Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wnt (talk | contribs) at 21:49, 28 June 2019 (→Sixth Pillar). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts

    Shortly before 18:00 UTC on 10 June 2019, the English Wikipedia administrator Fram was banned by the Wikimedia Foundation from editing the English Wikipedia for a period of 1 year, consistent with the Terms of Use (quote taken from the block log). A note was placed at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard, resulting in a large community discussion. In order to both centralize the discussion and remove it from the noticeboard two 'crats agreed that it should be moved to a new location. The original discussion (Special:PermaLink/901372387) was copied here at 12:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC) with this diff. Note that threading may have changed for readability.
    There is a collection of prepared/official statements published by various stakeholders, for your convenience.
    There are also different summaries of this page if you do not wish to read the entire page and its archives.

    Please also see the two Arbitration cases that were opened in relation to this incident, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversion of office actions (decided 5 July 2019) and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram (Case closed on 19:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)).

    User:Fram banned for 1 year by WMF office

    This section holds the original announcement of Fram's one-year ban on the bureaucrats' noticeboard, and the comments of many editors. Most of these comments were made prior to follow-up statements from Fram and the WMF and may be outdated. Further discussion probably belongs in a newer section of this page.

    Fram (talk · contribs · logs · block log) Please note admin User:Fram has been banned for 1 year as per Office action policy by User:WMFOffice. - Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    What the hell? There had better be a damn good explanation; Fram is arguably the best admin in Wikipedia's history, and while I can imagine problems so bad they warrant an emergency WP:OFFICE ban without discussion, I find it hard to imagine problems that are simultaneously so bad they warrant an emergency ban without discussion but simultaneously so unproblematic that the ban will auto-expire in a year. ‑ Iridescent 18:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And also only applicable to enwiki, meaning Fram can communicate on other wikis. I note that the WMF only recently gave themselves the power to do partial bans/temporary bans.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Galobtter - Any clue about whether Fram's ban is the first exercise in implementing these or have other editors been subject to these P-bans, earlier? ∯WBGconverse 18:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Winged Blades of Godric, first on enwiki at least per User:WMFOffice contributions, I checked de wiki and found some more de:Special:Contributions/WMFOffice; the timing of those dewiki bans suggests the policy was put into place to ban those two people. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Winged Blades of Godric: It is not. The first WMF partial bans were done in German Wikipedia. The earliest that I know of is Judith Wahr in February. Policy regarding partial bans were added around the same time (about two hours prior to the bans' implementation). -★- PlyrStar93 →Message me. ← 18:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to import drama from other projects into here but is there any more public info (i.e. discussed on de.wikipedia in a public location and still available) on what went on there? As mentioned, the timing of the policy change suggests it was likely at least partly done to allow a block of that specific user. Given the way the WMF stepped in, I expected something similar to here, may be an experienced editor who was blocked. But they only seem to have around 900 edits. True the ban there was indef though unlike this one and it doesn't seem the editor is particularly interested in editing elsewhere however as others said, it was technically also only a partial ban since it didn't affect other projects suggesting whatever it is wasn't severe enough to prevent editing any WMF projects. Nil Einne (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect this isn't going anywhere further but for the benefit of others I had a quick look at machine translations of one of the discussions linked and think that possibly the account linked above was just one of the accounts the editor used which may explain the low edit count. Nil Einne (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    See #FYI: Similar incident in de.wp some months ago. Which reminded me of something I'd read about but completely forgot when replying. It sounds like the editor concerned was already either blocked or banned by the community so it probably wasn't quite like here where plenty feel any ban of the editor concerned is unjusitified. Of course concerns over WMF's over reach or getting unnecessarily involved in project governance as well as other issues like the WMF ban unlike the community block or ban being unappealable still arose. Nil Einne (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with you on this. Fram and I have butted heads a time or two (I think?) but I just am trying to wrap my mind around a decision like this with no real explanation. I understand the nature of WMFOffice blocks but I would think that anything egregious enough for an emergency decision like this would have had some indication prior to it happening, like a community discussion about bad behavior or abuse of tools which would reveal PII (os, cu), but Fram was neither of those. I can't seem to think of a single thing that would warrant such unilateral action that could also result in only a one year ban (as opposed to indefinite, if that makes sense) and so narrowly focused on one local project. Praxidicae (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Going to echo this as well. This is a very cryptic block, which seems very hard to tie to any public behaviour. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, saying "email us" is not sufficient explanation for banning a well-known veteran editor and admin like this.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Iri. It's also so unproblematic that he's not banned on any other WMF projects?! Banning from en.wiki only seems like something ArbCom gets to do, not WMF. And I see he's already been desysopped by WMF, instead of locally, too. If there are privacy issues involved, I certainly don't need to know what's going on, but I do want ArbCom informed of what is going on and get their public assurance that they agree with the action, and this isn't bullshit. They even preemptively removed talk page access. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Whatamidoing (WMF), I know you're heartily sick of my pinging you, but if ever there was a situation that needed an explanation from Commmunity Relations, this is it. ‑ Iridescent 18:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is T&S business and I am not sure if Community Relations knows better. — regards, Revi 18:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Which goes back to my original point: if it's egregious enough (T&S) to warrant a unilateral decision like that, why only a year? Praxidicae (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) If it's a T&S issue, then why is he still trusted on every other project, and why is it simultaneously so urgent it needs to be done instantly without discussion, but so unproblematic it expires after a year? "We're the WMF, we can do what we like" may be technically true, but the WMF only exists on the back of our work; absent some kind of explanation this looks like a clear-cut case of overreach. As Floq says, if there's an issue here that can't be discussed publicly then fine, but given the history of questionable decisions by the WMF I'm not buying it unless and until I see a statement from Arbcom that they're aware of the circumstances and concur with the actions taken. ‑ Iridescent 18:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked ArbCom to comment at WT:AC/N. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, if the WMF office knew anything, they knew this would blow up. So waiting is inappropriate really, they should have already been in a position to respond immediately to this. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Bureaucrat note: (and response to User:Money emoji) While it is useful to have a notice here about this action, there isn't really anything for 'crats to do right now. The WMF Office action indicates a 1 year prohibition on administrator access at this time that we would not override. Per the administrator policy, former administrators may re-request adminship subsequent to voluntary removal. As Fram's sysop access removal is not recorded as "voluntary", the way I see it is that a new RfA, after the prohibition period, would be the path to regaining admin access (outside of another WMF Office action). — xaosflux Talk 19:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • At ths point I don't even care about the reasoning but there is no way that the WMF can claim this is preventative. If it's so bad that WMF had to act in what appears to be a local matter, why is there no concern about this a year from now? Why, if whatever happened is so bad, is there no concern about ill intent on the hundreds of other projects Fram could edit? I'm not suggesting Fram be indeffed but I think some transparency from WMF is needed here, the optics are very bad and no matter which way I connect the dots on this, it seems extremely punitive. Praxidicae (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the term "Poisoning the Well" comes to mind. Fram comes back, has to go through an RFA if they want the tools back (where they did a hell of a lot of good on preventing shitty code and tools from being unleashed here). There is a substantial population here that will vote against them simply because of this action, being right or not. spryde | talk 22:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Praxidicae: this has the comment I most agree with on the subject. It never was preventative, and I think that being the case is what caused much of the stir. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 13:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah,a big whiskey tango foxtrot from me as well. What the hell are they playing at? Reyk YO! 19:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could this have been self-requested? I can't imagine T&S saying yes, but you never know. In any case, piling on here. An explanation is required. Without one, people will assume the worst, either about Fram, or the WMF. I'm ashamed to admit my mind already went to same place as Iridescent's. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Speculation can take us anywhere of course. Keep in mind there could be additional T&S terms that we are unaware of (such as a speculative "may not hold admin or above access on any project for a year") - functionally, enwiki is the only project where advanced access provisioned, so may have been the only one where rights modifications was warranted. — xaosflux Talk 19:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Add me to the list of those who said "WTF" out loud after seeing this. The scope of the ban is baffling, too; if Fram has violated the terms of use, why only a year, and why only the English Wikipedia? If they haven't, then why a ban at all? Also, the WMF is doubtless aware that Fram was an admin with a long an prolific history of productive editing. Any office action against them was always going to be controversial; so why wait to post a statement at all? I see that the de.wiki bans were also to a single wikimedia project; but I haven't enough German to find any subsequent discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • WTF???? I wasn't aware of any misconduct from Fram that warranted this. I'm eager to know what prompted this ban.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Early betting at Wikipediocracy is that this is preliminary to some sort of centralized imposition of either Superprotect or Flow or Visual Editor, Fram being one of the most outspoken critics of WMF technological incompetence and bureaucratic overreach -- not that there is much room for debate about that at this point. I share the views expressed above: we need answers. Carrite (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Which is clearly way outside any "office actions". That's called "repression" where I come from, should it be in any sense true. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every block needs to be given a reasonable explanation. Without an explanation, we cannot know if a block is valid or not. This entire situation is suspect until an explanation is given. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since it doesnt appear anyone has asked the question: Has anyone asked Fram? I am sure at least one of the admins and/or arbcom has had off-wiki correspondence with them at some point. While obviously asking the subject of a ban for their version of events has its own drawbacks, in absence of any other information.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, no reply. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I've already asked on Commons (where he's not banned) if he wants to make any public statement, and offered to cut-and-paste it across if he does. Technically that would be proxying for a banned editor, but I very much doubt the WMF wants the shit mountain banning Fram and me in the same week would cause. ‑ Iridescent 20:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll do it, then no harm no foul if TRM gets permanently banned. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Well I pinged him before you posted this and offered same. I have no fucks to give and lets see if he likes me more ;) In more seriousness, I am concerned that the WMF has enacted a wiki-specific limited-time ban, which indicates two things: Firstly its a local en-wp issue, possibly linked to a specific ENWP individual editor, and secondly that its punishment not a genuine concern for safety. If it was, you would just ban someone permanently, and from all wikimedia projects. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      To expand a little on the above: I want the WMF to ban editors permanently if there is a *safety* issue. I dont want them interfering in local wikis because someone got their feelings hurt. If they want to do that, they can do the rest of the work policing the userbase too. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) So what, are they repressing people with no explanation now? What did they violate? SemiHypercube 20:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      SemiHypercube, disappearing people without explanation is accepted practice at Wikipedia in extreme circumstances; there are sometimes good reasons we want someone gone and don't want to discuss it publicly for their own privacy's sake. What's unique here is that the WMF are saying that Fram is untrustworthy here, but trustworthy on every other WMF project, and will become trustworthy here in exactly 365 days' time, both of which are confusing to say the least. ‑ Iridescent 20:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Not to mention that "disappearing" someone like Fram is going to cause a shitstorm, unlike the Great Purge, where you just purged those causing the shitstorm too. I'm afraid to say, and Arbcom may now ban me forever, but this looks like incompetence of the highest order by WMF. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • People I trust say this is warranted, but I do object that this was communicated to stewards and not the local ArbCom. Most en.wiki users don’t even know what a steward is, and the local arb with the least support here has more voters for them than even the most popular steward. Stewards do great work and I trust them and have a good working relationship with them, but local only blocks should be disclosed to the local ArbCom, not a global user group that is mostly behind the scenes on en.wiki. This action was guaranteed to get local pushback, and having users who were trusted locally be able to explain it. I’m someone who has a good relationship with the WMF and stewards, and as I said, from what I’ve been told by sensible people this was justified, but if I was trying to think of a better way to make the WMF intentionally look bad on their biggest project, I couldn’t. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I can not recall a single instance an explanation was given in the case of WMF ban (and being active on Commons, I have seen them a lot). I do not expect this situation to be different.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Stewards are informed the reason for every WMF ban, including this one. They can’t say what it is, but considering that this was such an extraordinary event, letting the local group that would be most comparable know the reason would have been the very least that could have been done. Then an arb could say “We’ve seen why and it’s warranted.” TonyBallioni (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      TonyBallioni, given that it only affects en-wiki it must relate to en-wiki. I no longer have Magic Oversight Goggles, but can see nothing remotely problematic in Fram's contributions or deleted contributions in the past month; is there anything in the contributions of Fram (or User:EngFram, who the WMF have also ejected) that raises the slightest concern? (You obviously don't need to specify.) ‑ Iridescent 20:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Iridescent, I don’t see any recent suppressed contributions that raise red flags. I don’t know any more than anyone else other than “Yes, this was intentional, and yes, it looks valid” from people who are generally sensible. Of the WMF departments, T&S is usually one of the most sensible. My objection here is that I know they’re pretty sensible because I’ve worked with them in the past on other things and trust them. Most en.wiki users don’t know that T&S is any different than [insert pet bad idea from the WMF here] and so communicating with the local ArbCom so at least some name recognition here could say they know why. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure WMF has never made a unilateral decision on a local matter that resulted in a long term editor and sysop being removed for local issues either. So...Praxidicae (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    TonyBallioni, now that at least Fram's side is out, do you still trust those people? spryde | talk 13:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This might sound a bit like conspiracy theory nonsense but has anyone checked to see if WMFOffice is compromised? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Ivanvector, I was thinking something similar but that seems unlikely, as stewards have indicated that the ban was justified, and the wmfoffice account doesn't seem compromised, based on its edits. 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 20:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've emailed them - I suggest everyone do the same to push some weight on that route. There are actions that could warrant this - but they'd have to be confident it was Fram not a compromised account. That normally requires a bit of time consideration. Which let's us ask...why such a dramatic sudden action . ARBCOM can handle off-wiki information, so that's even fewer possible actions that could lead to this. We should also ask ARBCOM to discuss it at their monthly chat - I suspect several requests from us would have more impact. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes yes, I emailed them hours ago. Nothing at all, of course. I do wonder how much thought went into this on behalf of WMF. Perhaps the UK government have paid them to create some kind distraction from Brexit? It's probably the only rational explanation. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not matter at this point what the action was as WMF acted only in a local capacity and not the global capacity that they should act under. There is no action as far as I'm concerned that would warrant WMF Office involvement in just a local project, this is black and white in my opinion and if Fram's behavior (or non-behavior, considering we don't know what has happened) was a problem only for the English Wikipedia, it should have been dealt with by measures that are in place on the English Wikipedia and not by a WMF employee/global group acting as a rogue arbcom. Praxidicae (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:OFFICE, the WMF have the right to ban from a single project on the grounds of Repeated misconduct within a single Foundation-supported project, with considerable impact either on that project overall or on individual contributors who are active in that project., but that seems unlikely here, and if there were some kind of misconduct going on, if it were at the level the WMF needed to intervene I'd expect the ban to be permanent. ‑ Iridescent 20:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto, see my comments above. If T&S have to be involved, why are they doing time-limited bans? Thats how ENWP deals with serial problem users. If its a T&S issue they should either not be involved in day-to-day misbehaviour or should be enacting permanent bans. Time-limited either indicates its punishment or that its not an issue that rises to T&S level. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guido is already confirmed as a sockpuppeteer, many times in fact, so that's no news. Also confirmed as lying about their socking. Blocked, unblocked and quickly reblocked. And if I was wrong about Lyrda, they would have no reason not to deny it. - Alexis Jazz 22:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand this by the way. If Fram has done something terrible and unforgivable, they should be blocked indef. If they didn't, WMF should let the community handle it. What possible purpose does a 1-year ban serve here? - Alexis Jazz 22:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • WOAH WHAT?!?! That ban took place while I was on a wikibreak. I never see anything controversial that involves Fram at all. Looking at the statements, I don't see what rules Fram has violated or caused controversy on. INeedSupport :3 21:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a cancer, not an injury. I hope the community looks at this issue in the context of epidemic crackdowns on freedom of speech throughout our world by millions of bureaucratic fiefdoms, big and little. You see, unless we all start paying attention to all of the widespread crackdowns on freedom of speech, thought, and press (Assange, perhaps); wherever they might be, the foundation of our freedoms will be washed away 1 little stone at a time. To quote Dylan, "something is happening here but you don't know what it is, Do you, Mr. Jones."
    I will tell you exactly what is going on, imo. We, the people, are being systematically brainwashed into giving up ( not having them taken away ) all of our precious freedoms of thought, speech, press and association, and its not just some kind of happenstance. It is an orchestrated self perpetuating cultural shift away from aspirational and community empowered governing bodies toward protective, moralizing and pushy governing bodies.
    Voltaire said "the comfort of the rich depends upon an abundance of the poor". I'd say, the power of the top 1/1000 of 1 % depends upon a shallow, self centred and limited focus by us, the masses of people. Its a huge error in judgment and perspective to look at this Fram event as an isolated event; its just part of an injected cancer that's spreading into and around every single aspect and segment of humanity. Its actually trite to call it "evil"; I'd call it an aggressive and global and terminal attack upon every speck of potential goodness that rests within our collective human spirit.
    You must force yourselves to open your eyes to see this incident as just 1 little cancer cell amongst millions; you must recognise and attack the totality of the cancer and must create and/or join a global force to do that. The current banning/& lack of transparency is like a mosquito bite; its the cancer that needs your attention. If you look at it that way, the way to deal with the mosquito will be obvious. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement from the WMF Trust & Safety Team

    (edit conflict) Dear members of the English Wikipedia community,

    We have been approached by several volunteers with questions concerning the recent Office Action, the time-limited partial Foundation ban of User:Fram covering your project. As we saw similar questions also being asked in your discussions around the project, including here, we thought it is most accessible to interested community members to provide clarifications publicly here:

    • What made the Foundation take action at all and why at this specific time?
      • As described on the Metapage about Office actions, we investigate the need for an office action either upon receipt of complaints from the community, or as required by law. In this case we acted on complaints from the community.
      • All office actions are only taken after a thorough investigation, and extensive review by staff. This process usually takes about four weeks.
      • Office actions are covering individuals and not just individual user accounts. Therefore, the measure covers more than one user account in this case.
    • Who made the complaint to the Foundation?
      • The Foundation always aims to be as transparent as possible with office actions. However, as outlined in the general information section of the office actions page, we also prioritize the safety of involved parties and legal compliance. Therefore, we do not disclose who submitted community complaints.
    • Why did the Foundation only ban for a year?
      • As part of the Improving Trust and Safety processes program, less intrusive office actions were introduced. Those options include time-limited and partial (project-specific) bans to address serious concerns that are, however, temporary or project-specific in nature. For example, if a user has been problematic on one project in particular while contributing without concerns to another community wiki, this can now be addressed in a more targeted way than a full Foundation global ban.
    • Why did the Foundation de-sysop? Does this mean that Fram will not be an administrator when his ban ends in 2020?
      • The removal of administrator access is intended as enforcement of the temporary partial Foundation ban placed on Fram. It is the community’s decision what to do with Fram’s administrator access upon the expiration of the Office Action ban.
    • What kind of appeal is possible against this office action?
      • As a this time-limited Foundation ban is an outcome of a regular office action investigation, it is governed by the same rules already familiar from Foundation global bans: it does not offer an opportunity to appeal.

    As the team carrying out office action investigations, Trust and Safety starts cases from the position that it is up to volunteers to decide for themselves how they spend their free time within the frame of the Terms of Use and the local community’s rules provided for in section 10 of them. The Terms of Use do not distinguish whether a user participates by creating and curating content, building tools and gadgets for peers doing so, helping out as a functionary handling admin, checkuser or oversight tools or in other forms. However, on occasion community members submit evidence strongly indicating cases where local communities consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous rules but the Terms of Use, too. We will continue to consider these rare cases brought to our attention under the framework of the office actions policy. Best regards, WMFOffice (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    However, on occasion community members submit evidence strongly indicating cases where local communities consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous rules but the Terms of Use, too. We will continue to consider these rare cases brought to our attention under the framework of the office actions policy. So does that mean you have determined that the ENWP's community failed to uphold its own rules or the TOU in relation to Fram, despite no actual case, action or report being raised against Fram on ENWP? Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Of all the non-answers I've seen in my life, that's possibly one of the most long winded. Reyk YO! 21:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Award-winning. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oooh, this sounds like a whole new way of getting rid of people we don't like... without going through the tedium of due process, ANI, ArbCom or anything. Just badger the WMF with complaints and, hey presto, the user is vanished. Winning!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @WMFOffice: What was it about this complaint that meant it required investigation and action by WMF Trust and Safety instead of enwiki's ArbCom? If you cannot state this publicly (even in general terms), please send an explanation to ArbCom's private mailing list so they can confirm that there were good reasons for this action to be handled in this matter. WJBscribe (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @WMFOffice:: However, on occasion community members submit evidence strongly indicating cases where local communities consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous rules but the Terms of Use, too. We will continue to consider these rare cases brought to our attention under the framework of the office actions policy. Is this such a case? Do you feel enwiki is currently "consistently struggling to uphold not just their own autonomous rules but the Terms of Use", and if so, how? We can and have drastically revised policy in the past to meet the requirements set by WP:OFFICE, but if you don't tell us what's wrong, we can't fix it; and I think it's clear at this point that parachuting in to ban a longtime user with no explanation isn't going to help that underlying situation at all. We need details about how you feel enwiki is falling short and what we would need to change to reach the point where disruptive action like this from outside the community is no longer needed. I think there's a lot of people who would be willing to tighten our rules on harassment and civility if you would make it clear how you want us to do so and set some baseline requirements we need to enforce; but trying to go it alone by stepping in to handle occasional high-profile cases is counterproductive, since it can't possibly scale up to the point where it protects the userbase as a whole and produces backlashes that make broad-based reform more difficult. What I assume you feel we need are changes to Wikipedia's culture and policies; this ban isn't going to help with that, especially given the frustrating lack of meaningful dialog afterwards in terms of what you feel we're doing wrong. --Aquillion (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Fram's response on Commons

    Thank you to everyone who commented at the various discussions or sent me an email about this. I'm as baffled about this as any of you, I'll share whatever information I have. i'll not repost full emails, as that is normally not allowed, but I'll try to give a fair assessment.

    In April 2018, I received an office email from Kalliope (on behalf of the Trust and Safety team) with a "conduct warning" based on offwiki complaint by unnamed editors. "I have taken a look at several conflicts you’ve had over the years with other community members as well as Foundation staff, and I have noticed increasing levels of hostility, aggressive expression—some of which, to the point of incivility—and counterproductive escalations." The "as well as Foundation staff" is quite telling here...

    In March 2019, I received a "reminder" about two edits I made in October 2018 (!); this one and this one. Even though acknowledging that my edits were correct, and that "We remain convinced that the activity on Laura’s articles listed above was not intended to intimidate or make her feel uncomfortable." (which is true, as I was, as is most often the case, new page patrolling when I tagged and corrected these), they issued a one-sided interaction ban (yep, the WMF issues interaction bans as well apparently, no need to bother enwiki with these any longer).

    And then a few hours ago, they posted my one year ban, and helpfully gave the actual reason. Which is one edit, this one. That's it.

    "This decision has come following extensive review of your conduct on that project and is an escalation to the Foundation’s past efforts to encourage course correction, including a conduct warning issued to you on April 2018 and a conduct warning reminder issued to you on March 2019. With those actions in mind, this ban has been triggered following your recent abusive communications on the project, as seen here [1].

    This action is effective immediately and it is non-appealable."

    Basically, after you recive a conduct warning from the Office based on undisclosed complaints, any pretext is then good enough to ban you (1 year now, I presume indef the next time I do anything they don't like). That I just happen to be one of the most vocal and efficient critics of the WMF is probably a pure coincidence (sorry to tout my own horn here, but in this case it needs to be said).

    No evidence at all that the enwiki community tried and failed to address these issues. No indication that they noticed that my conduct has clearly improved in general over the last 12 months (I said improved, not been raised to saintly standards). No, an edit expressing widefelt frustration with an ArbCom post is sufficient to ban me.

    I would like to state empathically, if someone would have doubts about it, that I have not socked (despite the rather nefarious sounding "Office actions are covering individuals and not just individual user accounts. Therefore, the measure covers more than one user account in this case."), I have not contacted or otherwise followed or bothered anyone offwiki, I have not even contributed to any of the Wikipedia criticism sites or fora (though it does become tempting now), ... Everything I did is visible on enwiki, no privacy issues are involved, and all necessary complaint, investigations, actions, could have been made onwiki.

    Basically, this one-year ban is at the same time a means to silence one of their most vocal (and fact-based, consistently supporting WMF criticism with many examples of what goes wrong) critics, and a serious (and unwarranted) blame for the enwiki admin and arbcom community, who are apparently not able to upheld the TOU and to manage the site effectively.

    This ban is not open to appeal, so I'll not bother with it: but I most clearly disagree with it and the very flimsy justification for it, and oppose this powergrab by the WMF which can't be bothered to deal with actual serious issues (like the rampant BLP violating vandalism at Wikidata, where e.g. Brett Kavanaugh has since 31 March 2019 the alias "rapist"[2] (A BLP violation whether you agree with the sentiment or not).

    I have not the faintest clue why the WMF also couldn't post the justification for their block online, but communication has never been their strongest point.

    Any non-violent action taken by enwiki individuals or groups against this WMF ban has my support. If you need more information, feel free to ask. I also allow the WMF to publish our full mail communication (I don't think it contains any personally identifying information about me or others), to give everyone the means to judge this impartially for themselves.

    Again, thank you to everyone who expressed their support, especially those who would have reasons to dislike me based on previous interactions. I'm not a model admin or editor, but I believe I was steadily improving. But that's not for enwiki to decide apparently. Fram (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

    Copying Fram's statement from Commons here. --Pudeo (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Responses by Jimbo (Jimmy Wales)

    1. "I was entirely unaware of this before just now. I'm reviewing the situation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)"[3][reply]
    2. "[…] Both Doc James and I are on the case, trying to understand what happened here, and the ArbCom is discussing it as well. Drama will not be necessary, but more importantly, drama will not be helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)"[4][reply]
    3. "I can assure you that my commitment to, and support of, appropriate principles and our established constitutional order is far far more important than any personal conflict that I may have ever had with anyone. I'm not taking any position on this yet, because the reasonable thing to do is to listen to all sides calmly and come to an understanding of the issues.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)"[5][reply]
    4. "I'd like to remind everyone that it is my long established view that all bans are appealable to me. I seldom intervene, even if I have some minor disagreement with a ban, because no major constitutional issues or errors are at stake. It is too early to know what is going on in this particular case, but please if anyone is planning to "fall on their sword" for principle, let it be me. But, I really don't think that will be necessary here. The WMF staff are diligent, thoughtful, and hard working. If an error has been made, I'm sure they will revert and work out procedures to make sure it didn't happen again. If the ban was justified, I'm sure they will find a way to make it clear to - at a minimum, if privacy issues play a role, to me, to the board, and to the Arbitration Committee. Therefore, dramatic action would not be helpful at the present time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)"[6][reply]
    5. "I think you and I can both forecast that a wheel war will not serve as a useful introduction to a calm and reasonable discussion. Give it a little time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)"[7][reply]
    6. "I'd like to remind you that it is not even 9am in California. I think it quite clear that unblocking before they've had a chance to even get into the office will simply serve to escalate matters. I suspect that Fram himself would agree that there is no emergency. Rather than cloud the waters and make it even harder (emotionally) for a backdown (if such is warranted - we don't know yet!), it will be best to take the high road and wait until a more appropriate time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)"[8][reply]
    7. "Yes, I'm firmly recommending that we all relax a notch or two. It's not even 9am in California. There is no emergency here. I have raised the issue with the WMF, and so has Doc James. I am also talking to ArbCom. It is really important that we not take actions to escalate conflict - nor are such actions necessary. If there comes a need for a time for the community to firmly disagree with the WMF and take action, then that time is only after a proper reflection on the full situation, with everyone having a chance to weigh in.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)"[9][reply]
    8. "I continue to advise calm and slow movement. Further wheel warring will not be productive and will only tend to escalate matters further. I am recommending the same to WMF, as is Doc James. We are discussing the situation with them in the hopes of finding the right way forward.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)"[10][reply]
    9. "Doc James and I have been pursuing this with diligence. I continue to recommend the following to everyone here:
      • Don't wheel war - it isn't going to be helpful in achieving the goals you want, and could actually make it harder
      • Do express your opinions clearly and firmly and factually, with kindness - it's the best way to get your point across
      • Remember that there is no emergency here - the phrase "important but not urgent" fits very well - getting this right and fixing this situation is incredibly important, but it doesn't have to happen in 4 hours (and it also, of course, shouldn't take months)
      • I applaud those who have kept separate in their minds and words the separate issues here. The issue of Fram's behavior and whether desysopping and/or some form of block are appropriate is separate from the "constitutional issue" of process and procedure. Conflating the two would, I fear, only serve to raise emotions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)"[11][reply]
    10. "To be clear, to the best of my knowledge, there haven't been any direct requests by board members to line workers through middle management here. Certainly, James and I are speaking to the board and CEO, not attempting to intervene at that level at all. The board should only operate at the level of broad principles and through the top management, not detailed management of specific issues.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)"[12][reply]
    11. "[…] This is not about individual people, this is a question about our constitutional order. This is not about this specific situation, but a much more important and broader question about project governance.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)"[13][reply]
    12. "[…] If we characterize this as a clash between ArbCom and the WMF, we are factually in error. It's not as easy as that.
      And of course, if I were to take a dramatic action, some would cheer, and some would scream. And if I go slow and deliberate, some will not like that, either. But it is my way, the only way that I know, and when I stick to slow and thoughtful deliberation I have learned in my life that the outcome is better than if I do something sudden.
      I suppose if I had to decide "whether the community or the foundation is my true heir" I'd go with community. But I actually don't think in that way. My true heir is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. That's what I think we all care the most about, or anyway it is what we should all care the most about. One of the reasons that Wikipedia has succeeded is that we don't take anything as absolutely permanent. WP:IAR and WP:5P5 spring to mind.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)"[14][reply]
    13. "[…] I wasn't trying to contrast or compare the necessity/valuation of the WMF with the community at all. I agree with you that they aren't easily separable, and I also believe that when we fall into a too hasty 'WMF vs community' narrative - either in the community, or in the WMF, we are probably making it harder to see how to optimize and resolve problems.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)"[15][reply]
    14. "We on the board are in active conversations. I think you will receive a comprehensive, cogent reply, but we are looking to be thoughtful, reflective, to examine every aspect of this, and neither allow invalid precedent to be set, nor to set invalid precedent. The best way to avoid a bad outcome is to look to first principles, look at what has gone wrong, and to propose a process for healing but also for building a process that works better in the future.
      In those board discussions, I am stating my own views directly and clearly, but it would be inappropriate to share them here and now, because as we all know, there are those who like to engage in "Jimbo said" argumentation, which doesn't clear the air but instead often only creates more heat.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)"[16][reply]
    15. "This is pretty accurate as a too-brief summary of the history. This is an edited version of the key sentences as I would put it myself: "Jimbo's goals then were for the community to be self-sustaining and self-governing such that it would fulfill its mission with less of his involvement as time went on. It was never a goal for the WMF to have any sort of authority over or involvement in community or content decisions beyond the removal of libellous material and copyright violations and other limited actions for public safety of various kinds, which the WMF took on for reasons of compliance." And that isn't the whole of it really, I would also argue that the WMF can and should have a role of facilitating and guiding community consultations to help the community resolve sticky issues where there is a failing of process. Reading between the lines here, you can likely guess my view of the current situation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)"[17][reply]
    16. "You have clearly misunderstood what I said. Nothing about "facilitating and guiding community consultations" even remotely implies that I think they should be "judge, jury, and executioner". I don't even know what chain of thought got you from one to the other. The point is that there are things we know to be true: there are very few admins created and while most people (the vast majority) think that's a problem, there is no consensus and no process towards consensus towards resolving that issue. It's a thankless task to take on and run a project to work through various options to find something that would get us to a better place - no one has stepped up to do that (a few have tried, and thank goodness for them). WMF community support people have done a great job on consultations around terms of service and so on - we do have some positive examples of how to do this right. It isn't about ramming things down people's throat - it's about taking on the hard job of listening and framing debate, convening real-life groups to work on issues, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)"[18][reply]
    17. "Yes, the ED is aware. The board is still discussing with each other and with staff. I'm a participant in this but not in a position to say when it will come to a conclusion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)"[19][reply]
    18. "Without commenting at this moment on any of the rest of it, I can say that I do not know, and don't personally consider it particularly relevant or interesting, whether legal was consulted beforehand. I don't think legal is the right avenue for any of us to be thinking about how to improve things in this or in related circumstances.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)"[20][reply]
    19. "I will raise the issue. As you can imagine, I'm trying not to cause any additional problems by making any firm declarations of what I am and am not empowered to do in my traditional role in English Wikipedia, but I can indicate that I share the view that I could do that - or should be able to do that. One reason we have kept some vestiges of a "constitutional monarch" system is precisely to have pressure relief valves for highly unusual situations. One reason I haven't tried to be forceful with it is that I don't believe in it as anything other than a safety mechanism. So long as other avenues exist for me to try to help everyone reach reconciliation and find a solution in which almost everyone says "we are now in a better place than we were when this whole mess started" - I'm going to try.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)"[21][reply]
    20. "I think of our constitutional arrangements as being very like those in the UK. A broad array of written and unwritten rules, policies, guidelines, and traditions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)"[22][reply]
    21. "In the current situation, I think that the composition of the board is not a big part of the problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)"[23][reply]

    Further comment from the Foundation

    [Forthcoming shortly] WMFOffice (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear members of the English Wikipedia community,

    Over the last few days we have received many requests to review the recent issues that have surfaced due to the office action taken against Fram. We are reviewing such feedback with care and aim to reply in helping to clarify the situation. We expect to reply at least one more time as we continue to review the feedback. We hope the following helps to address several points raised so far:

    The Foundation is strongly supportive of communities making their own decisions within the framework of the Terms of Use, as outlined in section 10. There have been many questions about why the Foundation's Trust & Safety team handled this case rather than passing it to the local Arbcom to handle. This happened for two main reasons.

    • First, our privacy provisions do not always allow us to "pass back" personal information we receive to the community; this means there are cases where we cannot pass on to Arbcom things like the names of complaining parties or the content of private evidence that might support a concern. As a result, the best we could have given Arbcom in this case would have been a distillation of the case, severely limiting their ability to handle it.
    • Secondly, we believe it would have been improper to ask the Arbcom to adjudicate a case in which it was one primary target of the person in question, as this could put volunteers into a very difficult position and create the appearance of a conflict of interest regardless of the actual handling of the case.

    For these two reasons this case was handled differently than Trust and Safety would usually have handled cases falling under section 4. of the Terms of Use.

    In terms of us providing direct justification for this ban to the community, as both several community members and we have already mentioned, we do not release details about Trust & Safety investigations due to privacy concerns. What do we mean by that? We mean that when someone reports a situation to us, or someone is involved in a case we investigate, we are obligated to keep their identity and any personally-identifying evidence private. That includes not only literally not publishing their name, but often not sharing diffs (which might show things like "who the named party was targeting" or "what dispute this investigation arose from") or even general details (in many cases, even naming the specific infraction will allow interested sleuths to deduce who was involved). 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.”

    Many of you have asked questions about why a one-year local ban was placed in this case, as opposed to the more-common indefinite global ban. The Trust & Safety team updated the policies to allow these less-stringent sanction options for use in cases where there was reason to think time might change behavior, or where disruption is limited to a single project. The intention of these new options is to be able to act in a way that is more sensitive to an individual’s circumstances and not have to give out indefinite global bans for problems that are limited in time or project-scope. Based on the evidence we received, this is such a case and we are hopeful that if Fram wishes to resume editing in a year, they will be able to do so effectively and in line with the terms of use. Prior to this policy update, the only sanction option available in a case like this would have been an indefinite global ban.

    We know this action came as a surprise to some within the community, and we understand that many of you have deep concerns about the situation. We can only assure you that Trust & Safety Office Actions are not taken lightly, nor are they taken without sign-off by multiple levels of staff who read the case’s documentation and evidence from different angles. We take these actions only in situations where we believe no other option is available that will preserve the health and/or safety of the community. We will continue to monitor your feedback and provide at least one more reply regarding this matter. Best regards, WMFOffice (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Further clarification

    To follow up on the earlier statement from today, we can provide additional clarifications:

    The scope of Trust and Safety investigations: The Foundation's office action investigations generally review the conduct of the user as a whole. Therefore, they usually involve conduct on the projects over an extended period of time. In the case of established editors, the time window reviewed often extends beyond any individual complaints received and can include conduct spanning several years. The scope is one of the main reasons why such investigations usually take at least four weeks. Such investigations evaluate the conduct of a user and by default not the substance of their views.

    Conduct warnings: Conduct warnings are a rare office action. They are normally issued when a situation is observed to be problematic, and is meant to be a preventative measure of further escalation. It is considered as a step geared towards de-escalation of the situation, when there is believed to have sufficient margin for it. It informs the recipient that behavior they may consider acceptable is in fact not, grants them the opportunity to reflect on it, and encourages them to take corrective measures towards mitigating and eventually eliminating it. However, should these warnings be ignored and the problematic behavior continues, further actions (such as bans) may be deemed necessary and their text usually references the possibility.

    Style and substance: Critique is an inherently important part of an encyclopedic community. Neither the Foundation nor community institutions, like ArbCom, are above criticism. Such criticism naturally can be direct and hard on the facts, but in a community it should also remain strictly respectful in tone towards others.

    Enforcement: The Wikimedia Foundation never seeks to force administrators or other community members to enforce the Terms of Use (just like an admin is rarely 'obligated' to block a vandal), but we do greatly appreciate the work of administrators who choose to do so. Admins who do take such actions should not be subjected to threats of removal of their admin rights, when their actions are based on a good faith belief that they are upholding the Terms of Use (and any action in support of enforcing a Foundation office action or a community global ban is, by definition, upholding the Terms of Use). If community believes that their good faith efforts are misguided, the issue may need discussion, if necessary, a different approach. We are always happy to join in such conversations unrelated to individual cases. Best regards, WMFOffice (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Reinstatement of Office Action and temporary desysop of Floquenbeam

    Hello all,

    We are aware that a number of community members believe that the recent Trust & Safety Office Action taken against Fram was improper. While the Foundation and its decisions are open to criticism, Office Actions are actions of last resort taken by the Foundation as part of our role and our commitments to hosting the Wikipedia sites. In section 10 of the Terms of Use, we identify that the need may arise as part of our management of the websites to take certain actions, and these actions may not be reversed. Using administrative or other tools or editing rights to reverse or negate an Office Action is unacceptable, as is interfering with other users who attempt to enforce an Office Action or the Terms of Use.

    As has been correctly observed by users on the bureaucrats' noticeboard and other places, Office Actions are explicitly not subject to project community rules or consensus. If a user attempts to reverse or negate an Office Action, the Wikimedia Foundation may take any action necessary to preserve that Office Action, including desysopping or blocking a user or users. In this case, and in consideration of Floquenbeam's actions in reversing the Office Action regarding Fram, we have reinstated the original office action and temporarily desysopped Floquenbeam for a period of 30 days.

    Floquenbeam's contributions to the projects are appreciated and we are not against them regaining admin rights in the future, hence our action is not permanent. If they wish for their admin rights to be restored, a RfA can be opened once 30 days elapse, and the community may decide on the request at that time in such or another way.

    However, we cannot permit efforts to obstruct or reverse Office Actions or to subvert the Terms of Use. Doing so would undermine the policy's ability to protect our projects and community. On these grounds, we will not hesitate to take further appropriate actions should such abuse occur again. The same applies for any attempts made by Floquenbeam to evade the sanctions announced against them today or by attempts by others to override that sanction. We will reply to other concerns in a separate statement as indicated in the post prior to the attempt to overrule the office action. Best regards, WMFOffice (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Further response from Fram

    I have to step away from the computer for a bit, but there has been a further response from Fram over on Commons, see here. Maybe someone can copy that here, or include as a subsection above in the original response section. Not sure. Obviously too much back-and-forth will get difficult to manage, but pointing it out as no-one else seems to have seen it yet. Carcharoth (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, since Fram has wisely not been saying too much over on Commons (apart from dealing with some trolling directed against them), but has said some more, there is this. My experience of this sort of cross-wiki communication with a single-project banned user is that it can get out of control, so it should be minimised (but it is still important to keep an eye on what is being said). This is particularly important in this case, because the head of the WMF's T&S team have said they will enact a global lock if Fram edits over here, and arguably proxying here for them can be seen as enabling that, so some care is needed here. Please note I have asked Fram if they wish the local block to be re-enacted to avoid accidentally triggering that (this is a pragmatic response to what the WMF said, not a judgement either way on whether the WMF should have said that or the principles involved). I believe self-requested blocks are still allowed (and can be lifted at any time), so if that gets requested (no idea what Fram's response will be), maybe someone else could look out for that as I am logging off soon for the night. Maybe put this in new section if it needs more prominence. Carcharoth (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    About the ban

    First, thank you to everyone who stands up against or at least questions the handling of this by the WMF (no matter if you think I'm a good admin or if you believe I should have been banned a long time already).

    Then, to the actual case. As far as I am concerned, there are no privacy reasons involved in any of this (never mind anything legally actionable). I'll repeat it once more, if it wasn't clear:

    • I have not contacted anyone I was in conflict with in any offwiki way (be it through email, social media, real life contact, whatever)
    • I have not discussed anyone I was in conflict with in any offwiki way (e.g. I have not contacted employers, I haven't discussed editors or articles at fora, twitter, reddit, whatever).
    • I haven't threatened to do any of the above either.
    • I don't know who made complaints about me to the WMF, and I won't speculate on it. The information I gave in my original post here just repeated the info I got from the WMF.

    I invite the WMF to either simply confirm that my original post was a fair summary of the posts they sent me, or else to publish the posts in full (I don't think any editors were named in their posts, but if necessary they can strike out such names if they prefer). I also invite the WMF to explain why standard procedures weren't tried first, i.e. why they didn't refer the complainants to our regular channels first.

    I'll not comment too much further, to avoid throwing fuel on the fire (or giving them a pretext to extend the ban). I'll not edit enwiki for the moment either, even when unblocked (thanks for that though), at least until the situation has become a bit clearer. Fram (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

    One more thing, regarding my first post here, and now BU Rob13 claming that it was misleading: they have their facts wrong (e.g. the warning was not from a year ago, but from March 2019), but I noticed on rereading my post that I had one fact wrong as well. I said that I had received an interaction ban, but what I actually had was:

    "However, in the hopes of avoiding any future issues and in the spirit of Laura’s own request on her talk page, we would like to ask that you refrain from making changes to content that she produces, in any way (directly or indirectly), from this point on. This includes but is not limited to direct editing of it, tagging, nominating for deletion, etc. If you happen to find issues with Laura’s content, we suggest that you instead leave it for others to review and handle as they see fit. This approach will allow you to continue to do good work while reducing the potential for conflict between you and Laura.
    We hope for your cooperation with the above request, so as to avoid any sanctions from our end in the future. To be clear, we are not placing an interaction ban between you and Laura at this time. We ask that her request to stay away from her and the content she creates be respected, so that there is no need for any form of intervention or punitive actions from our end."

    To me, a "suggestion" that I stay away from her or I would get sanctioned by them does read like an actual interaction ban, but technically it wasn't. But whether it was an interaction ban or not, former arb BU Rob13 should be aware that mentioning an interaction ban and the editors you are banned from in the course of ban discussions and the like is perfectly acceptable. I did not drop her name just for the fun of it, I raised the issue because it was the only thing I got alerted from by the WMF between their vague first warning in April 2018, and the ban now. I was trying to be complete and open, but apparently that was "misleading"?

    BU Rob13 may think the LauraHale thing was unrelated, but the actual mail by the WMF says otherwise:

    "This decision has come following extensive review of your conduct on that project and is an escalation to the Foundation’s past efforts to encourage course correction, including a conduct warning issued to you on April 2018 and a conduct warning reminder issued to you on March 2019. "

    (note that the "including" may suggest that there is more than these two, but there isn't: the March 2019 reminder is the LauraHale one).

    All of this could be made easier if the WMF posted their full mails of course (although by now large chunks have been reposted here). Doing this the wiki way instead of through mail would have helped a lot. Fram (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

    Statement from Jan Eissfeldt, Lead Manager of Trust & Safety

    Dear members of the English Wikipedia community,

    My name is Jan Eissfeldt and I’m commenting in my role as Lead Manager of the Wikimedia Foundation Trust & Safety team about the team’s recent investigation and office actions. In addition to this comment, the Trust & Safety team will be making a statement at Arbitration Committee Requests/WJBscribe tomorrow.

    I want to apologize for the disruption caused by the introduction of new type of sanctions without better communication with this community beforehand. While these changes were the result of the changes to the Trust & Safety team’s processes, and are not an expansion of the team’s scope, I know that these changes to the processes came as a surprise to many people within the community, and that many of you have questions about the changes.

    Responding to community concerns about the office action requires deliberation and takes some time. We have been in active dialogue with staff and others - including the Board - to work on resolutions, but we understand that the time this takes opens the door for speculation and allowed concerns to expand.

    I realize that this situation has been difficult for the English Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee (ArbCom). The Trust & Safety team apologizes for not working more closely with them in the lead-up to this point. We will improve our coordination with community-elected bodies like ArbCom across the movement when carrying out our duties.

    I also want to elaborate on the reasons that Trust & Safety cases will not be discussed in public and often not even privately with members of the Wikimedia movement who sign Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs). When we receive non-public information, the Wikimedia Foundation must handle it in a manner that is both consistent with our Privacy Policy and any other commitments made to the person disclosing their information. When dealing with sensitive allegations of inappropriate behavior, we must ensure that we are upholding a relationship of trust and confidence with people who have entrusted us with personal information about their experiences. This means that even in cases where users have signed a community NDA, our legal obligations may not allow us to share information given to us.

    Additionally, I want to explain the reason for using a role account when performing office actions and during follow up communication. Decisions, statements, and actions regarding things such as Office Actions are not individually-taken; rather, they are a product of collaboration of multiple people at the Foundation, oftentimes up to and including the Executive Director. As a result, we use the WMFOffice account as a “role” account, representing the fact that these are Foundation actions and statements, not a single person’s.

    Some of you may remember that Trust & Safety staff used to sign with their individual accounts when discussing Office Actions. Unfortunately, this is no longer possible due to safety concerns for Foundation employees, as in the past staff have been personally targeted for threats of violence due to their Office Action edits. I am taking the step of making this statement personally in this case due to extraordinary necessity.

    There continue to be questions from some people about the Foundation’s Trust & Safety team doing investigations about incidents occurring on English Wikipedia. I want to clarify the rationale for Trust & Safety doing investigations when requested and they meet the criteria for review.

    Part of the Trust & Safety Team’s responsibility is upholding movement-wide standards based on the Terms of Use. We recognize that each of the hundreds of global communities under the Wikimedia umbrella have their own styles and their own behavioral expectations, but we also believe that there must be a certain minimum standard to those expectations. Sometimes, local communities find it difficult to meet that minimum standard despite their best efforts due to history, habit, dislike by some volunteers of the standard, or wider cultural resistance to these standards. However, it is important to keep in mind that even communities that are resistant to it or are making a good faith effort are expected to meet the minimum standards set in the Terms of Use. In cases where community influences or barriers interfere with the meeting of these minimum standards, the Foundation may step in to enforce the standards - even in situations where the local community dislikes or outright opposes those standards.

    It is important that victims of hostilities like harassment have a safe place to make reports and that we uphold and respect their privacy when they do so. The Foundation is currently working with the community on a User Reporting System that would allow communities and the Foundation to cooperate in handling complaints like harassment, and we have every hope that that system will facilitate local, community handling of these issues. However, at the current time, no such system exists for victims to make reports privately without fear that their “case” will be forced to become public. Indeed, it is often true that a mere rumor that someone was the victim of harassment can lead to harassment of that person. Unfortunately, that has been proven the case here as some individuals have already made assumptions about the identities of the victims involved. Accordingly, the Foundation is currently the venue best equipped to handle these reports, as we are able, often required by laws or global policies, to investigate these situations in confidence and without revealing the identity of the victim. That is why we will not name or disclose the identities of the individuals involved in reporting incidents related to this Office Action.

    There have been some concerns raised about the level of community experience and knowledge involved in Trust & Safety’s work. The Wikimedia Foundation’s Community Engagement Department, of which Trust & Safety is a part, supports contributors and organizations aligned with the Wikimedia Foundation mission. In order to conduct informed and contextualized investigations, safeguard the community at events, and support community governance, Trust & Safety has focused on building a team with a combination of deep Wikimedia movement experience and team members who have experience with Trust & Safety processes with other online communities. To better assess incidents, the team has people from diverse geographic, linguistic and cultural backgrounds. We have former ArbCom members, administrators, and functionaries, from English Wikipedia as well as other language communities, informing our decisions, and expertise from other organisations helping to build compassionate best practices. We have utilized all of this experience and expertise in determining how best to manage the reports of harassment and response from members of the community.

    One of the recent changes to the Trust & Safety policy is the introduction of new options that include time-limited and partial (project-specific) bans to address serious concerns that are considered temporary or project-specific in nature. This change to policy is not a change of the team’s scope of cases taken. However, it does alter the way that sanctions are enforced and unintentionally introduced ambiguity about the ability of local communities to overrule office actions.

    In acknowledgement of the confusion caused by the application of this newer type of ban, we will not be issuing sanctions against or desysopping those who edited the block or the sysop rights of those who edited the block to date. However, despite the ambiguity in its application, the ban continues to stand whether it is being technically enforced by a block or not. Should Fram edit English Wikipedia during the one-year period of their ban, the temporary partial ban of User:Fram will be enforced with a global ban (and accordingly a global lock). We must stress again that Office Actions, whether “technically” reversible or not, are not to be considered reversible by a local, or even the global, community, no matter the circumstances or community sentiment.

    The occurrence of Office Actions at times is unavoidable, but it is not our intention to disrupt local communities any further than necessary. Here we failed on that score, caused disruption to your community, and we welcome feedback about how such disruption could be avoided in the future when the Foundation takes Office Actions, and ask that we all engage in a good faith discussion bearing in mind the legal and ethical restrictions placed on anyone within or outside of the Foundation engaging in reports of this nature.

    In addition to asking for feedback about the trust and safety office actions in this incident, over the next year, the Foundation will be asking members of the Wikimedia movement to work with us on several initiatives that are designed to promote inclusivity by ensuring a healthier culture of discourse, and the safety of Wikimedia spaces. --Jan (WMF) (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Further comments from Jan Eissfeldt

    I would like to thank you all for your comments and feedback in regard to my recent post. I will try to reply here some of the main points and questions the community has asked.

    • The changes to our Office Action policy were made publicly on February 19, 2019 as part of the documentation on Meta. It has not been our practice, historically, to report changes to T&S policy to the hundreds of local communities we work with. As I have noted previously, the use of local and time-limited bans is not a change of the team’s scope but was intended to be a less heavy handed option than indefinite global bans for cases that fall within the established scope. Their intention has been to close the gap between conduct warning office actions, which played a role in this case more than once, and indefinite global bans. The community’s reaction here to these more gradual bans has been clear that such less-”nuclear” options are both confusing and not felt to be acceptable and I will consider that carefully (and these two ideas, too).
    • Regarding questions on balancing fairness to the accused party with the safety of the accusing party, this is something we have been working on for quite a long time, and it’s not something we or anyone else has perfected. By default, we reach out to the accused party for information if doing so is possible without violating the privacy of the accusing - or other involved - parties.
    • To address questions about how the T&S investigations procedures work, I have asked my team to put together some public documentation that is easier to digest than the approval path table already available on Meta together early next week.
    • Regarding the desysoping action taken, my team's reasoning was guided by the precedent set in 2016. You can find a bit more on that in my statement to the ArbCom case.

