP:BLP. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• No Breitbart is a low quality source with a poor record for fact-checking and accuracy and should not be used for this purpose. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• No lol no, disastrously poor source and a WP:RS disaster, per above - David Gerard (talk) 05:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) No Breitbart is a low quality source for reasons clearly established in the conversation to depreciate it. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Depreciation is an asset's loss of value due to the passage of time. In that sense a reliable source can depreciate, but Breitbart had no value as a source to begin with. I think you mean it was deprecated. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Misleading RFC There is no question of using Breitbart as a source in articles; Guy Macon did not want to include Breitbart (which he calls breitbart) on the page of media mentions which Framgate has gotten, so after getting feedback he did not like he's started a misleading RFC.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

TO the extent a !vote is needed, I favor inclusion in project space, not necessarily linking although why not make things convenient for the reader? There has been a previous RfC on whether to include BB in article space and I respect the outcome of that and don't see it at issue here.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• In articles, no. In metaspace, in a section that documents Framgate's coverage in the media, ... We can list things we don't endorse. If we don't link to it, mentioning it exits wouldn't be out of place. Breitbart is a shit source yes, but that doesn't stop Breitbart from being a widely read source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Yes in projectspace, and (of course) no in articlespace. Note to closer: All the arguments about RS and soforth (Peacemaker, David Gerard, Barkeep49) should be disregarded as clearly referring to articlespace usage, which isn't at issue in this RfC. This is a question of media coverage, and even opinion pieces count as media coverage. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  I am saying because of the low quality source it is inappropriate for us to be linking to it anywhere. I could point out reasons why this is true of this piece, but am instead arguing, categorically, that should be unnecessary for Breitbart. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• No We should not curate lists of glaringly inappropriate and unreliable sources, even if the garbage is "widely read". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Yes and no- obviously for facts surrounding the issue, Breitbart is a big fat no. It's a troll source that publishes lies for political purposes. But if you're making the point "FRAMgate has drawn comment from across the political spectrum" then just listing it is probably OK. Reyk _YO! 07:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• No and needs a warning as it makes no mention of the prior !vote which it appears intended to supersede, and is not of agreed wording with the prior !vote participants, which is to be frowned on and tutted about as a type of forum shopping. Reposting my prior opinion here, per The solution to online 'harassment' is simple: Women should log off and Gay rights have made us dumber, it's time to get back in the closet, if you are really arguing that Wikipedia project space needs entirely pointless Breitbart bigoted ranting as a source, then maybe you need to take a long hard look at WP:5P4. No, don't just glance at it, go back and actually think about it like your goal is to write an encyclopaedia in positive collaboration with everyone here. --Fæ (talk) 07:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that TDA has ever written anything like what you assert above. Thank you.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 08:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not only recognized to be a generally unreliable source, but has a conflict of interest in relation to Wikipedia. —PaleoNeonate – 08:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• In mainspace/actual articles WP:BREITBART gives guidance (pretty much no but in theory). I see Fram-Breitbart has been removed from List of Wikipedia controversies, the only mainspace use of it I knew of. In discussions, pages like Wikipedia:Press coverage 2019 (current consensus on Breitbart in general at Wikipedia_talk:Press_coverage_2018#Breitbart) etc it's not by default wrong to include/mention. As true with any source, WP:BLP, WP:OUTING etc can be an issue anywhere in WP-space, but if so argue by policy. Fram-Buzzfeed states "Fram is also known within the community as an asshole.", does that disqualify it for BLP-reasons? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Weird RfC phrasing - yes in WP-space, no in Mainspace - it's actually a decently well-written article and fairly accurate. However, no-one not involved with wikipedia would be able to make a separate reliability judgement from the norm of Breitbart articles (so it doesn't belong in articles). But no-one can just dictate the removal of sources from our internal discussions. Individuals can make their own judgements as to its accuracy - and in this specific example, we are equipped to make in-depth judgements on accuracy. To prohibit such would be disturbing censorship. