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

User:Fram banned for 1 year by WMF office

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)

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)

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)

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? ∯WBG^converse 18:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This is T&S business and I am not sure if Community Relations knows better. — regards, Revi 18:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

(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)

I've asked ArbCom to comment at WT:AC/N. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• WTF? Echo everything that Iri says. ∯WBG^converse 18:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• As above. I am not Fram's biggest fan (the feeling is more than mutual, don't worry) but when I saw this in my watchlist it was an actual spoken 'WTF' moment. We need a good explanation, quickly. GiantSnowman 18:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• Office has full-protected Fram's TP in the midst of this discussion; it is hard to believe they do not know it's going on, but certainly easier to believe that they feel they can ignore it. 2A02:C7F:BE76:B700:C9AE:AA89:159B:8D17 (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• Like everyone else, I simply fail to understand why the Foundation would ban a good-standing admin for no apparent reason. funplussmart (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• T&S: training and simulation? Very confused. Talk English please. DrKay (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • DrKay, T&S means Trust and Safety. funplussmart (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • m:T&S. Killiondude (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• A big ‘ole whiskey tango from me too. –xeno^talk 19:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• I've put a note on meta:User talk:JEissfeldt (WMF), I believe that is the place for a wiki-talkpage-request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• (moved from an) Holy shit, what? That’s insane. It appears that their admin rights have also been removed... can only wmf restore the rights, or will fram have to go through an rfa?💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 19:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Neither; this is a WP:OFFICE action so we can't overturn it. Per my comments above, I can't even imagine the circumstances in which this is legitimate, since if it were genuinely something so problematic he needed to be banned instantly without discussion, it would be something warranting a global rather than a local ban, and permanent rather than time-limited. ‑ Iridescent 19:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• "HELLO? IS THIS THING WORKING???" Explanation required. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• I sent a note to the WMF email address listed on User:Fram and asked for an explanation. I would suggest that perhaps other people might want to do the same. I imagine that T&S has valid reasons, but I believe that some sort of summary explanation to the community, at a minimum, is called for in this case. UninvitedCompany 19:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • So have I. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Seems like we are in good company as well. Probably better to wait now for any reply. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• Uh, yeah. Explanation required, please WMF. The fact he's only been banned from en.wiki and not globally locked suggests it's regarding something that's happened regarding this wiki. So, we're waiting. Black Kite (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  In the absence of any explanation, the cynic in me guesses that at some point in the next 12 months the WMF are going to reattempt to introduce the forced integration of either Wikidata, VisualEditor or Superprotect, and are trying to pre-emptively nobble the most vocal critic of forced changes to the interface. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Don’t forget Media Viewer —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Iridescent: The cynic in you has some evidence in its favor ... . * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  This is worth quoting in full: This priority will focus on deeper evolutions to the core product — integrating content from Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource and other projects into Wikipedia. This will be accompanied by rich authoring tools and content creation mechanisms for editors that build upon new capabilities in AI-based content generation, structured data, and rich media to augment the article format with new, dynamic knowledge experiences. New form factors will come to life here as the outcomes of earlier experimentation. We will showcase these developments in a launch for Wikipedia’s 20th birthday in 2021. Nice of them to ask if we wanted this, isn't it? ‑ Iridescent 19:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

•  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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • Yes, WMF has poisoned the well and provided precisely zero justification for doing so. Heinous. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  @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)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)

  Yes, no reply. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  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)

  I'll do it, then no harm no foul if TRM gets permanently banned. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

• (edit conflict) So what, are they repressing people with no explanation now? What did they violate? SemiHypercube 20:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

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)

TonyBallioni, now that at least Fram's side is out, do you still trust those people? spryde | talk 13:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

• So, are we technically prevented from unblocking? Tiderolls 20:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Not in a software sense, but the WMF will insta-desysop anyone who overturns them. ‑ Iridescent 20:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Then they need to get their collective asses in gear before someone does something regrettable. Tiderolls 20:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Not really. I agree that the shroud of darkness around this matter is regrettable (they haven't even gone to the extent of telling us "we can't tell you anything" yet...), but as long as we sit on the WMF's servers then we as a community are ultimately powerless to do anything about this. We can ask the question, but if we don't like the answer then our only options are to (a) keep quiet and toe the line, or (b) fork the whole encyclopedia under CC licence on to a new set of servers... (and if Wikivoyage vs Wikitravel is anything to go by, such an exercise would probably not end up a success).  — Amakuru (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Everything you post is true, Amakuru, and I'm still open to the fact that WMF's silence to Fram's advantage. My point is just because the WMF can take an action, doesn't necessarily mean the should take that action. Tiderolls 21:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Was that fork borne of a constitutional crisis? –xeno^talk 20:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Actually, Wikivoyage was a fork of Wikitravel, not the other way around. (See Wikitravel#Community fork in 2012). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Amakuru: - there is one other step we've seen before. In the wake of the Superprotect saga, and the failure of the Community board members to act, all three were replaced. But before we get that far, and waiting on T&S' "we can't tell you anything for your own good" - perhaps we reach out both to community liasions and to our board members? Nosebagbear (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed, if a sufficient number of admins agree this should be reversed, WMF will be committing suicide to act against them. This will go to the press (I can guarantee that given questions I've received offwiki) and WMF will look stoopids. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @Xeno: The details are here... "excessive monetisation of the site (a plan to put links to a booking engine on every page was one example) and the poor and worsening technical support offered by the site's owners" is given as the main reason. So maybe a sort of ongoing low-level constitutional crisis? The trouble is, it hasn't really worked. Last time I checked Wikitravel always appears way further up the Google hits than WV, and has more daily edits.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  User:Amakuru actually Wikivoyage is now significantly more popular than Wikitravel and has received way more edits for a long time :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  I don't think forking has ever really worked in the long run. See, for example, Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español. It would probably work even less here given that the English Wikipedia is the world's 5th-(?)largest website and that any fork would likely fizzle. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Do you think enwp would fare any better if the unpaid administration went on a general strike? –xeno^talk 22:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  I think it would earn immeasurable respect for unblocking Fram and dealing with the consequences. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Does anyone know of any T&S team members who would be responsive to the community? Surely one of them has to be a reasonable human being that we can actually communicate with? I find it hard to believe that "Trust" & Safety has no problem (further) decimating community relations without any attempt at damage control. Then again, WMF never fails to disappoint in these situations. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  The whole lot of them are listed here (you need to scroll down to reach T&S); pick one you think looks trustworthy. ‑ Iridescent 20:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  40% of the T&S team don't trust us to let us know what they look like. Enough said. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Not entirely fair—40% of them just haven't copied their photo across from Meta yet (e.g. here's what Sydney Poore looks like). ‑ Iridescent 21:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Not that it is important for this matter now, but Karen Brown is the same person as Fluffernutter--Ymblanter (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Also, Sydney Poore is FloNight and her picture is on her user page. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• WP:AGF says we should assume good faith on the part of editors. Absent of any further information from the WMF (or indication that there are privacy issues involved), my default assumption is that he did nothing wrong. Unless the WMF issues a real explanation, there's no proof that this isn't just the WMF trying to suppress criticism of its various failed experiments. Also, on any other wiki, site administration acting this tyranically would be a forkable offense. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• (self-removed) Legoktm (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Noting that you are *employed* by WMF. ∯WBG^converse 02:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  I'm a software engineer with a part-time contract with the WMF (technically not an employee), though I've been a Wikipedian for much longer, and it's in that role that I'm writing here. Legoktm (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Based on my interactions and what I've observed on-wiki, it's easy for me see multiple people sending complaints to the WMF - just because those people aren't speaking up here, doesn't mean they don't exist. (my third attempt at leaving a comment here.) Legoktm (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Overly harsh and punitive blocks are rarely never a good idea. Even when the reasons for blocking are clear. I'm sure Fram must feel he has been treated very unjustly. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• +1 to the "WTF?" camp - I cannot wrap my head around how or even why a veteran admin such as Fram was blocked by the WMFOffice.... I also find it slightly bizarre that the block only goes on for a year and not indef ? (Not that I want it indef but I just find it odd and somewhat pointless). –Davey2010^Talk 19:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Award-winning. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

@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)

Response

• I.e. NOTHING. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  technically we can rule out a Rémi Mathis type issue.©Geni (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Oh cool, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• What TRM said. I'm noting the singular absence of these alleged "community members who raised concerns" from any of these discussions, or of any concerns actually being raised about Fram at any of the venues where community members are actually supposed to raise concerns; would they happen to be either Wikidata-spammers or Visual Editor programmers by any chance? ‑ Iridescent 21:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Let me translate. They were socking, and someone complained about the actions of the other account. (Based on the statement above, only, and not any inside information) UninvitedCompany 21:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    • WTF? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    • That would make sense, if WMFOffice had blocked more than Fram and EngFram. If there's a sock that has caused all of this, they've not blocked it... Nick (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Exactly. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
        • I should point out, socking isnt actually against the TOU. Its a local ENWP policy. I would be surprised if it was a simple sock issue, as thats ENWP specific (no matter how many other wikimedia projects have rules against it). I would be more surprised if T&S was looking into SOCKPUPPETRY as a useful allocation of their resources. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure that UninvitedCompany really gets this situation if he thinks it's really about socking. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
            • I doubt very much that it's entirely about socking. I would imagine that it is about whatever the sock did. UninvitedCompany 21:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
              • What are you talking about? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    • "the measure covers more than one user account in this case" Perhaps the other account is already blocked. UninvitedCompany 21:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I'm having as much difficulty parsing that steaming pile of nothing as everyone else, but I think that just means the two accounts, Fram, and the legit alt EngFram, both of which were blocked by the WMF. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
        • For those speculating about socking, I doubt it. See the recent Od Mishelu precedent, that was ArbCom only, not WMF. I ully agree about this being a non-response though. GiantSnowman 21:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
          • The WMF has removed functionary access because of socking before: Ciphers was a CU on ar.wiki who was caught vandal socking here on en, and they removed the CU bit, but in that case the block and eventual lock were community actions: I blocked the account and a steward later locked it. From discussions at the time, this was intentional. That is to say: I doubt only socking would have caused this, and if there was admin socking, it is usually handled by the local CUs/ArbCom. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• It is the community’s decision what to do with Fram’s administrator access upon the expiration of the Office Action ban. but can I just say. How the fuck can we do that when WMF won't give us any information to make an informed decision ? Nick (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  We can't, which is indisputable proof that the WMF, in this instance, are fucking clueless. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• @WMFOffice: Your statement seems premised on "strongly indicating cases where local communities consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous rules but the Terms of Use, too" - could you explain how we've consistently struggled to uphold one or both of these facets. Logically, if there's sufficient evidence to indicate repeated failure, then you should be demonstrating what we've done wrong or there's no reason it wouldn't keep repeating. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Well, the way we would do that is that Fram would make a request at RFA, and we would follow the usual process. If he got thrown under the bus for reasons that are still, at that point, a big secret, then I would imagine that the RFA would be widely supported. UninvitedCompany 21:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  How the fuck can we run an RFA when no-one knows what he was de-sysoped for? And how does the community know whatever he did to invoke the wrath of the WMF won't happen again? Madness. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Well, my view is that we would run an RFA based on the information that we have in hand. And people would support or oppose based on whether they thought that being blocked by WMF for secret reasons a year ago is a good reason to oppose. UninvitedCompany 21:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Well that's just plain stupid if Fram could then be de-sysoped once again on the invisible whim of WMF. Just think about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Translation from WMF-speak: *WMF to en.wiki: Drop dead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• The statement is mostly a copy of their post on deWP in February. Sunrise (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  i.e. NOTHING. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• If the implication here is that EnWp failed to uphold some vague terms of use, is there evidence that enwp in any of its various venues for solving disputes were notified, considering arbcom aren’t even aware? This sounds like total bumbling incompetence from WMF and like they’re involving themselves in some sort of editor dispute. Praxidicae (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• This seems like the wrong place for this discussion. Can we identify a better place? Thanks S Philbrick(Talk) 21:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Sphilbrick: - other than perhaps peeling this off as a separate page so we don't clog up the Crat's board, it seems a reasonable location. As we are limited on our direct action, it's not like we can turn it into an RfC. Nosebagbear (talk)

  It’s fine to continue here; imo, moving the discussion at this point would just introduce further collective confusion. –xeno^talk 21:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Agreed, but at least in theory this could be a good fit for the largely-defunct Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous): it's a community-based discussion without particular relevance to any specific page, policy, or editing function that has ranged from gossip and speculation to vocal outcry and condemnation. In practice, of course, VPM is frequently devoid of activity, so there'd be no use in opening a discussion there to begin with. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• They can't be this stupid, Community Relations has got to be telling them the catastrophes that can come from not involving anyone from a local wiki in banning a local sysop. It's been, what, 3 years since there was major blowup between the WMF and the Community - surely we don't have to relearn the same lessons? Their actions might even be justified - it's how they're going about it that makes it so ludicrous! Nosebagbear (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• @GiantSnowman: - the office response says explicitly, "Therefore, the measure covers more than one user account in this case." That is confirmation that it was at least partially a socking incident, isn't it?  — Amakuru (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  No, that's a reference to Fram's legitimate alt account EngFram. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  No it could just mean it was his two stated accounts. If it was socking, there are enough CU's, admins and Arbcom who would be able to work it out damn fast from all blocked users. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Stupid is as stupid does. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. Thanks Pppery.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• WMFOffice you're in the shit here I think. Unless you want a revolution on your hands, you'd better start talking the talk. Don't be obtuse and fob us off with another boilerplate horseshit response. If you have any competence left (yes Arbcom, I know), please clarify in precise terms what has happened here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• We, as a community, need to craft a unified response. Seriously, I see no consensus here for acceptance of this action. With the exception of Fram's privacy in this matter I see no good reason for such a lack of transparency. Tiderolls 21:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Tide rolls: - you're definitely right as regards unified response. There could legitimately be concerns from an accuser of Fram (the unhappiness here probably would increase that). However, that would justify not resolving it on, say, ANI. It would still be a legitimate area for ARBCOM to consider. Given that their "justification" was repeated failures by en-wiki in implementing our rules or the TOS, non-communication is particularly non-acceptable. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  That seems like a great idea in principle but what's really needed is a "Spartacus" moment. Unblock Fram. And keep unblocking Fram, until we run out of admins. This is fucking stupid, and WMF have a huge responsibility here to address the stupidity rather than treating us like fucking idiots and providing boilerplate bollocks. How insulting. How denigrating. Many of us have been here for more than a decade, and to get that bullshit "recorded message" response in reaction to such a hugely controversial measure is beyond belief. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Such a scenario seems extremely unlikely. Even in the event that all admins could be convinced to take part, and it seems unlikely since it seems clear from this discussion that not all agree that T&S were wrong to act, in reality it would probably end with maybe the 1st, 2nd or at most 3rd to try it when the WMF introduces a 'superblock' which can't be overturned by anyone but the WMF. Of course admins are free to resign or stop acting as admins or leave wikipedia as they see fit. They could even take other protest action likely leading to the removal of their tools and maybe other sanction if they desire. But the particular course of action you suggested is never likely to last long. Nil Einne (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Nosebagbear: As has been said already, we have little direct action available. The only direct action I have at my disposal will mean my desysoping. The more the WMF obfuscates the less that scares me. Tiderolls 21:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man and Tide rolls: As long as we don't suddenly find out this was justified after all, there's always proposing a new exception to the socking policy. Then we wouldn't lose you as admins and it would fall to the WMF to perform enforcement. Sunrise (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Tide rolls a unified response? Do you mean something along the lines of a very public vote of no confidence? Sure, it wouldn't be formally binding in any way, but it would terrible publicity for the WMF. Maybe, just maybe, it would force them to give a real explanation. Lepricavark (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Hi, Lepricavark. I'll assume you're watching here and not aggravate you with a ping. I had no format in mind when I posted. Your interpretation is something I would support. With all the varied participation here my confidence is not high that a single proposal will gain substantial traction. Rest assured that I would lend support to any proposal that stresses community action over WMF interference. Tiderolls 04:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  I think that a broadly worded statement of no confidence would probably garner a not-insignificant level of support right now. The community is rightly angry and so far we evidently haven't been able to get the WMF's attention. As somebody pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the community -- which is never unified -- has been unified against the WMF. That being said, I'm not the best person for drafting a statement. There are others in this thread that could do it, but I won't single anyone out. Lepricavark (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Well that's a massive great amount of absolutely fucking nothing, isn't it? Try again. Black Kite (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• Gag order? The statement does not say that Fram is precluded from discussing the issue. I don't think the Office has the authority to issue a gag order, so if Fram isn't talking that suggests he either doesn't want to talk about it, or agreed to a gag order in exchange for something (1 year instead of 2?) I see that some are attempting to contact him. Has any response occurred, even if to simply explain whether he is voluntarily silent or required to be silent?S Philbrick(Talk) 21:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Or hes asleep/away etc and will wake up at some point to a full email inbox and a headache. I generally dont read anything into non-response until its been at least 72 hours. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) It is half past midnight in Belgium—there's a very good chance he's just asleep and will wake up to a thousand pings. ‑ Iridescent 21:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  More like half past eleven, actually...  — Amakuru (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Seriously. The translation is pretty straightforward. A user filed a complaint against Fram's behavior onwiki. This behaviour did not occur yesterday, it may have happened a long time ago and it took a while for WMF to investigate, or it could have happened over long time and the person only filed the complained recently. Now, if you want to know what this behavior exactly was, I think it is not very difficult to guess. I have no idea who filed the complaint. I did not do it (and never in fact considered it seriously). There are some obvious candidates, but I do not want to be WMF blocked myself, and therefore will not continue here and will not respond private requests. I do not think this is in any way important at this stage.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  To clarify what I have written is not supposed to be a support of the WMF action, rather a clarification how I understand it.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  They state above it takes about 4 weeks. So my bet is on this Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Seems the likeliest explanation so far.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  But we should remember that a complaint normally taking about 4 weeks to investigate doesn't guarantee whatever it was was four weeks ago. It may be most likely it was around the time of the complaint. But as as Ymblanter was I think intending to say, someone may complain about something that took place longer ago perhaps when they first notice it. (Also it's possible it took longer or much shorter than 4 weeks in a specific instance.) Since this was a time limited and en only ban, it seems unlikely it was something that took place very long ago since if the concerns hadn't repeated in a year (giving a random example) since whatever it is occurred then a 1 year ban doesn't seem to serve much purpose. But still a few months seems possible. In addition, it's possible some of the behaviour was over a year old, and some was more recent In that case it's less clear whether a 1 year ban will be enough but I think the situation is complex enough that it could have happened like that. Especially since we still don't know what communication the WMF had with Fram and have zero definite idea what it's about.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Well now we have Fram's comment demonstrating it was something about 4 weeks ago. Funnily enough when people suggested it was because of the NPA discussion, I was thinking I seem to recall Fram making some strongly worded comments related to arbcom and possibly some related to the portal mess and the use of wikidata in the recent past. Anyway we also see it does involve older stuff as well as the recent stuff. And as a final comment, I do think it was a mistake to bring any specific suggestion of what it was especially when it involved specific other editors. Maybe the WMF shares the blame for that, but whatever their mistakes, we as a community didn't have to bring up others, especially so soon. (I mean it's still less than 24 hours.) We should be showing we are better than all that. Nil Einne (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Bollocks. Nothing you've said substantiates a one-year ban on a single Wikipedia. I call bullshit. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Could another way of looking at this be the verdict of a closed-door appeals court to address long-term patterns of behavior among WP:UNBLOCKABLES? There have certainly been lots of calls, both on-wiki and off, for the WMF to intervene with harassment and other intractable behaviors that have proven difficult for the community to address. Note that this isn't a judgment of Fram, whom I wouldn't have thought of in those terms, but an effort to understand what's happening (and what might happen in the future). I think that ultimately any time the WMF intervenes due to "things the community has a hard time addressing" it's going to be difficult all around, since there are of course reasons the community has not addressed it (i.e. another way of wording "hard time addressing" is "decided not to take action"). I'm undecided how I feel about mechanisms that allow for that kind of intervention (i.e. action for reasons other than the particularly egregious sorts of things global bans are used for). There are certainly times when I've thought ANI, etc. has failed to deal with long-term problematic behavior. (Though, again, Fram has not been involved in those, so forgive my abstraction/speculation here). Regardless, it would be good to have some kind of clarity if that's the situation we're in or if indeed there was a single problematic action -- or otherwise something more. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  I did ask for that above, the key point of addressing things that have been difficult for the community to address is that the community has to attempt to address them first before its proven difficult. I cant think of anything in Fram's history that is close to that except for issues that the community as a whole has trouble address (such as the WMF's technical 'advancements' and wikidata's attempts to force itself into everything). Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites: - if it was "something more" then it would be even less justified to tell us nothing, since there wouldn't be any privacy concerns for either Fran or Fran's accuser(s). Nosebagbear (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Sorry, the "something more" was intended to follow "it would be good to have some kind of clarity" (i.e. more information about what happened). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  I have a hard time believing that any situation would warrant that remedy, Rhododendrites, if it was something out in the open. If ANI and ArbCom collectively fail to apply sanctions to a user, then chances are they don't deserve any sanctions. I'm not sure how a different, more remote, set of people are somehow more qualified to take that decision than those we've already entrusted to do so.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Well, I think the argument would be not about qualification but about their focus and the [debatable/hypothetical] benefits of making a judgment from outside the community. When WMF makes a decision, it can remain more focused on the behavior and their own investigation without legions of friends, detractors, grudge-holders, partisans, etc. jumping in and complicating the discussion. I imagine it would prioritize community health over other aspects of the project that the Wikipedia community sometimes weighs differently. When those discussions happen, any admin who closes those threads knows they'll become a villain to some. Is it useful to defer that villainy to people paid to be in that position rather than volunteers who shouldn't have to take the abuse? Or, I suppose the question isn't "is it useful" but "is it worth it to give up autonomy". It's hard. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  (ec, re Rhododendrites' initial post) In which case, I'd expect them to be able to point to the community failing to address an issue. The only dispute I can see Fram involved in in the last couple of months was Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks#Harassment, mocking or otherwise disrespecting someone on the basis of gender identification and pronoun preference, and frankly if the WMF banned everyone Fae made accusations against we'd have about three editors left. (Plus, if they were genuinely looking for a mechanism to get rid of editors the WMF didn't like but whom the community refused to ban, it beggars belief their fancy WP:OFFICE laser cannon wouldn't be fired squarely at Eric Corbett.) ‑ Iridescent 21:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  I don't disagree re: being able to point to the community failing. But yes, basically, my question to understand what's going on could be framed as "would this have happened to Eric if these processes were in place years ago?" (With apologies to Eric, who I don't actually want this to become about). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  There is perhaps at least one difference between me and Fram, who I note has done his duty and banned me on more than one occasion - which must have earned him brownie points- and that is that I don't give a flying fuck what the WMF do. I do however agree with Iridescent and wonder why I've never been at the end of the WMF's weapon du jour, and can only conclude that Fram must have done something far worse than call Jimbo out for being a dishonest c**t. Eric Corbett 22:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites: - it would also require the following: the WMF to always make decisions in line with what is actually beneficial for the project, rather than the WMF's appearance, any specific team's viewpoint etc etc. The Visual-Editor saga showed that those decisions are not well made. If they want reduction in autonomy then they either need oversight accepted by both sides, or to be flawless. That decision would also have to be specifically made by the Community - whereas TOS changes are self-made by the WMF. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  This (Iridescent's idea and link above) does fall under issues 'the community has had difficulty enforcing', so this seems the likeliest explanation put forth so far. Perhaps Fram was singled out because he was an admin, and it fell under ADMINCOND. Softlavender (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

This just seems like a rehash of WP:OFFICE in that it describes the process in general rather than why specifically it was used. Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but still. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• This is not an adequate response. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I got an email back from T&S that essentially pointed me here. I'm trying to engage with them and point out specific concerns about how this has been handled, because I don't believe they are likely to follow the discussion here. It would be my goal for WMF T&S and the ENWP community to have a high degree of trust respect for one another. It pains me to see actions taken that could have the effect of undermining that trust and respect. UninvitedCompany 21:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