    I am continuing to read this and other related pages, and as noted in my ArbCom statement will continue to engage with the community on several other points next week when the public documentation will be ready. Jan (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Jan Eissfeldt update (06/17/2019)

    • On the question of how many cases reaching T&S result in office actions, the answer is two-fold:
    • Roughly 90% of the outreach to T&S does not result in T&S cases. There are two big reasons for that: community self-governance and the hurdle for opening T&S cases being consequently pretty high. Much of the outreach we receive therefore can be routinely addressed by others and is being redirected - including to OTRS, ArbCom, other community processes. Last quarter, for example, the percent of T&S cases opened relative to outreach received was 8.1%, the quarter before 11%.
    • Within these ~10% that become investigations, T&S cases resulted in actions in 48.18% of all investigations conducted over the last four years. That number includes both types of office actions: secondary like a private conduct warnings, and primary, like Foundation global bans.
    • For historical context: T&S cases historically used to come mainly from the English language projects but that has steadily declined to less than a third of cases (again Q1 and 2 18/19 data). The main cause for the trend has been a consistent rise in requests from other language projects.
    • I know some of you have expressed concerns about the new reporting system and the universal code of conduct here and on ArbCom’s talk page. T&S staffer Sydney Poore, who has been pinged by several editors already, will be engaging directly about these initiatives in the conversations.
    • On questions on better communications of office action procedures: Going forward, news of all substantive changes to the office actions policy will be going out to all communities; just like technical changes already do. T&S will work with ComRel to make sure it follows the usual setup and feedback reviewed on the policy’s talk page on Meta. We are also reviewing, in line with Vermont’s suggestion from last week, whether to include individual public office actions, which is more complicated.
    • We have heard your concerns about fairness to Fram of the case as it proceeded. Balancing fairness to the accused party with the safety of the accusing party is something we have been working on for quite a long time, and it’s not something we’ve perfected. Generally, we will reach out to the accused party for information if doing so is possible without violating the privacy of the accusing - or other involved - parties, but our efforts do remain a work in progress when it comes to finding the right balance in each individual case.
    The process T&S cases go through within the Foundation.
    • As far as the ability for others to avoid making mistakes and finding themselves unexpectedly sanctioned, unfortunately, we cannot publicly disclose details of this or any particular case, for all the reasons previously discussed. This means that, as much as we understand your wanting the information, we cannot tell you what specific behaviors by Fram brought about this action. We can, however, say that abiding by the ToU is required of everyone who edits a Wikimedia site. That includes refraining from behaviors described by the ToU, including “[e]ngaging in harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism”. In cases where we believe a user may not be aware that they are violating expected behavioral standards, even repeatedly, we give conduct warnings prior to any action being taken. In Fram’s case, as noted on Commons, we did send more than one of those warnings/reminders before the most recent step.
    • There have been suggestions that T&S should have piloted the newer office action measures first before proceeding with a potentially controversial case like Fram’s. I don’t agree with that as I think that bending the selection of cases to cherry-pick a good “starter” case endangers the independent investigations approach T&S has to uphold.
    • There have been questions about the investigation process itself. As indicated on Friday above, my team has built a graphic to visualize the overall process to make it easier to navigate. Traditionally, it has been documented as a table on Meta and is always followed. I hope that the graphic puts the number I detail in the first bullet of this edit above into its context. ~10% go through the process visualized here and less than half thereof result in office actions taken. Jan (WMF) (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Community questions, responses, and comments

    • Question. This all seems pretty par for the course; but to Jan (WMF), you never gave a figure as to describe the quantity of requests (only percentage). If you are authorized to make that statistic public, please do so and be sure to ping me. Either way, thank you for this response and the infographic from the team. Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I think it's quite fair to only give percentages, especially over time rather than merely one quarter of results. I found the information quite informative and pretty reassuring and thank Jan for that. It wasn't, however, quite what I had asked for. What I had hoped for was once we entered the approval process grey box, what percentage ultimately end up at all approvals received and what percentage end up with no office action recommended/office action declined. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:X decides to run for a seat on the Arbitration Committee. Just as with most other roles requiring identification, it is possible to run for ArbCom and not identify until after election (steward elections are the only exception I can think of). The WMF T&S team is responsible for updating the noticeboard. Unbeknownst to the community, X has already received two conduct warnings for WMF. How will WMF respond to this? --Rschen7754 03:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting, thanks Jan. I was trying to think of what would be comparable numbers for arbcom, but it's hard to compare apples to apples. Looks like case request acceptance has been in the 10-20% range for the last few years, but we don't keep outcomes data like that for private complaints/requests/etc. I see in that chart a lot of stuff about who approves what in which order, but I wonder if the box where the actual investigation happens can be opened up a little more. What does an "investigation" consist of? What would the investigator look at? Assuming we're talking about a harassment case, would it include things like contacting other possible victims if you discover them, or asking the opinion of others who were affected by the problem behavior but who did not get in touch with T&S? Or is the decision about whether a particular behavior is harassing made by the person doing the investigation? Under what circumstances would a particular report be referred back to arbcom (or to community processes) rather than pursued internally? The chart tells us how WMF staff communicate internally about these things, but not about communication with or information-gathering from anyone other than the directly affected parties. (The table has a bit more, but to be honest I can't understand the "Dissemination of information relevant to the office action to specific groups" row at all. That's quite a mouthful, but since it's separate from the reporter and the affected user, I assume that means other interested parties, but "conduct warning" gets a checkmark for that one and "interaction ban" doesn't? Is that right?) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's definitely not enough. I am rather disappointed because I saw a certain hope in Jan's last posting. He only gives a diagram of the internal process but nothing, literally nothing, about communication to others and also nothing about the reasonings for any decision at any point. So they seem to simply want to continue as before. Everything relevant remains a secret, regardless whether this is necessary or not. No one, literally no one is able to get insight, not even ArbCom or a trustworthy representative. Even the "accused" remains uninformed. Appeal is impossible. This is unfair trial par excellence. As to fairness, this is a word-by-word repetition of the last statement. What I first saw as an offer for discussion seems to be hollow phrase. I intend to open an RfC at Meta but wanted to wait in the hope that something relevant comes up from the side of T&S. This is not so. Mautpreller (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC) (from German Wikipedia).[reply]
    • This is grossly insufficient. I'd like to call attention to the following statement: Generally, we will reach out to the accused party for information if doing so is possible without violating the privacy of the accusing - or other involved - parties This means that T&S is willing to, in some cases, rule against someone completely in absentia. This is not an acceptable system, and T&S needs to make major modifications to it before accepting new cases. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Jan. The questions I have regarding the harassment investigation process are:
    1) Is there a provision for asking the notifier if they wish ArbCom to be involved, or is it assumed that they do not? If it is assumed they do not, what was the data and rationale behind making that decision?
    2) What is the legal distinction for privacy in these investigations between those who can see the report and those who cannot? ArbCom members have signed the Confidentially Agreement [24] in which it is agreed that "The Wikimedia Foundation may pursue available legal remedies, including injunctive relief or, in the case of willful intent, monetary damages." What extra legal powers do the Foundation have over those individuals who are permitted to see the report that they do not have over ArbCom members who have signed that they agree to being legally pursued? If the distinction is a paid contract, then would paying ArbCom members a token amount per year, overcome the legal hurdles to allowing ArbCom to view such material? Or is the reluctance to share harassment complaints with ArbCom more to do with procedural qualms rather than legal ones?
    3) Several members of the T&S Team are experienced and trusted Wikipedians, including two admins from Wikipedia who have been functionaries, one of whom has served on ArbCom, so I have no doubt that investigations were done with some insight and understanding of both sides of the issue (as there are always two sides). However, as with others who have commented, the lack of consultation with the accused person seems odd. How have the legal and moral rights of the accused been balanced against the legal and moral rights of the accuser? We have heard it stressed that the accuser is to be protected, but what consideration has been given to protecting the accused?
    Thanks in advance for considering these questions. SilkTork (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    SilkTork, we know what happens when volunteers cross the line and become salaried employees (or contractors). In 2013 one was desysoped for particularly egregious behaviour, right in the middle of an outgoing ED's valedictory speech at a Wikimania in which she was presenting a prerecorded video that specifically praised the individual's work (the surpressed sniggers in the lecture theatre were audible). Needless to say, although the community called for it, that individual was not sacked from their paid job. I am reminded of this recent comment by Seraphimblade:
    JEissfeldt (WMF), while I appreciate you at least being willing to put your name on this statement, it is still more of the same. I will be posting a response as to why shortly, point by point to what you said, but in short: The WMF is not a "higher authority" than the English Wikipedia community, and may not overrule it, any more than we could walk into the San Francisco offices, point to an employee, say "You're fired", and expect that to have any effect. WMF is a separate body, but it is not "higher" than the English Wikipedia community. We don't can your employees, you don't can our editors or admins. You also do not overrule or bypass our editorial or community processes.
    Oh, the irony. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Kudpung Sorry, but what does "ED" stand for here? Executive Director? If so I take it you're referring to Sue Gardner's keynote? [25] IntoThinAir (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    IntoThinAir, 'ED' in this context means Executive Director. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have a long-established principle on WP that blocks and bans are intended to be preventative, not punitive. How is a ban like Fram's supposed to prevent future misconduct after it has expired, if it is not made expressly clear to the banned editor in what areas their actions went over the line? Jheald (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can identify a few things that give me significant concerns, and I urge that these receive attention as WMF continues to work on the procedure.
    1. As already noted by others, there needs to be a clearer and more substantive part of the workflow for responses from the accused editor.
    2. Although it's good to have multiple layers of review, it's not clear from the information here whether all of the layers involve serious and independent evaluation of the complaint. There is a serious risk that some of the later, higher-level review steps may just be something like "Well, it's looks like [name] did a good job of checking all the boxes, so we'll just sign off on it and move on."
    3. It's not spelled out, but there really ought to be a sort of "minutes" or other written record of decisions at each step. I do not mean that this should be public, but it can be important to keep internally in the event of subsequent scrutiny from the WMF Board or others, as is happening here. I think it should memorialize any off-the-cuff discussions, to have a record if someone not officially involved in a particular step of the review has nonetheless commented to an involved staff person about it.
    4. As noted by others, there needs to be evaluation of whether the problem could be referred to the local project (ArbCom etc.).
    And more broadly, it is important that office actions be used only for the kinds of purposes for which they have historically been intended. Office actions, especially those involving the larger projects, should never be an alternative forum for a dispute that could instead have been handled locally. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Jan. I have a few questions:
    1. m:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019, tells us,

      There are some rare instances when Wikimedia Foundation Trust and Safety will take actions to protect the safety of the community and the public. This happens where actions on local community governance level are either insufficient or not possible. There may be some rare cases where the Wikimedia Foundation must override local policy, such as to protect the safety of the Wikimedia communities or the public. See Trust & Safety Office actions for more details. [26]

      . Furthermore, WP:OFFICE tells us,

      The purpose of this policy is to help improve the actual and perceived safety of Wikimedia community members, the movement itself, and the public in circumstances where actions on local community governance level are either insufficient or not possible. Local policies remain primary on all Wikimedia projects, as explained in the Terms of Use, and office actions are complementary to those local policies. However, there may be some rare cases where the Wikimedia Foundation must override local policy, such as in complying with valid and enforceable court orders to remove content that might otherwise comply with policy or in protecting the safety of the Wikimedia communities or the public.

      If it's within your purview can you tell us whether the OFFICE action and override of local governance was necessary to protect the community? A simple yes of no is fine, or simply indicate if you're unwilling or unable to answer.
      1. In the findings of the report written by Harvard Negotiation and Mediation Clinical Program (HNMCP) on page 23, the failures in our noticeboard practices are noted (findings, which, generally seem spot on). [Reporting systems on English Wikipedia (pdf) explains the function of specialized noticeboards (page 9). In the initial "warnings" to Fram (not sure whether I'm using the correct term), I'm wondering whether anyone on your team considered suggesting s/he report issues with users to relevant noticeboards (i.e, WP:AN/I; WP:RSN; WP:CCI? Regardless of the (HNMCP)'s recommendations and that the community should absolute see to strengthening those boards in-house, noticeboards are generally a good first stop, help to get more eyes on a situation and prevent a single editor who is working unilaterally from becoming overly frustrated and from being subjected to "anecdotal" stories. Again, if the question is not something you're able to answer, I'll understand fully.
    • Finally, I've spent quite a few hours finding documents, reading, checking sourcing, but had RexxS not posted a series of links here there wouldn't have been a starting point. Would it be feasible to have more information available here on en.wp? Links are easy to post and easy to find, and it is, after all, a wiki. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 00:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jan, you have provided some background about the position you hold in the WMF. Basically admitting that you are in charge of T&S but are not aware of what goes on there. Perhaps you could let Arbcom and the community know who your immediate superior is. It might help towards establishing lines of responsibility and communication for the future. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Response from Fram to Jan

    Jan Eissfeldt said[27]

    "As far as the ability for others to avoid making mistakes and finding themselves unexpectedly sanctioned, unfortunately, we cannot publicly disclose details of this or any particular case, for all the reasons previously discussed. This means that, as much as we understand your wanting the information, we cannot tell you what specific behaviors by Fram brought about this action. We can, however, say that abiding by the ToU is required of everyone who edits a Wikimedia site. That includes refraining from behaviors described by the ToU, including “[e]ngaging in harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism”. In cases where we believe a user may not be aware that they are violating expected behavioral standards, even repeatedly, we give conduct warnings prior to any action being taken. In Fram’s case, as noted on Commons, we did send more than one of those warnings/reminders before the most recent step."

    "we cannot tell you what specific behaviors by Fram brought about this action." understood, but you should at least be able to confirm that it is about on-wiki behaviour only surely?

    "In Fram’s case, as noted on Commons, we did send more than one of those warnings/reminders before the most recent step." Yes, as I noted on Commons but which you (WMF) failed to acknowledge until now, I got two such reminders (one very general, which is now being discussed at enwiki and doesn't seem to be really well recieved as an acceptable warning; and two, about a specific issue where the general opinion at enwiki seems to be that no warning was necessary for these quite normal edits), and then a sudden one-year ban (plus desysop) for quite different behaviour (not the supposed harassment of an individual, but incivility against the Arbcom), which doesn't seem to fit any of the "harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism" category.

    In any case, I guess we can use your note as a rather well hidden acknowledgment that my account of the WMF communications was accurate? That would at least lay to bed some of the more wild speculations made in these discussions. Fram (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Copied from Commons Tazerdadog (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    A suggested resolution

    Some thoughts on how we might collectively deescalate the situation. Of course, if there is significant additional information that remains unknown to us, this might not work. But if the facts are basically as the community has come to understand them, how about this plan:

    • The Office terminates Fram's ban. We don't argue any more about whether it was right or wrong, legitimate or outrageous, although everyone can maintain their individual feelings about that. But the ban is just terminated as of now, on the grounds that (1) it seems to remain counterproductive to Foundation-community relations, and (2) one presumes that any "clean up your act" message that was intended for Fram has been received.
    • If there is a specific editor or two with whom the Office believes Fram was interacting problematically, Fram quasi-voluntarily agrees, without admitting any wrongdoing, to stay away from that editor(s). The editor's or editors' name(s) do not need to be disclosed on-wiki.
    • Fram also quasi-voluntarily agrees to improve his decorum a little bit. It may only be a surface issue, but there really are better ways to say "I disagree with ArbCom's action" than "Fuck you, ArbCom" (and I would say that even if I hadn't been a long-time ArbCom member myself).
    • The community hopefully accepts that even if this one was mishandled, Trust and Safety actions are generally taken with good intentions, and that there is a reason many of them can't be publicly discussed. As Opabinia regalis reminded us in her comments on the arbitration request, "T&S is these people." Most of them come from the Wikipedia communities, many from this community. They're not perfect, but they didn't accept jobs at the Foundation for the purpose of perpetrating a hostile takeover.
    • The Office opens, or reopens, or expands a dialog with the community about what it is trying to accomplish and how to get there (assuming it's somewhere it's desirable to be). It's been pointed out that various consultations have been open for awhile, but have flown under the radar of many editors, and certainly were not expected to culminate in this type of action. WMF, if you didn't before, you have our attention now. What are you trying to do, and how do you plan to go about doing it?

    Comments appreciated. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Endorse

    1. All of that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. 28bytes (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Samesies. nableezy - 18:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Endorse Sounds good to me. If the Office is acting in good faith, I do not see why they would not accept this. Enigmamsg 18:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Endorse as a fair compromise Atlantic306 (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Endorse Fair. CoolSkittle (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Endorse as a reasonable and good faith way out of this mess.--Mojo Hand (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    7. Endorse I like the good faith part and it being reasonable.Yger (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    8. Endorse Seems a reasonable way to try to walk back this situation. Jheald (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    9. Generally Endorse If behavior is inappropriate, WMFOffice should bring it and evidence to the appropriate board immediately (such as ArbCom). The undoing of the ban need not be instantaneous if exigent circumstances are present (such as a death threat and WMF is working with local authorities). Buffs (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Addendum: It would also be acceptable to keep a ban in place on all en.wiki activities until such time as an ArbCom case is resolved (consider this the equivalent of house arrest while the case is heard Buffs (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    10. Endorse This feels reasonable and responsive to issues on multiple sides and so I support it. I would hope that this reasonableness would receive a positive response from the foundation rather than it being seen as a negotiating posture (e.g. "well you you asked for immediate reinstatement and we said a year so let's compromise on six months"). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    11. Endorse Perfect / brilliant. We should mention this in the other places that it is being discussed. North8000 (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    12. Reluctant Endorse but pending BoT statement. It might be very plausible that Fram actually did something quite serious enough (in which case, the ban shall stand) or that the staff were plainly incompetent in a bid to discipline and micromanage the community. We need to learn the rough details. Also, echo Headbomb; fuck an institution will be somewhere around 2, on a scale of 10, if we are rating various forms of harassment and bullying. ∯WBGconverse 19:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    13. Sounds like a good plan, and much more sensible than the ArbCom case request. Headbomb makes a good point though. —Kusma (t·c) 19:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    14. Endorse with changes: I do admit that Headbomb has a point. However, having read through enough AN/I and AN threads with Fram's involvement, I'm sure that Fram can improve somewhat in terms of decorum. At least, I do hope so. Now, setting that point aside: I'd like to amend the proposed resolution to provide for the opening of an Arbitration Committee case, pursuant to Fram's request, as seen here. Of course, I may be able to accept it without this change. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    15. I've got a few issues with a detail or two (for example, if I understand right, WMF would refuse to tell Fram who to avoid, though I imagine he could guess as well as the rest of us by now). The overarching idea of the WMF vacating the ban, leaving any action (if needed) against Fram to en.wiki processes, and then having this much talked-about, calm, no-deadline, respectful discussion seems better than what we have now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    16. Endorse with similar qualms and wimpy caveats as Headbomb and Floquenbeam. But peace matters. Thank you, Newyorkbrad! ---Sluzzelin talk 19:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    17. Endorse Sounds perfectly reasonable. (if I may, as I'm mainly active in German-language Wikipedia and on Commons, so I don't feel wholly part of English-language Wikipedia's community - although my first edits were made here, back in 2003 :-) ) Gestumblindi (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    18. Endorse per Floquenbeam. Haukur (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    19. Endorse - with ArbCom case - The main issue here is the question of whether and where our policies are deficient, and that is something the ArbCom is best equipped to figure out (as this may well require assessing past cases where private communications were involved). That said, such an ArbCom case should stick to fact-finding on this subject and interpreting that as much as possible to make recommendations to the community. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 19:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    20. Makes sense to me as a possible option--Ymblanter (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    21. Reluctant Endorse I view any action that leads to Fram no longer being office-banned as progress, although much of this proposal accepts a level of office involvement in the community that I, and probably many other users, feel is excessive. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      A fair assessment, and if they come out of the board meeting with something that throws more fuel on the fire it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect this option to be taken off the table. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 20:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    22. Endorse with an additional request: if and when an editor with an instance of problematic editing such as WP:CopyVio is identified, en-WP admins and editors – including Fram – may scrutinize other edits of that editor. WMFOffice accepts that this is neither stalking nor evidence of hostility or harassment, rather such efforts are in good faith and necessary to maintain or improve the "Quality and Reliability" of the en-WP. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    23. Endorse as a first step. In my opinion, this focusses too much on the individual case, not on the general relationship between the foundation and the communities. But it might rebuild some bridges and de-escalate the situation to allow for a constructive dialogue. Thanks for a useful contribution, Brad! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    24. Endorse. This seems reasonable. Neutral on ArbCom case. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    25. Endorse as a way forward, not perfect, but hopefully acceptable by all parties. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    26. +1. Also support the ArbCom case. --GRuban (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    27. Endorse - sensible compromise. PhilKnight (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    28. Endorse as a positive way forward. However, bullet 4 sticks in my craw. The only insight we have into whether Trust and Safety's actions were taken with good intentions are the actual results of their actions, and their written response. The results are what they are, but the written response and inability to engage in meaningful dialog falls short. Trust and Safety is a very serious role for an organization to undertake. A company with $100+ million in annual revenue has no business staffing such a department with amateurs. Thank you NYB for trying to turn this in a positive direction.- MrX 🖋 21:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    29. Endorse noting that Fram suggested a less lenient compromise the better part of a week ago, now. EllenCT (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    30. Endorse too many hours have already been spent on this. If WMF wants to destroy Wikipedia, I guess no one can stop them; but we can at least try, Huldra (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    31. Endorse, with the disclaimer that I haven't been able to keep up with all the relevant pages. - Dank (push to talk) 22:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Clarification: all I'm supporting here is the effort to work out a temporary truce. It's hard to keep up with everything. I'll come back to this after we hear from the Board. - Dank (push to talk) 16:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    32. Endorse. In the end, regardless of what Fram has or hasn't done, this has been appallingly badly handled by T&S. Absolutely no-one disagrees with global bans for those editors who have violated certain community norms, especially where that concerns such things child protection or serious off-wiki harassment. And there are plenty of those. But here, we have the WMF granting themselves a new "partial ban" ability, where such issues are not as serious as those I've just mentioned. Who is the first target on enwiki? Someone who has been a serious (and usually accurate) critic of the WMF. Whether or not that is bad, it looks terrible. And especially when the diff given as a main reason for their ban is telling ArbCom to "fuck off". A lot of editors have said that, many times, in many different ways. We don't ban them for it. And we never should. Black Kite (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    33. Endorse, per Huldra. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    34. Endorse A sensible path. I'll resist the temptation to suggest any tweaks but will note that the proposal does not address the issue of Fram's admin-bit and whether the de-sysop should be endorsed, overturned, or decided through a fresh RFA. Abecedare (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    35. Endorse The base line from which we have to operate is good will and good faith on both sides - because without that, this project is already systemically screwed and will crumble (and it doesn't matter whether that ultimately happens via bottom-up or top-down processes). This suggested bundle provides room for everyone to demonstrate that; roll back the drama; undo a few bad decisions; and allow the community to have a calm go at improving some things. Good effort by Newyorkbrad, and thanks for thinking it through. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    36. Endorse It's a good way to bring all of this chaos to an end. I don't think telling Fram to be more careful will fix their civility issues, but at least it's progress. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    37. Endorse as a sensible way forward. T. Canens (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    38. Endorse in general, and especially the last point. While it will be good if this particular issue gets resolved and we can stop seeing if we can set a page size record, we have to resolve things going forward so that this will not happen again (or, if we decide it should, it happens in a way that will not cause a blowup like this). I don't think anyone, WMF included, wants a repeat here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    39. Endorse A sensible compromise. An de facto IBAN against any complainants who felt they've been harassed (the mere existence of which remains unconfirmed), paired with a general civility mandate, which would presumably address the root of the ban. If the Foundation is to take a no-compromise approach even in the most contentious situation, they should be able and willing to justify that decision, which they have refused to do, in spite of the fact that basic transparency and privacy protection are not and have never been mutually exclusive. Either the ban is outright unjust, or it is arguably just but the community disagrees with it. In that case, the Foundation should have no problem accepting a reasonable alternative offered by the community, and that is exactly what this is. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    40. Endorse per Swarm and so many above. Miniapolis 00:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    41. Endorse At this point, WMF has to make a good faith step forward if they're ever going to start regaining our trust. Platitudes and corporate double-speak aren't it. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    42. Endorse Also, can we make two subheadings for those who "endorse" vs "oppose"? It's harder to gauge consensus this way. (I'd move all of them but I think that would be too disruptive.) Rockstonetalk to me! 01:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    43. Endorse Although I'm not overly optimistic.©Geni (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    44. (edit conflict) Endorse I had little hope any productive change would come out of the discussion, but this is a good start. – Teratix ₵ 02:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    45. Reluctant endorse per Black Kite. I considered opposing because I'm not persuaded that Fram has done anything to warrant even an unofficial IBAN, but an oppose would seemingly put me in the same camp as the Fram-bashers, and I'm not interested in that. I'm also amused that some keep bringing up the Terms of Use as if that's some kind of magic bullet. Yeah, we know about the Terms of Use, and we still aren't going to let ham-handed actions from the WMF go unchallenged. That should be obvious by now. Lepricavark (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    46. Endorse - Whether Fram's activity on the English Wikipedia warrants action is something that needs to be address by the appropriate channels. WMF overstepped in attempting to circumvent that. - Aoidh (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    47. Endorse dot points 4 & 5. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    48. Endorse - a possible way forward for the community. starship.paint (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    49. Endorse. On the point of "these people", I would also request the WMF explain what training/education is given to members of the team. Having former editors among them is a great idea, but what steps have been added to get them to the point from being an ordinary editor to such a crucial and sensitive role. (And globally it's an increasingly high-profile and important one, given the same type of departments popping up in Facebook, Twitter, etc). - SchroCat (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    50. Endorse I'd also like to see an assurance from the WMF that they have cleaned their act up to at least our standards, and that the WMF will no longer stand by staff who make personal attacks, on IRC or elsewhere. It would be nice if they also assured us that they had forgotten it was Fram who threatened to block a WMFer for personal attacks and assured us that their block of him was not revenge. As for the interaction ban, yes T&S may not be able to tell Fram who the complainant was, so that bit may not be possible. But if they deemed that the incident only merited a 12 month single project restriction on Fram, T&S presumably did not consider that any harassment merited a longer term interaction ban such as the global, permanent bans that they give harassers. ϢereSpielChequers 04:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    51. Endorse - Not as rough-and-tough an outcome as I would prefer, which would involve a unilateral retreat of WMF from matters that are not within their purview followed by some sort of internal penalty against those WMF employees who threw gasoline on the fire in the first place; but, all things considered, probably the best outcome we can hope for at this juncture, given the incredibly weak performance of the WMF Board and Arbcom. Carrite (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    52. Endorse. Let me be clear. I am NOT happy if this is the outcome. This leaves unresolved major questions involving COI, the communities trust in the WMF, and how we prevent similar scenarios from re-occuring. I will note that point 5 is insufficient, and also the most important one here. The foundation exists to serve the community, and that relationship must be respected, or we're wasting each others time. That said, this is a compromise negotiation and a good compromise makes everyone unhappy, so even though I'd have liked to see the result include a more major wakeup call to the WMF, I can hold my nose and accept this. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    53. Endorse - This seems sensible. Killiondude (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    54. Endorse AGF --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    55. Endorse. I am not happy with the communication or action from Trust & Safety so far, and this would restore my willingness to continue to perform administrative work on en Wikipedia.-gadfium 05:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    56. Endorse Absconded Northerner (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    57. Endorse a sensible compromise if all parties agree. Hut 8.5 06:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    58. Endorse Seems sensible. talk to !dave 07:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    59. Endorse- A reasonable compromise that will allow everyone to walk away having made their point and learned something: The WMF needs to understand that enforcing smiles and sunshine with an iron fist is not going to work here. We've adopted a culture of communication- and it's served us well- that forthright language, for the sake of the actual article contents, is welcome and expected. Handing out arbitrary and capricious bans to alter that culture ultimately will not work. All you'll accomplish is to lose a lot of good editors and make everyone hate you. At the same time, fixating on certain editors and their (admittedly dubious) edits can border on cruelty even if that's not the intent. Admins and rank-and-file editors can definitely work on our approach there. Reyk YO! 07:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    60. Endorse. I guess this is a sensible compromise. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 08:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    61. Endorse By no means a fan of thoughtless "fuck you" comments, but this bolt-from-the-blue action leaves us needing reassurance that the staff concerned didn't accept jobs at the Foundation for the purpose of perpetrating a hostile takeover. Without a substantive response from the WMF, they'll be getting no more work out of me: Bhunacat10 (talk), 08:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    62. Endorse – A good way to cool down. — JFG talk 09:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    63. Endorse - a sensible way forward. GiantSnowman 09:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    64. Endorse - Not perfect, but good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    65. (edit conflict) Conditional support iff the matter is examined by ArbCom. Otherwise, I agree with those in opposition that this basically ignores the real problems that were apparently raised to lead to this action. My problem with the T&S action was never the ban itself but that established community processes were not followed. If ArbCom can independently and impartially review the case against Fram, I think the WMF should allow it to do so. If that fails, T&S can still step in again. Regards SoWhy 10:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    66. Endorse - an ArbCom case is probably a good idea but is not a condition on my part (I don't think it's likely that one would not be filed). Encouraging actual communication and actual respect for the people involved on all sides seems like the only way forward. Thank you, Newyorkbrad. --bonadea contributions talk 12:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    67. Endorse - per WereSpielChequers whose institutional memory will recall at least one instance when the community desysoped a foul-mouthed contractor who all but killed off the efforts to improve NPP and introduce ACTRIAL (plenty of diffs available). That said, let's not lose sight of the fact that this this entire debacle is not so much about Fram or other admins who fell on their swords in support, but more about the sleazy hegemony and exploitation by the WMF of the volunteers who provide their raison d'être, salaries, and junkets. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    68. Endorse as a start. And presuming that arbcom is privy to the basis of T&S's actions and supports this route. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    69. Endorse as a good-faith start to re-building the bridges summarily destroyed by WMF in their actions. However, what bothers me the most is that the WMF could take this kind of bizarre unilateral action again, at any point, for any reason. The clear questions over some members of WMF and various COI still exist. But given the utter recalcitrance from WMF to show any kind of openness to actually discussing this (no more boilerplate, perhaps they're not aware of {{DTTR}}), that might be an ask too far. So let's at least undo the damage the WMF have done, and then we can move on, but with a much more cautious eye on WMF, their behaviour and the various inter-relations in an attempt to avoid more such community devastation. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    70. Endorse, not as a satisfactory solution, but as a start. As for the perceived problem of #2, regarding identifying those allegedly aggrieved editors: we can be pretty certain at this point that there aren't any. We know of exactly one case of somebody who complained to the foundation about harassment (no secrecy, because she said so herself); we know that the foundation took that complaint at face value; we know they were wrong in doing so because in fact there was no harassment. Per Occam's razor, there is no reason whatsoever to assume there are any more genuine complainants, at least none whose complaint would be seriously enough to warrant a demand for privacy, or if there are, their complaints are just as wrong as the first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    71. Endorse as a way forward from this debacle. Jonathunder (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    72. I am not perfectly happy with item 1, but maybe I missed something in the last few days and the WMF has been in contact with ArbCom to let them handle the ban ("take over" if there really is meat on that unidentified bone), and we have to start somewhere. Thank you NYB. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    73. Endorse - It's a way forward, beyond the "fork off or fuck off" mentality that some other people seem to have.--WaltCip (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    74. Endorse - a reasonable suggestion to de-escalate this crisis. GermanJoe (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    75. Endorse. Seems a perfectly reasonable compromise. If the WMF had just said "it's a private matter, we can't talk about it" and issued an indefinite ban, then I would assume something Really Bad happened, but since that isn't what WMF did, their explanation has been highly lacking. WMF should admit that it was an overreach and move on. SnowFire (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    76. Endorse. It's refreshing to hear such a calm, reasonable, respectful, and compromising proposal. Benjamin (talk) 06:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    77. Endorse. Get a fresh "re-start". Kante4 (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    78. Endorse – seems like a sensible course of action to me. Graham87 09:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    79. Endorse as a possible move forward to a more constructive relationship between the projects and WMF. I've some reservations, though. Firstly, this is not just about Fram, it is about our relationship with WMF in regard to the enforcements of the ToU. Most global WMF bans in regard to cases I was familiar with appeared to be justified. Cases like continued harassment of users outside of our projects, huge zoos of sockpuppets across multiple wikis, upload of very problematic material etc. are indeed best handled by T&S. However, usual on-wiki misbehaviour should be still handled through community processes where those responsible to handle it are elected (admins, checkusers, oversighters, and arbcoms). WMF staff should go forward and communicate their concerns if they see shortcomings in our processes. Such an outside view can be helpful and would allow us to develop our processes into a better direction where needed. Secondly, I've some concerns in regard to Jan Eissfeldt, lead manager of T&S. In 2014, he participated in a wheel war including the application of super-protect at de:wp for which his regular account was desysoped: [28], [29]. At that time he was nearly entirely unable to communicate, this was his only comment where he pointed to a statement by someone else. This pattern of a wheel war just re-appeared now again. Like before, this was not an emergency, this could have been resolved through communication. I've absolutely no trust in anyone who resorts to wheel-warring without even attempting to communicate. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    80. Endorse Maybe it's not perfect, but it's a reasonable start. One aphorism I used to use when teaching Master's degree students about government policy making was "the best is the enemy of the good". I think that applies here. This is a good start. It may have to be tweaked along the way, there may be stumbling blocks, but it's a hell of a lot better than doing nothing and the best proposal we've got. Doug Weller talk 14:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    81. Endorse A fair compromise.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    82. Endorse per Doug Weller and many others. We can't force WMF to do anything, but should they decide it's a good idea to start mending some fences, we need to offer them some sort of consensus-based way to move forward. There are some issues with this proposal, but if we assume a assume a modicum of good faith on all sides then I can't see why any of them would be insurmountable. GirthSummit (blether) 18:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    83. Endorse as a place to start -- but the T&S committee's unilateral action remains unacceptable, & the WMF needs to acknowledge this. AFBrochert raises the important point that Jan Eissenfeldt was involved in 2 Foundation actions that offended the en.wikipedia community; if he was critically involved in these offensive acts then his dismissal from the Foundation should be added to this resolution. We must be able to reasonably trust all of the employees of the Foundation. -- llywrch (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    84. Endorse per proposal. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 02:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    85. Endorse This is the reasonable action. There is a Wikipedia Justice System and it operates according to a defined process. The WMF actions are the cause of a cascade of transgressions against this process. I am only able to imagine two possibilities: either the WMF power who issued the ban is competent and understanding, and they correctly anticipated this community response; or the WMF power who issued the ban is incompetent, and failed to recognize the great likelihood of the community raising these objections. So far as I know, the wiki community observers who are withholding judgement are waiting in faith for the WMF to explain the extraordinary circumstances which necessitated such an extraordinary action. I have no opinion whatsoever about Fram, their actions, or anything specific to these circumstances. I only endorse this remedy because I want to see due process and rule of law in opposition to opaque authoritarianism. The problem is not that the WMF took an action, but that the WMF took an obviously extraordinary action seemingly unaware of how bizarre it was. At this point my fear is that the people at the WMF who are operating the levers of power are ignorant of what they are doing and outsiders to community values. I could be wrong - the WMF could have had a unique and dramatic reason for extrajudicial action. I hope that as a result of this the WMF increases its collaborative infrastructure. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    86. Endorse This way forward opens the option of something good coming out of this: a shared view of goals between wikipedia editors and the foundation, a shared array of methods of achieving those goals, and clarity on who fulfils which roles. It also brings back the sense that there are people behind the role-accounts (it's always easier to rant against "WMF" than against the person actually communicating behind the account.). Wikipedia editors (as a group) are right to intervene here, as some of the fundamental principles of wikipedia (I know, we are not a legal system, but we have established principles like to "due process"): possibility of appeal, sufficient clear and to the point warnings and right to a clear explanation, were not applied here. This way forward is creating an ad hoc appeals option, and it shows something more definite needs to be implemented. L.tak (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    87. Endorse. With respect to Bluerasberry's two possibilities, I'd guess somewhere in the middle: they cannot have been quite so unaware as to think there would be no response, but obviously they didn't anticipate anything like the extent of it. Myself, I think the extent of it is not just because of the action itself or T&S in general, but the skepticism of all WMF actions focussed on the enWP, such as superprotect, or VE, or Flow--all of which derived from other elements of the Foundation than T&S. This may not have been obvious to T&S, who are devoted to a particular set of problems, not to problems generally. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    88. Probably symbolic anyway, but per Doug Weller. --Rschen7754 03:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    89. Endorse Obviously that ship has sailed, but I'll add my name to the roll call.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    90. Partial Endorse: NYB’s proposal sounds perfectly reasonable and shows the level of good faith that will be required to move things forward. However, the information provided by WMBE has left me concerned that there are broader issues with how the T&S team conducts itself that may go unaddressed under the above action plan – Especially if the intended scope of #5 relates solely to the incident that had occurred on en-wiki. The WMBE situation amounts to a plausible accusation that a WMF grants-committee member had weaponised the T&S team to unfairly target the WMBE treasurer with vexatious allegations, that were not adequately investigated, resulting in the treasurer feeling obligated to leave the project. Hence, I can't help but think that these incidents (Whether found to be true or otherwise) must be considered as a whole, and need to be a catalyst for a broader discussion about the T&S team, that encompasses the en-wiki concerns with the concerns relating to how it conducts its business with foundation projects more generally-speaking. Perhaps someone could help me understand how this proposal achieves that discussion?   «l|Promethean|l»  (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    91. Endorse. Punching up is different from punching down.Jehochman Talk 08:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    92. Endorse per user Pppery, although less reluctantly (for the moment…). ——Chalk19 (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    93. Endorse as a necessary first step towards possibly regaining community confidence that is very badly damaged. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    94. Endorse as a sensible way forward. –Davey2010Talk 00:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    95. Endorse I'm late to the party, but it seems obvious to me. Deb (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    96. Endorse. — Racconish 💬 18:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    97. Support points 1 and 5. The rest is unnecessary: any opinion or action by WMF on Fram should be discounted just like that of an involved admin, given past history of sections of WMF having disagreements with Fram on perfectly legitimate opinions. WMF should also conduct a thorough investigation of any conflict of interest or other unproper procedure which led to this failure (I hope that a number of WMF employees who had a history with Fram recused themselves from the decision and asked some neutral employees without a COI to take their place). I came here after reading some quotes which show a surreal level of straw men and evidence fabrication against Fram: a post where he said writing the n-word is unacceptable was labeled a racial slur! (I hope I dreamed that.) By this token, soon whoever says "Wiki Loves Pride" on the wiki will be instantly banned for homophobia. Nemo 09:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Nemo bis: that racial slur thing was probably Jehochman at the Arb Com case request, not WMF. starship.paint (talk) 10:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Still, it gives a sense of the scale of misinformation in the anti-Fram campaign. WMF has a history of taking such biased information at face value when it comes from people personally connected to some employee (there's even a past post by Sue Gardner where she says she learnt to only listen to Wikipedia editors who were liked by Jimbo), and the ban decisions are completely non-transparent. So we can only assume that bad information was used, until proven otherwise by a transparent report on how the decision was taken. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Nemo 10:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    98. Endorse fully. I have been skimming over the arguments presented, and I feel that the Office should back down a bit in the interest of rebuilding community confidence. You know, the "Trust" part of "T&S". Anyway, I get the impression that this was blow up out of proportion, and the the resolution (aka the ban) was achieved by filling in check boxes in a very bureaucratic manner (as in Kafka's Bureaucratic Nightmares...) GastelEtzwane (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose

    1. This doesn't sound realistic to me. I'm sure that the Trust and Safety team had good reasons for banning Fram, and I have no reason to think a long, angry discussion between editors who don't know the situation constitutes a reason to overturn that ban. I also don't think it's realistic (or desirable) for the WMF to disclose private information that they're not authorized to disclose. The other suggestions seem like good ones. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      To be clear, I do not endorse as I don't see this as a realistic proposal, and I do not support the unauthorized revealing of private information or the reversal of a ban on the basis of objections from people who don't know the reasons for it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Oppose Fram’s incivility has been longstanding and has affected multiple people. This summation outlines the problems better than I could here. If the community thinks the existing system should have been allowed to run its course, too late now. Perhaps an alternative would be to allow ArbCom to review evidence “under seal,” at least what they can legally be permitted to access, and then prepare a statement (perhaps with majority and minority opinions) for the community expressing whether they concur with the ban or if they recommend another solution. “Tell Fram to be nicer” is not going to cut it; if it had, he would have toned it down long ago. Montanabw(talk) 21:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Montanabw: I took the liberty of fixing an obvious typo in your link. I think it only fair to point out that the summation was authored by an editor who had been caught in a great many copyright violations by Fram over the years. EllenCT (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Ellen, thanks for the tweak. But FYI I worked with Blofeld on some FAC projects ( such as Frank Sinatra. Blofeld was a solid editor. Like most WP editors, his later work was better than his earlier efforts. Fram, however, became obsessed about edits dating back a decade, mostly close paraphrasing more than straight plagiarism, and it perfectly illustrates Fram’s obsession about people who violate his personal guidelines. Just because he may be technically right doesn’t grant him carte blanche to hound people like he did. Montanabw(talk) 03:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Then it should have been handled on-wiki through Arbcom. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Oppose "Fram’s incivility has been longstanding and has affected multiple people" - Fram will be nicer is not really cutting it, they also have not agreed to be nicer anyways Govindaharihari (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Oppose "quasi-volunteering to improve decorum" is insufficient. Thank you Montanabw. There seems to be mass amnesia where Fram is concerned, as the focus of their attentions were not simply at newbies, as is clearly shown.[30] While clarification is needed on the roles of enforcing civility, the fact of the matter is that behavior is addressed in the Terms of Use and within the purview of the foundation to step in if the community has failed to address repeated problems. One would hope that clearly defined roles and reporting policies will come of this. SusunW (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Oppose. "Undo everything you've done, abdicate your duty/ability to enforce the Terms of Use, and don't do anything we don't like in the future, despite owning the site." This is not a compromise. It is a takeover. Fork the site if you disagree with the WMF enforcing the Terms of Use. That is your recourse. ~ Rob13Talk 22:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That doesn't really sound like a compromise either.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @BU Rob13: - that is a ridculous all or nothing argument. Firstly, we're not saying revoke the standard areas of WMF ban-control. Secondly, the WMF is free to amend their ToS however they wish, once legal requirements are met. We argue that they have no other ownership than legal - which is not the be all and end all. We have various methods to act against them, and it makes no sense not to at least consider their usage. It's like telling employees at a company who don't like management's actions that their only option is to create a startup. This suggested solution may well be wrong - but it doesn't lead to (all of) your statement's logical conclusions. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Floquenbeam: The compromise, as I see it, is that you and Bishonen haven't lost your sysop flags, and WJBscribe hasn't lost their bureaucrat flag. And that compromise is quite generous, given your collective actions. ~ Rob13Talk 01:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think that it misses the real point to say that the community should either: (1) say "please sir, can I have some more?" or (2) go fork ourselves. If there's anything that WMF should care about, it's the crowdsourcing framework of all WMF projects. As such, it's entirely appropriate that the "crowd" should speak out about problems that concern us. And then, WMF can, I suppose, tell us that they have laid down the law, and we should go fork ourselves. And how would that affect WMF's projects? Is it really in their best interests to encourage their most productive contributors to go and form a competing website? (Hint: no.) The fact that WMF has the legal right to assert their rights of ownership does not mean that it is sensible, practical, or ethical for them to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @BU Rob13: You're suggesting the community is trying to takeover? The community existed before the WMF ever did. There is only one possible direction a takeover could go. Benjamin (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Oppose these suggestions are attempting to address two separate issues, the general and the specific, as if the resolution to the former was dependent on the other. That's not a tenable negotiating position and we need to consider the problem of the imposition of a parallel unaccountable dispute resolution procedure on enwiki separately from the appropriateness or otherwise of the punishment meted out on Fram.
      Let me be clear, I've butted heads with Fram probably as many times as anybody in the past, but I still respect and appreciate their work in defending Wikipedia, and acknowledge that they have make efforts to respond to civility criticisms over the last year or so. I'm opposed to seeing punishment imposed by a body that is not accountable to the community in other than the most egregious and exceptional cases, so I won't feel comfortable with any result for Fram that does not involve ArbCom taking over the sanctions, enforcement and appeal in the specific case.
      Secondly, there exists the general problem of the perception among T&S that enwiki has not dealt adequately with civility and harassment issues because complainants fear the transparency of our systems will further disadvantage them. I believe that the only long-term solution to that must lie in using T&S as an alternative means of raising and investigating those issues in a confidential way, but that the final decision on sanctions, enforcement and appeal should remain with ArbCom, apart from those cases which are genuinely exceptional. If that means we have to make ArbCom proceedings somewhat less transparent to preserve the privacy of complainants in some cases, so be it. I'd find that a far less bitter pill to swallow than the present situation, and I'm damned sure that both Fram and the complainant in this specific case would agree, particularly since T&S have failed abjectly to preserve the complainant's anonymity in this test case. --RexxS (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    7. Oppose. I really expected a smarter solution from you than "ask people to be nicer". Gamaliel (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Heh. I see you've never met User:Newyorkbrad: this is what he does! And lots of us think it is plenty smart, actually. --GRuban (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    8. Oppose It is obvious Fram disagrees with the warnings he was given, rescinding the ban because the community feels it was communicated poorly is just kicking the can down the road. The underlying problem the WMF has raised with Fram in two warnings has not been addressed, and there's no sign that Fram has taken these on board. MLauba (Talk) 00:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    9. Oppose I'm pretty confident the Office Action was done with good cause, and on some sort of 'three strikes' basis after off-wiki warnings. WMF clearly believes this community has failed to get to grips with certain behavioural issues amongst certain long-established editors or admins (that possibly we ourselves wouldn't tolerate coming from new editors?). It seems unreasonable to propose complete termination of the ban for this individual editor, but I could endorse the resolution if the following changes (except #1) applied to everyone in future:
      1. a c.75% reduction in the duration of the ban as a sensible compromise to immediate reinstatement;
      2. no disclosure of any other editors' names to anyone, on or off-wiki (victims shouldn't become targets. Limited disclosure to ArbComm a possibility );
      3. removal of the words "hopefully" and "generally" from our community accepting that T&S Office Actions are taken with good intentions;
      4. recognition by any banned editor that their 'decorum' must 'improve' (NYB's words), and that further Office Actions may ensue if they don't;
      5. that T&S inform ArbComm whenever any editor or admin is issued with an off-wiki warning (possibly extending to sanction implementation by ArbComm, not T&S, per RexxS); and
      6. any admin, desysopped by an Office Action, shall be expected to edit normally for a period equivalent to the length of their ban - up to a max of 6 months - before submitting a new RfA (in order to give the broad community time to decide if it now has confidence in that person being handed back the tools, based upon that editing).
      But I do absolutely endorse the need for a better dialog between WMF's T&S Team, ArbComm and the community (so that we can properly appreciate and act on their intended message, especially if they believe we are 'institutionally failing' in some parts of our editing or admin culture). Nick Moyes (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    10. Oppose though I am open to the suggestions for modification by Nick Moyes. I also agree that since this was done in such as way that caused a huge problem for relations between en.Wiki and the T&S team that further communication is necessary to repair the rift. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    11. Oppose dot points 1, 2 & 3. The facts underlying the ban may be confidential, although I wish WMF would explicitly that if true. Moving forward from here should not depend on Fram. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    12. Oppose per BU_Rob13, you wanted compromise, you have a compromise, nobody other than Fram is banned even though they should have as per the original statement of the ban. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That makes sense if you operate from the principle that the WMF is the sole authority and that their word is automatically law. But from my vantage point, it is not a compromise for long-term encyclopedia-builders like Bish and Floq to not be banned. It's common sense. Lepricavark (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    13. Oppose as, quoting Mx. Granger, "I don't see this as a realistic proposal". I am also open to considering some of the elements suggested by NickMoyes. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    14. Oppose T&S make a commitment not to release details to the person accused of harassment. You can't then ask then to tell that person who complained, even if couched in the terms of "stay away from...". - Bilby (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    15. Oppose Tony (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    16. Oppose Disappointing proposed resolution. Only the last point is a good idea.--I am One of Many (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    17. Oppose expands a dialog is too wooly, an Americanism that just kicks the can down the road. T&S are ungoverned, unaccountable and based on this bizarre case, may well routinely take actions that if assessed in the cold light of day would be found incompetent or perversely unjust. A system with no published procedures, that refuses to answer questions about its procedures or explain basic case evidence that was always public and has no need to be handled like they were the NSA trying to take out terrorists, is wide open for corruption and the deliberate burying of mistakes by banning those that have been treated badly. In comparison, an hour ago I reported a porn revenge Twitter post made by a woman who claimed to be a victim, the process that Twitter follows is open and accountable whilst the cases they remove can remain confidential. Our expectations for T&S should be no less than the incredibly basic and straightforward policies that Twitter follows, just because they are jolly nice people with good intentions who believe they are good at their jobs and protect each other... --Fæ (talk) 08:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      case evidence that was always public Was it? Says who? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      My point was a general one. The Framban case does have public evidence, lots of it actually, including emails the WMF sent to Fram for which there is no NDA in place nor should there be, and folks are still debating whether the claims about secret evidence are credible or represent any significant evidence for the ban action, considering that our elected and trusted Arbcom members do not know of any. --Fæ (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    18. Oppose I can't agree with points 1 and 2, which basically gives Fram a slap over the wrist (I'm AGFing here that the T&S team acted on a serious and legitimate concern, as they don't have a history of doing otherwise, and the claims they targeted Fram for being a trouble maker for the WMF lack credibility). Point 3 is also very unsatisfactory: admins are expected to have a high standard of behaviour and encourage constructive discussions - being only a "little bit" better than ranting about ArbCom is not at all the standard admins should set. A better solution would be to refer this matter to ArbCom, which is where it should have gone in the first place. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    19. Oppose on two grounds: first, because it's a moot point; T&S has seen what the community has to offer in this regard and has chosen not to blink. Another demand for the same is not going to change things, it'll just draw out the drama. Second, because I'm increasingly uncomfortable with the impassioned defense of an admin who may have crossed a line into harassment. The thing about harassment being that the perpetrator doesn't get to define it. Even if Fram believed sincerely they hadn't crossed a line, they may have. And I find the demands that a volunteer suspension be treated with the same gravity and seriousness as a criminal trial cringe-worthy at best. Perhaps Fram will take the year to reflect on how their actions impacted people and will make a change when they return - that door has certainly been left to them by T&S and it's probably the best course of action at this point. Simonm223 (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    20. Oppose per many above, not least Simonm223. Though perhaps after voting to overturn T&S's office action, we could vote for peace in the middle east and a unicorn for everyone? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    21. Oppose per Mx. Granger. However, I wish to extend appreciation and thanks to Newyorkbrad for his measured and reasonable response to the situation, and his efforts to drive us forwards towards a constructive resolution. I can provide moral support, at least. :-) --Deskana (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    22. Oppose because this is not about Fram, it's about the relationship between the Foundation and ArbCom, and the Foundation and enwiki. Fram is one of the symptoms, yes, but we need to be looking at the causes and treating those. I don't think if Fram has been so toxic as the Foundation believe and some here on enwiki believe, that letting him back into the community without investigating those allegations is appropriate. My feeling is that as regards the specific case of Fram in this incident, that ArbCom should take over the ban, and hold a case investigating his behaviour. I said that right at the start to Jan. I would prefer that to shrugging the whole thing off as "he's learnt his lesson" because I'm not sure anyone other than those who complained to the Foundation and those within the Foundation who saw the report knows exactly what that lesson is, particularly not Fram himself. How is Fram to know exactly what he should avoid if he's not aware of it? The only aspect of this that I support is dialogue between the Foundation and enwiki/arbcom, but we have already made that clear. I have suggested that the current ArbCom request be made a focus for that discussion, while OR has suggested a RfC. Dialogue cannot happen until a venue is accepted and agreed. That appears to be the stage we're at. My preference is for the ArbCom case to be the venue because the Clerks have both experience and appropriate authority to maintain decorum, ArbCom are involved (and ArbCom is fairly central to this as the current main point of contact between WMF and enwiki, and the community authorised body to deal with situations like this), and private evidence, if appropriate, can be handled by ArbCom. If the consensus is against that as a venue, then let us do a RfC (and please let us not have any other suggestions for a venue, otherwise time and energy will be dissipated while we argue among ourselves over a venue, thus justifying any concerns the Foundation may have that we are not equipped to deal with serious issues). I think this is a nice gesture NYB, and I appreciate it, but I don't think it addresses the real issues. SilkTork (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      The issue is, and has always been, about the relationship between Wikipedia editors' elected governing body, the Arbitration Committee, and the Foundation. I'm glad to see some Committee members rising to that occasion. The position the Committee takes as a whole, however, is indeed what's key to safeguard against questionable overlap. To do that, the Committee is going to need to assert itself. El_C 14:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    23. Oppose. I cannot endorse this degree of extension of good faith to Trust and Safety or the WMF as a whole after these events and their statements. Nor can I agree to muzzling anyone's criticism of Arbcom, or to going against an RfC that explicitly recognized our right to say "fuck" on-wiki. There are governance issues here, but also classism issues and an abundant assumption of bad faith on the part of the WMF and some of its defenders. I cannot endorse anything that endangers individual editors by endorsing their treatment as pawns, or as subjects without rights. ArbCom has been bad enough in this respect, but at least we can seek to remedy wrongs done by ArbCom. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    24. Oppose. Did Fram harass and abuse people? If the T&S thinks so, I trust their judgement. The identities of his victims should be protected, especially considering the utter vitriol that has been on display on this page. AdA&D 18:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Then why didn't they allow Arbcom to arbitrate? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Sounds like a question to ask the WMF... If I were to guess I'd say it's because ARBCOM's civility standards aren't stringent enough to enforce the Terms of Use. AdA&D 01:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually after rereading this statement it seems it was due to privacy and COI concerns. AdA&D 01:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    25. Oppose The first bullet point itself is ludicrous. There is no real reason why the Office should unban Fram. If Fram were ever to receive the "clean up your act" message, that would have happened years ago. Their statement on Commons, "of course it is rather hard for me to avoid [the involved editors]" doesn't inspire any confidence either. And they still seem to be obsessed about their admin status. SD0001 (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Then why didn't they allow Arbcom to arbitrate? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it's fairly obvious at this point. They can't even agree right now to create a case based on the banning of Fram and/or the three uses of tools to overturn Office actions. The ban is complicated. Creating a case and reaching out to the WMF for details in private is the base minimum that they could do to form their own conclusion whether the ban was proper or not (even if they can't enforce the unbanning). The three uses of tools to overturn Office actions is all on-wiki behavior and we don't have a case on it. At this point, I wouldn't trust them to sift through Fram's edits to examine his on-wiki behavior. — Moe Epsilon 23:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    26. Oppose This kind of remedy has been floating around Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes since time immemorial, and it's not effective. If this sort of action is what it takes to get the message through, I say do it. Banedon (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Also I can imagine the press coverage that could easily happen if Fram is unbanned and the media starts talking to the people he allegedly harassed. Chances are they'll report the allegations, maybe find the diffs (if the victims are willing), and then conclude that on Wikipedia, if the community kicks up enough of a fuss, they can overrule the WMF's actions. Maybe some will like this kind of portrayal, but I find it very unflattering. Banedon (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    27. Oppose while I understand Newyorkbrad is trying to do, I am not convinced the proposals will be enough to address whatever concerns there are with Fram's behaviour without knowing more details of that behaviour which I can't and don't know. I am also concerned that for this proposal to work, it may require T&S share info with Fram they feel they cannot disclose. As others have noted, there's nothing nor anything in the proposal stopping Fram disclosing the identity of the person. (See also later.) While Newyorkbrad has acknowledged that what we don't know may mean the proposals don't work, I am concerned from what I've seen that if we come up with a proposal that is not going to work and send it to the WMF and then they reject it because it was never going to work, this will generate way more heat than light and so is not helping anything. Nil Einne (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      BTW, an additional problem is that since this is all quasi-voluntary and short on details, it's not clear what happens if everyone agrees to it and then it falls apart. For example, from Fram's reponse they agree to it but have noted they may not notice who's page it is when they edit during routine cleanup. As hopefully most of us know, if this were a formal iban, not noticing is rarely an excuse. When you have an iban you do need to make sure you check stuff before editing. It may impose additional work but that's the nature of the best when the community have decided you need to stay apart. What will happen in this case? And if the identity is secretive, even handling it is fraught. And notably, if a perceived violation of the quasi-voluntary iban results in re-imposition of the WMF site ban, even if the community can't figure out who it is from the timing, if Fram feels they were unfairly treated, there's nothing stopping them revealing the details they know including, as mentioned before, the identity of who the iban was with. And one thing which should have occurred to me with Fram's earlier responses but didn't. For any 2 way iban there are additional complications. Even if the other party involved in the iban wants to respond, there are complications. While the community accepts ibans don't preclude the raising of issues about the iban in appropriate places and within limits; WTF happens if lots of other people are talking about the iban on en.wikipedia, based on details perhaps revealed on other communities or outside the WMF universe, somewhat akin to what has happened in this case with one particular person and their private life? Again if you've been around AN/ANI enough you know the community general rejects anyone with an iban getting too much involved in discussions surrounding the iban relating to the person they were ibanned from. While to some extent this is the case even without an iban, it's much more acute when there is an iban. So assuming there is a 2 way iban, and such details were not mention in the original proposal so I have no idea, the complainant finds themselves in an IMO very bad situation. Nil Einne (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    28. Oppose as per Montanabw and endorse proposal by Nick Moyes, especially point 6. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    29. Oppose: (ristrettomente) #1 is unacceptable. WMF has the right to deny service to anyone, just like any website or 24-hour diner. Parenthetically, while sometimes I do agree with some of the reasoning behind Fram's "campaigns," I have never once agreed with their sharp wording in what I've read from them. Let's imagine:
      • an alternate universe in which the WMF did not have the right to "DO WHAT THEY WANT" with or without reason concerning access to their site
      • Fram was "right" about every case they argued
      • Fram was likewise "right" to use extreem language in every case they ever argued.
      In that case... mistakes happen, get over it. Personally, I have done more than twice the amount of time Fram is being asked to serve for nothing more than posting authorship information and asking if "a bit of today politics" had anything to do with Cirt's extensive contributions to "And you are lynching Negroes" (and by implication Fake news & Fake news website). Sometimes, life just isn't fair.  ;( ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 06:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    30. Oppose: The new information shown by Carcharoth below, about the concerns WM Belgium has had with T&S, is enough that I'd say that anything short of a full audit of the WMF, and T&S in particular, is going to be insufficient. rdfox 76 (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    31. Oppose: the proposal is premature, and for the record, it is not about being a FramBasher as some have alleged to be the only motivation to oppose. I am also undecided if it is proper protocol for so many in the community to be WMFBashers. WP isn't the UAW or Teamsters - it's a Foundation with enormous responsibility, and we are simply volunteers doing whatever it is that motivates us to be here. There is nothing I'd like to see more than a harmonious community, but I am simply not convinced that the way we're going about it is the right way, much less the best way. Atsme Talk 📧 04:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    32. Oppose because as written this would require disclosing the people who filed complaints against Fram, which is a nonstarter on several levels. First, there's valid reasons for an anonymous reporting system to exist; second, it would put them at risk; third, even aside from the risk to them, and even if you disagree with the idea of an anonymous reporting system, it's unlikely the WMF even can disclose them in this case without putting itself in legal jeopardy. Finally, the first few points of this resolution all assume that whatever private evidence exists fails to justify Fram's ban, which we don't know. What we need is a system to evaluate (and, yes, accept appeals for) such privileged evidence without disclosing it publically and without keeping the entire process inside the silo of T&S, ensuring at least some degree of community involvement by allowing us to appoint trusted representitives ala ArbCom - I doubt everyone will be completely happy without knowing all the facts, but it could be far better than things are now. --Aquillion (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Other