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• No, not ever If Breitbart said it was raining outside, I'd look out a window before I'd trust them. Breitbart is perhaps the least reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Hell, no Not a RS, and we don't need them to stir our ... excrement for us. Miniapolis 13:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Doubly no I will point out the article at BBN is by banned editor TDA. That makes both a problem with the source and the bias of the author. --Masem (t) 13:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• No. How is this even a question? Breitbart is notable as a universally unreliable source, and per Guy Macon, this particular article should not be linked from Wikipedia at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Aww… using using wiki-processes to keep the link up while this is hot. Cute, such a good market, get in now while I'm selling! Do I get I get a dividend for being the hypocritical (and violent (responsipossilble for billions of Deaths)) naysayer that keeps this afloat? No crypto-currency or American dollars, thanks. cygnis insignis 15:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer SNOW close for the mischief this is causing in relinking the site, which others have pointed out is more than mischief. cygnis insignis 16:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• No. As I say at RSN, it might be for their view of it (but I am not sure why that would be of interest), but no not for any factual reporting. This is without the outing, which mean I am not sure we should be linking anywhere or at any time.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• No AND sanction any bad-faith attempts to reintroduce links to the article.--WaltCip (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• No, it is not a reliable source, for this or for anything else. On the other hand, it is entirely reasonable to note that Breitbart has published a comment on this topic, along with the various others who have commented. The fact that it has taken note of the Fram controversy is appropriate for inclusion, but what it says about the controversy is not reliable as a statement of fact. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• No .... The Daily Mail is widely read and look where that's ended up - Being mostly read means nothing, Anyway it's not exactly known for it's great content. –Davey2010^Talk 20:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment While I appreciate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS etc, I'm unsure from the above comments if there is a particular reason to exclude the specific article in Template:Press in this particle page especially as it isn't even an article talk page. AFAIK there currently no ban on including Breitbart in the template in general. In fact I found it in Talk:Gamergate controversy, Talk:Adland, Talk:Critical race theory, Talk:Neuroticism, Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks, Talk:Environmental impact of pig farming, Talk:Yuri Kochiyama. And I'm sure this list is my no means exhaustive. (For starters look for the other 'Seven Worst Moments' may find more.) The black list probably puts a dampener on inclusions, but I wonder if it would be better that we are clearer why we want to ban the Breitbart article from Template:Press here. And if our feeling is that it rarely or never belongs we should look more carefully on existing uses and perhaps have a general RfC to establish when it can and cannot be added to Template:Press. While I have not, and will not, read the specific Breitbart article, from what people have said, it's unclear to me if it's really much worse than most of their other crap. I mean many of the others look like they deal with BLP issues as well and in fact some of them seem to involve non wikipedians. Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• No - and why on earth are you linking to forums and social media as "sources". There are also "sources" about the mimosa someone had with brunch yesterday by that definition. Furthermore, there look to be some awful content on those links relating to harassment of (or at least attacks on) Wikipedians involved in this matter. What purpose do they even serve here? (Also: a copyright violation/copy of Buzzfeed and a copy of a Wikipedia page (??????)). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• Not this particular author, at least: Mr. T.D. Adler, the pseudononymous pseudonymous author of this piece and an editor banned on this very project, has a clear conflict (of interest, if nothing else) regarding our policies and procedures; and is clearly suspect simply as a source for an article, let alone as the author of one. As such, Mr. Adler cannot, should not, and ought not be used as a reliable source. As for usage of other Breitbart authors and articles, I note, without comment, our advice and policies on reliable sources (at least in article-space). Noting that the ban of Fram has elicited comment across the political spectrum, however, would not be an endorsement of the source or the author, and (quite frankly) ought to be done. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Struck spelling mistake. No change to rationale. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 18:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• No and as has been said for this author in particular - a banned/blocked editor should not be able to use Wikipedia in any way. Doug Weller talk 16:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