They're well aware of how piss-poor they're handling this. This community has zero trust in the WMF T&S group right now. That's obvious. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• The policy seems clear that someone(s) complain(s) about alleged TOU vios (the list of possible offences is kind of broad ); Office decides if it's merited or not; and it's all held privately. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• If it were a one of the "cases where local communities consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous rules but the Terms of Use, too" then not letting the local community know what it's about prevents us taking steps to improve what we do. In my experience when someone says "I'm doing this for your own good, I've got a good reason for doing it, and I'm not going to tell you what that reason is" sooner or later they will be proven to be lying. DuncanHill (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• Different languages - could those with multi-lingual capabilities drop a summary of what's happened and a pointer onto a few of the big wikis. If it is going to be a big flare-up (and I'd really want to hear something, even indirectly, from Fram first) then other wikis knowing is worthwhile. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed, some external press agencies in the UK are asking questions too. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  The single best way to get people to dislike you on any other project is to import en.wiki drama. I’m waiting to see if ArbCom can say anything that makes sense, but if your goal is to get the global community behind you, going about it in that way is pretty much guaranteed to backfire. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Tony, I appreciate your endeavour, but since this has nothing to do with Arbcom, it would be shameful if WMF gave you some information that it wasn't prepared to share with the community. That's not how WMF nor Arbcom should be working. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  I’m not on ArbCom (thankfully) my point was more that if they share their reasoning with stewards, they should be willing to share it with the local ArbCom since privacy is within their remit. Anyway, more to Nosebagbear’s point, if someone tried to notify other projects, the response would almost universally be “We don’t care, why are you trying to cause drama here, we have enough of it without you importing en.wiki drama.” TonyBallioni (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Did they not share the reasoning with ArbCom in this case? Since the ban only affects this project that would make sense to me. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Ajraddatz: Since you're here; it strikes me that while this is clearly WMF's responsibility, a statement from one of the stewards could go a long way toward reducing tension here. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  I don't think my personal opinion would add much to this, unfortunately. There has not been any discussion of this among the steward group. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Ajraddatz, are you aware of the reasons? ∯WBG^converse 00:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  I was a steward when WMF global bans became a thing (2015). They would give us maybe a sentence of why the user was banned. Of course, we couldn't say anything about it. --Rschen7754 01:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Please let me know when we're going to abolish the WMF. Nothing good comes from that office. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I sent notes to several of the trustees highlighting the importance of this matter to the relationship between WMF and the ENWP community and would encourage others to do likewise. UninvitedCompany 22:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Seriously, if it is something to do with this, we might as well all give up now, because the main users that caused the issue in the first place remain editing. Black Kite (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed. And no, we shouldn't be coerced into sending begging letters to WMF to let them know what a fuck-up they're making of this. They know this. They should fix it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Well even if T&S were taking action over the that dispute, it may be for whatever reason (possibly including private info, who knows) they saw what Fram did there worse than you or TRM or a few others saw it. To be clear, I'm not saying the WMF was right to feel that way, I'm only loosely aware of the dispute and have intention of looking in to it, especially since I have no idea of it's relevance to anything. My only point is that it may be that even if that was part of the reason, no one else is likely to be blocked for similar reasons despite getting into dispute with one of the editors concerns. And in addition, someone will need to complain to the WMF. The fact that someone may have done here doesn't meant they will do so in every other dispute involving any specific editor. We really have no way of knowing who and why. Even the person themselves may not really know. I'm sure that I'm not the only person to notice sometimes a confluence of factors not all of which you can identify, you take some particular dispute more severely then others even if to other observers they look similar. Nil Einne (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Has anyone considered asking Jimbo to give us some sort of explanation or force the office to give us a meaningful explanation? Seriously, this is the sort of thing where I'd say that we need to consider going over the Foundation's collective head. rdfox 76 (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Rdfox 76, User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Admin_Fram_locally_banned_by_T&S_for_one_year. SQL^{Query me!} 22:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Brainstorming, the possible behaviors this could have been in response to (if they occurred) include: socking, misuse of tools (sysop tools, CU tools, etc.), personal attacks, outing or borderline/attempted/threatened outing, or ADMINCOND. There my be other possibilities that I haven't thought of. Softlavender (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  All of which we have mechanisms to deal with, and do so on a regular basis. What makes any of those so unique that the WMF gets to overrule both our own community processes and Arbcom? As has been pointed out ad nauseam, in the four week timescale they mention in their statement, there has been no complaint made about Fram at any venue, so how is this a case where local communities consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous rules but the Terms of Use? ‑ Iridescent 23:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  Did the committee receive a complaint and neglect to act? So this was an appeal of the committee’s decision? If not, I don’t see how the argument that the local community has struggled, if not given an opportunity. –xeno^talk 23:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Xeno: An arbitrator has denied that hypothesis. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  No idea, Iri. I think whoever complained must have convinced WMF, or WMF convinced itself, that EN-wiki doesn't deal with whatever situation it was very optimally. I'm obviously not approving either the action or the secrecy. They should at least tell us which of the categories I listed it falls under. I made my list because no one had made a comprehensive list of the possibilities. Softlavender (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• The partial ban here can only be done after review by Legal, Maggie Dennis, and the Executive Director [1], the only people left are the Board (and not Jimbo alone) but it's hard to imagine the Board overruling the entire staff or going against legal who will no doubt advise, keep it private. (and when will the Board even meet next, Wikimania?) Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• Jfc, what a joke. A boilerplate legalese response from a faceless role account that says absolutely nothing. Still waiting on ANYONE from T&S with integrity to come forward as an individual and actually communicate in a reasonable fashion like a human talking to other humans. It's actually hilarious how not a single person will. I actually feel less confident in the WMF now than I did when we had no response. This looks dirty. If it's not, quit acting like a soulless, faceless, evil corporation run by sociopaths trying to cover up corruption, and start acting like a fucking humanitarian non-profit that wants a good working relationship with its volunteers. Literally no on-wiki issue ever comes close to uniting the community like this. And yet you're doing it, you're uniting the community against you. Do you really just not even care? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Swarm: I've come to the realization that the WMF actually think they're doing the right thing. They may be, but their communication skills are inhibited by unimaginable disconnect or unlimited hubris. You've been around long enough to recognize the pattern. I'm tired of rolling over. Tiderolls 01:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• It would be nice if they at least told us which term of the TOU was violated. Otherwise, how is a community suppose to improve its ability to uphold its own autonomous rules and the Terms of Use without knowing what the violation was? "This community has consistently struggled to do something but we won't tell you what it is, instead we're going to ban this admin for a year" is probably not a message that should have been sent. – Levivich 00:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• With respect to next steps, it appears arbcom has reached out to the WMF. I just became aware of this issue when someone above pinged me. We have our next board meeting on Jun 14th 2019. A good first step would be someone providing us Fram's position on this. I am than happy to reach out to folks at the WMF and fellow board members to see if we need to look at this issue (if Fram so requests). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Doc James, do you have concerns about this? I would hope that the Board is unable to get the specifics of cases like this, but I would imagine that you know people on T&S. StudiesWorld (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  StudiesWorld the first step is does Fram want anyone to look into this further or do they accept the ban? Well the board would be unlikely to provide any details we could likely at least confirm whether or not it was justified (and at that point you may simple be required to take our word at it). Arbcom may already be performing such a role per the comments above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Doc James, that makes sense. So, as I understand it: at this time, you have no specific cause for concern, are investigating the situation, and will let us know if you believe it to have been inappropriate. StudiesWorld (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Doc James The issue is not necessarily the ban itself. The ban may be 100% justified, and Fram may have no grounds to contest it, nor intention to. If that is the case, that doesn't make everything okay. This is, primarily, a community relations disaster that the Foundation does not appear to be taking seriously—in this regard, the merits of the ban are completely irrelevant. If that is the case, that arguably makes it worse, because a simple, bare bones explanation would be all that is needed to avert this crisis, and yet the Foundation appears unwilling to provide even that. That is the issue. Whether the ban was deserved, or whether Fram accepts the ban is entirely irrelevant. The only reason people are suggesting it's a corrupt "disappearance" is genuinely because that's the most plausible explanation for this bizarre stonewalling. In the best case scenario, the Foundation is harming its relations with the community for no good reason. Anything less than that is a truly frightening thought. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• The legal will almost certainly advice T&S/Jimbo/XYZ-(WMF) to refrain from issuing any non-generic statements and I don't see them deviating from it; our best bet lies with the ArbCom. ∯WBG^converse 01:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  • FWIW, I do not agree that his fallout with with Fæ is relevant to the ban; if it was so, Guy Macon and User:SMcCandlish would have ended perma-banned by now. ∯WBG^converse 03:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  As far as I know this block has nothing to do with anything Fram wrote to me, and it would be jaw droppingly astonishing if this action had anything to do with the campaign of transphobic abuse and death threats I have been targeted with recently. Fæ (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  I would have preferred that other users had not filled the void of information with reference to that incident. cygnis insignis 05:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• This is a messy non-explanation from WMF. I think we deserve to know something about this office ban. And what gives with bypassing the community so blatantly? Worrisome behavior, at the very least. I'll be watching this very closely. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 01:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Karen (Fluffernutter), something serious enough to warrant WMF action should not attract a one-year block on this site only. Anything not serious enough for a permanent global block by the WMF should be handled by the community or ArbCom. We therefore need a fuller statement, signed by an individual, as soon as possible. It isn't clear from this page who is in charge of Trust and Safety, so I'm pinging you as the first name and as someone I trust. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I've just noticed that Jan Eissfeldt is the lead manager. I didn't notice that earlier because he is described as a contractor. Hi Jan, we would appreciate a fuller statement as soon as possible. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• This mess is creating a huge cloud over ArbCom. If ArbCom knows of issues with Fram and has declined to act (which is one interpretation of the WMF statement), then action against ArbCom should follow. If ArbCom doesn't know (as seems likely from WT:ACN statements) and the WMF acted in the belief ArbCom wouldn't act on a local matter, then enWP is being left with an ArbCom that the WMF doesn't trust – which is also something the community needs to know and action would be needed. If the complaint went to T&S and they bypassed ArbCom because it is a non-local issue, why was Fram only restricted at enWP? If the issue is local and ArbCom was bypassed for no good reason then T&S are demonstrating questionable competence. WMFOffice, should we be expected an OFFICE action dismissing the present ArbCom or a statement declaring the WMF's lack of confidence in them? Will the WMF be taking over ArbCom's roles and responsibilities? Or, has Fram been banned only from enWP over a non-local issue... and if so, why? Or, is this a case of T&S incompetence? Is there a possibility I've missed? Whether intentionally or not, the WMF actions appear to me to undermine ArbCom in a grossly unfair way, as well as harming relations between the WMF and the largest WP community. Doc James, irrespective of Fram's view, isn't it a board-level problem when T&S undermines ArbCom in this way? EdChem (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • • Waiting on details... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This had nothing to do with ArbCom, therefore it is mostly certainly not "creating a huge cloud over ArbCom". The only "cloud" it seems to be creating is over WMF. Softlavender (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    • The statement from WMF strongly implies a lack of trust in Arbcom to take necessary action ("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"). That's creating a pretty big cloud. Absconded Northerner (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• I considered creating Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fram 2, but I was too scared of what the WMF’s Ministry of Love would do to me. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  A candidate is required to accept their RfA for it to begin. Fram is incapable of doing so while he is still banned. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• That is one of the more bizarre statements I have ever read. The whole thing could've been summed up in one sentence. It was remarkably long and said essentially nothing other than the fact that they are not going to bother explaining anything. The last paragraph was particularly irksome. Enigma^msg 03:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• If the intent was to do damage control as a result of taking an unpopular and (widely-seen-as) disproportionate and unjustified action, then they have failed miserably. This is not how you do this shit, Trust & Safety. You've gone and made a martyr at the expense of pariahing everybody who had any real say in this decision. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 03:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• I find it very strange that Fram's page was completely locked and he was given no ability to even speak in his defense on his own talk page. If whatever he supposedly did is so bad that we can't even trust him to post on his own talk page, then why is the ban only for one year? If it's going to be for a limited period of time, why is a year any better than 3 months or 6 months or 2 years? Seems kinda arbitrary, unless they had a specific reason for keeping Fram out of our community for a year and would only need him blocked for that long. I'm aware of the conspiracy theory floated above and our longstanding lack of trust in the WMF coupled with the complete lack of a genuine response certainly make me uncomfortable. Lepricavark (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• It's not just that they did that; they also revoked email access. I can understand revoking talk page - this block can't be appealed, and the only use of a talk page while blocked is to appeal - but why block email? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 05:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• It's of course possible that email was one area where concerns arose. Nil Einne (talk) 07:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• It bloody well better not be, given that Fram can send and receive e-mails via our sister projects. Nick (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• • I find it completely inappropriate to blank the user and talk page, aside from fully protecting them so no one can say anything. They could've simply added a box at the top rather than getting rid of the pages. Enigma^msg
• I've spent some time reading about Meta:Trust and Safety, and what their purpose and remit is, and Meta:Office actions/WP:Office actions and what their scope is. I can't currently envisage a scenario involving Fram that would merit an undiscussed, unwarned (unwarned on-wiki), unilateral, unexplained, virtually extrajudicial desysop and one-year site-ban and TP+email lockdown, unless the activities/actions occurred off-wiki. Among other things, I would like to find out somehow, ideally from Fram, whether he received an email warning or any opportunity to discuss prior to the ban and desysop. Softlavender (talk) 04:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• I don't understand...does anyone understand? Shearonink (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• All I understand is that the WMF's quiet act has backfired on it. Surely there's some information that doesn't implicate privacy or legal policies that will be helpful in understanding why Fram's (time-limted, mind you) block was justified, since the boilerplate the office gave us is functionally useless. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 05:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Shearonink: The community is lacking information at this stage, the situation is unusual but currently static. The blocked user has made no comment in the brief time since this was announced, which constrains how members of the local community can and should respond or any actions that can be taken. That is where things are up to, at least, the important bits as I have seen this emerge. cygnis insignis 05:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Cygnis insignis, Shearonink: Fram cannot comment because access to his talkpage has been blocked, and his email has been blocked. Softlavender (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Softlavender I know Fram is unable to comment on-wiki and that editors' email access from WP-->him has been disabled. I still don't understand...if his behavior, either on- or off-wiki has been so [fill in the blank here folks...we don't know what we don't know] that he is barred from his own user-talk so he cannot communicate with us on-wiki AND his email access has been borked both outgoing and incoming via EnWiki...why does the ban/block only last a year? Shearonink (talk) 07:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) All of this makes me think that I need to find at least one long-term Wikipedian that I trust, confirm my identity with them so that if I get banned by a WMF Office Action I can still be able to communicate with someone who can still post here. I'll have to have my own Designated Survivor on-wiki... Shearonink (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• (modification EC) Well one of the reasons why this ban seems to be contentious is because it was only partial suggesting whatever the problem is it wasn't severe enough to warranty a complete ban from WMF projects. So Fram can comment elsewhere if they desire albeit risking being blocked by the other project for importing drama. Then again it's arguably on-topic at meta and at a stretch anywhere since people are uncertain what's the reason for the block and therefore people in other projects may also be uncertain whether there's reason to be concerned over Fram editing their project. Probably the bigger issue is the WMF could consider commenting on the ban elsewhere justification to extend the ban to the other project. And of course, Fram is also able to comment anywhere outside WMF project. I'm not sure if they have any existing identities connected to them elsewhere but realistically a joe job is likely to be quickly noticed. I recall some mention somewhere in this long discussion that others have been in contact outside the WMF universe before this blew up so added reason why it would be impossible to joe job if Fram is interested in commenting. Now whether or not we are able to discuss Fram's comments on en.wikipedia, even more so if they are posted outside of the WMF universe is less clear cut. Still the point remains Fram is able to comment if they wish to. As others have mentioned there is a possibility that Fram has agreed not to comment for whatever reason. More likely they either are not even aware of this yet, are aware but are holding off on commenting for now, or maybe don't even intend do ever for whatever reason. Nil Einne (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• At the risk of taking this a bit too far, I have a few thoughts:
  

As a matter of procedure, this decision and announcement has been in the works for at least around four weeks, and potentially a lot longer. The WMF knew what the reaction to this would be, but they also know how much power they hold, and probably expects us to complain for a week or so, until most of us eventually get tired and forget all this happened. And after all, what is one admin? Some among us may miss him, but will the project?

If we stop and think, we see the real issue: if we do nothing, this will happen again. The WMF grows year after year, and they become increasingly obsessed with their image, their brand. When they aren't satisfied with the community process, they will intervene. They will give themselves additional powers, bypass community consensus, shape projects as they see fit. And why not? There are no consequences. All the content here is free, but the means of distributing it is not, which means they hold all the cards.

But what is the cost? The fundamental appeal of Wikipedia is that it is free and open, it belongs to no one, and has no agenda. When the WMF takes actions such as this, they undermine those values. In rendering unappealable dictates they deny participation to communitymembers; by subverting existing disciplinary processes they take control from the hands of ordinary users; by concealing their reasoning and motives they engender fear, mistrust, and uncertainty. These actions have a profoundly chilling and disruptive effect.

So what can we do? The WMF would like nothing better than to post their vague non-statement and disappear, to let this peter out. If we wait for them to come back for Q&A, we will be waiting a long time. Our only real option is to force them to engage with us (or our representatives) by presenting a united front and using whatever leverage we have combined. What exactly that entails or how it could be organized I couldn't begin to speculate, but it seems worthy of consideration. Bear in mind: the issue isn't one ban/desysop, it's the role of the WMF in our project and how far we're willing to let them push their authority before we push back. —Rutebega (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• There's one I can think of, but it would likely result in the admin and bureaucrat doing it being whacked - do to WMFOffice what they did to Fram, minus revoking talk page and email, and leave them blocked unless and until they can come up with a satisfactory explanation for this. It's clear the Trust and Safety team fucked this up, so the easiest way to make it clear we disapprove is to block and deop the main office account. It is symbolic more than anything, but it would, if nothing else, force them to acknowledge that there is unrest among the serfs. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 05:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Actually, that's an interesting thought: We can ban by consensus of the community. Granted, the WMF may not honor such a ban and may do what they're doing anyway, but I think just being subject to such a sanction would be a significant statement in itself. (And if the WMF themselves are evading a ban, can they complain if someone else evades one of theirs?) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• We can't overrule OFFICE (which blocking the associated account amounts to); but is there any ToU reason we can't ban any account ending in "… (WMF)"? So far as I can tell, they haven't carved out a loophole for employee-role accounts anywhere, and that would send a pretty loud signal about our unhappiness at this situation. Accumulating WMF-account block logs over years would also be a nice way to keep track of incidents of overreach over time. --Xover (talk) 06:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• There's a similar long discussion at de.wiki over here. From my cursory glances, I see that the Foundation had ignored the editors in entirety, after posting the same boilerplate statement. We ought not expect anything different, over here. ∯WBG^converse 05:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• So, several problems here. The first is the lack of transparency. I know there are cases where private, off-wiki evidence is used in a decision, and in that case, privacy issues are what they are. But in that case, WMF should at least say that they made their decision partially or entirely based upon evidence which cannot be released to the community. (Of course, they should only be making decisions in those cases; if everything is available to the community, the community should be making the decision as to what to do about it, including nothing.) And in those cases, where they're too sensitive for even ArbCom to handle, I was aware of the details of a few when I was on ArbCom, and there was never a case where only a year's ban was justified. Situations grave enough to be handled by WMF should be cases where a user has done something extremely egregious with serious off-wiki consequences, and should be cases where that person should never, under any circumstances, be allowed back. Not your run of the mill edit warring, or editors sniping at one another during a discussion; that should be handled on-wiki, and WMF should not be handling matters where only a time-limited sanction would be the appropriate remedy. If the issue was, as UninvitedCompany guessed above, related to sockpuppetry, well—in the very thread above this one, ArbCom and the CheckUser team handled an admin inappropriately using socks. So that is clearly not a case where, even by the WMF's own policy, the community can't handle that issue. We literally just handled it. So, this seems like a way for WMF to step in and overrule decisions by the community (including a decision not to act at all, which is itself a decision made), and to do it with "We have banned __________ because they...did something. The evidence of that is...we won't tell you. Our reasons for deciding the ban was warranted are...well, won't tell you those either, but they were very good ones; just trust us." One of the values of the community has always been that decisions are, to the greatest extent possible, made transparently, publicly, and by consensus. By doing things this way, we don't even know what to do next. The WMF statement says Fram can run a new RfA, and, well, sure, he can, but what do we do from there? Is Fram a victim of WMF overzealousness or an error in judgment, or did he do something we legitimately should be concerned about? Should Fram be welcomed back with open arms, watched closely, or perhaps even sanctioned further? Well, because of this Star Chamber style of doing things, we don't know. So, based upon all this, I will, if no one else gets to it first, be preparing a statement of no confidence for editors to comment on, and if that gains broad consensus, the next step from there might be community sanctions or a ban against User:WMFOffice. I think it's time to remind WMF that they are here to serve, not rule, the Wikimedia projects and their communities. I thought that lesson had been sufficiently taught to them with the last few software fiascos and their increased engagement with the community following that, but perhaps Trust & Safety, too, need to learn that "We're going to do what we do, we're not going to tell you why, and fuck you if you don't like it", which is what their statement says (if in more polite language and a great deal more of it), is never an acceptable approach for dealing with the volunteers here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I think this is an excellent idea, and I would love to help you draft the statement. Starting a discussion among the community and determining consensus, if it exists, is the way we make all our important decisions, and it would help organize us and send an unambiguous message to the WMF that we disapprove. We occasionally need the their legal protection, but we don't need this overreach. Community sanctions against WMFOffice, if done right, could show that this community can handle itself, its rules, and its members. It also might be interesting to consider an RFA for Fram in absentia, conditional on the WMF not saying anything more. The page WP:RFA is nothing more than a place to form consensus about whether an editor should be made an admin, and there's no reason we can't form that consensus without the editor in question accepting a nomination at the conventional page. I think starting with a statement like you suggest is the right way to go about any of this. KSFT ^(t|c) 07:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Banned without the right of correspondence. Careful. You, the unfortunate reader, could be next. EclipseDude (Chase Totality) 06:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• The real point is this. "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.". Now, we know that Fram hasn't broken the TOU with their editing on enwiki in the last few months because we can see their contributions. Unless they've been socking, and I'm pretty sure that if that was the case Office would have blocked any socks as well, which they haven't. This only leaves off-wiki activity (including email). In which case, why didn't they just say that - no details would have to be given. Also, anything off-wiki serious enough for Fram to be "disappeared" from enwiki would almost certainly have resulted in a global lock anyway. So we need answers - after all, any of us could be next. Black Kite (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see how we can know that. For starters, how many of us have actually looked at even 5% of Fram's contribs in the past few months? I probably haven't even looked at 0.1%. More to the point, even if every single wikipedia contributor had and none of them who didn't work for the WMF had found a TOU violation, it doesn't mean the WMF didn't find one. Now this disconnect between how the WMF feels and how other contributors feel is likely to be a problem, but it doesn't mean it can't happen. And for better or worse, barring legal action the WMF is the final arbitrator on what is and what is not a violation of their TOU. (And most TOU tend to be written, and the law surrounding them likely, gives wide latitude for the company to interpret them however they wish.) And of course even when legal action proves them wrong, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Actually similar things happen all the time in far more serious areas e.g. employment disputes. Ultimate point being, if people want to say 'in my opinion from what I've seen of Fram's on wikipedia contribs, none of them are TOU violations so I'd like to more info on what contribs, if any, that the WMF found are violations since if I don't agree I want to express my disagreement/stop editing here/whatever' that's fine. But we cannot know that the WMF didn't find some of their contribs were since we have too little info. Nil Einne (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, re "I'm pretty sure that if that was the case Office would have blocked any socks as well, which they haven't" I don't think we can be so certain of this either. If there was a socking issue, perhaps involving an· IP, then there would be privacy issues involved with linking the sock to Fram, and they would have had to find some other mechanism for blocking rather than the same account making that block and Fram's as its only action that day.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they'd have gotten one of their trusted admins to quietly block the sock account. But I don't think there are any other accounts involved apart from the legitimate EngFram alt. I still strongly suspect this is about Fram's vocal opposition to things like WikiData and VisualEditor. Reyk _YO! 07:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment 1) I want to wait a day or two in hope of hearing from Fram, before going bonkers. Fram can figure out ways to communicate with us even if all of xer(?) (that's supposed to be the possessive of the disputed pronoun "xe") wikiproject accounts are blocked. 2) But maybe someone can check if xe has a working email link at commons or meta, since the one here on en.wp is apparently disabled. 3) Yes WMF is showing a considerable tin ear, but that's ok, they lost sight of Wikipedia's supposed goals many years ago already (a rant for another place and time). I appreciate Doc James' efforts to look into this. 4) As someone already mentioned, socking per se is not against the Wikimedia TOU. Abusive socking could have been handled by the local wiki if it had been reported, but it apparently wasn't. 5) I can think of some things that might infringe the TOU without running afoul of en.wp policy (example: using a bot to scrape too many wiki pages) but this reaction seems extreme unless there is a considerable backstory. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: The Inner Party has spoken, so all of us proles just need to suck it up and accept their power creep? That's what I got from the WMF Office statement (and their follow-up statement). From my view, this action violates WP:5P4 by not showing any respect at all to the enwiki community and its established policies and procedures. The claim of "protecting privacy" is ridiculous as multiple groups associated with Wikipedia (ArbCom, Oversight, Check User, OTRS, Stewards, and perhaps others) handle sensitive and private information regularly without any issues. We (enwiki) have people who can and do handle very sensitive and very private information on a DAILY basis. To say that such information couldn't or wouldn't be handled with just as much care by ArbCom is blatantly false. If it's an issue with an editor on a specific wiki, let the established groups on that wiki handle it. If it's so egregious, I have no doubt that ArbCom would act swiftly and decisively to protect the integrity of the project. If it's just someone getting all offended and needing a safe space, then perhaps they need to suck it up and be an adult. People are going to be offended by content on Wikipedia regardless of how careful we are. If it's an issue with someone's alleged actions, we have established procedures for dealing with that. WMFOffice needs to back off and stop micromanaging. </steps off soapbox and goes back to mostly lurking> ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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 [2].

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"[3] (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)

• WTF? Did the ArbCom have any problem with the last diff? This is ridiculous and WMF T&S have been effectively appropriating the role of ArbCom without any minimal transparency. Nothing mentioned over here, needs any privileged dealings. ∯WBG^converse 08:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yeah, always a good idea to silence people who criticise you. Reminiscent of the Nazis. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• "This action is effective immediately and it is non-appealable" - Huh?! It can take months to desyop an admin on here, with plenty of discussion, but this sort of thing can happen behind closed doors? Great way for WMF to help with editor retention. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Pathetic behavior by the WMF. The community needs to send a strong message that this type of side stepping of the community policies and guidelines will not be tolerated. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Well someone, or some people at WMF should be removed from their position really. This is a disgraceful abuse of position. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Who and where and how do we send the strong message that this is a community and deserves community discussion. - I am not biased, no particular friend of Fram. Silencing criticism in such an obscure way is not acceptable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• OK, that's that then. You can be unappealably unilaterally banned (and effectively gagged) and desysopped, without discussion or recourse, by WMF on the strength of two or three edits and the use of the F-word. Good to know. Softlavender (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Fuck that. >:( Reyk _YO! 08:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Wait. Seriously? It was for incivility? Incivility that supposedly culminated in this statement, speaking out against a highly controversial Arbcom action? Sentiments which were so overwhelmingly backed by the community, that Arbcom actually backpedaled and issued a correction? That was it? Are you fucking kidding me? The office is banning people for incivility towards Arbcom? In that case, there are no privacy considerations, and it isn't confidential. So who complained to the fucking office? Was it an Arbcom member? Was it an established editor? Who? Was it the one Arb who resigned? This is beyond insanity. Why the fuck is the office civility policing, this user, after so many years? Is this a joke? Honestly, if no one complained, then that's even worse. Who's responsible for this? Please, have some integrity and come forward. At least own it, like Arbcom did. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Incase anyone has missed this, Jimbo is reviewing the situation. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, that'll help. ‑ Iridescent 10:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Also who is LauraHale and what is her role in this? So far we have allegations that you warned Fram for unspecified and anonymous complaints, then you unilaterally IBANNED Fram for good faith edits that happened to “make [LauraHale] feel uncomfortable”, and the next piece of evidence is a legitimate critique of an Arbcom blunder that the community overwhelmingly backed. It doesn’t add up. How can one, or two, or even a handful of users lobby the Office for a unilateral ban of a MOSTACTIVE admin? Since when can we circumvent the process by lobbying the office? Or was a staff member on Fram’s case the whole time? In either case, why wasn’t this referred to the relevant on-wiki authority? Laura, do you have any insight on this? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 10:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  I will provide for you two pieces of the puzzle. First one is on the top of Laura's talk page and has been there for longer than I can remember. Another one is this one. Note that none of them answers your question though.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  I assume Swarm already read that thing on the talk page since they mentioned said editor's name here. Nil Einne (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  She is mentioned above by Fram and, as far as I see, nowhere else on this page. I stopped short of mentioning her yesterday.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Ymblanter, if you are saying what I think you are saying, this whole thing could have been easily and equitably resolved at ANI, and if not fully resolved there, definitely at ArbCom. Such run-of-the-mill interactions and disagreements are exactly what our noticeboards are designed to handle. The fact that an editor or editors did an end-run and went straight to WMF is truly tragic, and has resulted in massive overkill and a reprehensible unilateral "unappealable" secretive longterm action by WMF. A bad deal all around. Softlavender (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  I actually agree with that. I think this is a real conflict, or at least was a real conflict, and it should have been probably gone to ArbCom. It is absolutely inappropriate by WMF to take offica action here rather than referring the case to ArbCom, using the established community dispute resolution procedures.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Well it's worse than that. Not only did it not go to Arbcom, but apparently Arbcom weren't even informed about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Were even the preliminary conduct-dispute-resolution boards (ANI/AN) which typically hands out IBans et al, invoked? It does not seem so ..... We ought to mention T&S, in our page about dispute resolution, seems to be an impressively effective method! ∯WBG^converse 11:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Not that I think it matters in this case, but they were alerted that WMF is considering a sanction against Fram which would be solely on en.wp, see OR's responde on the ArbCom talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• This is a major vote of no confidence by T&S in Arbcom and this community's ability to maintain appropriate norms and standards. If T&S do indeed believe that the "local community is consistently struggling to uphold the Terms of Use", then that is serious: they should be making Arbcom directly aware of their concerns, and having a full and frank discussion with the community. This is the very least we should expect. But there has been no such discussion. Otherwise, and given that there appears to be no issue of urgent safeguarding here, T&S's untransparent and unchallengeable actions appear to be an over-reach, beyond their charter, ultra vires. Our systems are not perfect. Bringing and taking an issue through Arbcom can involve a huge amount of process: intimidating, overwhelming, exhausting; and too often a drama-fest. There is the question of whether some users are so-called "unblockables". And, on the other side of the coin, there would also be sensitivities if it seemed WMF were taking sides, one user over another, in a public process. But the clear message needs to go out, that we expect T&S to normally encourage (and perhaps support) users to work through established community processes, unless there are reasons not to do so that are truly pressing and overwhelming. That does not appear to be the case here, so the community is entirely right to be up in arms. T&S has serious questions to answer, if it felt its involvement here was unavoidable - to the community, preferably; failing that, if necessary, to the board. Its role is not to supplant Arbcom and community processes except in the most extreme circumstances -- which these do not appear to have been. Jheald (talk) 11:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Earlier in this discussion we were told that stewards has agreed this action was justified. Would any steward care to comment on whether Fram's summary is accurate to the best of their knowledge, and whether they agree that the action is justified? As far as I can see the action was totally unjustified, and if the stewards think otherwise, it's not only WMF that needs a vote of no confidence. Absconded Northerner (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Absconded Northerner, AFAIS, Tony claimed that some particular steward had asserted of the justifiability/seriousness of the action. Ajratadzz, a steward has said that Fram's ban was not discussed among them. I don't see as how all stewards are to blame. ∯WBG^converse 11:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• That's a fair reading but I think it can also be read as multiple stewards. I should probably have separated my hypothetical from the question more clearly too. At the moment I don't see any problem with the stewards individually or as a group. I apologise for my lack of clarity. Absconded Northerner (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Ajr mentioned it as in we haven't discussed it as a "Stewards" group (I can also vouch that that there was no discussions about this), and what Tony said is (to me) some stewards has said they (personally) believe the actions were justified outside our "Stewards" group talks. (I'm just clarifying this and won't look back on this page (even for popcorns for Wikidrama) for next few weeks. If you have questions about this, I'll try to answer you except I am not going to name Tony's some stewards, or my opinion on this matter.) — Gisado aka -revi 07:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Absent a coherent response from Trust & Safety, I believe Fram.

Folks here probably don't know because it's not technically part of this project, but something is foul over at Azerbaijani Wikipedia. A cabal of admins has formed there publishing clearly politically biased material with an agenda, much of it blatant copyright violations, and also defending each other and blocking any editor who expresses disagreement. In short, they have hijacked the project to turn it into Armenian-genocide-denial-pedia. The admin at the centre of the dispute more or less admitted it. That seems pretty bad, doesn't it? Like something the WMF would want to step in and urgently do something about, in defense of their brand and Wikipedia's mission? Well, you'd be wrong. The Foundation seems plenty comfortable trying to let the global community (with participation from the allegedly corrupt azwiki admins) work this one out on its own. There has been a discussion going on over at meta ("Do something about azwiki") for a month now, which WMF was notified about on May 21, and responded that they "[would] evaluate the situation". A proposal to the effect of desysopping and banning all of the admins at Azerbaijani Wikipedia is stalled because stewards insist it requires WMF intervention. They haven't. But Fram says "fuck" to an arbitrator? That's what the Foundation thinks needs urgent office action.

It is a completely outrageously disproportionate response for the WMF to have interfered here. We're the biggest 'pedia and the most active, with the longest-standing and most mature community processes to deal with this kind of benign incivility, had anyone participating in that discussion felt offended enough to engage in them. Frankly Arbcom deserved being sworn at for that ridiculous notice, and Fram was hardly the only one expressing outrage in that thread (related: User:Ivanvector/2019 Arbitration Committee protest - if I am officebanned in the same way as Fram has been, that's most likely why). Using that as a pretext to pick off one of the Foundation's most vocal critics reads like somewhere between a bad day in the Comms department and outright tyranny. I'm for doing something right up to and including "going bonkers". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I was also thinking of the Azeri festering pustule, which is allowed to continue even today without anybody at WMF apparently caring. At least their page "So-called Armenian genocide" was moved to a less offensive title today. --Randykitty (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Have we considered de-crosslinking articles from that wiki until such time as that situation is brought under control? Lepricavark (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• After reading many paragraphs of text, this all boils down to Fram used some vulgar language and so the WMF banned him for a year. This is a mind-boggling turn of events. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Note to self, if I ever have any problem with another editor's conduct, especially a longstanding admin, I'll be sure to go straight to WP:OFFICE! Yeehaw, chaos reigns! R2 (bleep) 20:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Community response to WMF

OK, I said further up that I wanted to wait a few days to hear from Fram before going bonkers. 17 minutes later, we heard from Fram. Is it time to go bonkers?

Support response to WMF (1st proposal)

1. The block of Fram was ridiculous micromanagement by the WMF, and Fram wasn't even that noisy a WMF or Arbcom critic (I'm sure everyone here can think of noisier ones). I'm not an admin so don't want to sound like "let's you and him fight". But the strongest response I can think of offhand would be an admin general strike (let the WMF handle its own vandalism and BLP reversions, or shut off editing) until Fram is unblocked and resysopped.

   Something like that should only be done if there is considerable solidarity among the active admins. They should communicate with each other (probably off-wiki though it couldn't really be private) before deciding.