    • I removed "a little bit" entailing the "improve his decorum" bit as it means nothing additional compared to an arbitrary improvement. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uncertain I endorse this in spirit, although the specifics make me queasy. The main point I disagree with is saying "I am angry" in a "calm collected manner", can be in many situations, much less effective that showing that you are angry (Whether or not FUCK ARBCOM is the most effective way of showing that, I'll leave up to debate). So I don't think Fram should be required (based on what I know of the publicly available evidence, at least) to self impose an interaction ban / clean up his act, especially if that interaction ban leads to the other editor(s) resuming their poor encyclopedic behaviour or Wikipedia institutions failing to hear that something is unacceptable when it is unacceptable. That said, that doesn't mean I'm not in favour of Fram generally improving their behavior (if indeed poor behaviour has occurred), or that I don't acknowledged that it is unpleasant to be on the ass end of a "FUCK <INSTITUTION>" comment. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - it sounds like this plan entails the WMF disclosing to Fram the names of those who reported him. I highly doubt they'll ever do that, unless the reporters themselves agree to it... whatever else may come out of this, the foundation's privacy policy for people who contact them will remain sacrosanct, and I would have thought rightly so. Other than that this may be a reasonable way forward if the WMF and Fram both buy into it, but let's not forget there are other avenues already being explored through Jimbo, DocJames and the board. As for Headbomb's point, I disagree. I've never really got into the discussions over language and tone before, and it offends me not at all, but we should be mindful that Wikipedia has a diverse range of ages, genders, races, creeds and cultures, and if WMF enforce a stricter guideline on the tone we use then I for one won't be complaining. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's hard to find fault with the overall thrust of this proposal, but I think a bit of skepticism needs to be added. Yes, it would undoubtedly be helpful if WMF drops the stick over the ban. Yes, it would unquestionably be a good idea for Fram to be more empathetic in his interactions with others. But are we just kicking the can down the road in the event that, a little later, someone secretly contacts T&S asserting that a recent comment by Fram violates his "quasi" commitment? Yes, the community should be cooperative with WMF staff, rather than adversarial. But I actually think the overwhelming majority of us have been willing to do that all along, and no amount of consensus will dissuade those who really want to be adversarial. And the problem arose from T&S not being willing to cooperate with us, not the other way around. Yes, there needs to be dialog between the community and T&S, as well as between ArbCom and T&S. But a lot of that is already being initiated, and the proof will be in the proverbial pudding. WMF does need to communicate with the community about what they intend, but we need to expect that the community response will be complex, and WMF needs to expect that, if they express it as a top-down take-it-or-leave-it kind of thing, it won't work. I'd actually prefer to decide on all of this only after we find out what the outcome of the Board meeting Friday was, and what the upcoming WMF-ArbCom meeting leads to. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unrealistic - The WMF has already claimed ownership of bat, ball, and the field - they aren't going to give any of it back. I'm sorry - really I am - but that's just the way it is. — Ched :  ?  — 22:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moot unless your final bullet point "the Office opens, or reopens, or expands a dialog with the community about what it is trying to accomplish and how to get there" happens first. Like I said in my statement at the pending ArbCom request, it's the Foundation who has the ball in their court to act. You can have "consensus" to do anything here like unblocking Fram's account (even though he still can't edit en.wiki) but it's still the Foundation who gets to decide because they hold the technical access to enforce their decisions at the end of the day. Unless you can actually enforce anything, then this entire discussion is for nothing. If they read this and reach this conclusion themselves and start engaging, then that's the starting point. With as many suggestions that have been thrown about though, it's unlikely this one is going to stand out though anymore than the others. At any rate, the rest of it reads as "everyone gets a slap on the wrist and let's discuss terms of use more", which isn't the problem. Civility is the problem on this website, which is why T&S stepped in. If you don't handle civility on the website, then they will again. — Moe Epsilon 00:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand why is it important to terminate Fram's ban. It is not the ban per se, it is the lack of explanation. Give a proper explanation. Details need not be given. If the details of the reason are out of scope for ArbCom and the community, then say so, otherwise refer it back to the community (which includes ArbCom). Fram's possible negotiations to end the ban should be completely separate from resolving issues of WMF heavy-handedness and non-transparency. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to Fram, he received a one year ban for saying "fuck Arbcom", and that the Foundation likely employed this draconian move because a grudging complainant against him has connections to the WMF and the Chair herself. This is an oddly specific, extremely outrageous narrative. And, yet, the Foundation will not deny it, nor will they even suggest that there's more to the story. If they will not even try to defend the ban against alleged blatant corruption, then why should we assume that it is legitimate? I would much rather have them simply explain that the ban is for legitimate reasons. But it's highly suspect that they will not do so. It goes beyond simple refusal to explain a ban when the ban is alleged to be unjust. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SmokeyJoe: The WMF has already said Fram violated the Terms of Use section that prohibits "harassing and/or abusing others". What more do you want than that, if you're not looking for details? ~ Rob13Talk 01:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi BU Rob13. You're tempting me to argue the other side to my intended thrust, that the way forward should not require a resolution of the Fram question. I think the resoltuion need only deal with the process of WMF bans, the scope of WMF-only decisions, Community (inc. ArbCom) only decisions, and where there may be overlap. I think User:Newyorkbrad's dot points 4 & 5 should be the focus. But your question is fair:
      A. The assertion "violated the ToS" is sufficient justification for the WMF to act. I am asking for an explanation for why, without details, the ban, ongoing, can't be referred to ArbCom or the community generally. I think it would be very reasonable for WMF to declare a ban, and then refer to ArbCom to review or modify. Surely, ArbCom should have the option to extend the 1 year ban? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SmokeyJoe: Lengthen? ArbCom can already do that, if they receive reports related to harassment. Otherwise alter/shorten? That would now put the WMF in very sketchy territory. If they have become aware of an editor harassing others on this site, taken action they felt necessary to enforce the Terms of Use, and then allow another body to overturn that action without having the full evidence, I think that may open them up to liability. (It's worth noting that the WMF's existing procedures/policies prevent them from disclosing the reporter even to ArbCom. That confidentiality may have been the only reason a reporter came forward, because Fram's influence - see this entire page - has a chilling effect on those he chooses to harass and abuse.) ~ Rob13Talk 02:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Confidentially prevents WMF from sharing details with ArbCom", if true, with "violated the ToS", is the minimal sufficient statement I would ask them to give. Have they said that? If they say that, then the Fram ban comes of the table for the purpose of this discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • What kind of liability? Assuming that Fram is truthful that there was no off-wiki harassment, there isn't really anything in his on-wiki activity that would be enough to involve the law. On the other hand, copyvios can get the project in legal trouble; Fram has been doing the dirty work of cleaning it up (it's a fight no one else wants to fight), so preventing a major liability mitigator from doing their work is ironically exposing the project to liability. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • BU Rob13 The ToU clause that you're referring to prohibits harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism. According to Fram, the offending comment that triggered his ban was this, which was certainly uncivil, but not "harassment or abuse" as is defined by the ToU clause that is supposedly being enforced. So, yes, additional explanation beyond "see the ToU" is quite obviously needed, as it doesn't even seem applicable. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Swarm: I encourage you to read. Fram has posted the email he received, and it contained that diff as an example, with the email explicitly noting that it was part of a repeated pattern continued after the past warning. One example diff - likely the least relevant example diff, even, since the worst diffs likely had to be hidden to protect the reporter - does not mean that's "the offending comment that triggered his ban". You are trying to apply the ToU and determine whether it applies to evidence you have not seen. Do you understand how that is an exercise in futility? ~ Rob13Talk 03:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BU Rob13: Okay. I read it all. It doesn't claim or imply that that clause of the ToU was actually breached. Go back and look, it literally doesn't even imply that Fram was outside the ToU. Actually, no where, from what I see, and no one, has tried to argue that point. The Foundation cited "abusive communications such as X". X is a problem, but it's not a breach of the ToU. There's no mention of anything beyond such "abusive communications". You're just assuming there is. They simply did not cite to Fram or even claim in any of their explanations that he breached the ToU. They cited petty incivility towards Arbcom. So, that gives the impression that Fram was banned for his pattern of petty incivility, rather than breach of the ToU. You trust that that's not true, and that there's a higher level of offense, but it's clear that both Fram's and the community's impression that this is civility policing and nothing more has disrupted the project, demonized the complainant, demonized the Chair, vilified the T&S team, resulted in admins resigning, and harmed community relations. Why, if there was more to the story than "civility policing", has the Foundation simply not said so? All we want is for the Foundation to confirm that Fram actually breached the ToU. I have no personal affinity towards Fram, but this harms my perception of the WMF. Why would they not simply confirm that Fram breached the ToU, unless it would be a lie? Like I said, there's no privacy considerations in simply saying "there was harassment" or "there was stalking". But instead they said "there was abusive communication", which is no different except for the fact that it does not invoke the ToU. That's the only issue here. If there's evidence they can't disclose that's in breach of the ToU, I don't need to see it. I don't need to know about it. I just need to know that it exists. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Swarm: Cool, because they already have. The original email to Fram did not cite ToU violations. The WMF basically never cites ToU violations for office actions, because such statements could open them up to defamation lawsuits, theoretically. I know of one that is making its way through federal district court now, and it will probably be dismissed with prejudice because the WMF so clearly did not make any statements of fact that even have the potential to be false.

      But the WMF, in their statement to the community on this page, said this particular office action was made pursuant to the "Harassment and/or abusing others" section of the ToU. Their exact wording was thus: "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.'" This is an extraordinary level of openness, given that it could theoretically get them sued. It is a shame that there are Wikipedians that have just failed to read it, apparently. ~ Rob13Talk 13:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Okay, so you believe the WMF without any question, evidence, or explanation. I really don't believe the same thing. You resigned from Arbcom in the face of overwhelming community condemnation. I don't believe blame [sorry, legitimate typo] you for sympathizing with the WMF in a similar situation. However, I'm just asking for a cursory acknowledgment of my concern, which the WMF refuses to provide. You are unable to provide that beyond blind trust, and while I don't hold your position against you, I don't think it's necessarily the truth. ~Swarm~ {sting} 13:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Especially because the terms are somewhat subjective. Let's take "stalking," for example. At RFA voters routinely go check through a candidates past contributions, sometimes in great detail, to find edits that reveal a mindset not suitable for the tools. Rob himself, at RFA not too long ago, had this to say about candidates with a somewhat low edit count - Trust me, in the future, I'll go through every single edit and highlight every potentially objectionable one when an editor has less than 4,000 edits. One could consider that stalking, a violation of ToU Section 4, and worthy of a WMF ban. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Swarm: "Overwhelming community condemnation"? This is just false, and a personal attack. Nice. I resigned from the Arbitration Committee for a variety of reasons, none of which included pressure from the community. Moreover, you are demonstrating plainly that you fail to assume good faith in anyone on the project, apparently. Again, fork the project if you don't like the fact that the WMF has legal obligations. Or, better yet, approach the Foundation and offer to take on all legal liability that Fram's future actions may bring them in exchange for his unban. If you are so certain that the Foundation is acting with sinister intentions and that Fram has done nothing wrong, that should be no problem, no? ~ Rob13Talk 15:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, what? "I don't believe you" was a typo, I meant "I don't blame you". But that said, "overwhelming community condemnation" was quite obviously and unequivocally the response to wording of the Arbcom circular. I don't recall a single person speaking up in favor of it. Virtually 100% of the community response was negative. So I'm not sure why you'd call "community condemnation" a "personal attack". Why would I personally attack you? As I said at the time, I think you're one of our best administrators. I'm not sure why you're being so hostile and defensive. You resigned, citing an essay that the community does not treat Arbcom with the same assumption of good faith that is the standard. Not sure how all of a sudden the community had nothing to do with your resignation. ~Swarm~ {sting} 08:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral I don't mind the proposal, but it's not our position to compromise. I hate to say it, but unless all of us stop contributing to the project, we really don't have control over this. SportingFlyer T·C 01:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if, if we're being honest with ourselves. nableezy - 01:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Control" is irrelevant, moral influence is. Gandhi had no control over the British in India, M. L. King had no control over Jim Crow laws in the South or the Federal government, what they both had, and built up more of as time went on, was moral influence. That is our lever, not whether we "own" the website or who can turn it off if they want to. People really don't appear to be understanding this, which is as much a part of the real worl as who possesses the keys to the place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • An issue with this is that you lose moral influence by condoning wrongdoing. Acting as if nothing has happened is a form of condoning. In other words, the guilt of the WMF rests on us all if we know what is going on and yet act as if things are normal. Reflected in the comments above are radically different conceptions of authority. In Hegelian-derived philosophy, authority belongs at the collective-subjective level, as the final judgment of history at the end of time is unavailable. Authority bleeds in at many levels, wherever people act rationally and in good faith. In Kantian thought, authority derives from the chief executive down through subordinates. Both concepts are used today--for example, in science, an authority is someone who is has established themselves as knowledgeable through hard work, study, and a good track record. Their authority is channeled down through to TAs, teachers, journalists to the public. On wikipedia, we call them "reliable sources." On the other hand, appeals to "the community" to enforce something is an example of the collective-subjective form of authority. Appeals towards passive aggression are consistent with Hegelian thought, as in Hegelianism an irrational governance can be legitimately subverted (think Red-Scare style infiltration). In contrast, in Kantian governance the resistance must be allowable in a constitutional sense where opposing parties can act against each other in an orderly fashion (e.g. Kant's "nation of devils" quote), or the resisting parties may be Lesser magistrates (in this case, Floquenbeam and Bishonen are acting as resisting lesser magistrates). Subversion is not allowable because honesty and truth are too valuable and lying is extremely wrong. In contrast, Hegelians tend to be more relativist and see honesty and truth as being at least somewhat compromised in the dialectic process, which will not resolve as long as history endures. One Kantian approach would be to let some of the other higher-ups deal with it, and to not take a position one way or another, or to just leave wikipedia and not think about it to maintain moral purity, maybe to go to a rival wikipedia website instead. Because in Hegelianism, "whatever is, is right," there can be a tremendous need to win, while in Kantianism maintaining your individual moral purity and establishing the truth is more important because what is right is determined through careful ethical analysis.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Hegelianism, the broader levels of authority encompass the lower levels. For example, the state is expected to have an antithetical relationship to the authority of the family, and this is expected to be a good thing. Fran's request that the ArbCom "Just crawl into a corner and shut up until the community asks you to do something within your remit, but don't try to rule enwiki as if you have the right and the competence to do so." does not reflect this understanding with reflect to the ArbCom. ArbCom, due to both the democratic character of its selection and the rationality of its actions, could be considered a broader level of synthesis than the ordinary English Wikipedia community. Fran rejects this completely on the basis of past experience with ArbCom. This form of argument is an Existentialist critique of Hegelianism. His appeal to an impartial jury is compatible with both Existentialist and Kantian forms of authority, but should ArbCom grant it, they are admitting that they are not the broadest and most supreme level of collective-subjective authority.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isnt about owning the website that makes whether or not we all stop editing irrelevant. Its the tiny proportion to the wider community that is present here. Yeah, a lot of us are active in the WP namespace and a ton of the admins here do a huge amount of work in the day to day functioning of this website, and yes there are a number of content creators here that have helped make this place something that the WMF can say hey give us millions of dollars to keep running. But as of this writing there have been 365 editors to this page. I posit that if every single one of these people, and every single person who has edited the AC case request page, including the arbitrators, suddenly stopped editing Wikipedia tomorrow the effect would be negligible, at least as far as WMF is concerned. There will be articles that get either vandalized, or skewed to a POV, BLP violations will be undealt with. But for the most part Wikipedia will continue on. Im not trying to be Debbie Downer, just a realist on the limits of my own power here. nableezy - 05:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In politics, decisions are strongly influenced by a numbers game: in ethics, calculations of numbers are ignored. General human behavior tends to think and act politically, 'can I get away with this,'; 'they are wrong, but if I protest, and no one else does, I'll cop it too.' etc. Ethics, as opposed to morality and politics, is not 'realist' - proceeding only after carefully assaying whether one has sufficient support or not. The crux was illustrated by Antigones' clash with Creon,-her stance is echoed in Luther's Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders,- a tragedy given a famous reading by Hegel. I remember taking a train in the city, sitting down to read in anticipation of an hour-long trip, noting with a smile a young couple of kids smooching opposite, and burying myself in my book. Three stops down, the train pulled up at a station opposite a football ground - and the compartment was filled with drunken fans disappointed in their side losing that day. One of the group of 6, full as a bull's bum from an afternoon of beers but built like a brick shithouse, eyed enviously the boy smooching with his girlfriend, and without much ado, went over, grabbed him in a headlock and began punching him in the head. The girl screamed, the kid wept - and I, opposite, made the natural rapid calculation. If I intervene, there are five of his mates who will join and and beat the shit out of me. But one had no option - you can't watch passively as someone is mercilessly beaten or ill-treated. With a sickening feeling in the pit of my stomach, I reached out and caught his wrist as it drew back to land another punch. I won't recount the following 25 minutes,-a stand-off with me holding my grip while palavering to stop the other five from doing anything other than menacing me, but no other person of the 20 or so male adults in the carriage looked up from their newspapers. It's not that folks are generally unethical - it's that before acting according to their inner lights, they tend instinctively from a self-survival biological reflex to calculate their own interests. The banning of Fram in obscure circumstances created, for some, an ethical dilemma, and Floqueanbeam, Bishonen and WJBScribe essentially said that the high risk of silent complicity in the exercise of blind power gave them little option but to do what they did, challenge the higher body by overruling it. I expect that the assertion of secretive powers will automatically translate into a very small minority being compelled in conscience to desist from donating (I'm not a tenant on this property) their labour to a charitable institution. I know that a bureaucracy doesn't worry about marginal attrition, a number of analyses like your's will tell them it will have a negligible impact. That others see no problem, and just move on with their hobby is the normal reaction one would expect. And all this crisis of conscience because? because somewhere across the world a small board is obsessed by legislating to objectify what is a cultural variable, good manners, and enforce an Americanocentric code globally regardless of what communities elsewhere may, if they ever do, think. It is unlikely to step back because there is a question of face that, as usual, rules out creative conflict resolution. Nishidani (talk) 09:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's not clear from above is what happens to Fram's status as an editor, and as an admin? I was recently reminded of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1001#Block of Martinevans123 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive991#Personal attacks, a block and an unblock: review requested where Fram was strongly criticised (if not actually admonished as such) for controversially blocking two longstanding editors. Combined with "fuck the Arbcom", incivil edit summaries and picking a fight with BU Rob13, and that many people have criticised the WMF getting involved and overriding the community / Arbcom with no possible appeal, rather than Fram's actual conduct, I would like to see a guarantee of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram before I can support this. It would allow everyone to have their say and if the consensus is that Fram hasn't done anything terrible enough to take any long term action, then at least everyone will have had their say. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Assuming Fram gets unbanned there seem to be three options: 1) he gets the sysop bit back automatically 2) we have an RfA to decide, or 3) ArbCom case decides. I don't see much wrong with any of these options, a nice change from the lose-lose scenarios surrounding pretty much everything else in this drama. Reyk YO! 11:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Over the particular discussion about Security-Circular, nearly everyone was at their non optimal behaviours. And, tone-deafness from a few arbs compounded it. Given that Fram's conduct definitely improved throughout the year, it's unfortunate that he be put to an ArbCom case because of this mess. Obviously, anybody might propose a case but I will urge for a decline. ∯WBGconverse 11:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately I disagree with 3/5's of the proposal - however since the oppose section above appears to be made of people who are opposing any resolution because they have issues with Fram I am sticking my response here instead.
      Point 1 - should be a demand regardless. The WMF should not be banning people from the ENWP community unless there is an actual safety issue or child protection issue. That is it.
      Point 2 - this sets a dangerous precedent in that it both encourages and enables problem editors (who are pulled up on their actions) to go running to the WMF. It rewards them for not following dispute resolution and chills future discussion - what admin or editor is going to risk dealing with them if it risks being muzzled. "Without admitting any wrong-doing" - quasi legalistic reference to WoP - which while in a technical legal sense is no admission of liability, it is *always* taken as such by everyone - "I'm not admitting anything but im doing what you say anyway" just instantly means everyone goes "Oh hes totally guilty". If there is an editor that Fram needs to be interaction banned with, then Frams interactions in relation to that editor need to be scrutinised by either the community or arbcom. The stealth interaction ban-but-not-ban by the WMF in communication with Fram is one of the more disturbing things to come to light as a result of this. Its saying the WMF is ready to prevent scrutiny of editors on the encyclopedia - directly interfering with editorial control.
      Point 3 - Completely pointless and appears to just be a sop to the 'Fram is awful' crowd with past axes to grind. Fram's editing record is already out there. Take a look at the last's years interactions with other editors and compare it to say the previous 2 or 3. Its effectively holding Fram to an unrealistic and intangible standard given he has already improved beyond which many respected editors already operate.
      Point 4 - Evidence not provided that T&S are there with good intentions. While I agree that its unlikely any of them joined the WMF specifically to take over ENWP - that doesnt mean they wont take the chance to do so given the opportunity. And given who they are is public knowledge, so is their history. Jan certainly has zero credibility after the superprotect fiasco, and the place-that-shall-not-be-named has links about other members of the staff involved in this situation that are extremely problematic for what are supposed to be employees engaged in ensuring the safety of wikipedians. Their actions so far lead me to conclude that they are there to protect wikipedians they approve of.
      Point 5 - About the only point I agree with in its entirety. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unclear difference between what this says and what people have been proposing/demanding throughout this page. First of all, the last bulletpoint should happen regardless. But as for the rest, it's perhaps more diplomatically worded to allow a little bit of face-saving with ~"everyone admit they can do a little better" but still boils down to T&S backing down and Fram making non-binding assurances that he'll take [the mostly unspecified] criticism on board. If everything else wasn't persuasive, I don't see why one more !vote would be.
      Advice for T&S: There are a lot of users that WMF will never convince -- people who has a strong distrust for the WMF in general, people who don't think the WMF should ever supersede community process, people who don't think there's any reason to ever keep things private, people who worry about themselves if WMF is starting to issue blocks for long-term behavioral problems, etc. But there are also a lot of people you can convince: people who do think that there is a role to play for T&S to address intractable long-term behavioral problems that the community has failed to address -- people who support the concept, but who are confused or bothered or concerned about what has happened in this particular case. "Severe enough to keep everything a secret and take office action without involving the community" is difficult to reconcile with "you can still use all the other projects and you can come back to this one after a year." If this were a global ban I dare say it would be less controversial in that way (which is not to say uncontroversial, obviously). The other problem is that diffs were provided, but only a handful, and they came from Fram, not from T&S. Those diffs shaped the narrative, and makes the conversation about whether those diffs merited action. That's not a good place to be.
      The approach I think would be most effective -- which would've been best at the outset of this case -- is premised on the idea that this isn't actually just about the LH diffs and the diff directed at arbcom that Fram supplied (that those were tipping points but it was more about a longer-term pattern). Assuming that's the case, and that T&S was stepping in to address something which, in their judgment, was severe enough and which the community failed to address, then they should release a big data dump showing (a) a long-term pattern of behavior and (b) community efforts failing to address it sufficiently. I suspect you already have that data. Releasing it would at least would shift the discussion of evidence from what Fram provided to a bigger picture that's harder to point to and say "that's it?" By casting a wide net as such, it's possible you'd actually be better protecting complainants than by forcing speculation through Fram's diffs. It would take time to compile, but I suspect you're already spending quite a lot of time on this.
      The other way forward, which isn't very likely but about the only compromise I can see being at all possible, is through a hand-off to ArbCom with conditions, including the understanding that some of the material will still be private and the understanding that it's about a long-term pattern (it's not atypical to see older diffs dismissed or limited consideration to particular types of behavior). ArbCom cases are reasonably well equipped to handle lots of diffs and lots of evidence, on-wiki and off. This has been articulated better by others already, of course. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This whole story has nothing to do with Fram. (a)A principle is at stake, (b) massive open discussion by one affected party has been met with oracular comuniqués by the other.(c) in conflict theory this disparity is something everyone here and at the WMF office would deplore were the face-off with this communicative dissonance to occur with a real state. The outcome is usually brinksmanship to see who is bluffing. We huff here, and have no means to bluff. I'm sure that was not the WMF's intention, but their failure to perceive the obvious implications of their communication 'strategy' is deeply disturbing.
    Emotionally, I would endorse. But I see strong sense also in SilkTork's oppose, but disagree strongly with most other comments and editors in that section. Only in death does duty end has summed up concisely what I also think are the basic reservations about an otherwise sensible attempt at compromise. I have no problem with leadership, but in critical times, leaders who have made a mark do so for the fact that, if they err, they made a difficult gesture, symbolic or otherwise, of stepping back. They drop the issue of face-saving. Do that, and you will find people far more accommodating than otherwise seems the case.Nishidani (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate the thought that went into this proposal, but it goes a touch too far for me. Obviously, a large number of people here believe Fram to be completely innocent, but the fact is that the community does not have the ability to make that judgement, and given the presence of private information, is never going to have that ability. I don't see a way out of this that does not involve a community-appointed body (ideally, ARBCOM; but it could be someone else) investigating the situation in full, including the private evidence, and determining whether the ban is necessary. Also, Fram should be unbanned while such a determination is made. Obviously, the nature of the complaint process means that the identity of the complainant cannot be revealed to Fram; but anything claiming that it cannot be revealed to ARBCOM is legalistic nonsense. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    The problem with this resolution (as several people have pointed out) is that - irrespective of whether it is endorsed or not - it cannot be accepted in full by T&S. They make a very clear statement that when you report harassment to them "[y]our contact to Trust and Safety is kept confidential, so no details about your experience will be shared publicly or with the person you are reporting".[31] They cannot change this after the fact, as they can't promise to maintain confidentially in an existing case and then change their mind to pass their names to the person accused of harassing them just because a few dozen people on Wikipedia tell them to. Whoever raised concerns with T&S has every right to expect T&S to maintain their promise of condifentially, and therefore cannot both unblock Fram and then tell Fram who complained in order to ask Fram to stay away. In the end, it doesn't matter whether we oppose or endorse this, as it is doomed to failure. Therefore, how would it look if it was rewitten in a way that could be accepted by T&S if it was endorsed? - Bilby (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't believe Laura Hale has had anything directly to do with this and the vitriol directed at her is quite unpleasant. If a bunch of people shouted at you, "your work sucks, don't let the door hit you on the way out", would you ever want to contribute again? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree on the first aspect. But, to be mild, d/dt(Laura's learning curve) was too negligible. Mis-use of sources, incoherent paragraphs, weird synthesis, writing unsourced stuff ..... And I went through only a few of his crrations. Sometimes, we need to realise that Everyone can Edit ought not be taken in a very-literal sense. ∯WBGconverse 11:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Winged Blades of Godric, The way I would put it is that "everyone can edit" doesn't necessarily mean that "Everyone should edit"S Philbrick(Talk) 15:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "I don't believe Laura Hale has had anything directly to do with this" and pigs might fly. Given the only evidence given to Fram so far by the T&S team points to his interactions with her previously as a causitive factor for the ban. We all know the reason why T&S have no wish for Arbcom to get involved, it is because arbcom (despite its many flaws) will take a look at all editors in a dispute/complaint and judge actions by their context. And that basic principle of fairness is directly at odds to T&S and certain editors ideological totalitarian approach to dealing with those not of the body. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean that I don't believe Laura Hale has directly complained to T&S about Fram, or at least not recently enough in the last 18 months which is the timeframe that seems to be under discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Given their history I just dont agree with you on that one. T&S however wont reveal that information so its a pointless dispute. What is relevant is that editors above are trying to claim that this is a result of long terms actions on the part of Fram. And arguing on the one hand that its a result of long term interaction issues onwiki while trying to exclude editors involved in that time period, despite that they are the cause of one of the few direct interactions between Fram and the T&S team, is being deliberately deceptive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm almost certain I know who triggered the recent T&S involvement (95%+ if I was a betting man), and if I'm correct, it's not Laura. I won't share how I was able to put the puzzle together because I could well be wrong, and if I'm right, well, I'm not going to reveal their identity either for more or less the same reasons T&S won't. I'll say that the complainer wasn't necessarily wrong to contact T&S if they are who I think they are, and T&S certainly made the right call in withholding who made the complaint. I'm still really not sure T&S had the moral authority to make that call over the community, and I'm still not sure it doesn't involve putting feeling harassed over being harassed. But if the complainer was who I think they are, it at least makes me believe that T&S acted in good faith. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So it's a riddle, wrapped in an enigma, wrapped in a vest. El_C 17:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't expect T&S to expose their identities regardless of who filed the complaint, and, speaking as someone who has pushed the Laura theory, you're right about not revealing your sources or who the putative suspect is. But you being able to do so is still an indictment of T&S here because all they have done here is ban a user in (presumably) good standing with little warning, no explanation of anything, and limited to one wiki for a year. If a T&S member (using the WMFOffice account) had done the outrageous and unthinkable step of explaining just why Fram was banned at the time of the block and the unusual limits on the block we wouldn't be speculating as much as to whose cereal Fram pissed in. Their secrecy in this case resulted in a Streisand effect which has the potential to (if it hasn't already here or on off-wiki fora) out the complainant. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 09:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Headbomb: I can also guess my way to a story where what happened (including the secrecy) makes sense to the complainant and to T&S, without involving any long-term conspiracies, gender wars or gamergate relations. But I still wouldn't agree with the outcome, nor that this issue was worth damaging the WMF-Community relations even further. Unappealable secret bans have no appeal to me whatsoever. —Kusma (t·c) 19:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333: the vitriol directed at Laura is not only "quite unpleasant", it is also exactly the sort of thing WMF are talking about when they made their decision to repatriate some powers to block users for abuse. There should be action taken against people who have hounded her during this saga, based on unproven allegations that she was involved in the banning of Fram, because by no stretch of the imagination is it acceptable. You and I, and the majority of Wikipedians don't act this way, and it's expressly against policy, so why should we tolerate those who do?  — Amakuru (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Are people going to her talk page or emailing her to harass her, or abusing her because of this as she edits? That would be wrong.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wehwalt: I don't know exactly where it's been, to be honest. I gather that there has been a huge amount of negative coverage and digging into her personal life off-Wiki somewhere, probably some of it by people who also edit here, some of which has spilled into accusations and undue pressure on-Wiki. I don't have the time to keep up with all that drama though. BU Rob13 knows more of the details, I believe. Apologies for being vague, but I'm not accusing any specific individuals it's just based on what I've heard. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Response from Fram to Newyorkbrad

    Hi Newyorkbrad, thank you for this. I agree with your first point (though some clarification about my admin status should be included as well probably). For the second point, I understand that the WMF is not willing to tell me who are the editors involved, but then of course it is rather hard for me to avoid them as well. For the one editor already mentioned here: I already tend to avoid their articles and will let others deal with them. I can't guarantee that I won't edit their articles in routine cleanup runs (e.g. when I am adding short descriptions to categories of articles, I don't first check who created each article).

    Your third point, the decorum; as some editors already indicated, I already did this in general the past year, but I'll strive to improve even further.

    I had already indicated some possible methods to resolve this higher on this page, this is one fine by me as well. Fram (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Copied from Commons Tazerdadog (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there any reason the WMF or Arbcom can't ask the complainant(s) whether they object to a confidential disclosure of their identities to Fram in order to effect an interaction ban? EllenCT (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be self-defeating - Not only would this expose them to Fram, but Fram isn't gagged (per T&S' own actions) so this would end up blowing up in their faces. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 05:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked about this, and Fram agreed to keep the names of such subjects of an interaction ban confidential and take additional steps to avoid them which would not ordinarily be part of Fram's new page patrolling, if the WMF were to accept this compromise. EllenCT (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It would still require the WMF to disclose those names to Fram, which they explicitly state they will not do, and doing so - after informing those who complained that they won't - would be highly unethical. And to ask those who believe that they've been harassed by Fram to trust that Fram would never reveal who that are seems foolish. - Bilby (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody seems to have suggested that Fram has ever betrayed anyone's trust, so perhaps the Foundation would be willing to ask them if they would consent to letting Fram know who they are to effect an interaction ban. Frankly though, this is silly. Fram's original compromise proposal for an independent binding evidence review is less lenient, so the Foundation should go with that. EllenCT (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that Fram is accused of harassing one or more editors to the point that those editors lodged a complaint with the WMF under the guarantee that their details would not be provided to Fram. Obviously, the WMF can't then release those details. I agree that the WMF could ask them, but as they raised their concerns with the WMF, possibly in order to avoid being revealed as the ones raising the complaint, I can't see that they would want this shared with Fram. And if, as we have every reason to assume, they believe that Fram has been harassing them, how can we ask them to trust that Fram will never tell anyone else who they are? You say that Fram has never betrayed anyone's trust, but I imagine to them Fram has betrayed theirs (especially if Fram had previously been warned), so I can't see how we can expect them to trust Fram in this way. I don't know what the solution is, but saying to Fram that "these are the people who complained about you - don't interact with them and don't tell anyone who they are" seems very unlikely to be happen if it depends on getting the permission of the people Fram is accused of harassing, and unethical if it doesn't.
    The WMF don't need to compromise at all, so choosing between revealing who the people are to Fram, and revealing who the people are to Fram and others, isn't a choice that they need to make. They can work out their own solution, or enforce this one, or walk away. - Bilby (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, I really don't like the idea of harassment going one way like this. People accusing others of harassment should be forced to reveal themselves, or otherwise both the accused and accuser should be secret. That's the only fair way, otherwise the accused loses any degree of anonymity while the accuser is protected. As much as I hate the way Universities define harassment (like I said earlier), at least they keep the names of both individuals secret. I don't know why Wikimedia couldn't have come up with something less arduous than a yearly ban, anyway. Fram, I'm rooting for you. Rockstonetalk to me! 19:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen enough situations where people are scared to complain due to the fear of retaliation, and live with harassment rather than face something worse. I've also seen enough situations where that fear was realised. Having some channel that allows people to confidentially raise their concerns is important. - Bilby (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And like it or not, T&S is going to be that outlet - but the way they handled this is completely counterproductive to this, in that they banned them without giving any real notice beforehand (it was mentioned in minutes in a conference call OR took), nor giving a justification as to why the ban is project- and time-limited as opposed to a global ban. It should come as no surprise that the extremely unusual circumstances caused a Streisand effect that they should have seen coming. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 04:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You assume they care. They plainly believe that imposing this on the community is worth whatever heat it generates. I doubt the metrics we saw cited in the Board minutes have shifted much if at all. The rest is words.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments to keep this proposal from being archived to the talk page

    Data analysis for tone

    Detox tool has been shut down * Pppery * it has begun... 19:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    I've seen some suggestions here that at least some of the "deep dive" might have been done by AI and textual analysis software. We actually have a tool we can test out: [32], so I've been doing that. The results are that the tool is a fool. Here's what that tool says about the probability of various statements being a personal attack, or aggressive in general.

    • I will shortly be nominating the article Fuck tha Police for GA. 89% attack, 79% aggressive.
    • Perhaps next time you could contribute something to the discussion instead of stating the obvious. 3% attack, 2% aggressive.
    • Something is completely fucked up with the formatting here. I'm trying to fix it. 61% attack, 33% aggressive.
    • I'm not certain if you even have the intelligence of a rock. 2% attack, 2% aggressive.

    So, these tools seem to be more or less a "bad word" detector, and are incapable of detecting many personal attacks which would be immediately obvious to a human reader, while having a false positive on pretty much anything that contains the word "fuck" in it, regardless of tone or context. Analysis tools are not yet capable of interpreting things like metaphor, sarcasm, and a lot of passive-aggressive type behavior. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    That may very well be the entire Framgate in a nutshell. Say "fuck" and you're fucked. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What type of rock? If it's igneous, then someone has crossed a line. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously silica ϢereSpielChequers 17:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, it's a naughty word detector. And it scores "The WMF are really very fucking silly" as more of an attack than it does "The WMF are really cunts". DuncanHill (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asterisked the worst word out but it is odd that "thou rancid fe***ing bampot" is eight times less aggressive than one of the edit summaries that I actually use. ϢereSpielChequers 17:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The model doesn't seem to be trained well enough to be used for any purpose if the current model cannot generalize between "fucking silly" and "cunts". --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "The WMF are dishonest" scores 93% not attack, 96% not aggressive. "The WMF are idiots" scores 100% attack, 100% aggressive. DuncanHill (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "You are Cornish" scores as more aggressive and attacking than any of "you are silly", "you are deluded", "you are wrong", or "you are American". Is this tool actually being used by the Foundation? DuncanHill (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been thinking about this (probably a bad idea), and I'm actually beginning to believe: violate en-wiki policy and guidelines and call the person who tries to fix the problem a "bully" and WMF is very worried on your behalf, but say "fuck" and WMF thinks an office action is needed. (What happens if you call someone a "fucking bully"? Maybe they ban both of you.) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) DuncanHill, that's kind of the problem. No one really knows what the Foundation is doing or what they're using, because none of this is done transparently at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The Foundation contact listed for the project no longer works for the Foundation. DuncanHill (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The page on meta hasn't been updated since 2017, it is possible that the WMF tested it and ditched the idea as unhelpful over a year ago JEissfeldt_(WMF) may know whether that was used in the Fram case. ϢereSpielChequers 17:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    More than a decade ago I was working for a US based company who had a German subsidiary. The US office deployed a rude word detector over all emails, including from the German office, that got upset with various German names and placenames, including the names of some important clients. As a Brit I tried to bridge the cultural divide between my German and US colleagues re their Scunthorpe problem. Not everyone can get their head around the idea that the same word can have different meanings in different languages. But to be fair to my former employer, they were a mostly US operation, and it was over a decade ago. As for the AI mentioned above and its anti Cornish bias, any chance it was written in the county immediately east of the Tamar? ϢereSpielChequers 17:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Some people can't even understand that a word may have different meanings in the same language. My Mother used to have great difficulty emailing her sister at an American university, as Mum's email address included the Cornish place-name "Menacuddle". This was flagged as homophobic abuse by the American university, and her emails blocked. Never underestimate the power of the combination of cultural ignorance, Artificial Idiocy, and good intentions. DuncanHill (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That tool doesn't even account for the Scunthorpe problem. "I will visit Scunthorpe this weekend" scores 59% attack and 42% aggression, while "I will visit London this weekend" gets 1% attack, 2% aggression. So, this tool is vulnerable to the literal exemplar of a problem that's been known for decades. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "I am gay" scores as 90% attack, 90% aggressive. "I am straight" as 0% attack, 1% aggressive. Now that is unacceptable in a tool hosted by the Foundation. DuncanHill (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like all WMF employees to know that I am super gay. if you block me because your systems tell you I am being 'aggressive' by being open about my overwhelming gayness, please do so transparently and honestly. --Fæ (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    'I am Dirk' scores 29/41; 'I am Fram' 3/8 ... I should be banned I guess ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "A little blue Bori" scores 07/08. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 18:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have informed @JEissfeldt (WMF): of some of the objectionable results - I've also found it regards some forms of anti-Semitic abuse as no aggressive or attacking. I strongly believe this tool has no place on a Foundation site, and it should never be used to evaluate editor behaviour. DuncanHill (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an objectionable tool even if the results are. It's just bad, bad enough that I would never greenflag something like this into production. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I can confirm that. I typed in something I would find offensive, but which my autocorrect modified to "Do likes like you eat bacon?" It scored .12 attack, .21 aggressive. Then I changed it to what I meant to type by changing the first letter of the second word to "k". It scored .11 attack, .14 aggressive. Stay classy WMF.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    By way of comparison, Rhett Butler's last line in GWTW (movie) scores .32/.69. If you omit the "Frankly," as Margaret Mitchell did, it comes out .42/.77.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder how it'd rate all of the names from the Space Mutiny episode of MST3K? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 18:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a sentence in that article about the nicknames for the character Ryder. It scored .15/.21.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Individual names got a LOT more than that. Vanderhuge is 75/62, Bulkhead is 65/70, McRunfast is 85/87, Plankchest is 86/73, and Beefknob is 62/59. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 19:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we should all start using Shakespearean phrases to describe our thoughts on-wiki when we think we are faced with a WikiProblematic Editor/Edits... Shearonink (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Careful with that too. I can call bans from the vasty WMF... Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The traditional French insult "I fart in your general direction" scores only 5% each for aggression and attack. DuncanHill (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I was watching Space Mutiny on YouTube and at the start of the episode, the robots are complaining that their encyclopedia is way out of date so Mike gets them a new one with an internet connection for updates! Looks to me like MST3K invented Wikipedia ... Sorry Jimbo.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wehwalt, Nope, Douglas Adams did. Along with the iPad/Mobile Phone ClubOranjeT 07:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Something that I've seen a lot of on WP, or variants thereof, "I have serious doubts about your competence to edit the English Wikipedia". 1% attack/2% aggressive. Also, contrast "Are you stupid?" 100% Att/100% agg with "Are you incapable of understanding?" 4% att/6% agg. Blackmane (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Fram's "Fuck ArbCom" comment

    Plugging in most of the first statement in the edit cited by T&S (string: "Fuck ArbCom which doesn't even understand their own messages") it scores 96% on both attack and aggression. "Just crawl into a corner and shut up until the community asks you to do something within your remit" scores 43/40, and "[But] don't give us any more of this bullshit" scores 98/99. For comparison: "loads of evidence of utter incompetence in many of its members" scores 01/01, "again give themselves powers they don't have" is 02/04, and "don't try to rule enwiki as if you have the right and the competence to do so" is 02/03.
    If this was indeed the diff that led directly to Fram's ban, and it was prompted by use of this tool, then I would strongly suggest that the WMF cease using it, considering that it seems to be tripping only on profanities and not on comments that could actually be interpreted as attacks or aggressive. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 18:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    As to the other diffs:
    I really hope this was NOT being used to justify a Fram ban internally. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 18:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Cool tool! I plugged this in and got 100/100. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    That predates even the first warning T&S gave Fram. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 22:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember that incident. It was very much deserved. Acting like you know better than a native speaker because you can use Google Translate. Fucking arrogant. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ^ 92% attack/96% aggressive. FYI. 16%/18% without "fucking". Mr rnddude (talk) 07:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I foresee a period of meme-like use of this tool for shits and giggles. (8% att/8% agg) Blackmane (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break sponsored by big AI corporations

    @DuncanHill: It's not an objectionable tool even if the results are. It's just bad, bad enough that I would never greenflag something like this into production. To put things into clarity, whatever model the tool is using is not trained well enough and is generalizing badly. The reason why "I am gay" scores more attack basis points than "I am straight" is probably not because it is but because the text it has been trained on has presence of the word "gay" in a negative connotation. Think of it this way, even now in 2019, "you're gay!" is an insult to some people. The reason the tool is failing is because it cannot understand context (using LSTM would improve that, doubt this tool makes use of that) well enough, so articles like "you" and "I" (common stop words) are given less predence than red-flag words which make up the majority of the difference between non-toxic and toxic texts. To summarize, it's not a big deal that this tool is inaccurate, most errors can be explained by natural language processing, there's no big conspiracy (no guarantees ofc ). --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I think I used the word "objectionable" in connexion with the results, not the tool directly - but we're getting into the realm of "love the sinner, hate the sin" if we go too far down that road. A tool which returns worse-than-useless results, as this one does, is objectionable. A tool is what it does, no more, no less. As I (nearly) said above, a combination of cultural ignorance, Artificial Idiocy, and good intentions can be fatal. It is a big deal that the Foundation can sponsor something so utterly, fatally, crap. DuncanHill (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the tool terrible at a lot of things? Definitely. But, my point is, you cannot teach something to be culturally understanding, you cannot encode it into a model. The drawback is in how we teach something (called an inherent bias). --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Assuming the tool is the same as that described in this paper, the problems are glaring. Firstly the paper uses a bag of words model backed by logistic regression (!!) or a simple neural network. This is a terrible choice given the meaning of a sentence can be altered significantly by a single word and that order is important. A recurrent neural network which is much better at classifying text. Secondly the precision and recall are only 63% each - for every two comments flagged correctly, you would get one false positive and miss one attack. Put that into the hands of someone who doesn't know or care that one third of your so-called attacks are wrong and a management that has fallen hook, line and sinker for the AI hype (which is what you'd expect in the Silly Con Valley reality distortion field) and you have an application of machine learning that is worse than useless. MER-C 19:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not to insult anyone but a a bag of words model backed by logistic regression is the probably the first building-a-simple-model-from-scratch tasks that someone entering into NLP learns after completing basics (assuming they are starting off with the NLTK tutorial), which is very questionable in its own right. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec)It's fairly well-known among most AI researchers that there is a serious risk that by training (in this case even inadequate) models on inadequate data, we can create tools that perpetuate existing prejudices and even cloak them in the mantle of mechanical objectivity. And for a tool as predictable bad as this, there is the extra risk of abuse - if you want to get rid of an editor, just run his edits and edit comments through the tools until you have a collection of "aggressive attacks", then act on that "neutral evidence". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh my god. We were doing this sort of thing at the University of Illinois in 2006 in undergraduate courses in the linguistics department (i.e., not in computer science), and doing better than this. And this was when using statistical analysis was just becoming state-of-the-art in the NLP field (or so were my observations). I'm sure now, thirteen years later, this sort of sentiment analysis is downright basic. This tool's results are beyond merely bad design, they're... I'd better not say. Suffice it to say that if it weren't for the seriousness of this situation, it'd be hilarious. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      To be honest, atleast this thread was a good break with all its hilarity, maybe that's why it was made! --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Compilation

    Can someone plug in the last 1000-or-so edits (or talk-page diffs) of Fram into a script, and do the same with some other long-term/high volume volunteers (both admin and non-admin) and calculate the average percentages? If the behaviour has been bad for years and has not improved, then the last so-many edits should be representative and give a nice comparison. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Out of interest, why this script? Was it used by the WMF? Did they use software to analyse Fram's edits? - Bilby (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bilby: There is a theory on this page where is considered that (all) volunteers have been profiled using AI (see #On lying, collapsed box and below), and that they took one volunteer who scored high (or low, depending on your perspective) and built a case. That theory would be more likely true if Fram would score pretty bad against their peers, even if we use another (less smart?) algorithm (as long as we build the set using one algorithm). I would just like to see if it is possible that WMF would have performed something this .. stupid .. to assess editors against each other. It could even mean that there are no volunteers that complained about Fram to WMF (and that is why they do not disclose more about the reason that Fram was banned) - it may even just be this algorithm. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is possibly the case, I do have a corollary to the analysis I did above with the tool. Evidently the more text is plugged into it (and this includes a revision ID) the lower the overall score appears to be as opposed to with individual statements in that revision. The "Fuck ArbCom" post, taken as a whole (via searching by revision ID) scores 21% attack/29% aggro. This is, notably, less than the average rating for all the individual statements I scored (~40/~41). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 03:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That is why it would be informative to see whether Fram's average is indeed 'one of the highest ones on this site' (keeping in mind that we know that it doesn't mean a lot). (somehow I expect that this theory is also not right, but lets see if it would be a viable option). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    Follow up on actual use of Detox

    • I have asked @JEissfeldt (WMF): "Can you confirm that the tool has not been used to evaluate editors, and that any papers etc based upon its results will be withdrawn?". Just because the tool has been shut down does not mean it has not already caused harm. There are also questions of competency about its development, but for now we do need to know just what it has been used for. DuncanHill (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    No good is coming out of this

    I can imagine some possible scenarios.

    1. Suppose that Fram really did engage in some egregiously bad behavior, and the victim later decides to give up her anonymity and talk to the media about it. Fram's defenders will look really bad as a result. "We didn't know Fram had done that" wouldn't be a particularly good defense if the victim points out, "Well, the Foundation told you that what Fram had done was bad enough to ban him for a year. Why would you defend him without even knowing what he had been banned for?"