Example comment (sign with ~~~~)

• I don't get it. "Use it as a source?" This isn't an article, so I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, and it's not clear what you mean. If you're attempting to censor any mention of it, you should say so, and not play games with wording. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Guy, you've framed the RFC in a misleading way because you don't want to include Breitbart. No one is proposing using it as a source for an article. All we wanted to know is if it is to be included on the page you started of media mentions of Framgate.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Swarm: I certainly do not want to "censor any mention of it". I am asking if it should be listed as a (Dnighth? Ngfipht?) on the multiple pages that link to it. Give me a better term than "Source" "Dnighth" or "Ngfipht" and I will use the term you like better.

Wehwalt: It is linked to on multiple pages, all of which contain a list of dnighths that refer to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram. I want to know whether it should be used as a ngfipht on any of those pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• The question as to whether to include Breitbart as a "reliable source" is obviously not going to be a point of contention that would need an RfC to begin with. The question is apparently really whether it should be listed at Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Off-wiki coverage, and your attempt to word it in a manipulative way to get a desired result is an apparent bad-faith action that renders the RfC illegitimate. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) An uninvolved closer will evaluate your objection and determine whether the RfC is illegitimate. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

He started it in the middle of the night US time too. Stay classy Guy.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

You have both accused me of acting in bad faith. I am done responding to either of you.

    Responding just 
    encourages them! 
           \ 
            >') 
            ( \ 
             ^^` 

--Guy Macon (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I withdraw any suggestion of impropriety and apologize to the extent I suggested such. You did leave your actions open to misconstruction, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Oh, please. Your implication that you have to use the word "source" is comical. "Source" obviously has a specific meaning here, and suggesting that you can't tell the difference between "including it" or "listing it" vs "using it as a source" is wholly unconvincing. You chose the wording for a reason, and if you weren't acting in good faith, you wouldn't be responding in bad faith. You'd simply clarify the question. If you wanted to not include Breitbart because Breitbart is shit and deserves no platform here, that actually be a perfectly reasonable view and I'd support it. But just own it. Don't try to post an obviously disingenuous and manipulative RfC question just because the first discussion doesn't go the way you want it to. Not only do I think you acted in bad faith, but you obviously acted in bad faith. Sorry to call you out on it, but if there's one thing I can't stand it's these disingenuous bullshit attempts to game discussions and fabricate consensuses. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I stopped reading the above as soon as I read the part where you accused me of bad faith (again) and in the future I intend to skip over any message with your signature on it and read the next message instead. (This works really well; I highly recommend this technique to others who are dealing with trolls on Wikipedia.) I have also added your username to the "Muted users / Do not display notifications from these users" and "Prohibit these users from emailing me" entries in my preferences, so any pings or links to my username you post will not reach me. I do not want to have any interactions with you and I am requesting that you leave me alone. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• The source is contemptible, giving them traffic is feeding an organisation profiting from weaponised trolling. cygnis insignis 06:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I removed it from the header, pending consensus for inclusion, it is not a news source. cygnis insignis 06:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted you, pending consensus for removal of what was already there. Given your edit summary, "f==k Breitbart" you should not be deciding such things. Keep the page stable please.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

[ec What I said is reserved for the very worst aspects of such things, it does not disqualify an opinion]. Which was reverted, leaving it there for what, a month? Difficult to fathom how anyone claim the status quo on a poisonous advertisement for Breibart. cygnis insignis 06:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't like BB very much myself. It was never much and it's gone down hill since then. But WP has enough of a reputation for left-slanting without giving more ammunition. You wanted comments, you're getting comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