   Lesser actions are also possible (suggest your own). As a resolution I'd be fine with the WMF referring the matter to the en.wp arbcom, which I think would respond with an appropriate "sheesh" and do nothing. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

2. Silencing criticism in such an obscure way is not acceptable --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Fram can be abusive, hostile, a pain, but existing WP policy is sufficient to ensure that we separate harassment from robust discussion. If the WMF believes Arbcom is incompetent, or policy is not being implemented properly, then that is something to raise openly, where the evidence can help improve the culture and norms. This action should be handled from here on by Arbcom, where Fram can follow the appeals process. --Fæ (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
4. What Fæ said. If an editor is causing problems, we have mechanisms either to deal with the problem or to decide that the problem isn't actionable; we don't need the WMF sending in secret death squads to eliminate editors against whom they've taken a dislike, simply because they don't trust our own processes to come to their preferred verdict. Consider this a complete vote of no confidence. ‑ Iridescent 08:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
5. Per Iridescent, this is a vote of no confidence. Yes, I know this will put me on the WMF's hit list. No, I do not care. Reyk _YO! 09:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
6. Per Fae and Iridescent. ∯WBG^converse 09:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
7. First they came ...; per all the above. (Block all WMF accounts for a period as a minimum - anything 10 minutes to a match of Fram's block), just to kick things off. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
8. Yes. The community needs to make it overwhelmingly clear to the Foundation folks that actions like this are not welcome here and won't be tolerated. If they won't repeal that ban, and do it quickly, heads must role at the office. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
9. We have long-established processes in place. We don't need or want WMF office actions for anything other than serious legal / safeguarding issues. A faceless, anonymous WMF account with no accountability, no intention of explaining themselves, and no competence or experience deciding s/he knows better than the entire en.wiki community, deciding our norms for us, and flinging around blocks is not what we signed up to. WMF, if you don't trust the en.wiki admin corps, the en.wiki bureaucrat team, and the en.wiki arbitration committee to manage our own house, feel free to go right ahead and look after it yourselves. Block your own vandals, protect your own pages, why should we do it for you if there's no trust? Fish+Karate 09:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
10. Consider my comment a vote of no confidence in the WMF. This was a sanction in search of a reason, and when none could be found, the WMF hid behind Trust & Safety. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
11. Overturn as a gross abuse of wmf t&s oversight. I'll have more words later, but this unilateral ban for criticizing ARBCOM is completely unwarranted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

    Expanded version: I don't support strikes, letting vandalism in, or anything that would jeopardize our core mission. Plus, if this was the brainfart of a couple of well-meaning but over-reaching people in the ass end of a basement in the WMF, we should at least wait until the higher ups at the WMF respond. Yeah the T&S team fucked up (and I find the 'deep state' silence-the-critic accusations to be too out there and unsubstantiated to be believable at this point). But if this is resolved in say 1 week, or at the WMF meeting, let's not shoot ourselves in the foot by having to undo 7 days of unchecked vandalism. If vandalism/vandals are allowed, what pressure does that put on the WMF? Very little, if any. BLP lawsuits? Let's not forget that the real victims would be the subject of the biographies, not the WMF. If the WMF fails to properly respond? You want to take an action that puts actual pressure on the WMF? Then block all WMF accounts from enwiki. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

    This is indeed precisely what I meant above, and it is clearly not ok. I do think there are issues (or more precisely there were issues a year ago), but they must have been handled via existing on-wiki processes.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC) I still think like this, but the header has been changed in the meanwhile, and I can not support the new header. --Ymblanter (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

12. Support per Mr Ernie. WMF have made a huge error of judgement, people should lose their positions over this, and Fram should be restored to the community. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
13. (edit conflict × 8) I also agree with Fæ and Iridescent. I'm certainly not Fram's biggest fan but we do have processes here to deal with actual problems and it does not look as this was attempted and failed. That said, I do generally see a problem with WP:UNBLOCKABLES being able to evade scrutiny and in these cases an intervention from the Foundation might actually be helpful if local processes failed. I just don't see that this was the case here although I am open to be persuaded iff the WMF actually explains their actions. Regards SoWhy 09:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
14. I support any of the following "community responses" in order of decreasing severity: 1) a ban or block of WMFOffice, 2) a TBAN to WMFOffice from enacting blocks, bans, desysops etc except where legality supersedes community desire and/or 3) a general admin and editor strike. Consider this a vote of no-confidence with sanctions attached. (Oh yes, noting Headbomb's vote I'm also up for a very bold overturn of the office sanctions if that's the way we want to play it). Mr rnddude (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
15. Overturn the ban, and start seriously discussing methods to ban Foundation-controlled accounts support MER-C's discretionary sanctions suggestion in instances of hideous overreach like this. This is not just beyond the pale, it's something that any other admin would lose his tools and very likely his editing rights over given how grossly disproportionate this is. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 09:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
16. Per Mr Ernie - this is an excuse to push through unwanted software changes when they can't even get the basics right. This decision should have been referred to Arbcom. Put all WMF staff under discretionary sanctions while we're at it. FYI: Community action against the WMF is not unprecedented - we nearly had to resort to using the abuse filter to implement WP:ACTRIAL (see Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC/The DGG discussion and Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC/Archive 1. MER-C 09:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

    That is an interesting point. "Structured data"? "AI-generated content"? The WMF has a serious conflict of interest with the supposed goal of writing an encyclopedia. But, I don't think that was the motivation for the immediate incident. It seems more like a facepalm-worthy attempt at living the wokeness currently fashionable in the internet platform management world. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 09:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

17. Per Mr Ernie and Iridescent. While Fram might be a "love him or hate him" character, they most certainly do not deserve such underhanded action. And the WMFs attempt at censorship is akin to an online dictatorship. Cassianto^Talk 09:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
18. Support withdrawal of service. Until this is overturned, the WMF can do my admin job too, because I won't. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

    Honestly, an admin/functionary strike might help - or it might backfire horribly. I'm doubtful it'd be ignored, though. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 09:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

    The only thing which would help is a blackout for a visible period of time.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

    I can't see any backfire that could possibly affect me. As I say in the section below, I will not work as an admin under the control of an unaccountable civility police - and if that is not rectified, I don't want to be an admin here anyway. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

19. Support - I'm not really following this monster thread any more, but follow whatever action (such as striking) my fellow editors/admins agree upon. I'm not a scab! GiantSnowman 10:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
20. Support - if people go for this then I'm in. I too am appalled by what's happened and happy to go with whatever consensus is reached. Another possible idea is to replace the main page with a banner of some sort. We could do that as a community couldn't we?  — Amakuru (talk) 10:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

    Yes, of course, if we have a consensus to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

    I would oppose doing anything destructive to the encyclopedia itself - I simply support the withdrawal of admin labour. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

    Admins going on strike is ipso facto destructive to the encyclopedia because it will give vandals the temporary ability to make hay. That action, although likely to make the WMF take notice, is actually a lot worse than turning off the main page would be, since it would affect our readers and the accuracy of what they read without their necessarily being aware that then are being affected.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

    The distinction I'm trying to make is between any of us actively doing anything destructive, and passively not doing anything to stop destruction. And I think that's an important distinction. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

    It is necessary to make it clear that we work here as volunteers and can withdraw our free labour as and when we choose. This is a message that some people at WMF apparently do not choose to hear. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

21. Support general strike as described. Just halting Main Page processes like TFA, ITN, DYK, and OTD is going to make SanFran uncomfortable. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

    It'll take some balls, but that's a great idea. Let's just delete tomorrow's TFA, DYK, OTD, ITN, TFP. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

    No, we shouldn't actively break things, just passively not do them any more until this is resolved. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

    I propose that we let the stale TFA, DYKs et al remain. No need to actively blank stuff.

    And, along with that, cease using editorial/admin tools. If the WMF can micromanage to such extents, they can certainly write the encyclopedia and maintain it. ∯WBG^converse 10:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

    Yes, let's not be actively disruptive - just passive. Non-violent civil disobedience. GiantSnowman 10:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

    Alright, that. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

22. Support Vote of no confidence, blocking all WMF usernames not associated with a specified person, and a general "down admin tools" until this has been reversed. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
23. Support vote of no confidence. I will participate in any non-destructve measures to drive home the community's rejection of this gross overstep. Tiderolls 11:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
24. Support CBAN per CIR. I believe there should be a measured and proportionate community response to this, so obviously we should hand out 1 year unappealable bans like candy. The OFFICE ban is ridiculous, and so is the form letter statement. At least put together a half-assed explanation when banning people, if a full-assed one is too hard. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
25. Support Go bonkers. Per Fae & my longer comments above. [4]. T&S should not supplant Arbcom and community processes except in the most extreme circumstances -- which these do not appear to have been. Jheald (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
26. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 11:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
27. Support, per the above. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 12:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
28. I agree with many above that, based on the information provided here so far, this action by the WMF Office appears irresponsible and unjustified. I support the community overturning it, to the extent possible under applicable policy, and pending a better explanation by the WMF Office. Sandstein 13:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
29. Support anything that doesn't damage the encyclopedia. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
30. Support - I'm a non-admin, and even I think that something needs to be done, if nothing else to at least get the WMF's attention.--WaltCip (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
31. Support - I'm out for now. - Sitush (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
32. Support Just like the people in Hong Kong knew what was coming a long time, we knew what was coming the minute they started locking accounts at all. But now that it's here and they're directly making their move to take over, we still might as well protest like those million people on the front page. We accumulated a lot of content and a lot of money and now a certain class of Better Than Us is here to take it all for themselves so they can continue to be Better Than Us. Wnt (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
33. Support at a minimum, we need to strongly consider banning LauraHale for her the grotesque and unconscionable overreach that resulted in an IBan, evidently at her behest. And yes, I'm quite comfortable taking Fram's word against the WMF's word. Why? Because Fram is the one who cares about and contributes to this community. Lepricavark (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

    Do you have any reason to suppose it was her behind this? Two edits pertaining to her were used to explain the initial 'warning', but I don't want to infer too much from that. If we lash out at a bystander carelessly, we'll take a beating for it. Wnt (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

    I've revised my statement slightly, but suffice it to say the initial warning was extremely shady. Going back several months and handing out an IBan for two edits that weren't even inappropriate? Unbelievable. And I doubt that she had nothing to do with it. Lepricavark (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

34. Support Note that this is not exclusive to my support of other options. rdfox 76 (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
35. Support If "going bonkers" means strong, escalating responses to the WMF action - which has not been satisfactorily explained to the community - based on the continuing evolution of the situation, then yes, indeed, the community needs to "go bonkers" to adequately express its displeasure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
36. Support Going bonkers, on strike, cancelling TFA etc whatever. Fuck the WMF, it's clearly starting to become incompetent to run the projects. They have little to no care about situations that clearly need their involvement (Croatian and Azerbaijan Wikipedia) but for some reason is happy to suddenly ban an admin while revoking talk and email for stuff that should be dealt here. Also block the WMFOffice account as a violation of the username policy. CoolSkittle (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
37. Support: There's a cancer at the heart of the Wikipedia establishment, and this is yet another example of it. That the Office have gone over the heads of the entire community to ban Fram for "civility" issues which wouldn't even result in a slap on the wrist from AN/I is unconscionable and we shouldn't have any part in it. Sceptre (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
38. Support - The WMFs blocking and response above is all but bullshit and I would 100% support any strike that happens, If it's true Fram was blocked due to that last diff then well my respect for the WMF is nothing ... pretty much like their statement really. –Davey2010^Talk 19:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
39. Support walkout per B!sZ, who said everything I wanted to without the WTF sputtering. When I think of all the time I've spent helping to shore up Jimbo's pet project, I feel like a damn fool. Miniapolis 00:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
40. Support going bonkers. 04:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
41. Support - think it was excessive and opaque. starship.paint (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose response to WMF (1st proposal)

1. "Go bonkers" isn't really specific enough for me to be able to support. I do not support many of the escalation paths listed in the support section, such as beginning to block WMF-related accounts. It'd be nice to hear a more specific proposal. --Deskana (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose anything more than a passive "down tools" action right now. No WMF blocks, bans, or anything like that, as that is over-reaction at this stage. Jimmy is apparently looking at it, Doc James suggests the board will look at it, ArbCom is apparently seeking clarification. So let's keep our heads cool and not go dramatically overboard until we see how that all turns out, huh? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
3. More or less per Boing! said Zebedee in this section. Let's wait for inquiries to produce anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose I'm particularly concerned about any attempts to make this a "you're either with us or against us" type situation with comments about scabs etc. If individual editors (including admins) want to stop editing here (including taking admin action) they're completely welcome to. But it would be incredibly harmful to everyone if we try and force others to act in a certain way. I'm likewise obviously completely oppose to any active attempt to harm wikipedia like deleting elements of the main page. (To be clear, blocking WMF accounts doesn't fall into that category since the WMF can ultimately override those if needed although I am opposed to it as it's something which just seems silly.) See also my oppose to the other proposal. Nil Einne (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose - I don't see how this is going to help. Our responsibility is towards the encyclopedia, and us downing tools as our first counter-step is insanely counter-productive. Let's let the community reps on the Board have a go (they meet on the 14th June) and give us a thumb up/down on whether it was reasonable (even if excoriatingly badly handled). Nosebagbear (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
6. Oppose. "Go bonkers" is not something that will plausibly help defuse the situation or result in any other positive outcome - whatever your view about Fram or the WMF. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

   Thryduulf, have you missed a "not" from this? - SchroCat (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

   @SchroCat: I did indeed, now fixed. I went through about three different ways of phrasing this before clicking save - seems I didn't update everything! Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

7. 'going bonkers' can rarely count on my support and I support the statement by Zebedee above. I do however find this entire page plenty evidence as to why people would feel safer turning to T&S than to the community when it concerns Fram's behavior. I've long stated that I think the community is not upholding it's own rules when it comes to certain people; That I can barely support our current core community as it is and regularly consider leaving it (it's a tough battle between the mission I care for and getting rid of negative influences in my life, which i consider this community to be). I'm also first to admit that Fram gets considerably less consideration from me. Fram's behavior towards volunteers and staff was a big part of why I turned in my sysop tools for 2,5 years. While I've seen progress by Fram over the last few years, it is far from perfect. As such none of this surprises me very much. I also note that only T&S is likely aware of employee complaints about editors. I'm not sure that was into play here, but the communication does seem to imply some history (unsurprisingly). I fully support the Foundation in providing a safe and sane atmosphere for their emmployees to work in. If you don't, then please stop using this website and start running your own and hiring people yourself that you are responsible for. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

   Translation:- I developed severely shitty products during my tenure with WMF and plan to do so; Fram did not like it and criticized me. But obviously, we are above criticism. Incompetency is a virtue in WMF and we are a bunch of children, to be mollycoddled. We got angry and complained to our Class-Monitor and he (obviously) took action. Now I see that nobody supports such stuff but hey, that's the reason why I don't like the core community, at all. I am beginning to think that I am the sole arbiter of civility and that the rest of the community can fuck off. ∯WBG^converse 13:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

   Winged Blades of Godric, I never worked for the foundation. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

8. Oppose per TheDJ. Gamaliel (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
9. Oppose per most of the above, basically, "go bonkers" is not something that I can support. —DoRD (talk)​ 14:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
10. No it is not time to go bonkers. It is time for civil discourse and possibly straw polls of actionable statements. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
11. As above. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
12. I had the pleasure of meeting TheDJ at Wikiconference North America 2018 and hold him in high regard. His statement resonates with me. What real-world court would not find someone who addressed them in the manner Fram spoke about Arbcom without finding them in contempt? At least one member of the Arbitration Committee presumably read this, and they failed to effectively respond. wbm1058 (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

    ArbCom ain't your fucking Court. What do you propose next, that we start addressing the honorable arbitrators with Milord? ∯WBG^converse 18:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

13. Oppose. "Going Bonkers" in this case is playing chicken with a train. Calm down.--Jorm (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
14. Oppose. That said, WMF needs to exercise a bit more transparency. I doubt the three edits Fram listed are the real reason. The final may have been a last straw, but there is a lot more to this story. Until we have more information, the torches and pitchforks need to be stored for later. Montanabw^(talk) 17:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
15. Per TheDJ, Boing! said Zebedee and Deskana. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
16. Oppose Per my comments below and per Montanabw. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
17. Oppose. Concur with sentiments expressed by Nil Einne, Nosebagbear and Thryduulf, among others. Overreaction will not solve any issue or improve the encyclopedia. SusunW (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
18. Oppose the initial suggestion here. I will not join in any "administrator strike". What a perfect example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point that would be! I do agree with the reaction of most people that this seems to have been an outrageous abuse of authority (which they recently granted to themselves) by WMF. But I doubt if any amount of outrage from us editors is going to have any effect on the situation. I think that ArbCom, Jimbo, and the WMF board are the actors that might be able to do something and we should encourage them. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
19. Oppose per others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
20. Rschen7754 18:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: The WMF was wrong to ban Fram, and we reject this overreach and have no confidence in the WMF's handling of office bans.

Support response to WMF (alternative proposal)

1. Support – I'm adding a new heading, because I don't think "go bonkers" is quite the right reaction. I don't know how I should format this, so feel free to change it. As I mentioned above, I think Seraphimblade has the right idea. KSFT ^(t|c) 09:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

   Do you mean ban WMF accounts? I'd count that as going bonkers (and I'm in favor of going bonkers), but it is silly and wouldn't change anything (try to realistically imagine how it would play out). 67.164.113.165 (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

   (edit conflict × 2) I mean that we should start by making clear statements, like, I hope, the one I wrote above, and that we should consider later symbolic protests like imposing a community ban on WMF accounts, possibly including WMFOffice. As much as I seem to agree with you, I don't think "go bonkers" is a particularly useful call to action here. This isn't mutually exclusive with the heading above. KSFT ^(t|c) 09:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

   Do you want to suggest an alternative wording to "go bonkers"? Would "throw a gauntlet" work for you? What I mean is take non-symbolic action that potentially leads to disruption (e.g. the idea of an admin strike: who needs to do shitty volunteer work day and night if the result is to be treated like this?). Banning WMF accounts would be symbolic (i.e. ineffectual) and disruptive, which seems even more bonkers to me. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

   Just ban the ones that do not have a responsible person attached. We already have a policy that an account must be for a single user. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

2. Support. This is not mutually exclusive with the Support I will be giving above. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 09:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Support- again, this complements my support of the "bonkers" section. Reyk _YO! 09:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
4. Support of course they were wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
5. Support per Fæ. If the WMF can persuade ARBCOM this was justified, that would be adequate, but to have not even attempted to do so is overreach. Even as a new user, I'm shocked. GreyGreenWhy (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

   I'm sorry this is one of your first looks at behind-the-curtain stuff. This doesn't paint anyone involved in any sort of a good light. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 09:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

   For what it's worth, I appreciate the comments in opposition to this, and my support can be considered withdrawn if arbcom or the community board members express confidence this was okay. Thanks, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

6. Support. MER-C 09:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
7. Partial Support. I wasn't generally opposed to WMF's handling of Office Bans because there are some that clearly need to be done. But this is clear overreach and is firmly overstepping into issues that the community and ArbCom should have been left to handle. The T&S squad has appointed itself as an unaccountable civility police. That's a chilling development and presents an environment under which I will not work. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
8. Obviously Per all above. ∯WBG^converse 09:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
9. Support - Per everything. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
10. There are some issues that need to be handled privately, but this is not one of them. For a WMF employee to appoint themselves as en-wiki's Civility Cop and start handing out additional blocks and bans because they don't feel we're being harsh enough is a gross abuse of their position. For a WMF employee to be so clueless that they're unaware of how much reputational damage this would cause is incompetence rising to the level of outright misconduct. ‑ Iridescent 10:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

    Yes, they should be encouraged to seek alternative employment. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

11. Support - of course. GiantSnowman 10:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
12. Support and one wonders if this piece of gross mismanagement is the WMF's new method of removing their critics, in which case a lot of us should be severely concerned. Black Kite (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

    Well, if was good enough for the Nazis and the North Koreans... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

    This was bound to happen eventually... —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

13. Support -  — Amakuru (talk) 10:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
14. Support. What Iridescent said. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
15. Support as an alternative to bonkers, which is my preferred choice. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
16. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 10:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
17. Support as second choice to the above - SchroCat (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
18. Support No confidence in WMF's handling of this office ban, anyway. Jheald (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
19. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 11:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
20. Prefer this one after reflection on Boing's oppose. – Teratix ₵ 11:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
21. Support. The handling of this has been unacceptable; I have been reading and drafting responses to this thread for too long - a statement of lack of confidence is important, but other action may also be required. My guess is that at the very least, a number of experienced people will get completely disenchanted with the whole thing and gafiate (a pretty useful term, even though this isn't fandom). --bonadea contributions talk 12:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
22. Support --Fæ (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
23. Support -- In fact, I am very tempted to take the next year off in protest. -- Dolotta (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
24. Support Absolutely outrageous the WMF would trample over Arbcom and all our processes this way.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
25. Sandstein 13:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
26. Support per everything. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
27. Partial support along the lines of Boing. I found Fram's actions towards ArbCom troubling, especially when ArbCom decided to started making changes in response to Fram's decision to clerk through protection like sectioning themselves (which is silly) because it suggested Fram cowed ArbCom. I still cannot in any form or factor support the WMF Office action in response. ArbCom was wrong to not stand up for itself. We the community were wrong to not stand up to Fram in a stronger way about their actions towards ArbCom. And yet despite that wrong and that inability/failure of the community to act WMF got it wrong in more substantive substantial ways with this action. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
28. There are some bans that absolutely have to be done, and whose reasons are unsuitable for public discussion. Arbcom spent years trying to get WMF to take over child protection bans, for example. But WMF needs to remember that the legitimacy of their bans depends on a limited reservoir of community goodwill, and that reservoir can easily be depleted by this kind of overreach. T. Canens (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
29. Support; aside from the fact that this specific ban appears totally unjustified based on the evidence so far presented, the idea that we will now have two overlapping and competing bodies (one paid, one volunteer; one accountable to the community, one not) dealing with routine conduct and civility issues is a terrible idea for many reasons, made worse by the fact that it was imposed on the community without any input or consultation, and made worse still by the fact that the first target was a long-standing administrator well-known for offering legitimate, on-point criticism of the WMF's various bureaucratic overreaches and technical foul-ups. This really stinks, and needs to be pushed back on with whatever means we have at our disposal. 28bytes (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
30. Support to the same extent as my support for the previous proposal. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
31. Support Disgraceful and sinister (ab)use of power that undermines the open and community-based decision-making of the project. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
32. Support certainly a broad statement, but it's pretty hard to have confidence right now. What concerns me is that the WMF apparently thinks they will get away with this. Lepricavark (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
33. Support at a minimum. Outrageous. No such user (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
34. (edit conflict)Support First choice. Again, not exclusive of my support of other options, but we need to send T&S a vote of no confidence right back at them for their vote of no confidence at the community. rdfox 76 (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
35. Support - what a clusterfuck. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
36. Support. I largely agree with several of the "Oppose" voters, particularly Deskana and TonyBallioni—Trust and Safety has up to this point had a good track record and I don't see any reason to question their actions up until recently in applying global bans. However, from the evidence brought forth so far, it seems that as a result of the T&S consultation and the changes to allow a broader spectrum of office actions than permanent global bans, T&S feels empowered to expand its scope of practice well beyond what they've done competently in the past, and beyond what (IMO) even their revised policies support. I think a vote of "no confidence" in the parliamentary sense is justified—not that nothing they do can be presumed competent, but because going forward there's going to be a big element of uncertainty as to whether an office action was for the horrific misconduct we expect or for tone-policing. Choess (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
37. Support Unless and until T&S and the WMF have satisfactorily explained this action - which they have not done to this point - then supporting this proposal is a necessary step. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
38. Support as per those above. –Davey2010^Talk 19:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
39. Support pbp 22:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
40. Support, obviously, Huldra (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
41. Partial support I don't believe that "go bonkers" was intended literally, and our sea of indignant words must be reinforced with action or the WMF will simply wait us out. Boycotts are effective. Miniapolis 01:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
42. Support per Fæ. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 02:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
43. Support Benjamin (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
44. Support, in the "parliamentary sense" as mentioned above. Prior to this, I did know why some WMF bans were implemented (granted, the WMF still didn't say, but I was already familiar with the background). Those bans were entirely appropriate and necessary, and were folks who we very much do not want around. However, they seem to be extending their reach to interfere with normal community policy enforcement, and based upon the accounts of editors from the German and Chinese projects, does not seem to be the first time they've done it, nor the first time they did it badly and upset those communities. I do not have confidence in WMF to take those kind of actions; community processes are already in place to deal with regular on-wiki misconduct and that should not be tampered with by WMF. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
45. Support - think it was excessive and opaque. starship.paint (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose response to WMF (alternative proposal)

1. Oppose. I don't agree with the above statement, because I think it is far too broad. I haven't yet looked in detail into the circumstances of Fram's ban. However, even assuming that the ban was handled improperly, I do not agree with the blanket statement that I "have no confidence in the WMF's handling of office bans". The vast majority of their bans are reasonable, so if this ban was handled improperly then I would say that my confidence would be reduced, but I would not say that I "have no confidence" at all. --Deskana (talk) 11:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Deskana. I personally do feel the way the WMF handled this was very poor, and I'm not convinced they should have gotten involved in the way they did. But I also don't feel I've seen enough to be able to comment reliably and in any case it's only one particular action (or a series of actions about one editor). And I do find a number of the comments Fram has made that I've seen before, and I don't just mean the ones highlighted here, the sort of commentary which I feel harms a community. Whether they were bad enough to warrant sanction, I make no comment in part because I haven't looked into them in detail and I'm also unsure how far we should go in requiring civility etc. (And I repeat what I said that I'm unconvinced it made sense for the WMF to involve themselves the way they did.) But I was very reluctant to post this because I didn't want to paint a target on my back from anyone. I ultimately plucked up the courage due in large part to someone who is either new or socking and Deskana the first (and only when I wrote this) to oppose either proposal as well as coming to the realisation that I don't really care that much what others think. And I trust that however people may disagree what I've said, it's not going to be strong enough reaction to encourage doxing or anything untenable. So whatever the WMF have done wrong, I do think we need to consider how we have responded. P.S. Give the two principles of 'don't care enough' and 'this is a mess all around and I don't like a lot of what I'm seeing', this will probably be my last involvement in the matter. Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose 1) Let's wait and see if the board reps feel it was justified as a ban (even if badly handled). 2) As Deskana says, I don't have no faith in their office bans - we are instead concerned with a growing overreach of their responsibility. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose as far too broad per Deskana. The handling of this particular block was terrible but we don't know enough to understand whether it was reasonable or not. Other office blocks that I know about (e.g. from my time on arbcom) were absolutely correct and handled appropriately. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

   the problem with that argument is that firstly its not enough to be reasonable but it also has to be reasonable for the WMF to do it through the office mechanism. The other issue is that it appears this block is so flawed that it is difficult to have any faith in their actions going forward.©Geni (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

   Every office action I know enough details of to have a firm opinion about was a correct use of the office mechanism. I do not agree that the publicly available evidence gives the appearance that this block is flawed - it simply shows that the communication of the block was flawed; we do not have enough evidence to know whether the block was flawed or not. My gut feeling is that it was not, but I will happily change my view if the evidence shows otherwise. Even if this was an error, it does not rise to the level that I have no confidence going forward. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

5. Oppose per Deskana. I aware of the circumstances of a number of the office bans and in all of those cases they were done properly and were warranted. Gamaliel (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
6. Oppose as too broad. I do have confidence that the office has, at least up to this point, made appropriate and necessary bans, and that they likely can in the future. —DoRD (talk)​ 14:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
7. In favour of alt 2. I have general confidence in their ability to handle bans. It just appears this one was a pretty large mistake. Basically what DoRD said. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
8. Oppose I have confidence in office bans. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Deskana and Gamaliel. SusunW (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
10. Oppose per others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Alternative proposal 2: The WMF was wrong to ban Fram

Support response to WMF (alternative proposal 2)

1. Regardless of broader issues they've failed to provide any justification for a block or the need for the block to be carried out by the WMF using the office mechanism. There is no evidence that they have any such justification and what evidence is availible strongly suggests they don't.©Geni (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Obviously. This support is not mutually exclusive with the others I have supported. Reyk _YO! 13:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Assuming that the information we have access to is accurate and complete, I support this statement. —DoRD (talk)​ 14:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
4. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
5. Per DoRD and Geni. Currently, there is no information available to suggest that this was an appropriate action. Regards SoWhy 14:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
6. Yep. GiantSnowman 14:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
7. I think Fram should have been desysopped and banned for his behavior a long time ago. I also think it should have come from ArbCom or the community, not WMF. --Rschen7754 14:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
8. I'm concerned that the quantity of proposals floating around here will muddy the waters and result in us all getting bogged down in disagreements. We need to provide a united front to the WMF letting them know that we are not okay with what they did and that there will be consequences. We may need to take a bit longer to work out exactly what those consequences should be, but for now this proposal is a good starting point. Lepricavark (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
9. From the evidence we have, I think the statement is correct. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
10. Support as third and weakest choice. Again, this is not exclusive of my support of other options. rdfox 76 (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
11. SQL^{Query me!} 15:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
12. Support. If a WMF employee were to open an ArbCom civility case, that would have been more likely to accomplish the WMF’s apparent goal of deopping one of its biggest critics. But that didn’t happen, so here we are. This is a new low for the WMF. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
13. This is the one I am comfortable to support. The case must have been referred to ArbCom to follow usual dispute resolution avenues. The office action is not appropriate in this case (on the basis of what we currently know).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
14. Sandstein 16:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
15. I don't understand what was so problematic with those sports edits, it appeared Fram just added templates. The Arbcom comments were a bit harsh but not enough to warrant even a block, let alone an office action. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
16. If Fram's description of the precipitating events is accurate - and we have no reason to believe it is not, given the absence of a substantive response from WMF - then the block was unjustified. It is also unjustified in that no community involvement was sought, and there is no apparent reason that T&S couldn't have referred the case to ArbCOm and allow normal processess to work. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
17. Assuming Fram's description is accurate. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
18. pbp 23:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
19. Reading through the opposes, the issue is not so much the one-year unappealable ban (which, based on the facts we know from Fram, I believe is excessive, but opinions may differ), it's that the ban should never have gone through Office in the first place, then the completely botched handling of post-ban events. – Teratix ₵ 23:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
20. Support, although in light of increasing evidence I think we're parsing this major screw-up to death. We, the backbone of WP, deserve more respect. Miniapolis 01:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
21. Support Especially considering the way it was done, this should be uncontroversial. Benjamin (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
22. Support - think it was excessive and opaque. starship.paint (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose response to WMF (alternative proposal 2)

1. Civility and respect, one of the five pillars, is at best a weak suggestion these days. I have no problems with T&S taking action against users who have a years-long track record of incivility and making rude/nasty comments to people. I would like to see the WMF being more transparent about this type of ban, however, and will be recommending that to them. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

   If they had a worthwhile case they could present it to arbcom like anyone else.©Geni (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

2. Per Ajraddatz. I can't say I'm an expert in all things Fram-related, but i don't object in principle to a civility-related block from the WMF for a longtime offender. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Exactly per Ajraddatz. The problem with this block is how it was communicated, not that it was made. Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

   Since we don't know the entire circumstances, how do you know that the block itself was not problematic? Are you saying that it is justified based on the evidence in Fram's statement? I don't see that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

   Since we do not know the entire circumstances we know only that the block was poorly communicated and widely unpopular. This does not equate to it being incorrect. Based on what I do know (which includes things from off-wiki sources*) I believe it is more likely than not that this block was a reasonable application of the terms of use. If the review by Jimbo and the board finds otherwise I will revise my opinion. (*I cannot ottomh remember the privacy of this material (I'd guess it dates from circa September 2018 but that is plus or minus several months) so I will assume that I cannot disclose it here). Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

4. Oppose per Ajraddatz and Calliopejen1. Gamaliel (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Ajraddatz, Calliopejen1, and Montanabw. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
6. Oppose per Ajraddatz, Calliopejen1, and Thryduulf. SusunW (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
7. Oppose per others. How can anyone support this, while complaining about not knowing the facts of the case? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
8. For the same reasons outlined above by Ajraddatz. I might as well indicate my support here. We should avoid making statements until we know all the info, and I do think we have unaddressed conduct problems at a decently high level. :/ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
9. Oppose per Ajraddatz, Calliopejen1, Thryduulf and Montanabw. Fram should have been banned for life a long time ago. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Alternative proposal 3: Work towards the position where Office local actions are appealable to ArbCom

I think we can assume that almost nobody took real offence at Fram's posts which were the stated reason for the ban, otherwise they would have ended up at ANI or ArbCom, so it's likely that most folks on enwiki would have viewed the "fuck ArbCom" post as a bit of venting following a badly worded message from ArbCom. Fram is a highly valued, long term editor and admin, and despite any differences we've had, I fully believe they have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart, and don't think we should be losing their contributions for a year over a trivial matter. So it's quite understandable that most of us feel outraged at the ban imposed.

On the other hand, if we step back a bit and try to assume good faith (hard as it may be) on the part of Trust & Safety (and given the people involved, I think we ought), I feel we ought to concluding that they were also acting in what they felt were the best interests of enwiki, but were mistaken. Now, if that sort of mistake was easy to rectify, then we wouldn't really have a big problem. Just appeal the T&S decision and be prepared to accept whatever the result of the appeal was. But that's not how things are currently set up.