    2. Suppose that no further statement is forthcoming from the Foundation or the victim, and Fram serves out his one-year ban and decides to return to the English Wikipedia and run for adminship. Given that the community members on enwiki who care about this issue appear to be largely pro-Fram, I would guess he would likely be returned to adminship. (I suspect that the vast majority of editors on English Wikipedia are not aware of this situation at all, but those who care will presumably be around for the RfA.) This would likely increase the hostility of the Foundation toward our community's self-governance. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe the Foundation has already pretty clearly showed their hostility toward it. Now, I agree there aren't any great outcomes here, but rolling over and letting them do it is not a good ending either. The best outcome would be if they'd sent it to ArbCom to begin with, but we've already crossed that bridge. But "Oh, they might become hostile to us if we shoot back" is not a very convincing rationale. WMF committed the hostile act here, not this community. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Metropolitan90: I guess that you have not really understood what we are all so upset about. I, for one, will condemn WMF's behaviour in this case even if they are right. You're right though that nothing good comes of this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Fram wouldn't be able to return without every single movement he makes being scrutinised by whoever reported him or by T&S. This is in effect a indefinite ban, especially as neither Fram nor the community has been told anything worthwhile as to what he did and how to correct it, or where the policies about harassment are deficient and how to correct them. This will keep happening and happening. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 18:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I havent written one word in support of Fram because I have no idea what he is even accused of doing. If somebody were to come forward and say Fram did X, Y, and Z on-wiki and those actions constitute harassment and here are the diffs I would listen to them respectfully and make my own judgment on it (though that judgment wouldnt really matter that much). What I am opposed to is this idea that we have a secret police that uses secret evidence in secret trials for matters that fundamentally are on-wiki issues. If Fram harassed a user on-wiki then the diffs are still here (assuming they havent been oversighted, and I understand that has already been verified to be the case). If he harassed somebody off-wiki, which I doubt as I have no reason to believe he is lying to us, then fine, say that already and I bet most of the people here will move on. Why would you defend him without even knowing what he had been banned for? Because I dont know what he is banned for, and as far as I can tell neither does he. Does it not bother you that an unappealable ban can be issued without even telling somebody what they are presumed to be guilty of? Does it not bother you that an unappealable ban can be issued without a person even having a token opportunity to defend himself? I dont even know if Ive ever come across Fram, but my objection to this has nothing to do with Fram. I object to a Trust & Safety team that appears untrustworthy, that claims an absolute power over this community, that explicitly provides no recourse for an unjustified ban. What protects any user from a T&S ban that is not based on any actual misconduct but a personal beef with one of the members on the team? Do they have any conflict of interest policies? Any way of enforcing them? Any way of knowing if one is at play? As far as I can tell the answer to each of those questions is no. So without knowing why Fram was banned I feel completely comfortable objecting to this entire process. nableezy - 18:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the ambiguity of my last comment. I meant that if WMF saw that we were giving adminship back to Fram, that would lead to WMF/T&S banning more English Wikipedia admins, since they can apparently find evidence of hostile attitudes in even innocuous edits like tagging an article with {{primary sources}} and {{third-party}} templates. By that standard, any admin could be banned. I'm not saying that we should roll over and play dead for the Foundation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And as far as something truly bad coming out about Fram, there's a much better answer to that: "Fram's on-wiki edits were scrutinized and none were found to be particularly inappropriate. In conversation with the WMF, members of the community repeatedly asked whether something besides Fram's editing had been involved, and that question was not answered, even in a general sense without revealing detail. Given this, we acted to the best of our ability based upon the information we had, and the confusion caused is one main reason we generally oppose closed-door processes." Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Fram has said very explicitly that he did not do anything off-wiki that could possibly be applicable here, and the communications he received from T&S that he made public indicate that all of the concerns were on-site at en-wiki. If he is being truthful about that, then it eliminates the possibility that he did something awful off-site that we don't know about. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still impossible to reconcile "awful off-site" with "one year ban".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ding ding ding. Actually, if the WMF wanted to do something quietly they could have just globally banned him indefinitely. Think most people would have shrugged and assumed something awful happened off-site and left it alone. This is not me giving them ideas hopefully. nableezy - 19:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course there is a potentially good outcome of this (completely independent of what eventually happens to Fram and his accusers). A good outcome would be an WMF internal redesign of the handling of such cases by T&S as well as a redesign of the community processes and responsibilities. A redesign that provides for more transparency and a clear assignment of responsibilities for WMF and community.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • The OP misses the point. I didn't resign my admin bit as a sign of solidarity with Fram. Frankly, we don't like each other, but we manage to work together because we both can be professional. I have no idea if his transgressions warranted a ban, but that isn't the issue. My complaint is that it should have been handled by Arb, if needed in private, and the WMF shouldn't have simply imposed a one year ban on a long time editor and admin and just told us "he deserved it". That is insufficient. The problem is how the WMF has gradually grown to show less and less respect to the greater community and they are all too willing to impose upon us, yet unwilling to show the same accountability we would expect from admin here. This was just the final straw for many of us. My user page explains more. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    More bits bite the dust

    Boing! said Zebedee and Dennis Brown have handed their tools in. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended content

    Link: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. That brings us a total of 8 admin (and 1 non-admin) resignations. Names at WP:FRAMSUM. starship.paint (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard Lectonar ....I will refrain from elaborating, but unless we can see in the clear, please remove my bit. and GB fan (no reason stated) have resigned adminship. starship.paint (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Not only the WMF/T&S needs to review their procedures and handling but the community too

    From what i've seen/read so far about the whole affair I really dislike these opaque office action by T&S for cases that should ideally be handled by the community. Office actions should be restricted to clear illegalities or rather extreme harrassment, anything else including less severe harassment or "common" inappropriate behaviour should be handled (and sanctioned) by the community.

    However this require community procedures and handling of such affairs to be sufficiently efficient. To that regard I really think it was a failure of the community to allow fram to be an admin for so lomg and that it did not deadmin him. while I value Fram's contribution and his focus on quality and i even can understand that repeated inappropriate behaviour is to degree tolerated by the community for otherwise valued and appreciated editors, I cannot understand why such a person can remain an admin though, From admins we need to expect more than from an average editors in terms of behaviour.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    +1Yger (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that why we have ArbCom - They have and can handle incivility (including when it is with private information). If anything, we could do with some RfCs where we agree upon the norms that ArbCom should enforce there. For all we know, user:Kmhkmh WMF is considering my comment to you as 'too aggressive' and that adds up to my score together with some complaints and gets me banned. It is questionable whether Fram has properly overstepped the current on-wiki civility norms of on-wiki commenting to others, and it is even questionable whether those norms would have been overstepped if they were more stringent. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes we have Arcom for that, I'm just saying I have the impression that processes around Arbcom andfor dealing with incivilty are not efficient enough. That is too slow and too bureaucratic to deal with incivility. Another problem is informal support networks of people behaving in an incivile manner, which can slow down or even block the community procedures dealing with it. Maybe something like an Ombusman frm the community would help, somebody people can complain to in confidence and who advises but without making a judgement/sentencing himself. Instead he could file a request with arbcom on behalf of others and initiate an arbcom process.
    As far as Fram is concerned I can only superficially assess but from what I've read (including statements/admisions by himself) he clearly overstepped borders/ behaved incivile fashion. Probably nothing that requires ban but just a reprimand but certainly enough to be considered unacceptable for an admin imho.
    But be that as it may I completely agree that opaque behaviour of T&S is unacceptable as well. Right now (based on several incidence with T&S not just the Fram case) one might get the impression, that people having personal connection to T&S might get a favour und T&S simply claiming that's not the case (but nothing else) is hardly convincing. T&S needs to achieve better balance between transparency and privacy protection. One option might be that T&S takes on the role of the ombudsman mentined above rather than issuing office action in cases of incivility/less severe harrassment.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two points here that are particular to the Fram case, but are general principles; i) Has Fram been subject to a Request at Arbcom, or have an ANI post regarding civility, or a RfC (I honestly do not know, I have been away for pretty much over a year), because Arbcom are not going to act without steps being taken, and ii) the complaint went to T&S/WMF instead of via any of the above - understandably considering all but Arbcom requires public knowledge/participation. Perhaps Fram should have been sanctioned by WP:EN, but that did not happen for issues regarding sensitivity. It is clearly a WP:EN related issue, given the terms of the ban, but it was not placed through those channels. That is possibly the bigger issue than what Fram may or may not have done. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    How ist the normal way for the enWP-community to get rid of an unsuitable admin? How can adminship be revoked by the community? I for one can't even see who is an admin, as the usual (A) doesn't appear here and I'ev so far not found the helper to activate this in my preferences. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    With a great deal of difficulty and drama. Ultimately it is via an Arbcom hearing or Office action, but in the former there are several hoops to be jumped through - evidence of attempts to address the matter - and in the latter it has traditionally been a case of "firefighting" the effect of an admin going "rogue" (I apologise for the idioms). All attempts at a community based method of removal of the admin buttons have failed. Some admins have voluntary procedures, but the majority of them are not liable to be actioned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems to be a point the en.wp community needs to address, at least some other language communities have easier procedures for that, which in my expereience/perception (based on the de.wp example) have reduced admin misbehaviour.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Fram's actions and his use of admin tools are unrelated. Most of what T&S alleges Fram is being sanctioned for (talk page and noticeboard posts) are things that could be done with or without administrator tools. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 19:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    That's right, but admins should behave exemplary and not in the way Fram has communicated. In the deWP no admin with such a foul mouth would stay an admin for quite some time, s/he will get de-admined asap via the usual community procedure, an Adminwiederwahlverfahren (Admin re-election procedure), that will automatically start, once 25 editors ask for it in a month, or 50 in half a year. The 25 would get on the list in less then a week, methinks. With the eternal adminship on enWP no community input ist really possible for such unsuitable admins, I think, that's not a good idea. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    At the same time, the de.wp method would not be viable on en.wp. Any admin that gets into any sort of controversy, or works in any area with extreme partisanship (see: Any area under arbcom or community sanctions, or working Arbitration Enforcement for same) would easily hit either the 25/mo or 50/yr threshold for an automatic recall, and as it stands it's widely agreed that the requests-for-adminship process is broken (lack of realistic candidates willing to stand, borderline hounding of candidates), but there's no consensus on how to fix it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 20:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    But there's no reason to think that Fram wouldn't have been WMF-banned had he not been an admin. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they would have been more reprimanded for being foul-mouthed have they not been admin. Some short blocks for incivility, and perhaps they would have improved their behaviour, and there would have been no pretense for T&S to act at all. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that this is possibly related, but that T/S and the WMF needs to be more forthright about it if that's the case. All of their statements so far have implied that the reason they stepped in to handle this was because it relied on information that could not be safely shared. If they have a larger concern that the community should have de-admined or even banned Fram over existing, public knowledge about him (that is to say, they think our existing anti-harassment policies are insufficient at removing uncivil users), they need to convey that to us so we can tighten up to meet their standards. This isn't unusual, and it's something we've handled in the past - both WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO are cases where the community handles things while ultimately having a dictate from above saying "you have to handle it to this standard." I feel like we need something like that for harassment cases as well, rather than just having T&S stepping in directly like this. (In addition to the disruption problem, the size of the Wikipedia community means that the bulk of harassment issues ultimately must be handled at a community level, so it's really better to work through the community as much as possible anyway. All else aside, and regardless of whatever magic machine-learning tools they might be looking into, T&S doesn't scale - it can't handle harassment in a satisfactory way all on its own.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no magic there and "banned by AI" is imho way worse than "banned by T&S".--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yeah, my comment was meant to be dismissive of that - clearly the technology is not there yet (if it ever will be prior to Strong AI.) Though it's important to remember that everything people have said about that above is speculative. The point is, if the real issue T&S has here is that they think Fram should have been banned by the community long ago and our failure to do so is what led them to step in, or that they didn't trust our representatives to ban Fram even with an anonymized summary of what he did, and felt that this case was so severe that that likelihood represented an unacceptable failure on the part of our anti-harassment policies, then that's a discussion we need to have. "Wikipedia's community WP:CIVIL / anti-harassment policies need to be stricter and more aggressive" might make some people unhappy, but it's at least a way forward, and we've dealt with similar dictates for WP:BLP and the like. T&S can't be a substitute for community self-moderation, and as this outcry shows, we should try to structure our policy so they need to step in as rarely as possible. But to do that, we need more clarity on what broke down here and how we can ensure the community is capable of handling cases like this on its own in the future. --Aquillion (talk) 05:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Purpose of T&S, can someone explain?

    Let me admit: I do not get it. Which of these cases does T&S take on?

    1. Clearly illegal actions
    2. Actions where it is questionable if they are legal or not
    3. Clearly legal actions

    Should (1) and (2) not rather be reported to the Police, and (3) be left alone?

    1. Actions unacceptable to the community
    2. Actions where it is questionable if they are acceptable to the community or not
    3. Clearly acceptable actions

    Should (1) and (2) not rather be reported to the community, and (3) be left alone? And in the cases T&S take, they are Police, judge, jury, and prison warden, is that correct? --Pgallert (talk) 10:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as I can see its purpose is to undermine trust in the WMF, and create an unsafe environment in which editors can never know if they are being subject to secret processes enforcing secret policies. DuncanHill (talk) 10:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Just because something is "clearly legal", that doesn't mean it's appropriate for an online encyclopaedia-building community. Wikimedia have written a lengthy terms of use, much of which is designed to ensure that people of all backgrounds can edit here in a safe and collegiate environment. T&S can, and IMHO should, intervene where those terms of use are seriously broken, illegally or otherwise. Not commenting in whether it was justified in the case of Fram, because I don't know. But in general I don't think it's unreasonable for them to take action in such cases. — Amakuru (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone does something illegal, the police might be responsible for persecuting said individual in the real world but the WMF (and specifically T&S) needs to remove illegal content and ban such users as well because otherwise they would be prosecuted. Reporting something to the authorities and removing something here are not mutually exclusive, in fact, they are both needed. Something similar applies to clear ToS violations, especially when the evidence cannot be published without putting real people at risk. So it makes sense to have someone deal with such cases. Whether this was one of those, is another question. Regards SoWhy 11:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pgallert, this post shows a significant lack of knowledge about what the legal responsibilities of a web host are —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    TheDJ, I already admitted that when posting. --Pgallert (talk) 09:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Legal where? There are an awful lot of legal systems around the world with completely different expectations. Jehochman Talk 16:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reporting something to the police does not absolve the WMF of their legal obligations, ie. if something flatly illegal is posted here they have to remove it regardless of whether they report it or not, and can't just subject that to community consensus (or, well, technically they could, but they'd have to override us if we reached the wrong decision - technically this is the case on some WP:COPYVIO stuff, where the rules and enforcement are done by the community and there's some gray areas where we can decide how, precisely, to implement and enforce them, especially around fair use, but we don't realistically have the option to just stop enforcing them entirely, and the WMF would clearly have to step in if we tried.) That said, I agree that T&S needs to be more unambiguous about when it will step in and when it won't, both for the sake of relations with the community and so people making reports will know where they should go. The explanations for why this case couldn't be handled by ArbCom seem insufficient. --Aquillion (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    SoWhy, Aquillion, removing content is something entirely different from removing an editor. If people are at risk then the Police, not some self-declared do-gooders, need to get involved. --Pgallert (talk) 09:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. If someone posts illegal content, not only the content needs to be removed but also the poster be prevented from re-adding such content. The WMF is not the only organization that is by law required to self-police illegal content on their services, regardless of any additional criminal prosecution. Calling someone "do-gooders" for doing what is legally required is not helpful. Regards SoWhy 13:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the measured response, SoWhy. Probably because of own experience I have skipped much of that argument, which is: Someone harasses me. This is illegal where I live. If I am required (by work contract, by ToU, whatever) to use the internal process to report it, instead of going directly to the Police, my protection is diminished, not extended, by the internal process. If the unit concludes that it was indeed harassment but does not allow the legal procedure to take its course, then they mean well but do actual harm.
    I think we have something like that at Wikipedia, too. If someone harasses me and I explain my intention to take action, them I'm very quickly in WP:THREAT territory. That's why I think this process does more harm than good. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    One matter that we have tended to overlook in this discussion -- & T&S has not been helpful in reminding us of this -- is that there are certain cases we need to hand over to some unit of the Foundation. (These have been mentioned above, but with all of this text to plow thru, it's easy to miss them.) Those include matters of child pornography, threats of violence or self-harm, & other incidents that need to be handled quickly (e.g. libel or complaints of copyright violations) or are facilitated by having a someone with a Foundation title handle instead of a volunteer. (Think of the occasional suicide threat made on our pages: experience has shown law enforcement responds much more positively if a Foundation employee reporting this than if the average Wikipedia volunteer does.) But as it has been pointed out, these are specific instances; just because T&S can intervene because someone makes a clear threat to harm someone else, this does not extend to dealing pre-emptively with someone who is allegedly harassing someone else. Even if a case can be made that some unit of the Foundation needs to intervene because our processes have failed, the burden of proof lies on that unit; they not only must provide justification for intervening, they are subject to the community rejecting their justification. This is how partners behave. -- llywrch (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The strings "child protection" and "child pornography" appear seven times on this discussion page. So this aspect is not quite overlooked. The fact that these cases are exclusively handled by WMF staff is not and has never been objected to by the community. However, Frams ban apparently is none of these. The very fact that the ban is partial (English WP only) and temporary (one year) gives away, that it is none of these cases. In addition, there was a build-up over several months with two formal warnings. So there was no need for quick action, either.
    The WMF is firmly in community territory here. Given, that there was precedence like the Jannemann/Edith Wahr case in German Wikipedia, this is not by accident. ---<)kmk(>- (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Most likely you are right. A indef ban, as has been pointed out, would have gotten grumbling but little more. A one-year ban and a desysoping got people's attention.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wehwalt, I hope that was not the only alarm that would have set this all off. (It's similar to admitting that losing a hand was objectionable, but people would have acquiesced to losing an entire arm.) There have been other things that made things worse: Fram had no idea why he was banned, no one could find a clear reason in his edit history that justified the ban, the unhelpful responses from T&S about this matter. (Raystorm would have helped herself by simply answering the question was she involved with only a terse "no.") There's just too many things that don't look right about this, & too many previous occasions when the Foundation arrogated rights from the projects. This is just another case of the WMF being amazingly clueless about how to work with its volunteer community. (Or maybe one person at the WMF being amazingly clueless.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I never intended to defend T&S for sanctioning Fram. I guess I was unclear about that, but am unsure how I remove the ambiguity. -- llywrch (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Perspective & choices

    I came upon this today in The Economist Expresso; "An anti-Brexit demonstration in March was the biggest protest since the Iraq war."

    So, in my mind, that is a reminder that with the passage of time the overreach and wrongful exercise of authority by people who have been given authority (in the Iraq war case, Tony Blair) all is forgiven, forgotten and the abusers ( imo ) of such authority often return to places of respect and leadership ( e.g. Blair and W. Bush).

    In fact, such authoritarianism (imo) is and has been so common and so often with regard to extreme matters of life and death ( usually unnecessary wars ), that its likely naïve for anybody to be very surprised or upset by what's going on here.

    When the authoritarianism is such that it riles up large segments of the effected community, e.g. Vietnam War, whatever got the Yellow Vests thing going, segregation laws in the USA South, "Let them eat cake" in France, "Tea tax" in the USA, the super aggressive (imo) treatment of Aaron Swartz and Julian Assange, the effected community has only 4 choices that I can think of:

    1: Do nothing and try not to think about it too much

    2: Accept and rationalize the justification for the abusive authoritarianism

    3: Demonstrate/Protest against the specific incident/event

    4: Revolt against and strip away the authority of the specific regime.

    In this particular matter, I do not, as someone alluded to earlier, have enough experience or skin in the game to, with authority (pun), guess or propose which of the 4 paths the community should take, but I can offer my opinion based upon what I've seen within this community and read about the current state of affairs which is:

    Choice 3: is a no-go. The personalities of the editors are simply too cooperative and peaceful to choose this. Also, since I do not hear about any substantial demonstrations on behalf of Assange near where he is imprisoned, I just don't see the passion and time dedication necessary to do that, and even if it were to be done, the authorities have become super psychologically effective at appeasing and or waiting out the demonstrators; Macron being the best I've ever seen. Also, if the authorities are determined enough, they can usually keep doing what they want to do for years, regardless of the numbers or passion of the protestors (Vietnam War).

    Choice 4: This is the least likely yet most constructive and courageous choice for the project, imo, however I do not have any idea as to how to go about this, though I think others here do know exactly how to go about it. Least likely for a whole host of reasons, primarily a lack of passion.

    Choices 1 or 2 or a combination thereof: Extremely likely especially given the constant turnover of new editors and the more sheepish nature (imo ) of the younger generations as they stream into this and other platforms. Also, the overwhelming majority of editors know nothing about this whatsoever. Those who voice such anger and disappointment have not, as far as I know, taken any action to inform the general public ( which is the only way to reach the majority of the editors, imo ). Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    To do #4, write and ratify a new constitution. If WMF won't "start over" following it, we tell the world what the problem is, and tell them to redirect their Wiki donations to a new foundation. Whatever fraction they get will be enough to start a new un-bloated foundation to run it within the new constitution. Or merely starting on this path might be enough to get the needed changes in the current WMF. North8000 (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WMF is not a government that we are forced to deal with. We are subject to its authority only if we want to edit on its websites. Consequently, a Choice 5 exists: to reduce or end one's participation in Wikipedia activities. There are other things that we can do with our spare time besides editing or performing administrative functions for Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is partially true, but I don't consider that a way of dealing "with" an issue as the other 4 are. One can also leave a country with a government they can't stomach, and, I can not think of any country today that anyone is forced to stay in and deal with, so, yes, leaving the platform/country is always an option but not in a way that addresses the problem at hand. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Replace WMF staff

    I also, in thinking more about Blair in the analogy above, think the main reason we have these conflicts with people in authority is because of a lack of intelligence and/or competence within the people put into authority. I do not think Blair is an evil or bad guy, but to tell Bush “I will be with you, whatever.”, shows he should not have had that authority in the first place. I'm getting the opinion that the same holds true re: the WMF people. They are starting to look to me more like Keystone Kops than anything else, and if that's the case, we can't focus blame on them or even expect them to correct the situation. And if that's the case, the only solution is to get most or all of them out of their positions and bring in an entirely new and much more competent group of replacements. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this page a representative sample of the community?

    See caption
    Chart showing number of edits by editor on this page as of 24 Jun 2019 per xtools

    This page was created by copying a 178k thread. Since then, according to xtools:

    • 421 editors have edited this page
    • More than half of them (228 editors) have made less than 5 edits to this page
    • 309 editors (73%) made less than 10 edits to this page
    • 46 editors (11%) made 25 or more edits to this page
    • 18 editors (4%) made 50 or more edits to this page
    • 4 editors (1%) made 100 or more edits to this page

    By comparison, there are about 3,500 "very active" editors (100+ edits/month) and about 30,000 "active" editors (5+ edits/month). Seems like on this page, we're mostly hearing from about 50 or so editors, which is like 1% or less of the entire community of contributors. – Levivich 21:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit count is a weak measure - bytes added would be a better measure, but still far from perfect. The sample is certainly a bigger fraction of the total than for most national political polls in major countries. It also is self-selected, so probably not representative. I would assume that many editors who only work in non-controversial mainspace and have little or no interest in governance of the project have not even noticed the kerfuffle. But that is the established way we use for most decisions - interested editors chime in, and the "silent majority" is silently ignored. Look at the numbers of voters at RfA or even for ArbCom elections. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I only have to make 5 more edits to this page before my opinion counts! --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure that there are many others (like me) who are watching and following the events, but not actively participating in the discussions.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In my case, I was watching silently and wanting to participate but fearing reprisal from WMF. It took me a week to get past that worry. My take is, if there is a silent majority or silent group of editors, there is no real way to measure their desires. In that case, silence almost inevitably gets treated as some sort of consent. Some form of anonymous voting would be a better way of getting people involved... but as is the general problem with Wikipedia, the sheer volume of discussion to review to make your choice is repellant on its own. You can dress it up in whatever statistical analysis you want, at the end of the day you're talking about "silence means consent". —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Meaningless. To repeat, a University of Minnesota 2007 study concluded that 44% of wikipedia content was created by 0.1% of editors, while 10% created 86% of edits. So?
    I'm not the only one who makes 1 edit out of a dozen that come to mind on reading threads here, (a) because many comments express what I think, are more incisively and eloquently stated and reduplication is unnecessary (b) the more self-restraint one exercises, the less intimidating the length and density will appear to be, so that a wider range of people will feel comfortable to join in the discussion. The whole point of this immense fuck-up lies in the excessive confidence heads at T&S have in the ability of analytic tools to give one the correct answers by the kind of numerical breakdown we get above. A power freak will look at the above and say, 'Ha! This upset is just a few dozen loud-mouth 'inciters' stirring up a rather lackadaisical mob. Statistically, we can therefore ignore the shitstirrers, as just 1-10% (Lenin's quorum) of the 441 who bothered to grumble, who are in turn less than one percent of the active 'community'.' Nishidani (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) This is no different from how most community discussions go—in fact, in terms of editor participation, it’s much better. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I think the page represents a self-selecting group of editors on Wikipedia. I don't see it reflecting a true consensus. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    One could say that about any discussion page anywhere on Wikipedia. Les absents ont toujours tort DuncanHill (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's weird...what are you positing, that no consensus on Wikipedia represents consensus? All pages represent a self-selecting group of editors. Grandpallama (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not necessary to post every day; not necessary to reiterate what's already been said; copyediting comments skews edit counts; there is an element of fear; this content contributor does care; and finally the last time I commented I was told to back off and watch tone. So, there's no need to contribute. Victoria (tk) 22:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's listed at WP:CENT, and for any other kind of RfC-like process the amount of participation here would be considered sufficient to establish a consensus (or no consensus). Of course, we are dealing here with a particularly difficult and contentious topic, but I don't think that there is a requirement for a higher bar. As in most discussions, there are good-faith editors who disagree with the ultimate consensus, but we don't require unanimity. Editors who feel outnumbered deserve a fair hearing, but ultimately they might consider WP:1AM. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • What Espresso Addict says. Am watching and am unhappy with the train of events, but wary about the risk of polarising camps. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think most of the editors never heard about this. If you want to go tell them, be my guest! What you are pointing out is that, once again, we lack a jury system on Wikipedia -- a democratic reform we need to make our community response to harassment better, and to make our community response to totalitarian initiatives against harassment better. Wnt (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been watching, too; no need to say too much. Do appreciate Aquillion's comments, though. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 01:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been watching, here and elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I, too, have mostly been lurking in regards to this whole issue. I have had plenty of IRL stuff going on to keep me busy lately. I have not significantly interacted directly with Fram on-wiki, so I have not formed a strong opinion one way or another about Fram. I am, however, concerned about the lack of transparency, potential backstage conflicts of interest, and finality (i.e. "no appeals because we're 100% infallible") that accompanied the sanctions placed against Fram, among other things. I'll continue to lurk, and I will register my opinion about a particular proposal or topic if I feel strongly compelled to. EclipseDude (Chase Totality) 05:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same, I haven't been commenting, but I'm still waiting for a real explanation from WMF/Jimbo/ArbCom. I suspect I may be waiting for a long time... >:( -FASTILY 05:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I commented a couple of times early on but have just been lurking since then. Like many others, my concern is the process rather than specifically Fram, as I noted at User_talk:Sitush#Fram. I would rather retain my dignity and not edit than be subjected to an undignified "disappearance" at the command of the WMF. - Sitush (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was vocal at the beginning, but now I prefer to let the leaders of this community direct the next steps. Specifically Seraphimblade and Carcharoth are doing excellent work here. Although I feel my voice is welcome, I would rather now let editors I trust implicitly steer us. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't responded earlier, and I haven't read everything, but I've read at least the statements and summaries, and I've been trying to keep up with some of the discussions. I'm starting to form an opinion that's a bit more nuanced than my initial gut reaction. As soon as there's something like a concrete proposal or RFC, I'll try and formulate my stance on that. For the rest, I don't like drama or bureaucracy, so I've stayed silent. There's probably many more people like me, who are reading but not commenting. rchard2scout (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a wikignome and have been reading this page with increasing unhappiness but have not as yet commented. I have today emailed Katherine Maher, copied to Jan Eissfeldt, to express some of that unhappiness, as suggested in the section below. PamD 12:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • +1 to watching, reading, digesting but not feeling I can add anything above or beyond some of the more eloquent arguments on this page. Page views rather than number of editors might be a better yardstick of whether this is representative or not. Woody (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that it depends what you mean by 'the community?' Most people don't get involved in meta discussions like this at all. But this just based on the names we're seeing here, this is a decent subset of the "power users" that are probably going to need to be onboard with any changes to eg. our handling of harassment and WP:CIVIL, in part because they'll be many of the people involved in enforcing it. And the "this page isn't representative of the community" argument makes me slightly nervous because by the standard you're setting here, nothing is representative of the community (even ArbCom elections generally just have a few hundred people participating, for instance.) Pages like this are imperfect, but they're the best voice the community has available - if we discounted them, we'd be left viewing Wikipedia as a vague, amorphous mass that can't meaningfully participate in dialog with WMF at all, which I don't think is useful or entirely accurate. And certainly the sort of 'power users' on this page can produce meaningful changes to Wikipedia's policies and culture over time when we reach a collective agreement - we've managed to do so in the past. It takes time, and often there's going to have to be a more liminal sort of back-and-forth as the things discussed on central pages like this percolate out and attract more back-and-forth with people focused on other parts of the process, gradually refining them; but there's no centralized "voice of the community" or anything like that. This is as good as it gets. That's part of why I've said that, assuming the core issue here is that the WMF feels the community is failing to properly deal with harassment and incivility, the solution is probably a centralized WP:BLP style solution where they hand down a hard dictate on what we have to accomplish, which we then dig into and refine and which slowly gets refined further by the people who didn't participate in the original discussion until it reaches some sort of stable consensus. That's the more Wikipedia-like way of handling these issues - not grand futile gestures by the community members or enigmatic, unanswerable Facebook-style moderation from inside a walled tower. The WMF should be using its authority to make the community do what it wants through existing community channels, and should try to minimize this sort of overt Gordian-knot bypass to our existing policies. I mean, regardless of whether Fram earned a ban or not, he's just one user; if something's wrong with how we're doing things, we need a solution that scales and works within our existing system in a way that can actually impact day-to-day user experience... not random bolts of annihilating lightning from the WMF-heavens. --Aquillion (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to add my name as a previously silent editor who has been concerned by what he has been reading here about the actions of the WMF. Wikipedia is a really impressive example of the WWW working as originally intended, to foster collaboration. I am sure that is because the community is largely self-governed. High-handed, unexplained edicts denying the right of appeal, or even just the appearance of this, could destroy this spirit of cooperation. Jmchutchinson (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Jmchutchinson, Hear-hear! Elfabet (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find this situation troubling and disheartening. My not having posted here is not for a lack of concern; rather that, like Woody, I didn't feel that I could add anything. This should probably be discussed in a different section: I don't recall seeing any mention of today's Wikimedia Research Showcase, scheduled for 11.30 Pacific time, a little less than six hours from now (I think). The topics are 'Trajectories of Blocked Community Members', 'Automatic Detection of Online Abuse in Wikipedia', and 'First Insights from Partial Blocks in Wikimedia Wikis'. I won't be able to watch it, but I hope that others here will, and post anything that might be relevant. (edit) Sorry, on a second reading, I see the 'partial blocks' in the research showcase isn't the 'partial block' Fram got; it's a different kind. I should be sleeping instead of posting. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I only remember fixing a minor technical issue here, not commenting, except at a(n ex-)bureaucrat's page. I may have thanked a few others who resigned expressing the wish that they come back. —PaleoNeonate – 13:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I expressed agreement to an edit at AN. —PaleoNeonate – 13:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 421 editors do NOT represent "the community". Any coalescing of opinions expressed here only represents the consensus of these 421 editors. People who disagree with the tone, language and direction of discourse of this page are keeping their distance and continuing their work on the project. I don't agree with Fram's ban but we also don't know every consideration that went into this decision.
    I'm getting tired of hearing editors say on other discussion pages that the vocal majority HERE represents the larger community EVERYWHERE ELSE. You don't. Most editors are staying out of WMF internal politics and are just getting on with the business of working on the project. Liz Read! Talk! 00:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm reading -- not everything, but I'm trying to keep up -- and waiting. Things are still developing, and I want to give them a chance to shake out before concluding I know enough to form an educated opinion. Until then I'm trying to assume good faith all around. --valereee (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, and if any admin is claiming there's no "consensus" due to a "silent majority", I suggest you think about your own RfA, where far less people commented, and you were promoted anyway despite the lack of consensus and the "silent majority" that obviously felt differently than the people commenting (per the logic presented here). Enigmamsg 15:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Please contact WMF

    I'm repeating here some of what I said above, as I feel it may have got lost in the quick flow of words that appear on this page.

    I am not sure how much the WMF are monitoring this page. Nor am I sure how effective or helpful gestures of civil disobedience would be, though I quite understand the passion that propels such ideas. I feel the same passions and frustrations. My suggestion (as an individual member of this community, not as a member of ArbCom) would be for folks to communicate directly to WMF. Not rudely or aggressively, but in the same spirit of creative humanist endeavour that propelled this community to make Wikipedia in the first place. If everyone, instead of posting here, wrote a polite email to people in WMF explaining how they feel about this situation, and how they feel that what is needed right now is open dialogue between the community and WMF as to how we can better work together, that might achieve something. From various things I have read recently that have been linked here about the Foundation's proposals for our "toxic" community, I suspect that there has been a fix in the Foundation on the negative aspects of the community. I think it is time we showed that we are not entirely toxic, but that we are people who care passionately for creating a free encyclopedia that is comprehensive, trustworthy and reliable. And that, above all, we welcome open and honest discussion. If there is evidence of toxicity in our community we would welcome that being pointed out so we can deal with it. Openly, honestly, and fairly.

    I would suggest using this page [33] as a starting point. It might help to cross-reference with the flow chart - File:Trust and Safety Office action workflow.png - to better target those who may have some influence or interest in the matter. This page gets something like 7,000 daily visitors; if everyone of those wrote a polite and pleasant email to the Foundation CEO, Katherine Maher (contact page here) saying something like how they would welcome greater open dialogue between the enwiki community and the Foundation so we can work together to make Wikipedia an even greater place, then I really think we could achieve something. SilkTork (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Although admittedly it's not specifically focused on the controversy here, there is also this: [34], where this controversy has been discussed by en-wiki editors, and I sure would hope that WMF are at least paying attention to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SilkTork: Some members of ArbCom have, as I understand it, held a discussion with T&S. Should editors here understand your suggestion to imply that you feel that the message did not get through to WMF from that discussion? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I commented above on that phone call. I'll repeat it here for convenience: "People here are aware that there was a phone call discussion between some members of the Committee and Jan - as reported above, the contents of that discussion are still being chewed over. As it was a private meeting, at this stage we cannot indicate what was discussed without agreement from those involved in the discussion. When I looked at the email list a few minutes ago, there are proposals for summarising what was said, but no agreement as yet."
    I was not at the meeting, but it looks like only three members of WMF were there, and none from higher up the organisation. As the flowchart of responsibility for Office Actions includes the CEO, I should imagine she is aware of this situation, but how detailed her awareness is I couldn't say. The Foundation tend to put their messages and notices on Meta and assume that enwiki people will go there to be kept up to date. I don't know how many do, but I suspect it's a fraction of those who are looking at this page. In the same way, we cannot be putting our messages here and assuming that the Foundation, particularly the CEO, are paying close attention to our every word. But those who do contact Katherine Maher directly, will at least know for sure that she knows about the situation from them, and how they feel about it. Indeed, it may be helpful for people to report back here that they have emailed so we have some kind of record that somebody here did make her aware of it. SilkTork (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply, and in fact I had already read what you reproduced here. My reading of your reply is that there are still some things that ArbCom are thinking over, but overall that discussion ArbCom had with WMF was not all that productive, in terms of what en-wiki is looking for. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty skeptical that they'll listen to anything anyone here has to say, but what do I know? Sometimes it's time to stop being a pessimist. I guess at least nobody can accuse us of not trying to escalate this. Maybe an old-fashioned letter-writing campaign is a good idea. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well—it can't hurt. I don't know if it will do any good either, but I see no harm in giving it a try. Let's please just all remember to remain civil if you do; I'm as pissed off about that as anyone, but yelling and swearing will just get you ignored. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I feel, this page is not so much about telling the WMF but more about establishing a consensus on the position of the community. In a sense, it is also about community building. There is a distinctive lack of discord. There are quite a few gems in the pile of comments up there. (I specifically appreciate some of the arguments by Seraphimblade). ---<)kmk(>- (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    SilkTork, Katherine Maher almost certainly doesn't personally monitor her WMF mail. What reaches her is probably filtered out by her many secretaries and trip planners. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This is true, but I can say from experience that writing the head of a company does sometimes produce results. It can take time, but someone reads the mail, and things that seem important do get put on the boss's desk even if only in summary form. In one case, a relative complained to the CEO of a major regional groceries retailer, the result being a personal phone call from the company president, an executive VP of some kind, and the store manager, all of whom apologized for the issue (the tldr of the issue was that it dealt with the changeover of sale prices by the overnight shift and which prices were supposed to be honored during that overnight period). Said relative also received a personal letter apologizing for the inconvenience and a rather substantial gift card. He actually felt rather embarrassed by all the fuss one letter caused.
    I'm still ruminating over whether to write myself. Not so much because I'm concerned about whether anybody will read it, more because I don't know if I want to spend all that time writing something. That and I know my letter would probably get kicked directly to Legal given my letterhead, probably delaying any response.
    I will say that the alternative idea I've been kicking around is to suggest that people start writing letters to the editor and guest columns anywhere that'll accept and print them. I honestly feel like that might be a better use of my time, but it's obviously not for everybody. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Letters to the editor? Something like this? "Dear newspaper editor, I am an unpaid volunteer Wikipedia editor and I am really pissed off! You see, there is this Wikipedia administrator called Fram with a reputation for hounding and harassing people, and he also said "f#"k ArbCom", which is the highest elected conflict resolution body on Wikipedia. Well, anyway, the evil Wikimedia Foundation unfairly banned him for a whole year!!! How unjust! Please publicize this injustice! Sincerely, Randy from Boise." Yes, see how that PR campaign goes. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "Dear newspaper editor: There appears to be a serious issue of conflict of interest involved with the Wikimedia Foundation's actions on June 10, 2019, and the Foundation seems to be refusing to discuss any of it in public (while some of it is for legitimate privacy concerns, not all of it can be explained this way). I would especially look into the actions of Jan Eissfeldt on this matter. Sincerely, Cullen." —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 04:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Way to mischaracterize the position of everyone here and denigrate the position of someone with whom you disagree. I would never have expected this kind of behavior from you, Cullen. Really, really low. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Cullen328, some of your comments in the Geshuri fiasco were very close to expressing something around these sentiments. Also, the snark about unpaid volunteer is unnecessary.∯WBGconverse 04:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Winged Blades of Godric, I have never received one penny for editing Wikipedia, thank you very much, and your link is to an essay where I was highly critical of the WMF and its leadership at that time. So, I struggle to understand the point that you are trying to make. The point that I am trying to make now is that Fram is a mediocre poster boy for current claims of "conflict of interest" and calls to pillory a specific WMF employee. This strategy is totally counterproductive in my opinion, but I am well aware that many people believe otherwise. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The point that I am trying to make now is that Fram is a mediocre poster boy for current claims of "conflict of interest" and calls to pillory a specific WMF employee. I see nobody calling to "pillory" anybody, and there are a substantial number of people who don't know or don't give a damn about Fram or what happens to him (myself included). This is about the governance of the website, and your mischaracterization of the argument and frankly disingenuous and insulting hypersimplification of the situation at hand is probably the best case I've seen on this page of actual toxicity. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mendaliv, for nearly two weeks now, there have been repeated calls for firing Jan and various members of his staff. The most recent call went down in flames, much to the credit of the more thoughtful members of the community. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Fram ban has brought matters to a head, but that is not the real issue here. The way the ban was done reveals the extent of the lack of an appropriate relationship and effective interface between enwiki and WMF. The ban was intended to reduce toxicity on enwiki, but appears to have increased it. And it has blocked an opportunity to discuss Fram openly in an ArbCom case and to examine if his conduct is a net negative, or just needs adjustment. Some people think he is a negative, some people think he isn't. But without the evidence before us, and the opportunity for Fram to put any evidence of misconduct into context, then neither Fram nor the community will learn anything. I was hearing concerns about Fram during the GiantSnowman case and the Rama case which was making me aware that people found his approach unnecessarily harsh. That he used his admin tools to edit through full protection to revert a sitting Arb on an ArbCom page, made me think that it may be appropriate to request a case to look into that and other incidents, and I was considering opening a case as an individual, rather than as an ArbCom member. The Office Action terminated that consideration, so we have been denied the opportunity as a community to openly examine Fram's conduct and see what we can all learn from it.
    I am not advocating that the community write to WMF to complain about Fram being banned. I'm not sure that would achieve anything, and is a distraction from the real issue which is the relationship between WMF and our community. If the relationship had been more open and effective, then I don't think the Office Action would have happened. I think T&S would have allowed the community to deal with the concerns about Fram in our own way. And if the concerns about harassment and toxic atmosphere on enwiki, that have been discussed both by the WMF and by the community, could be shared, I feel we would make more progress toward finding a solution.
    So what I am advocating is that we write to WMF saying we would welcome open discussion on creating an effective dialogue between enwiki and WMF so that together we can solve problems and prevent anything like this happening again. I think once the channels are open, we can use those channels to discuss the possibility that ArbCom take over the ban, and conduct a case looking into Fram's conduct in general. SilkTork (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    SilkTork, who complained about Fram during Rama's case? In-private or am I not spotting anything? ∯WBGconverse 09:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Fram's action was discussed on the list, but due to particular logistical reasons, such as low levels of activity of the Committee members meaning it was difficult to get consensus, the matter drifted. The longer it drifted the more difficult it seemed to appropriately respond to the action. SilkTork (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have sent my email:

    Hello Katherine Maher

    I am Steve Pereira - User:SilkTork on en.wikipedia: a user, admin, and member of the English ArbCom.

    You will be aware of Trust & Safety's Office Action on en.wikipedia in which User:Fram was locally banned for one year as you will have seen the report that T&S compiled, and will have signed it off. I'm not sure, though, how much you are aware of the response of the enwiki community to that Office Action - some of it may have been brought to your attention, including the actions by two admins and a 'Crat, and the resignations of several admins, though you may not have read through the many thousands of words written at Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram and at the ArbCom case request to look into the actions of the two admins and the 'Crat: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

    It is difficult to sum up the community's exact feelings about this matter as there have been varied responses, however what appears to be emerging as a consensus is that it would be helpful for the enwiki community and the WMF to have an open dialogue on how Office Actions are handled and announced, and for the community and WMF to have an effective permanent interface on en.Wikipedia where notices could be placed, queries raised, and an open and productive dialogue on a range of issues could take place so the WMF and the community can work together to improve the project.

    The Office Action has created unrest and tension on enwiki which has not been helped by the low level of communication enwiki has received from WMF representatives regarding the matter. It would be helpful if there were some acknowledgement from yourself that you are aware of this issue, and that you would consider looking into how a permanent interface could be set up on en.Wikipedia (similar perhaps to the 'Crat Noticeboard and the ArbCom Noticeboard), and to opening a dialogue on the talkpages of such an interface where representatives of WMF and the enwiki community could look into issues such as harassment on enwiki, Office Actions, and perhaps this particular ban on Fram.

    While WMF do make announcements on Meta, the bulk of the enwiki community do not look there, so those announcements would be going to a very small audience. Announcements of projects and plans which directly impact enwiki would have greater readership and feedback if done on enwiki itself.

    With regards

    Steve (SilkTork)

    I will report back if I get an acknowledgement. SilkTork (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Steve. Any updates we can get the better: much of the anger and division at the moment is because of the perceived lack of response from the WMF (yes, we get it's difficult having people all over the place, but we're getting anodyne non-comments from Jan, and stonewalling elsewhere. Any news of forward steps is most welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. This is a very good letter. Jehochman Talk 12:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have now contacted them.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have sent Maher e-mail with the following text:

    Dear Katherine Maher.

    I write to ask you for help in resolving the issue of the English Wikipedia administrator Fram who was banned from the project by the Trust & Safety team for unclear reasons. This unexplained and sudden ban has shaken the confidence of many editors in the Wikimedia Foundation and harmed its relationship with the English Wikipedia community.

    I have contributed to Wikipedia since 2003 and I hope to continue doing so for many years to come. It is important to me that contributors to Wikipedia should not be subject to unexplained arbitrary bans without pressing legal necessity.

    A very satisfactory resolution to the current issue would be for Fram to be unbanned and restored as administrator. Any concerns the Trust & Safety team has with his conduct could then be forwarded to the community-elected ArbCom for further investigation. I ask you to please help in resolving the matter so we can move on from this vexing energy sink and get on with building the encyclopedia.

    Best regards,

    Dr. [etc.]

    I think the more Wikipedians send letters, the greater our chances of having an effect. Haukur (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I sent an email early this morning (Pacific time). I have made allusions/analogies to material under NDA, so I cannot post the full email. I suppose I could redact it like the Muller Report but I am not sure it is worth it. --Rschen7754 18:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I won't be posting it because I don't want to risk accidentally leaking something I shouldn't. But I don't have a response yet as of now. It was a fairly long email though, so I suppose a response might take some time. --Rschen7754 00:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    If any editors who sent messages to WMF have gotten responses, it would be very interesting to find out whatever of the response you are able to reveal. Are they engaging with you substantively? Or are they just stonewalling with canned answers? The answer to that is likely to influence what the community here will do next. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    No reply so far. --Rschen7754 01:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No reply so far, and no acknowledgement that the email has been received. SilkTork (talk) 08:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No reply and no acknowledgement. Haukur (talk) 11:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much, all of you! Needless to say (but of course I'm saying it anyway) please keep all of us informed of anything new that emerges. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea. Note left. SilkTork (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is a good place to leave messages, as it appears that page is monitored, and gets replies. Also, everything there is in the open, and a record is kept. So, perhaps instead of emails, people could write to her there. SilkTork (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    ArbCom Vacancies

    It seems that part of WMF motivation to get involved in policing en-wiki is that our ArbCom has been suffering from attrition and can't always get things done. It was mentioned that ArbCom was concerned about some of Fram's activities but this wasn't followed up properly because of lack of human resources.