It is not right-wing, it is simply wrong, fuelling the collapse of American civilisation is not providing balance. Opinion is not news, neither is the toxic and sociopathic lying they issue news, none of this is news to those familiar with the journalistic landscape. cygnis insignis 06:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Guy Macon: I believe this RfC's mandate is to be applied to all mainnamespaces but it's not exactly clear from your opening statement. You should clarify it. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• If we ever have a mainspace article about Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram we will have to revisit this (probably by applying the existing ban on Breitbart as a sopurce anywhere in mainspace) The title of the RfC makes it clear that it only applies to pages about the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The word "source" is what is unnecessary and which is throwing off the debate.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Not an article but mainspace: List_of_Wikipedia_controversies#2019. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

It's also (the ban, not the Breitbart article) is also mentioned at User revolt#Wikimedia Foundation ban of Fram. That is the target of Wikimedia Foundation ban of Fram although Fram controversy redirects to what you linked. There is also a link from Fram (disambiguation). Nil Einne (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Guy Macon: But what do you mean when you are saying "pages about...", projectspace/mainspace/both? You really have to state it specifically. --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• This is a non-question and I suggest it be withdrawn. This page is project space, not article space, and people can discuss anything they want, Breitbart or otherwise, as long as it doesn't break the usual policies or terms of use. RS is a main space rule. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• The community has the mandate to decide virtually anything, including making rules for projectspace. Problem is that the summary is sending mixed signals about its intent. --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment Cullen328 writes above "We should not curate lists of glaringly inappropriate and unreliable sources, even if the garbage is "widely read"." Here our philosophies differ. In the case of "This X page has been mentioned by" templates and "Wikipedia:Press coverage" pages I think we should, to an extent (Breitbart, Daily Mail, etc). Leaving them out is bowdlerization. Of course, one can see me as a useful idiot. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment While I appreciate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS etc, I'm unsure from the above comments if there is a particular reason to exclude the specific article in Template:Press in this particle page especially as it isn't even an article talk page. AFAIK there currently no ban on including Breitbart in the template in general. In fact I found it in Talk:Gamergate controversy, Talk:Adland, Talk:Critical race theory, Talk:Neuroticism, Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks, Talk:Environmental impact of pig farming, Talk:Yuri Kochiyama. And I'm sure this list is my no means exhaustive. (For starters look for the other 'Seven Worst Moments' may find more.) The black list probably puts a dampener on inclusions, but I wonder if it would be better that we are clearer why we want to ban the Breitbart article from Template:Press here. And if our feeling is that it rarely or never belongs we should look more carefully on existing uses and perhaps have a general RfC to establish when it can and cannot be added to Template:Press. While I have not, and will not, read the specific Breitbart article, from what people have said, it's unclear to me if it's really much worse than most of their other crap. I mean many of the others look like they deal with BLP issues as well and in fact some of them seem to involve non wikipedians. Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• This particular Breitbart article also has WP:BLP issues. It reposts anonymous accusations from Wikipediocracy that in my opinion violates a particular person's privacy and thus should not be be linked to per WP:OUTING. I can't say who is being outed or what exactly Wikipediocracy/Breitbart says about them lest I commit an outing violation, but anyone who really needs to know can email me. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Now, here I do indeed see what I would consider "personal information" reposted from Wikipediocracy. So, a WP:OVERSIGHT of this RFC etc? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I would have no objection if an oversighter removed this RfC and all other places on Wikipedia that link to the Breitbart/Wikipedia articles where I found the outing, but I am not going to request that because I would have a conflict of interest regarding an oversighter giving me what I asked for in this RfC. Someone who isn't as involved as I am would have to make the request. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Well based on this mystery I finally checked out the article. For clarity, the specific concern is the specifics of an alleged relationship between 2 people? Allegations of some sort of personal relationship have been extensively mentioned in this very page e.g. Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 1#Elephant in the room '07:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)', '09:15, 12 June 2019', '09:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)'. Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 3#Need for a shorter Resume '10:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)'. I also see some real names, but all of these real names seem to be documented somewhere on wikipedia one of them including on the current version of that signpost article as well as Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation, although to our credit, no one has mentioned it here that I saw. Personally I think if you've read this page only, especially for example the elephant in the room thread where it's clear from those who did name the editors that people are referring to said editors you would know what is being referred to in the Breitbart article. Still I have some minor sympathy that explicitly spelling it out is worse, but I simply want us to be clear on what we're expecting from external sites we link to in the template. It's IMO unreasonable to say they are not allowed because they must hold higher standards then we ourselves hold. Note that I'm not saying I agree with the standard we've held here. I've strongly criticised it several times in the past and continue to do so here. But as long as that's our standard, then sources in the press template should be looked at in the same vein. Nil Einne (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC) P.S. I don't actually like having to mention these details, but I see no choice if we want to have an honest conversation about what we accept as a community. 03:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I have copied my comment back above. It is not a reply to any !vote and it is likely my only contribution to the !vote. Nil Einne (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• Question for those who would include every source regardless of quality: As documented at Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#Background, there are a bunch of low quality sources that mention this (but few as low quality as Breitbart News). For those who argue that we should include every website that talks about this in all three places where such sites are listed, are you really saying that we should include Slate, Buzzfeed News, Breitbart News, Wikipediocracy, Wiki Review, Hacker News, Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, Reclaim the Net, Gender Desk, RT (Russian international television network funded by the Russian government), Know Your Meme, Quora, Penzington, Wikipedia Sucks!, and Infinite Bits? If not, what is your criteria for inclusion? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • In principle, the criteria for me would be nothing self-published. Which would take out Wikipediocracy, Wiki Review, Facebook, Reddit, Gender Desk, Hacker News, Twitter, Know Your Meme, Quora, Wikipedia Sucks! and possibly others. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. The obvious counterarguments are:
      • Breitbart News took an accusation that violates our WP:OUTING policy, sourced to a self-published anonymous source in Wikipediocracy, and republished it. I would argue that this means we should exclude Breitbart News for the same reasons we exclude Wikipediocracy.
      • As explained here,[11] inclusion of the Breitbart News article we are talking about has been opposed by at least one arbitrator and by T&S on the grounds that the author of the Breitbart News article is someone who was indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. Getting Breitbart to publish your words and getting Wikipedia to link to them is a rather innovative form of block evasion. It is possible that the person who posted the accusations to Wikipediocracy is the same banned user.
      • Think about why we exclude self-published sources. It isn't because they are automatically bad. It is because we simply have no way to know whether what is in the SPS is a lie. I would argue that certain sources (The Daily Mail, Breitbart News. Infowars) have been proven to publish so many outright lies that when they publish something new we simply have no way to know whether what they publish is a lie. Sort of the opposite of having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I have to say, not only should a banned/blocked user be unable to use Wikipedia in violation of those blocks/bans, but no user should be allowed to enable it (nor should that be tolerated).Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of banned/blocked users... [12][13][14][15]   :(   --Guy Macon (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Similar to my general comment, if we want to ban any article written by a ban/blocked editor about wikipedia, again I think we should establish this clearly rather than going at it in an ad hoc fashion. Currently, Talk:Neuroticism also uses an article written by them although it does seem to be the only one assuming they used the same name. (I assume we aren't including articles they are quoted in since if we are, it would likely affect many of Breitbart's recent articles that are linked in the template.) I would note that if this policy applied to all blocked/banned editors, it would mean any article written by User:Clockback about wikipedia would be banned from the template such as at Talk:Peter Hitchens. (Not outing, see the user page.) If we only want certain circumstances (e.g. editors who are cbanned or banned by arbcom, excluding articles written by people primarily known as journalists, links on the talk pages of articles about the subjects of the ban) then IMO it would be better if we decide this rather than doing things in a haphazard fashion. Nil Einne (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:SNOW closed RFC neutrality follow-up question closure?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Was this edit proper? I reserve the right to propose another RFC to, for example, petition the board to allow Arbcom to see T&S's full evidence if they withhold it. EllenCT (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Most definitely. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Please drop the stick. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes and this should be snow closed as well. We seem to have a WP:NOTGETTINGIT situation here. MarnetteD|Talk 20:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the close was entirely proper. Open your fucking ears and listen to what your fellow editors are telling you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I know you think that I have done something bad, but honestly I do not even understand why you think I've been patronizing. I am sorry I missed Jimbo's announcement that Arbcom was permitted to unblock. I can not see how to believe that T&S are acting in good faith when they have a longstanding agreement to share secret evidence but still insist on providing them only redacted evidence against Fram. Why are they doing that? And I for one refuse to ignore the multiple COIs and history of the involved parties. In any case, why do you think this situation is such that personal attacks are called for? EllenCT (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Commenting post close but fuck it - Which part of my close (specifically "Ellen I'm sure the time and effort spent here could be better spent on articles.") was not understood ?,