Sadly, I don't think that we can any longer trust T&S to make ban decisions affecting just a single wiki without a mechanism to appeal that decision, particularly when the wiki in question has a well established, accountable body in place that is charged with making those decisions. So I propose that we focus our efforts on ensuring that the sort of local ban we have seen is appealable, and I suggest that ArbCom is the correct venue for that appeal. Don't be distracted by red herrings like "T&S need to be able to impose bans over confidential issues" – of course they do, but they also need to be accountable to the community they claim to serve, and that accountability can easily be implemented by making their ban decisions which affect only enwiki subject to review and appeal though the English ArbCom, which is directly accountable to the community that elected them. --RexxS (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Support making T&S enwiki bans appealable to ArbCom (alternative proposal 3)

1. Support as proposer. --RexxS (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Support with caveats - (1) only when the sanctioned user communicates to arbcom that they wish to appeal; (2) it is explicitly limited to actions that are not global in scope; (3) any appeal to ArbCom is explicitly final. Thryduulf (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Support. I can understand the concerns expressed below, but this proposal is for single-wiki bans only, and the kind of serious stuff that should not be appealable will be global. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
4. Support as a final action. However, the role of Wikimedia Foundation in Wikipedia matters needs to be clarified, and Thyrdulf's three caveats are good. This ban seems to be unfair and especially points to a lack of clarity in understanding the role the WF has or should have in Wikipedia affairs. This proposal would be a sensible unemotional response but also a wider dealing with the multiple issues that have arisen is needed both for Fram and for the future. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
5. Support Much of the community outrage is because the nature of this ban just doesn't make sense. Miniapolis 01:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose making T&S enwiki bans appealable to ArbCom (alternative proposal 3)

1. Oppose as pointless. The WMF has shown on many occasions that they have no interest in having to be accountable to local wikis, and any attempt to push for this position will just be stonewalled and/or ignored by the Foundation--and, fundamentally, as owners of the site, they don't have to be accountable to the users, in a legal sense, so the only leverage we would have would be threatening to fork enwiki to a new site, which is, frankly, a pretty empty threat, given the odds of any attempt to do so succeeding. rdfox 76 (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose again, I do not want ArbCom dealing with pedophiles. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

   Pedophiles would not get just a single-wikipedia ban and would not be covered by this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

   Tony, couldn't any WMF block involving a pedophile simple be rubber-stamped by ArbCom? I see no reason for them to open a case, or even a full in camera review, for every appeal which might be brought to them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

3. Oppose Some things may truly be legal or safety issues, that may not be safe to disclose to even NDA'd users. StudiesWorld (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

   Truly legal and safety issues would not get just a single-wikipedia ban and would not be covered by this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

4. Oppose The thinking is right, but this is structured the wrong way around. Given the lack of cross-examination and appeal, office actions on en-WP should generally be reserved for misconduct so egregious as to require permanent sanction, such as the categories named above. If T&S receives a complaint and decides that it's problematic but doesn't rise to the level of a perma-ban, they can take it to ArbCom themselves to ask for whatever intermediate sanction they deem appropriate. Choess (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose per TonyBallioni, StudiesWorld, etc. Arbcom is hardly capable of dealing with the sorts of issues that T&S has to deal with. Gamaliel (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
6. Ideal oppose ArbCom should not be involved in areas where the T&S should be (namely legal issues). But vise versa should most certainly also be the case, which the banning of Fram clearly demonstrates isn't. funplussmart (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
7. Oppose In most cases where the WMF steps in, there's a legal issue involved. ArbCom is a volunteer group, and as such, there is pretty significant liability protection for the individuals who serve. Unless ArbCom can also be sued the way the WMF can be-- with concomitant protections -- they can't be offered nor should they accept this kind of power. Montanabw^(talk) 17:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
8. Supporting this unfortunately does not make sense; or maybe it does symbolically, but I am not a fan of symbolics. Per m:Office actions#Primary office actions, these bans are not even appealable to the Foundation. "They are final and non-negotiable." [5]. So this proposal is not enforceable. It'd be better if something with possibility of happening is proposed in place of this. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
9. It would make more sense to make T&S actions appealable to the Foundation in general. Nobody is perfect and every action should be reviewable somewhere. I do understand though that if the Foundation steps in, it usually means - or ought to mean(!) - that local processes, including ArbCom, are not equipped to handle these kinds of problems. If the Foundation steps in without need to do so, someone higher up at the Foundation should be able to hear an appeal and overwrite the decision if needed. Regards SoWhy 18:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
10. Oppose per Montanabw and because this would likely have other unintended consequences. --Rschen7754 18:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
11. Oppose per TonyBallioni, StudiesWorld and SoWhy SusunW (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
12. Oppose per others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Alternative proposal 4: The WMF was wrong in at least the manner in which it decided on and implemented this ban, and the ban should be reversed if the community does not support it.

Support statement (proposal 4)

1. Support – I'm adding yet another proposal here, because, while the ones above have significant support, some people think they are too broad or go too far. I wrote proposal 2 and stand by it, but I think it might be useful to see if this is a baseline statement more people can agree on. Of course, this is not mutually exclusive with the other proposals. KSFT ^(t|c) 18:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose statement (proposal 4)

1. Oppose. While the handling of this was at the very least suboptimal, whether the community supports an action enforcing the ToU and/or an action taken based (in part) on private evidence is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators general strike

I'm putting this here although it's not really a proposal that requires community support, but see the section below. Wikipedia is not compulsory, it's voluntary, and that includes pushing the admin buttons. If the WMF wants to insist that we're incompetent and go around us, fine. They can be the admins. I wrote in response to something that ended up being directly related to this: "I [was at the time] one functionary of dozens and [am] one administrator of hundreds, so my absence is unlikely to have any significant impact other than symbolically. But I believe strongly that members of a community have a duty to use their status and privilege to stand up to oppression. And so yes, I am aware that this is going to be long-term, and am prepared for the consequences."

Sign below if you're an administrator who will not exercise administrative functions until Fram's office ban is rescinded, and/or WMF Trust & Safety publishes a more appropriate response.

1. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC) indented per response below, but I think this was pretty well moot anyway

1. Yes, subject to my caveat below. GiantSnowman 14:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
2. I've said elsewhere that I will not work as an admin under the control of an unelected and unanswerable civility police, which is a role that the T&S people appear to have taken on. I also do not wish to be an admin under a WMF that has usurped the en.wiki community powers that we have traditionally exercised via consensus and via the Arbitration Committee if that is what, as appears, has happened. Until I can be convinced that, in fact, no new power regime has been imposed on us (which, I think at this stage would need to include the rescinding of Fram's ban with the referral to the appropriate body, ArbCom, if needed, plus a convincing assurance that they will not act in this way again), then I will not carry out any admin actions. If the outcome is not as I hope and does confirm the existence of this new power regime, then I will formalize it and turn in my admin bit. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

   Just to respond to those below who fear the damage this might cause, I want to add that I am not urging any other admin to join this - I'm just being clear about the conditions under which I, personally, wish to be or not be an admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

   Ach, I've already broken my strike - a disruptive idiot was hard to ignore. I need self control! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

3. Support. It may be that the decision is correct, but I find the process and poor communication so disturbing that I will not participate in this project until an adequate explanation is provided. --Mojo Hand (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
4. Support, as I've indicated (per Sitush) on my TP. WP:VOLUNTEER, and I don't feel like donating so much of my time to a corporation (let's call it what it is) that wields power so capriciously and opaquely. Miniapolis 01:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Community support (general strike)

Please sign below if you are not an administrator but want to endorse the action in the section above.

1. The WMF profits handsomely off the tireless contributions from volunteers. They owe at least a little bit of accountability in return. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Subject to the caveat that this is only as regards routine day-to-day stuff, I'd support such an action. rdfox 76 (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Support withdrawal of labour on the main page. ——SerialNumber54129 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
4. For now, let's start with withdrawing main page labor and potentially even putting up a banner on the main page explaining why. Lepricavark (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
5. Support complete withdrawal of labor from main page. ∯WBG^converse 15:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
6. Support. I look forward to many of the people on this page discovering that they are not as indispensable as they think they are. Gamaliel (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
7. Restoring previous support statement - Came back from a self-imposed hiatus just to support this collective action. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
8. Support, but preferably with the idea of it being a real strike that basically stops work on wikipedia, rather than just a few admins stepping away and increasing the workload on the rest. If WMF is going to take over blocking people for flaming arbcom, let them take over all the rest of the wiki's administrative duties too. Some admins were concerned about BLP abuses and stuff like that. If you do want to stay vigilant about that sort of thing, I think the right way to handle any incidents during the strike would be refer them to the WMF Trust and Safety team, rather than handling them yourself. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (general strike)

• Comment ​ I feel like this would only compound many of our current issues. I worry it sends the wrong message that we don't care about Wikipedia and are willing to take our ball and go home (so to speak). If we are going to break rules and protest WMF, then maybe writing an an article would be better? (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  I don't see any rules that would be broken if admins decide they don't want to be sharecroppers for the WMF. And the WMF has already taken the ball from us. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• We need to define what administrative actions we will not refrain from, for example serious BLP violations. I'm happy not to block petty vandals, no deletions, no day-to-day stuff like DYK/ITN - but we should still block BLP violators, otherwise we are opening the doors to trolls posting child porn everywhere or something ghastly. GiantSnowman 14:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• This will only hurt real people. I don't volunteer my time on Wikipedia as a sysop and functionary because I get some power trip or because I get some great joy about being part of a self-governing community. I volunteer my time because the work I do has a real impact in actual people's lives from a harassment and privacy perspective. Good faith volunteers will continue to edit. LTAs will continue to edit. People with agendas that want to harass others and out them will still be here. Those of us who have been entrusted by the community with extra tools to assist in protecting the encyclopedia and aiding those who write it should act upon that trust so long as we continue to hold the tools. While I think this action was incorrect, I cannot in good conscience call upon other administrators to not act in the encyclopedia's best interest. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• An administrator's strike would effectively be an invitation to vandals to do their worst, and would likely result in such widespread damage to the encyclopedia that some of it would slip past the radar and never be repaired. bd2412 T 14:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair points (the three above). Defending BLPs and protecting users from harassment are important things we do, even if the WMF thinks we're incompetent to do those things. There was half a proposal further up to specifically refrain from certain functions, such as DYK/ITN or anything to do with content on the main page, which would be noticeable without being unreasonably disruptive. How about something along those lines? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with BD and TB, that seems more reasonable. Things that would harm the English Wikipedia to readers (both short and long term) would be counter-productive at best. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not saying let BLP vios etc. go rampant. They have to be taken care of, but I'm saying hand that responsibility over to the WMF. If they want to directly run Wikipedia, then they get the scut work too, not just the power trips of banning longstanding contributors. I'm also surprised to hear some of this stuff about Fram. I don't even think of Fram as being a particularly bad admin. He had his not-so-good moments like most of us, but he would have been rather far down on my list of admins I thought of as corrosive. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia would be better off long-term if we left petty vandalism ("Changed text of the page to PENIS") to the readers. It would get them involved, maybe even start them editing long term. Plus, it disgusts career bureaucrats and might drive them away (see above). Paid stuff, bot stuff, professional vandalism, that may be a different story. "BLP violations" are a mixed bag -- people venting about Trump or Clinton aren't nearly as big a deal as some here make out, but you don't want some high school kid with a Wikipedia article written by a fan club. I think it might better to have a long term loosening of administrative control as an attitude and policy than to have a short term strike, but I don't really know that. Wnt (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Per TonyBallioni I refuse to cut off the encyclopaedia's nose to spite it's face. I contribute to this encyclopaedia because I believe in the mission and I enjoy playing my part in making free knowledge accessible to as many people as possible. No one editor is more important than that, regardless of how many people like or don't like them, regardless of how good or bad they behave. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This sounds like you think that the people who are making these suggestions and protesting this block are doing so because they like Fram and are trying to defend him because of that. Am I understanding what you mean correctly? 24.140.224.174 (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

For most of us, this is about a lot more than just Fram. Lepricavark (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I think some people (not everybody) is protesting this block because they like and are trying to defend Fram but that is not relevant to my opinion that any action of this nature will cause far more harm to the encyclopaedia than any benefit that could theoretically arise from it - and this would be the case regardless of which editor was sanctioned - even me. If you don't like that you, me and everybody else edit this site at the pleasure of the WMF then you have the right to leave and/or to fork, but you don't have a right to insist that the WMF do not enforce the terms of use that you agree to when you make an edit. Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course I have the right to leave/fork. However, as a long-term contributor to the encyclopedia, I have every intention of making my voice heard on this. My anger over the WMF's decision to hand down draconian sanctions while playing civility police is not at all appeased by references to the terms of use. This is our community, not theirs. Lepricavark (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you're referring to me, I don't like Fram really at all, to be honest. They [a|we]re an aggressive and abrasive administrator who I've thought for several years to be on the road to a site ban, specifically over the sort of issue which seems to have led to this, even though I happened to agree with their sentiments toward Arbcom over the 2FA thing. I'm objecting to the sinister and secretive way this was enacted. There absolutely are things that should be handled by Trust & Safety in private, very important things, but telling Arbcom to get fucked when they fuck up is not one of those things. Yes, the WMF can do what they like with their property and they should retain that power, but if unnameable people whispering in private is enough to get the WMF to start doling out unappealable bans overriding our local policies, then none of us is safe. Even if this was the culmination of a very long term conduct problem (and it may have been) we have processes to deal with that here already, as privately as we need to, based on now nearly 20 years of being just fine at it. Not perfect by a long shot, but neither is the WMF picking and choosing what is OK and what is not. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I was not referring to you. I disagree that the WMF enforcing the TOU is in any way overriding local policy. Thryduulf (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

If this is enforcement of the TOU, then I agree. Based on the WMF's non-statement and Fram's response, I do not believe TOU enforcement is what's happening here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Admins serve the project and the community, not the WMF. I therefore consider an admin strike to be at best pointless, and at worst as reinforcing the wrong notion that the WMF is our boss. Because strikes are generally directed at one's boss. Sandstein 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

When somebody can fire you they are your boss, whether or not you recognize their authority. nableezy - 17:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Sandstein, I think Nableezy is right about this. In the old days the WMF also served the project, but that might no longer be true. The encyclopedia may now be an epiphenomenon of the WMF rather than the other way around. And if the WMF is operating at cross purposes to the community, we should reconsider whether we want to keep working for them for free. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Two sections for support, one for discussion, none for opposing? Really? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Like I said at the top, admins deciding not to do things does not require support. On what basis could you oppose an admin sitting on their hands? Nonetheless, plenty of good points have been made in this section. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed that one of the sections is called "Community support (general strike)". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't miss it, I named it. By definition, non-administrators cannot participate in a general strike from making administrative actions, so I added a section for non-admins to express support for the concept of a general strike. Some editors have sworn off participation beyond my original scope but that wasn't my intent. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• I do think, from what we know now, that this was an overreach by WMF, taking actions that should have been left to the established mechanisms here. In particular I strongly object that they took this action without any kind of warning to Fram or any attempt to hear what he might say; he was blindsided by it. This was a Kangaroo court procedure and should be condemned almost no matter what their justification was. BUT: I will not join a "strike". I will not stop doing what I do at Wikipedia as some kind of statement. I completely agree with Tony and others here. As I said above, this would be a classic example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point - and would be violating the trust the community put in us when they gave us the tools. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Let's be patient and wait for the June 14 board meeting to see if anything comes out of it. If not, I fully support taking drastic measures to show the WMF that it cannot disregard the will of the community like this. Otherwise the issue will just fizzle out and the WMF will be even more emboldened the next time. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• TonyBallioni and bd1242, the idea is WMF can handle any BLP issues its own self, given that it's decided it can also handle blocking admins. If it decides otherwise, it can end the strike instantly anytime it wants, by unblocking Fram. King of Hearts, June 14 seems like a reasonable wait, though given Wikipedia's limited attention span, who knows. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Concerning an admin general strike, I think it would be damaging to the 'pedia and therefore do not support it, but I would support general admin civil disobedience, via mass unblocking and resysopping -- as often as necessary -- of Fram and Floquenbeam. The more admins who get involved with that the better. It's easy enough to discipline one admin, another thing entirely to do so to a dozen or more. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Statement of intent

If WMF isn’t going to say more, I am going to assume everything Fram says is true. Now that I understand the circumstances better, this “strike” seems too passive for my taste. Since there is near unanimous opposition to this site ban, I intend to unblock Fram as soon as I get to a regular computer. If that results in Fram’s reblock by WMF and my desysop, I’ll be sad. It would make me feel better, however, if another admin unblocks him when I’m desysopped. And another. And another. See how many admins they’re willing to lose. If the answer is “as many as it takes to enforce our will”, then I don’t want to be part of the system anymore. —Floquenbeam (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This will most certainly result in Fram's reblock and your desysop, without any benefit for the cause, so that I strongly advise you against doing this. There are other, more efficient ways, to express your distrust with WMF actions.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

if I’m the only one desysopped, that’s true. We’ll see if I’m the only one. Civil disobedience with no potential cost isn’t civil disobedience, it’s whining. —Floquenbeam (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Please don't do that. It is really unnecessary. 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)

If calm, reasonable discussion is what is desired, then we can have a calm, reasonable discussion while Fram is unblocked. If I'm desysopped for unblocking Fram when there is an overwhelming local consensus that the block is wrong, then I won't be the one who is escalating things. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

But how can we have a discussion of any kind if the WMF is content to give a boilerplate response and then nothing else? Lepricavark (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay I couldn't resist the temptation to check out what was up when I saw this was now a separate subthread and then saw this weirdly titled thread. As I mentioned above, it seems unlikely this will happen more than say 3 times at the most. Not because so few will try, really I have no idea and it's irrelevant. The WMF control the software and I see nothing stopping them adding a type of superblock that cannot be overturned by anyone but those given the special power. There is zero reason to think they're going to need to keep blocking editors, putting aside the WMF, no one is likely to do that when they control the software whoever they are. It's simply not the way things work in the real world. Nil Einne (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Floq's actions have enough symbolic value, as a form of protest against WMF's abominable micromanagement and over-reach, by resisting their whimsical orders. But, then, I do believe that WMF is indeed tone-deaf enough to desysop Floq and we can't afford to lose one of our best sysops. ∯WBG^converse 12:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Floquenbeam - I admire your resolve. It is not in our best interests to lose you as an admin. You are indeed one of our best sysops. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Please don't do that Floquenbeam, give the people who are apparently looking at this behind the scenes (Jimmy W, the board, ArbCom) some time. It's unrealistic to expect an instant response, and it's better to give them a chance than make a pointless knee-jerk sacrifice. If we reach a stalemate point where it's certain that no more will be done and you're not satisfied, by all means make a big gesture then - but falling on your sword right now won't help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

It's 5am in San Francisco. At least give them a chance to wake up before you decide they're aren't going to say more? -- KTC (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, this. Pigs might fly, but they *might* come to their senses - probably worth waiting before running out of the trenches into the machine gun nests. Black Kite (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not expecting anything other than another long-winded and fatuous boilerplate brushoff or, more likely, silence. But let's wait and see before we go and do something rash. Reyk _YO! 12:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• I support this, but with the caveat of waiting 24hrs to allow issues with timezones. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• We've lost one too many administrators as it is – we don't need to lose another. – Teratix ₵ 12:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Sigh. OK, I'll wait until noon SF time. I don't actually think waiting is a good idea, but since my whole shtick is "en.wiki community consensus", I'll try to listen to others and be patient. But not more patient than that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Next board meeting isn't for a few days yet, and Doc James is on it - can you at least give it that long? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I probably have more confidence in Doc James than any of the people close to this, but I'm not waiting days for action. The WMF needs to act today. Today. Tiderolls 13:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Get a useless Admin to unblock Fram, that way when they get desysopped the project is improved! I could suggest a few. Or make people "Sacrifice Admins" specifically for the purpose of reinstating him. I'd even volunteer, and promise to relinquish the tools as soon as ... -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Tried that, Roxy the dog, it just gets supervoted out under the guise of "reducing drama". Fucking incredible. ——SerialNumber54129 13:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Also - see Jimbotalk - he's investigating as well FWIW. Black Kite (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Something needs to be done, most certainly, but I'm not sure what. I've been a harsh critic of the WMF many times - and I've also received some really impolite threatening emails from the WMF in the past, some signed, some unsigned on generic WMF email accounts, but I've refused to be bullied and I've got stuff done. If someone comes up with a good idea, I'll support it and then probably have a lot more to say. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• @Floquenbeam: WTF is "noon San Francisco time" — could you please speak to be understood? What time UTC do you intend to block? I was interested to read your statement of intent just as I was typing up my own intention to unblock, which would have had a ping of you specifically, asking for your support. But I'm always too slow, and this time I also had a dental appointment. :-( Anyway, I'm with you, Floq, and I'll be Spartacus if you are. I'll mention that I saw the diff Fram says he was blocked for, this one, at the time. I thought it inappropriate and asked him to stop with the personal stuff.[6] I was thinking especially of the attacks on AGK. Admittedly my comment didn't seem to do any good, inasmuch as Fram replied quite combatively.[7] But I would still say my approach was on a better level than a fucking non-appealable one-year block. A sanction might have been appropriate, but should have been up to the community, for instance via WP:AN. (I wouldn't go directly to ArbCom. The community should have a go first.) Incidentally, I can't say I have much faith in Jimbo accomplishing anything in this case. He's quite keen on civility policing AFAIK. Anyway. Bishonen | talk 13:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC).

  The only thing Jimbo is good at now is making BLP violating edits for his COI friends. Nick (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Jimbo long ago banned Fram from his talk page for criticizing him, so let's make sure our expectations of helpful action on his part are realistic here. 28bytes (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

"Calmly"... It would be easier to remain calm if the precipitating Office action and their response had been done in such a way to engender calm. Shearonink (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Noon in San Francisco (UTC-7) is UTC19:00. Currently it's about 6:30 in the morning. (Source: in a weird time zone myself and have to do business with the west coast a lot) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks ivanvector. Bish, the extent of my knowledge (without a calculator) is that US Eastern time is 3 hours ahead, so it's 3pm my time. All other calculations are left as an exercise for the reader.

I also want to say somewhere that T&S plays an important role. I would imagine with the exception of this ban, all of their other bans have had the support of like 95%+ of editors. After all other attempts have been exhausted, even an unappealable ban has it's place here; but this is absolutely not the situation. The fact that this ban has 95% of editors in opposition should tell them they are in the wrong. I'm disappointed they won't simply admit to that, particularly now that I see that several people I respect are involved with T&S. So I'm not willing to throw T&S under the bus for this one big mistake. Instead I hope to force their hand and make them reverse course. And go back to actually protecting en.wiki from things we can't solve ourselves, as they have been doing up to now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

The absolute worst thing that could possibly happen right now would be for you to intervene. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I could think of worse things. At least a Jimbo-related action is par-for-the-course. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales:, I disagree with my friend above, and would ask that you do intervene. People seem to be treating this as an all-or-nothing proposition, when it is in fact an opportunity for negotiation and clarification of roles. I therefore request that you reverse Fram's ban pending discussion of an appropriate sanction by the community for the offense alleged. You can think of it as sentencing him to time served plus probation. As he has been desysoped, which is by itself a harsh punishment, leave it to the community to have a discussion as to whether that bit should be restored, not as a response to WMF's actions, but on the merits of Fram's conduct. It will be easier to get to the point of discussing what the appropriate delineation of roles should be once the immediate point of conflict is resolved, even if the resolution is a temporary measure. bd2412 T 14:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I would think negotiation should precede action. Tiderolls 14:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

That's arguably illegal. Jimmy may like to pretend he has this authority, but he doesn't. He is one member of the board of directors and if he were to act this way overruling an action of the corporate organization without the support of the full board of directors his position on that board would be untenable. Board members have no authority in their individual capacities. They have authority in their collective capacity. Jimmy intervening would turn what has been a project specific constitutional crisis into a foundation wide one with potential legal implications. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I would let those cards fall where they may. The immediate crisis is the block, and its demoralizing effect on the project. bd2412 T 15:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I've just taken a look at Special:RecentChanges and the project seems to be getting on with business as usual, just fine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Yep, Pigsonthewing, now Fram's been unblocked, all is good with the world. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam and Bishonen: I agree we should not throw T&S under the bus, but neither of you should go there either. Having worked with them for 4 years as an Arb and in various ways before that, I'm extremely puzzled by this action. But they are a bureaucracy and from my experience may not be able to respond today, and any unblock might be a needless sacrifice. I want to see this solved asap but there's no immediate deadline. However, unblocking may be a one-way street to a desysop. I can easily imagine a situation where ArbCom doesn't want to desysop anyone over this but feels compelled. At least let's give them until the end of the week, please? I'm asking here for what may be a major favor and I'll owe both of you if you agree. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller, end of the week? They are not volunteers, they are paid by WMF to discharge their duties. I fail to see, as to why they shall take more than 24-48 hours, at all. ∯WBG^converse 14:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to be away from the computer for a few hours, so just to be clear before I go: I fully intend to do this at noon SF time if it hasn't already been resolved; even if people I really, really respect, like you, ask me not to. To be honest, I'm finding it hard to justify not doing it right now, which would be the actual right thing to do. I said I would wait, so I will, but I shouldn't. As I said to Jimbo above, if discussion is needed, it can happen while Fram is unblocked. I'm certainly not going to stand in the way of discussion after the unblock. If this is going to result in a desysop, then it's useful for the community to know that this is how the WMF handles things. Instead, they should unblock right now themselves, and then have whatever kind of discussion they want to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll be clear too: if you do, and get desysopped (and/or blocked, because why not) and Fram is reblocked, I'll unblock him, and potentially you. No extra waiting. Sorry, Doug. Bishonen | talk 15:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Courtesy ping now that this has happened. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: thanks. I was asleep, but I've unblocked now, with a note at WP:BN. Presumably San Francisco is in its turn asleep, so we'll have to see when the next desysop comes through. Bishonen | talk 07:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC).

(edit conflict) Doug Weller, they could respond today, even if just to say "We do intend to discuss this further with the English Wikipedia community, and we're working out who should do that and where, but we understand there are serious concerns over what's happened and we do plan to engage with you about them." Even that would be better than radio silence. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant they might not be able to make a decision today, I shouldn't have said "couldn't respond". Also we have no idea whether they are dealing with what they (and maybe we would) see as more urgent issues. Doug Weller talk 14:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with Doug Weller. This is a bureaucracy we're dealing with, and even if a majority of the necessary decisionmakers believe this decision should be moderated or at least explained, reaching that majority decision to act can take what seems like ridiculous amounts of time. I get that such gestures and their fallouts can provide meaningful information to all parties, I really do. But I'd hate to see anyone spend all their capital because a bureaucracy is moving slowly rather than because it ultimately made no correction. This is crucially important, but that doesn't make it urgent. --valereee (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• The first thing we need to establish here is whether this was genuinely a Fram-specific action or if they mean to supplant all the admins and simply chose one to start with. If a bunch of our best admins go and get themselves desysopped, and the bureaucrats intended to supplant them all, this won't work to our benefit. So the question is ---- how many other admins besides Fram are out there who have already gotten 'warnings' from Trust & Safety? Wnt (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Wnt, that's just paranoid. Can't happen. Everyone, to make matters worse, two of the most senior people that would be involved today are on holiday, Maggie Dennis and Kalliope Tsouroupidou.[8] Doug Weller talk 15:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's paranoid, and in fact I was thinking the same thing. However, if they're planning to do that, then they will do it, so it may as well be sooner than later. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Hypothetical question

Hypothetically speaking, if someone were to unblock Fram (which I'm not saying is advisable!) and then get desysopped for it, couldn't we, as a community, RFA that desysopped admin back into having the tools? The wording at WP:RFA even says, "Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days" (emphasis mine). Just a weird, hypothetical question about a technicality. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Useight: so I think we'd have a problem, as even if Fram were unblocked, there is still a WMF OFFICE action that has prohibited that account from holding administrative access for 1 year, so any 'crat would be violating that office action to grant it - even with community support. As far as an RfA goes, it could certainly run, but I can't see any reason that this issue would be so pressing that it would need to close early. However, even after closing successfully the implementation may need to be on hold for the year. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I slightly misread that, let me rewrite it in a min. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, so "it depends" - if the WMF Office desysops that person, it will likely include at least a limited foundation ban preventing them from holding administrative access again. Should it not, then sure they should be able to re-RFA. But in any case, I can't see something like that rising to the bar of an IAR emergency that would preclude following the normal discussion period. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Does T&S have the authority to remove administrative tools? Especially in cases where no tool misuse or abuse has occurred? Even if they do, does a block not prevent the entire administrative toolset from being used? If so, shouldn’t the administrator userright remain in place during the block? –xeno^talk 15:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Xeno: there are beansy administrative functions still available to blocked admins. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Entirely unrelatedly to the present case: should it be thus? Shouldn’t a block disable all administrative functions? –xeno^talk 15:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Following up on your talk. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Xeno: as to the other, I can realistically see that as a component of the TOU enforcement option regarding a user's account or access. Note, I'm not stating personal support that this was the most appropriate action, just that it appears to be covered in the TOU. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I’ve been playing catch up. –xeno^talk 15:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your struck portion also brings up an interesting point. Theoretically, we could preemptively have an RFA for Fram, even as the one-year ban is in place, that (assuming the RFA is successful) could take affect immediately when the ban ends. This would allow Fram to regain adminship immediately after the ban's end, instead of waiting a week. Of course, the tricky part would be accepting the nomination and he couldn't answer any questions posted on the RFA. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of the circumstances, I would oppose any RFA where the nominated person was knowingly unable to take up their tools within a reasonable time after the conclusion of a successful RFA (reasonable being less than circa 2-3 weeks). This is because any support would necessarily be blind to their contributions in the meantime. In this specific case, Fram is free to contribute to any other project and it is possible that they could act in such a way on those projects that he would be very clearly unsuitable as an admin here, e.g. harassing other editors, edit warring against consensus, flooding Commons with copyvios , etc. (I'm not saying they will do this, or even that it is likely, but it is possible). Additionally I would oppose any candidate, whatever their behaviour on other projects, who has not been sufficient active on en.wp recently enough to demonstrate an understanding of the current rules. Whatever the merits or otherwise of the current block, Fram is unable to do this while it is in place. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Has the WMF been notified of this discussion

I can't see anything on this page that says they have, but I could easily have missed something (like a post from someone from the WMF). I've had two out of office messages from the first two I've contacted, I've tried two more. Doug Weller talk 16:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller, Dan from T&S has read my mail that alerted of the developments. ∯WBG^converse 16:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good to know. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

They posted the long (and empty) statement earlier too. - SchroCat (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

My concern was that they were aware of the Noon SF time deadline that Floq has set. I've contacted two people and they are both aware of it now. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Notify them about things like they notified us?....<sarcasm/> But seriously...I guess it's a good idea to behave like adults. Shearonink (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Petitioning

I propose the construction of a petition to the WMF, in a similar fashion to meta:Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer, that clearly outlines the community's concerns with the ban and requests it be overturned and any further sanctions pursued through the usual dispute resolution channels, which were left untried. This is a concrete next step that would display a united community front (as Rutebega noted, this is important) but is not as extreme as banning accounts or editor strikes.

This will be my last edit for the night; I hope the situation improves by the time I wake up. – Teratix ₵ 14:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm already in the process of drafting one, at User:Seraphimblade/Draft petition to WMF (may be red for a moment while I get the first draft written up; it'll be turning blue shortly). Everyone's input is very welcome on it; it's not "mine" just because it's in my userspace. In the meantime, could we please all hold off on concrete proposals and !votes until we've got something fully baked? I don't, for example, want to ban the WMF accounts altogether—they handle issues like child protection, threats of violence and suicide, and such issues. I know the details of some of those issues, and while I can't discuss specifics of any of them, I can say in general some would turn your hair white. I have no reason to believe that they do not competently handle cases like that. Where they do fail is at intervening in matters that should be handled by the community, and it is that, in particular, that I think we are seeing "no confidence" expressed in here. So whether it's our statement, or whether community sanctions turn out to be necessary, let's take a moment to avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Community sanctions can, after all, be bans on specific things rather than a full-on site ban, and I think we're perfectly capable of, if the need should arise, crafting a sanction that would allow T&S to do the work they should be doing, while restricting them from usurping areas where the community should be the final authority. Floq, maybe you could give me a hand writing that rather than getting yourself needlessly desysopped; your input would certainly be very valuable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Without commenting on the specifics of the situation, given the unknowns of the situation, I'll leave some thoughts here on the general response. I think that we need to avoid paranoia or blanket statements, given out lack of information. I think that we should draft a petition that would take a similar format to ArbCom decisions with findings of principles, findings of facts, remedies, and enforcement. I think that we should adopt a position that the WMF should refer to ArbCom any local community violations, unless they believe that the complainant would face imminent and real harm from the disclosure to ArbCom or if the WMF is subject to legal requirements. I think that we should request that the WMF disclose to ArbCom the specifics of this case, as a local matter, without an immediate revocation. Then, ArbCom should pass a motion either supporting the action; supporting the result, but rejecting the process; or rejecting the action wholly. StudiesWorld (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

My Proposal

The English Wikipedia Community, ACCEPTING the WMF is permitted to take office actions, in order to protect the safety of users of Wikipedia and enforce the Terms of Use and other legal obligations, or in order to enforce local and global policies, when local processes have failed or the disclosure of details to local processes could pose a real and imminent danger; and BELIEVING the WMF should refer to local processes any complaint it receives that they could effectively handle, share with Stewards and any relevant local privileged users, such as the Arbitration Committee and Check Users, as much information as legally and safely possible regarding any office actions, and publicly disclose, except when prohibited by law or precluded by safety concerns, which policy was being enforced by an office action; CALLS UPON the WMF to brief the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee and the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation regarding the office actions taken against Fram; ASKS that the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee pass a motion expressing their support or lack thereof for the office actions taken against Fram; REQUESTS that an independent panel, including one member of the Trust and Safety Team, one member of the Community Relations team, one member of the Legal team, one member of the Board, three members elected globally by the community, and one member of the Arbitration Committee from each project on which the targets are active (or a locally-active Check User or Steward if no arbitration committee exists), be called to review and approve each office action and prepare a statement to be released to the Community regarding the action; and ASKS that the WMF conduct an investigation into their communication practices and take steps to improve communication regarding office actions.