    Would it make sense to keep a list of community volunteers willing to serve as interim arbitrators so that vacancies are filled immediately when they occur? The elected members of ArbCom could pick whoever they think would be suitable from the list of volunteers. This way ArbCom would always remain at full power and be able to get things done. Jehochman Talk 12:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Sweet Lord no. Arbcom is a community-elected body. Granting arbitrators the power to arbitrarily (wordplay not intended) fill vacancies on the committee with whomever they feel like is a short road to dictatorship, especially given that the current committee seems to have no problem with repeatedly inventing powers for itself without (or against) community input. If there is an issue with attrition and vacancy on the committee, hold a special election to fill vacancies. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What if a group of nominees were posted for a week or two of community comments. That way if there were serious, but unknown, problems with any candidate, there would be an opportunity to challenge them. This could operate like the process for selecting Checkusers and Oversighters. Jehochman Talk 13:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Better, but the process for selecting CU/OS is still pretty secretive. Even the candidates don't know why we are appointed (or why not), regardless of community comments. If they're only appointed to fill a vacancy until the next election, I'm fine with that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Half way between the 2018 and 2019 elections, the committee has ten active members, two inactive and a vacancy. It was reduced in size from 15 to 13 a couple of years ago, do we need to reverse that, or maybe have a mid year by election if there is a resignation? My assumption is that ten is sufficient, provided they are sufficiently active, but I know from Arbs I have spoken to in the past that the activity level required is not insignificant. ϢereSpielChequers 13:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We need more arbitrators because I keep hearing that they have trouble getting things done. Having extras would allow them to take breaks, avoid burnout, and prevent groupthink. A midyear election sounds good, but it would be a ton of work; I don't see it happening. I don't think having a minority of members be appointed as temporary fill ins would lead to dictatorship. At the next election they would be replaced by elected arbitrators. Jehochman Talk 13:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    IIRC that was part of the rationale for the numbers then. I don't think there has been a big reduction since. When I ran and served, I stated I'd be balancing content-work and arbitration, which I think gave me a more holistic perspective on everything here. I highly doubt it was this reason that WMF got involved Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If we assume good faith, WMF got involved to try to improve things. (In America we have a joke: What are the nine scariest words in the English language? "I'm from the government. I'm here to help you.") They felt the need to help because we didn't make enough progress by ourselves. A more robust ArbCom might convince WMF that their help isn't needed here quite so much. Jehochman Talk 13:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, I just don't think it had anything to do with the WMF thinking arbcom was overburdened. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Where does the suggestion that WMF thought ArbCom was overburdened come from? WJBscribe (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think they thought ArbCom was overburdened. Rather, ArbCom has been overburdened. This has prevented us from making progress on the issue of incivility and harassment by vested contributors. WMF views the vested contributor problem as a major issue (alternatively called "toxic editing environment") and they are trying to "help" us solve it. If we do more to solve it ourselves, they feel less pressure to give us "help." Jehochman Talk 13:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Arbcom has made little progress on civility because the community is split about the topic, not because they have too much to do. Arb is supposed to be a reflection of the community, and the community is split about whether incivility is sanctionable or inevitable. In that respect, Arb has mirrored the larger community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    and also about what is uncivil. I've also seen a distinction being made between incivility and harassment, in reference to Fram. Has anyone really argued that Fram was uncivil? Granted, the awful hostility-identification tool that has resurfaced in recent days claims to identify both incivility and "threats", but then it also fails abysmally in identifying either. Arbcom's apparent willingness to trust the WMF is a central issue, in my view, and therefore I would prefer new elections. But if we do try to use a quickly beefed-up Arbcom instead, let's be clear about identifying the supposed issue. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked about interim elections, which is in the Arb Policy, to add arbitrators at WT:ACN. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we could streamline the election process. Perhaps a few former arbitrators would step up to serve for half a year. They would not have to deal with the learning curve as much. Jehochman Talk 13:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for reference, the next 2 vote getters who didn't make the cut in the 2018 elections, DGG and Drmies, are both former arbs (and both were in the top 3 for support votes). The addition of either of them, or both, to the committee would be very beneficial. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support that, rather than going through the rigamaroll of another election. We just did this six months ago and the data is still there for anybody who wants to inspect it. Jehochman Talk 13:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. If a permanent fix is needed, we should introduce a mechanism where the closest runner(s)-up (if they got over a certain approval threshold) can be brought on mid-term to fill vacancies, perhaps at the request of the rest of Arbcom. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should figure out the right size for ArbCom and then have "reserve" arbitrators who can step in if due to recusals/inactives the number drops below ready to fill in. I think right now we've got 2 active cases - at least one of which strikes me as very very demanding - and this monster case request/associated issues. I think we're asking a lot of a few people even with some people who'd been inactive becoming active for this. Have a wider pool so that arbs can live their lives but we have redundancy but seems like the best of both worlds - so in this case it would mean that DGG and Drmies would likely be active on some number of arb business. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    In a recent discussion about this (I forget where), Iridescent made the point that the fewer Arbs on the committee, the faster the committee can get its work done. Perhaps this is an opportunity to test the theory. – Levivich 14:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Plainly not what I said. The NDA covers everything discussed on arbcom-en, including any discussion of Fram, whether or not it had anything to do with the Foundation. All I said was that I don't think "lack of bodies" contributed a bit to ArbCom inaction on Fram. ~ Rob13Talk 17:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well for goodness sake why even mention the NDA then? Your statement reads like "there's another reason for ArbCom's inaction apart from the lack of bodies, but I can't say what". Sheesh. Black Kite (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • What Rob and WTT said. I don't agree with Iridescent's statement about the fewer arbs the better, but the number of arbs had nothing to do with Fram. PMC and I are currently crawling through the Canadian Politics evidence and workshop, and it's a week-long process. And that's not even a complex case. It's just time consuming, and PMC has real life issues and I have tech issues at the moment, so it takes a while. Add the emails that fly fast and furious on this issue and the others, and the appeals, and the other emails about other issues, plus the on-wiki things, and being an arb takes a chunk of your day. Particularly with appeals, the more people we have to handle those, the better. Katietalk 18:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that two principles apply, The Peter Principle and Parkinson's law. For me therefore, the fewer the better. Leaky caldron (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think Hofstadter's law would be more accurate to the situation. To me it seems that a larger committee with more delegation to smaller groups of arbs would be able to work more efficiently, but that doesn't seem to be the way it works in practice. Every arb has a voice on every decision. There are probably issues that the committee handles which don't need participation from every member. I don't know what to suggest those are, though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't that it is remotely more accurate. Peters and Parkinson's speak directly to issues concerning competence and human nature. That's why I referred to them. Leaky caldron (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and I disagree with your implication that the remaining committee members are incompetent. Pressed for time and overworked, but not incompetent. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a fair bit of experience working on committees. One particularly relevant experience involves a committee for a professional society to review submitted papers for publication. When I served on the committee as a committee member, every single committee member reviewed every single paper. The review process often took multiple months, simetimes exceeding a year. When I was named chair, I reorganized the workflow. I added some committee members but now permitted committee members to select which papers they wish to review, and I made sure that 3 to 5 reviewers, but not the whole committee, were assigned to each paper. I'm skipping some details, but this single change improved the timing of the review process significantly. I think the median time dropped by more than half. I can easily see this approach being adopted by ArbCom.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless I'm misremembering, SilkTork recently suggested this: having Arbs organized into smaller panels that would hear each case/matter, so not every Arb has to be involved in every issue. It's an excellent idea. – Levivich 16:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been suggested before. I can understand the attraction but my 4 years on the committee leave me worried that this could mean that the variety of views that there are on the full committee would not be reflected in small groups, so outcomes could be more by "the luck of the draw" for the panel than reflect what would happen if the full committee took part in the decision. Members of a professional society are likely to have more of the same mindset/approach than 13 or 15 elected members of ArbCom. Doug Weller talk 16:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 That's a terrible idea, and the entire point of having all of ArbCom weigh in, as Doug says, is so that all representatives (that we elected) are able to participate. Grandpallama (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Think of it this way folks. There is an agreed Committee size that everyone thinks provides enough variety to decide a case. Say 10 people. So we appoint 15 or 20 people onto the Committee but only use 10 for cases. And smaller numbers for everyday tasks like agreeing to decline an appeal from someone clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. SilkTork (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Grandpallama, Nobody need be precluded from participation. In the example above where I talked about how I handled a paper's committee, I mentioned I was skipping some details. I'll provide one of those details. If a particular paper is assigned to, say, five of the 15 or so reviewers, they provide a preliminary position which is shared with the entire committee. In some cases, the entire committee will be perfectly satisfied with the report, but in some cases, one or more of the remainder of the committee might decide to get personally involved, and if they find that the initial report was deficient, it could change. The same concept could easily apply to ArbCom. Asking a subset of the committee to be assigned to the case doesn't mean those are the only members that can look at the material. It means those selected members are expected to immerse themselves in all aspects of the case, but any other member could monitor the workshop and decide to get involved if they feel that something important is being missed. It most definitely does not mean that any member of the committee is precluded from reviewing any case (with the obvious exception of conflicts of interest requiring recusal).S Philbrick(Talk) 18:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sphilbrick, I do understand what you're positing, but it still doesn't get to Doug's concern (which I share) that the entire committee isn't necessarily involved. What if there are five people assigned to a case that concerns me, but three of those are committee members whose judgment I have very little faith in and didn't vote for, while I have trust in the overall committee? We vote for the people we want to be in these roles to make these decisions, so creating a situation in which those elected persons might not even be involved undercuts the purpose of the election in the first place. Grandpallama (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Sphilbrick but what we need to understand is that the numbers are too low to institute this system. To effectively prevent biasing our panel, we would need to up the members to 20-25 and have panels of 7-8 in rotation. Just for trivia, but the Indian Supreme Court has a membership of 30+1 and listens to cases in panels of 3, ultimately disposing 1.6 million cases in a year (I'm quoting the numbers for 2017). If we increase the numbers of arbs, I wholeheartedly support this idea. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    QEDKAgreed that a much larger ARBCOM would make this a less loaded issue. On the other hand, I'm not sure how wieldy a much bigger ARBCOM would be. I think, really, we'd be better off saying that any ARBCOM member who needs to become "inactive" is considered resigned, and that a special election is held to immediately replace them. I'm highly sympathetic to the fact that everyone is a volunteer here, and that real life issues can disrupt plans and cause any ARBCOM member to have to step away. However, they are elected with a pretty clear understanding of the responsibilities they'll hold and the length of their term. If for some reason they can't fulfill those obligations, we should be able to replace them (without any black mark against them) rather than see those seats continued to be locked to someone who is unable/unwilling to participate. Grandpallama (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on what the WMF has said, we know that 1. there's some evidence against Fram that they can't share for privacy reasons, 2. they declined to share this with ArbCom (at least at the time?), partially for privacy reasons, partially because they didn't trust ArbCom to handle an anonymized version effectively, and partially because they didn't trust ArbCom's impartiality (or, at least, its appearance of impartiality) given Fram's previous criticism of them. If we take WMF statements at face value, those are the core problems, not anything to with ArbCom's size, activity, or willingness to aggressively go after harassment. I've speculated above that it is possible the WMF also feels that ArbCom and the community needs to be stricter with harassment, but if so they haven't conveyed that to us at all - just based on what has been conveyed, what we need is a way for ArbCom to safely handle anonymous reports and confidential information, and a general assurance to the WMF / T&S that we trust ArbCom to navigate conflicts of interest, or at least that we absolutely do not want T&S stepping in under such circumstances unless ArbCom has already tried its hand at a case and failed. It's possible the WMF / T&S has other concerns about ArbCom, but if so we should encourage them to share those concerns (or to confirm that that's not the issue) rather than going on blind quests for improvements without knowing what we're trying to fix. --Aquillion (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually we don't know that there is private evidence, though we are pretty sure there are private complaints. Fram has said that he hasn't done anything offwiki, and the WMF don't seem to be disputing that. In that case all the evidence has to be edits and logged actions. But that brings us back to one of the central points of this dustup. This is the first time that the WMF has dished out a 12 month ban on one project rather than a global block. This means that the WMF is moving into dealing with much less serious cases than they previously did, but we don't know what the behaviour is that would merit a 12 month ban. It is as if the local traffic cops had introduced a new rule, and were enforcing it, without first telling us what the new rule was. If they had simply come out and said from now on, any editor using the f word to another editor or group of editors will get a 12 month ban from the office. We would all know where we stood, some of us would grumble about the way they had made such a change, and some people would switch to language such as bampots, clueless whazzocks, screenagers with damaged attention spans or simply spilling libations to awaken the spirit of the San Andreus fault. But as it is, we don't know if the reason for the ban was incivility to Arbcom, enforcing quality rules on other editors, or some other activity that may even have consensus support on this wiki. ϢereSpielChequers 22:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Private evidence could just mean the complainant's statement. Or, if there is no actual complainant, the statement of the person T&S is going to bat for. The existence of that would not be a big surprise, I would expect there to be a statement, an email, whatever, from someone.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The WMF has said that there is private evidence, and that the reason they didn't go through ArbCom was because they didn't feel they could share it with them (AFAIK ArbCom does have methods and policies to examine private evidence, but apparently the WMF considered them insufficient.) We have to start from the perspective of taking those statements by the WMF seriously and focusing on addressing them. We also have to consider the possibility that there are other (unstated) problems that the WMF has with how Wikipedia handles harassment, which caused them to step in in this case and is making them shift towards a non-community Facebook-style moderation approach; but if that's the case, we need to push them to share their concerns rather than just shooting in the dark. Serious changes to our handling of harassment and civility matters would require clear imputus and direction, not vague guesswork, and there's no reason to think the WMF would care or acknowledge any changes on the community side if they're unwilling to say what they want anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • But therein lies the issue. We have no idea how the policies are deficient because WMF won't tell us that (and that is the sort of thing that should not be hidden behind claims of privilege). If we are to make changes to our policies, they should be as informed as possible, otherwise the changes we make run the risk of exacerbating the issues the WMF sees. I find it rather telling that out of all the statements made by WMFOffice and Jan, absolutely none of them explain how our civility/harassment policies are broken. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 01:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Aquillion: "The WMF has said that there is private evidence"[citation needed]. AFAIK, the WMF have still not even confirmed that there was a violation to begin with. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikimania

    Wikimania is coming up in a few weeks, and it gives an interesting opportunity both to compare notes with people in our sister projects, but to have informal conversations with staffers. There will be lots of staffers there, is anyone following this page intending to go? I'm not going and I haven't been for a few years, and I suspect that it is still somewhat skewed away from the largest editing community in the Wikiverse. But it might be useful to start planning for it, find who here is planning to go, and perhaps organise an adhoc fringe event for governance issues or use it to liaise with other communities and maybe even chapters. It is probably too late to get an official slot in the program, but it shouldn't be a problem to announce a lunchtime meeting and annex part of the seating area for it. ϢereSpielChequers 12:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This one is probably going to be more crowded than usual. ‑ Iridescent 12:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I followed your link, Iridescent, but cannot fathom what the following remark is supposed to mean.

    Establishing and applying rules onwiki that help protect newbies, especially from vulnerable groups of contributors

    In the real world of competent prose that means rules are devised to protect new editors (a vulnerable group) from other vulnerable groups.
    If anyone can clarify this and render it intelligible to a grammarian, I would much appreciate itNishidani (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nishidani, page history here, shows the author. Needs a copyedit. I'm not saying anything else, for fear ... of whatever. Victoria (tk) 16:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    One can't copyedit a sentence whose meaning is not clear. I find a lot of this in the prose coming out of that office, and would be tempted to write an essay, headed by some remarks on Castiglione's Il Cortigiano, were it not for the sense arguing with them is now pointless. I don't think any one up there is very familiar with humanistic arguments, logic and, despite our best endeavours, the games language plays on its careless, let alone attentive users. Anyone who prioritizes 'a nice atmosphere' of courteous euphemism, has never read, to cite the most egregious example, the witness of Iago in Othello, whose amicable concern and cautiously inoffensive wording disseminate poison, as they dissimulate care for the other.Nishidani (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WereSpielChequers, I won't be there. I really ought to be, but at $3,000 for a 5 day jaunt, I'll leave it to the survivors of Brexit and the regular 70-strong WMF junket contingent. That said (beaming with glee), Wikimania 2020 will be literally right on my doorstep, and I expect you to be there ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure Thailand is a lovely place, but when I go to a Wiki event my wife won't come with me, and if I were to tell her that I wanted to spend a few days in Thailand she might not believe my excuse. ϢereSpielChequers 21:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm rather surprised that people have to pay to attend a WikiMania. $375 for a full event ticket. Has there always been an entrance cost to WikiMania? SilkTork (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      (+1) If somebody incurs his own travel expenses, he still needs to pay $375, to be a part of the proceedings?! And, we are striving to become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge? Or, is this fee optional? May-be food and all that? ∯WBGconverse 18:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a somewhat perennial discussion. Making people pay out of pocket vs. using donation money to fund an event that some see as frivolous. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion may be old, but the direction of travel is clear - fees for the last couple of years have been far more than they used to be. As the registration fee gets more expensive so the event becomes more ringfenced for staff and those on scholarships. I don't know to what extent the WMF influences scholarships to avoid dealing with critics, but Kudpung may have a view on that as he was on the scholarship committee one year. ϢereSpielChequers 21:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Two years actually. GorillaWarfare may find the conference frivolous, but she always goes. These events are precisely the venue to discuss issues such as the FRAMBAN and its ripples. I believe the scholarships should be awarded to those who will really benefit (and the community) from going and meeting the people they work with, and for whom distance precludes a very high personal high expense. Everyone in north America can afford to go to an event in North America, and most people in Europe can drive to any European event with their own cars. Bangkok is going to be ideal for people in the global south and China because the cost of organising an event here is only a sixth of the costs in the West. You can go 45 Km (30m) in a taxi here for only $12 and decent hotel rooms can be had for as lirtle as $18. It will be interesting to see if the BKK team will reflect that in the ticket prices and the WMF would be prepared to offer more scholarships.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    @Kudpung: "most people in Europe can drive to any European event with their own cars" - if they have cars, and can afford the fuel, and afford the time off work, or sanctions to their benefits if not working... I don't know anything about your background but the saying "check your privilege" springs to mind. DuncanHill (talk) 01:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus I very much doubt many people from London, never mind say Madrid or Rome, would go to Stockholm by car, unless as part of a bigger tour. Plane or train would be much better. Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kudpung: "some see as frivolous" is hardly the same as "I find it frivolous". Why would I go if I did? While I'm correcting the record, I do not "always go"—I have been to three Wikimanias in my 13 years of editing. I won't be attending this year. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Am looking at organizing some discussions around governance within our communities at Wikimania. Please ping me if you will be there. Unfortunately I do not have funds to cover others travel (but will be covering my own). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Make sure you consider Wikimania's inaccessibility and lack of representation of the community when you do that. The scholarships are only available to candidates approved by the Foundation, and for the rest most editors, I am pretty sure, don't have the time and still less the money to go. The well-to-do and the chosen few! DuncanHill (talk) 09:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite the fact that a local community is expected to organise the event (albeit largely on a grant from the WMF, and there have been questions in the past where the money went), the conference appears to exist mainly as another junket for half a planeload of the WMF to showcase their own work and congratulate themselves, with the scholarship awardees and those who paid their own expenses mainly acting merely as a live studio audience. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I agree with the concerns about lack of accessibility to Wikimania. The scholarship process from what I understand is independent of the WMF. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-independent. When I was on it, our role was advisory. From the list we came up with, the WMF had the final say. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What percentage of the time did they go with who the volunteer lead committee selected? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm reading all discussions at en:Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram with a lot of interest, of course. One of the main problems seem to be finding a good way to show your disagreement with the way the WMF handled this (no matter if you agree with the actual sanction or not), since most of you don't want to "destroy" enwiki to spite the WMF.

    I agree that letting in attack pages, BLP violations, ... is bad because it creates innocent victims. So I tried to think of something which wouldn't make enwiki worse (for factual credibility), wouldn't include BLP attacks and the like (or not more than usual), but would still, if widespread enough, cause problems or embarassment for the WMF. An added bonus is that is one of the topics I regularly worked on.

    So, what if enwiki admins made it clear that, out of fear of being accused of harassment, stalking, nah, simply persistence and looking at too many edits by one editor, they are no longer going to take any action against copyright violations?

    Mark G12 and CCI as "historical". If someone asks, tell them that enwiki is no longer feeling "comfortable" going after copyright violations and that contributors may feel persecuted if you remove their contributions simply because they are not written by themselves.

    Does that mean that I argue that copyvios should be allowed on enwiki? No, of course not, don't be silly (oops, attack phrase there!). It simply means that the WMF will have to pay some professionals to deal with this problem from now on. Which obviously they're good at, so that will be a walk in the park!

    Seriously, what's the actual harm to enwiki readers and subjects (apart from some minuscule monetary loss to whoever wrote the original?) Why do we even bother with removing copyvio's? Mainly to protect the WMF, not to get a better encyclopedia, as you don't necessarily get a better encyclopedia by rewriting and summarizing bits instead of simply copying bits.

    It won't make the WMF tremble in their shoes of course, but every small bit might help? Fram (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

    Copied from meta. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't believe this is going to get those among us that think the WMF messed up the communication but got the sanction right to change our minds, and puts quite a dent into the whole notion that Fram's commitment to quality should trump the manner in which he communicates it. MLauba (Talk) 16:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fram, not helping the case here. Ignore copyright vios to hurt the project and WMF? Everyone should please rethink any retaliation or strikes or such, and throwing wrenches in the gears is certainly not the way to treat this treasure that all of us have built. On the other hand, there is frustration, understood, but many editors think it will right itself at the end and will have made both the WMF and Wikipedia stronger partners as we drift into the 2020s. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd echo that statement. I freely admit I'm not a fan of Fram, but yeah, this, IMO, strikes at a core value in a way someone dedicated to the project should not. Fram, I'd urge you to retract and apologize for this really bad idea ASAP. Hobit (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      • Have you made the same demands for apologies from anyone suggesting this or worse? As there have been many much more damaging suggestions than simply not removing copyvios and letting WMF deal with these instead. Not removing copyvio's is about the least damaging thing we can do, no idea why you consider this especially a "really bad idea" and not e.g. calls to close down all bots or to simply go on a general strike. Fram (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

        • Feel free to ignore it. Certainly not a demand. I'm trying to be helpful. My sense is you may have just shot yourself in the foot. But I could easily be wrong.
        The difference is that you're the person people are so upset about. If you make it "hurt the encyclopedia in my name" I think it tarnishes you and is just generally poor PR. But again, I could be wrong and probably should have just let it pass. Sorry to bother you with this. Hobit (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
        Most people aren't really upset about me, but about process, about principle. Anyway, thanks for your response, I understand your position a bit better now. Fram (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
        Copied from meta. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't have to leave them unnoticed, just report them to WMF. It is their encyclopedia, let them handle the problems. You're all upset, but I am sorry to say, unless you find a way to make a statement that they feel, you're not going to impress them. And if you remove those copyvios and get banned for harassing the copyright violators by WMF, then you're not removing them for quite some time. (and you are right, we dont know what Fram was banned for, it may be way less than harassing copyright violators). --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Our primary goal in this endeavor is to build an encyclopedia. This advice like many others on this page, IMO shifts that focus away from our ultimate aims and is a distraction from creating a collaborative environment. SusunW (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have managed to build a very good encyclopaedia under the old regime - in fact, we had a decent one even before the WMF was founded. The goal of having a vibrant community - and that includes self-governing to the degree possible - is a necessary part of building the encyclopaedia. You cannot separate governance issues from encyclopaedia-building.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      No one has suggested ignoring governance issues. This suggestion does nothing to resolve the situation. If one wants "law and order" returned, they don't participate in "lawlessness" or things that violate our basic premises, IMO. SusunW (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously, what's the actual harm to enwiki readers and subjects (apart from some minuscule monetary loss to whoever wrote the original?) If someone copied something from Wikipedia (which is supposed to be freely distributable, so I might add that turning a blind eye to copyvios for any reason significantly frustrates that goal) unaware that the content is a copyright violation, they could end up the creek. The WMF cannot monitor every single page 24/7, so they rely on the community. Adam9007 (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      A community whose primary goal should be to protect Wikipedia from damage, not individual admins. I fail to see how allowing (by inaction) breaches of policy achieves that. Frankly if this is a mater of principle, resign, and leave the project. That would be the Honorable thing to do. But not to engaging a form of vandalism (as in a deliberate choice to do something that damages)and disruption what can only do massive harm to our articles.Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, but now it's vandalism if I focus my volunteer time on other aspects than copyvio repairs? Do you want to rethink that? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      No, I have made it clear that to my mind to deliberately do something you know is damaging to make a point is a form of vandalism. You are doing something with the intent of seeing it damage the project.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      If you don't see something happen you can't be faulted for it, but if you see copyright violations, vandalism or any other form of something highly disruptive to something on the website and don't do anything about it, then are you "protesting" or just being disruptive yourself? — Moe Epsilon 18:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      (ec) Well, for one it would not be "doing something", it would be not doing something. And if you go for motivations: It's all to save the project - which is much more a workable community than a number of bits on some harddrives. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Is it? It is (perhaps) ironic that above (and more then once) I point out how this entire situation may in fact be the result of a perception that certain admins are biased, and turn a blind eye to infarction by certain users, whilst enforcing them (often vermontly) on others. So is it to "save the project" or to protect an image and version of it that some have never agreed with. I can think of many issues Wikipedia is having great difficulty tackling, precisely because of an old guard who are clinging on to their way of doing things (not i have to said without good reason, sometimes). It is my belief (and plenty of what I have seen here enforces that view) that this was and is about that issue. WMF had complaints about certain attitudes being enforced and protected, and it creating an unwelcoming and unpleasant atmosphere for certain demographics (am I right in thinking that gamergate has been linked to this incident in some way?).Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry, but I feel you are waffling. The question we started with is how a partial (and, as proposed, very much non-selective with respect to affected users) work stoppage is vandalism. Now you seem to be arguing that "there are some problems with Wikipedia, therefore my point is right". I'm not going down that path. It does not lead to a productive discussion. And I don't know if gamergate has been "linked" to this - I think I've seen the word once in this debate. It seems you don't know more, so again, this is a red herring. If there is a substantial and substantive link, provide it. Otherwise I'd prefer it if you don't spread unsubstantiated rumours. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      That is because you tried to argue that this proposal is about saving the project.Slatersteven (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose because it would be horrible to try and sort them out later. WP:CCI is horribly backlogged. --Rschen7754 18:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with most everyone in this section who thinks this is a bad idea. I understand where Fram is coming from, given that his work to identify and remove copyright problems has been unappreciated (to put it mildly) by the WMF, but this isn't the answer. I'd add that Fram should probably not be the one offering up civil disobedience/resistance suggestions at this point. 28bytes (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the whole idea that copyright worries will force WMF's hand is a little fanciful. WMF are already fairly immune to damages for copyright, at least in the US, under DMCA's safe harbor provisions. Sure it's embarrassing and hurts the project's image if it's suddenly no longer a safe source of freely-licensed text and images, but in reality that's more a principle issue than a practical issue as far as I'm concerned. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • But are they really protected? If the violation is referred to them, and if they have made it clear that enforcing copyvios can get you banned (if you do it in a way that might stop the person adding the copyvio from continuing to edit), then I think their safe habour claim shrinks significantly. Guettarda (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like most situations had been handled in the past, the Foundation would remove the copyright violation as it is brought to them, handle it as an office action and go on as usual. There's some kind of logical fallacy in thinking that harming any part of the encyclopedia, through direct action or inaction, will help in any way, shape or form. It won't. Either the Foundation will handle legitimate claims of BLP/copyvio/etc. violations brought to their attention, someone else will find it and remove it before they do, or it will severely harm the encyclopedia beyond repair. If the intent of those suggesting it is to harm it beyond repair, what then? The WMF wouldn't hand the keys to the website over to us claiming they can't handle managing it anymore and apologize, begging for you to come back. It's not a real bright plan. — Moe Epsilon 20:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      That comment does a very good job of explaining the concerns that I too have about pretty much all of these proposals. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know if the plan is necessarily a sound one, but in a way I've pledged to do something similar. I am the editor with the fifth-most contributions to CopyPatrol, the WMF's community-build (thanks to Doc James for pointing out my error) tool to detect possible copyright violations. I will not edit Wikipedia at all until the WMF changes course. I don't pretend that this gesture will make any real difference in the grand scheme of things—after all, I have been relatively inactive for the past year, so my abstention is hardly a huge loss to the WMF—but the events of the past two weeks are too troubling to ignore. /wiae /tlk 21:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Wiae, copypatrol is NOT really a WMF tool. It was a community developed tool. The community reached out to Turnitin (User:Ocaasi) for the donation. The community programmed the initial version (User:Eran). The community did the beta testing based on feedback from the community. The Foundation just got involved at the very end once it was determined to be a success and made some further improvements based on more community feedback. And of course the community is the one who does all the follow up based on the tools results.
      • The next question is would a tool similar to this but which picks up potentially uncivil behavior be useful for our movement? Keep in mind that CopyPatrol is only about 60% accurate and yet is still very useful so we do not need a perfect tool but we do need competent people from within the community making the final call. A tool that does this is mostly build from what I understand. I am going to be speaking with people who have been involved with its development this Thursday and will report back. We will definitely need the ability to "teach" the AI by providing feedback on when it misses cases or over calls cases. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Doc James Doc, You seem to be implying that enforcing copyvio is still a safe thing to do and therefore presumably not the reason why Fram was banned. Can you or the WMF be explicit on that or any other admin activities that we are still allowed to do on En Wiki? I'm assuming that the WMF are still OK with the blocking of vandals, enforcement of the NPA policy and deletion of articles that meet the G3 and G10 criteria. What else are we still trusted to do? ϢereSpielChequers 22:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was mainly emphasizing that the community deserves the credit for both the idea and building of CopyPatrol. And also the subsequent use of CopyPatrol to deal with copyright issues. The WMF played a minor and supportive roll in this tool.
          • I am also pitching a similar technique for dealing with incivility, whereby a tool flags issues and community members in good standing follow up the issues in question. Ie we deal with incivility internally with the support of technology.
          • User:WereSpielChequers to answer your question, if I was to see credible evidence that the WMF was taking action against those dealing with copyright violations in a civil manner I would not be impressed. Those who infringe copyright should get a warning and than be blocked from further editing until they can clearly explain how they are going to avoid infringing of copyright in the future.
          • If someone has an ongoing case of someone adding copyright infringement but they feel they cannot take action for political reasons forwards it to me and I will be happy to review and block the user as appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • (edit conflict) Doc James, I'm sure such a proposal is well-intentioned, but please no robot nannies. Every bot system for measuring something like "incivility" that I've seen has been...laughable, to put it mildly, not to mention not picking up on things like people who know one another well and engage in a bit of ribbing. (For example, if someone I know well manages to completely screw something up, I might give them a "Oops. Dumbass." That likely wouldn't bother them, and it wouldn't bother me if someone did it to me.) If someone's bothered by something, it's on them to report it, and if they're not bothered about it, why should anyone else be? Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Doc James: re: "I am also pitching a similar technique for dealing with incivility, whereby a tool flags issues..." - have you read the material above about the WMF tool "Detox"? DuncanHill (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Just reading about the WMF tool called "Detox" now. I did not even realize that they had such a tool. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Seraphimblade: unfortunately there is a third option - some people walk away without reporting things. How we deal with that without overkill is a challenge. In the past I have trawled userspace for various offensive terms and found scores of pages that merited g10 deletion and similar treatment. But I was combining simple queries with a bit of brainpower, and my simple tool wasn't leaving any flag in instances where I deemed no action was necessary. I have concern about an AI publicly flagging possible attacks for others to check. ϢereSpielChequers 23:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thanks User:DuncanHill am reading it now. I agree that any such tool is not appropriate for use by those not within the community. It will need to be us who teaches the tool. Ie such a tool needs to have buttons to tell it when it is correct and when it is not. Agree that this is more difficult than detecting potential copyright issues, view it as more on par with ClueBot. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • (ec) Speaking with a little bit of professional authority, I think a decent civility detector will first require us to solve the general artificial intelligence problem. And (speaking from no particular authority) I'm not convinced that we have that much of a problem. If we compare the rate of serious Wiki-infraction with the rate of real crimes in medium-sized cities, we seem to do not too bad. And for us none of these infractions is of the Sticks and Stones variety... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Having the concerns public is something we also need to discuss. Likely initially such a system should be provided to admins only with access similar to OTRS. And yah there is definitely a possibility that it will not be useful and thus we will end up scrapping it. But IMO if we do go such a direction it must be community led and operated and visible to all admins for oversight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                    • So the rest of us can't challenge your civility bot? If we don't know what it's doing we can't challenge it when it produces the sort of crap that eth WMF tool produced. No, it's a terrible idea. It certainly doesn't make me feel any safer, rather the opposite. This whole T&S thing has made me question just what the WMF is doing with our data. DuncanHill (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                      • It will not be MY civility bot. Yes the results will need to be visible to a significant portion of the community (maybe all of it). That is something that we will need to discuss. I think the first step will be having some results to talk about. During the building of the copyvio tool there were also questions regarding if it would be useful or not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I said "your" because you are the one proposing it, and the only one supporting it. The concerns isn't just "will it be useful" but "will it be harmful". Would you shut it down 'immediately' if it produced a homophobic or racist result? Is it acceptable to base human investigations on a flawed tool? Does the fact of the tool reporting tend to prejudice the investigators? (The answer to that is yes, however much the humans try not to be prejudiced). DuncanHill (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                          • It would need a fair bit of testing even before it is "turned on"... The humans need to do the investigation. Such a tool can only flag possible concerns. Similar to the copypatrol, sometimes copypatrol is correct sometimes it is not correct, a full investigation by someone who understands copyright is needed each and every time. Such a tool could be better than randomly looking at diffs for concerns or searching through talk pages for key words.
                          • One would of course need to start with a tool much much better then the one discussed above. Gah... That one has issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                            • And that was developed by professionals spending the Foundation's money, and publishing their results, and nobody noticed how crap it was. It's pie-in-the-sky stuff, at best. DuncanHill (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I think what Doc is suggesting is (in addition to a better methodology) that the annotators of the training corpus be community members and (presumably) a representative sampling of the community. I think that's a lot less horrible an idea than what we saw in the toxicity tool. I'm not personally in favor of it, but I think the idea is interesting. I don't think we should let this overtake our desire for and involvement in policy reform more generally, but it's an interesting idea. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree that this is simple one idea and that it should not overtake the communities involvement in policy reform. We are going to need multiple measures to improve Wikipedia. And we need to be realistic that perfection is not a possible goal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The whole notion that "enforcing copyvios puts you at risk of a T&S ban" is absurd. Moonriddengirl, Quadell, Justlettersandnumbers, MER-C or Dianaa are all and have always been able to communicate their concerns to problematic contributors without ever being called out for their attitude in doing so. The whole "I'll stop admining because now I feel like I'm at risk of a ban out of the blue" sounds exactly like the sad blokes moaning that they could no longer dare talking to any woman in the wake of #metoo. You can be right about calling out a problematic contributor without being a dick about it, and there is a vast number of admins still left who pull it off every time they take action, User:WereSpielChequers, and from what I've observed over the years you're clearly one of them. Maggie Dennis is Jan's boss, for heaven's sake. Nobody on this project has spent longer working on text copyvios than her, and mostly alone for years before a couple of dedicated people eventually picked up the slack. The notion that the matter with Fram was the fact that he called out copyvios, rather than the manner he went about it (provided copyvio related issues were even considered), is complete lunacy, regardless of how much you distrust the WMF. MLauba (Talk) 23:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The whole notion that "enforcing copyvios puts you at risk of a T&S ban" is absurd. I agree, that notion is nuts. If that's the notion being conveyed here, I'd like to personally disavow any agreement with that idea, and I think it's important that the other participants here articulate the same. I'm mostly here because there's an inscrutable system with inadequate process, no meaningful opportunity to be heard, and no clear community involvement in how this system is used. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    One way to play Battleships is to hit random squares and note which ones are complete misses. If we have established that the WMF is OK with enforcement of copyvio then lets move on to other possible areas where the new secret rules are stricter than the rules that we know about. I'd prefer that we were told, or better consulted as to what the new rules were, I might even support the change. But I don't like the current situation and I want to work out what the new regime is. To paraphrase the Great Detective, when all other possibilities are eliminated as absurd. you have your solution. ϢereSpielChequers 23:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The community, admin corps, and presumably also ArbCom already ignore copyright violations. I can name at least three serial copyright violators (and many, many more "copyvio apologists") who have avoided facing sanctions by crying "hound". This situation needs to change, but I just can't see it happening as long as so much of the community is either (a) ignorant of copyright policy or (b) willing to feign ignorance to push an agenda or to create drahma. I have mixed feelings about how all this relates to Fram, however: I don't recall Fram ever lifting a finger to address any of these problems (or protect the victims of the false hounding accusations), so his invoking them in his own defense is a little weird. If we extended it to be about Floq and Bish, both those editors actually have blood on their hands when it comes to this problem. I have a great deal of respect for the latter and the former ... I can accept that they are not wrong in this case, but neither is, IMO, a strong voice for reason in the "copyright violators vs. alleged hounds" debate. Floq especially. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of you may recognise that I haven't quite shared the extremely negative view of the WMF as is on common in discussions on this page. But here's the thing. When I enforce our copyvio policy, I don't give a fuck about the WMF. I do it because we are supposed to be a free encyclopaedia not because I'm worried about the WMF being sued. While people are free to choose to edit for whatever reason they wish, I would hope most of us are the same and are enforcing copyvio because of our intention to keep this a free encyclopaedia not because of the WMF. After all, we have a very stringent NFCC policy that goes way beyond what US law requires for a reason. Nil Einne (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: I assume you mean I would hope most of us are the same and are enforcing the copyvio policy because of our intention to keep this a free encyclopaedia not because of the WMF? Anyway, you chimed in the May ANI thread about copyvio and "hounding", but the one filed the following week had a substantially more "lukewarm" reception: in my experience it's basically a game of chance regarding whether more of the "I like / don't like User X, copyright be damned" users and/or the "Shit, if that's copyvio, I might be in trouble next" users show up than those sincerely interested in solving copyvio. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    OK lets stop spreading unsubstantiated rumours. As we do not know why he was blocked we do not know if there is a secret rule, or just that he was stamped down upon because he breached known and existing polices (we are just not being told which ones). So any accusation of secret rules is an unsubstantiated rumour.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, I think that focusing on how to make the best kind of software is the wrong focus for discussion on this page. We have a serious and unresolved problem involving human conduct, and there is not a bot in the world that can fix that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please be wary with this idea. I'm not saying you can't goof off if you want, but if you appear to actively encourage copyright violations by other users and can be alleged to be technically interacting with the posters in some way, you could blunder into one of those awful, totally out of proportion "conspiracy" cases that U.S. prosecutors like to lay against protestors they don't like (cf. DisruptJ20). I despise copyright law and consider it an extension of slave-owner thinking ... don't underestimate the malice of its defenders. Wnt (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wnt: My sincere view on the matter is somewhat more similar to what this guy says between 3:45 and 3:55. Wikipedia articles infringing on outside writers' copyright is more personally offensive to me not because it legally infringes on the rights of third parties but because it is lazy and it is not something Wikipedians are supposed to sink to. (Full disclosure: I became involved in CCI and other such matters after I had the top spot in an editathon stolen from me by an editor who it later turned out had plagiarized a significant portion of the text that put them over the finish line.[37][38] At around the same time I was myself accused of violating someone's copyright, but it turned out that they -- a subsidiary of a Fortune 500 company -- had just copy-pasted my text and not provided the proper attribution.[39] So yeah, it's a two-way street, but essentially copyright is meant to, and does, serve to protect the little people more than keep them down. The only little people it "hurts" in favour of large corporations and rich folks are the ones who really like this or that cultural property but can't afford a copy for themselves, but that has almost nothing to do with Wikipedia since we probably wouldn't be hosting the entirety of Doctor Strange (2016 film) even if it weren't under copyright.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted above, technically copyvio is ToS violation, and I agree we have a moral right to demand WMF to deal with it themselves. But we must prepare exit scenarios in preparation of finding a compromise with the foundation!
    If we don't remove copyrighted text from the articles (just report it to WMF), people will continue editing this text (and so creating derivative works), and as soon as we stop this kinda work-to-rule action, there will be a large mess with the accumulated copyvio. It's probable we will have a lot of work wasted in this case.
    However, with the mediafiles the situation is slightly different: if we collect possibly copyrighted images in a category for WMF staff, no work will be wasted (although it's likely the heap will still accumulate). Ain92 (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Ahem...

    Some weeks ago I happened across Fram's comment to AGK, and thought he was heading for some kind of sanction, and I confess to a feeling of great relief when I heard that he had been banned for a year. However I was also troubled. Traditionally "Office" bans have been for conduct considered so egregious that the idea of ever letting the editor back cannot be countenanced.

    Yes Fram has been a thorn in the side of many editors, myself not the least. But this is something completely within community competence. If he is guilty, within the balance of probabilities, of one of the offences, almost certainly rising to criminality, for which we traditionally believed that Office bans are applied, by all means take the necessary steps.

    If not, it is a matter for the community. Verb sap.

    All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

    One small bit of possible progress that seems mentioning is that numerous Arbitrators are suddenly mentioning that they are under NDA and have things they can't comment about regarding this. While obviously they can't say any more, this implies that the WMF has in fact shared with them whatever private information is behind this case, which in turn suggests they might be willing to let ArbCom handle cases like this in the future. Of course, not everyone is going to be happy with that - ArbCom saying eg. "Fram is banned and we can't tell you why, but it's for very good reasons" is still going to leave some people upset - but they're at least answerable to the community on some level, and I suspect people trust them more to adhere to our traditional community standards, so people are more likely to accept their say-so that the evidence is strong, justifies a ban under our normal standards, and that that sort of private case was required. (Assuming they can make such an affirmation, of course. But as a general rule, putting aside the details of this case, they'd enjoy more community trust and could be booted at the next ArbCom election if for some reason they don't.) I also suspect that ArbCom would be better about communicating the things they can safely communicate; it's hard to accept that T&S has told us everything they can safely convey, given the near-absence of information. --Aquillion (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Rich nails it on the head frankly. I think that the arbitrary nature of this act and the potential precedent it sets is disturbing. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Rich, could you post that diff? I want to be sure it's the same one I'm thinking of. Jehochman Talk 20:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably the one made after the admin security circular. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to clearly state that the Arbitration Committee has no more information about the details behind Fram's ban than anyone else. The WMF's public statements have explicitly said that they are unable to share those details with anyone, including us, for privacy/confidentiality reasons. That has not changed and I do not expect it to. Rob has clarified in a second comment that his mention of the NDA above was intended to mean that he cannot comment on any discussions that were had on the Arb mailing list, not that ArbCom has more information than anyone else here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The failure to share information with ArbCom, even in confidence, speaks volumes. WJBscribe (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    About the extent to which the Foundation is serious about respecting the confidentiality of victims of harassment? Indeed, it does. ~ Rob13Talk 00:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    All they had to do was say that there was harassment that happened somewhere we (or ArbCom) cannot see it. They haven't. WJBscribe (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep. I looked and found harassment. I won’t post diffs because I don’t want to bring further harm to the victim. This is a good ban with a very poor explanation. Hopefully they will learn to communicate better. I think we are done here. Jehochman Talk 00:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Jehochman It was the "Fuck ArbCom" comment if I remember correctly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    @Jehochman: - no no, you got it wrong. This is a very good ban with very good communication! It is the community that must reflect what exactly went wrong and what led us to this point! Hopefully, with the wealth of information provided (did you see how much text we got) we will learn not to harass. /s starship.paint (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Jehochman I get why you don’t want to post them here, but would you consider sending the diffs to the ArbCom? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pythoncoder: - so you think Jehochman is serious, while I thought he’s joking. Which is it Jehochman? :O starship.paint (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Appears to be serious, see below section. Tag Enigmaman. starship.paint (talk) 06:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Starship.paint I read it as clearly a serious statement and replied, but then I realized there was a chance I was wrong, so I reverted myself. I only like to be on record when I'm confident in the veracity of what I'm saying. Enigmamsg 06:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Enigmaman: - I understood that. So I invite you to read this. starship.paint (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Starship.paint: I did see the section you created below, but with respect, I do not feel this new section adds anything. He says he found something and he doesn't want to disclose what it is. I understood that from his comments. Enigmamsg 06:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I had assumed you were working from knowledge of the case we did not have when dismissing Women In Red from it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We removed WiR from the Arb case because the Twitter incident was a sideshow. It occurred after Fram got banned, it was swiftly dealt with by WiR people, and most importantly, WiR had nothing to do with the reversals of the Office actions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the Foundation is serious about respecting the confidentiality of victims of harassment" - Yet again, what harassment? As far as we know, there was no harassment. Harassment was not ever cited as a reason for the ban by anyone. If it was, there would be no controversy at all. Secondly, why are you still acting like accountability and confidentiality are mutually exclusive, and that it's one extreme or the other? If there was harassment, no one's asking for confidential information. We don't even need to know if there was harassment specifically. We just want to know if there was a violation or not. Disputing allegations of blatant corruption, and affirming that your motive was legitimate, does not somehow risk the safety of a harassment victim. On the contrary, failing to dispute allegations of corruption and lack of due process is failing to defend your supposed "victim". If there is a real "harassment victim", they've completely lost any and all credibility and their abuser is being allowed to freely dictate the narrative. That's "respecting the victim" to you? Get real man. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please stop repeating this untruth. The WMF stated that Fram was banned pursuant to the Terms of Use section on "Harassment and abusing others". I have already told you this multiple times on this page, including copying the WMF's exact words at one point. ~ Rob13Talk 04:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let's look at the actual language of the ToU. "Harassing and Abusing Others" includes: Engaging in harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism; and transmitting chain mail, junk mail, or spam to other users. In other words we don't know a goddamn thing. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is your goal knowing that the ban is founded on serious misconduct, or knowing everything? I can understand the former, but not the latter. Or, put another way - which of those enumerated behaviors do you think should not have resulted in a ban? ~ Rob13Talk 04:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's worth pointing out that the enwiki community is supposed to be enforcing the Terms of Use, for the most part. One of the things that the WMF said in passing above is that they believe we have failed to do so (in Fram's case? In general? Like almost everything in this case, it's not clear.) So the fact that vandalism is banned in the ToS doesn't mean that the WMF is supposed to step in with regular WP:OFFICE bans for vandalism. --Aquillion (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    (←) @BU Rob13: Is your goal knowing that the ban is founded on serious misconduct, or knowing everything? Neither. Option 3: knowing that a violation of said ToU clause actually took place. WMF says he's banned under a ToU clause. Fine, until Fram says he didn't violate said clause, thus implying that it was a sort of backhanded way of getting rid of him for being too unpleasant or uncivil (which is not covered by said ToU clause). That's an implication of corruption. WMF will not deny Fram's implication. This is literally the only problem. They will not deny that it was an arbitrary and illegitimate invocation of a ToU clause. Neither of us can or will have proof positive either way. But the WMF will not deny the allegation. Can't you see why we have a problem with this? Their refusal to share details is understood. Their refusal to deny corruption makes the allegation seem true. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm baffled by your position, frankly. Perhaps you could help me. What would a hypothetically satisfactory statement from the WMF say? "That thing we said before - it's still true." Would that do it? ~ Rob13Talk 05:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "We have reviewed the T&S investigation and we can confirm that Fram did indeed unequivocally violate the "Abuse and harassment" clause of the ToU, and thus was justifiably sanctioned under that clause. He was not blocked for incivility or personal attacks or any reason that is not articulated by the ToU clause we have already mentioned." That's it. That's all that needs to be confirmed. "That thing we said before" was "Fram was banned under the ToU, no further comment". That's meaningless when Fram alleges that he did not violate the ToU and that the ban was corrupt. There is no reason for the WMF to deny such claims if they are baseless. So deny it. That's all I'm looking for. If it's not true, deny it. They have not denied it. Why can they not deny it? I asked Doc James to deny it. He wouldn't deny it. If it's not true, deny it! That's my position. If you can't deny such a blatant accusation of wrongdoing, that's suspicious. Why stonewall and delay? Why be silent? If you've done nothing wrong, just deny the accusation. I don't think that's an unreasonable position, and the situation is exceedingly simple here. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I just went and counted. I found six different places that the WMF has stated that their ban was based on the Terms of Use, which itself indicates it was not based on something not in the Terms of Use. Just to be clear, you're saying seven is the magic number for you, right? The WMF has to confirm seven times that their ban was based on the Terms of Use, and then the whole controversy will disappear - poof. I feel like I'm operating within a twisted version of Beetlejuice where the writers got a bit overzealous with the number of times you had to say his name... ~ Rob13Talk 14:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The bottom line is that if all the material was on-wiki, it should be Arbcom's bailiwick. If the material in question is not all on-wiki, then either Fram is lying or WMF is lying. I see no reason for the former who has been as transparent as he can be during this fucked-up process. On the other hand, WMF are all about keeping secrets, but if so, they're now implying that Fram is lying about the warning given and his version of events (ie. that all concerning material is publicly available on en.wiki). This was an Arbcom case in the making, but WMF fucked it all up, and there seems to be some clear indicators as to why, and yet we're now three weeks down the line and still nothing from our "lords and masters" which actually contains any substance. The failure is abject, and the apologists are sickening. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @BU Rob13: Look around. People aren't convinced by the generic regurgitation of the ToU clause that was supposedly invoked. You act as if corruption is incomprehensible to you. No one cares that you unflinchingly believe the WMF here. We're concerned about the allegation that there wasn't a violation, in spite of the ToU clause referenced. Regurgitating the ToU clause is useless if you won't confirm that there was a violation, which is something that takes zero effort and eliminates all the drama. Your apparent disconnect from even able to understand the simple concern of anyone who questions the conflicting narratives surrounding this situation is highly confusing, and you appear to be defending an all-or-nothing position, in which you refuse to even consider the possibility that there's a legitimate opposing view. I don't think you're an unreasonable person, but it really seems like you're just salty about your recent run-in with Fram, over which you wrote an essay, and resigned from Arbcom. I can totally understand that you like that Fram's banned, but that doesn't mean that the Foundation should not respond to his allegation that the ban was corrupt (again, something that takes zero effort). ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Jehochman thinks he found something about Fram

    This is a significant development, I believe the community needs to be informed. Here is what Jehochman has said (including to ArbCom):

    • At the Arbcom case request: [40] I’ve found evidence on wiki that justifies the ban ... Anybody who wants to talk with me about it, please email me.
    • At WP:BN: [41] I’ve dug through the history. The ban is absolutely justified.
    • At WP:BN: [42] I won’t identify the victim. If you look deep enough you can figure out what happened.
    • [43] I looked and found harassment.
    • [44] This FRAMBAN appears to be about harassment and stalking. I think the ArbCom diff was cited to help protect the victim(s) from further harassment by others. Fram’s explanation lacks critical details.
    • [45] I believe ArbCom or at least some of its members are fully aware of what transpired with Fram.

    Judging by Jehochman's contributions, he may have found something between 14:57 and 21:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC) - this timeline is my speculation and may be wrong. That's that. starship.paint (talk) 06:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Jehochman - I forgot to ping you. starship.paint (talk) 06:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    And this is now exactly what WMF instigated: a witchhunt until the last stone (of the stonewall) has been lifted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • If true, this is truly the most depressing display of incompetence that I have ever seen, from the staff that performed the investigation, to Arbcom, all the way up to the board. A most horrid disaster caused by whoever made the policy that nothing beyond generic policy regurgitation could ever be said. A shock that independent community-appointed board members and Arbcom members subjected themselves to such a notion, above merely calming the community's distress by disputing Fram's assessment. If they had genuine stalking and harassment on him, then they all were complicit in letting him sew chaos, vilify and OUT the victim, and demonize their staff, they allowed his narrative to spread and fester for weeks, they allowed the community to rip itself apart, they threw their relations with the community in the garbage, and for what? All because no one would step in to just counter his false narrative? Because they wanted to prove a point that they would never divulge anything? It took some random nobody (rhetorical, no offense intended Jehochman) to do their own digging and find out what actually happened? If this is true, that's a staggering failure, and whoever was responsible for the stonewall strategy should resign in disgrace, with substantial changes on the WMF end going forward. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jehochman: If you have an explanation that the WMF will not provide, now is the time. "Email me for details" is too little, too late. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can understand a reluctance to divulge details here. However, at least a couple of people have trawled through all of the on-wiki contributions and say that they found nothing. Their efforts were then mentioned here by others. Perhaps Jehochman should email them and get some sort of agreement? Iridescent was one, IIRC. - Sitush (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    For the umpteenth time, they didn't have to divulge details. They simply had to dispute Fram's claim that he did not commit a ToU violation, and that it was a civility ban. All they had to do was deny it, and directly state that Fram committed a ToU violation, and the entire crisis would have been averted. I still find Jehochman's claim hard to believe, because the notion that the Foundation had something legitimate, and let an abuser spin a false story about how he was the victim and his complainant was the villain, it truly beggars belief. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I am referring to Jehochman's unwillingness to divulge here, not the WMF. The investigations of a couple of admins found nothing and have been cited here by others, and now Jehochman (another admin) says there is something. So, the three should perhaps liaise with each other in private to resolve the disparity. - Sitush (talk) 06:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Swarm: - WMF did say 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." That provision lists the following harmful activities: Engaging in harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism; and Transmitting chain mail, junk mail, or spam to other users. starship.paint (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I do not buy that we are supposed to blindly accept unaccountable Office actions in spite of accusations that such actions were corrupt. This explanation was wholly insufficient in the face of an allegation that no such ToU violation took place. All they had to do was affirm the fact that the violation was legitimate, and that it was not a civility block. I've been literally begging for such a confirmation, over and over again. I even went to a board member directly, who could not confirm that the violation existed, in spite of weeks of "ongoing discussion". No one ever confirmed that a violation of that clause was present. That is what allowed an (allegedly) false narrative to take hold and fester. And that's still a monumental disaster on the WMF's end. ~Swarm~ {sting} 07:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the Streisand effect in action - a belligerent effort to hush something up backfiring spectacularly. Anyone who thinks whatever this is won't eventually come out, with all the attention this page has been getting, is kidding themselves. If the WMF's intention was to protect parties to this conflict they have spectacularly failed. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 06:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The WMF in particular seems to have failed to protect the editor nearly named Lara. starship.paint (talk) 07:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And this I just don't understand. By acknowledging the existence of Fram's Commons statement but taking no action, the WMF are tacitly allowing Fram to out Laura as the heavily implied initial complainant that led to the 2018 warning, but somehow refuse to give any substantive information on the more recent development even to Arbcom. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @King of Hearts: - initial complainant that led to the 2018 warning - Lara's diffs are cited in the second warning. That would be Fram's 2019 warning for October 2018 diffs. Did you write that quote wrong? starship.paint (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) @Jehochman: Agree with above that you should provide diffs to substantiate your claims. If it's all public then someone else could dig in and do what you did as well; all you're doing by refusing the request is wasting people's time. Assuming your findings are sufficiently clear that others investigating Fram's activity would independently reach the same conclusion if they looked hard enough, it will be posted by someone on-wiki eventually, and there is no policy rationale for deleting such a post; trying to suppress public discussion of public knowledge will only result in the Streisand effect. If not, then I can only assume that you are perhaps too quick to jump to conclusions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed, if Jehochman can find it, so can someone else, and sooner or later, someone else who won't be so private will find it. starship.paint (talk) 07:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my thought. If there is someone to be protected, Jehochman's "Eureka!" has done nothing to protect them. Quite the contrary.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, "failing to dispute allegations of corruption and lack of due process is failing to defend your supposed "victim". If there is a real "harassment victim", they've completely lost any and all credibility and their abuser is being allowed to freely dictate the narrative". That doesn't even make mention of the fact that the "victim" was named both on and off wiki. ~Swarm~ {sting} 07:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I found some stuff that I'd personally consider to be harassment. In it, Fram makes a series of comments such as "<Editor X> has written most of the text, and that it isn't the first time his writing and approach has caused problems and embarassment?" and "your [responsibility] for producing such shoddy writing once again" and "the text is seriously deficient, you wrote most of it". Jehochman, is this the stuff you regarded as being justification for the ban? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging @Jehochman:, could you confirm or deny whether this is what you were referring to? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Did Fram say these things to an editor who he was already IBANNED from? This is one of his implied defenses: he was already abiding by an IBAN against his supposed "harassment victim", yet he was banned anyway. ~Swarm~ {sting} 07:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You know Wikipedia has a search, right? If ArbCom wanted to sanction Fram over something on their own freaking noticeboard Im pretty sure they could have. nableezy - 15:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    AFAIK Jehochman isn't the first to suggest they may be aware of what it is. Someone else said something similar I think about a week ago, that they were giving themselves 95% probability of knowing what it was. (Not it wasn't Clayoquot.) Personally I suspect there are others who may also have an idea of what it is who haven't said anything about that. Nil Einne (talk) 07:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: - I remember, it was Headbomb. starship.paint (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I wouldn't consider any of that to be harassment. Unfortunately, many editors put erroneous material, or copyvios, or stuff that's otherwise substandard, into articles. And many of these editors are repeat offenders. You can't use the "harassment" defense as a shield to prevent anyone from taking out the bad material or remarking that it's not the first time this editor has written junk. Reyk YO! 07:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW a point about the privacy aspect of this, worth remembering that regardless of the wisdom, the WMF could easily have backed themselves into a corner before this controversy even began. If the WMF had given assurances to the complainant that the WMF would not reveal their complaint or identity, then while I don't know of the legal situation, ethically I personally and think many others would feel they are bound by that again whatever the wisdom of them of them making such a promise in the first place. Once it blew up, they could try speaking to the complainant again, and warn them if they didn't beforehand (which they obviously should have) that while the WMF may not reveal their identity, since the details are public it's possible others may uncover it. So it may be better if they at least partly reveal the details. (E.g. to arbcom.) Or otherwise try to get ahead of the situation. But if the complainant still won't budge, again whatever the legal situation I'm sure they will feel bound to honour that request even if they're sure it's going to be public at some stage and no matter what flak they are taking. They could of course have declared to ban in the first place under the confidentiality requirement, or decide to overturn the ban later, but they couldn't reveal someone's identity against their will. Incidentally as I've mentioned before I still see no real reason to think this has anything really to do with the L editor. And don't think I quite mentioned before but sadly enough, assuming it does have nothing to do with them, this is further proof that all that stuff about pressure from a board member due to a personal relationship etc was nonsense. They've actually suffered significantly from something that had little to do with them. As I'm sure I did say before, assuming we come to the conclusion or find out somehow this had little to do with the L editor, whatever the faults of the WMF, we as a community also need to consider how we behaved in our treatment of the L editor and those associated with them after this blew up. Nil Einne (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (Redacted) by myself, with apologies to editor L for the speculation. starship.paint (talk) 08:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    These speculations don't help any to resolve the issue. I have not much sympathies for Laura's editing skills but she needs to be left alone, now. ∯WBGconverse 08:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not advocating for anything to happen to L, WBG. starship.paint (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nil Einne, what exactly did the community do wrong with regard to the L and R editors? Just would like to hear your view. starship.paint (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Members of the community continued to make speculative statements about L being the cause of the Framban, even once it became common knowledge she was receiving off site harassment. Like you just did with your near nonsense suggestion she was partly involved / tipped off. L's recent edit history shows that in several previous days she'd stop editing at about 0-3 hours before the time of Fram's ban (17:45). So nothing suspicious about about her stopping at around that time on the 10th. And obviously the reason she didn't return after the 10th was most likely the offsite harassment. So no reason to assume a tip off. You might not have explicitly advocated for her to be further harassed, but your suggestion of at least partial involvement could have encouraged the offsite harassers to continue their work, or at least not to feel guilty about what they've already done, and hence be more likely in the future to harass other good prolific female content creators. Im sure you didn't intend that, but you might want to think things through a little more before making similar posts. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @FeydHuxtable: - thank you for explaining. Without your explanation, I would not have thought of that on my own. I have redacted my musing. starship.paint (talk) 09:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem now is Jan's message of the 21st. He states '.. the community does not and cannot have all the facts of this case ...'. This now has either a secondary effect (we really do not have all the facts of this case (Jehochman is right that there is bad stuff, but this is not the stuff that got Fram banned), resulting in possibly the community bashing down a wrong victim - still, all hell will break loose), or Jan's meaning was 'the community should never figure out all the facts of this case, because then all hell will break loose'. I cannot understand that they did not understand the implications of either option. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing good is going to come of this aspect (even if we guess everything perfectly, we will get no confirmation; and we could potentially endanger people whether we guess right or wrong.) But I do agree that User:JEissfeldt (WMF) clearly screwed up (again) by dramatically citing the community "not knowing all the facts" as a reason to shut down further discussion - it practically invited this sort of digging. More generally, though, the important focus of this discussion ought to be on the flawed T&S policies that brought us to this situation - unnecessarily bypassing community procedures, attempting to put what would otherwise be a fairly normal ban (for harassment, presumably?) above appeal simply because it went through the WMF, doubling down on the idea that appeals are forbidden while admitting they'd screwed up, etc. And, conversely, they need to be more open about whatever flaws they see in enwiki's handling of harassment (admittedly, this section probably isn't helping with that, although I'd reiterate that the screw-up that led to this unhealthy speculation and overwhelming focus on Fram's edit history is mostly on T&S.) Either way, this case is a lot bigger than Fram; the important thing is to make sure that T&S gets the message and approaches harassment issues in a more constructive way - focusing on our policies and culture and what can be done to evolve them, rather than trying to hurl lightning bolts at individual editors from ten thousand feet in the air, so to speak. --Aquillion (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just making a note that it's been 9.5 hours since Jehochman started spreading this allegation, that he has found Fram guilty of stalking and/or harassment, and he has utterly failed to explain or remotely substantiate his allegations. This is little more than a personal attack, as far as our policy is concerned. This is aspersion-casting by any standard, and he should not make any further commentary that makes allegations against Fram unless he is prepared to substantiate it. While the WMF is immune to our rules, ordinary editors can't just make accusations and fail to substantiate them, "privacy" reasons or not. If you're going to make an accusation you are unwilling or unable to substantiate, then don't make it. It's a personal attack. If you're not a member of WMF or Arbcom who is acting on privileged and/or confidentially-disclosed information, you are not bound to keep public information that you have uncovered secret, and it not only does a disservice to the community to claim that you're exclusively privy to non-confidential information, but it does the original case further harm by contributing to a coverup. ~Swarm~ {sting} 09:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I only saw this this morning, the WMF staff may be able to ignore local policies but Jehochman can not. Unless he presents some evidence publicly or at a minimum to a member of arbcom by the time I get home (in about 8 hours) I'm just going to go through his contributions and remove all the references to frams actions as unsubstantiated personal attacks per WP:NPA. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    While I hesitate to doubt Jehochman's word, this is actually fair as a matter of policy and practice. I will take the side of the truth, and in absence of a truth, I will take the side of Occam's Razor. Right now, that means that I am more likely to renominate Fram for RfA in absentia than I am to take the side of aspersions. ~Swarm~ {sting} 09:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    AGF, I suppose it's far more likely to be a genuine disagreement about what constitutes harassment than Jehochman deliberately talking crap. Reyk YO! 09:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it a "subjective", flexible definition of harassment, as interpreted through the lens of incivility? If so, it would have been best to simply own it. We could have understood. But now, it's weeks later, and we have a random nobody (again, rhetorical, no offense) claiming to have discovered "harassment", with no diffs, and no specifics. This does nothing to improve the situation, and arguably makes it worse. ~Swarm~ {sting} 10:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the WMF gave less information, the community would still be trying to find out what happened. If the WMF gave more information, the community would still be trying to find out what happened. The only way that the WMF could prevent people from digging is by a) not banning Fram, which doesn't address the problem, and b) by giving all the information, and outing the victims themselves. And the only reason that the WMF gave any information here was to respond to community demands for it. Some of the same people who said that Jan was "stonewalling" are now saying that he's said too much. What a completely absurd argument. If you are attempting to out victims of harassment, that is entirely on you, not the WMF. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 11:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Does this WMF/T&S group have the ability to "super-disappear" any actions, logs, contribs? (in the same sense that we once were involved in a "superprotect" experiment). Is it possible that there are things hidden from even those with advanced permissions? (I am familiar with wp:os - I'm speaking beyond that) Just curious. — Ched :  ?  — 12:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Technically yes; server-side manipulation of revision and text tables is certainly possible but I don't buy that. ∯WBGconverse 12:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I should have narrowed that down. Via a technical editing ability - or do some of them have actual physical access to the servers? (Not saying I'm buying into anything quite yet, just trying to eliminate the impossible, to see what remains.)— Ched :  ?  — 13:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I also found what I consider to be evidence of harassment. I'm not going to link it here, but it included quotes such as "The mess is, as so often with these pulled hooks, yours"; "If you can't see what's wrong with your original text there [...] then you should refrain from creating articles on scientific subjects"; "if you can't make a coherent defense... then don't bother replying"; "lack of knowledge or understanding never seems to stop you from DYK participation"; and "A prime example of what is wrong with too many of (Redacted)'s edits". The editor in question at one point made a comprehensive list of users Fram had harassed, with evidence. SwineHerd (talk/contribs) 13:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    All of those statements date back to 2016 or earlier. If those statements had been evidence for a WMF ban, then Fram would have been WMF-banned years ago. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Doubtful. If that was really the harassment in question then there was no reason for this not to go through community processes. Also, by including those quotes you've allowed anyone to find out who the editor in question is. It took me ten seconds. – Teratix ₵ 13:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be me but I think that is the issue some of has have suggested caused this, the fact they have not (up till now) been banned. Having said that I am not sure (without context) that any of that is harassment, they could be valid observations of a problem edd. It might be best if ALL speculation is stopped now.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe any of those edits are harassment. They're exasperated comments about another editor's tendency to put errors in the mainspace, expressed at the correct venue for those comments. If you can't say, "You keep putting erroneous DYK hooks" at the talk page for DYK without it being regarded as harassment, then this is not an encyclopedia anymore but a padded hugbox. Reyk YO! 13:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    A hypothetical question on T&S behaviour generally

    This whole business has ground to a halt. To achieve any sort of agreement for action I think we have to look at the question as two narrower aspects: 1. Assuming that Fram's actions are indeed unacceptable (I make no such claim), then what have T&S's actions been, and are we happy with that? 2. Were Fram's actions deserving of such a sanction, and was the need for this and their culpability adequately proven?