Not everyone will share my view but personally I think your template is childish and does nothing but shit-stir here,

There are means and ways to create change and gain the consensus of the people but to be frank your ways aren't it,

Like I said 2-3 days ago drop the stick and focus your time and energy on one of the 5 million articles we have. –Davey2010^Talk 02:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC:Should any FRAM-related resignation where the resigning editor performed controversial actions relating to WP:FRAM be considered under a cloud?

Summary for the RFC listing: Should any FRAM-related resignation where the resigning editor performed controversial actions relating to WP:FRAM be considered under a cloud? I am asking because of the following quotation from the July 2 WMF Board statement: We do not consider any of the admin resignations related to the current events to be “under a cloud” (under suspicion) though we also realize that the final decision with respect to this lies with the community. I am asking in the hypothetical event that users who resigned under controversial circumstances relating to WP:FRAM such as Floquenbeam, BU Rob 13, WJBScribe, and any other past or possible future resigner resigning under controversial circumstances relating to WP:FRAM would ask for their tools back. If they're not considered to be under a cloud, they can simply request them back at the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard, but if they are considered to be under a cloud, then they'll have to go through the standard RFA procedure. According to the board, while they don't consider these under a cloud, it's up to us as a community to decide whether or not they're under a cloud, and I felt it would be smart to have that consensus ready in advance, even if these requests are unlikely to occur from those I just mentioned. A "no-consensus" result would leave the Board's view as precedent, leaving the effects of a "no consensus" the same as a "no" !vote consensus in response to the question, should the result be "no consensus".