First draft: StudiesWorld (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I think WMF, as owners/operators of the websites, should retain all first cause actions available to them, for obvious reasons stated previously. However, I believe, as per ToU/Pillars/etc, WMF has a duty to respond to respective Project and Community guidelines/policies/requests. As such, I think it would be a good idea to have an official policy in place that the community can overturn an Office Action, provided that such Action was not instituted for clearly legal or safety reasons (e.g., stalking, pedophilia, copyright violations, etc); instances of general grumpiness ("hostility") could be overturned if the Community felt that the WMF had overstepped its authority. All this being said, however, we have to acknowledge that the ToU do state that they reserve the right to revoke anyone's account at any time, without or without cause. —Trumblej1986 (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Board

I have requested, as a board member, a briefing of what occured, preferably today Pacific standard time. Might not be able to arrange anything until Jun 14th however. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc. I'm not sure if 14 June will be soon enough, though. It sounds like some action will occur within a few hours. If nothing else, though, I hope the briefing, whenever it comes, will shed some light on this situation. I'll be watching this closely. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc James; we are glad to have you representing us on the board, and we recognize that you will have the greater good of the WHOLE project (not just enwiki) as a goal. One thing I don't think has been pointed out strongly enough: they took this action without any warning to Fram or any chance for him to respond or defend himself; he was blindsided. This was a classic Kangaroo court action. The issue Fram says they gave in their email to him was something that could and should have been handled at enwiki. Unless there turns out to have been something else, something we don't know about that was totally unacceptable, something so damaging to the whole project that alerting him would have precipitated major problems - absent that kind of situation I think the point needs to be made that this was an outrageous way to proceed. And they should consider, in that light, how to reconsider their action. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Any progress? ∯WBG^converse 06:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

Why the de-sysop?

While many here feel that the decision to ban and block was mishandled, I'd like to specifically discuss the decision to de-sysop. I don't see that the triggering incident had anything to do with the use of tools. I can't think of anything that a blocked and banned editor could do if the admin bit were not removed. Once the ban is either lifted or expired, Fram should automatically be an admin and the community can take action if it so chooses, but absent evidence that the event triggering the ban had anything to do with misuse of admin tools, I can't think of any justification for the de-sysop?S Philbrick(Talk) 15:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I’m grappling with this as well, above at #Hypothetical question. It seems the userright should have remained in place –xeno^talk 15:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

No, indeed, no abuse of the tools at all. The de-sysop was just yet another indication of the fact that the Office action was poorly thought out and doubly poorly executed. There's already been a lot of pre-emptive talk about another RFA, but as far as I can see, there's no cloud here, just a bunch of obfuscation from WMF which doesn't relate in any sense to Fram's ability to admin. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

See, if memory serves, a blocked admin still has access to deleted revisions and similar read-only stuff. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: yes on that, and also some "writeable" things I'm not going in to here. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if WMF had forgotten (or indeed, weren't aware) that admins can no longer unblock themselves? Black Kite (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

WMF is protecting themselves from legal liability

Here's my take on this turn of events:

• Fram is an inflammatory administrator who I believe has benefited from the Community going easy on them when it comes to CIVILITY. If Fram is known to be publicly on the fringe of what's acceptably CIVIL, how are they off-wiki and out of the public eye?
• The complaints WMF received indicated to the WMF Legal Team that Fram's activity exposed them to legal liability. WMF can't allow Fram to expose them to liability, hence the ban.
• The community should probably be concerned about the implications that the WMF had to step in to enforce the TOS- I agree with whoever said this shows the WMF doesn't have confidence in the community to enforce compliance with the TOS.
• The fact that the WMF statement doesn't really go into detail isn't surprising at all- WMF isn't going into specifics if it's going to give ammo to a potential plaintiff. Not to mention the privacy considerations of having a T&S team that doesn't out people who bring grievances.
• Stop trying to Right Great Wrongs. Fram dug this grave for himself, and there's no way in hell the WMF Is going to bend on this.Rivselis (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC) CU-blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A sensible comment. It's no secret that Fram has had a long-term civility problem. The community (and ArbCom) should be considering how to better enforce that policy in the future so the WMF doesn't need to. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

If the enwp community is going to upload civility enforcement to T&S, then they’re going to need a bigger staff. –xeno^talk 16:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, the long-standing justification for not addressing long-term incivility issues on enwiki: there are other bad/worse people. They only need to do enough to start a cultural change, not do it all themselves. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, the real problem with "not addressing long-term incivility issues" is that you won't find two enwiki editors who will consistently agree on most of the issues that get labelled "incivility". There is no "fringe of what's acceptably CIVIL", because everybody has a different view on where that fringe lies. The solution to "long-term incivility issues" is not to place resolution in the hands of an unaccountable group, but to strengthen our own, accountable, procedures. The damage caused to the community by one ban that is widely seen as unfair is more than a hundred "Fuck ArbCom"s. --RexxS (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, the enwiki community has repeatedly demonstrated its inability to deal with long-term incivility issues. Just because the community can't agree on the extent of the problem doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist. The WMF is setting the standard. And the WMF's process is accountable: accountable to WMF management, who signs off on all OFFICE actions, and accountable to elected members of the global community who have the opportunity to review every action. I think that the latter should also be extended to local ArbComs for project-specific actions, to be fair, but the accountability structure is there. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Setting a standard usually requires that the bar is divulged. - Sitush (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

No, by imposing an unexplained and unappealable ban, they are not setting any standards at all. For a standard to be a standard, it has to be explained. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Correcting that for you:- ... accountable to elected members of the global community, who are out of touch with the community, (how else, will we push our pet civility-police efforts?!) and one of whom even asserted to Tony about how Fram's block was superb ..... ∯WBG^converse 16:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the comms should have been better. I hope that conversations are being had within the WMF on how to better communicate these types of actions to the community, and I will certainly follow up with them on that. I'll note that my opinions here are as a member of this community, and are made with the knowledge that I am in a small minority of those who agree with this action. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Good luck with that. WMF and better communications is rather oxymoronic. In any event, the communication needs to start before the action, and the LauraHale links supplied by Fram appeared to have nothing to do with civility. If civility is indeed at the heart of this, Fram's statement doesn't provide any evidence of prior relevant warning nor of any generally announced standard. - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

You're a long way out of touch with the enwiki community, Ajraddatz. The community endorsed ArbCom's creation of arbcom enforcement sanctions, which effectively ended the issue of "unblockables" quite some time ago. The WMF is setting no standards at all. The action was taken by T&S, who decided to act themselves on a complaint rather than refer the matter to the local ArbCom, quite likely in contradiction of their own aims (see m:Trust and Safety #Trust and Safety), or at the very least in contravention of the spirit of them. There is nothing accountable in what you describe. A great man once said ask them five questions: “What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?” We know the answers for ArbCom, but not for T&S. --RexxS (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't lack any information about this case or how the "community" feels about it, I just happen to disagree with the majority sentiment. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Rivselis, that may be the case. But we as a wiki have NDA'd users who could be informed of greater specifics and give a statement to the community. I don't know whether or not the ban was the correct result, but I do have problems with the process. StudiesWorld (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Where did "The complaints WMF received indicated to the WMF Legal Team that Fram's activity exposed them to legal liability" come from? (Genuine question, I don't remember seeing it anywhere). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Gut instinct. I believe the WMF wouldn't have banned Fram in the absence of legal considerations. Rivselis (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC) CU-blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  We really don't give a fuck about your gut instinct. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC) (@Rivselis: Apologies, I've struck that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC))

  Thank you for your well-reasoned and civil rebuttal to my read of the situation. Rivselis (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC) CU-blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  OK, I'll try and be nicer - your gut instinct is of no value. It might be right, it might be wrong, but deductions based on it are pointless. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Since we're all speculating: if there were legal considerations, why was Fram banned from only one project? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  The ban being only on one project is the part that leaves me the most baffled. Hazarding a guess, Fram might not be active on other projects (I haven't checked), the one who raised a grievance might only operate on WP:EN, or there might be jurisdiction considerations. (This last point feels the weakest to me.)Rivselis (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC) CU-blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  84 net edits, Rivselis, what's your main account? ∯WBG^converse 16:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  I've been lurking on WP over ten years. A recent stint of unemployment meant I've had more time on my hands to get involved. Rivselis (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC) CU-blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  At 84 edits, you're not "involved". Jumping right into an ArbCom statement from years away with under twenty edits means you're bullshitting hard if you're claiming Rivselis is your primary account. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  You are not the arbitrator of whether I am involved in the project or not, and your aspersions that this is not my main account are unwelcome. Rivselis (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC) CU-blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Unwelcome, because true. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Rivselis is not bullshitting, so you guys can stop with your witch hunt.--Jorm (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Rivselis was blocked for sockpuppetry. He was bullshitting, believe it or not. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 02:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed. Should the sock comments be struck? Enigma^msg 03:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  I'm striking them now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Ajraddatz: - You can't say this is intended to cause a cultural change if they won't actually say what happened. The WMF spends a lot on lawsuits to demonstrate points without us asking for them. For them to refuse to say anything because it aids their legal position, whatever the morals, is reprehensible, hypocritical and nothing more than moral cowardice. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Agreed that the WMF should have handled the comms better on this. There should be a middle ground between avoiding liability and letting the community know what's up. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Frankly I've long been of the opinion that WP:CIVIL, in its current form, causes more harm than good. It's far too common for civil POV pushers to engage in tendentious editing and then run to AN/I complaining about incivility the second somebody does a swear at them. If the worst thing Fram ever did was be incivil to ArbComm, they don't deserve one whit of punishment for it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• I concur that "WMF can't allow Fram to expose them to liability." We don't know what happened, and until we do, what we all know is that Fram has frequently crossed the lines of the widest possible gray area into some truly vicious behavior. I do think WMF needed to present a less weaselly explanation, but I also do not believe Fram's self-serving examples were the real reason. Frankly, Fram's utter and complete refusal to acknowledge any responsibility at all is not the behavior of an innocent person, it's the behavior of someone who is doubling down on whatever they did. I do think that we as a community have repeatedly failed to properly address severe, long-term patterns of incivility. I concur with Simonm223 that there is too much WP:BAITing going on in general, but it's not use of the word "fuck" that got Fram banned and in our gut, we all know it. Montanabw^(talk) 17:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Agreed Rivselis (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC) CU-blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Montanabw, to summarize, you are saying that Fram is hiding some stuff and/or lying, (when he says that his dealings with T&S have been limited to those three episodes), thus preventing us from gauging the true extents of the alleged misdeeds, which led to his ban. Am I correct enough? ∯WBG^converse 17:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Winged Blades of Godric, You are half correct, but be very careful not to manipulate my words. I do think that we cannot, at this time, "gauge the true extents of the alleged misdeeds, which led to his ban." But I specifically did not say he was "lying," though that is certainly one possibility. He may have been typing fast and given an incomplete answer. Or such behavior could also occur because Fram is utterly clueless as to the harm s/he has caused, or is in denial. Fram may also be operating under a sincere belief that the three incidents linked were the sole cause, but I suspect that Fram is far more intelligent than that. Let's just say that people don't get banned from WP solely on account of tagging articles and saying the f-word. There's more and we all know there's more. We just don't know what and Fram's choice of words sounds like someone trying to deflect blame, not someone trying to defend themselves against a false accusation. Montanabw^(talk) 18:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Looking back into the past, via links given above, it seems Fram's explanation, even if all of it was true, was far from being complete. Thincat (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Thincat, clarification, please. ∯WBG^converse 17:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Re: "Fram's utter and complete refusal to acknowledge any responsibility at all is not the behavior of an innocent person", you do realise that sounds perilously close to "Ah yes, pleading innocent is exactly what a guilty person would do", don't you? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Boing! said Zebedee, there's a style of outraged denial that indicates innocence and there's a style of denial that is a type of deflection and manufactured outrage that usually indicates wrongdoing. Someone who is remorseful about their wrongdoing or someone who is falsely accused responds with a different style from someone who is merely unhappy that they finally got called out on their shit. Whatever the actual incident, Fram finally crossed a line and got called on it. Montanabw^(talk) 18:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  And your expertise in criminal psychology is...? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• What we know in our guts are actually assumptions, however accurate we think they are; also, who's "we"? ——SerialNumber54129 17:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC). ——SerialNumber54129 17:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Montanabw we don't know whether there was anything other than being incivil to ArbComm behind this action; that's the problem. If WMF provided some clarity beyond this vague "there were complaints a month ago," response, we might be able to adjudicate this. Absent that though, all we can say is this is a poor example of transparency in policy implementation. Simonm223 (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• • • • The lack of clarity has poured fuel on the fire, I can agree with that. But there may be safety concerns and legal issues we don't know about. There's enough smoke, we know something blew up. Montanabw^(talk) 18:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  The only thing that is clear is that WMF have acted incredibly poorly. If the smoke you describe isn’t even actually smoke, it’s worse: WMF have acted negligently and people should consider their positions. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Not a legal issue per "or as required by law. In this case we acted on complaints from the community.". Wouldn't be a liability issue if they produced a list of edits as the reason for the block. So no that defence doesn't work.©Geni (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• If Fram's summary of what happened is accurate, then I don't see the legal risk to WMF. R2 (bleep) 20:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• One possible source of legal liability is if the WMF says "you can email us confidentially", and then they violate that confidentiality, that could result in getting sued. Hence, they won't tell us who made the complaint, and they won't post diffs because the diffs would reveal who made the complaint. – Levivich 21:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• If Fram "exposed them to legal liability", regardless of what he has told us, can you point to some edit he made that has recently been revdeleted as an Office Action? I mean, if the comment invites liability, they would have done that, right? Wnt (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• The claim that Fram exposed them to legal liability is absurd on its face. If that were the case, he'd've been globally banned for good, as opposed to banned on en.wp for a year. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 04:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A Proposal

My Proposal

The English Wikipedia Community, ACCEPTING the WMF is permitted to take office actions, in order to protect the safety of users of Wikipedia and enforce the Terms of Use and other legal obligations, or in order to enforce local and global policies, when local processes have failed or the disclosure of details to local processes could pose a real and imminent danger; and BELIEVING the WMF should refer to local processes any complaint it receives that they could effectively handle, share with Stewards and any relevant local privileged users, such as the Arbitration Committee and Check Users, as much information as legally and safely possible regarding any office actions, and publicly disclose, except when prohibited by law or precluded by safety concerns, which policy was being enforced by an office action; CALLS UPON the WMF to brief the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee and the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation regarding the office actions taken against Fram; ENTREATS that the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee pass a motion expressing their support for the office actions taken against Fram; PETITIONS FOR an independent panel, including one (1) member of the Trust and Safety Team (T&S), one (1) member of the Community Relations team, one (1) member of the Legal team, one (1) member of the Board, three (3) members elected globally by the community, and one (1) member of the Arbitration Committee from each project on which the targets are active (or a locally-active Check User or Steward if no arbitration committee exists), be called to review and approve each office action and prepare a statement to be released to the Community regarding the action; and ENDORSES the position that the WMF should forthwith conduct an investigation into their communication practices and take appropriate measures to assist in improving communication regarding office actions. We humbly give our supplications as fore to with stated.

I think this captures the ideas discussed on the talk page, but I'm also open to modification. I intend this as a middle line between going bonkers and blindly trusting the WMF in perpetuity. StudiesWorld (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

From my years of military service, I've learned, never give the agency you're requesting something a chance to deny your request; if the prescribed form has "APPROVE/DISAPPROVE", and you want it approved, always pre-circle APPROVED before you ask them to sign it. That being said, I think you should remove "or lack thereof" when asking for ArbCom's motion. I'd also change ASKS to something stronger, but stopping short of DEMANDS (appeal, entreat, petition, etc) Trumblej1986 (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Trumblej1986 - This phrasing maintains a friendly tone to ArbCom, while reframing the WMF aspect as something that it will benefit from. I don't love "RECOMMENDS", so if you have a better word, feel free to just change it. StudiesWorld (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

And we need not be 'er so ever 'umble, either; remind the WMF of their position. Servus servorum dei, and all. Otherwise OK. ——SerialNumber54129 16:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, we need not be obsequious in our entreaty. I tend to initially be over-tactful when I surmise the possibility of retaliation from the other side and softened language can be more diplomatic in the long run; but by no means am I stating we need to grovel, either. Trumblej1986 (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on my changes? Overall, I do like what you wrote, and I think it encompasses the solid via media necessary here. Trumblej1986 (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Trumblej1986, I like your changes, I think that they improve how it reads. SerialNumber54129 - We may agree on that, but we want the WMF to be agreeable. StudiesWorld (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Many minds tweaked the petitions and supplications of old after a brilliant laid a more than suitable foundation. Good work yourself. Trumblej1986 (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

a) The Terms of Service are not a legal obligation (of course they are enforceable, I just mean that the law does not require them to be what they are, since otherwise we wouldn't need them). b) The part about handling stuff locally when possible is fine, but they already opted against that; c) If you want to ask arbcom to do something, open a request for arbitration or whatever. This current thing is about WMF. d) The "independent committee" is silly and the petition overall is much too pompous. Let's see what Doc James and Jimbo say though. e) WMF staff is already accountable to the Board but the Board for the most part is not particularly accountable to us. All we can really do is tell them that if they want to run Wikipedia directly, they can do it without us. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

WMF conduct warnings

Fram's statement alluded to the fact that he had received two "conduct warnings" from the WMF. I think that's gotten drowned out by the more serious sanctions imposed, but I think that should also be part of the discussion. Is it appropriate for the WMF, rather than the English Wikipedia community, to be issuing "warnings" for on-wiki conduct on the English Wikipedia? Has anyone other than Fram received them? (I can confirm that I have not, though we'll see after today.) English Wikipedia editors and administrators issue conduct warnings all the time, so that is clearly not an issue which the community here is incapable of handling. If we do not issue such a warning, it means that we have chosen not to, not that we can't. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, they are mentioned in Wikipedia:Office actions#Secondary office actions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

WMF hosts the servers, pays the bills, and has a multitude of legal concerns that come along with hosting Wikipedia. Of course they have the remit to police what they own. Like it or not, the TOS overrides the community consensus on on-wiki conduct. Rivselis (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC) CU-blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I have not received them, but I believe that there may be cases in which they are appropriate, such as if the WMF has received a cease and desist about a particular user's behaviour. StudiesWorld (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Enforcement of the TOU is something that the WMF and only the WMF should be doing. Accordingly breaches and near breaches should met with warnings and bans (as appropriate to the individual situation) from the WMF. Thryduulf (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the assertion that that "enforcement of the TOU" is something that "the WMF and only the WMF" should be doing. For example, the TOU prohibits Infringing copyrights, trademarks, patents, or other proprietary rights under applicable law. Does that mean we ought to quit deleting copyright violations and blocking editors who repeatedly upload them, and leave that to the WMF? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Copyright violations are also against en.wp policy. When we block editors who repeatedly violate copyright we are enforcing en.wp policy not the ToU. That some actions violate both en.wp policy and the ToU does not alter this. Thryduulf (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, I think I better understand what you mean now. (And copyright may not be a great example, since it's also a legal issue, and the WMF has always been able to act on those.) However, in the case of civility and interaction with other users, that's also covered by local policy, so in that case I would assert that the WMF should respect local decisions in regards to them, including a decision to take no action at all. (Unless there were also a legal issue there, such as an actual court order.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Just because en.wp and the ToU both include "civility" does not mean that the standards are the same or that it is impossible to violate one without violating the other. To use the copyright example, Commons policy is a lot more strict than the WMF ToU provision - it is perfectly possible to upload an image to Commons that breaches that project's policy but which is perfectly acceptable according to the ToU (e.g. every fair use image on en.wp). Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, copyright violations are a poor example, because they also implicate legal considerations. So, take promotion/advertising, which both English Wikipedia policy and the TOU prohibit, but isn't against the law. We could legally allow people to post all the promotional material they want, and indeed some sites very legally do allow that. So, let's say an English Wikipedia AfD discussion concludes that an article has some promotional tone but is salvageable, and should be retained. Should the WMF then come along, say "Nope, this violates the TOU", and delete the article as an OFFICE action, or respect the decision made by the community? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

If the standards are the same and the evidence available is the same then there will never be a reason to disagree with the community decision. If the standard is different and/or the foundation has relevant evidence the community does not and the foundation judge that it breaches the terms of use then yes they should delete the article as an office action (if they believe this is the best action they have the ability to take) - but they should be clear they are doing so because it violates the terms of use rather than making any judgement about whether it does or does not breach en.wp policy. The only definite fault with the block of Fram is the communication of it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Alright, then I think we just fundamentally disagree in that case. I do not think the Foundation should be using "TOU" to overrule local community decisions, as community policies and practices are that community's interpretation of how the TOU applies there, as with your example of Commons' "Absolutely no nonfree content" and our "Nonfree content may be accepted in some limited circumstances" both being acceptable interpretations of the "Do not violate copyrights" portion of the TOU. Similarly, the English Wikipedia implements certain policies related to civil conduct to implement the user conduct portions of the TOU, and takes action (or declines to) when a breach of those is alleged. If the community declines to take action, the TOU has not been breached. The only time the Foundation should overrule the community is when legally required to (no way around that), or if the Foundation possesses knowledge which is too sensitive to be shared even with ArbCom, generally in areas such as child protection or threats. If private evidence could be submitted to ArbCom for a decision (and it usually can, ArbCom members must all sign the privacy and confidentiality agreement), they should do that rather than acting unilaterally. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to look at this from another angle, if I may, Seraphimblade: those conduct warnings were issued upon the action of a Wikipedian-in-Residence, or following some sort of monitoring system for WiR. I can tell you, for sure, that the Foundation would not do so if you or me or some other poor sod had to deal with this mess. Now, I'm no firebreather, but, suffice it to say, I have questions regarding the propriety of the WiR system, insofar as improper Foundation influence is concerned; and, quite frankly, about the propriety of paid editing overall, including WiR. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Javert2113, that particular WiR had been subject to enough controversies and IIRC, 2 ArbCom cases ....... ∯WBG^converse 16:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

So, said WiR was on the radar. That resolves one question. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric; I appreciate the explanation. I mean it. The other question, however, remains up in the air, but probably isn't a topic to be fully explicated here. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedians in residence prove just how unfit for purpose all of en.wp's focus on (undisclosed) paid editors rather than non-neutral editing is. But as you say that's very much a topic for a different place. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Can someone explain a little more what WiR has to do with this? Thanks. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Fram's statement on Commons indicated that the WMF had placed him under an interaction ban with a WiR because he placed maintenance templates on two articles which she started. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

True as far as it goes, but appears to have been more of a ‘last straw’ than a cause in itself. As Ymblanter indicated, there was quite a long history of conflict (the perennial trope of following-to-clean-up-after vs WP:HOUNDING) before then.—Odysseus1479 19:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah ok, but they didn't notify WP or Arbcom about the iban? Did they notify Fram about it, prior to the block? Are any non-blocked editors under any WMF sanctions that the community and arbcom don't know about? If yes, I'd encourage them to, at minimum, communicate the matters privately to arbcom. I can understand if Fram didn't do that though, given Fram's apparent dim view of Arbcom. I note that Fram made good contributions to several arbitration cases in the past though. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The WMF certainly has the right to issue conduct warnings and punishments, even when there is an existing community with their own policies and guidelines. If that existing community is not enforcing certain points of the TOU themselves, the WMF will, as with this case and civility. Vermont (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC) (struck as reasoning is not yet confirmed/certain Vermont (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC))

Further comment from the Foundation

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

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)

Discussion about the "Forthcoming shortly" placeholder

Original title: "Discussion about second WMFOffice comment"

Which there almost inevitably will be. (edit conflict × 2) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

WMFOffice, thank you for providing more information. I appreciate your attempting to engage. StudiesWorld (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Very, erm, interesting timing. Lepricavark (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

We would like to hear what you have to say. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Floq, finger off the trigger - for a little while as least. - SchroCat (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

That would definitely be advisable. No harm in waiting a few more minutes. StudiesWorld (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Fucking outrageous. WMF are treating this like some kind of joke. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@TRM: They haven't said anything yet? (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you joking? This placeholder was posted two minutes before Fram was about to be unblocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Give credit for realising the urgency, and that communication, even a placeholder if that's the best they got, is absolutely needed. --Xover (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Odds: More boilerplate 5/6; More boilerplate with some information we didn't actually know 2/1; An actually good explanation of their actions 5/1; Fram unblocked 10/1. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• 5/6 wins. Bookies always do, don't they? Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  No, it's the 2/1; I don't believe the WMF ever made the claim that, for instance, Arbcom [...] was one primary target of the person in question, before. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• What does "shortly" mean in your lexicon, please? I assume you posted this because Floquenbeam is set to unblock right about... seven minutes ago. If you want to prevent that, please specify how shortly. In 15 minutes? An hour? A week? Bishonen | talk 19:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC).

I'm not good at math but sounds about right. Praxidicae (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Amazing that they’ve had hours to respond, as humans would, but leave it until two minutes before Fram is unblocked. This is fucking literally unbelievable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why they weren't prepared for the inevitable backlash. Lepricavark (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The Foundation has never been prepared for the consequences of its actions, I see no reason to suspect that they would have changed their ways for this. DuncanHill (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm appalled by what the Foundation did here, but I doubt they never prepare for consequences. The way we've probably experienced it is that when they do bother to try to anticipate the consequences of their actions, it leads them to moderated measures which aren't seen as objectionable. EllenCT (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Whatever you do, please don't think you need to respond just because the masses are lining up by the door. Respond because we want transparency to what happened. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Will the last one out turn off the lights... Shearonink (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks to Black Kite for hitting me up on my talk page; I checked this page for WMF input at 18:58 and was about to hit the button. I'm not an idiot or a jerk, so I'll hold off until we get this info. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• ...Withdrawn question about role account edits moved to talk...
• I have changed the title of this section and moved the original title below the heading. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about second WMFOffice comment, now that it is actually posted

• 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." Let me be the first to say, fuck that bullshit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Comment moved to discussion section in Special:Diff/901426089 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• No new information. No decent justification. Not good enough. I suspect there is a large element of score-settling going on here - we know Fram has had interaction with someone in a relationship with a member of WMF, let alone his role as a critic. - SchroCat (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  It's unfortunate that so far as I know they only knew about the deadline when I finally was able to reach someone in the office, and that was only a couple of hours ago. Give them a chance to make a proper reply, which they've told me they are preparing. I'm sure it will be today now that they know Floq's intentions. Doug Weller talk 19:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• This is pretty lackluster for even a canned reply. Praxidicae (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Welp, we've gotten the new statement, which is nothing but more boilerplate with no new information. Exactly what we expected... rdfox 76 (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• • I mean, honestly, what would you expect a "good" statement to look like in a case that we now know involved harassment? "Here's the diffs so people can go harass the person who reported harassment"? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• "Harassing OR abusing". Get it right. Black Kite (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Does that affect the point I was making in any way? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Whichever way, you've missed the point, which comes as no great surprise. - SchroCat (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Of course it does. If the WMF disappeared anyone who abused anyone else ... Black Kite (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The issue is...well, many but primarily the interference in a local issue and a manufactured crisis (a la Trump's border wall.) They shouldn't be claiming this was some egregious abuse and an issue of trust or safety, or both but that it somehow doesn't exist on other projects and won't exist in a year. It's an overreach. I'm no fan of Fram's behavior but it's hardly the worst thing that's been said on Wikipedia by a generally respected user/sysop. Praxidicae (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) BU Rob 13, we now know that the case involved an allegation of harassment. If putting maintenance templates on two pages constitutes "harassment" worthy of an IBAN, I think their definition is suspect, to put it about as politely as I can. (The product of a bull which is not a steak comes more to mind.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• "we screwed up and we dumped the matter on arbcom in the hope they will make us look slightly better".©Geni (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Again, NOTHING. Wait, oh wow, now I get it!!! Thanks WMF for the clarification!!!!! Not in any way shape or form. The community now takes precedence. There's nothing here that requires the "office" to prevent harm, that's utter claptrap. Unblock Fram and seek an RFC on the role of the Office. "We know this action came as a surprise to some within the community" are you being serious? ARE YOU BEING SERIOUS? You're a bunch of cowards. Disgusting. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• That response had essentially no content. Consensus is clear, and Fram said yesterday "Any non-violent action taken by enwiki individuals or groups against this WMF ban has my support", so I have unblocked him.
  Regarding "not having all the facts", the one overwhelming fact I do have is that he is free to edit any other project. Therefore, there cannot be any personal-safety-related, child-safety-related, legal-related, or similar reasons. For the same reasons, I am not touching the double secret iban that apparently exists, because that is, indeed, something I don't know enough about. But with a project-specific ban like this, there is no possibility of lasting damage to an unblock now, and going thru local processes is an option if whatever the problematic behavior was continues. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict × 2) Note that the policy for office-action removal of advanced rights limits when that action can be done to major breaches of trust performed by Wikimedia functionaries or other users with access to advanced tools that are not possible to be shared with the Wikimedia communities due to privacy reasons ... (emphasis mine}, so the WMF would be breaching its own policy by carrying out a desysopping here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• (long-time listener, first-time caller) First point at least makes a little sense to me, second point doesn't. Fram wasn't the first to say scary mean words to ArbCom and probably won't be the last. Sure, there's some conflict of interest if ArbCom is handling a matter involving abusive behavior toward ArbCom, but I would hope that ArbCom would be mature enough to handle that neutrally. From what little I gleaned from that statement, I'm getting the feeling that T&S should have told the complainer to go through ArbCom, or at least asked permission to share information with ArbCom. creffett (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) ArbCom has, in many instances, had to hear a case which involved a vocal critic of ArbCom, and in some cases parties even criticized the Committee or particular members of it harshly during the case. So, that's absolutely nothing new to any arbitrator. If criticizing ArbCom were a way to escape their jurisdiction, a whole lot of people would be saying "Fuck ArbCom". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

We needed actual, usable information, not more canned non-responces. Right now, Fram has told us more useful information in a single paragraph than WMFOffice has told us in two replies, which is more an indictment of WMFOffice and their legal team than anything else. If you want us to get on board with your (increasingly) ludicrous ban, you need to both give us a valid explanation that doesn't encroach on any privacy rights and you need to quit it with these asinine responces that only seem to serve the purpose of riling editors up. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 19:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• This response is just as vague as the last one. I agree with User:Floquenbeam. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Question: is there a way for admins/oversight to conveniently view all of Fram's revdel'd/suppressed edits and check whether any of them harassed anyone? I agree with the idea of not telling the rest of us who specifically was harassed. The rest of us can check Fram's still-visible edits but that leaves the edits we can't see. I've seen the occasional abrasive discussion post or obsessive argumentation from Fram but don't remember anything that would rise to this level. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment the WMF post sounds like a statement of no confidence in the community. We probably have to respond to it on that basis. (Btw I don't have much confidence in the community either, but it has a better track record than the WMF does.) 67.164.113.165 (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × many) I know this isn't exactly going to be a popular statement given the current environment, but here goes. I, for one, appreciate this new, more detailed statement, which actually seems to make an effort to explain the situation and address various concerns while considering the privacy of those involved, instead of a vague hand wave about the Foundation knowing best. I had a suspicion that conflict of interest between Fram and Arbcom has been a factor recently, and I was curious how Arbcom was going to handle that. I guess we have our answer: the WMF did it for them (apparently, according to BU Rob13, with no prompting). If the Foundation is stepping in with that in mind, well, okay I guess. I trust members of Arbcom to be able to handle a personal conflict of interest, but maybe it is better if the entire Committee is forcibly recused in this kind of situation. I'm not entirely on board with the precedent this sets, but I at least have confidence that the WMF is acting in what it believes to be the project's best interest. But, since this is the WMF supplanting what's supposed to be a community process, they should also have come up with an appeal mechanism. I strongly disagree with the notion of an undefendable complete ban with no chance for appeal. I know some wikis do permanent bans with no appeal but we never have on English Wikipedia. Any editor who earns a ban or indefinite block on this project has at least the standard offer as an appeal mechanism, and so the Foundation's block in this case goes against one of our fundamental best practices. I would appreciate if the Foundation would reconsider the parameters of their ban. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Ivanvector, I appreciate this well-reasoned and level-headed reply. I wish that people weren't going bonkers.StudiesWorld (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Ivanvector, I agree - I mean, I would like more information, but I can see how that would be difficult while keeping the identity of the complainant(s) etc confidential. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam did the right thing and I await whatever WMF is going to do to make this worse than it already is. 2001:4898:80E8:2:A5F:2E62:10E4:D7D1 (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Also how long until someone makes a userbox with something like "I do not support the WMF"? 2001:4898:80E8:2:A5F:2E62:10E4:D7D1 (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Negative time. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• If ARBCOM faced a COI issue in taking this issue up, then that is for them to decide. Not to make stretchy legal analogies, but a judge or a lawyer recuses himself or herself--they are not removed from a case by a higher authority automatically to "protect" them. I can absolutely see why ARBCOM might push the issue away and choose not to deal with it--however, they should be doing so with a public record, explaining the issue. If ARBCOM was one of the targets, does that mean that the complaint came from someone at ARBCOM? I don't know, but that is terribly inappropriate and I sincerely hope (and frankly, do not think) that that is not the case. Not because people at ARBCOM should not be safe from harassment, but because they should have to follow the same procedures as the rest of us, regardless of any political fallout which may occur by doing so. Again, I hate making a legal analogy, but that's like a judge recusing herself and then tampering with the court of appeals case by contacting the new judge. If there is an issue raised and ARBCOM has a COI, that needs to be publicly noted. There is no reason for this issue not to go through ARBCOM.