    I see the first of these as being important, and bringing important issues of the relation between WMF and en:WP into question. It is also entirely independent of any questions of guilt.

    The second I am far less concerned over (although I'm sure the individuals concerned would be concerned). It's also far harder to reach any agreement over it, and there are valid concerns of privacy.

    I would like to see the first addressed (and everything has ground to a halt, so nothing is happening about it). Even if some editor's actions were reprehensible and deserving of a one year ban, is this the way in which WMF / T&S should impose such a thing against a specific project, such as en:WP? We seem to be well off the rails here, even though we surely don't disagree that there should be sanctions on such a reprehensible editor (and again, I'm discussing a hypothetical editor who is deserving it).

    There is very little, given the secrecy, that we can do about the second. In the meantime, we should not delay some attempt to resolve the first. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    If you kick a dog for pooping on the grass you are mean spirited, even if your intention is to correct behaviour. If you kick my dog for pooping on the grass more than once, that is harassment. ClubOranjeT 09:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. I have no idea what your lesson is here. ~Swarm~ {sting} 10:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I may be wrong, but I interpreted the dog in this analogy as a well-meaning Wikipedian who has made some mistakes along the way, maybe posted some copyvio material or somesuch, while the other party is a mean-spirited admin who goes around kicking said dogs.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Amakuru, If you like, yeah. But not my dog, so all I'm likely to do is suggest they find a nicer way to stop them pooping on the lawn. ClubOranjeT 07:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • My my, isn't this an interesting twist to a social Wikipedia:Experiment?? What to do, what to do? We demand someone tell us this is a valid ban - someone does - and we immediately consider the idea that said messenger is in violation of our policies. Ya just can't make this stuff up. — Ched :  ?  — 11:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      We haven't got to the stage of literally blaming the victim for being harassed or abused yet, so there's still some ground to cover. But at this rate I am confident we'll get there. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, but do we know for sure that anyone has been harassed? As far as "abused" - wouldn't that type of behavior almost certainly call for a global ban? Hmmm, it almost writes itself no? — Ched :  ?  — 12:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      and "[42] I believe ArbCom or at least some of its members are fully aware of what transpired with Fram." almost certainly reeks of the dreaded "conspiracy" — Ched :  ?  — 12:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, not at all (I don't know how others are going to interpret it, but it's certainly not my viewpoint).
    I have, from the outset, seen this as a procedural mess by T&S. Unclear actions, questionable scope and justification for this case, then a refusal to communicate with a peer organisation. Those are problems and need to be addressed by WMF and ArbCom. But this is all overshadowed by Fram themself: What did they do and was some reaction justified? I don't actually care about that – it's a one-off case and it's more important to address the general situation.
    So far, WP's reaction (i.e. this page and its environs) has been ineffective. Today's flurry around Jehochman is likely to make it even more so, even more focussed on Fram alone, and I see this as a bad move – hence this post. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree - setting aside the entire issue of whether Fram's ban was appropriate or not, even setting aside the whole issue of whether it's OK to have a "court" rule on secret evidence with (apparently) no oversight, there's another issue here T&S's procedures and policies.
    Where I work, we're obliged to consider the risks posed by our actions, make a plan to mitigate those risks, and if something goes wrong, follow our incident response procedures. WMF knows they have the potential to disrupt the community, they know that the relationship with the community can be contentious. But despite that, there was either no risk analysis or a completely inadequate risk analysis. Their incident response procedures proved to be totally inadequate. As a result, they have disrupted the community, cost us experienced admins, wasted thousands of hours of volunteer time, and diminished the enthusiasm of many of our most dedicated volunteers. It has also worsened relations between editors (once this is over, we still have to work with people that we have been arguing angrily with).
    Why does WMF not have (better) risk assessment procedures, when relationships with the community are an issue that, for example, identified as a "tier 1 riks" in a recent presentation to the WMF Board. This is a community health crisis, precipitated entirely by the way a T&S action was managed.
    Where are the procedures? Where's the planning? What were people thinking? Guettarda (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is insightful, although I would rephrase it. T&S (or even the wider WMF) perceived a problem, and decided to address it. But they apparently did not at all consider the possibility that their cure is worse than the original problem - i.e. they failed to properly weigh the potential for improvement against the risk of (expectable and unexpected) side effects. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but the underlying issue is that WMF should have procedures that force people to consider the consequences of their actions. That should be a key point on their workflow, not a potential afterthought. Cultivating and engaging volunteers is central to WMF's role. Guettarda (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from Jehochman

    I am not doing anything hasty. I'm going to get feedback on how to present evidence. There might be a need to scrutinize other editors besides Fram, and it would be useful to have an ArbCom case. We are more thorough than WMF. Please comment on whether you think evidence should be posted at WP:RFAR, emailed to ArbCom, or emailed to select editors. I am mainly interested in the opinions of WMF staff and arbitrators because they might know more than I do, and might provide reasons to use one path rather than another. Also, to those who think I shouldn't have mentioned this at all, it's already out there and will surface one way or another regardless of what I do. Jehochman Talk 12:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Much as I like everything on the table, in this case I would suggest you ask a second opinion to evaluate the material - in particular with respect to its value as evidence of wrong-doing (i.e. does the other person share your interpretation), but also with respect to the question of how to present it in a way to minimise damage to other parties. And it would be good to pick someone very respected on the other side of the fence, e.g. User: Floquenbeam or (if he is still available) User:WJBscribe or one of the people mentioned by Fram in his proposal. When that other person agrees that it is sufficient evidence, then publish it for all. That won't solve the constitutional issue, but it might depersonalise it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm working on sharing this with a select group of Arbitrators. I am not fond of the ArbCom mailing list. In the past it has been leaky. Jehochman Talk 13:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If the diffs are still live on Wikipedia, the best course of action is to present them at the evidence phase of an arbitration case, and state why the diffs in question constitute a bannable offense by Fram, and let Fram respond. Since that is all rather pointless as the WMF has stated they will not be removing the ban, I'm not sure what you've found even matters at this point. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it matters that we investigate this ourselves and also look at other editors who may be involved and maybe need warnings. I don't know if WMF was entirely thorough in their investigation. We can confirm or refute their findings. This may provide measure of justice. Jehochman Talk 13:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Second Boing!'s advice. You may consider the arbs that have commented here: GorillaWarfare, Worm That Turned, KrakatoaKatie and Opabinia regalis. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jehochman: I trust you are aware that the WMF did find edits of Fram that they felt were inappropriate, and justified an IBAN. My recollection is that IBAN was honored (possibly with a couple minor mistakes). One would hope that if the WMF imposes a sanction, and it is honored, it cannot possibly be the basis for the ban. Are you confident that the diffs you are uncovering involve someone other than the editor involved in that IBAN, or, if involving that editor, occur subsequent to the imposition of the IBAN?S Philbrick(Talk) 13:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I heard that but if you know of any public posting about it, please share the diff or link so I can make sure I am looking at the same thing as you. Yes, there has to be a trigger beyond the imposition of the IBAN for a further sanction. I don't know everything about what WMF said to Fram (nobody does but them and Fram). If anything, from what I've seen WMF was rather lenient with Fram for several years. Jehochman Talk 15:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there has to be a trigger beyond the imposition of the IBAN for a further sanction. That is not a given. People have also expressed that older diffs cannot be the cause; that is also not a given. Remember that the WMF expressed that they took this step because on occasion community members submit evidence strongly indicating cases where local communities consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous rules but the Terms of Use; that is to say, they are dissatisfied with enwiki's handling of Fram in some way (although they cannot / will not say exactly how.) Therefore, far from assuming that the offending edits cannot be something that we ourselves would not use for a ban (stale, already handled by an IBAN, etc), we should perhaps consider the possibility that the offending edits are most likely something that we ourselves would not use for a ban under our current policy, for one reason or another. This would neatly answer a number of questions. Either way, I don't feel the exact issue that got Fram banned is what's important; getting the WMF to explain what they think enwiki is doing wrong is important, especially since there's a troubling feel from this that at least some people within T&S are or were taking the position of "enwiki can't moderate itself, so we should just overrule them rather than working with them", ie. whatever failing they feel they've identified, it's possible they feel it's serious enough to use as an argument against enwiki self-moderation - and they don't think enwiki necessarily gets a seat at the table in that debate, so they don't feel the need to explain themselves to us. --Aquillion (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    On this page, some editors have been posting things Fram said that, in their opinions, are harassment. Although neither harassment nor incivility are particularly good things, there really is a difference between incivility and harassment in the context of what does or does not justify an office action, or even an accepted request for arbitration. Just looking at the posted quotes, they look to me like efforts to enforce policies and guidelines that were expressed in overly gruff ways, but they do not look like harassment. @Jehochman: I obviously don't know what you found, but I hope that you are keeping that distinction in mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Here’s another core, critically important distinction we need to keep in mind: Neither WMF nor the TOS are bound by our local policy definitions of harassment or incivility. They are in theory free to define any incivility as harassment. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually to be really precise you could possibly sue if they TOS banned you for something that isn’t reasonably “harassment”, but good luck getting past 12(b)(6). Their Jones Day lawyers will eviscerate pretty much anything. (That’s right, WMF uses Jones Day) —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Well, yes, that's true, but by the same token they are free to alienate the editing community. If they feel that our harassment policy does not match with their expectations, they would be well advised to discuss that openly instead of taking the approach of super-secret bans of users who guessed wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ Jonathan .. I'm curious about the wording "...select group of Arbitrators.". Are there some of the already select group that you don't feel completely confident in? — Ched :  ?  — 13:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      ArbCom’s mailing list has historically been leaky. I am not fond of it. Also if I trust the entire committee I also am trusting that none of them have any malware on their computers or compromised email accounts. The attack surface of the committee is bigger than one or a few members. Jehochman Talk 14:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you shitting me? That goes beyond courtesy to the person harassed, which is what's at issue, not some solemn duty that it not be mentioned aloud. You might as well be worried that someone else will find the diffs and publish the same evidence that you will.
      I will say to any arbs that receive this evidence: You had better forward it to the list with no edits or redactions. As bad as the ex parte communication situation with ArbCom is already, don't make it worse by concealing communications from fellow arbs. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I would never shit you, my friend. My contact is free to share however (s)he likes but I'll let him(er) decide whether my communication is useful or not, and who needs to see it. Jehochman Talk 15:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The whole WP:FRAM situation reminds me of recent kerfuffle at Linux kernel mailing list with regards to behavior of Linus Torvalds. This quote: Two of the big initiatives that are going to be happening this next year - one of them is writing a universal code of conduct, and the second one is us making a new reporting system from [46] forebodes almost the same things as what happened on LKML, which now has a "Code of Conduct". See also similar situations in other open-source projects all over Github and other places. —⁠andrybak (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Andrybak: Very important comparison - but who is behind this and what are they pushing for? (Other than the vindication of Ted Kaczinsky, I mean) Wnt (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decision making should be public. Any impression that you are "protecting the victims" is an illusion. The archives of AN/I are endless and nobody on Earth cares about them but Wikipedia administrators. The identity of secret victims in a case that is tearing apart Wikipedia, on the other hand, will become major news. Every moment you delay only increases the odds that the whole thing comes out in a very well-read press article with an unfair spin. With payday-lender interest rates attached. For all we know you simply agreed to say you found something "to shut those crazies up". Why not? We're not the community, we're just an unruly mob squatting on the WMF's spotless servers, awaiting a mop for all of us. Wnt (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    What on earth?

    Let me get this straight: Jehochman goes to a bunch of pages across Wikipedia tearing the WMF and its representatives a new one for the secret-evidence ban that leaves everyone speculating and leaves Fram no way of defending himself. He then decides to play Hercule Poirot for an hour, and proceeds to go on a talk-page spree posting the exact type of "can't tell you but I assure you it's justified" garbage that he spent the previous day vilifying the WMF for doing, throwing another barrel of gasoline onto this raging dumpster fire, and triggering yet another intense hunt for the identity of the "victim(s)", which then needs to be redacted? Why on earth would you do such a thing, Jehochman? What was the plan here? 28bytes (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    28, we have history that goes way back. I’ve let bygones be bygones, and I hope you will too. That out of the way, I am gravely disappointed in WMF handling of this matter. But before putting on my Spider-Man suit and climbing any tall buildings, I needed to assure myself that Fram wasn’t a bad actor. My digging turned up solid evidence of harassment. This case should have been sent to ArbCom. I’m hoping to finish gathering the evidence and present it to them if they are willing to hear it. I’ve already sent one arbitrator a preview. Sorry for any lags in replies. I just had a new refrigerator delivered; transferring all the food; big family and nobody else home right now. Jehochman Talk 14:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm confused - I though there was some Friday come to Jesus meeting with everyone that included all these Arbcom/WMF reps/T&S etc. players in some sort of conference call (including Jimbo). — Ched :  ?  — 14:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Jehochman ... you are not the first to convince themselves that they are correct, but if you put the evidence before 28bytes and they backed you, I would take that as firm confirmation.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep - I'll go along with what ^^he^^ — Ched :  ?  — 15:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So if I'm reading this right - I don't think Jehochman is too far from what some of the others of us are saying: that there could really be a case made for desysopping/banning Fram, but it should have been done by ArbCom. It is just that Jehochman presented it in a way that got noticed by a lot of people, to put it diplomatically. --Rschen7754 18:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether Fram needs to be banned or not is immaterial at this point. People are up in arms NOT because they thought Fram was as pure as the driven snow, but because of how this went down. If it wasn't an emergency, T&S could have dropped their notes off at Arb (who we have seen act in as little as an hour if it was warranted). Instead, the WMF puffed up and slapped the community in the face. The issue is how we handle these kinds of non-emergency problems, period. T&S has successfully made themselves a bigger villain than Fram ever was, although it is pretty obvious they don't really care how we feel about their hamfisted approach. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes and this has been stated something like 100 times on this page, but people continue to defend the WMF's actions with their belief that Fram is a "harasser" (or something to that effect). Enigmamsg 20:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I view how T&S handled this and whether or nor Fram harassed someone to be separate issues that can (and likely should) be handled as separate matters. Regardless of the merits of Fram's sanctions, T&S should have at a minimum explained why this was time-limited and why ArbCom was not the appropriate venue. Thus far all we've gotten is vague boilerplate from them, which is spectacularly unhelpful for all involved. Their handling of this is why Fram has been more-or-less allowed to set the narrative and why there's been such a Streisanding. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 21:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Enigmaman: And if Fram had engaged in harassment that was serious enough for T&S to intervene, then it should have resulted in an indefinite global ban, not a fixed duration site ban exclusive to the English Wikipedia. Nothing about the official response to this situation makes any sense if not viewed with the presumption that they have committed an overreach of authority in banning someone they didn't like. Kurtis (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due deference to @Jehochman:, I find the links provided by Starship.paint to be deficient as evidence of a 'smoking gun'. The last point that Arbcom or some members of same are aware of the issues has been discredited by an Arbcom member here (unless we are to assume that those Arbcom members in the know will not advise other members to that fact.) The other is the method by which JEH determined the degree of 'harrassment' (to a third party - the effect on the recipient should never be ignored) against the totality of Fram's interactions while using semi automated tools to perform wikignoming actions. If he simply cross referenced Fram with another user, using commonly available tools, finding three examples of poorly judged comments is 'not' a basis to construct an argument of a campaign of harrassment. We do not know if this is three from tens, hundreds, or thousands, of interactions - and how many out of all edits over that period. Without simple answers as to the ratio of suspect comment to all actions with 1 editor or all actions within that timeframe, then we do not know how Jehochman derived his opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LessHeard vanU (talk • contribs) 21:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)‎ signing now. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC) (thanks Duncan)[reply]
    Yep. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Vote of no-confidence in the WMF?

    I believe it might be time for a vote of no-confidence in the WMF. Thoughts? I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    What will it achieve?Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    What any other vote of no confidence achieves- a formal statement and hopefully change. I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't mean to be unkind - but I think all these pages/bytes are pretty much confirmation that the community has no confidence in powers that be. — Ched :  ?  — 15:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing is though, the community's lack of confidence is pretty self-evident at this point. I can't see an official vote doing a whole lot more than reaffirming what's already known. If there's any benefit to doing so, I'll be glad to add my signature to a motion of no confidence, but I just don't see what it would accomplish. Kurtis (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good idea, especially since it's been proven to my satisfaction that this entire thing is a case of someone exerting undue influence to screw over Fram for doing his job. Jtrainor (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw was Fram hounding another editor improperly. Fram was not screwed over. They were counseled by peers, and then warned. It took nearly three years to get sanctioned. There was a lot of patience and multiple chances to stop the objectionable behavior. Jehochman Talk 01:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You a. have literally no idea if what you think you found is what led to the ban and b. still are obliged to follow WP:ASPERSIONS even if the Wikimedia Foundation is not. Serious accusations still require evidence. If you are unprepared to submit that evidence you should not be making the accusations. nableezy - 02:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How does one distinguish harassment from quality maintenance in this area? I have seen numerous editors (I don't myself) trawling through another editor's history to systematically revert everything because the editor in question is obviously pushing either crap into articles or showing egregious incompetence. No one normally takes exception to this. In the case alluded to, I saw numerous machine-produced and often ridiculously flawed translations by the one editor being systematically reverted by the admin in question. Since the editor doing that turns out to be a woman, this revert pattern has been assumed to be sexist harassment, blurring the issue between harassment and stringent quality control. I'm stating this without taking a side, since I limited by examination to what the said editor was doing with French and Spanish. The repetition of a flawed use of machine translations was self-evident, and was problematical. The intemperance of the reverting admin is another question. Nishidani (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And I don't mean to be unkind but I think a bold proposal like this should come from a veteran and longtime editor, not a new one. Liz Read! Talk! 00:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: It would probably carry a bit more weight if it were proposed by, say, Iridescent, but the reason that this proposal isn't gaining traction (i.e. redundancy) would remain the same regardless of where it came from. Kurtis (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The press

    A little while ago a user suggested we go to the press, maybe someone has

    [[47]] "...in the event of administrator abuse.", interesting timing. Then we have this [[48]].

    It maybe that these kinds of stories are why WMF have acted now. Its about forestalling a future publicity scandal. What we do now will impact upon the perception of Wikipedia (and as I suggest above may have already done so). If (and it an if) it is a case that Fram harassed another user (who was female) how is it going to look if we victim blame or even try to defend Frams actions (let alone go for an unblock)? Now to be fair, this may not be what happened, but is any one 100% sure that is not the case? Because if you are not the damage this could cause (to my mind) outweighs any potential injustice. We already have an image problem, and that is a far more serious issue then one admin.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I.e.80% of Wikipedia volunteers are male. Ergo, parity is missing, and that is due to widespread harassment based on gender, accounting for why only 20% of volunteers are female. Has anyone published that theory in a respectable peer-reviewing sociological journal?Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Your stats are approximately correct, your analysis is — at a bare minimum — [citation needed]. I would argue that it is a completely wrong conclusion. For example, when I did a pop-punk record label in the 1990s, I kept close track, and 85% of my customers were male. The reason for this was not a "hostile environment" for women — it just was that way. I believe there is a similar reason for the gender mix editing WP and this explains why for all the focus groups and seminars and papers and scholarships and initiatives, the mix of WP editors remains more or less what it was five years ago. Carrite (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Carrite: I think that was Nishidani's point. Just because more males contribute does not mean that females are prevented from doing so. SmartSE (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There's been writing about this for some time. But I agree, because of the character of Fram's actions (many of which are indefensible) there's a real risk of people posting here in defense of procedural fairness being mischaracterized as the good old boys circling the wagons. In fact, there have been several high-profile comments here and elsewhere to that effect. Considering the comments above that WMF have screwed up by failing to control the narrative on WP, the people on this page have screwed up by failing to control the narrative outside of WP. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the procedural fairness for the victims? Why does no-one seem to care about that? That is why the community is coming across as "good old boys circling the wagons". You're focusing on witch hunts and protecting harassers without even considering that our deficient processes for reporting and dealing with harassment have led to this WMF action. ~ Rob13Talk 16:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Rob.I know nothing of Fram (b) I don't know who he (she?) is alleged to have harassed (c) I don't know with precision precisely the terms of what civility policy were (repeatedly) violated or how civility was defined (d) or what the evidence was. I only know that this desperate attempt to use a comic metaphor with a very good editor who got angry and looked like he was deliberately helping, by aggressive or over-sensitive ripostes, those who were provoking him (one a sockpuppet) to get him banned, was interpreted as proof I was 'taunting, teasing, attacking or harassing other editors.' This was immediately recognized as a radical misreading of the diff used to suspend me for a week for harassment, and my sanction was cancelled. I wrote to the admin who both misread my edit and sanctioned me that I did not hold the error against him. Seven weeks later that diff was cited by Arbcom as key evidence of incivility for which I earned a permaban.
    What I did learned from this back in 2009 was that diff reading without, in each case, pulling up the talk page to examine the context and get the overall picture, may ( I don't think it the norm) prove disastrously unfair. I can evaluate what I see in arbitration here, where this kind of misreading is not uncommon. If arbs here can err sometimes seriously, then the point is, what technical competence, what methodology, what process ensuring verification, is in place in a handful of busy people looking into complaints in SF? Have they papal infallibility, or are they human. Do they trust A1 to make their case, or do they, as scrupulous admins do, go back and forward 10 or 15 diffs to look at the context of a dispute between editors in which one complains of harassment.
    Knowing this, but not knowing whether there is a victim, or the nature of the harassment, all I for one do is consider the principle. The principle is one of rebuffing as parlous any procedure conducted on secret evidence, obliging blind trust in people constituting an ultimate authority whose reading competence cannot be assessed, but whose assessment is beyond appeal. Everyone is appalled by Kafka's narratives - but it has no traction here.Nishidani (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "You are focusing on ... protecting harassers" is a serious accusation using a loaded word. Could you please frame your perspective, which is often valuable, in a less hostile manner? Haukur (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Any procedural fairness to the accused is an attack on the victim? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that is obviously not what I said. Identify for me a single on-wiki process that allows a victim of on-wiki harassment to make a report without facing the mob that has attempted to identify and attack victims here. (And no, ArbCom isn't such a process, since ArbCom will not hear private cases on public evidence.) When you can't, explain to my why you haven't been at all interested in working toward such a process, even though if such a process existed, the WMF likely wouldn't have needed to step in here. ~ Rob13Talk 17:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice strawman (and deflection). The fact is that this is not about harassers or victims. This is about process for everyone. As Justice Frankfurter once said, "It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people." A culture of process and fairness protects everyone. Even victims. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Rob unblockable? He can spread insinuations and innuendo attacking numerous editors without any comeback? Maybe his continued presence is a sign that you can be a bully and get away with it. DuncanHill (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @BU Rob13: some direct questions (since no-one seems to have really got the points I raised here). Do you think public figures, elected to positions of responsibility, should be able to make anonymous complaints to a body such as T&S about their treatment while working as part of that elected body? Do you think WMF employees should be able to complain anonymously to T&S about editor conduct that affects their work? Do you think editors in general should be able to use T&S as a 'weapon' in disputes and feuds? What checks and balances are there to prevent that sort of thing happening? When you have a secretive process such as this, that is what people will perceive as happening, unless you have a system that is far removed (and vastly improved) from what we currently have. Carcharoth (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that any victim of harassment should be able to make an anonymous complaint in some way, given the community's penchant for going after the victims in response to reports. It shouldn't be to the WMF, ideally, but what choice have we left them when we refuse to set up such a system of dispute resolution that is community-based? Be the change you wish to see in the world. If you dislike the WMF having to step up to the plate here, put forward or support proposals to develop a community-based system of private complaints of harassment or elect arbitrators who will tackle that problem. ~ Rob13Talk 17:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Procedural fairness should apply to the accuser and the accused. So far, it appears that the preponderance of the fairness has accrued to the accuser. Also, we're still waiting for any validation of the rumor that Fram actually harassed someone. So far: only flowcharts, evasiveness, and "we're discussing it".- MrX 🖋 17:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh. That first article Slatersteven links to makes a serious mistake, confusing the ArbCom with arbitration by a professional third party. And the second refers to a UW study that will be a lion in the road for a long time. So the Foundation has decided to solve this problem of gender inequity by going after a few "troublemakers" on the assumption this will end harassment & women & non-binary people will flock to Wikipedia? At best, this is treating the symptoms while leaving the cause unidentified.

    This is something of a tangent, but I'll repeat something I've wondered about for years: why hasn't the Foundation done a study of Internet communities where there is not such a serious gender imbalance -- or where women outnumber men? They exist, I was active in one recently -- Websleuths. What do these communities do differently? Is it the rules, or something in the community's culture? Can it be exported to Wikipedia? After all, banning those who engage in harassment won't solve the problem beyond a short-term period, if that. -- llywrch (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that may be my point in a way. There is a perception (not without some merit, but massively exaggerated, by the way I found a wholly different reason to dismiss the first article, I merely posted it here as an example of how we are perceived) that there is an imbalance in Wikipedias treatment of the (historically) socially excluded. When they see this amount of effort on behalf of one admin, they look at the amount of time taken to dealing with the communities apparent inability to deal with certain kinds of harassment (and indeed some peoples attempts to change our polices to make it even harder to complain about harassment) they are going to ask why. But maybe the reason other sites do it better is just that, there is not such a huge imbalance, so the lads cannot drown out the ladies. And that may also be commented on in relation to the amount of effort put into this. We need to tread carefully, otherwise we are going to find ourselves the subject of some very negative publicity.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, all of these "gender" metrics elide a crucial point: Editors aren't required to specify a gender at all, and most don't. Any actual count of editors' gender would be mostly "Unknown/unspecified". I suspect well over 90%. We do not know the gender of most editors, including Fram. Any study that excludes unknown factors when they exist is at best careless and at worst deliberately dishonest. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a really good point. These metrics may simply be interviewing people who are willing to announce what their gender is; that will likely result in bias. Come to think of it, no one knows my gender on here either, even though I am 100% my birth gender in real life, it's just never come up. Because of that, I'd be "unknown" too Rockstonetalk to me! 17:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto on User:Seraphimblade's point. I was called a "she" at WIR and I am called a "he" otherwise, even though I have used "they" to refer to myself on the userpage. All these so-called studies have an inevitable sampling bias. That said, an error in a proof of a proposition is not an automatic proof of the counter. There is surely gender disparity on editor composition but studies giving a number is just junk science. Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 17:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Seraphimblade This was actually discussed on this very page by Risker. Risker pointed out that there's no basis for the absurd statistics people throw around. It appears what was done is that any registered account that did not specify a sex/gender was assumed to be male, thus skewing the data. Even if everyone who did specify was being honest, the number is still wildly inaccurate. As I discussed here and here, this is an anonymous website, like many others, and no one knows what percentage of the editors are men, women, old, young, racial background, etc. It is thus absurd to claim that Wikipedia "harasses" women or "non-binary folk". As I've said many times, unless someone specifically comes and tells me (which no one ever does), I have no idea of anyone's gender or race or origin. Enigmamsg 19:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC) ‎[reply]
    On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Or whatever. Jonathunder (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I always thought this was well-established, and yet the media as well as the Women in Red (on twitter and I'm sure in other places as well) push the narrative that Wikipedia is over 80% male and that women/non-binaries are persecuted. It is possible that Wikipedia is "85% male" as they like to claim, but they have zero evidence to support the statement. Some of the "evidence" often used to "prove" that Wikipedia is misogynistic is that there are far more biographies of men than women. I'm sure you can see the problem with that "evidence". Enigmamsg 19:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you assume all undefined-gender accounts are male, that skews the results, but if you take the undefined-gender accounts out of it altogether, it still begs the question why so many more defined-gender accounts are male rather than female. 576,000/116,000 male-female ratio suggests a major problem: either there are 5x as many men as women here, or the women here don't want to publicly identify as women by setting their account's gender flag to female. Either way, it's a problem. On this page, the gap is wider. As of June 13 (admittedly early on), 135/17 is the male-female split, which is almost 10:1. You gotta ask yourself: why aren't women editing WP, and/or why aren't women identifying themselves as women on WP? (Because toxic bro culture, that's why.) – Levivich 19:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    'Toxic bro culture' is probably not the answer. Gender imbalances are mostly not due to offensive attitudes. [49] Haukur (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I don't identify myself as any gender on WP...I am tired of being pigeonholed because of my gender in the world outside of these pages. I cut my internet teeth on Usenet, I want to be judged on my writing and my conduct, not on my gender. I LIKE being judged solely on my contributions around here. If people...people don't want to identify themselves online as being any particular gender, that is our business. If people...people want to identify as being male or female online then that is their business too. And why have we been assuming people are telling the truth (whatever "the truth" might be) at all when they check off those boxes? Maybe some people just don't want to identify themselves. Maybe?..maybe some of us just want to be Editors. Shearonink (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Five times as many people...people identify themselves as male on Wikipedia than female. This suggests there are more men than women here. – Levivich 23:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lev Since I am merely an account and not a real person, I do not have a sex or gender. Nevertheless, to show solidarity with any non-male individuals who feel oppressed by the "bros", I am going to set my 'preferences' to female and I intend to leave it there until this WMF incident is resolved. If it never is resolved, I probably won't be back to return it to its correct genderless state. Enigmamsg 20:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec)The 15%-20% figure might be slightly off, but only by a few percentage points. Here is a paper that analyzes the self-response bias in the gender survey; their estimate is 16.1% female overall, and 22.7% female among adult editors. You can read the paper for more details on how they reached that number, but at the very least it's a lot more solid of an argument than just a random unscientific poll. Yes, editor self-identification has flaws, but there's still vastly more information available about Wikipedia editors than most of the other groups social science studies, so it's not a surprise that they'd manage to put together a decently-grounded estimate. --Aquillion (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • One related thing that has been troubling me when people talking about "going to the press" - I am not sure the public at all understands (or would be sympathetic to, if they did understand) the idea that enwiki moderates itself. To most of the public, the idea that Wikipedia is moderated the way Facebook or Twitter is moderated (that is, in an anonymous fashion, handling anonymous reports, by the company that owns it, with no real explanation or transparency or community involvement with their decisions and no serious option for appeal) would be the presumed default. I think that we might want to consider how to keep people better informed about how we do things here and how to highlight the advantages - our community definitely has its flaws and areas in need of improvement, and has become a case study for many things precisely because it is so open, but I strenuously reject the idea that eg. Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube are anywhere near as good as we are at handling harassment or incivility. They regularly allow and ignore things that would get a sharp and rapid response here, in part because that sort of moderation cannot possibly scale up to really keep a close eye on a community of that size. I feel like the constant use of Wikipedia as a case study and our extreme openness has made it very easy to overemphasize our flaws and ignore the things we get right. There's still definitely a lot of room for improvement (and I'd be happy to get some guidance from the WMF on how they feel we need to improve), but the idea that a Facebook / Twitter-style approach is superior seems absurd even if it were feasible to get the community to accept it. --Aquillion (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I really see this discussion, in the meta sense, as determining those things, Aquillion.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, these are general audience articles. The "Swaddle" article seems to be based on this paper (full PDF courtesy of ResearchGate). I'm not qualified to judge all the social science parts of the paper, not do I have time for a really deep dive, but I do see a significant potential for misunderstandings. For one, the paper is purely anecdotal. It relates information from interviews (performed 5 years ago) with 25 experienced female Wikipedians. There is no comparable control group (nor, indeed, any control). It's also interesting that "Wikipedia" in the paper not only comprises the Wiki, but also mailing lists, meet-ups, Wiki-related facebook groups, and so on. I particularly noted complaints about the WMFs handling of trolling/harassing on its mailing lists - something beyond the reach or even the experience of most Wikipedians and the Wiki-Wikipedia community. Overall, the paper provides an interesting and even instructive view at some experiences, but it does not (and does not claim) to present typical or representative cases, and it is silent on comparable experiences of male editors. What the paper also does not do is ask for or suggest a punitive approach. The Swaddle article, on the other hand, seems to be a shallow trawl looking for horror stories, not a fair summary of the underlying academic paper. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the link. I recommend that all those commenting here download it and read it closely. There is apparently quite a lot of 'research' establishing gender bias on the basis of calculations of female participation rates in wikipedia which, as I thought myself, and which Seraphimblade now notes, is very odd since most of us have no inkling of who is male and female. Yet several papers assume (see the bibliography) or assert that despite the anonymity of editors, statistics can establish the proportion. It's important because that kind of research is the kind of thing that may feed into WMF proposals, notwithstanding the fact that the premise is doubtful: anonymity cannot engender the statistical breakdown several papers assert as an established fact,-unless AI can twig with precision u ndisclosed gender identities- and yet this hypothesis, taken as ascertained fact by virtue of such papers which repeat the meme- can affect policies designed to remedy a perceived imbalance which is not scientifically established.Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't followed this thread too closely, but every time I do look at it I'm amazed by how everyone keeps missing the core issues. This discussion is another case in point. It triumphantly pokes holes in those two articles' methodologies in order to avoid engaging with the underlying arguments. To me 80% male sounds like a very plausible estimate, no matter how they arrived at that number. Does that composition of the community have any effects? Of course not, everyone claims, because many (or most?) people don't disclose their gender, gendered dynamics can't affect us, can't affect the way we deal with each other, and can't affect the kind of content that we produce. That's obviously bogus.--Carabinieri (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Decisions made as a result of knowingly flawed or incomplete data tend to cause more problems than they solve. Unless you have actual information about those who are unwilling to disclose their gender it's bad science to extrapolate from those who are. It's the same reason why I would not trust any study that claims that X% of Wikipedia editors are on the spectrum since that's something people generally don't *want* to disclose. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 21:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If the proportion of male editors is actually, say, 65%, does that really undercut what those articles are saying? Of course not. So pointing to possible inaccuracies in the statistics is just a way of deflecting the issue, namely that gender and the gender composition of the community affect the way Wikipedia works.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that disputing the exact percentage (and I think 80% is not implausible) does not undercut what those articles are saying. What does, however, undercut it is that they tend to assume as given that any gender imbalance is due to mistreatment of women. But there are good reasons to believe that gender differences in the things that people spend their time on are mostly caused by other things. Haukur (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, I think this is getting a bit off-topic. I really don't understand the relevance of the gender gap and reasons for it to the issues of how we handle harassment and what WMF's role in on-wiki enforcement should be. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish this were off-topic but the WMF appears committed to a narrative tying the ratio of male to female editors to issues of 'sexism', 'trolling' and 'harassment'.[50] [51] Everyone seems to acknowledge that it is important not to have only men contribute because men and women tend, on average, to have somewhat different perspectives and interests. I certainly agree. But this difference in interests and priorities between men and women is also probably the most important factor in explaining why we have more male contributors to begin with. Anyone who thinks the relatively high ratio of male contributors is primarily caused by mistreatment of women might be inclined to resort to harsh and radical measures to address that - perhaps including arbitrary bans of people who are deemed undesirable. Haukur (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Worse case scenario, Fram is a serial harasser of female users because they want to "female up" Wikipedia. He has been able to do this because there are so few female admins and arbcom members that they get shouted down whenever they try to punish him. We unblock him and tell hum "there there its OK, no harm done" and the first hying he does is go after his last couple of victims.
    How will that play out do you think, in the press?
    That is (I think) one of the concerns raised more then once in the media, the gender imbalance meaning that female edds have a very "unpleasant" time here.Slatersteven (talk) 08:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Slatersteven - that Swaddle article is concerning. It criticizes Wikipedia for deleting the entry on Donna Strickland before she won the Nobel Prize. It seems to imply we got it wrong for deleting her article for lack of notability. This is expanded in this piece. [52] The author complains that Gerard Mourou, Strickland's coworker (and later Nobel prize recipient), has a page since 2005. Then they list two obscure male academics. Perhaps these men are notable, perhaps they are not. Perhaps the author of that article should nominate those men for deletion instead of just complaining about the gender gap. starship.paint (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said the first source has problems. It was (as I said) there to illustrate how this may end up playing out. We either reinstate an admin who even many here seem to agree was an issue (and where there are accusation of harassment), with all the potential damage that could cause to the project. Or we do not reinstate them, and accept the decision, with all the damage that could cause. So my question is simple, which has the potential to cause more overall and long term harm? Ultimately our interest should be to protect the project.Slatersteven (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven: - while the decision not to reinstate might not seem damaging in itself, I think the real damage may happen down the line, if more bans that are not appealable and not fully explain happen. Your logic can be applied to every single ban after this (because we won't be given much details): "Hey, maybe this person harassed women (or some other group)! Think of our reputation!" starship.paint (talk) 08:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It might even be me next. Sure, I don't really edit articles on women. But hey, maybe I looked up some of our female editors on-wiki and harassed them off-wiki? You'd never know! starship.paint (talk) 08:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be @Slatersteven: next - and by what they have posted here they don't appear to want any of us to come to their defence, however innocent they are. Nobody is safe in a system that uses secret evidence in secret processes, with no defence and no appeal. DuncanHill (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, if that is what happened, as we do not in fact know. It was secret to us, that does not mean it was secret to the accused, nor that they were not given an opportunity to explain. I am led to believe that military justice often operates in a similar way. So it all hinges on who did what, which goes back to my OP, is any one here 100% sure there was no smoke without fire?Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven: - are you sure that it wasn't secret to the accused and that Fram was given a chance to explain? I think it really was secret, and Fram wasn't given a chance to explain. WMF wants to protect the privacy of the accusers. Had WMF told Fram who the offense was committed against, they risk Fram exposing the secret to everyone. Thus, they cannot reveal to Fram who accused. Then, they cannot specify exactly what went wrong either, because if they did, Fram can possibly figure out who accused him, and then expose the secret. So, I don't think your above argument is valid. starship.paint (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea, and neither does anyone else. So arguments based on "secret tribunals" or "conspiratorial plots" or whatever are as equally invalid. This whole debate is based upon assumption and innuendo. Its why I say we are wasting far too much time over this, rather then trying to tackle the basic issue, harassment of users.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven: - I must disagree with you. This whole affair does not boil down to basically harassment of users. Another key issue is the way this case was handled - no appeal, possibly no defense by Fram, no trust in the community (not even ArbCom, perhaps due to confidentiality) and thus no communication. Did you know WMF only said Fram was banned under the ToU provision "harassing and abusing others", [53] which might even have been spam or vandalism? Do we know that Fram was not banned for spam or vandalism? We don't, because WMF never said. WMF has not even acknowledged to us that Fram's quoted emails are 100% accurate. If they at least confirmed that, then yes, we would know, from WMF, that they were saying he harassed people. starship.paint (talk) 12:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "possibly no defense by Fram", so its not that he could not defend himself, its assumed he might not have been able to? They said they banned him under rule against "harassing and abusing others", yet this not boil down to harassment of users? Now to be fair maybe it was spam, or some such. Oddly not one user has suggested it was, yet we have a few saying they have evidence of harassment. It seems to be that yes this all boils down to harassment and what you define it as.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven: I said "possibly no defense by Fram" in case Fram is lying. From what Fram told us, Fram was informed of zero diffs in the first email, two diffs in the second email, and one diff in the third email. These diffs do not appear to be the whole story. If they were not the whole story, and Fram wasn't informed, how can Fram defend himself? If I say "you harassed me", but don't give you evidence on how you did, can you defend yourself? Now, Fram may have lied to us. (a) Maybe, WMF gave him 500 diffs, but Fram only provided to us 3. But, WMF never told us what they told Fram. (b) Maybe, WMF gave him the chance to defend himself. But, I do not remember WMF telling us - we gave Fram the chance to defend himself, but his defense was not valid. In fact, WMF told us, Fram cannot appeal, which is as good as telling us, Fram cannot defend himself. Do you see the problem? starship.paint (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because we do not know they did not give him evidence, and more then we know hew did not harass anyone. Nor do we know what those diffs were, but the fact diffs were provided means evidence was presented to him, and whatever explanation he gave was not accepted. The fact there was more then one e-mail implies a back and forth process, where they did indeed say "well here is the evidence".Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Military justice? We are not soldiers, and Wikipedia is not in a state of war! We do know it was secret, we do know there was no defence, and we do know there is no appeal. And if I started insinuating "no smoke without fire" about you I would rightly be blocked. You do not have the right to come here and keep attacking someone who cannot defend themself. It is positively indecent. Stop it. DuncanHill (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am pointing out that there are examples of where "justice" can be done out of public gaze. My point is we must be careful about what we do so as not to damage the reputation of the project even more then it is now over issues of harassment and sexism. Now maybe Fram is innocent, I even said they might be. The problem is they also might be, thus the question becomes about harm to the project (that is what bans are meant to be about, they are not punitive, they are preventative). What outcome produces the least overall harm, guilt or innocence are ultimately irrelevant, this is not a court of issue. This is why I ask about no smoke without fire, its not about implying he might be guilty, its about saying that even if he is not it may still do massive damage if he is unblocked, if there is even a scintilla of doubt about that. As I said this is not a court of law, thus "not guilty" is not going to wash with those who see the system as fundamentally (and institutionally) sexist. Even if Fram is unblocked they will have lost a lot of confidence, and every action they take will be monitored. Rightly or wrongly they will not really be able to act as an admin, and maybe not even as an editor, simply put every action will be judged as partisan to the "patriarchy" of Wikipedia. And every action that is seen as falling short will get reported. I suppose that is what I have been saying all long, the changing demographics of Wikipedia.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If we ban everyone about whom there is even a scintilla of doubt then we ban everybody. And if we allow our decisions about who is allowed to edit, or be an admin, to be based on bias or misperception or ignorance then again, we're all sunk. "We can't allow him back if he's innocent because others will call us names" is both cowardly and nasty. DuncanHill (talk) 09:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "he is Innocent" is not the same as "he may be guilty, but". This is what I am talking about the attitude of "well he might be guilty, but better to ere on the side of caution, after all we do not want him to suffer".Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I for one would not like cries of "sexism! sexism!" to shield unsourced or erroneous content from removal, or to protect editors who chronically write this bad content. Unfortunately, that seems to be the reality now. Reyk YO! 10:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, if women's articles are being deleted, we must first see whether they are up to standard. If people point out, "hey, this man's article is not up to standard," then by all means, nominate that for deletion too, to help the project. Not everything is sexism, just because the article is about women. starship.paint (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither would I, and I have been involved in at least two such debates. The problem is that there is also the counter argument that has been made that without such anonymity accusers cannot safely come forward. Its a very difficult area, and concentrating too much on the accused is not helping. This effort should be being put into solving the problem.Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The press releases are about this report published in May: People Who Can Take It How Women Wikipedians Negotiate and Navigate Safety. I glanced through for dates of when the research was conducted and found this: "The first author conducted interviews (N=25) using a semi-structured protocol over the course of 14 months spanning 2014-15." So the report is reflecting on a Wikipedia around 4 - 5 years ago. All reports are valuable, though I would have welcomed if this report had included experiences from a wider range of users to see where and how much gender difference there is in the experience and perception of harassment, and what can be done to make all users feel safer here. One of the things I kinda like about the internet is that people can be classless, raceless, genderless, and ageless if they wish to be, and are judged on what they say and do rather than pre-conceived ideas about them based on age, race, gender, etc. But for people to have to remain gender or ageless, in order to avoid any bias in how what they say is treated, is not the way forward. I have - I think from the start - had myself down as genderless on Wikipedia because I didn't think it should matter what my gender is here (or indeed in most places - why is it a standard part of filling in forms? Why does it matter to a bank, for example, what gender I am?) But, I don't know, is hiding my gender here helping or not helping? SilkTork (talk) 10:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    LOL, you mean at the time that many users are saying Wikipedia was so well run?Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    A modest proposal

    How about the Foundation specifying:

    • Any Wikipedia can appeal a T&S decision (or, perhaps, even an OFFICE action) affecting the operations of the Wikipedia or an active member of that Wikipedia to the Foundation Board. (Under some circumstances, it might become an action item at the next Board meeting.) The board can take what action it deems appropriate, including confirming or reversing the decision, or shutting down the Wikipedia or the department responsible for the decision. (All "or"s are to be considered inclusive.)

    I realize this takes some effort for the Foundation to write up properly, but it would make it clear whether a (perceived by a Wikipedia) problem is a rogue employee or department of the Foundation, or a systemic problem. I'm also not sure whether this is the appropriate page for this suggestion, as I haven't been monitoring WP:CENT lately. It's obviously on my WP:watchlist, but it doesn't seem to be on any of my active "watchlist"s. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you seen the flow chart indicating what has to happen before an office action is taken? It is impossible for a rogue employee, or even a rogue department, to implement an office action. Each action needs sign-offs from a boatload of folks at the WMF, including several outside T&S. ~ Rob13Talk 19:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It is impossible for a rogue employee, or even a rogue department, to implement an office action. Imagine actually spouting this statist nonsense. Do you genuinely believe this is generally true in principle? That having a couple supervisors sign off on the approval of some action clears it of any possibility of irregularity? Does your belief extend to officer-involved shootings? I urge you to strike this tone-deaf nonsense. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You think that is an appropriate analogy? cygnis insignis 19:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If anything it’s a generous analogy. At least the police are legally required to follow the constitution, and are on some level answerable to their constituents. WMF can just do whatever it wants and lie to us about it and theoretically we get no say. So to actually believe there’s a protection against abuse from some internal review process is even more absurd than believing police review of their own actions is insulated from abuse. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ...having a couple supervisors sign off... I think maybe you need to re-read that flowchart? – Levivich 19:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, imagine having a couple supervisors and a couple people in other departments of the same organization sign off on the approval. Same problem. It’s all inside the same organization. That’s the problem. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If the procedure was followed, a number of people signed off on the decision. Doesn't mean they reviewed it. In fact, it doesn't mean they have access to the basis for the decision. It still might not, even if my proposal was implemented. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    VERY much this. In light of the need to protect victims of harassment I would be completely unsurprised to find out that significant details or most details are not provided to most individuals who approve OAs. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess if you assume that people aren't doing their jobs, then you're totally justified in being outraged by it. – Levivich 23:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we don't know if they're doing their jobs, and that's kind of the problem. When something takes place publicly, it's open to review. When it's done behind closed doors, no one will have any idea if it was done correctly or not. What we do know is that the explanations given Fram do not seem to justify the action taken, and we have no other information. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We have other information: Fram's contribs. What more could one want? Either one sees "harassment" and "abuse" (TOU violations) in those diffs or one doesn't. The question here isn't "what did Fram do?", it's "is what Fram did ok?" – Levivich 01:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I have no doubt they're doing their jobs, I'm just pointing out that we're assuming without any evidence that "doing their jobs" means "reviewing the underlying accusation and all the evidence to ensure that a sanction is warranted and if so that the right sanction is being chosen." I can tell you that Legal's involvement is far more likely akin to "reviewing any statements, communications, and records to be made and ensuring that any risk of liability to the Foundation is minimized" than ensuring the right choice was made. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    From legal's perspective, whatever minimizes liability is the right decision, and they're asked specifically to give that viewpoint, which is a good thing. (Their viewpoint may have been, "if you don't do something, you'll get sued".) Aside from legal, the other people reviewing this were: between 2–10 members of T&S, two T&S managers, a vice president, and the executive director, and possibly communications. I know communications didn't do their job, but as to everyone else, I AGF that they took this seriously and gave it due attention. Do I think their judgment is better than the community's? In this case, yes. – Levivich 01:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I will just note that I have met two members of WMF Legal, and had multiple conversations with one of them, and they both strike me as people who firmly believe in the WMF's mission so saying that they only care about minimizing liability is probably a disservice to the perspective they bring. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Legal ethics come before a personal belief in "WMF's mission". And I promise you the office marching orders aren't "be more transparent than legally necessary even though it exposes us to more liability". How WMF's litigation counsel from Jones Day are fighting an office action ban lawsuit in the District of Massachusetts is emblematic of a traditional corporate approach rather than a futurist open society/open knowledge organization probably should be expected to approach it. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I could eat an entire Foundation. DuncanHill (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    They are like potato chips, can't stop at one! cygnis insignis 19:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I have that in B-B-Q? And I prefer the wavy sort of potato chip to the flat ones. Just a little flexibility to capture much of the market!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Yet another proposal - Community / WMF relations going forward

    I've been silently following this when I have the time. I absolutely agree that this goes far beyond the issue of whether a ban of Fram was justified (a symptom, not the cause). On the face of it, the ability to restrict a SanFran ban to a single wiki seems insane. After all, the general understanding of SanFran bans is that they are for extremely serious legal issues.