Proposer: DrewieStewie (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• No, for both policy and pragmatic reasons. For policy reasons, the administrators were not resigning under "controversial circumstances". The consensus at the discussion on the matter was clearly in support of what those administrators did. ArbCom had the opportunity to hear a case that could have resulted in sanctions or desysopping, but declined to do so, citing the extraordinary circumstances. For pragmatic reasons, if we actually need to run RfAs based on this mess, it'll just dump gasoline on the embers, and that is about the last damn thing we need. So, I agree with ArbCom. The circumstances were extraordinary and unprecedented, and so we ought to recognize that those involved did what they thought needed to be done to resolve it and leave it at that. This is still a policy, and in novel and unprecedented situations, it's sometimes the only policy. No one acted in bad faith or against a clear consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• No, exactly per Seraphimblade. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• No per WP:IAR. Sometimes it is best to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass regardless of whether you liked what they did or not, and I don't see how sanctioning them would benefit Wikipedia. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• No: I join Seraphimblade and Kudpung, but I'll elucidate a bit (and just a bit, I promise): it is the express sentiment of the WMF, Doc James, the Arbitration Committee, and various members of the community, myself included, that the resignations noted above were not done under a cloud, at least in this case. Given that we're all in agreement (for once), I can see no real reason to disagree with such a consensus. I commend you, DrewieStewie, for having the foresight and courage to bring this up now. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• No, as proposer and per the above !votes. DrewieStewie (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• No, because according to the final "can we play through?" they seem to have all been in the right, and did their bit to move the issue along. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• No per Seraphimblade. Thank goodness! 73.222.1.26 (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• Nein, nyet, iie, non, and most emphatically NO. About the only one who could be seen as resigning under a cloud is WJBScribe, and even then only their bureaucrat bit for restoring Fram's sysop access. There was wide consensus for Floq's and Bishonen's unblocks, but not for the reopping of Fram. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 03:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• No. The relevant users are all exceptional assets to the community and their only offense was having a sense of courage and morality. General amnesty for all involved. And, as Randy Kryn points out, the WMF has all but admitted that this "rebellion" was not in error to begin with. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• No. Per WP:IAR and the overwhelming consensus above, etc., etc. Shearonink (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• No. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• No and also I don't like making rules after the fact. --Rschen7754 04:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• Absolutely Not. And I’m a bit confused as to why this RfC was proposed, as I’ve seen no one suggest anything to the contrary. I have seen BU Rob 13 state his desire that various admins and WJBScribe have their tools removed and/or be banned over this, but I’ve seen no one categorically suggest that they were “under a cloud”, including him. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Symmachus Auxiliarus: I proposed this since I saw a comment on I believe Floquenbeam's talk page saying that his resignation was under a cloud and I also felt formal consensus was necessary to clear the air that there wouldn't be opposition to them not being under a cloud. DrewieStewie (talk) 06:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• No per above arguments. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• No These administrators and functionaries took a stand based on what each individually thought to be in the best interests of the encylopedia. These were exceptional circumstances. As a general principle, all of these people should be welcomed back to advanced permissions when each is individually ready to return. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• No The towering walls of discussion re WP:FRAM show that the only cloud hangs over the WMF's procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 07:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• No, per the rapidly archived previous discussion. I would clarify that this endorsement includes all retirements and requests for bit removal by admins and non-admins (unless already under some unrelated cloud). I hope that these valued editors will soon feel able to return. Certes (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• No, WP:IAR . Not saying there might be rules that need ignoring, just that there's no need to even look, to unnecessarily complicate the issue. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 08:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• No extraordinary times require extraordinary measures, etc. The question should not even be need to be asked, but of course it does :) I assume a positive closure of this RfC is intended to allow crats to return various bits in the knowledge that they do so backed by a firm community consensus and not having to risk their collective necks via IAR. ——SerialNumber54129 08:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• No. Well, as a wording nitpick, we can't really make a judgment about "future resigners". But the people who used their respective tools in the Fram situation were reacting to an exceptional circumstance, and IMO should be more than welcome to return to the status quo ante if they want. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• No but not because WMF says so. It's none of their business in the first place. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• Of course not. From our point of view they are the wiki equivalent of freedom fighters, not of terrorists. (This doesn't mean their actions had unanimous support.) Some people in the Wikimedia Foundation may see things differently, but then they were sufficiently on the defensive to shut up. (And I agree with Opabinia regalis. I was close to expressing the same caveat independently but then nearly decided not to bother.) Hans Adler 08:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• No. Plenty of reasons already stated. It's not up to the WMF board to decide this, but we should take their statement at an attempt of good will, adopting and reinforcing the community opinion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• No. Absolutely not. Reyk _YO! 10:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• No per WP:IAR and should this be closed per WP:SNOW? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abote2 (talk • contribs)
• No but keep it open a little linger for most valid result. Trying to fix something that’s broken is allowed. Jehochman ^Talk 11:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• No per others. I'd suggest holding off on SNOW until maybe 24 hours after opening, because this sort of decision benefits from a very strong consensus to which to point. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

  I would suggest at-least a week. ∯WBG^converse 14:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SANFRANJANBANSFRAM listed at Redirects for discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:SANFRANJANBANSFRAM. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 01:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Hard to know whether to laugh or cry.