I have no issue with year-long bans. I don't personally know Fram at all but I can understand that some people can change with time. Given the alleged nature of the issue (problems with ARBCOM and/or members of ARBCOM), I can maybe even see why you would only ban Fram from enwiki. But WMF still must understand that performing an action of this nature with a newish policy (and who instated that policy again?) on a well-known editor, without any documentation or explanation of why, was foolish, inconsiderate, and disrespectful to our community here at enwiki.

We deserve an apology, and frankly, if Fram is a decent enough person by your measure to receive only a partial ban of 1 year, then Fram likely deserves an apology as well. You cannot document every single bit of evidence that went into this decision, we get it. But saying nothing at all was unethical and unwise, and not at all conducive to the kind of environment we need in The Free Encyclopedia. Read that again. The Free Encyclopedia. In fact, I daresay that the way this was handled (not the action itself, but how it was handled) was directly in contrast to the values of a community of people wishing to build a Free Encyclopedia. Prometheus720 (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

In such cases in the past, Arbcom referred the issue to community sanctions processes by explicit motion. The T&S action was absurd. EllenCT (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• BTW, just as an aside, I stopped taking any of this "statement" seriously after the first phrase: "Over the last few days ...". Can't these people get even the most basic facts about their own actions right? The ban was enacted a mere 24 hours ago. Seriously... – Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the T&S team were experiencing internal dissent before the action, one would hope anyway. EllenCT (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Since we know that they told some people in advance (though we don't know exactly how much they told or to whom), we can presume that at least some of the people they told objected, so they may, indeed, have been hearing about it over the last few days. – Levivich 20:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Specific questions for second response as promised

@WMFOffice: regarding your stated intent to "provide at least one more reply regarding this matter" I would like to ask that you address the following questions:

1. Were there any complaints you considered in arriving at this action beyond Laura Hale's several-year dispute with Fram, culminating in the tagging and removal of unsourced material in her new articles about which you warned Fram, and Fram's critique of AGK and the Arbcom's retracted-with-apologies new account security policy for admins?

2. Were there any reasons that you could not or should not have asked Laura to seek dispute resolution within the project's policies or its community processes?

3. Did you find anything substantively in error factually with Fram's critique of Arbcom and AGK?

4. The Terms of Use provision under which you say the reported issues fell forbids harassment, threats, and stalking, among other less pertinent restrictions. The sole reason for the penalty Fram says you provided was a strongly worded complaint which appears to be factually accurate and does not involve threats or stalking. It does not appear to be the sort of thing which the community generally considers harassment. Do you believe the diff Fram says you cited as the reason for his block was harassment; if so, why?

5. If you determined that Fram was harassing or threatening Laura Hale, how many instances of such did you identify, and over what time period? Were any of those instances of which she complained considered to be inaccurate edits, edits which you determined did not improve the quality of the encyclopedia, edits which constituted any sort of a threat, or edits which would be seen as out of place in the course of ordinary new page patrol? EllenCT (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

6. I also have a question. Since the above discussion has left many with the impression that this ban was the result of the tone and tenor of Fram's comments directed to ArbCom, if that is not in fact the reason for this ban, can you say so? bd2412 T 19:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

A more specific follow-up: Does the WMF contest the version of events presented by Fram? StudiesWorld (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding #6: doesn't Arbcom...was one primary target of the person in question basically confirm that Fram's comments to ArbCom was at least part of the reason for the ban? Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but as Fram noted the topic that he was venting about was one that was controversial from the word go anyways, and attracted a lot of anger towards ArbCom. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

If WMF would have let the ArbCom conduct pass, but there was something else that they felt necessitated a ban, I'd like them to say so - even if they can't say what the something else was. bd2412 T 20:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

BD2412, my reading of their second statement is that they've already said as much. If Arbcom was one primary target, that means it wasn't the only primary target, right? – Levivich 20:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd like it in their words. Basically, if Fram hadn't posted what he did in ArbCom, would they still have blocked him based on whatever the other stuff was that they can't tell us about. bd2412 T 21:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• I would add that the above statement says: 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. My question is, to the WMF Trust & Safety team, can you, after reviewing this discussion and the consequences of what you did, still say with a straight face that you believe the decision you made was beneficial to this community? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, it was. (My reasoning is above.) Rivselis (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC) CU-blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• I can't take this latest statement seriously either. If the fact that Fram said "Fuck ArbCom" was sufficient for T&S to act because ArbCom had a "CoI", then if Fram had also said "Fuck T&S", would they have recused themselves as well? Does this mean that if we all say "Fuck ArbCom; Fuck T&S", we're all safe from being banned? It sounds like we have a simple resolution for this problem: shall I start a page for us all to express ourselves? --RexxS (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• This is how Wikipedia settles disputes: a) figure out who is better than who and has the power to silence him; b) whoever has more power does whatever the fuck he wants. It just happened to me right here in this discussion [9] because I called out the original sin of all the hierarchicalization. Wikipedia is turtles all the way down, and under that, us. Wnt (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  That was a dumb suggestion (regarding spilling BEANS) and I don't think the person who reverted it is particularly powerful. I don't want to encourage or enable new kinds of vandalism. But, I'm all in favor of turning the duties of handling the old kind of vandalism over to the WMF. If it wants to micromanage Wikipedia admins, it can manage the vandals on its own resources instead of having us do it as volunteers. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Wow. After reviewing this pathetic excuse of an explanation, it's blatantly obvious the WMF no longer upholds the interests of the community it was established to protect. The above statement is both patronizing and insulting to the community. I strongly agree with most of what's already been said. I'd like to see a) an apology and b) an actual transparent explanation. -FASTILY 23:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

Reactions to further clarification

Just opening this up. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@WMFOffice: I am concerned that this statement does not reflect the realities that everyday administrators/functionaries face about dealing with editors criticizing themselves:

1. CheckUsers and stewards frequently take action against accounts obviously attacking themselves, using profanities, references to genitalia/race/sexual orientation/occupation/address/relatives' names etc. that I won't use here and that are a lot worse than what Fram said. Are you saying that they can no longer do so and must refer such cases to the foundation?
2. Fram has also attacked WMF. The logical implications of your statement mean that you cannot take action against Fram, either. --Rschen7754 00:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• I note with very deep disappointment that none my substantive yes-or-no questions which could have been addressed without exposing private information were addressed unambiguously. The extent to which the "clarification" obviously evaded the central yes-or-no issues is plain to all. It is so sad that we are now governed by those with such regard for reciprocity and fairness. Chilling in the worst way. EllenCT (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Could WMFOffice please confirm in their next statement whether off-wiki evidence was involved in this specific case? It has been strongly hinted throughout but as far as I can see was never explicitly stated, and Fram contradicted this in his statement ("Everything I did is visible on enwiki, no privacy issues are involved, and all necessary complaint, investigations, actions, could have been made onwiki.") – Teratix ₵ 02:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• "WMFOffice", whoever you are, the next time you post anything here, please sign your name(s). The Wiki community doesn't talk with faceless bureaucracies hiding behind an anonymous role account. If you have anything to tell us, tell us who you are. If there's a specific person behind these announcements, I want to know who that person is. If you genuinely composed these statements collectively, that's fine too, but then by all means tell us that. We are people, not institutions, and you guys are people too, so talk as people. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Office RFC

We should discuss the role of the Office and whether or not this kind of episode is allowed to be repeated. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

TRM, for clarity, can you say what you'd want the outcome of such an RFC to be? Would you see it as merely feedback from the community to the office (like this page already is)? Or if you think the office has some obligation to take the advice on board, what is the nature of the obligation and what do you want us to do if they ignore it? 67.164.113.165 (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Rather than asking about the (specific) outcome—which is in cart before the horse territory—what are the boundaries of the RfC, or the points to be discussed. My personal opinion is, rather than this page, which is a blunderbuss of discomfort and anger at their actions, a proposed positive framework for future interaction between en.WP and the WMF. We need the WMF and T&S, and they need us too (probably more than we need them: we built the bloody place before they started getting paid big bucks for it!) Trust may have been fractured here, but if needs to be clear boundaries about where ArbCom ends and WMF begins - and that shouldn't be something foisted on us by faceless bureaucrats in the office, but after a discussion on where they should and should not act that leads to a mutual agreement. Consensus shouldn't just be about the content, it should be a major factor in the way we and the WMF interact. - SchroCat (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

That's what I'm getting at: now that they are receiving the big bucks, what do they need us for? Yes of course we built the place, but this story might illustrate the current situation. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree. We may only be tenants in their place, but we're the tenants that made it the place that their doners want to support. ——SerialNumber54129 20:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

We are not "only tenants", and let's not let them spread that bullshit. We built the building. Before the WMF even existed, community members were running the servers, handling issues that came up (at that time on a much more ad hoc basis), and doing pretty much everything the WMF does now. We built the building, and we continue to improve it. WMF's role is accounting and plumbing. They do not own this place and they do not own the content on it. We, the editors, do. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not formulating the RFC here and now, I just want to make sure we don't get another spontaneous 1-year ban applied completely covertly to any editor because some klutz in the Office decides to press a button. It's abundantly apparent that the levels of incompetence here rise to a new high, and we don't want to go through this pain again, on the whim of an incompetent WMF employee. Who wants to contribute to WMF while "under the gun", and an invisible one at that? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

A thought. Anyone can edit, therefor if a community wide decision is made, we can very much make this encyclopedia less encyclopedic quite easily in protest. In short, we can shut this motherf***er down. 2001:4898:80E8:2:A5F:2E62:10E4:D7D1 (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

One thing that is in agreement among most of the parties involved in this matter is that acts to intentionally disrupt the encyclopedia or its contents are not kosher here. Non-violent civil disobedience only.--WaltCip (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I was not meaning to indicate violence, so I am sorry for coming across that way. I was trying to think in the area of protesting with signs. 2001:4898:80E8:2:A5F:2E62:10E4:D7D1 (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

There are already proposals above regarding editor and admin "strikes", where folks refuse to edit until the situation is resolved. Perhaps place your efforts there? Waggie (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade and TRM, I admire your idealism but see here. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Who does represent the editing community here?

As has been mentioned numerous times, neither ARBCOM nor the WMF are intended to represent the interests of the editing community (such as the community's interest in due process for disciplinary measures). Perhaps it is time some organization existed to do so? power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Support. the creation of some organization that represents the community. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't any organization that effectively "represents the community" be the community?~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it is meant the authorized representatives of the community that are made to speak on our collective behalf. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Right, but such an authorized representative allowed to speak for the community would first have to determine what the community has to say. I think that would end up looking very similar to an RFC, with the authorized representative required to read the discussion, determine the consensus, and then act on that consensus. In short - we already have that, with the "authorized representative" being whatever admin or experienced closer closes the relevant discussion, and the "speaking on the community's collective behalf" being the closing statement.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe the idea is that the community selects this person (more likely a group of people) based off what they and not without guidance. Based off the statements from power~enwiki this has more the feeling of a collective bargaining representative. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully somebody can be appointed to act as a fiduciary, rather than just creating another sea of RFC discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by the community? The people who shout the loudest? Because that's who makes most of the decisions around here, but that certainly isn't representative of the entire editing body. -- Ajraddatz (talk)

"The community" is a group of people, with size somewhere between me and everyone with a Wikipedia account. If there weren't such obvious issues, I'd suggest a trade union; the lack of any remuneration to define members, as well as the multi-national jurisdiction make anything that formal deeply problematic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• That'll be "the editing community" then. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Belay this discussion until Jimbo and Doc James can find out just what the hell is going on. We have active editors on the Board, and Doc James (will bring it up next board meeting) and Jimbo (investigating) are working on trying to get to the bottom of this. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

What would prevent this becoming just like the WMF? StudiesWorld (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The WMF has at least two other responsibilities: developing MediaWiki software, and establishing communities of editors in other languages. Furthermore, due to the whole "paid editing" thing, most WMF members aren't active editors, here at enwiki or on any other wiki. Doc James is on the board, which is great, but it would be nice if there was some organization backing him up. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Arbcom does this to an extent, and there are WMF Liasons editing, plus some active editors are board members, plus there is Jimbo. Jimbo and Doc James are pursuing discussions right now and I hope some good comes out of it. But we have to think about the BATNA and to some extent that means figuring out what the WMF is really about. I think we are naive some of the time. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Banned but not blocked

Okay, just a quick thing. We have now a perhaps paradoxical situation where Fram is banned from en.wiki but not blocked. Is this is a precedent? Do we need to understand more about what that situation means? I.e. if Fram edits once, does he get blocked? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: we constantly "ban" editors without blocking them, see Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Active_editing_restrictions for examples. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Except in this case, isn't the user site banned? My research on the subject yielded mixed results. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

What makes this any different from a new account being created for block evasion or a sleeper sock or a friendly admin helping you block evade by unblocking a sock? StudiesWorld (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Pedantically, there is no paradox. Blocks can be used to enforce bans (WP:EVASION). As long as Fram doesn't violate the ban, there is no evasion and no reason to re-block. But any edit technically is violating the ban; it's kind of like a topic ban from everything. Not that I'm going to touch any of this with admin rights, but that's how I would play it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

xaosflux I'm not a dick, so explain what happens now Fram has been banned from en.wiki yet unblocked. If he makes an edit to en.wiki, will he be blocked? I think you know where I'm coming from, so some explanation would be helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Because Floquenbeam unblocked him due to there being overwhelming consensus to do so. funplussmart (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

That is the long and short of it. He edits en.wp, WMF will likely reinstate the block (or worse, glock). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

That's the way I see it, ban evasion is ban evasion. But I'm not going to be the one pushing that button. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

(many EC) It's often fairly trivial to create an account to get around a ban, at least for a short time. And of course many IP editor who are banned are not blocked for long, given dynamic IPs etc. So I don't think that part of the situation is so unusual. The fact that the main account is unblocked is a little different. (Well sometimes socks are banned at least defacto without their connection to their main account being uncovered, and obviously them editing from their main account is still violating their ban. However it's still a little different in that in those cases it's because the connection is unknown and the account/s which were uncovered are blocked.) But really the main difference to me seems to be that the editor is banned by the WMF, but have been intentionally unblocked by an admin based on their reading of community consensus. Whatever happens to the unblocking admin aside, I have strong doubts that the WMF will take kindly to someone evading their ban however it comes about. It's the editor's choice if they wish to do so, I'm sure they're aware of the complexities of the situation. Nil Einne (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @The Rambling Man: I don't think you are - just passionate about the issue. I don't think we share the same point of view on this, but I don't think we are diametrically opposed either. As to "what happens": I'd think that Fram would be "in violation" of the ban, whether or not anyone would enforce the violation with another block for example is beyond me (I wouldn't personally enforce it, but I'm not usually active in ban enforcement areas either). — xaosflux ^Talk 20:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• WMF could reblock right now, or they could wait to reblock if he edits. They're essentially the same thing, so I assume (and it is assuming, I don't speak for her) that Bish would then unblock. Or if I'm not desysopped, I could unblock again. So the only difference is, Fram might be surprised if he's not reblocked immediately, edits, and is then reblocked. But other than the surprise (and delay) there really isn't a difference. If he chooses not to edit thru the theoretical ban, it's the same as being blocked. I'm not the WMF; I can technically undo an office action block, as long as I'm willing to suffer the consequences, but I can't prevent them from reblocking either now or later, and I can't *make* then rescind the theoretical ban, just (while I have the admin bit) the technical block implementation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I want to go on record as saying that WMF would be very much in the wrong if they were to take any recriminatory action against Floq. The unblocked-but-banned status is an awkward one, but it is entirely within community norms for an admin, after reviewing lengthy discussion, to unblock a blocked user. (Indeed, a re-block would arguably be wheel-warring, at least by en-Wiki standards.) The worst possible thing to happen next would be for WMF to escalate an already tense situation by any sort of chest-thumping directed against the unblocking admin. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

WP Policy is clear that "Wikimedia administrators and others who have the technical power to revert or edit office actions are strongly cautioned against doing so. Unauthorized modifications to office actions will not only be reverted, but may lead to sanctions by the Foundation, such as revocation of the rights of the individual involved." (From WP:OFFICE) Rivselis (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC) CU-blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I know that. And I still mean what I said. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• I personally HIGHLY disagree with Floquenbeam's actions.. This is effectively undermining the Foundations' responsibility in upholding the Terms of Use of their own website. I think that is and should be a blockable action. As I've said before, people can fork and run your own webproperty. I even considered opening an Arbcom case about this action. But I need to sleep, and tomorrow i have to work, making that a bad idea. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Suffice it to say that it would be a bad idea even if you had all the time in the world. Lepricavark (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, although the WMF has the legal right to demand fealty, they have a commonsense management responsibility to recognize that without a supportive editing community, the WMF would have little reason to exist. This is an important concept: just because one has the right to do something doesn't mean that it is wise to do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Unless they speak a lot more languages than I think they do they already have a very limited ability to do that on any practical level.©Geni (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  We pretend we're part of a community, but all we are are bums on somebody else's property. That's what computing is about: poor people pretending they can play on the rich man's estate, and so long as play means dusting and sweeping for free, maybe they can, but eventually the rich man comes up with some other plan. We should spend less time studying Wikipedia policy, more time studying Marx and Kaczinsky. Wnt (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, Fram has been reblocked by WMFOffice [10] Nil Einne (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Unban Fram

So it's now clear that while we had overwhelming consensus to unblock Fram, that is actually meaningless to the wikilawyers who would tell us that since he's still banned yet unblocked, any edit he makes anywhere on en.wiki could end up lengthening his ban. Which of course is horseshit. So we need to try once more. In the face of precisely zero evidence, I propose that Fram is unbanned from English Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Trusted community members are still investigating the matter. Procedurally, this is impossible. StudiesWorld (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  "Procedurally, this is impossible" anyone that says that should be summarily ignored. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, explain this to me. You believe that it is currently possible under local policy to overturn an office action? StudiesWorld (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Trusted community members are still investigating the matter. if that means the same "trusted group" who banned Fram in the fist place, plus Jimbo (please!), then the point is moot. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Yes. Of course. Fram can be re-sysopped locally by 'crats and his ban (which is an abstract concept now he has been unblocked) can be ignored. What kind of super powers do you think WMF hold??! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Exactly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Strong support The community needs to be able to make their own decisions without needing intervention from the Foundation. The ban of Fram is completely uncalled for and the inadequate response from the Office shows its complete lack of transparency, especially in this situation. I don't care that this is "procedually impossible" if its because the bureaucratic Foundation makes it that way. funplussmart (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per funplussmart. CoolSkittle (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support in the absence of further information. If this is about civility, ban everyone else on the project, as the border of civility and rudeness is nebulous. If this is a metasticisation of his dispute with the WiR, check the WiR's history here on en.wp. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support WMF have acted inappropriately here, maybe on behalf of an inside relationship. This action should be seen as wholly illegitimate. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Mu. Office bans cannot be undone by the community. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Of course they can. If the community deems the Office to have over-reached, then it will be fixed. Jeez, no-one "owns" the community, without us, you're nothing. Get used to thinking about how we feel about shitty decision-making. Arbcom was bad enough, now we have this Office bollocks. Gervais would be proud of us. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support. The "procedural impossibility" is for WMF to ban editors solely for their on-wiki conduct, with narrow exceptions such as child protection or threats. (If Fram's account of events leading to the ban were inaccurate, WMF has now had the opportunity with its second statement to dispute it, and did not do so, so at this point we will have to presume that Fram's account is accurate). "Fram was mean to me" is a matter for the English Wikipedia community to handle, either directly or through the Arbitration Committee it elects. It is not a matter in which the WMF can intervene because it does not like the community's decision, including a decision to refrain from action. If Fram has behaved in a way deserving of a site ban, that ban should be imposed by the community or ArbCom only. (And when there are not legal considerations, yes, the community absolutely can overturn Office actions. If we've not yet clearly established that we have that authority, now's as good a time as any.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 11) In the abstract, I support unbanning and reopping, but that assumes the RFC is binding (and it’s unclear if it is at this moment). —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Mu (I like that as a response, thanks Rob). While we're here, let's vote to break the UK's parliamentary Brexit deadlock, to reconcile the Israelis and the Palestinians, and to cure the world of all known diseases too. Well, we have as much power to do those as reverse an Office ban, so why not? I think the ban is wrong, and I think it represents a power grab and a chilling shift in the governance structure of en.wiki. I think the ban should be reversed, but we can't do it, and voting on it here is just pissing in the wind. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support even if we can't make it stick, we can at least tell the WMF exactly what we think. Lepricavark (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) The community consensus for an unblock already includes consensus that Fram be allowed to continue editing, otherwise it would be pointless. I doubt people were thinking, "restore Fram's technical ability to edit, but if he actually uses it then the ability should be removed again." Even if the WMF ban technically still exists, at minimum the community expects that it will not be enforced. (But whether the WMF enforces it anyways is a separate issue, of course.) Sunrise (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support Well yes. If the office wishes to make a case to arbcom they are free to do so.©Geni (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• My understanding is that the community does not have the authority to override an office action, so this is not possible. The unblock, though understandable, was therefore premature. This will need to be looked at through proper channels, via the board members accountable to the community. They are in a position to question WMF staff about the reasons for these actions and explain them to the community. And, if need be, they can help take Foundation-level decisions about any necessary consequences from this episode, including personnel decisions and an office-level unban. Process should be followed, even if it is annoying. Sandstein 21:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support in the absence of a non-boilerplate response by the WMF. For this nonstandard of an action to be taken against such a well-established editor, with little-to-no comprehensive explanation (thus leaving us all to speculate) is ridiculous. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 21:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose In agreement with Sandstein. In the face of precisely zero evidence, I propose that the Brexit deadlock be considered null and void. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this is not an anarchist site. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: Just because people oppose a decision a leader(s) make, doesn't automatically make them anarchists. The people want good leadership, not incompetent leadership. X-Editor (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose when it comes to sensitive personal data we should be very careful. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Mu. BU Rob13 and Boing! said Zebedee are in the right here. The community cannot do this, and its time would be better spent on a different approach. Mz7 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, the community can do whatever it gets consensus to do. Applying primitive constraints is stupid and wasteful. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Mu. It is not within the remit of the local community so discussing this is meaningless (this is the perfect way to describe my response; thanks!).--Jorm (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Well it just think a bit harder then. What would you vote if you could get your desired outcome? We, as a community, can do anything we like here. Or perhaps you'd prefer to just go along with the sheep? Yes sir. No sir. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not sure you'd be happy to know my desired outcome.--Jorm (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  I don't really care about your opinion. What I do care about it is the ability for us as a community to exercise our consensus in the way that Jimbo originally conceived. Twenty years later we're not seeing that, too many owners. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  You only care about the opinions of those who agree with you. Got it.--Jorm (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  What a strange thing to say. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support i.e., the community resolves Fram in its view is still welcome to edit and administer the en.wp project. This means that by community consensus, Wikipedia admins should not intervene to enforce the ban. Whether the WMF gives a fig about that, or enforces the ban itself, are separate matters that don't concern us here. The community should also not recognize Fram's IBAN with the anonymous WiR, but it can postpone disputing that issue (and I'd advise Fram to do the same). I'd be satisfied about the IBAN if WMF turns ownership of it over to Arbcom (Arbcom doesn't have a COI regarding it) and Arbcom lets it stay in force while they review it and ultimately decides whether to lift it. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. Here are some axioms: (a) we do not have the power, under US law, to override the office unless we fork and leave their servers, (b) there is allegedly an ongoing attempt by Jimbo Wales and Doc James to do some mediation, which has not run its course yet, and (c) we still don't know for certain whether there is more to this than Fram's statement would imply. Give those axioms I therefore propose that we sit tight for a while and wait and see. I agree with the spirit of Floq's unblock, but just as the WMF need to de escalate and build bridges, so also do we.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  I don't see it as overriding the office to say there is no community ban in force, the community wants Fram to be editing, and the community refuses to act on the WMF's behalf with regard to enforcing the ban. WMF owns this ban and if it is enforced at all, WMF itself must do the enforcement. We won't do this dirty work. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Contrary to the statement above, there is nothing whatsoever in US law that forbids the user of a site from taking actions which the owner of the site disagrees with. The owner can, of course, undo the action and ban or block the user, since they have the technical and legal power to do this -- but that is entirely irrelevant in this case, which hinges not on what the WMF can do, but on what actions it is willing to do in the face of a community revolt. They can choose to retaliate, and do, most probably, extreme damage to the website, destroying its ethos and undermining its future improvement, or they can look the other way and negotiate. I believe they would do the latter, because as inappropriate and (predictably) stupid as this action was, I do not think that they are, collectively, unintelligent people. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as premature. As Wikimedia staff has stated, they are unable to release the evidence that supported their action. Without having seen the evidence (or even a summary of that evidence), it is premature for the community to demand that the action be immediately overturned. Let the oversight and investigatory processes proceed, and then an informed decision can be made. Cbl62 (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Its trivial to claim that you have evidence that you can't release.©Geni (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment what time is it in California? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

4 PM. 2001:4898:80E8:2:A5F:2E62:10E4:D7D1 (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Not our call. The WMF has the authority to ban anyone from their site who they deem to have violated the ToS. Any community consensus to overturn such a ban is completely meaningless. AdA&D 22:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Moreover, if the WMF found that Fram has harassed and abused others, he should be held to account like any other user. I understand the frustration about the lack of transparency, but that's the unfortunate reality of harassment complaints lodged to WMF itself; they're confidential. And let's be real, people are only kicking up such a fuss because he's a power user. If this was some random editor you guys wouldn't give a shit. AdA&D 23:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Nope, without a community, the WMF is purposeless. Think about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  TRM, I like you but you are not cynical enough. Look at some of Wnt's posts. She or he is more astute about this. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Even without a conclusion, we're learning a lot about our fellow editors, aren't we? Black Kite (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support Arbcom is elected and accountable to the English Wikipedia Community. "WMFOffice" and whoever is behind it is not. The fact that there is no transparency behind who did this is another problem. I may not know who "BURob 13" is but enough editors of this community trusted them with the responsibility of being an Arb which is how this whole project works. Enough of us work together to build this place. One foreign, unaccountable person should not and cannot perform actions like this when we have local, effective governance in place. Fram is a pitbull when he finds an issues for better and worse. I've thought multiple times they need to back off but its always been because they want to make the Wiki better. I've been an on and off editor for 14 years. First as an IP, then as a user, back to an IP, and back to a sporadic user. Actions like this kills communities. Remember, this community is your golden goose. No community, no encyclopedia, no donations. spryde | talk 23:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support unban. This section, as I understand it, is for gauging the community's views on the Office action banning Fram. The WMF may or may not take our views into consideration as they review this situation, but for God's sake don't pre-emptively say your voice doesn't matter by muing at us. Support the unban or oppose it, but don't sit in the cow pasture "mu"ing because you think you won't be listened to, because that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The WMF may ignore a strong consensus of editors, but they most definitely will ignore people who are fearful of taking one position or another, and they will be right to do so. 28bytes (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support Of course. The block was only intended to enforce the ban, unblocking him only undoes the technical mechanism which kept him from editing. To be effectively undone, Fram needs to have the ability to edit freely as well. If undoing an OFFICE action is forbidden, well, then, Floq already crossed that threshhold (thank you, Floq), on his own, in recognition of community consensus. If community consensus is also to unban Fram as well (as it should be), then some other admin should take that action. Finally, if community consensus is that Fram's desysopping was out of process, and the community supporst his being re-sysopped in the interim, some brave bureaucrat should do that. I say this with the full recognition that those taking these actions could easily find themselves the target of OFFICE actions as well, but if each action is properly well-supported by the community, then I don't believe that the WMF would be foolhardy enough to take those steps. What they have now is a tightly-focused result, what they need to watch out for is provoking a widespread revolution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  I can't sit behind my completely unprivileged IP address and encourage people with advanced permissions to wheel war with the WMF (I described my suggestion of admins passively going on strike as "going bonkers" but it turns out to be one of the mildest actions discussed). But I would say that the "unban" we're discussing means the community doesn't object to such actions, won't sanction anyone who does them (even if the WMF might do so), and might sanction those who try to undo the actions. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support per 28bytes, who hits the nail on the head. I say this, however, recognizing that there might be factors that I don't know because they haven't been made public. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per 28bytes. This is about sending a strong message to the WMF that local governance should not be sidestepped without a good reason. This discussion may not result in any concrete implementation (Fram is unblocked and can technically edit, the community won't sanction him if he does, so the ball is in WMF's court regardless of the outcome here), but we need to present a unified front to make it harder and harder for them to defend their actions (either that or provide an actual transparent explanation of what Fram did, if he did indeed do something ban-worthy). As shown in the superprotect fiasco, the WMF will cave under sufficient pressure. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Regardless as to whether the community is capable of doing this, I support this proposal. Unless Fram's post-ban statement on commons is incorrect, then there is no confidential information in this ban, meaning nothing stops the community from coming to its own judgement. Since the community does not ban users for one year on a first offence, the one-year ban is clearly excessive and should be undone. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support Logging in after not being here for ages just to support this, with a caveat: all evidence so far presented claims that Fram’s ban was solely for on-wiki behavior. Assuming that’s the case, that behavior hasn’t always been optimal but it certainly isn’t outside the purview of the community’s already in place mechanisms to deal with conflicts. That the diffs provided to Fram, including the backdoor IBan, all involved conflicts with people with direct access to the Office stinks to high heaven. Fram’s conflicts with the WMF are no secret and, much more often than not, he was correct about the facts, even if overzealous on the execution. Assuming the office ban is based solely on on-wiki behavior, the idea that anonymous complaints are “private” is asinine and antithetical to every conflict resolution process setup by the community. This same type of banning has happened across multiple language wikis since late 2018, baffling those communities as well. If that’s what the WMF wants, then so be it, but then drop the charade. Then, you know, actually pay community moderators to enforce your insular whims, if that’s their intention, because the WMF clearly didn’t have confidence that the community would sanction Fram for attacking their own. Capeo (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - For all I know, the sanction may be warranted (I personally think it was excessive, but that's beside the point). However, this is a local matter that should have been referred to Arbcom. I do not appreciate the WMF meddling in issues that are for the local communities to solve. –FlyingAce^✈hello 01:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support At this point, it has become clear that the WMF doesn't care about being answerable to anyone but themselves, and providing a strong community consensus against this ban is the only way that we stand a chance of getting this overturned by the Board, by giving Jimbo and the Community Representatives something to point at and say how blatantly out-of-touch this action was. rdfox 76 (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support I'm not just going sit back and let the WMF get away with banning a guy just because he made a somewhat rude comment against ARBCOM and get banned for a whopping one year as a result. The WMF needs to be more transparent and actually get consensus for this type of ban. X-Editor (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support Benjamin (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support per nom. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 04:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The ban may or may not be warranted, but it should not be WMF's decision to make. Their flimsy rationale for bypassing arbcom applies equally to WMF itself, of which Fram has been a long-time vocal critic. If Fram does need to be banned, and T&S reviewed Fram's entire history of 187k+ edits as claimed (or even a substantial portion thereof), then they should have no difficulty putting together a case for the community's established processes to consider, in private if necessary. T. Canens (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - No muing, the community should not enforce this ban. The ban itself is conexcept, but enforcement of it is not. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Tazeradog and all above. ∯WBG^converse 06:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - reversal needed for this opaque, seemingly harsh, and confounding situation (if he did something so bad, would it be a one-year ban? starship.paint (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - It has become clear that this ban was arbitrary and capricious. Whether our reversion of this ban is real or symbolic, it is important. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A request to the Office