    However, when viewing the bigger picture, namely Wikipedias without an Arbritration Committee, the need for such measures does become more understandable.

    What is the issue? The issue is that en.wiki has very robust processes for dealing with harrassment. We have an Arbritration Committee. And yet, the WMF bypassed community processes and enforced a local ban. If these processes fail, that's a wider problem that the community needs to address. Yes, highly respected users can get away with things that newbies would not. If this falls beyond ToU requirements, that's something that we as a community need to address, rather than this rather Cloak & Dagger WMF process.

    To make matters worse, such a ban is nominally unappealable. Despite the outrage from the community, the WMF have not moved. To do so would be compromising their rule prohibiting appeals. Hence, the WMF cannot back down without losing face and compromising a strong policy.

    I want to focus initially on one quote from Jan:

    I also want to elaborate on the reasons that Trust & Safety cases will not be discussed in public and often not even privately with members of the Wikimedia movement who sign Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs). When we receive non-public information, the Wikimedia Foundation must handle it in a manner that is both consistent with our Privacy Policy and any other commitments made to the person disclosing their information. When dealing with sensitive allegations of inappropriate behavior, we must ensure that we are upholding a relationship of trust and confidence with people who have entrusted us with personal information about their experiences. This means that even in cases where users have signed a community NDA, our legal obligations may not allow us to share information given to us.

    By its nature, the Privacy Policy is written by the foundation. It can be rewritten to allow sharing of information with users who have signed a community NDA. NDAs are legal documents, and the penalty for breaking such an NDA could be legal in nature, or constitute removal of advanced tools, or even a permanent SanFran ban. That would of course be up to the foundation. But allowing users who have signed a community NDA to access such information would help bridge the gap we're seeing here. Community representatives are accountable to the community, and I would hope that we take Arbcom's judgements at face value.

    Now, wrt to the Terms of Use, the particular section in question is Harassing and Abusing Others. This is one of the more vague parts of the Terms.

    • Engaging in harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism

    One line, open to interpretation, is the reason for this particular ban. We have a en.wiki policy that expands upon this: Wikipedia:Harassment. If we take Fram's response at face value, and I see no reason not so to do, we get an IBAN predicated on edits - Even though acknowledging that my edits were correct, and that "We remain convinced that the activity on Laura’s articles listed above was not intended to intimidate or make her feel uncomfortable." I see no point where such actions violate the ToU, and therefore do the foundation really have the authority (even given to themseleves!) with which to impose an IBAN? The foundation also speak of increasing levels of hostility, aggressive expression—some of which, to the point of incivility—and counterproductive escalations. The edit (nominally) triggering the ban used an expletive. The problem? The terms of use do not require civility. We encourage you to be civil and polite - not require. This makes the issue of "fuck arbcom" moot. Expressing displeasure with Arbcom is not harrassment. Being somewhat uncivil isn't a violation of ToU. SanFran were wrong. And yet, their decision is unappealable. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Leading theories are that incivility to Arbcom was not the issue. See the above threads re Jehochman's findings. ϢereSpielChequers 21:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WereSpielChequers, I am aware of Jehochman's section, however, in its current state, it's just that - theory. I'm assuming that Fram hasn't doctored emails from the WMF (which would be against ToU...). So yes, while there may be an underlying reason, I think it's reasonable to take that this reason has not be divulged, not even to Fram. Without getting too American - the 6th Amendment did have a reason for its introduction. Being told that you've done something extremely wrong without knowing exactly what is very, very, disconcerting. Especially in cases not involving straight-up vandals and paedophiles, it seems reasonable to give the accused more information. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, for the most part, I was trying to keep away from this particular case, really going for appealability, since the WMF isn't infalliable. P.S. Jehochman, I wouldn't mind giving my views on some of the evidence, I'm definitely not jumping to the conclusion that Fram did nothing wrong. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Jehochman's findings appear to be based on going through Fram's contributions and noting that he is frequently rude to people and has little tolerance for people who make mistakes, good faith or otherwise. I don't think any of this is a surprise to anyone, plenty of people have gone on record as saying they have always found him abrasive and uncivil. Also, given that WMF were watching for vier a year from their first warning, I personally think it much more likely that it was the totality of edits, rather than anything in particular, that led to the ban. The real question is whether this is a valid use of office tools as opposed to standard onwiki dispute resolution,and whether ArbCom should be doing more to protect those who feel harassed. There aren't easy answers to those questions because rights of those doing the accusing, to avoid being outed and harassed further, have to be balanced against the right to justice, something Fram has seemingly been entirely denied.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. My findings are based on the user interaction tools that show Fram hounding one or more editors. Following them around after being asked not to by other editors and admins. Repeatedly the interaction is Fram showing up after the target. The target never follows Fram. The analysis is pretty data intensive and time consuming. Jehochman Talk 23:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Jehochman, without giving anyone any idea what you are actually talking about, this amounts to simply casting aspersions. And realistically, this is a public website. Other editors, including editors you don't like, may interact with you. That's part of the deal. Unless Fram was actually interaction banned, he's free to edit whatever catches his interest, and if there was such a problem, an interaction ban should've been put in place. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, in your analysis, are you distinguishing between hounding, and dealing repeatedly with problems caused by the target? I can easily envision situations in which people ask an admin to stop working on something even though it is just proper admin work. It happens all the time at ANI. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but I think there's a danger of saying "repeated warnings for repeated infractions" plus "rudeness" plus "cussing at ArbCom" equals "harassment". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also a larger issue here, which is that, if T&S was acting on these interactions, they should not have made a ban unless the interactions continued after Fram was clearly told by T&S not to interact with that particular target. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I was under the impression that there was a smoking gun here, not something that requires expert testimony to prove. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggested resolution

    • That the WMF update the privacy policy to allow referral of complaints to local ArbComs where appropriate.
    • That the WMF make non-global or time-limited bans appealable.
    • That the community enagage in discussion with the WMF about possible disparaties between local policy/practice and ToU.

    Anyway, that's my take on things. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I like those three points. The first one is clearly something that has had a lot of support on this page. And the second one is, I think, a new idea that makes a lot of sense. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Thanks for making this, Bellezzasolo. These are all smart ideas. My main concern is that WMF will see touching the privacy policy as a nonstarter. There's been a lot of shakeup recently following GDPR, so there may be issues there (I honestly reckon any official response will vaguely refer to international privacy law requirements), though I suspect the main driving force behind secrecy is a combination of (1) avoiding public statements due to the risk of a libel or false light claim that'll make it past an initial motion to dismiss/demurrer, and (2) a genuine, sincerely-held belief that repeating/sharing harassing content in any form, anywhere results in additional harm to the target of that harassment. So I don't know if there's a way forward. I think actual, objective, dispassionate dialogue that honestly addresses these fundamental questions and reasons for why WMF does anything is a first step. If they can't be open about why an action is taken, they need to be as open as possible, and need to explain their lack of openness. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    One possible solution for that problem would be, instead of directly forwarding private material to ArbComs, they could decline to act on such complaints, unless there is substantial evidence that the local ArbCom already failed in the case, and advise the complainant to file locally instead. That way, anything that goes to the local ArbCom is going there by consent. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's called an exhaustion of remedies doctrine, and that is pretty typical of federal systems (which up until recently I believed would have described the enwiki-WMF relationship). I think in cases of harassment, the prevailing attitude at WMF would be that it's not acceptable to "refer out" a victim of harassment, and that being made to participate in adjudicative process is itself further victimization. I'm not sure if there's a middle ground there either. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's a compelling argument. This is hard. Maybe there needs, instead, to be a much better agreed-upon definition of what is within T&S jurisdiction and what is for local ArbComs. Just using a word like "harassment" to (sometimes) include rudeness can create all kinds of problems. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on what Jehochman is saying, the entire privacy thing is a bit of a red herring in this particular case. It seems as though Fram was WP:HOUNDing a user, and had been told to stop on multiple occasions (ie. people on enwiki were already aware of this, completely distinct from and on a totally separate track from any complaint that was filed with T&S.) That means that we could have potentially handled this on our own if we considered the evidence and Fram's behavior to be banworthy. WMF implied in their reply above that they saw our failure to ban for it as a failing by enwiki as a whole, which also implies that while, yes, they need to protect the name of whoever sent in the complaint, the issue was already known and therefore an additional reason to focus on that was because it was necessary to make it a T&S issue and give them a clear mandate to step in on something they felt that the community had already failed. The solution is therefore to get T&S to be more clear about what they want to see from us so we can tighten our own anti-harassment systems; in almost any situation like this, there will be enough on-wiki smoke for admins here to put out the fire before T&S feels compelled to act, even without the victim having to step forward in any serious way. That said, one additional fix might be to encourage admins to step in on their own initiative without requiring any report or action by the victim. --Aquillion (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest a fourth, that in general, and hedge it as you like, and subject to ands, buts, and the needs of the foundation, but as a general principle, T&S will not seek to impose sanctions for on-wiki words from before an agreed time not earlier than the present.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is all about the WMF imposing a tighter civility standard on us than we currently have, then yes there needs to be clear and significant publicity about this so we all have a chance of knowing what the new rule is. and of course it has to be about future edits and not be a retrospective change. But if Jehochman is correct, then the T&S people are administering a ban that we would do if we knew about the evidence. Which is back to one of my biggest concerns, is this a case where Arbcom would have acted the same way if given the same evidence, or is the WMF changing the defacto rules of this site, but in an undisclosed way. The latter scenario concerns me far more than the former, but now seems the less likely scenario. ϢereSpielChequers 14:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also note that I don't think the Privacy Policy needs to be altered to make disclosure to ArbCom possible. They just need to conform to the nonpublic information policy. See foundation:Privacy policy#share-to-protect-people. Another portion of the same policy, however, says that WMF shares no information that isn't "reasonably necessary" to "enforce or investigate potential violations" of the ToU. So... that raises questions about how much information is shared as part of the office action approval process. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a better set than many of the proposals, I generally like it. I'm concerned about "where appropriate" - I'd want that spelled out (preferably just clarified to just the standard WMF areas (harm, CSE, etc). @Bellezzasolo: - I'm with you on point 2, but who would you suggest it is appealed to? I'd also want to put in a limitation so they didn't stand permabanning aggressively just to avoid appeal requirements Nosebagbear (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Nosebagbear, I was thinking about the appeal point, but I haven't yet come up with any spectacular ideas - in the absence of that, I would assume the WMF. It's by no means ideal, but to an extent, they do hold all the cards, so I don't think anything too drastic would stick.
      Regarding permabans, I excluded those for several reasons. Firstly, I'm not aware of permabans being misused, so would be inclined towards "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Secondly, the traditional permaban is for serious legal issues like pedophilla - I don't think that such bans need appealing. However, I dare say there could be two tiers of permaban - appealable and non-appealable - based on which part of ToU was broken. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that permabans shouldn't be appealable - my point is that "traditional" doesn't hold up since the whole point is "this is all new", so just clarifying that permabans are for those areas, and non-permas are for the new areas (which need to be strictly defined as part of the whole discussion!) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thoughts on an anonymous reporting system

    One of the issues brought up above is that currently, our systems for dealing with harassment mostly require that the victim step forward into an adversarial process. From a transparency standpoint, this allows people to know what they're accused of (and makes it possible to correct their behavior), but it obviously causes problems for victims by forcing further interaction with whoever's harassing them. And I'd argue that the Facebook / Youtube / Twitter examples show how easily an utterly opaque system like this can fail the people it's supposed to protect, too; it's easy to approve of it when it works, but sometimes, inevitably, it's going to say "nope" with the same opacity and leave victims with nowhere to go. I think a better approach is to use the admins we have by putting them 'on point' for the investigation and accusation of harassment reports, acting as prosecutors for things that are anonymously reported to them. Essentially:

    • Create an anonymous "admin call" button on the edit history page. When pushed, it allows you to anonymously submit that diff to some admin-only channel or page for moderation along with an optional comment explaining it.
    • It would ask the reason you're reporting and send it to the appropriate place (or, in some cases, direct the user to dispute resolution and other policies if eg. the complaint is "this content is factually incorrect" or the like rather than something admin-actionable.)
    • Any admin can review the report's comments, then grab the reported diff or diffs for a particular user up from that page (reviewing all diffs reported for a user so they can combine them into one case if necessary). From there, they can act immediately in clear-cut cases, or push a button that lets them create a public WP:AE-style case out of it for more complex things like harassment. Admins could mark a report as invalid (which would hide it from the main list of all reports against a user) or as handled (putting it in a different, slightly more visible list of all reports on the user for later reference), but it would still be there somewhere so others could later review if eg. an admin is dismissing valid reports.
    • Admins are also strongly encouraged to do so on their own initiative - to create cases based on things they see even with no report - which means that no one can directly conclude who sent the initial report in. Could have been the victim, could have been a bystander, could have been the admin themselves noticing it. This shifts the "heat" of the process to admin-vs-accused rather than victim-vs-accused.
    • Reports only become public when accepted by an admin. This serves several purposes. It prevents bad blood from invalid or marginal reports (a blatantly frivolous report would be actionable in some way, but otherwise the reporter would remain anonymous and would never have to fear WP:BOOMERANG or accusations of WP:ASPERSIONS, since it's non-public.) It also ensures that when the report does become public, it does so under the name of the admin, presented as the admin's action - taking heat off of any potential reporter (or reporters, if something was reported by many people.) Essentially the admin "tanks" any backlash to the report by making it entirely about thesmelves-as-prosecutor-vs-the-accused.
    • Once that WP:AE-style case is created for more complex cases, the admin who initially accepts it acts as the "prosecutor" or (or the "reporter" in the existing WP:AE context), collecting evidence and presenting the case rather than judging it. Additional people can also add evidence, of course.
    • Closing an accepted report would require a conclusion from outside admins (reaching some sort of consensus among them ala WP:AE.) * Additionally, there could be a checkbox in the report system to request that the diff be redacted and / or not referenced directly in any potential case, which would send it to Wikipedia:Oversight rather than to all admins for obvious reasons.
    • Admins would also be unable to see reports against themselves (until / unless they were accepted and turned into a case), for similarly obvious reasons.

    This wouldn't be perfect, of course (we'd need some sort of oversight to ban people who straightforwardly abuse or spam the system), but it would allow for anonymous one-click (or several-clicks and some typing if you need to report multiple diffs and explain them) reporting without the need for people to present themselves personally inside the system by effectively allowing them to request that an admin, once alerted to the evidence, become "the accuser" for the case and handle it from there. It would make our system much more clear and easy to use - there would be an obvious "report this" button available, and users wouldn't have to know our detailed policies or navigate the system beyond that; administrators would handle those aspects for them. Right now, it can be a huge pain to report anything, since it's not always obvious where the right place to go is. Also, having integrated, easy-to-use 3RR reporting for regular users without having to use Twinkle would certainly be nice. When it comes to harassment, for most victims, the system would just be a straightforward 'click and forget' affair. At the same time, it would preserve enough transparency to ensure that the system is working and to retain our core values. It would, inevitably, require a lot of extra work from admins who would have to wade through the massive number of reports, but I think it would be worth it. While it might look like a lot of steps, many of them reflect processes we already use, and most of the rest would be automated in a way that would reduce red tape - especially from the perspective of casual users, who would no longer have to no any details about our processes to report something (beyond "is this reportable", which the report confirmation page could guide them through.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I would tie access to the system to email access. That way there's a natural turnoff valve for people who're abusing the system. And it should go without saying that repeatedly and/or habitually making frivolous harassment reports should result in either a disruption (if on numerous users) or harassment (if they're laser-focused on someone they don't like) block. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 06:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how it would work, but yes this might be a start. We do need to do something that shows we are taking this seriously.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there is much in this idea that is worth thinking about. It is suggestions like this which show what this community is capable of. I would love for the WMF to interact more with the community in order to discuss such ideas. If this gets a bit more support, I suggest we split it off from WP:FRAM, and create a RfC page. SilkTork (talk) 10:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In many cases you won't really be anonymous if you click a button which effectively states "this diff, directed at (me?), was harassment". While it is possible that someone else tagged it as harassment, the assumption would be that the target did so. However, let's assume that it was flagged for checking by an random admin. That might work, but what if the harasser was an admin? They could flag it is unwarranted, or ask a friend to do so, and in the latter case even the log (if checked) wouldn't help. But let's assume that it was recognized by an uninvolved admin who took it on. The next but is how would they consider context? Most of the time with harassment (as opposed to simple civility issues) you need to look at a pattern over time, and that can be difficult for a single admin based on a single reported diff. If they do start an AE style discussion, people understanding the system would know that it was unlikely that the admin did it on their own, and thus while I respect that the admin might appear to take the blame, the fear would be that the person the diff was about would still be open to retaliation, as unless they specifically said they didn't make the report the public assumption would be that they did. I do actually think this is a good idea, but it isn't a replacement for anonymous reporting of harassment to someone who can handle it privately without making the details public and be trusted to maintain confidentially. Instead it would be good for identifying personal attacks and civility issues, along with blatant cases where retaliation was not a concern. - Bilby (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be clear, the idea is that all reports about a particular user would be viewable from one (admins-only) page, which they could access from that user's page or from the general listing of individual reports - so an admin could see a report on a user, go through and compare it to previous reports, and use those to put together a case. And yes, it's true that some people might suspect that the reporter is the victim, but it wouldn't be known, which is a huge difference; the actual case would be put together by an admin, so to most onlookers it would appear like an admin acting on their own initiative (and, in fact, could be.) Even the admin wouldn't know where the reports came from, so it could also simply be a passerby who saw those and got upset, or someone unrelated. --Aquillion (talk)
    • For a start, AE-style seems wrong, as it suggests that only Admins would be able to cast !votes on whether they feel the appropriate outcome is. I don't feel doing so is reasonable or wise. Another problem, which you note, is that literally thousands of editors are going to use it for all disputes - tens of thousands of reports. I'm concerned that the Admins who do participate would be overwhelmed, at least to a point that they either cancel accusations they shouldn't or include cases outside a strict harassment remit. Also, as the ANI boomerangs show, both parties are often at fault. Would a reviewing admin need to check both party's actions? If the diff were not to be referred to, will the accused still be able to see it - it seems like it might hinder their defence. Nosebagbear (talk)
    I do like the idea of some sort of built in-reporting tool that on clicking various options allowed an issue (3RR or whatever) to be dropped in the right place would be worthwhile - sort of like a twinkle-lite. I suppose the issue is that making it wiki-agnostic would be really tough. Nosebagbear (talk)
    I get the reasoning behind it, obviously, but I'm concerned about both practicialities, implementation and fairness. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The reviewing admin would not check the reporter's actions, and in fact wouldn't even know who the reporter is. Yes, this makes some gaming possible, but I feel that it's strictly necessary in order to satisfy the requirements the WMF wants - they seem to believe the fear of WP:BOOMERANG discourages people from reporting legit harassment, so we simply can't hold onto it in all cases. I think we do have to give up those principles to an extent and be willing to evaluate individual user conduct in a vacuum - there really doesn't seem to be any other way to interpret the WMF's commitment to anonymous reporting. That said, the admin would of course be free to look at larger events around the diff and could file additional reports about those people, so if many people are at fault then the others would get in trouble, ie. if you pick a fight with someone and then report them for retaliating you can still get in trouble (and they'd have a chance to raise that issue when the case is opened.) And there would be a system to report obviously frivolous reports to some sort of oversight, of course, in cases where the system is egregiously abused. The discussion wouldn't necessarily have to be WP:AE style, yeah, but the reality is that WP:AE does manage to get outcomes in a reasonable timeframe for complex issues concerning established users, and WP:ANI often does not. We need a system that would produce results. WP:AE fits within our existing culture without devolving into quote the excessive distractions WP:ANI often does for difficult cases. --Aquillion (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    the WMF's commitment to anonymous reporting.

    One of the wry, somewhat forlorn déjà-vu disillusionments affecting people of my generation is that from the 50s to the 80s, one absorbed a sense that the rot of totalizing societies, how they formed, flourished and then led the world to tyranny, could be quarantined, and yet over the last decades all this hard learned historical and sociological knowledge is rapidly evaporating, as people become convinced we are living in a 'new world (cybernetic (dys)order.' Anyone with a reasonable literacy could cite a dozen examples from the standard works on the regimes of that period about the extreme dangers of delegating investigations to opaque authorities, and taking their judgements on trust. People here are so focused on gender discrimination (I see ethnonational and ethnic discrimination as equally powerfully present on media and Wikipedia, but no one is disconcerted about that) they forget the larger sociological issue -what happens when you institutionalize anonymous reports and invite a 'society/community' to make secret reports on their neighbours. Somerthing like the following:

    (1a) It was 1933 and Adolf Hitler was upset. He had just taken complete control of Germany by suspending civil liberties, obtaining the right to enact laws without the consent of the legislature, criminalizing any public disagreements with Nazi ideology, forming special courts to prosecute ideological offences, and creating the Gestapo to ensure compliance… Yet the common people were not behaving as anticipated. Hitler expected them to help enact his agenda, root out treason, and report any malfeasance to the appropriate authorities, even if thart meant denouncing their neighbours,. What he found instead was that citizens were overzealous in this activity. Denunciations came pouring in to the Gestapo in massive numbers from all corners of Germany. Yet these did not strike Hitler as the reports of good, loyal Germans dedicated to the Nazi cause. Instead, they wer overwhelmingly petty and often spiteful, containing little in the way of real information about treasonous activity, ‘We are living at present in a sea of denunciations and human meanness,’ he complained to his advisors. Patrick Bergemann, Judge Thy Neighbor: Denunciations in the Spanish Inquisition, Romanov Russia and Nazi Germany, Columbia University Press, 2019 p.1

    (2) it seems likely that they sometimes fabricate information in an attempt to gain personal or social benefits....Although it is difficult to say how often this occurs, the infrequency with which whistle-blowing reports result in useful information is suggestive . For example, the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) established a whistle-blowing hotline in 1979 so that individuals could call in to report fraud, waste, and abuse in federal expenditures. Over the first decade of its existence, the GAO—which did not offer rewards—received over 94,000 calls regarding the private use of government property, fraud by benefits recipients, mismanagement by government employees, and work-hour abuses. Of these, approximately 10,000 (11 percent) were deemed worthy7 of investigation. Of the calls that were investigated, approximately 1,100 of the allegations were substantiated. This means that only about 1 percent of these denunciations resulted in useful information. Unfortunately, the details and motivations of the other 99 percent are unknown. Patrick Bergemann, 2019 ibid. p.188.

    (3)'Every day the post brought anonymous reports of the whereabouts of Jewish families. ... Sometimes clerks would denounce their office manager, a maid or farmworker would denounce their employer – in which situations social redress likely played a part- or business associates would denounce their partners. Sometimes old quarrels would resurface, while others were motivated by the hope of seizing their victim's property.’ Simon Levis Sullam, The Italian Executioners: The Genocide of the Jews of Itaaly, Princeton University Press 2018 pp.126-127

    (4) Soviet archives house virtual mountains of letters written by people in all walks of life to Soviet leaders, authorities, ... Angry citizens sent letters of abuse and invective anonymously.....As reports show and as civic textbooks remind us, writing to authorities is a form of civic participation and can even be interpreted as a civic duty. But it does not necessarily produce democratic citizens. Every political regime educates political subjects that fit the desirable power configuration in the polity: a good citizen in one spies on the neighbours and reports “suspicious” activities while a good citizen in the other voices his or her opinion on the issues affecting others because he or she believes that only then a decision about collective life can be truly informed. Thus Soviet letter-writing produced good Soviet citizens but did not democratize the political system despite a surface similarity of letter-writing within Western genres of popular communication. What was different about Soviet letter-writing then? The most immediate and most striking disparity was the secrecy of correspondence: many Soviet letters were not meant for public eyes, especially the type of correspondence that Sheila Fitzpatrick calls “signals from below,” namely letters that reported the wrongs (actual or alleged) in hopes that the proper authorities would be notified and the transgressor punished.’ Natalia Kovalyova, Unlearning the Soviet Tongue: Discursive Practices of a Democratizing Polity, Lexington Books, 2014 pp.69-70

    Good luck with the refurbishing of the 19th century's various experiments in totalizing control through anonymous grassing, all in order to make this a 'comfortable environment' for people sensitive to any grievance at whatever cost, via desensitivization or sheer ignorance, to the grief of modern history. Hat this by all means. Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If your objection is to allowing users to anonymously send tips to admins: The actual cases would still have to be assembled and publicly affirmed by an admin who would thereafter take responsibility for it. (Obviously, users would still be able to bring things to our existing systems themselves if they want to; I'm not suggesting replacing our existing system entirely with this, something the second part of your response seemed confused about.) This is beneficial in that it filters for cases that have some merit, allows transparent review of the case, and ensures that cases will be put together by someone who actually knows policy. This sort of anonymous reporting has been a common fixture of law enforcement worldwide for over a century; it is fair and reasonable, forcing accusations to be ultimately made into a case that the accused can answer.
    • If your objection is to the idea of WP:CIVIL and trying to enforce minimum civility standards on Wikipedia's editors: Wikipedia is not a government, nor are editors citizens who are here to live freely in pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Wikipedia is much more narrow than that - it is a collaborative project to create an encyclopedia. Participation here depends on being willing and able to constructively contribute to that project without disrupting it or becoming a net negative to it. Among other things, our success at that project depends on being able to attract and retain a wide variety of editors with a wide range of interests and backgrounds. That means that being unable to work well with others (whether it's harassment or general abrasiveness) is incompatible with our project's purpose and goals - even if someone is the most amazing editor ever, if they constantly drive off other editors with their abrasive behavior, then they're a net negative to the project and need to get the boot. Being unable or unwilling to extend basic civility to other editors is just as much as WP:COMPETENCE issue as being unable or unwilling to use proper spelling and grammar, and can do just as much damage to the project in the long term.
    • Finally, one last thing combining these points: The fact is that Wikipedia's purpose is to make an encyclopedia and not to serve as an experiment in governance. Fairness is important because few people would want to be part of an egregiously unfair system and because an unfair system is unlikely to produce a balanced encyclopedia. But as important as it is, it's ultimately a secondary consideration in a way that it wouldn't be if, say, our goal was to be a government rather than to write an encyclopedia. I've seen people dismiss WP:CIVIL (or, as you put it, our need for a 'comfortable environment') as irrelevant - but, in fact, those things are absolutely central to our mission, since we need to attract and retain a wide variety of editors and maintain an environment in which they can work (which means, yes, a 'comfortable' one.) It's your concerns that I feel go a bit outside our scope - yes, we need a solid system, something better than just inexplicable bolts of lightning from the WMF; but we need that system because the uncertainty stemming from the WMF's actions paradoxically makes our editing environment uncomfortable, not because of the abstract high-minded notions of justice vs. authoritarianism that you're pontificating about. Because, as far as that goes, Wikipedia is more akin go a library than a state - it's a specific space that exists to serve a specific narrowly-defined purpose, with specific rules set to best achieve that purpose, including rules that would obviously be draconian if enforced on a universal scale by a government. "This will be counterproductive to our goal of producing a useful encyclopedia" is a valid argument (including, yes, "I'm uncomfortable with the culture that this set of rules would encourage", which I think is the real concern at the heart of your objection.) "This is a symptom of creeping fascism" is hyperbolic nonsense. We're talking about the rules for booting people from the project of writing an encyclopedia if they can't work constructively with other editors, not dragging them off to a gulag to get shot. --Aquillion (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aquillion, I hear you, I understand where you are coming from, but the editors of Wikipedia have made something greater than ourselves, and it's worth fighting for.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have a thought on it -- No. We don't need to close the Star Chamber gap! There are two and only two kinds of complaint: one, which are those the WMF is legally required to keep secret for some legal reason, which they are not going to share and not going to have a lot of discretion about where and how long they ban someone for, and the kind that should be dealt with by the community in the open, joining the literally THOUSAND pages of administrator archives to be hidden in plain sight. We do not need to reward an action against an ArbCom critic by giving Arbcom more powers or making another ArbCom or changing our policies to match what we TOTALLY GUESS AND HAVE NO IDEA IF IT IS EVEN policy of the WMF overlords. Wnt (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at systems which are used for similar purposes might be helpful in considerations about such system on Wikipedia. Here are some of them:

    US courts
    Confrontation Clause. No photograpy in courts, only sketches. No press allowed for some hearings. Witness protection programs. System of escalation and appeals up to Supreme Court
    Flagging & triage systems of Stack Overflow (and wider Stack Exchange network of Q&A sites)
    Used for judging the quality of questions and answers. User privileges to access some of the buttons depend on user's reputation (which depends on upvotes and downvotes by other users). Site allows editing of questions and answers of other users (wiki-aspect), but not comments. Some users are moderators (marked by diamonds ♦ symbol) voted into this role on regular elections with self-nominations. A theory of moderation—blog post by Jeff Atwood describing the principles.
    Cheating report system of video game Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
    The game itself includes technical system Valve Anti-Cheat which is meant to detect cheating. Players are allowed to anonymously report suspected cheaters. Suspected cheaters are reviewed in the Overwatch system, where other players (called investigators) can replay matches and confirm, deny, or mark reports as inconclusive.

    —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Man, as a free speech fanatic I know the slippery slope too well, but this is like jumping on a plastic bag in Outer Mongolia in front of a poster of the ocean and expecting to wet your bathing suit. No ... just no. Wnt (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary

    I have received permission by email to post any info that's public. Here the chain of incidents that appears to be what the WMF ban is based on. They probably have more, but this is some of what we can see:

    1. Fram hounds LauraHale to the point that she posts this notice in 2018. It's still up as of 2019, apparently still an unresolved problem because the notice is still there: [54]
    2. Lets look at a few examples of the hounding:
      1. 12 Aug 2016 [55][56] [57]
      2. 16 Oct 2016 [58]
      3. 19 Oct 2016 [59]
      4. 27 Oct 2016 [60][61][62]
    3. The user's wikifriend comes to her defense. Note that Raystorm is Chair of the WMF Board of Trustees: [63]
    4. Here's Ymblanter crossing some red lines in support of Fram's hounding. At least Ymblanter had the sense to remove his post: [64][65]
    5. Here's Fram continuing to bother LauraHale in 2018: [66] (several diffs rolled in one)
    6. LauraHale defends herself in 2018: [67] The fact that this has to happen should have been the point where Fram was de-sysopped. We failed LauraHale as a community. Read the notice again, [68] it provides more context and diffs and mentions SlimVirgin, Victuallers and SkyHarbor.

    Some evidence regarding @Winged Blades of Godric: [69][70][71] (ping Rosiestep)

    I've been told the above was a useful summary, so I'll leave it here for the record. Jehochman Talk 15:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This is highly unlikely to be the basis of the ban, because the ban occurred after a reminder of a conduct warning in early 2019. All of this conduct is before that. Investigations by T&S take about a month, not half a year or more. Please, for the love of God, let's not redirect even more vitriol toward Laura when she likely had nothing to do with the most recent enforcement action by T&S. ~ Rob13Talk 15:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Fram received a conduct warning in March, 2019 for the October 2018 edits to "Blind football in Australia" and "Deaf football in Spain". There has been no further crossover instigated by Fram with LauraHale since that time.[72] It is unlikely that this is the basis for the ban. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we did fail LauraHale as a community, but probably for a different reason than Jehochman thinks. I won't go into detail for the reasons that BuRob13 mentions above. In the meantime, I'll just restate that I don't think the LH issue was behind Fram's ban anyway. Black Kite (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it generated the two prior warnings Fram mentioned. Check the dates. Do they line up? My theory is that the "Fuck ArbCom" comment got somebody angry (probably an arbitrator) who reported it to WMF and that was the final straw. The ban is the LH incident plus that final diff. I assume you think WMF is nuts for issuing the ban on that basis, and I agree. Jehochman Talk 15:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Jehochman, I see no reason to assume a complainant at all. Once Fram was on WMF's radar, they may have started automatically monitoring his contributions, and his use of certain words or what the program (hopefully more advanced than the one now offline) deemed an excessively hostile tone, generated a report for review by a T&S team member.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's scary. Jehochman Talk 18:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no way that the WMF could have been that stupidly reckless and devoid of clue. No way. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it in any way technically unfeasible?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a denial somewhere on here by Mr. Eissfeldt that T&S did not and does not use the other tool. I think it would be pertinent to ask what analysis methods they use in general. There is absolutely no rational reason for them to be secretive about that. We're not talking about law enforcement methodology or matters of national security here. If they're just doing old-fashioned detective work, that's honestly fine. If they're using automated or semi-automated tools, machine learning or AI algorithms, or dowsing and Ouija, we should know what they're doing, how they think it works, and how it actually works. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wehwalt: as all contributions are public (here's yours) anyone could scrape them and do whatever processing they want on them. — xaosflux Talk 19:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    T&S seems to be working in that direction, Xaosflow, see here, the purpose of which is to enhance T&S's tools. Presentation on it given yesterday here. (both the second and the third presentations were of interest. I wonder who might be #1 on the list spoken of?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, repeating my ping because I can't edit what I wrote and have the ping go through, Xaosflux--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I agree that the question of what happened between the 2018 warning and the 2019 ban is a crucially-important missing piece, but I found this useful because I don't remember the conflict from when it occurred, and I haven't known where to look.
    Something I find very interesting is the fact that these interactions illustrate two failings - one is that LH felt harassed and the other is that (by the look of things) Fram felt the obligation to clear up LH's edits (and scold them about the quality). I feel like I can related to both sides of this - I've felt harassed enough to ban at least one editor from my talk page, and I've (more than once) wanted to pull my hair out over a long sequence of bad edits by another editor.
    We don't have good mechanisms for dealing with either type of problem. Guettarda (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been involved in several incidents involving on-wiki actions by Fram and off-wiki complaints about them. I don't feel comfortable about reproducing them on-wiki here; if Arbcom want the information supplied in private, I can do that. A principal reason they were off-wiki is, as I have already said, Fram has a tendency to reply to every thread in a conversation he doesn't agree with and argue the case until everyone else drops out of exhaustion. I agree with Guettarda that the community does not have a good handle on balancing civility, competence and diversity. It's been often said a thick skin is necessary to survive here, but that means Wikipedia becomes biased towards those with thick skins. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ritchie333, i support this assessment. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)I think it is wise not to comment on this in too much detail - it's a side show, and it feels like a minefield to me. But let me say that these diffs have been known before, and have given raise to different kinds of concern about more than just the two primary users involved. And essentially nobody thinks they justify what has happened. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's ok. I'm not very entertaining. Jehochman Talk 18:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Jehochman, I can't believe this was posted for several reasons. There's nothing new here, and it is rehashing exactly what many people did not want to rehash. The summary is very poorly written. I'd like to know who wrote it so I can privately share my concerns, rather than picking the scab openly. It defies credulity that this was the basis for the ban. The info posted appears to be the basis for the old IBan, which was largely honored (subject to two exceptions, possibly inadvertent). Speaking only for myself (but I'll be surprised if I am alone), tempers are a bit short - it has been a long time since the action and communication sucks, to be blunt, and I fear we are filling the vacuum with nonsense. Why are we repeating painful material that everyone who has been following alreay knows? What purpose is served? S Philbrick(Talk) 18:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Enwiki certainty has a lot a problems... too much clever nastiness and clever viciousness is tolerated, too much poor behavior by or poor handling of behavior issues by admins occure, innocent nastistness is punished too harshly, and in general it is a very mean and chaotic place for editors. And maybe that contributed to this, but WMF mishandling of this is a far bigger, more serious and more damaging problem. North8000 (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    (my humble view as an outsider) Enwp has by far the best content of all versions, both in substance and quality, an envy and inspiration for us working on other versions. Enwp has by far the highest number of editors and has evolved the most advanced set of procedures (inluding ArbCom) to handle this in a controlled way, an inspiration for us working on smaller versions, even if we do not, as being smaller, always need the same level of complexity. You have an amazing set of competence in your editing and discussion related to articles, far better than I am used to meeting on other versions. But in the area you state above you are not better nor an inspiration to other versions, and in my view has you have not evolved in this area as other versions have over time. So while I agree the process around T&S seems to be in need of an overhaul, I do believe you really need to focus on improving your handling of these type of issues, which will be the surest way of not being involved in any similar case in the future.Yger (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, but on the other hand I could say that svwiki is known for being overly harsh with the block tool (especially in terms of bots). Every wiki has their own problems, and I'm not trying to brush off that there are issues with civility on enwiki, but still. --Rschen7754 18:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it is worth, per Headbomb he's 95% certain LauraHale isn't the reporter, and I likewise find it fairly unlikely LauraHale reported Fram here, mainly because Fram has abided by the interaction ban between the two of them, and if the "Fuck ArbCom" post or edits surrounding it on either side were the reason for the ban, LauraHale doesn't show up in any of them that I can find. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 22:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, I'm reasonably sure that I have figured out who the reporter was, based entirely on what is public and in plain sight here on en-wiki (no, I'm not going to say – of course!). And it's just a matter of time before more people connect the same dots that I did. This is what happens when the community is left to wonder for so very, very long without a meaningful engagement in discussion by the WMF.
    But Jehochman's supposedly important new evidence is all old news. I think it's been clear for a while that Laura was indeed the target of Fram's supposed harassment leading to the ban (and yes, she was not the reporter). But it's also clear that, although Fram was being a bit Javert-like in his pursuit of her, he wasn't harassing her. WMF took the action they did because they got a report that dramatized and framed the situation in a way that made it sound like hounding. Then, they were just waiting for the trigger for them to pull the gun. And they got it from something that had nothing to do with Laura: the now infamous cursing at ArbCom. That was their excuse. And they got to that point because no one at WMF really evaluated the situation in a clueful way. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jehochman: If this is the evidence, it is shit poor. For example, if [73] is held as 'harassment', I'd have expected more than 1 of the 6 pages nominated for deletion to be kept (the first 3 bluelinks have been redirected/merged). It's also from 2016/2018, way before the WMF issues an interaction ban (which I find problematic to begin with). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      You don’t get it. Hounding means following somebody around in a way that causes them distress. It doesn’t mean the criticism is incorrect. Moreover, AfD is often thinly trafficked. A popular admin like a Fram can usually get their way through the process. Jehochman Talk 03:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Jehochman I hope that's sarcasm. If that's the definition of "hounding", then the Foundation is clearly guilty, and should ban itself. (Not entirely sarcasm.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      So, wait. If I revert someone's vandalism, and that makes them upset, I have to quit reverting them or I'm "hounding" them? That is absolutely not a workable definition. When someone keeps causing the same damn problem, it's reasonable to expect that people will check to see if they did it again. If that upsets them, the remedy is to stop causing that problem, and then no one will have a need to criticize them for it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The definition is at WP:HOUND. Fun fact: I coined the term "hounding" back in 2008.[74] Durova was updating the harassment guideline and asked me what to call this behavior. Jehochman Talk 17:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What dogged dedication. EEng 20:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any interactions between Fram and Laura (who unfortunately went dark just as this broke) were addressed with an IBAN. Regardless of whether Fram "harassed" Laura in 2018, he was banned from interacting with her. So, that exchange is immaterial to the current ban. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh nothing new there. Thing if you find someone making one mistake its pretty common to go looking for others (indeed the software explicitly allows for this possibility with special:nuke). Yes fram was insufficiently diplomatic while doing so but again we already knew that.©Geni (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible approach 2

    Fram gives permission for T&S to publish all the warnings they sent Fram. (It seems very unlikely that they would send Fram information that they didn't want published if they consider him an abuser. I've been accused of having a lack of imagination, but I don't see it.) If Fram does this and T&S supplies the warnings, we can see whether a rational person might consider Fram to have told what he was doing wrong.

    Reasoning:
    Fram described the E-mails he's received from T&S, and said he doesn't know what he was being warned against. T&S said he was adequately warned.
    If the E-mails were published, we could see what was said. I don't really believe Fram would lie about this, and I'm sure T&S would not fabricate an E-mail. That would be fraud, in this context.
    I'm not sure Fram could publish the E-mails because of copyright (not privacy) considerations, and some might not trust him. Very few trust WMF in general (because of past lies about their internal policy on things such as Flow), and T&S in particular, but I think we can trust them not to publish E-mails they didn't send Fram.
    — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If I were WMF I'd not release even with permission. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be. However, there is no reason for T&S to reveal lies by employees, even if discovered. A logical assumption, consistent with everything T&S has yet revealed, is that Fram was banned because a WMF employee felt his friend was being harassed by Fram; and that the report was not investigated, but assumed correct. (I'm not saying any Wikipedian made the complaint.) T&S obviously cannot deny this, but they can release (with Fram's consent) what they told Fram, which may indicate that Fram was told what he did wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Fram gave permission in his first responce, thus this is moot. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 22:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting BuzzFeed News article

    Wikipedia Has Been A Safe Haven From The Online Culture Wars. That Time May Be Over. by Joe Bernstein. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, a good summary. Hopefully this will start to impact on WMF's pockets when they realise they can't treat the community like this and donations start to dry up. In short, if all the evidence is available on-wiki, it's Arbcom's turf. If not, then WMF will be contradicting Fram, effectively calling him a liar. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So much for the earlier perception that we'd be viewed as a bunch of entitled self-interested volunteers by the popular press. Keep talking to them everyone! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a nice, unbiased article. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's positive in the way you think. The only off-wiki discussion of the article I've seen so far from outside the MediaWiki community seemed to be fairly on the side of the WMF, because people outside the community look at Fram's behavior and think "Yeah, we wouldn't want that around either". ~ Rob13Talk 22:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh really? Well MY personal echo chamber says the article is unabashedly anti-WMF and they’re all clamoring for Xavier Beccera to launch an investigation. /s —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting. Being the pedant that I am I counted about a dozen errors of fact, but the main thrust of the piece is solid. 28bytes (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    +1. That is a decent article imho which captures the many sides of this affair without coming down heavily in any direction. I note from the just declined Jehochman ArbCom Fram case, that Joe Roe said that the information that ArbCom would need to get to be able to make an independent judgment on the WMF action is not likely to be forthcoming; in that case, it clarifies GorillaWarfare's comment at the Fram case, that there is nothing further to be done by ArbCom on the affair; therefore, wrongly or rightly, WMF will reserve the right to conduct their own civility actions in the future. Silk Tork also clarified at the Fram case that there has been no contact between ArbCom and WMF since the 19 June, but that there was a call set up for the 3 July. Britishfinance (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that was a well-written and reasonable summary. That's quite a pleasant surprise; journalism about Wikipedia is not always the greatest. Of course, if the media attention keeps up, just imagine how things will get when we find ourselves actually writing an article about FRAMBAN. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    JANFRAMBAN? JANBANFRAM? EEng 02:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa, Black Betty GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised no Australian editors have proposed this one Blackmane (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good one. SANFRANFRAMBAN? EEng 14:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't give me ideas ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it too early to call this FRAMGATE?Mojo Hand (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mojo Hand, WP:FRAMGATE exists, but I think we need a few more reliable sources until it gets mainspace. However, User revolt could do with updating. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)You know it’s not a bad idea. Unflattering material about T&S in articlespace as a result of media coverage might force their hand by making T&S less-able to achieve its mission—if you can’t trust them, why report to them? That may or may not bode well for us but I think that’s better than stagnation and status quo. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You could do that, or read a book :| cygnis insignis 21:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not do both?! Genius! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Article-writing would be a nightmare - almost every editor who's participated in this discussion would have a COI! It might have to be an article written by the newcomers to Wikipedia. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The user claims to be a pedant, but says, "… I counted about a dozen errors". Standards have really slipped around this joint. cygnis insignis 22:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well played, sir. 28bytes (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty much what I was going to say.S Philbrick(Talk) 22:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mhmm. Appreciate you bringing it to our attention, Floq. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks from me too, for bringing the article. Facetiously: The article refers to Fram at one point as being an "asshole". I think someone should alert T&S about this harassing of Fram. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, if the press are making individuals in the community feel less safe to contribute, I would think that falls within T&S's bailiwick, and merit some office action. Perhaps a press release explaining the situation. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Good stuff, thanks. I had put off reading it thinking it would be crap and was surprised.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The news article talks about Wikipediocracy, an almost moribund site (though it links to some others), as if it were a major forum. But if the WMF keeps this up, these sites will not remain moribund -- and they are not prone to paralytic moralizing over victim privacy. Wnt (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Did everyone miss WMF’s statement to BuzzFeed News in the article? In a statement to BuzzFeed News, the organization said it had leveled the ban to maintain "respect and civility" on the platform. "Uncivil behavior, including harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism, is against our Terms of Use, which are applicable to anyone who edits on our projects," it said. starship.paint (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • There is so much wrong with that statement, I don't know where to start. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't aware that civility fit any of those TOS labels. I hope the relevant parties have contacted WMF to request litigation holds of all relevant records. This is incoherent enough that I can see this situation becoming very ugly very quickly. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Buzzfeed article is a pretty good summary until "Much of that blame fell, perhaps predictably, on a woman and a transgender editor. In 2017, a fledgling Wikipedian accused Fram of monitoring her activity on the site to such an extent that felt like harassment." The "woman" was no "fledgling", having started her account in 2010 and created hundred of articles (about which very many people have had complaints) by 2017. I think her period as wikipedian-in-residence predated 2017 too. The so-called "transgender editor" (for it is xe) makes a point about not identifying in any direction online, but I know xim quite well & have never thought of xim as anything but a gay male, although of course xe often addresses transgender issues. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • To set the record straight, the Buzzfeed article contains a glaring error when referring to my "sarcastic references to a forthcoming Nobel Peace Prize". The certain fact that Wikipedians will eventually be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize is the furthest thing from sarcasm. This grand experiment, born jumping off the deep end, has surprisingly tapped into an unprecedented marriage of societal wisdom, advancing technology, and an almost unfathomable basic trust in the potential of collective unselfishness in the human race. Wikipedia's creation was soon joined by millions of inquisitive sharing minds, and is constantly being recreated, polished, and improved by a literal second-by-second outpouring of intellectual strength. Wikipedia, now a recognizable treasure of civilization, changes the world for the better at an accelerating rate. In 2024, give or take a year or three, when the members of the Nobel Peace Prize committee fully analyze the effect our project has had, and will continue to have, on every person, household, and the historical advancement of knowledge and ethics it provides to every corner of the Earth, the recognition of Wikipedia and Wikipedians will be an obvious and easy choice. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Good article. I note it has been put to use in mainspace: User_revolt#Framban Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Katherine Maher tweet