Ritchie333, I couldn't find the picture of the cat saying, "THIS IZ SERYUS BIZNEZ!". EEng 02:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Business cat

I have to do everything around here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Hawkeye. Don't forget to participate in the deletion discussion – to vote keep click here and to vote delete click here. EEng 05:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

And business cat? - Alexis Jazz 13:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh what the hell? WP:G10? Really? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

"G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose". I don't see where the disparagement, threat, intimidation, or harassment is. If something like that is widely considered harassment (even though consensus seems to be to the contrary), maybe T&S might have a point.--WaltCip (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

It's the implication that Jan was the one who banned Fram as opposed to it being a joint decision by multiple people in the WMF. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 23:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I suppose it can be difficult to convey satire in a redirect, since the point of EEng creating the redirect seems to have been to take advantage of the opportune alliteration rather than to directly attack Jan. But policy is policy.--WaltCip (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it is, but it doesn't fit this situation; see my comments at Special:Diff/904308919. Anyway, I came up with something better: WP:CANSANFRANBANFRAM? EEng 09:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

EEng wins again. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me, but Wikipedia is not about winning. It's about WP:WHINING. EEng 09:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Sheesh. And now a thinly disguised attack on the Human Rights of all right-minded San Francisco residents. I think a United Nations resolution might be the only answer here. Resign now! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I did not know there were right-minded people in SanFran. I thought they were all left-minded.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

EEng was that "to vote "delete" click..." bit a John Oliver reference?Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll never tell. EEng 18:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Alright then, keep your secrets! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM? listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM?. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Anne drew (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• It's like deja vu all over again. EEng 22:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• @Anne drew Andrew and Drew: This is beginning to get annoying. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I annoyed you. That wasn't my intention. Anne drew (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You've wasted more of a lot of people's time in a situation where a lot of people's time has been wasted already. You should have proceeded more carefully, and especially after the speedy was declined you should have thought twice. Three times. Four times. EEng 22:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

So long as we're handing out unsolicited advice, you should relax EEng. Having a deletion discussion really isn't the end of the world (especially when it seems to be going your way). Anne drew (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

next, WP:SANFRANJANMANPANSCANSANDBANSFRAM--Wehwalt (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

oh thank you, now I can't get rid of the horde of Vikings singing that in my head. Bloody Vikings. --bonadea contributions talk 09:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

You've got a lot of nerve copping a cavalier attitude about wasting others' time just because you can. You made a speedy nomination that was instantly declined because it made no sense at all, then immediately followed up with a RfD that made even less sense. Cool your fucking jets, get your finger off the trigger, and start paying attention. EEng 06:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

My jets are cool. You on the other hand need to move on. Anne drew (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

"You on the other hand need to move on" - Or perhaps you need to stop blindly nominating redirects?, Just a thought. –Davey2010^Talk 13:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no intention whatsoever of adding any more redirects, but it occurred to me that WP:Editors for deletion would actually have a certain logic to it, in terms of the various ways this debacle has affected various members of the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It was bad enough when it was just one WP:Editor for deletion. —Cryptic 19:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, at this point we may need to be using rollback. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Anne drew Andrew and Drew: Regarding the link box, WP:2SHORTCUTS redirects to a guideline that stated they generally should list only one or two common and easily remembered redirects. - in 2012. I refer you to the fact that the very section describing that guideline had 4 links... Ironic. The current wording is they generally should list only the most common and easily remembered redirects.. Framgate is certainly easily remembered. Further, regarding WP:CANSANFRANBANFRAM - I think that's reasonable to keep for humour purposes. The box is adjacent to a bigger box, so it really doesn't look bad, or indeed cause any harm at all. Talking of looking bad, being the RfD nom for that link, then removing it from the redirect target, that is bad optics. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

You've now had a declined speedy and a SNOW closed RfD against you, and you continue the crusade. The behaviour is verging on POINTy. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm just reinstating this edit by a different editor that shortened the link box to two entries. I'll let someone else weight in on which of these redirects are "the most common and easily remembered". Anne drew (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Drop the stick and get a grip. Hey, that'd be a good redirect for this section. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 08:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Now closed with a unanimous Keep !vote. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)