I stayed out of yesterday's discussion, because as a long-term former ArbCom member I've also found myself in the position of "we have to do something drastic and unpopular, and we're sorry but we can't tell you why." But from the information available so far, it appears that this may not actually have been such a case. In any event, while accepting that the Office acted with good intentions and some of the name-calling has been excessive, the action taken has not been helpful and the situation has obviously become demoralizing for everyone. I look forward to any further insight that Jimmy Wales and Doc James, or the Board as a whole or the Office staff itself, may be able to provide consistent with any genuine privacy issues that might exist. In the meantime, to the Office staff: please don't further worsen the situation by reacting reflexively to recent developments, and please do give careful thought to how it might be possible to quickly deescalate this situation, without jeopardizing the Office's needful role in dealing with the very serious situations that are within its core responsibilities to address. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Well said. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, thank you for this level-headed and measured response.StudiesWorld (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I've been watching this for some hours now, and trying to figure out what I want to say, but I think that Newyorkbrad just said it better than I could have. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Well said, Newyorkbrad. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah pretty much this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, thank you. Hey Cas Liber, nice to see you again. I hear the birds outside, so it must be winter for you. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Brad: Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• WMF Office: please de-escalate the situation by leaving Fram blocked banned if you wish, but turning jurisdiction over the block ban over to the en.wp DR system (ANI or Arbcom) for discussion and possible reversal. This includes the IBAN with the WIR member. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC) (edited) 21:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  He's already unblocked. What? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam unblocked Fram by community consensus (see Fram's user log). I edited my wording since BU Rob13 posted a caution/observation/concern trolling/warning/whatever on Fram's user talk that the WMF ban is still in force and it could be extended if Fram "evades" it. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• I want to sign onto this. I think I understand why they banned Fram. I am perhaps one of the few who think Fram is a significant net negative for the project. And I can see the frustration in letting him continue to have advanced rights given how uncivil and hounding he can be. But this was ham handed at best, foolish at worst. How the heck did this action get taken without a least running it by the board first? Looks rushed and ill-thought out. Yes, doing this right would have taken time. But as the line goes "You don't have time to do it right, but you do have time to do it again?". You've made him a martyr. Hobit (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Well, so much for restraint (see “Reinstatement …” § below). Vengeance is theirs, sayeth the role-account from behind the curtain. Do we start Floq’s RFA now, or should we wait 23 days?—Odysseus1479 00:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not sure which part of "a RfA can be opened once 30 days elapse" is unclear. Neither "now" nor "23" are given. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Or else what? But, I wouldn't support starting an RFA at all. WMF should restore Floq's bit. If they don't, it's up to Floq whether they want to participate in an RFA. I'm much less invested in the wiki-hat thing so I'm speaking only for myself, but if it were me in that situation I'd decline. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• I endorse Newyorkbrad's assessment, and would urge community members to be cautious about escalating the situation. This crisis needs level headed work toward de-escalation, not more inflammatory rhetoric. There has been far too much of that already. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• I also echo Newyorkbrad's statement. There's a lot of ill feeling going round at the moment but jumping up, waving our hands angrily and spilling the beer isn't the way to go about it. Blackmane (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

FYI: Similar incident in de.wp some months ago

It may have been unnoticed in the Wikimedia-world, because it happened outside the focus of the en.wp, but some months ago User:WMFOffice has infinite banned a long time very productive editor in the German wikipedia, User:Janneman, former sysop, former ArbCom member, author of uncounted great aricles, including several featured articles about American history and literature. The WMF was invading in a case, that was solved by the local community (the account was blocked indefinitely after a rant, but there would have been open steps to search for an appeal or the involvement of the arbcom, to hopefully re-integrate a long-time productive member again in the community), and they gave an explanation comparable to here, which means: long text saying nothing. You can read details (of course in German) here: de:Wikipedia_Diskussion:Kurier/Archiv/2019/02#Office Aktion der Wikimedia Foundation. I resigned as a sysop in the follow-up to this (from my point) totally unnecessary invasion in a community process on behalf of an undisclosed complaint from an insider, that used the WMF to make project-politics from the hidden. My explanation was: "Since the WMF recently started, to rule the local projects in their own non-transparent and unrevisable way, I see no need for local administratorship any more. So I don't want to waste my time any longer in just an alibi function." ([11]). --Magiers (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for recounting this. It was mentioned earlier but it's good to get more specifics. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The most baffling aspect of that specific case was the, in the view of many in German-language's community, unnecessary "extra ban" as a "partial Foundation ban" in that project, after the user was already locally banned. So the WMF suddenly appearing long after the case was thought to be closed and imposing an add-on ban (that effectively changed nothing) seemed quite strange. Gestumblindi (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Translation of the message from the WMF to the German-speaking community

Dear members of the German-speaking community,Several volunteers approached us with questions about the current office action; the Partial Foundation Ban of User: Janneman / Edith Wahr / Judith Wahr in respect of your project. Since we have seen similar questions in your discussion above, we decided to make the explanation publicly available here, where it is most easily accessible to interested members of the community: Why did the Foundation act and why just now? As described in the Meta page on Office actions, we investigate the need for an Office Action either when we receive complaints from the community or when it is required by law. In this case, we reacted to complaints from the community. All kinds of Office Actions are only carried out after a thorough investigation and after a detailed review by various Foundation employees. This procedure usually takes about four weeks. In the present case, this procedure was delayed, because it coincided above all with the current Improving Trust and Safety Program. Some of the overhaul of policies in the program, which began in July 2018, had an impact on the investigation and had to be completed before we could close the case. So, while the case went through the same procedure as earlier Office Actions involving German-speaking Wikipedia, as part of the 2018/2019 Annual Plan, new and less powerful measures became available within the existing, stable framework of Office Action Policies. Who contacted the Foundation with complaints? The Foundation strives for Office Actions to be as transparent as possible. However, we also balance the privacy and security of all parties involved, as well as legal issues, as provided in the general information section of the Office Actions page. That's why we do not share the information about from whom the complaints were referred to us. Why did the Foundation act, even though all three accounts were already blocked? The investigation took into account the community's discussions late last year, as well as the fact that not all three of the person's accounts were affected by the community block. What kind of appeal is possible against this office action? Because the Partial Foundation Ban is the result of a regular office action investigation, it is subject to the same rules that are known by the Foundation Global Bans: there is no possibility for appeal. Trust and Safety, as the team that conducts Office Actions investigations, begins all cases by assuming that volunteers themselves decide how to exercise their free time under the terms of use and autonomously within the community within Section 10 of the Terms of Use created by us. The terms of use do not distinguish whether a user writes or improves content, builds and provides tools or other tools for other volunteers, or helps by acting as a functionary of the administrative, checkuser, or oversight buttons. Occasionally, however, community members come to us with strong hints that local communities in some cases have long term difficulties not only maintaining their own rules in these cases, but also maintaining the structure of ToU . We will continue to address these rare cases brought to us within the framework of the Office Actions Policy. Sincerely, --WMFOffice (discussion) 10:54, Feb. 21, 2019 (CET)

provided by Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I suppose that's a machine translation? For it also translates the names of Janneman's other accounts "Edith Wahr" and "Judith Wahr" into English, which doesn't make sense... I fixed this part and added "machine translation" for clarity; if it's actually a human translation, feel free to remove it :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Addition: As the rest of the translation looks fine and quite natural, I removed "machine" from the heading myself, probably translating "Wahr" as "True" was just a mistake? Gestumblindi (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I am a 100% bilingual, but I often let a machine do the typing. I spent many minutes cleaning it up for syntax, false cognates (and there were a lot of those), etc, but I forgot to think of the names. Thank you for your diligence - it also demonstrates that some people do indeed take the trouble to read additional content in collapsed sections. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Two similar bans & one "conduct warning" on Chinese Wikipedia

Hi there. This is Yan from Chinese Wikipedia. I would like to share two WMF-imposed bans on Chinese Wikipedia. These cases share many similarities so I hope sharing them here will lead to a more in-depth discussion for Fram's ban and hopefully the WMF's banning policy in general.

There is a list published by the Foundation showing users banned by the WMF (mostly), which so far I haven't seen anyone discussing them. Two users from Chinese Wikipedia, 守望者爱孟 and Galaxyharrylion were banned by the Foundation in 2017 and 2018 respectively. These users are probably the most controversial Wikimedians contributing Chinese Wikipedia, with their block (by "block," I mean blocking from editing by local administrators instead of WMF) triggered countless discussions and arguing on Chinese Wikipedia locally. I have personally spoken to both users, and they both showed me the emails they get from the Trust and Safety team. After they were globally banned, lengthy discussions were triggered again - of course, they won't be as lengthy as this one in English Wikipedia as zhwiki has a smaller community, but one of them was severe enough to cause articles created on Chinese Wikipedia in that month saw a significant decrease because everyone went discussing what was going on.

Here are some differences and similarities I discovered:

As the message from the Foundation suggests, the ban on Fram was only limited on English Wikipedia, partly because they updated the terms which allowed them to do so. However, these two users I mentioned were banned entirely from all Wikimedia projects even though both of them mostly contribute zhwiki only. Another difference is, both users on Chinese Wikipedia were highly controversial - you can tell by looking at their block logs. However, in both cases, the two banned users were behaving far less controversial without actions too aggressive, and there were no community discussions around these users by the time the ban was imposed. The Trust and Safety team failed to give any reason, not even exact edit diffs which Fram received from previous warnings. Additionally, both users were banned without any warnings.

Claim these two users controversial is because, if we held a request for comments on Chinese Wikipedia by the time of those bans, there wouldn't be most people opposing the ban like Fram's case on this page, and there wouldn't be most people supporting the ban like INeverCry who was banned by the WMF as well, while most local Wikipedians at least consider WMF's banning was an over-kill - they might need blocks/bans but not something like infinitely banning them from all Wikimedia projects. But again, by the time of the bans, they behaved normally. Actually, one of these users was just unblocked by a local admin after a years-long blockade.

Another Wikimedian on zhwiki, who is a close college working with me on China's Wikipedia community recently got an email from the Trust and Safety team, saying this is a "conduct warning" and he told me the context of that email suggests this is a type 2 warning. Again, no details or diffs were provided in the email saying what exactly you did was wrong. However, the email did ambiguously mentioned several broad scopes of what the T&S team thought what he did was deemed not appropriate, but no diffs. Unlike previous bans, the user who was warned behaved quite well on Chinese Wikipedia, with no bans or even warnings from local users/admins against any problems mentioned in T&S's email. He replied T&S's email, with no reply or further explanations at all, even he said his email asked several answer-able questions that won't be too difficult or requires privacy information.

It's also worth mentioning that, in all three cases on Chinese Wikipedia that I know so far, T&S repeatedly use "privacy" to deny any meaningful explanations. The third case which a user received "conduct warning" sent an inquiry email with no reply; the first two cases were set, there was someone wrote to their email and did get replies, but there was still no meaningful information contained in it.

I recalled everything from my memory (I have no time for referencing), so some details might not be correct.

So here's my speculation and personal feelings after seeing 4 cases by the T&S team. The most noticeable difference between cases from zhwiki and Fram's case is that no one in the Trust and Safety team nor the Wikimedia Foundation understands Chinese, but somehow they are capable to judge cases in a language that none of them understands, which was like a slam on my face as an admin on Chinese Wikipedia - why no one on zhwiki acted but the Foundation's team have to act? So that means there is someone constantly and secretly reporting to the T&S, who may be personally in opposition to the one being reported trying to fabricate against them. After the first warning by T&S, you got watched by our big brother and even after you said fuck for once, you're done. This is a chilling effect that prevents contributors from standing out. I don't even think the Foundation's account WMFOffice will actually come out and respond to public's condemn because the WMFOffice account never made a public appearance on zhwiki at all, and the inquiry email the third user sent out ends up with no reply. They seem to be able to understand Chinese while imposing the ban while their Google Translator stopped working after the bans. Their protection on "privacy" put us volunteers at the risk of being framed by others. If, say, some admin deletes my article, maybe I could look out which off-wiki event he/she went, then write an email to the Foundation claiming I have been harassed by the admin - as easy as that. You got warned by the Foundation, you asked why, and they tell you to protect victim's privacy I can't tell you. After you said "fuck" or any curse word once, you got banned, and you got no chance for appeal.

The T&S team is exactly the opposite of what Wikipedia's transparency: every log is traceable and will keep forever, we don't even have a way to PM others, and almost all discussions are visible to everyone. The true irony is the English Wikipedia (and global north) Wikipedia community stopped growing since 2010. The community was totally fine in pre-T&S era, why it suddenly become such a huge deal for the Foundation to work this out? More importantly, does it solve anything? If Fram does anything wrong off-wiki, the T&S team should ban Fram from off-wiki activities; if Fram curse on-wiki, then other admins should take care of that. Banning a user for one year on English Wikipedia does not solve anything. The T&S team has been becoming more active and making decisions that local communities made up by volunteers instead of paid employees in the Foundation feeling inappropriate. The list of users blocked by WMF linked above started in 2012, and spiked since 2015, with three users so far in 2019 and probably more because they are now able to partly ban a user. The Foundation shall learn step away from communities, which are working hard to fight exactly the same problem the T&S is designed to do.

The T&S team did more than banning users. (UPDATE: I just saw someone shared a similar ban on dewiki above.) But I don't feel like sharing more at this moment.

--Techyan（Talk） 21:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Yan. The German bans had been mentioned before, but this is the first I've heard of the Chinese one. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I feel compelled to point out that the Foundation Terms of Use does explicitly forbid harassment, but on civility, only says, "support a civil environment," and "we encourage you to be civil and polite," which to me does not seem to forbid the kind of language you might expect to find in PG-13 movies or a typical non-customer facing workplace environment. We've had enwiki arbcom cases saying salty language alone doesn't constitute personal attacks or harassment, but clearly I think we all agree that slurs, on the other hand, do. If T&S is applying vocabulary-based civility standards instead of just behavioral factors, those need to be made far more explicit than the current language. It's clear the community as a whole reacts far worse to slurs than mere expletives, but slurs do not seem to have resulted in T&S issuing warnings. EllenCT (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yet again, EllenCT nails it. Strange that after a billion bytes of argument (including mine), it can be summed up in one paragraph. Black Kite (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Ban WMF people from en.wp?

I find the WMF actions agains Fram completely unacceptable.

Ok, so we cannot undo WP:OFFICE...but we can community ban people from en.wp. Eg editors who are on WMF, say User:Raystorm. Any thoughts? Huldra (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This was suggested above. I don't think it's a good way of clarifying things to the WMF. Incidentally, the community is completely capable of undoing illegitimate office actions. Fram was already unblocked. The WMF has virtually no power except what the community gives it, regardless of whether all individual WMF employees are aware of it. --Yair rand (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a recalcitrant idea that cannot be considered feasible. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I think a discussion on what part WMF (or "Office" or whatever) should be allowed to play here is due and warranted, but isn't this proposal premature and perhaps going too far? ---Sluzzelin talk 23:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This would not have prevented the ban currently in question, nor will it have any bearing on future WMF bans. The community cannot revoke the authority that the WMF has over the project. It can only work with the WMF to encourage that future bans are communicated more clearly. Mz7 (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not think we should ban people from WMF from editing in their volunteer role. I do, however, see merit in considering community sanctions specifying that the WMF may not take Office actions on the English Wikipedia outside the areas where they have traditionally done so (child protection, threats of violence or suicide, or legal matters). WMF employees who hold volunteer admin accounts may continue to act as admins, but their actions will be regular admin actions subject to review or reversal by other administrators or community consensus. That may or may not stop them from doing so, but it would be rather hypocritical of them to impose a ban when in doing so they would themselves be defying a ban. The farther this goes, the more disgusted I'm getting, and the more this seems like a flat-out power grab rather than a misguided but good faith action. Let's not let that pass without taking every measure we've got at our disposal. At the very least, imposition of such sanctions would act as a strong shot across the bow to show that we will not accept San Fran Bans for regular on-wiki editing disputes. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

This seems revengeful and vindictive to me. I don't think that this sends the right message. --Rschen7754 01:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Trust and Safety?

A curious convolution.

Trust. Warm and fuzzy, relaxed open and honest.

Safety. Also warm and fuzzy tones, but locked into a framework that includes absolutism. Generally, "trust" is not a simple component of "safety". "Trust me, I'll be safe" is not OK. "You can trust him, he works safely" is also not OK. Some element of trust is part of any process, to some extent, you must trust that the information provided is truthful. However, a threat or a violation to safety necessitates an authoritative response. Safety is more closely aligned to security than to trust.

There is a strong element of pretence, of fiction, in this name.

I think the WMF should break "Trust" out of "Safety". The assumption of trust is not safe. Safety is not achieved from an approach of trust. Trust and safety are in more ways in conflict than they are in harmony.

Trust is important. But it is different to safety. I do not trust WMF Trust and Safety. They will say "safety" in an appeal to their own authority when their claim to trust is weakest. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

"When I hear talk of trust, I release the safety catch on my...", no wait, got confused, but it did seem to be going that way. ;-). 67.164.113.165 (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. I thought yesterday, there's no longer trust from my side and safty I've felt the last time before the last Wikimania. Trust & Safty can go around and kick out everybody they don't like, they don't need to explain anything. Their victims must also held for their "we can not talk about it" excuse. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

WMFOffice you’ve written 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.- in particular where you said “in such or another way” could you clarify whether we may establish in the restoration of privileges policy that bureaucrats may summarily restore adminship once the office action has lapsed? (See Wikipedia talk:Administrators). –xeno^talk 03:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

WMFOffice, Whom is speaking, please? Don't hide behind the role account. SQL^{Query me!} 00:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

In hindsight, that isn't likely to help anything. Struck. SQL^{Query me!} 00:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Everyone, please remember not to say "F*** the WMF Office for its heavy-handed and authoritarian actions seemingly designed to inflame and divide the editing community." That sort of thing could get you banned. Try to find a more civil way of expressing it. 28bytes (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that's plenty civil enough, no? --Dylan620 (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Stop fucking stonewalling us. You're only burying yourselves deeper. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 00:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• This is exactly the wrong thing to do if the WMF wishes to de-escalate the situation and maintain the barely tenable perception that they care about concerns raised here at all. – Teratix ₵ 01:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment by me, now moved to below. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  At this point I don't even think the WMF knows what they want, other than to spite en.wp and its consensus. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 01:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Yes it’s nonsense. The WMF is just making it up as they go along. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

This will not end well for you. 2001:4898:80E8:2:56DB:4566:6C0F:24E5 (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I asked a serious question, and I would like WMF to give a serious answer. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Good luck with that. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Indentation mistake. Was not meant to be a reply to you, but to the clown currently running WMFOffice. If what I'm reading is correct, which it damn well appears to be, there is a SERIOUS conflict of interest and someone is about to lose their entire job. 2001:4898:80E8:2:56DB:4566:6C0F:24E5 (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm still confused why people think there is any real chance any of the major actions of WMFOffice can be ascribed to any one person. This seems extremely unlikely to me knowing what I know (very little in many ways) about the way any sufficient large organisation tends to work when there is something major and that the WMF has shown all signs of fitting into that category. Nil Einne (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

P.S. In case there's some confusion, I wouldn't be surprised if it was primarily one person operating the account for big chunks of time although the precise person could change depending on various things. But I find it extremely unlike the major actions i.e. the two blocks and the three major comments here didn't have multiple people approving them before they happened. Nil Einne (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Considering Floq understood that a potential, and not improbable outcome, was a desysop and some kind of ban, I congratulate the WMF on a measured response, though Tryptofish's question could be answered. There is all the world of difference between this statement and action which can point to principles that were clearly laid out and well known and the chain of events that led to the inciting incident. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• IMO this wasn't really a potential outcome, but a likely one. From where I stand, the only real likely alternative was the WMF implementing a superblock quickly and simply reblocking with a super block and giving a very stern warning to Floquenbeam. But the fact that we don't actually have any existing different levels of blocks (AFAIK, although the upcoming partial blocks could be related) means a superblock/officeblock was always likely to take a while. It's not quite like super-protect where we already had different levels of protection which affected different classes of editors so was I assume a far easier software task. Whatever the wisdom of the original block, or for that matter whatever the harm to community relations, the action they took seemed almost definite since the WMF would feel the need to make it clear when they say something can't be overturned especially a ban, they mean it. Frankly I strongly suspect if legal didn't really care before, they really, really care now. There is simply no way the WMF could realistically risk giving the impression their office actions can be overturned by anyone but themselves. I mean there was a slight chance they would just make clear that the ban still stands, and just hope Fram doesn't test the waters. But IMO even that was likely to be seen as way too risky. This is IMO way more extreme case than super-protect. In that case their actions were fairly predictable for any organisation, but in many ways it didn't matter that much to them that they send a clear message as was the case here. We could keep trying until they implement a superblock, or we could just accept that we need to convince them to change their minds on the ban. Nil Einne (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: from a technical level, if they don't want to get stuck in wheel warring is to just upgrade to a global lock, I doubt stewards are going to try to pull an "override wmf" card. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Nil Einne, yeah I perhaps understated things but that was my point. Floq did the unblocking knowing the consequences and the WMF, rather than even going as harsh as they could have reasonably and with-in policy go, decided to be measured. This stands in stark contrast to how the foundation failed to really explain what seems to be a movement wide change in policy in addressing certain issues, coupled with more nuanced remedies at their disposal, ahead of their acting on it. That's the distinction I was trying to draw, if doing so imperfectly. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

And can you, can you imagine fifty admins a day, I said fifty admins a day walking in and unblockin Fram and walkin out. And friends, they may thinks it's a movement. And that's what it is, the Floquenbeam's Restaurant Anti-Massacree Movement, and all you got to do to join is unblock Fram the next time it come's around on the dramaboard. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

What the actual fuck? CoolSkittle (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@CoolSkittle: Alice's Restaurant. Bishonen | talk 08:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC).

• Is there a reason that you keep blocking Fram with talkpage access and email disabled? Bizarre at best. SQL^{Query me!} 01:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  @SQL: The only valid usage of talk page (and presumably email, although I'm not aware of an explicit policy on the matter) access is to appeal one's block. A blocked user that (from the WMF's point of view) has literally no means of appealing would have no reason to edit their talk page or send email. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Pppery: Not actually true. You may find Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive991#Improper use of talk page while blocked interesting. An indeffed editor was not only freely using their talk page, but was using it to continue to make (constructive) edits by proxy. Ironically, it was SQL himself who tried to enforce what you said here, revoking TPA. The ensuing controversy was so severe that he self-reverted, with a majority of the community opposing the revocation, and all agreeing that there was no existing policy or precedent-based guidance. Mind you, that was a user attempting to make edits via proxy while blocked, which could be easily construed as block evasion, and the majority of the community opposed TPA revocation. So while what you say is a common notion (and FWIW I agree with it), it's certainly not an actual rule that the community has ever backed. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Your response contains a contradiction—or, at least, a strong tension—between two policies. The first is that WMF is a last-resort enforcer of the project's basic policies. The second is that Office Actions are explicitly not subject to project community rules or consensus. Unless WMF restricts administrative sanctions to the most clear-cut cases, that means you're basically going to exercise your powers arbitrarily. I don't know where to go from that, other than it's the kind of thing that can do a lot of damage. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• If I were Fram right now I would happily stick 2 fingers up to this website and never return!, What a fucking shit show this has become, I 100% stand by Floq's de-escalation of the issue. –Davey2010^Talk 02:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

you have lost 3 administrators today, care to go for 4?50.106.16.170 (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm admittedly late to this discussion, 50.106.16.170, but I don't understand your math...Fram, Floq, who's number 3? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Rob, presumably. T. Canens (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

He had already stated a few weeks ago that he was going to leave: this is just a dramah quit. - SchroCat (talk) 06:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Ansh666 also comes to mind, although that was unrelated. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 04:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#Notice:_WMF_desysop_of_Floquenbeam total now stands at 5.50.106.16.170 (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear WMF - maybe we should start talkin' about an Revolution. What do you guays in Frisco thing, how log we let do this to us? Who pays who? You guys have to work for us, not against us. The whole behavior here ist the clear kind of acting as in dictatorships. As long you do such Office actions, we need to talk about this office! -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 04:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Kudos to Floquenbeam for the moral courage to reverse the action. The opposite to the WMF, who need to read the first law of holes. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Please clarify the desysop

I'm moving my comment here, from above. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• I have a question about the meaning of the "temporary desysop". This (among so many other things) is difficult to understand. A "temporary 30-day desysop" would ordinarily mean that, after 30 days, the sysop flag would automatically be restored. It's like a 30-day block, in that after 30 days the user is no longer blocked and does not, at that time, have to file an unblock request. However, the statement above refers to a new RfA. Is it in fact the case that re-sysopping can only occur via a new, successful RfA? If that is so, then calling it a "30-day desysop" is not accurate. Rather, that would mean that the desysop is indefinite and under a cloud, and that the community as a whole is banned for 30 days from participating in a new RfA. Is WMF really sure that they want that? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Clarification would be good although they said 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. (emphasis mine) I take it to mean we could decide a RfA is not necessary after the 30 days has expire, like they seem to have suggested we could do for Fram themselves when their ban expires or is removed. Nil Einne (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I take your point, but I still feel a very serious need for clarification, mainly because I don't see what such "another way" would really be. If some "other way" is required, then it wasn't temporary, and WMF is restricting what the community can do, or at least when we can do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

On the one hand, I think that the minute that 30 day clock is up, the nearest 'crat should immediately restore rights. On the other hand, I think it would send a good signal to immediately have an RfA where Floq gets the most votes ever for adminship. bd2412 T 01:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: As the most likely explanation, I would guess that the person/people who wrote the message simply don't have a good understanding of enWP policies and procedures, and so they didn't know that what they wrote is self-contradictory. That and using the word "temporary", especially in the heading, makes the optics of their action look better. Sunrise (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• It is very, very unfortunate that instead of a measured response -- which would have been to maintain the status quo of Floq's clearly community-backed unblock -- WMOffice has chosen to go the authoritarian route and desysop Floquenbeam. I would urge someone with the proper amount of chutzpah and the necessary rights to restore Floq's flag. I think the point needs to be made, as forcefully as possible, that the community will not stand for unaccountable Office actions which bypass or override normal community-based processes.

  Not to be too melodramatic, what is being decided here is who is in charge, and I believe that if the community, collectively and individually, does not stand up to the Foundation and its staff members when they behave in ways which are detrimental to our ability to govern ourselves, we will, over time, lose that capacity altogether. That is really what's at stake here, and Jimbo Wales had better step up his "investigation" and report back PDQ before he loses what he created.