    Utterly unimpressed with Katherine Maher's subtweet about the article:" When you have to retweet your shitty pseudo-thinkpiece three times because no one cares."[75] (referring to https://twitter.com/Bernstein?s=03) Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbs, you need to see this above. @GorillaWarfare, Worm That Turned, and Callanecc: @Mkdw, Premeditated Chaos, and Joe Roe: @AGK, KrakatoaKatie, SilkTork, and Opabinia regalis:. Extremely likely reference to a media piece [76] by Bernstein. starship.paint (talk) 03:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]
    Wow. That's pretty stunning, actually. 28bytes (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we'd all been waiting for a statement. —Cryptic 01:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In comparison with the rest of her tweets it's pretty good. But only in that comparison. And it's a low bar. I'd be interested to know if this was anything to do with our current woes. DuncanHill (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt it, she clarified later that she was editing something that had been prepared by a vendor. (And apparently the turnaround here is not 24 hours, and we might be lucky to hit 24 days). Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Welp, I rescind my earlier endorsement of the idea that writing her personally will be helpful. It clearly will not. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Something else just struck me: If "no one" cares about this Buzzfeed News article... what does that make all of us here in her eyes? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Unbelievable, but it explains a good part of why the WMF culture is what it is.- MrX 🖋 02:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mendaliv See, the Maher tweet is not telling us anything new. I thought it was already clear from the previous statements that the WMF has considerable disdain for Wikipedia editors and views us as subhuman (I wanted to use the proper German term but that would lead to Godwin being invoked). Enigmamsg 11:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk about pouring flaming napalm on troubled waters... This was a communications director before being promoted? Tarl N. (discuss) 02:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I am trying to avoid throwing any sort of fuel on any fires here, but it is difficult to view Ms. Maher's tweet as a model of the civility the WMF says it's trying to promote. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    So, out of idle curiosity, what does T&S do when they receive anonymous reports about a WP editor harassing another WP editor offline about a Wikipedia-related issue? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Prediction: Not a fucking thing. Not. A. Fucking. Thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Floquenbeam: - this is a serious issue, I think we should go straight to the WMF CEO on this. starship.paint (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, we could be good little sheep, like the WMF wants, and block User:Katherine (WMF) for harassment ourselves. Knowing what we do about the kind of environment they would like us to be. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It just occurred to me. Is our WMF CEO arguing that no one cares about Wikipedia? Because if I cared about Wikipedia, I would read the article. starship.paint (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess we're "no one". 😢 —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe I'm deficient in Twitter comprehension - how do you know that the pseudo-thinkpiece she was referring to was the Bernstein article? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I think because Bernstein tweeted it out three times, which is what Ms. Maher is making light of. There's no direct link as far as I know. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, there are a lot of articles that someone might have tweeted about three times today. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Her tweet was in direct response to one of the journalist's tweets promoting that particular article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you know that? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that it was a subtweet, we may never know for sure. Perhaps one (or more) of the WMF staff members who "liked" it could share what they believed it was in reference to. Killiondude (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we know well enough. Someone tweeted three times to promote an article that was rather critical of the WMF. Not but a couple hours later, the ED of the WMF is complaining that a "shitty" article got three tweets to promote it. I don't think we have to draw the line very damn far from that point. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally get that, but because of the logical consequences, I am reluctant to draw any conclusions without more confirmation. --Rschen7754 04:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    ... and someone who liked her tweet has a profile called "Trust & Safety @Wikimedia/@Wikipedia.". and (Redacted) by myself starship.paint (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm. I wonder if that makes it an official statement. Please remember to archive official statements of the WMF just in case anything happens. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect if a WMF staff member was going to make an official statement, they would not do it on their Twitter account and not link to it from anywhere onwiki... GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know. It seems, well, Presidential. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]
    @Mendaliv: Now done: File:Krmaher tweet 27 Jun 2019.png I think it is tagged properly so Commons won't delete it. I can't guarantee it. --Rschen7754 07:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked Jimbo, who I know tweets from time to time, to confirm this. I don't do Twitter so I can't see who liked it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Floquenbeam: One of the likes is from "Joe Sutherland@jrbsu Trust & Safety @Wikimedia/@Wikipedia." Espresso Addict (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I assume that's User:JSutherland (WMF), egging on our model of wikipedia etiquette. I'm not outing anyone, right? --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We have four three likers claiming to be part of Wikimedia, plus one Free Knowledge advocate starship.paint (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Joe Sutherland @jrbsu Trust & Safety @Wikimedia/@Wikipedia.
    2. jdforrester @jdforrester Coder @Wikimedia
    3. Gregory Varnum @GregVarnum Advocate / policy wonk / tech geek / @Wikimedia Foundation employee.
    4. Joseph Seddon @JosephSeddon Free Knowledge advocate (UPDATE: Seddon reversed the like) starship.paint (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I can confirm that. Personally, while this does not look good, I would prefer to ask what she meant before making an assumption. --Rschen7754 04:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The account jrbsu appears to be either Joe Sutherland or someone impersonating him. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Floquenbeam: - I think now is the time for us to start a statement of no confidence in the WMF. starship.paint (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have gone to Meta Wikimedia to ask Katherine to explain her tweet. [77] If you are also curious, you may wish to ask too. starship.paint (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Appreciate the ping, Starship.paint. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @GorillaWarfare: - do whatever you want. I merely wanted you to be informed. Maybe I should have pinged you after I found the list of people who publicly liked the tweet (this is public info on Twitter) including James Alexander, Joseph Seddon, Joe Sutherland, jdforrester and Gregory Varnum. These 4 3 stated on Twitter that they are part of Wikimedia (Liker Joseph Seddon didn't say they were part of Wikimedia, but apparently is a Free Knowledge advocate. EDIT: Joseph Seddon unliked the tweet). I don't want to ping every Arb again, so could you help me inform the rest of the Arbs on this. starship.paint (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Yep, the link to this section has been shared on our email list. For what it's worth, James Alexander has not worked at the Wikimedia Foundation for some time now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh... Trust and Safety at Twitter and Periscope. I got confused. I'm sorry, James! starship.paint (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Starship.paint: Since I've spent 12 years of my life contributing in some way shape or form to Wikipedia and Wikimedia, I would hope I can in some way lay claim to that fact I am an advocate for free knowledge. I've not publicly commented on this whole Fram issue and another voice is not going help on either side of the argument. Given that a single like is going to severely misrepresent my views on this matter and arbitrarily and somewhat incorrectly place me on "a side", I've reversed that action. Seddon talk 05:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Seddon: - my wording was too vague. I've never questioned that you are an advocate for free knowledge. What I meant is, you didn't say you were part of Wikimedia on your Twitter profile. starship.paint (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • wow.... just... wow. Have those at WMF gone on a "How to piss off your volunteers" course? Between that, the Gamergate accusation and the heavy-handed power grab, they seem to be making such a ham-fisted mess of absolutely everything here. - SchroCat (talk) 04:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ha. This just gets more and more bizarre. She won't even try to justify the office action that shattered the project's stability far more than Fram ever could, but when the press inevitably runs the story, she will stoop to respond—not to make her case, but to personally attack the journalist with childish insults? WTF? This is the Executive Director? And other WMF officials are endorsing her? What kind of sad joke is this? I mean, that Tweet is not even as respectable as Trump Tweeting "fake news!" at an unfavorable story. The self-awareness is nonexistent. The professional competence is nonexistent. This is who we're trying to reason with? This is who's at the helm? Honestly, what's the point? This kind of shameful public conduct isn't tolerated in any professional field, at any level. I mean, seriously, a fast food chain wouldn't even tolerate this from an acne-faced shift manager. It really is stunning that the WMF Executive Director is not held and does not hold herself to even a basic standard of civility, maturity or professionalism in the public eye, particularly as the staff purports to hold Wikipedia to a higher standard. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh Maher's former PR so responding to the press is kinda expected. As a response it does seem rather odd although given the conditions under which she took over the foundation I can understand it would be important to be seen as having her employee's backs. Still if the tweet is about what we think it is about it is kinda unfortunate.©Geni (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This a joke? Ignoring a community controversy over your own actions, to the point where it gets so out of control that the press picks it up, and then only breaking your silence to call the article a "shitty pseudo-thinkpiece" that "nobody cares" about is about the farthest thing from competent PR that I can even imagine. Like I said, this behavior is not tolerated in any professional setting, with or without PR professionals. So the fact that you'd actually go so far as to point out that "she's PR", as if that makes it more understandable, is hilarious. All that means is that she knows better, and yet she literally can not give two shits anyways! Lol!! ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • A public tweet in response to a journalist by the Executive Director of the organization is no longer "inside baseball". What it is, is unprofessional and a fine example of "Do as I say, not as I do" that will not, shall we say, serve to help the situation. She could have expressed disagreement with what was written without doing it like that. (Not to mention she's apparently got time to be tweeting about all manner of things, but none to respond to the concerns raised here.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • All true, but at some point we all have to calm down and stop jumping on each other. I have a felling that "The Tweet" may be the twig that moves this mudslide back up the hill. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we consider WMF execs and the like to be part of "each other" we're really doomed. There's a damn good reason execs and management aren't given a vote when a workplace unionizes. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems the only way that this drama will have to shake out, as the concept of putting the encyclopedia first guides well. I think today's events have moved the dial towards unification of purpose and the probable solutions to this energized crisis, no matter how it looks right now. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is stunningly tonedeaf and entirely inappropriate. Entirely separate from the WMF's original action, this comment should not be coming from any WMF employee, let alone the person at the top. Doc James, I hope this will be a topic of conversation at a future Board meeting... ~ Rob13Talk 05:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been contributing to Wikipedia for over 16 years, & there have been times when I've drifted away & seriously considered finding another hobby, but I come back because I basically believed in Wikipedia's mission -- making information free for everyone -- despite that writing useful articles at this point is hard & often tedious work. But when I read such a casually & flippantly nasty response from one of the people who are supposed to set an example for the rest of us ... well, it sucks to discover I've been a sucker. I hope she enjoys that job with a 6-figure salary I helped to create for her. -- llywrch (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • A further reply: [78] --Rschen7754 05:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I perceive it as declining any connection with Bernstein's piece but the original coincidence was too well, to be an accident. ∯WBGconverse 05:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I guess I don't know. I mean, I have a Twitter account (with an easily guessable handle) but I rarely post anymore. I don't really get all the nuances of this subtweeting thing. It doesn't read to me like an explicit denial. --Rschen7754 05:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Maher is no idiot. If she wanted to say we were completely wrong, she'd outright say it. She wouldn't muse at how we squirmed at the knife in our collective backs. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      That's a point. ∯WBGconverse 06:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, I don't see her coming out and saying "You got me, it was referring to the Buzzfeed article". But if she doesn't come out with an explicit denial within 24 hours, or deletes the tweet, I think we can draw our own conclusions. --Rschen7754 06:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Well that's kind of my point. Yeah, fair enough, we can't take anything she says as a confirmation because she's not gonna outright do that. But if we were completely incorrect and she was just cursing the darkness a little bit, or complaining about someone else, it would cost her nothing to say "You have it wrong," or even in that exchange say, "The crazy thing is that they're going crazy about something I'm not even talking about." —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I absolutely do not buy that explanation in the follow-up tweet. If she wants me to believe her, she needs to post a link to the actual article she was criticizing. starship.paint (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the ping above, starship.paint. I've asked a question about this here. (Here is an archive of both relevant tweets, for reference.) Otherwise - there's a lot of interest in this thread about likes and replies and such; let's please all continue to be careful about off-wiki identities. (Also, I have no idea how the WMF works, but there are workplaces where liking, sharing, and otherwise signal-boosting your boss's or organization's social media is part of the expectations of the job, so please don't be tempted to draw undue conclusions about other editors.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Opabinia regalis: - you're welcome. So, you asked on en.wiki, I asked on meta.wiki. Let's just see what replies she have for us. starship.paint (talk) 07:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So the T&S people liked it by mistake?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The backpedaling is pathetic. I wholeheartedly echo Dan's call for her resignation. It is, on multiple levels, necessary at this point. A Twitter cyberbully with the regrettable title of "WMF Executive Director" is an embarrassment to the WMF and to the enwiki community alike, and will do nothing to heal the deep wounds that have been created in the community and in the public eye. His call for the board's resignation would be a plus as well. Though Jimbo can stay. He retweeted the article, rather than attacking the author. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't go so far as to call for a resignation for this tweet. This is her livelihood, after all, and I don't think this was egregious enough to warrant a resignation. But we do need a full explanation, and an apology if a mistake was made. starship.paint (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm OK with getting up a collection to send Jimmy and the three board members who supposedly represent the community a matched set of second-hand fiddles with a request for their resignation burned into the wood.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • For a community who claims they can handle their own disputes on harassment, you sure did a good job of following someone onto Twitter, following their followers likes, and inflaming the situation by tying a vague tweet to the block of Fram, even after denial it had to do with anything on-wiki. Good job! — Moe Epsilon 07:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Moe Epsilon: - writing This wasn’t even meant to be something that rose to the level of Wikidrama. isn't a very strong denial. I agree with Bellezzasolo that it instead seems to imply that it was indeed related to Wikipedia (after all, why else would anything rise to the level of Wikidrama...) starship.paint (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can say that, but she's explicitly denied it being related to any one piece or author in further tweets. If you don't believe her then that's your problem. — Moe Epsilon 07:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's funny because you think being a public figure gives you any more right to go after other people. At any rate, she can say what she wants on her own social media account any more than you can. If we're holding people accountable for what they say on Twitter now, I suggest we talk to those launching personal attacks at her on Twitter. — Moe Epsilon 10:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we're holding people accountable for what they say on Twitter now is thoroughly, deliberately disingenuous. We are holding the head of the WMF for what she says on her Twitter account, where she posts as WMF head, for statements she makes about Wikipedia. Your counter here is intellectually dishonest dissembling. Grandpallama (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Grandpallama:: No, I am being entirely serious. Quick question, before the incident with Fram, did you ever check her Twitter for updates about the Foundation? Because if you look at her timeline, I would think you'd stop going there for updates since she doesn't frequently post updates on it but rather her every day life. — Moe Epsilon 17:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was a very tone deaf tweet from Katherine Maher; does she not realise that the article is from Buzzfeed News [80], one of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, as designated in 2019. Why does this crisis keep self-perputating at very opportunity? Britishfinance (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Britishfinance: - just because a source is perennial doesn't mean it is reliable (there are unreliable perennial sources), though There is consensus that BuzzFeed News is generally reliable. starship.paint (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Starship.paint: We are all aware of that; however, many editors (incl. Katherine I am guessing), may not be aware of its status as an WP:RSP. Britishfinance (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Twitter is a fucking wasteland of Minimum Prosecutable Units without details or context being sprayed back and forth in conversations you can't follow or figure out. Wikipedia has Talk Pages, it has a mailing list, it has Bugzilla -- why the hell are we finding out that all the BIG STUFF is being said by various hotshots I never heard of like Women in Red and Executive Directors, out on this wasteland blogosphere medium? Exalted glitterati of Wikimedia, get back on the bus before you get run over! Wnt (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find it rather rude to say that very few people had asked her directly when she failed to respond to any of those that did (including myself). For that matter, none of the WMF staff I emailed did, except 1 who I asked about an interpretation of a WMF ToS explanation and redirected me to the general email (no reply from them either). Nosebagbear (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      To be honest, I am not sure that writing directly to all WMF employees is in any way a good idea. All of them have certain job descriptions, and most job descriptions do not include communication with volunteers. One can argue that they should include this, and any request, onwiki, on a mailing list, by e-mail, whatever, to any WMF employee must be immediately answered, but then they will be all the time answering the requests and not doing their job. I think by this time we have enough evidence that Katherine Maher is aware of WP:FRAM, and I do not see how another 357 e-mails, tweets and pings would do any better.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      AFAIK, a board meeting can't be held w/o her. And, since the BoT discussed this on the 14th, she ought to have been aware of the circumstances, from that point of time onwards. ∯WBGconverse 12:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Hashtag

    I so wanted to reply to that tweet, but decided against it as I'd probably end up banned from Twitter. All those on Twitter, tweet the Bernsten article, and let's get the hashtag #FRAMGATE #Wikigate trending. Mjroots (talk) 07:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mjroots: - no no no! You will be accused of supporting a harasser and maybe even sexism. You will lose the optics war. It should be WMFGATE or maybe WIKIGATE (the most relatable). No FRAM, please, no one out there knows who Fram is. starship.paint (talk) 07:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've deleted my tweet. #Wikigate is a good suggestion, let's go with that. Mjroots (talk) 07:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Twitter is a very different beast from Wikipedia, and one whose community has long been toxic to each other. I don't see the benefit of publicizing this within the Twitterverse. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Katherine Maher responses on Twitter

    These are her responses. Bolded parts describe her initial tweet.
    1. 10:21 PM - 27 Jun 2019 This wasn’t even meant to be something that rose to the level of Wikidrama. Had I wanted to do that I would have taken it on directly. This was just garden variety the world is burning subtweeting. [81]
    2. 11:09 PM - 27 Jun 2019 This tweet was not a comment on the gravity of concerns of English Wikipedians. I am not someone who shies from criticism or holding ground for my own perspectives. Had that been my intention, I’d have spoken to it directly. [82]
    3. 11:12 PM - 27 Jun 2019 Dan, I entirely concur with Jimmy. I regret the timing of the tweet, but I’m now in between deleting something that was not intended to be wiki-inflammatory, or being accused of ill intent. I’d prefer the transparency of being held to account, and to leave it up, but that requires being taken at face value. [83]
    4. 11:54 PM - 27 Jun 2019 Well, no, because it wasn’t about a specific author or article. The part two years have been electrified on various issues. There’s a rich tradition of crappy thinkpieces out there, and I live in the Bay Area, which is full of bad takes on gender, income, and equity. [84]
    5. 11:56 PM - 27 Jun 2019 But all of that doesn’t change the fact that people now feel diminished and diesregarded. That’s terrible. [85]
    6. 11:59 PM - 27 Jun 2019 Even when I disagree with “the community” - which is a monolith misnomer, not least because one thing I love about Wikimedia is a room full of 10 Wikipedians usually has 20 opinions - I always respect that we each person brings their opinion earnestly and with integrity. [86]
    7. 12:03 PM - 28 Jun 2019 So, in short - I regret tweeting something that members of our community felt was directed st them, and disrespectful to their efforts, contributions, or perspectives. That certainly was not my intention. [87]
    8. 12:08 AM - 28 Jun 2019 I know this will sound odd, but until today, very few folks have asked me directly. I see that’s changed tonight with a number of questions on my talk page, which I’ll have to answer tomorrow - it’s past midnight now. [88]
    9. 12:20 AM - 28 Jun 2019 Being marginalized in change, intentional or otherwise, is a truly terrible feeling. [89]
    10. 12:28 AM - 28 Jun 2019 This was not a directed comment. The world is full of bad takes, and bad take pushers. It is a good thing when people start tuning them out in favor of critical information, challenging opinions, and informed debate. [90]

    Discuss. starship.paint (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Why should I find that interesting?Slatersteven (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven: - I thought you personally emailed her. Did I get that wrong? starship.paint (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Still not seeing why I should find this interesting.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I just read that. It's probably true. There were only a handful of us who wrote to her directly, and she appears not to have noticed the emails, only that which was in public view. While I am disappointed that she still hasn't acknowledged (except via Twitter) that we contacted her, I am even more disappointed that so few in our community did write to her, especially in view of how many people have been involved in this page, either to propose ideas or support or comment on those ideas, or just to read. We can't blame the CEO for not getting the message if people didn't send her the message. Please, folks, do it now. Contact her in whichever manner you prefer or feel is appropriate - email, twitter, or her account here on enwiki or on Media. But whichever means you do, please, please, please, be civil. You can indicate you are angry, emotional, disappointed, frustrated, whatever. But don't be hostile, don't be insulting, don't be rude. She has said that our community is a "monolith misnomer" because 10 Wikipedians come up with 20 different opinions. Can we show her that we are a unified community, and what we want is improved communications and a better ongoing relationship between WMF and enwiki. We don't wish to be ignored, insulted, and treated as fractious and toxic. We want to be treated with respect and equality, and for enwiki and WMF to work together to continue our existing work on building this project. SilkTork (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    When we've had ArbCom in telephone meeting with the WMF, and we've had Jimmy Wales and Doc James working on this as board members (and having had a meeting covering it), it's hardly our fault if the ED isn't getting the message. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be relative, if we all wrote to her (who are participating here) what percentage of Wikipedians would that be? If it is over 100,000 this would be less the 1% (of 1%), by any stretch of the imagination that is "very few" people who actually care or have noticed.Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So no-one should do anything, Slatersteven? Not sure what your point is but the issue of an alleged silent majority has been raised here before and one outcome of that was an influx of previously silent people acknowledging that they have concerns. - Sitush (talk) 09:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    When did I say no one should say anything? I never once said no one should comment, and really fail, to see how my Post could in any read be seen in that way. I am not saying there is a silent majority who holds an opinion, I have said most users have no commented, and so only a few have really shown any interest in this issue (you will note, I did fact include the possibility they just have not heard of this case).Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked you a question as to the point of your post. I didn't say you believe no-one should do anything. You're writing quite a lot of irrelevant and/or repetitive stuff here and, as is common, obfuscating matters. - Sitush (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You asked me if I said something that there was no possible way you could have read into my comment. Someone asked why she said X, I ...no because you will just strawman whatever I say. This is my last response to you on this subject, if you cannot debate honestly then I cannot be arsed to debate with you.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Break it up guys, let's not fight over this, alright? starship.paint (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To echo Boing’s point, if the ED isn’t aware of this conflict between the community and the WMF because the community hasn’t told her, it reflects poorly on the internal communication at the WMF, or strengthens the point that the WMF sees this as so inconsequential that they don’t need to inform the management. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven: - it's true that the 460 editors who have weighed in here are only small subset of the community. But, how many singular issues in the community can even generate a response from 460 editors? According to Newyorkbrad, we have now [91] achieved a record number of statements for an Arbitration case request at over 120. This is momentous in Wikipedia history. starship.paint (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is why she said "so few people". Now it may well be true this has generated more controversy then any other single issue here. But that does not mean that it is still a lot of people commenting (or contacting her), just a lot more then usual. So it does not make her statement false or misleading.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The point isn't that 460 editors have responded. It's the proportion of the top 10% or even 5% of active editors who have responded. Mjroots (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • My tweet to Ms Maher [92] DuncanHill (talk) 09:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • And her reply to me [93]. DuncanHill (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • If I may note what follows, I'd rather the conversation be here on-wiki, too. I have significant concerns regarding the usage of off-wiki sources to handle on-wiki matters in this case. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 18:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think I've ever gone off-wiki to ask something that should be asked on-wiki before. I disliked having to do it, but it was clear that the only way of attracting her attention was to go to Twitter. I really shouldn't say any more. But I will, I am appalled at her behaviour. I don't think she gives a flying fuck about editors. And I'm sure she'll come out with a load of "we're listening, we want to bring you with us" bullshit when she does eventually manage to remember how to log in to Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I couldn't sleep so I also responded to her tweet [94]. -- llywrch (talk) 10:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Very few people have asked her directly" -- well of course not. We're not on her site. If you want to have a say in Wikipedia, obviously you should spend your time on Twitter! The WMF Office has tried its best to make plots to redesign Wikipedia to look a little more like Twitter so we can get used to it so we can stop talking here and move over to where All The Big Stuff Happens. There, under the watchful eye of Twitter censors, the competent posters who have networks of PR bots behind them can get the upvotes they need to be accepted as Serious Players worthy of the WMF's respect! Someday we can replace all of Wikipedia with Twitter and if you think something is a good source on ghost imaging or seventeenth-century iron smelting you can just retweet the citation -- ought to work so much better than our system of article writing! Wnt (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is an odd response, inasmuch as at least three people emailed her about this issue three days ago. She might claim that in the crush of emails she (presumably) receives she had missed seeing them, but (presumably) her subordinates did update her that there was some serious pushback on en.wikipedia about this matter. -- llywrch (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Just saw the thread above. I plead lack of sleep week nights for way too long in defense of repeating information clearly visible. -- llywrch (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Starship.paint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was just blocked, I assume for this post. His talk page access was also revoked. MrX 🖋 14:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Not just that post.--MONGO (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Odd that he was blocked longer than Fram, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if the block notice is correct he had already been warned about this sort of thing before. But it does seem to be an overreaction, is there a history of outing here?Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Poor blighter was indeffed for lèse-majesté. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Katherine has replied to me to say that she is in meetings this afternoon (Pacific Time) but will take a look at her talk page after. I want a response as well, but it's not unreasonable to give her some time to attend to her meeting schedule. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Swell.- MrX 🖋 19:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah. The feeling I get is that this all came as a great surprise to her and she is just now trying to get back onto a good footing. Even if she comes around on it, this is breathtakingly unsatisfactory. How on earth could anyone with her job have been so oblivious to what has been going on, for all this time? It's not our fault for failing to do a good enough job of reaching out to her. It's her job to be aware of these things. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    m:Affiliate-selected Board seats/2019/Questions

    Voting concluded in May (so don't post anything there!) but there are two interesting questions at the end. Note that this predates the ban on Fram. --Rschen7754 02:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears to me, they were contemplated an action based on the evidence already in their possession, so there must have been ongoing discussions for quite some time before they acted. They probably used that venue for feedback. Wonder why they didn't take any of those responses to heart? Atsme Talk 📧 02:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the questions came from DarwIn (talk · contribs). --Rschen7754 02:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    A Sitenotice banner to inform exopedian editors (the registered ones) about the issue

    I have the impression from the discussion above that WMF CEO seems to think that very few Wikipedians care about the "Framgate". Actually, per Slatersteven, "most users have no[t] commented, and so only a few have really shown any interest in this issue (you will note, I did fact include the possibility they just have not heard of this case)."

    I second the assumption they just haven't heard of the case. Most editors (including yours truly) are exopedians who don't visit the forums and may only find out about this page from off-wiki sources.

    Therefore I propose placing a neutral informational banner for logged-in users with a very brief summary, much briefer than WP:FRAMSUM (but with a link there). Its main purpose will be to invite more people to join the discussion on this page and elsewhere.

    We may even consider specifically encouraging the readers of the banner to contact WMF, e.g. the foundation communication managers, akin to the banner over Article 13 a year ago which asked the readers to write their representatives in the Europarliament. Not sure how neutral would that make the banner, but at least I hope we won't be accused in harrassment if too many people do that and the foundation is overwhelmed, because talking with concerned people is basically communication manager's job.

    P.S. As I found from archives of this page, a proposal "to replace the main page with a banner of some sort" was made by Amakuru on June 11th, so to avoid misunderstanding I want to underline that I'm not arguing for removing/replacing/hiding anything, only for adding an aforementioned banner above the contents of English Wikipedia pages. Ain92 (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Given the length of this it will be very of putting. I think it might be better to have a fresh start. But yes I think something like "Admin Fram has been blocked for a year, please comment here" would be a good idea. Lets try and get this out to a a few more users. But I also think any such forum must have strict civility in place. We get no where if we misrepresent, shout at, call name or whatever. What this should not be is another toxic forum most users steer clear of.Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Slatersteven, sounds like you are trying to direct things onto an unproductive path? I've read your previous comments. Would you prefer the banner to be in Klingonese?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No I am trying to say that if we want wider community input then we must avoid all the pitfalls that normally drive most users way from the drama boards. Otherwise all we get get is just this forum all over again, the same users saying the same things with the same results. Why do you think so few users get involved in the dramas, many of therm care enough to edit article space?Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say we need a full-scale RfC for such a banner.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, despite what I see as arrogant condescension from an out-of-touch WMF, I still think using the encyclopedia itself as a form of publicity for an internal conflict is wrong. If everyday users of the encyclopedia are benefiting from it in blissful unawareness of what's going on behind the scenes, that's good, and I hope it stays that way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I put "for logged-in users" in bold and changed the headline to make it very clear that the proposed banner isn't aimed at and won't be shown to the everyday users who don't have an account and just read our encyclopedia. Ain92 (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Plenty of people are logged in, often just so they can just keep watchlists of articles they wish to refer back to - watchlists are very useful to readers. And many stay logged in so they can make the occasional correction to spelling and grammar etc, while still essentially being a Wikipedia reader and uninterested in the political back office. Those people should be left alone without being dragged into the crisis du jour. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have never heard about such a practice and I doubt there is plenty of such people (compared to the number of editors), do you think you could substantiate your claim in some way please? Ain92 (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, every reader of Wikipedia does not have to be made aware of this backroom dispute. It could cause a loss of confidence, making of the sausage and all. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally banners/watchlist notice invite users to actually do something. What would be the purpose of this one? We hardly need further comments on this page. If an RfC with a solid proposal of what to do emerges, maybe it would be worth doing, but an entry on WP:CENT probably reaches most of the people actually interested in commenting on backroom dramas. – Joe (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • What Boing said. The reason I joined was to help the reader. I don't want to burden them by dragging them into the political cesspool of the back pages. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That I allways what I assumed you meant.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Still, dragging people who are peripherally interested isn't likely to create a better outcome, and I don't like the idea of using the interface for what is essentially a political problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Above there is a debate about whether or not this issue is cared about by the rest of the community. It seems to me we need to actually gauge how much the rest of the community cares, if Wikipedia belongs to the community it belongs to all of it, not just a select few who follow the drama boards. We cannot claim to speak for the 80% of active editors who have not commented here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Principles don't require an absolute majority to uphold. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe not, but saying you are acting in the name of somebody else requires their agreement you are. Also whilst an absolute majority may not be needed I would question if a majority of 1/5 would be enough to uphold a principle.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a strawman, Slatersteven. 462 users have participated here and the vast majority of them are the editors who are active in the maintenance and governance of en.Wiki. That's more than enough for a major policy debate without inviting all the users who aren't interested in the back office or who don't understand it. Or have you never heard of ACTRIAL - for example? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Then we will have to agree to disagree on whether or not you can claim to speak on behalf of someone who you have not even asked.Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you not have an impression that WMF thinks that Wikipedia users don't actually care? Even if we here agree that 462 is enough, but WMF decides it's not, the latter is not going to compromise with us on anything. Ain92 (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "saying you are acting in the name of somebody else requires their agreement you are" - how do you think actual governments work? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said it is clear my view of democracy and others here is not the same (and we are not a government, we are a community).Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we are talking government of a sort, but perhaps we should just call it governance, and I personally don't know of any existing governance system of any size that works on an absolute majority system for all its representative decisions. But anyway, the point is that the Wikipedia Community uses a representative governance system, where that representation is decided by consensus among those who choose to take part, and has never tried to be an absolute democracy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In have no issue with the idea that any choice made will be (according to the rules of Wikipedia) a consensus decision. That is not the same as saying "representative of the community". This is especially true if (as a number of outside sources claim) there is an issue with certain viewpoints or demographics being forced off of the dram boards by an unduly hostile environment. This is my concern, who are we in fact representing, those who care or just hose who are willing to put up with shit throwing? But this will now be my last word in this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If it falls to me to have the last word, I'll make it simple - I do understand your point, which is very much a valid one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • +1 That was partially my reasoning as well. I myself was an editor who doesn't follow the drama boards (neither here nor in other projects where I participate), who found out about the issue in an unofficial Telegram chat of Russian Wikipedia, and who considered this problem important enough to be worth my attention. This is not about the drama itself, but the unprecedentedness and the importance. Ain92 (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Ain92, using the interface to promote a manifesto is definitely something not to be taken lightly. However, it may prove to be necessary to force the WMF to pay attention. I do think that we should play things slowly, though.
      There’s clearly a consensus here that the WMF f***ed... oh wait, can’t say that... screwed up. Let's see if they pay attention to this cacophony.
      If they don't engage with us, we then can move to a Watchlist notice, probably in the form of a community-sourced statement on the issue. Give the WMF 500 words with which to state their case. Have an endorse/oppose increased WMF intervention survey. I'd suggest limiting the advertising of such a survey to EC users - anyone welcome to participate, of course.
      If that fails, we've probably reached out to most of the active community by that point. That's when I'd endorse drastic action like a Main Page blackout or something of that ilk. They couldn't prevent such an action without reinvoking superprotect. It would very much be a direct confrontation with the WMF by that point.
      Regarding policy, I think we overwhelmingly believe that our self-governance is beneficial to the encyclopaedia. Therefore it's simple IAR territory- extraordinary circumstances like these are exactly the time to deploy IAR.
      But we need to proceed slowly, give the WMF time to respond. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, quite strong arguments have been made on this page against any measure that hurts our readers, including the Main Page blackout, while a Sitenotice (thanks for the correct term BTW) for logged-in users is as harmless for the readers as a Watchlist notice. I didn't consider the latter because I never read those notices, and I don't expect it from other exopedians since the information regularly posted there is irrelevant for us. Metapedians on the other hand, are likely to already know about the Framgate. There may be some use for the editors in between though. Ain92 (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • P.S. I agree we better play things without a haste, and I have nothing against giving WMF a bit more time to react, but this amount of time should be limited. Ain92 (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Ain92, I agree - a Main Page blackout would be an extreme measure, and it would hurt the readership. If it came to it, I'd support such a measure, arguing that the short term harm was worth offsetting the long term damage to the community. But I'd absolutely only contemplate it as a last resort. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Sixth Pillar

    I hope you all enjoyed my demonstration over the last few days that secret evidence is a great way to drive massive drama. I learned this 12 years ago during the Durova case. Here's how we could try to avoid disruptions like Durova and Fram in the future:

    Add a 6th Pillar to Wikipedia:

    Wikipedia aspires to treat its contributors justly. Any process to sanction an editor on the English Wikipedia must include (1) providing notice of the accusations, (2) a chance to inspect and refute any non-privileged evidence, and (3) an opportunity to lodge an appeal with a body elected by the Community, such as the Arbitration Committee.

    If there is any support for this idea, we could have an RfC at WT:5P to draft proper wording. This is how we can invalidate the unjust actions by WMF and pressure them to change. Pinging Neutrality (page creator) and Jimbo Wales (founder). Jehochman Talk 13:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose (assuming this was meant as a proposal) - there are some matters (not necessarily this particular matter) which must be dealt with privately. I partially support the right to appeal provision, though, so long as some restrictions as to reasonability are attached to it. We can't have banned editors filing moot appeals constantly. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not meant to preclude private handling. It just means that the subject of a sanction needs to know what they are accused of and have a chance to refute any evidence that can be shared with them. Just because there's one piece of private evidence and elevent pieces of public evidence, does not mean all twelve can be withheld. Likewise, they need a chance to appeal. Jehochman Talk 14:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This assumes (incorrectly) that the WMF is bound by the Five Pillars. The Five Pillars is not policy anyway, it is just a lofty set of worthwhile goals. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't assume that. This is a way for the community to express its wishes, and then we can point to the Pillar and say, "You are violating this. Shame on you." It's a tool to help win an argument. Jehochman Talk 14:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't mean to be flippant here, but do you really think that had this 6th pillar existed one month ago, we wouldn't be right where we are now? I don't think they are particularly concerned about the policies here, which is why they took action outside of them to begin with, after changing their own policies in Feb. to allow it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      This isn't a quick fix. It's a long term solution that will enhance our position in negotiations with WMF. This is a statement of our principles that have existed for a long time. Jehochman Talk 14:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comedy gold. Bravo. -- Begoon 14:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      You're welcome. I'll be here til Sunday. Order another round of drinks. Jehochman Talk 14:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Torn As with real world justice issues anonymity maybe needed to protect victims from reprisal, but it also makes defense harder. I really think there is no right answer here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      We're allowing that privileged information can be withheld. But if that's done, the accused can appeal and whoever hears that appeal can either consider the secret evidence, or if the secret evidence is still withheld, the appeal can rule on what they see. This should never be WMF representatives saying "Trust Me." We have no reason to trust them because we didn't elect them. ArbCom, on the other hand, can say "Trust us" because we picked them. Jehochman Talk 14:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Can, not will. The issue therefore is can an accuser be sure their ID will not be revealed to the accused? In essence if the ID is not revealed that is cause for an appeal, so in essence if you want to make sure it sticks tell us who you are. This reads like "either face the accused or they get off", ohh sorry might get off.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it, or are we just the lease holders and they hold the free hold? Who actually owns and runs (runs, not works for) Wikipedia?Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Without us, they have a bunch of metal boxes, circuit boards, and some network cabling. What will Wikipedia be worth in ten years if we all leave and the place gets overrun with spam, crackpot theories and partisan nonsense. It will turn into MySpace. Jehochman Talk 14:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is not the same issue, Wikipedia is no more ours any more then McDonalds is the crew members.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    'Comment. 'Wikipedia treats its contributors justly.'
    That looks like self-approbation, whose generality in any case, can be contradicted by instancing any number of incorrect or slipshod judgments. At best one would write, 'Wikipedia aspires to treat its contributors fairly.' My own view is, in any case, if you think you have been treated unfairly, there are open channels to appeal that, but good form suggests you should just accept this is a messy world, not get tangled up in argufying, take the rap, sit out your sanction in porridge preferably without high dudgeon, and then get back to actually writing up stuff. Encyclopedias are not written by people who place their impugned dignity on a pedestal: it's done by peonish tenacity in adversity and hardscrabble conditions, and the newbies should be told that, gently, anecdotally, as old timers should be reminded to welcome them, and be somewhat tolerant of sophomoric errancies when an apprenticeship is underway.Nishidani (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I might take out the "star chamber" reference, but I like everything about the concept of adding this pillar. This overreach of authority by WMF is a terrible threat to the soul of this project going forward, and none of us have the moral authority to let it happen again. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as likely to further suppress harassment complaints for fear of further harassment. All systems of justice that allow a fundamental right to face one's accuser also contain protections for that accuser. You can't harass them. You can't intimidate them. You can't go after them. We offer no such protections currently, and so we must develop dispute resolution systems for harassment that grant anonymity to the victim. As written, this would not treat the victim justly, by requiring them to undergo likely further harassment to make any complaint. ~ Rob13Talk 16:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Promising things that can't be delivered is unwise. The accused needs to know the incident so that they can defend themselves. Hence, the accused will be able to infer the victim. I don't buy the argument that the victim needs anonymity because it then turns the situation around and allows anybody to claim victim status and launch anonymous personal attacks. When building a security system you have to think about how that system could be abused and plan accordingly. The best we can do is offer to support targets of harassment and defend them vigorously from any further harassment. What's particularly awful is that so many people tried to defend Fram, and virtually nobody offered support to LH. Jehochman Talk 16:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, it was a demonstration, showing us all how much you learned from the Durova case. Sure. It all makes sense now. Is the not this shit again pic on commons? nableezy - 16:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    What exactly does your comment accomplish? Maybe it was a reminder to me and to everybody else that secret evidence doesn't work too well. Jehochman Talk 16:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit more than most of the comments here and at requests for arbitration you have made over the past few days. That being nothing at all, but better that than a negative. nableezy - 16:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ...in your opinion. Please don't be so pompous to assume that your opinion is a fact. Jehochman Talk 16:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Run that one back, but this time face a mirror. nableezy - 17:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you are, but what am I? Jehochman Talk 17:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I'm happy to offer moral support for the ethical motivation behind this, but I can't support in practice on two grounds. One is that the 5P(6P) do not apply to the WMF and would have no effect in similar situations like this. The other is that hard cases make bad law, and I would oppose any new pillar tailored specifically to an individual problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If we are arguing to WMF that what they are doing is unfair, wouldn't it be wise to records the fact that this community values justice. Maybe it won't help this time, but it might help next time. I just want to write down what most of us already believe. Jehochman Talk 16:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing wrong with that general sentiment, but don't we already have more than a megabyte of recording what the community values in this case? I just don't think we should be changing key policy pages to make a point over one specific incident (no matter how bad that incident). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the first incident that provoked a storm. I remember others, and this principle is a summation of what's gone wrong before and how to avoid making the same mistake again. Jehochman Talk 17:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We shall simply have to disagree then. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably Support depending on how specific the accusations in 1, and how privileged the evidence in 2 are supposed to be. As you can probably guess, the issue is outing; if an editor is accused of outing another, or harassing them in real life, it will be difficult to require the accuser to publicly expose the very things that make them vulnerable. But I anticipate a reasonable balance can be found, and the principle is admirable. --GRuban (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Has anyone ever read the five pillars? One is "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility". We don't need more pillars, you need to start using the ones we have. — Moe Epsilon 17:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Torn The dangers of a secret denunciation culture are something it might be good to discuss with the WMF, per Nishidani , the Securitate , the Stasi, Roman Proscriptions or the even worse nonsense with UK benefit fraud reporting. But there do seem be quite a few exceptions where it would be ideal for a victim to be able to report confidentially. And there is the wp:Creep issue. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mu or moo or whatever that was. We certainly need solutions, but this one isn't it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not this. How about "Whenever performance and conduct issues are not required by law to be kept confidential, the community shall freely and openly discuss them to determine a course of action backed by consensus and/or executive action by trusted administrators acting on policies enacted by consensus". No more closed-society bullshit, at least not unless mandated by some outside force. Wnt (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Hurting so bad right now

    User_talk:Floquenbeam#My_desysop_request and User:Worm That Turned and "I saw the questions on Meta/enWP this morning when I got up. I'll respond later today when I'm out of some meetings that I can't move. (Twitter is fast for me, I've been a user for 12 years. I've only been with WM for 5. It's fluency more than preference!)" are a frustrating combination to absorb in a few hours. This community is hurting so much right now because of actions and inactions by WMF. I have to be very careful what I write. SilkTork (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for writing this as I am also feeling the the hurt. For me this retirement is another blow and part of my hurt. I've written here how I think only WMF can fix this and their lack of desire to do so, and perhaps their thinking that there's nothing to fix, makes all of this ever more difficult. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Maher appears to be so detached from the fabric of what makes Wikipedia what it is, that she should be ashamed. Happily tweeting off some banal denials and leaving it as-is, while the community is losing good people left, right and centre, is a complete dereliction of duty. Astonishing that her position exists because of people in the community, yet she has no time to address those same people. Truly enlightening and saddening. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can somebody keep Katherine away from Twitter, for the next week? ∯WBGconverse 18:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You see, it's not that she doesn't want to communicate with us; it's that she doesn't know how to. What's this confusing Wikipedia thing they keep talking about? Meh, a few tweets between meetings should keep them quiet until I can figure it out.
    What has she been doing for the past 18 days while this place has been burning??? - MrX 🖋 19:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks SilkTork. I'm mourning for the community that has been such a large part of my life for 15 years. I'd be just as upset if this was some conspiracy by WMF, but I don't think it's anything but incompetence, much makes it all so fucking pointless. Guettarda (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Update from Doc James

    Hey All Apologies for not responding more and sooner. I am wanting to give everyone an update. The board is working on a statement. The plan has never been to wait it out just that, as we all know consensus, takes time. I would implore the community to give us more time. With respect to a timeline we should have a statement within a week.

    I would like to personally request that people hold off making long term plans with respect to future participation until the board can attempt to address your concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • WITHIN A WEEK? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many admins will we lose over that time period? --Rschen7754 18:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Hey Doc James, I assume you realise it better be something pretty special after all this time and wasted contributors? Don't you dare come back with some boiler plate bullshit. You've already had three weeks to come up with something. Pathetic. How many admins will we lose? Doc James, Maher et al don't care. It's not their community, remember? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      TRM, to be fair, I think Doc James does care - deeply - about en.wiki, but he's just one of 11 people on the board, and 10 don't (well Jimbo does, but only to the extent that he wants it to all go away). I don't think 1 week is his idea, because it is ultimately not up to him; it's probably his estimate of how long it will take. It's obviously insufficient for me, but I don't blame Doc James for the 3 week delay. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not blaming Doc James personally. I think that ought to have been obvious, but I'm sorry if it wasn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I think some people (here and below) have taken Doc James, Maher et al don't care to mean "Doc James and Maher et al don't care" instead of taking "Doc James" as vocative expression that indicates the person being addressed. Deor (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's see. An arb is taking time-off (at least), another bureaucrat has retired as well as a clerk, and what? two three (another just resigned) more admins have handed in their tools in the past 24 hours. You don't have a week. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeat: these people don't care. The English language Wikipedia community is not their interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not willing to sign on to "boiler plate bullshit". I have spent the better part of my professional career working on Wikipedia and I do it entirely as a volunteer, including paying my own way to Wikimania / board meetings. I am not here for any other reason other than the mission. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Er - Don't know about Maher, but User:Doc James has a long row of Good Article plusses and Featured Article stars at the top right corner of his user page. If he's not a member of our community, I don't know who is. --GRuban (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    TRM, with one exception I probably agree with you. Doc James has contributed over 180,000 edits to the mainspace alone. They have 1,700 edits to Obesity (GA) alone. I do think Doc James cares about en.wiki. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't trust Maher at all, given the comedy she's been doing over Twitter. But, I trust James quite much. He has a vast amount of main-space edits (and dozens of GAs&FAs), has been among the top contributors to medicine-related-content, have immensely contributed to fighting copyvios et al and have shown appreciable judgement in contentious areas earlier. He is here for all the right reasons.∯WBGconverse 19:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To reiterate, I'm sure Doc James' contributions have been historically marvellous, but if he remains a member of our community, he has to accept that this situation, and the ongoing malaise, is completely unacceptable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Doc James, you and I have always got along and been straight with each other, but come on, you have to understand why the community (not just a few of us here) will find this wholly unacceptable, right? It isn't about blaming you personally, it isn't your fault, but a week for a statement means we WILL lose more admin and editors. And I'm pretty sure TRM wasn't talking about Doc, but the WMF. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What Dennis said. If you really do still think of yourself as a member of our community, then you understand 100% why another week of waiting is unacceptable, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Doc James: No, it's just taking too long. The Board has had plenty of time to attempt to get its act together. You're just fobbing us off time and again. Either the Board are utterly incompetent, or they are deliberately stalling. I cannot, with all the will in the world, believe otherwise now. DuncanHill (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to echo both sides of this - this is an improvement, as we're not being stonewalled as much and we have an actual deadline. That said, this deadline demonstrates a real lack of understanding as to just how urgent this is from the communities perspective. This needs to be a hell of a statement. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally I do not consider anyone who has resigned their bits or carried out admin or bureaucrat actions that than resulted in them giving up their bits related to the current events to have done so "under a cloud". I consider these actions to be acceptable acts of protest, done in what they consider to be the best interests of our movement. Our Fifth pillar still stands. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    That was never in doubt, and while your opinion on the matter is interesting, it's not exactly relevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you please stop. This is really harassment, by any definition. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That is complete bollocks. It's not up to Doc James to tell us whether or not those admins and 'crats who resigned did so under a cloud. It's misdirection and utterly irrelevant to the matter in hand. Thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree it is not my choice, it is the communities. But I will be weighting in if such a discussion is needed and people now know how I will weight in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering the fact that next week includes the 4th of July holiday which will be a short work week with many taking their vacations you will forgive my fears that nothing of importance will occur in the time frame you are presenting DJ. MarnetteD|Talk 19:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    1) I am an ER doc, what are holidays? 2) Regardless us solving the issues here are more important than holidays. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I might be in the minority, but I know I'm not alone when I say I don't share the same view, Doc James. Some actions rightfully needed review and we don't need cowboys with admin/'crat bits. — Moe Epsilon 19:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, it's not up to Doc James, it's up to the community. And it's irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • To add to James' comment - it is not that we're setting the timeline for a week. I expect and hope we can make it faster. It is just that coordinating 10 people in different time zones, with different views, different levels of understanding practices and procedures as well as different perspectives and valid and useful perspective, as well as running regular hectic jobs (or sometimes being unavailable for fully justified reasons) is not easy. I've been in daily communication with fellow Board members about this case. We are working on it, and yes - too slow, and some will say its too little too late once we're done. But we're really not ignoring this or waiting it out in any way. Pundit|utter 19:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Doc James & with Bellezzasolo. Thanks for doing your best Doc. Still, suggesting something that's possibly over optimistic, but just might reduce the temperature enough so that WMF members can talk to us individually, without needing the time consuming process of forming concensus between the WMF & the Board. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks from me, too. As I already mentioned elsewhere, I voted for Doc James and he still enjoys my confidence. El_C 19:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not being funny but the WMF really doesn't have a week ... we've already lost a good few admins in the last 2 weeks because of this shit show ..... At this rate we're going to have no admins left!, I honestly don't have much hope of this statement being satisfactory at all I really don't. –Davey2010Talk 19:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Acta non verba but will wait and see. Regardless, there are hard questions that will have to be asked at some point as to why the foundation and board sat while the community tore itself apart for 17 days.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Doc. I look forward to hearing the update, and unlike others I understand these things take time. I hope it has substantive content that actually addresses the myriad concerns that community members have expressed.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    15 from the beginning (not counting Rama, who is unrelated)--Ymblanter (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And I hate to say it, but: [needs update]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, 16 at this point--Ymblanter (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And, at this rate, still more to come. :( --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll state here that I don't plan on resigning my Admin bit. But that's only because I know full well my quitting won't change anything; I'm just a legacy admin & no one cares if I stay or quit. In the case I find myself the last admin here, my only act will be to put the entire Wiki in read-only mode, against the hope something might be salvaged from the wreckage. -- llywrch (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Acknowledging that any individual board member is limited in what they can do to affect this, and acknowledging the board is comprised of diverse people from different time zones, with different priorities and schedules, it has objectively taken entirely too long to address this. I have no idea whether it's a collective lack of motivation, collective incompetence, or both, but this situation is unacceptable for a $100 million plus organization whose mission it is to empower and engage people to develop education content. - MrX 🖋 20:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would expect much language praising the wp-en community for its great efforts, but anything meaningful to be so hedged around with "as practical" and "as permitted by law and Foundation policy", and many such-like as's of great charge (see Shakespeare), that it will amount to nothing binding on T&S.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope that the board has enough wisdom to realize that an statement that only reaffirms T & S's dictated position, but with nicer words, is likely to make matters much worse. What's needed is a clear mechanism for fostering true dialog and an an acknowledgement that we are partners in this, not master and servant.- MrX 🖋 20:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Communities in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. We've been trying to decide whether to italicise website titles for nearly six weeks. – Joe (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Joe Roe - Fascinating. And how many editors/admins/bureaucrats/arbs/clerks have we lost to this italicization crisis? Mr rnddude (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't started a list (and won't), but I've already seen a few editors retire over this, and surely there were many more that I didn't see. We admin might get noticed, but losing people who actually spend all their time writing articles is not only worse, but it is happening silently, so there is no way to really gauge the damage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the admins who have resigned here Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard are "cowboys" (and what is that even supposed to mean in this situation.) Thy are long time and well respected valuable members of the project. Moe Epsilon} owes them and the rest of us an apology for casting such asinine aspersions. MarnetteD|Talk 20:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "I have no idea what that means."
    "You're casting aspersions."
    — Moe Epsilon 20:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikimedia ^^ wiki 😂 ...Sicherlich Post 21:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

    Reading what Doc James has written, and putting that with my own experience of working on committees (including ArbCom), plus following the various links posted on this page to WMF's statements and plans for dealing with our "toxic, "fractious" and "monolith misnomer" community, it appears that there are some, such as Doc James, who are pushing for one resolution (which we as a community would support) while there are others who are resistant to that. There is no point speculating what the possible resolution would be, nor who is doing the resisting and why (but people will anyway). What is important to know is that there are people fighting for our community. If there were not we would have had a statement by now. And it would be one we wouldn't be happy with. That it is likely to take a week is suggestive of the huge struggle that is taking place. I can say that it is very stressful and unpleasant being on the Arbitration Committee during this, even though the Committee - within our varying responses to the nuances of the situation - are fairly united and not arguing. I should imagine that being on the Board is mindblowingly unpleasant at the moment, and if Doc James can go through that, and hold things together and not resign anything, then he has my utter fucking respect. But then again, he is an ER doctor, and those folks seem to thrive on the sort of stress that would kill ordinary mortals. SilkTork (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I would have sympathy if it was one week from the kick-off, but it's now been something like 2.5 weeks already, with basically nothing but boiler plate from WMF and a few kicks in the teeth from Maher in her almost complete denial that there even is a situation worthy of her notice. But the rest of what you said I can recognise. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Why are the WMF leaving us to stew? Is it time to offer an olive branch?

    On the face of it, it seems extraordinary WMF have stopped on-wiki communication with us, even as admin after admin resigns, not to mention even a crat, & a previously sanction free FA writer getting indeffed. But let's try to look at it from their perspective:

    • They start investigating Fram & find what appears to them a sustained pattern of harassment. ( I'm strongly of the opinion he is not a harasser, even several Inclusionists are most grateful for the prodigious amount of quality control work Fram has done for us. But if one isn't looking through the lens of policy - especially the part that says its not harassment to track "a user's contributions for policy violations" -then it has to be admitted that a great many of Fram's contribs could be interpreted as harassment. )

    • Over their 4 week+ multi department investigation, the WMF solidify their position that Fram's violated T&S, albeit recognising his positive qualities enough not to impose a permaban.

    • Immediately after the ban they're met with ferocious criticism, including multiple calls for resignations.

    • There is also offsite harassment against two women associated with the ban, which seems rather more damaging than linking twitters to WMF accounts in the same name.

    Looked at this way, it seems understandable WMF staffers might not want to risk further discussion. It might seem ridiculous that the community should be the one to offer an olive branch, but perhaps we're the only ones who can. Perhaps along the lines of:

    > We, the undersigned community members recognise that WMF is acting to reduce harassment on its platform, and in principle we fully support that goal.

    > While not apologising for the robust early reaction, we intend to avoid an angry responses in further discussion.

    > The community does not welcome any form of offsite action against WMF staff members or against any one else sympathetic to their position. (In a sense this goes totally with out saying, but it might allay concerns, and stay the hand of the off site activists if they can explicitly see the community doesn't want them to continue their work.)

    If a consensus of editors signed up for this, we might get some sort of constructive dialogue going. The WMF could probably help calm things down by agreeing that to some extent its unavoidable for good faith editors to feel harassed, unless we change policy to prevent us challenging each other, which would be a disaster from a quality perspective. We could then move to discussing the proposals of NewYorkBrad, Bellezzasolo etc. We should expect they might not be able to meet all of those proposals, but if we are willing to make some concessions of our own (e.g. slightly relax the policy based encouragement for sustained scrutiny directed towards a single editor) then the WMF might be able to grant at least some of our requests.

    IMO this is the only play the community can make that gives us a good chance to heal the hurt here without wating a week or so for the board, and perhaps it let's us have more of a part in shaping the resolution to our liking. If editors don't like this proposal, I've no objection to it being edited by others or just deleted. Or is this worth opening to a vote? FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Quite frankly, NewYorkBrad's proposal was the olive branch. The WMF explicitly rejected it. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I was hesitant to criticise an idea from someone as rightly esteemed as NewYorkBrad, but his proposal didnt seem to offer much concession to the WMF's point of view. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I was hesitant to criticize it for the exact same reason but on the opposite side of the issue - it didn't seem to go far enough to resolve the communities concerns in my opinion. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha! It explicitly said we're not apologising to try to avoid looking like a grovel. Per yours & Tazerdadogs reaction, I guess this was indeed over optimistic. I sure hope someone has a better idea, or that Doc James & the Board turn out to be miracle workers. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that you proposed this with the best of intentions, so please don't worry about that. But what is very clear is that they are indeed leaving us to stew, and no good is going to come out of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose As noted above NYB's proposal was the olive branch. The WMF politely declined that that, which is their right. However, they didn't try to offer anything in its stead - which they could have done without backtracking on any of the things thing they've drawn as lines in the sand (and which, in fairness, NYB's proposal did ask them to cross). I am firmly of the opinion that if there is something to be fixed (and I say if only because I'm not sure if leadership at T&S/WMF thinks there is) it will have to be started by the WMF. This is why I hope that the statement Doc James talks about is a statement of actions. Actions can indeed take time to hammer out and gain buy-in and so it would be reasonable that such a statement has taken awhile. From there things like the RfC work be contemplated by ArbCom can proceed to look at this more systemically. But the WMF has to stop the bleeding right now. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The vast majority of wikipedia editors unequivocally reject off-wiki harassment, against WMF staff, other editors, or anyone, and if any of the WMF believes otherwise, we have a serious problem. Similarly, only a small fringe of editors was calling for wmf staff resignations, with the majority rejecting this. I agree with the above assessment that NYBrad's proposal was an olive branch. This could be a good basis for a personal email to Katherine or board members, but won't help our position as a group statement.Dialectric (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • For context, the last time something comparable happened was arguably m:Superprotect / m:Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer. It then took WMF 17 days to have any real reaction, and 15 full months to completely reverse the mistake. Individual statements by WMF officers in the first week were not pretty and did not quite help, so be careful what you wish for. Nemo 20:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. That was almost five years ago. Why weren't procedures put in place to deal with crises like these? Why aren't risk assessments done? Where I work, we need to do risk assessments for any project. We need to be especially cogniscant of anything that might cause disruption. And if something does go wrong, we're required to respond in hours, not days. I honestly can't imagine a situation in which our Board would be called upon to respond before our ED had done everything possible to resolve the situation. It's all baffling. Guettarda (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't baffling at all if you begin with the precept that the WMF is incompetent. I've long held this position, and there's ample evidence to support the position. The WMF is not a mature organization. They flail about in the wind in the simplest of cases, and in complex ones such as this they are utterly in over their heads. A culture change has to happen to change this. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Strike

    I've been thinking. One way we as a community can show our displeasure at the situation is by having an editing strike. What I am proposing is a 24-hour period where no edits are made in article space, with some very limited exceptions - e.g. Reverting vandalism and BLP violations would be permitted. Would suggest Monday 8 July would be a suitable date. This would give us time to assess any response from WMF as detailed above. Mjroots (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Mjroots, as I've said above, I don't think the time is ripe for drastic action. Lets see what the board have to offer. If it's unsatisfactory, or doesn't manifest itself within the promised 7 days, then we can look at taking action. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why I've suggested 8 July, although that date is open to being moved backwards, depending on what transpires in the next 7 days. Mjroots (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mjroots, I think 8 July is too early - the response may turn up on 4th or 5th. We then have to digest it, decide it's lacklustre, then organise a coordinated strike. I don't see that happening in 3 or 4 days. 10 July, marking 1 month since Fram's ban, would give us more time to coordinate. and also be quite symbolic. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's take the trade union approach then. Prepare for a strike on a certain date. Get the publicity out. A strike can always be called off. 10 July is a very good suggestion. Mjroots (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doubt the vast majority of the people who actually edit articles on a daily basis are even aware of this dispute. A strike by only those who are taking part in the discussion on this page will have no effect at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would not accomplish what we want, kind of like swallowing poison and waiting for the other person to get sick. But one thing I'm increasingly sure of: there need to be repercussions in the next election for the Board of Trustees. (To be clear, I don't mean Doc James there. But some other members, that's another matter.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "limited exceptions" could be a problem. It seems that such edits might (sadly) be a significant portion of the daily volume, and continuing with those edits during the strike would likely reduce its noticeability. (ec) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram&oldid=903933433"