  This is not a call to the barricades ... yet, but it is intended as a warning to Wales, the Board, and the office staff that they are playing with fire, and if they think that en.Wiki -- which is the community, is going to roll over and play dead, they could well be surprised. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  At the very least, the WMF board needs to meet via teleconference and make the decision to set the playing field back to zero, undo every Office Action taken in this incident, and open a frank and honest dialogue with the community instead of hiding behind empty boilerplate bullshit. The people who built this encyclopedia deserve nothing less. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

There's no need for clarification. They can do whatever the fuck they want without explanation. It is absolutely, strictly, THEIR COMPUTER and they'll throw off whoever they feel like, censor whatever they want, push whatever shitty video game ads on the Main Page they want, and work with any and all paid editors they want. Wnt (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Wnt, please stop your pessimistic and paranoid (as well as wildly unrealistic and ungrounded) postings here. I believe everyone is well aware of your viewpoint, and, frankly, you're not helping anything by constantly being Debbie Downer. If you have so little faith that the Foundation wants to help make en.wiki better, despite their current missteps, you should simply stop editing here and find something else to do with your time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Good luck. Paranoid conspiracy theories, particularly on Wale’s TP, is WNT’s thing. Capeo (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

...and it is exceedingly tiresome, Wnt. Like a broken record. Go back to Jimbo's talk page where you usually hang out and make dire predictions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Wnt's posts look perfectly factual and accurate to me, in saying what could happen (not necessarily what will happen, at least immediately). Maybe Debbie Downer is just a Depressive realist ;-). 67.164.113.165 (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Okay, 28: F*** the WMF Office for its heavy-handed and authoritarian actions seemingly designed to inflame and divide the editing community. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 04:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• 28bytes-- to misquote Fram: Fuck ArbCom WMF which doesn't even understand their own messages and again give themselves powers they don't have. First it was deletions visual editing, then it was mandatory 2FA "AI-generated content", inbetween it is loads of evidence of utter incompetence in many of its members (witness the statement by AGK the WMF Trust & Safety Team above, but also some of the comments at e.g. the Rama Media Viewer RFC case request). 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. Or collectively resign. But don't give us any more of this bullshit. Fram (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC) 67.164.113.165 (talk) 04:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• There's no clarification needed IMHO. They've said temporary, it's temporary and he gets the rights back after 30 days. They can desysop but they can't mandate an RfA. I think that's a misunderstanding on their part. Doug Weller talk 05:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • They can because the bureaucrats interpret being desysopped by the WMF as "under a cloud" and will not give the bit back without a RfA. Enigma^msg 05:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    • The crats, the community at RfA, it doesn't really matter. The default for desysopping is that the bit can be reinstated via RfA at any time, with the understanding that a just desysop could not be reversed for years and years. The 30 day freeze on resysopping, AFAIK, is unprecedented, which is hilarious, because they're admitting that they know that everyone would rubber-stamp a resysop same day if we could, which by extension is an admission that the desysop is blatantly unjust and that they need to prevent it from being overturned for their own reasons. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I just think it's significant that the 'crats indicated they will not return the bit because while being without the bit for 30 days is not a big deal, having to undergo a new RfA is. You'll deal with the usual opposes from anyone who doesn't like you, plus added opposes from people who believe "if you were desysopped, you obviously did something very wrong, so you shouldn't be trusted with the tools." Good luck finding anyone who was desysopped and actually passed a RfA. I think Floq would pass because the RfA would get tons of eyes and the community overwhelmingly feels the WMF is out of line, but not without a significant amount of opposes. Enigma^msg 06:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Swarm, not unprecedented, see [12] for the same. Quite possibly that's the last case of something similar, which received the same response. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• So, what admin wants to unblock Fram next? I don't care that this is wheel-warring; the WMF fucked this up royally, and consensus that the block and ban is unjustified, as far as I can see, has not changed at all. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 06:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I would strongly discourage this. The WMF already basically mandated Floq will need a new RfA and it can only be done after 30 days. I doubt they'll be as 'lenient' with the next one. Anyone considering unblocking Fram should consider that there's a very real possibility that they won't be an admin here for a long time. The WMF knows the community is against them. They don't care and they will continue to lash out at those who defy them. Enigma^msg 06:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Then let them lash out. Let them deop whoever the fuck they please. Let them ban whoever the fuck they please. The more open our defiance, the more open their responces to it will necessarily have to be, and it's going to spill out sooner rather than later. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 06:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• I think this must go to ArbCom for clarification. RfA is the community process.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• When this all ends, I think both Fram and Floq should be able to just approach the bureaucrats and ask for their admin rights back as former admins in good standing. Insisting they go through RfA is just another insult. Reyk _YO! 08:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Elephant in the room

Well, I wasn't going to go here, but given the comment above, let's be clear. There has, at a venue other than Wikipedia, been a discussion of the above issue. That discussion has suggested that Person A (the person who was the complainant against Fram) has a COI in relation to Person B, who is a significant member of the WMF. Some evidence has been provided, as well. So, Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms WMFOffice, it'd be good if you could let us know that such COI does not exist and/or such COI (if it indeed exists) was not related to the unique action taken against Fram. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I would strongly discourage the Foundation from replying to rumours generated by a site that has attempted doxxing of editors very recently. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how asking for a denial of such an issue is a problem , Tony. Black Kite (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

If this is a thing, I would want to see an unequivocal confirmation/denial of this, inasmuch as Legal and the priv-pol allows. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 01:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Because it validates the existence of forums that encourage the harassment of Wikimedians. Responding only encourages them to continue harming real people. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you not think we're so far out of normality in this case that we need to investigate everything? I do. Iwould certainly never bring up such issues otherwise. Black Kite (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Doxing who? Everyone in question has already been public by their own choice for a long while now, including WMF employees, who are public by necessity. Pointing out the very obvious connection to the current situation isn’t harassment. It’s pointing out the obvious. Capeo (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I've been doxed (twice on different platforms) and it's not pleasant to have your professional life exposed for inspection and random critique and have strangers on the internet know where you live & your family members. I occasionally post at WO because of curiosity but do not be fooled into thinking WO has the best intentions of the project at heart. I'll admit that they are excellent at digging up dirt on serious problems that are swept under the rug on Wikipedia that need to be addressed but there is an ample amount of trash-talking and idle speculation that mars some editors' solid reputations. I'd be curious to hear what their take is but I would take it with a grain of salt...they have no "insider information" that is based in fact. This is all conjecture and I wouldn't put money on their theories. Plus, I think it is damaging and will not help Fram or Floq to speculate on who filed a complaint. It will just verify WMFOffice's viewpoint that this secrecy is necessary. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No need to doxx anything. Significant other or just close friend, the principal complainant (it seems) in the Fram case has been willingly and publicly displaying that they are a longtime close collaborator with a current Board member (posting pictures on Commons, co-authoring Wikinews pieces, etc. etc.) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

This kind of speculation is despicable and unworthy.--Jorm (talk) 01:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You know what, Jorm? Normally, I'd totally, 100%, agree with you. But we're out of the norms here, because there's a significant chance that something is going on that's important to the entire project, and all of us too. Black Kite (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree that speculation on the nature of their relationsip (current or former s/o or just friends and collaborators) is unwelcome and unproductive; on the other hand there is obviously no speculation on the fact that they've been publicly longtime close collaborators, of course. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Setting aside where the claim originated, there is a potentially serious issue here, of whether users who have personal relationships with WMF board members or employees are granted greater privileges than are other users. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You are fools if you think that there was a conspiracy about this. You are fools if you think that a fairly large handful of employees at the WMF signed off on a conspiracy like this, potentially putting their jobs and careers at risk, all for someone they likely do not know in person. You are engaged in a conspiracy theory about real human beings and these things have consequences.--Jorm (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I have not called anyone names, and I would appreciate it if you would not call me (among others) a fool. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The only fool here, Jorm, is wheover is running the WMFOffice account. First law of holes. 2001:4898:80E8:2:56DB:4566:6C0F:24E5 (talk) 01:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Side discussion on Gamergate

You are fools if you think that there was a conspiracy about this. You are fools if you think that a fairly large handful of employees at the WMF signed off on a conspiracy like this, potentially putting their jobs and careers at risk, all for someone they likely do not know in person. You are engaged in a conspiracy theory about real human beings and these things have consequences.--Jorm (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC) And I should think that Salvidrim of all people would be aware of the lasting harm these kinds of witch-circles create, given his support of Gamergate.--Jorm (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC) {{citation needed}}, I've never worded an opinion on Gamergate. Just try to find a quote from me on the topic. You've been alleging that fake factoid for years. (However this is 1000% off-topic obviously. Feel free to remove this reply along with your message if preferred). Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC) You just were one of the most frequent posters on their Reddit doxxing and harrassment forum for years while slavishly cultivating your lack of an opinion. Gamaliel (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC) Thanks a lot! I wish Jorm would agree to see it the same way as you: "Salvidrim has remained overtly opinionless on Gamergate despite engaging with various pro- and anti- people on-wiki and off-wiki". From that to "supports Gamergate" is a huge chasm. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC) And I was massively anti-Gamergate (indeed, I had to resign from a seriously disputed multi-admin closure because of it). People don't work in straight lines. Black Kite (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC) Jorm, if you're going to allege that about Salvidrim, please provide evidence or withdraw it. It is more than a bit hypocritical to complain about another editor for casting speculative aspersions in the same breath as doing so yourself. (For the record, I was on the ArbCom for that case, and if I never hear about the goddamn thing again it'll be too soon). Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to speculate on any potentially improper relationships, but to anyone at T&S who's reading this, just know this: If your goal was to protect the accuser's privacy, you completely failed. I don't follow wikidrama very closely, and will sometimes even miss major ArbCom cases. If you had let ArbCom handle it and they decided to ban Fram, it would be a blip on the radar for most people. Instead, the whole community is now reading about this and knows about the allegations, true or not. Every time you take a highly surprising move with no warning, supposedly to maintain secrecy, be careful what you wish for. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Wow. Just wow. All kinds of conflicts of interest noted in that thread Black Kite refers to in his OP, most of it visible on Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Did WMF really think none of this would come out? Softlavender (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• @WMFOffice:, this is totally unacceptable. Even large proper companies sign their official communications with a name. This is a very very serious issue and quite obviously no one at Trust & Safety Office appears to be in overall charge of its departments, and you issue these actions but will not take responsibility for them, while you hold the individual members of our volunteer communities responsible for theirs. There is a clear dichotomy between the WMF's stated philosophy and its actions. Perhaps at this stage the ED should descend from their metal tube in the sky and do some managing. The various language communities have threatened mutiny on several occasions due to WMF incongruities, this time a collective action might be for real - a large number of our most active en.Wiki admins are involved in these threads - will you be prepared to desysop them all? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Kudpung: Do you mean that you're willing to defy office actions? Do you plan to unblock Fram? KSFT ^(t|c) 05:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not even aware of what this supposed non-wiki venue is. That said, obviously the question of a COI relationship behind this inexplicable turn of events is the elephant in the room. Forget anything off wiki. As I said early on, "this looks dirty". This is unprecedented and previously inconceivable. So yeah, the most plausible explanation is simply that a complainant has a connection in the office and had some strings pulled. That's not some far out conspiracy theory, that's literally the simple explanation, even with no additional context. And then when you factor in on-wiki information we do have access to, we know of one person who the Foundation has interceded on behalf of, who just so happens to be a highly involved Wikimedian and is a former WMF chapter vice president who is presently a voting affiliate, who displays a weird adversarial banner directed at Fram at the top of her talk page, which refers to several members of T&S by name, and who has coincidentally gone dark right as this all broke, and is now unfortunately not around to offer us any insight here, as, for the first time in as long as I can remember, no one from the WMF can be reached apart from Jimbo and a community-appointed trustee (neither of whom have any idea what's going on), and you've all gone silent, hiding behind your rarely-used role account. None of that is off-wiki speculation, though I can't begin to imagine what else people have dug up that they can't share here. I'm not making any accusations, but let's not pretend that there aren't serious questions that need answers. As I said before, if there is no corruption of any kind here, what are you covering up? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

unprecedented and previously inconceivable I guess you don't remember Rachel Marsden. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

To put it succinctly with on-wiki information: María Sefidari (User:Raystorm) is the current Chair of the WMF Board. The Chair has previously criticized Fram and defended User:LauraHale on the English Wikipedia [13][14][15]. LauraHale and the Chair have done several Wikinews articles together, one in which they personally interviewed and photographed the athlete on scene[16][17][18] LauraHale also has a warning to Fram and the names of WMF Trust & Safety employees on her talkpage. So, the only questions are that would someone, who apparently is a personal acquaintance of the WMF Chair, have a "backchannel" to the WMF Safety & Trust? Will the Chair be presiding over the WMF meeting where the Fram block will be discussed on June 14? --Pudeo (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• (ec) I do not care about what the relation between persons A and B is, and it is clearly inappropriate to discuss this relation here, but I think it is undeniable that, whereas B has an understandably low activity in the English Wikipedia, a significant part of this activity in recent years was directed at interaction between Fram and A and was clearly, let's say, anti-Fram and pro-A (the dispute itself is not just black and white, but the intervention of B was clearly one-sided). Which indeed makes B involved in the dispute. I do not think this makes WMF involved.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• I think this does invite the potential that the WMF is involved. (And we have to class them as one entity, as they are refusing to have one person sign their posts and stand up individually for their actions - even if the COI is one person pushing the agenda). I know that they will refuse to name names, but they need to be crystal fucking clear on the point of the possible COI, and who is pulling which strings. The lack of transparency in this whole affair is a main cause of the problem. - SchroCat (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Come on, Ymblanter, really? Are you really saying that the chair of the WMF has a COI, having directly intervened in the conflict between Fram and Laura, but that probably has no bearing on this inexplicable WMF ban? You really think the head of the WMF having a personal problem with Fram has nothing to do with a WMF ban? @Raystorm: if you had nothing to do with this, officially or unofficially, please, by all means, let us know right now. Seriously, you need to let us know. Because right now it looks like petty grudging by the fucking WMF chair. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Press

Has anyone contacted the press about this? I'm sure Wired or CNN online, etc. would love to hear how WMF is overriding/ignoring/bypassing long-established Wikipedia procedures, unilaterally blocking/banning/desysopping long-term admins in good standing, and refusing to openly discuss the matter. Softlavender (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The best you are going to do is Brietbart or the Register. Gamaliel (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they meant actual press, not those two. Black Kite (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that anyone speaking to press about this does so with care and neutrality; the question seems to imply a lack thereof. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Softlavender: this is such a bad idea. It's also a good idea, but it's also a real bad idea. (edit conflict × 4) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Nope nope nope. Please don't do that. Won't help anything, will harm many things. --Yair rand (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's face it, unless WMF reverses course immediately, this is going to hit the press sooner or later. Plenty of journos watch and report on Wikipedia, and a scandal this big is very hard to keep under wraps. Softlavender (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

What people want to do is ultimately their choice but a reminder that it can be quite difficult to predict how the press will see things, even if you get them interested. They may see things the way you outlined, or maybe they will see things differently when someone (to be clear this will never be me) highlights whatever the public stuff they think the press will be interested in. In other words, if anyone does wish to do that, remember that even if you succeed, it may not be the way you envision and it could be something that will be uncomfortable for people besides the WMF whether Fram or anyone else. (But I think the chance anyone except certain minor outlets interested is small anyway.) Nil Einne (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Please don't! That isn't good for the project or any of us. StudiesWorld (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• This could end horribly. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 01:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not it's a good idea (as to my feelings on that, let's say it certainly won't be me calling up the newspapers), I think this is a bit too "inside baseball" at this point for them to care about. If it turns into a bigger blowup, with multiple desysops or bans, that might be significant enough, but I'm not sure they'd understand "Well, they banned someone, and they're allowed to, but only because they gave themselves the authority, and they shouldn't be doing it...". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A website by the name of reclaimthenet.org covered the ban in this article, so I guess that's something. X-Editor (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

"wikipedian banned for criticizing the WMF" is the kind of inaccurate summary that frankly no-one should be propagating... The Land (talk) 06:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Most news websites have a contact us/submit a tip link somewhere on their front page. I've already submitted a couple of tips to my favorite technology news websites, I encourage you all to do the same -FASTILY 02:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I mean, no-one outside (a small slice of) the Wikipedia community is going to see this as a problem. No-one else cares enough about the sanctity of Wikipedia processes - to everyone else it just looks like the WMF banned someone for persistent antisocial behaviour, to which they'll probably go ... "...good?" The Land (talk) 06:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• You're blind if you think the media wouldn't pick up a story about this shocking and unprecedented rebellion by Wikipedia's editors against the WMF, in response to [what will probably be portrayed as] clear corruption coming from a supposed humanitarian nonprofit. This is probably the biggest scandal Wikipedia's ever seen since Essjay, and I will remind you all that Wikipedia is one of the biggest websites in the world. This is a huge story and it would likely spread like wildfire. I don't want that. In the minds of the public, it will likely translate to Wikipedia's leadership being corrupt, so even if the WMF deserves to be publicly humiliated, it may well mar our project's reputation by extension, and I don't know how easy to recover from such a blow. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Press, you say?

You want press? Here's what you do. Gain a consensus for adding a small banner to the top of the main page for, say, 3 days. Give it a compelling title like "The Wikipedia editing community is under attack. Click here to learn more." Link that to an information page that concisely lays out what has transpired so far, and asks readers to help by signing a petition to the WMF, or contacting the WMF to express their views, or some other appropriate action. One of the many, many journalists who use Wikipedia will see it and click.

We know we do not have the power to override the WMF's bad decisions with unblocks or resysops, at least not in the long term; they run the servers and can block and ban and desysop whomever they wish. The only power we as a community have is our words. We can say what's troubling us about what's going on, and if we say it in a prominent enough place, people will listen. They might not agree with us, of course, but at least the case will be made.

The question is, will the WMF forcibly prevent us from doing this, by, say, threatening to ban anyone who makes that front page edit? (Or by bringing "SuperProtect" back from the dead?) I don't know the answer to that. Is it worth trying, assuming that after the June 14 board meeting the situation has not improved, or has deteriorated further? I don't know the answer to that either. But if you want press coverage, that's how you get it. 28bytes (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

If they try, that would exacerbate the situation. As it is, they're risking open rebellion. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 02:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that they would. But should things devolve further, I think that this is the best course of action: it remains civil and is more effective than wheel-warring the site into oblivion. --Rschen7754 02:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

We don't want to harm the WMF or its reputation. The WMF shares our goals of having a successful community-governed free encyclopedia project. They're on our side. This is not a war, it's an internal disagreement about delegation of certain responsibilities. The WMF leadership is quite clear on the fact that they do not run Wikipedia. --Yair rand (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

To be blunt, we're not the ones doing the reputational damage. The WMF is by botching the handling of this as badly as they have. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 02:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

If the WMF would be embarrassed to have people know about what they're doing, they should stop doing it. The community didn't start the problem here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

With respect, Yair rand, speak for yourself. You must be talking about a different WMF, not about the Wikimedia Foundation. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support 50.106.16.170 (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. This has been one of the possibilities I've been considering if they don't back down in the next few days. This will surely grab attention, and is strong but less openly hostile than repeatedly wheel-warring with OFFICE, which I feel is likely to be the least effective option. Another option (discussed above) is more passive but it gets more effective the longer it persists: simply refuse to handle any admin tasks, and post a banner on all major admin areas (XfD, ANI, etc.) so that anyone who wishes to join the strike may do so. Other than posting the banners (necessary to prevent those who have not heard about this incident from becoming inadvertent strikebreakers), simply do nothing, don't proactively cause disruption. In the end we'll see what happens: If everything is still running smoothly, then looks like the WMF has won, the community has implicitly endorsed their actions. But if everything grinds to a halt, WMF will be forced into action. The advantage of this method is that it actually uses the only true leverage we have against the WMF if they want to go all out: they can't force volunteers to do anything. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

King of Hearts, don't forget that there are several hundred users in the admin tribe but only a couple of dozen are real warriors or community leaders. If we simply refuse our admin tasks, there are hundreds of others who will continue to gnome away at AIV, CSD, XfD, and RFPP, etc., indeed, they may not even be aware of this issue, and if they were, just choose to ignore it. Wheelwarring would have the most impact because the WMF would have to desysop a lot of prominent and productive admins, but it would be guerilla tactics, and I'm not sure that the current Arbcom would support the community it is supposed to represent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support If we all unite against the WMF's decision and protest via a banner and petition on the main page, then they will be pressured into unbanning Fram, because at the end of the day, WMF relies on us all to keep Wikipedia alive. X-Editor (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• No, let's not abuse the main page of an encyclopedia for biased propaganda. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as counterproductive. Most people who're on the Main Page generally aren't the sort of people who would have any interest in the backstage shit. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 04:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Support - Right now, this is premature. That said, if this is not resolved within 12 hours of the board meeting on the 14th, this is the best possible response. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Can this actually be carried out - is such a banner within community control? I remember when the community wanted to place a banner/logo across the main page in celebration of achieving 5 million articles on en:wp, and the WMF came along and told us we could only have it up there for 24 hours (I think that was the timescale). I thought it outrageous interference at the time, but everyone else just towed the WMF line as if they had no choice. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Press will only make a bad situation way worse. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Revert WMF actions related to this conflict

I propose, as a temporary measure, that certain classes of office actions taken by WMFOffice be undone. Specifically, blocks, bans, and userrights changes that relate to the current issue. These include the block, ban, and desysop of User:Fram, the retaliatory temporary desysop of User:Floquenbeam, and any further such actions taken in response to implementing any unblocks or user rights changes supported by consensus here.

This would not be a long-term policy, but a temporary stance until everything gets more under control. There's a lot going on right now. The Board is looking into the issue, the higher-ups at the WMF presumably know how inappropriate T&S's actions have been and are likely trying to fix whatever went wrong in their internal processes, and right now what we need is a calm assertion of authority before the WMF gets completely out of hand.

At some point in the future, we need to clarify exactly how much authority is delegated toward the major off-wiki/corporate arm of Wikimedia, and the WMF's Trust and Safety in particular, but for right now, I think we just need to get everything back to normal as smoothly as possible. --Yair rand (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Given the unknowns, we should assume good faith in the WMF and wait until we have more information to take any action. StudiesWorld (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Support and with respect to Studies, we're not going to assume good faith towards someone who's not going to respect it. If the WMF was serious about addressing this they wouldn't have given us content-free responces, nor would they have shit on the consensus of the community and deopped Floq or wheel-warred the unblock. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 01:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano, I hear where you are coming from, but I think that there may be situations where they couldn't disclose more information than they have, why it's local only I'm not sure. I think that the process could have been different, but until we have information to the contrary, I have to be convinced that the action is wholly without merit.StudiesWorld (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

If that were the case then they would have immediately expanded Fram's ban for divulging details on Commons. That they have not done that to my knowledge thus far tells me that this is an excuse, and while I won't contest that there may be some private information involved it's asinine to think that all of it is privileged given what we know from Fram. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 01:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to hear from the WMF whether they contest Fram's account. It's also possible, and likely from my interpretation of current policy, that they may not have fully disclosed to Fram the exact diffs for the ban. StudiesWorld (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

If they were going to contest Fram's account they would have done so by now. They've made two statements since Fram replied. Both have been more or less boilerplate and content-free. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 02:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You say that right now what we need is a calm assertion of authority... What you propose is neither calm nor assertive. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Support as per Jéské, they are now resorting to wheel-warring with no explanation and against clear consensus. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Support - This is gross overreach by the WMF, and the proposal is a reasonably measured response to that overreach. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. The Land (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Mu Even if we wanted to (and I'll admit I'd like to), its literally not possible. Office actions cannot be overruled by the community. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Fork. Pass the hat and unionize the functionaries for a clean break

Github proved frequent and easy forking was hugely beneficial, not the last resort people from the 1990s seemed to think. It would probably take passing the hat to raise a few hundred thousand dollars, but I'm sure a majority of admins can do it in a way that would benefit us all. The WMF has proven that they are a net negative to the project, and they've always told us to replace them if we need to. EllenCT (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

That might have been more feasible earlier in Wikipedia's life, but at this point inertia would make it very difficult to survive if we did fork the project and take it elsewhere. Nevertheless, I would Support this as a last resort. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 02:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it the size and activity of the Wikipedia community that makes self-governance feasible? Isn't it completely counterproductive to create a smaller community that is more likely to require intervention? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

No not at all, Wikipedia started out with Jimbo running things but took off on its own quite quickly. Bori is right about inertia though, and I think the WMF itself has seen to it. That's why I've said for years that the WMF has a conflict of interest. I recommend to you all the site http://wagesforfacebook.com (a parody of Wages for housework). The annoying scrolling effect is part of the message, but you can make it stop by disabling javascript in your browser.

Regarding a fork, I'm interested and can supply technical help setting up a server and stuff like that, and maybe a bit of leadership as a long-time Wikipedia editor with some concrete notions of how the project has gone astray over the years. I'm sure everyone else has such notions too, though. And I can't provide any financing the way Jimbo did. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Let me know if you do this; I'd love it. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Forking would only be realistic if you could get the backing of one of the big search engines. As long as Google, Bing and Yandex all top-rank Wikipedia, that's where the traffic is going to go, and the fork will just wither. It's entirely possible that one of the major tech players would be interested in hosting a fork, but that would bring problems of its own; if you find the WMF's ethical flexibility troubling, you're certainly not going to want to work for Muskopedia, Applepedia or English Language Baidu. ‑ Iridescent 07:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Is not going to work, realistically. In the Wikitravel/Wikivoyage case, even when essentially the whole community split, and even when the whole project was taken over by WMF, it was way below the Wikitravel in search engines and, if I am not mistaken, only recently caught up (I am talking about the English version, other languages had different trajectories). There is zero chance that a significant part of the community will leave with the fork, and thus it is not going to be a success story.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Meh, Citizendium is still running and someone is still editing it.[19] I thought Wikinfo was gone (it was around for a very long time), but it is (maybe again) up, and the same person is editing it too.[20] I don't care much about "success" since nobody is paying us either way. It would be nice to have a new place to edit that's free of Wikipedia's more annoying bullshit. Of course it would have its own bullshit if it gets any traction at all, but at least it would be different bullshit. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Can we all stop proposing things and stick to the ones that already exist

By my count, there's 13ish proposals on this right now. If anything, this will just split up votes and make everything impossible to find majorities in places. The last thing we need is even more proposals. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 02:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You might hate me, but Support. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 02:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's start a hashtag!

We should start using the hashtag #JusticeforFram on Wikipedia and possibly social media to help get him unbanned. All of us editors will spread the hashtag and as a result, pressure WMF into unbanning him. The hashtag will link back to this page as well. X-Editor (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion that misses the point. For most of us I think, our main objection is not the fact that Fram was banned (though we do disagree with that), but that the WMF has overruled the community's authority and failed to be transparent. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: That's exactly why we should use this hashtag, to tell the WMF that they can't overrule the community's authority and that they can't fail to be transparent. X-Editor (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I mean, we shouldn't make this about Fram. This is about something bigger. I don't have any better ideas for a hashtag, however. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: How about #GetConsensusFirstWMF. X-Editor (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

"Darn, they started a hashtag. Nothing more for us to do, they clearly have the upper hand." —the WMF, no doubt – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Juliancolton: While a hashtag alone might not be enough to get the WMF to reverse their decision on banning Fram, it certainly would be a crucial stepping stone to doing so, because setting up a banner and petition on the main page as proposed in a discussion further above about the ban would take a lot more time, whereas a hashtag can start pretty much instantly, and because raising awareness about an issue is the first step to solving an issue, and that can be easily done through a hashtag. The point is, the hashtag won't stop the WMF in its tracks, but it will certainly lead to other events that might do so. X-Editor (talk) 04:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that helps us much. Anyone not already familiar with this situation might briefly wonder "Who the hell is Fram?" before moving on to the next tweet, and pointing them back to this page (again, if they're not already familiar) will have their eyes glaze in short order. I think the idea of a banner, pointing to a short synopsis of the issue easy to understand for people not already familiar with the problem or internal Wikipedia processes, is a much better option. I think that will be more true as time goes on, especially if more admins openly defy WMF's earlier statement—after a few iterations of that, the optics start getting really, really bad for them. For right now, though, we do have to be seen to be fair. WMF has said they'll say more; my personal bet is on yet another many-words-to-say-nothing "answer" from the faceless "WMFOffice" role account, but let's give them some reasonable amount of time to say what they've got to say. If they feed us yet more tripe, that just strengthens the case against them for being opaque. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A hashtag would fail for the same reason the matter probably won't be picked up by the press; no-one really cares outside the community and in fact someone unfamiliar with internal Wikipedia processes and community–Foundation dynamics may believe the Foundation has a greater role in resolving disputes and day-to-day administration than it actually does (akin to social media companies moderating their own sites), which misses the real problem here that the Foundation is imposing a sanction that, based on all evidence available, should have been handled through existing community processes. – Teratix ₵ 04:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Bah, we're upset here because the WMF is acting like Twitter's (or Facebook's) corporate nitwits. So you want to protest the issue on the actual twitter? Dumb idea if you ask me. Dumb idea, at least from my illtwitterate perspective. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 04:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I will note I am currently having a discussion about this on Twitter and as an admin, I had no idea this was going on. I doubt the one person I'm talking about it is the only one doing so. Mitch32^{(Fame is a four letter word.)} 05:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I think getting anyone outside of Wikipedia interested in this is sort of a hard sell. "OMG the WMF banned someone!" "Why did they do that?" "It's not exactly clear but something to do with harassing someone and telling people to go fuck themselves" "Ok why are you protesting?" "Because the WMF banned them without consulting the Wikipedia community and without involving Arbcom! This is an outrage!" "So, that stuff about harassing someone and telling people to go fuck themselves, you're fine with that, are you?" "Well, idk, but we haven't seen adequate evidence of it and most importantly the WMF didn't follow the existing procedure..." The Land (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Point out the Wikipediocracy allegations. There is something there that is worth a journalist's time to investigate. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 06:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

WMF have extended the ban by two days to 12/6/20 instead of 10/6/20

Clearly just unfamiliarity with the tools when resetting the block but it does make them look less than competent with the use of the blocking tool. I have asked the office d to clarify their intent [here]. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I am just catching up to what happened and I am speechless. So many thoughts right now (and sadly no time) to express them, but the fact we already lost 4 admins (Fram, Floq, Ansh and Rob) with 5th being in danger for desysop as well now....oof. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

No, Ansh did not leave because of this, and Rob said a few weeks ago he was leaving - this was just a diva quit. - SchroCat (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

While he had intentions of leaving, Ansh left because of this per User talk:Ansh.666, citing it as "the straw that broke the camel's back". I see for Rob if true. I won't comment on the "drama" part and using WP:AGF. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

5 [21] Tazerdadog (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Two other issues

Why were Stewards notified in advance and not ArbCom?

One aspect of this controversy has been somewhat overlooked. TonyBallioni notes above that Stewards were notified in advance about the desysopping, block and ban of Fram, but ArbCom was not. Since the action involved English Wikipedia only, and since Stewards have -- relatively speaking -- much less involvement in en.wiki's affairs than they do on other, smaller wikis, and considering the remit ArbCom is covered by Stewards for wikis that don't have their own, why was this the case? What possible justification can there be for giving Stewards notice, and not ArbCom?

This is yet another part of these office actions which needs to be explained to the satisfaction of the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, stewards are generally made aware of all Office actions related to bans and are even consulted.

On a sidenote, (among arbitrators), Opabinia regalis was made aware by T&S in their monthly phone call, that Fram was (very likely) going to be sanctioned in some manner over en-wiki; why she did not choose to pursue it, any further, can be answered by her and her alone. ∯WBG^converse 07:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you know if OR told the rest of the Committee? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Based on what SilkTork has said, she did not. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 08:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The rest of the arbs did have the minutes from the meeting available shortly after. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is essentially an indictment by the community of the T&S staff

In another comment, Tony also vouches for the work of the T&S people, and since I have great respect for Tony, I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve him, but, surely, even given that T&S is usually sensible and does good work, this entire community discussion must be seen as a indication of a complete lost of trust by the English Wikipedia community of T&S's actions in this instance, as, in fact, a indictment of them by the community. I believe that any investigation by Wales and the WMF board should look into not only the way this incident was handled, and whether T&S inappropriately usurped powers usually wielded here by ArbCom, but also they must take a very close look at whether changes need to be made in the T&S staff due to what appears to be gross negligence or hamfisted behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't forget COI--see further up. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 08:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Bishonen unblocked Fram (+ reactions)

[22] - at 07:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC), Bishonen unblocked Fram with the following reason: Reversing the wheel warring by WMFOffice. Please note that Floquenbeam did not wheel war in unblocking Fram; WMFOffice did when they re-blocked. See WP:WHEEL. Created this section for reactions to this latest incident. starship.paint (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• This is a highly outrageous and contentious move, and I will be issuing my condemnation in Barnstar form on User talk:Bishonen. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

In all seriousness, Bishonen did something incredibly brave. The WMF made an example of Floq, and yet Bishonen did the right thing anyway. We're not worthy of these admins' sacrifices. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hear, hear! El_C 07:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

how many more you willing to lose wmf?50.106.16.170 (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I support what Bishonen did. She's essentially enforcing the community's consensus that the block and ban are illegitimate and doing what she can to further that. No doubt she'll also be deopped for 30 days because WMFOffice still seems to be completely averse to anything resembling talking it out. Also, thank you, Swarm, for the levity. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 07:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you to Bishonen. That decision displayed strong moral character. We will soon see if the WMF can figure out to stop digging the hole deeper this time. Tazerdadog (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Y. Reyk _YO! 07:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Nick has now resigned in protest as well. How many admins will we have to lose just so that the WMF can die on this hill? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Providing quote - [23] - Nick: If you could remove my sysop bit please. I'll re-collect it when the Wikimedia Foundation comes to its senses and properly deals with the Fram block, the Floquenbeam desysop and the inevitable Bishonen desysop. I'm not all that busy/useful anyway, and don't have the time to really get involved in challenging the WMF at this time in the way Floq, Bish and others have. starship.paint (talk) 07:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• I applaud Bishonen's action as upholding an obvious community consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:WMFOffice - Ban Proposal

Hi all, I've proposed a indef ban & block on WMFOffice. Comments/!votes are welcomed. -FASTILY 08:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)