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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Schiste (talk | contribs) at 23:02, 2 July 2019 (Board statement). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts

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

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

    User:Fram banned for 1 year by WMF office

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 Most of these comments were made prior to follow-up statements from Fram and the WMF and may be outdated.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

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

    What the hell? There had better be a damn good explanation; Fram is arguably the best admin in Wikipedia's history, and while I can imagine problems so bad they warrant an emergency WP:OFFICE ban without discussion, I find it hard to imagine problems that are simultaneously so bad they warrant an emergency ban without discussion but simultaneously so unproblematic that the ban will auto-expire in a year. ‑ Iridescent 18:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And also only applicable to enwiki, meaning Fram can communicate on other wikis. I note that the WMF only recently gave themselves the power to do partial bans/temporary bans.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Galobtter - Any clue about whether Fram's ban is the first exercise in implementing these or have other editors been subject to these P-bans, earlier? ∯WBGconverse 18:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Winged Blades of Godric, first on enwiki at least per User:WMFOffice contributions, I checked de wiki and found some more de:Special:Contributions/WMFOffice; the timing of those dewiki bans suggests the policy was put into place to ban those two people. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Winged Blades of Godric: It is not. The first WMF partial bans were done in German Wikipedia. The earliest that I know of is Judith Wahr in February. Policy regarding partial bans were added around the same time (about two hours prior to the bans' implementation). -★- PlyrStar93 →Message me. ← 18:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to import drama from other projects into here but is there any more public info (i.e. discussed on de.wikipedia in a public location and still available) on what went on there? As mentioned, the timing of the policy change suggests it was likely at least partly done to allow a block of that specific user. Given the way the WMF stepped in, I expected something similar to here, may be an experienced editor who was blocked. But they only seem to have around 900 edits. True the ban there was indef though unlike this one and it doesn't seem the editor is particularly interested in editing elsewhere however as others said, it was technically also only a partial ban since it didn't affect other projects suggesting whatever it is wasn't severe enough to prevent editing any WMF projects. Nil Einne (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect this isn't going anywhere further but for the benefit of others I had a quick look at machine translations of one of the discussions linked and think that possibly the account linked above was just one of the accounts the editor used which may explain the low edit count. Nil Einne (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    See #FYI: Similar incident in de.wp some months ago. Which reminded me of something I'd read about but completely forgot when replying. It sounds like the editor concerned was already either blocked or banned by the community so it probably wasn't quite like here where plenty feel any ban of the editor concerned is unjusitified. Of course concerns over WMF's over reach or getting unnecessarily involved in project governance as well as other issues like the WMF ban unlike the community block or ban being unappealable still arose. Nil Einne (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with you on this. Fram and I have butted heads a time or two (I think?) but I just am trying to wrap my mind around a decision like this with no real explanation. I understand the nature of WMFOffice blocks but I would think that anything egregious enough for an emergency decision like this would have had some indication prior to it happening, like a community discussion about bad behavior or abuse of tools which would reveal PII (os, cu), but Fram was neither of those. I can't seem to think of a single thing that would warrant such unilateral action that could also result in only a one year ban (as opposed to indefinite, if that makes sense) and so narrowly focused on one local project. Praxidicae (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Going to echo this as well. This is a very cryptic block, which seems very hard to tie to any public behaviour. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, saying "email us" is not sufficient explanation for banning a well-known veteran editor and admin like this.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Iri. It's also so unproblematic that he's not banned on any other WMF projects?! Banning from en.wiki only seems like something ArbCom gets to do, not WMF. And I see he's already been desysopped by WMF, instead of locally, too. If there are privacy issues involved, I certainly don't need to know what's going on, but I do want ArbCom informed of what is going on and get their public assurance that they agree with the action, and this isn't bullshit. They even preemptively removed talk page access. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Whatamidoing (WMF), I know you're heartily sick of my pinging you, but if ever there was a situation that needed an explanation from Commmunity Relations, this is it. ‑ Iridescent 18:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is T&S business and I am not sure if Community Relations knows better. — regards, Revi 18:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Which goes back to my original point: if it's egregious enough (T&S) to warrant a unilateral decision like that, why only a year? Praxidicae (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) If it's a T&S issue, then why is he still trusted on every other project, and why is it simultaneously so urgent it needs to be done instantly without discussion, but so unproblematic it expires after a year? "We're the WMF, we can do what we like" may be technically true, but the WMF only exists on the back of our work; absent some kind of explanation this looks like a clear-cut case of overreach. As Floq says, if there's an issue here that can't be discussed publicly then fine, but given the history of questionable decisions by the WMF I'm not buying it unless and until I see a statement from Arbcom that they're aware of the circumstances and concur with the actions taken. ‑ Iridescent 18:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've asked ArbCom to comment at WT:AC/N. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • WTF? Echo everything that Iri says. ∯WBGconverse 18:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • T&S: training and simulation? Very confused. Talk English please. DrKay (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • A big ‘ole whiskey tango from me too. –xenotalk 19:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • (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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    • "HELLO? IS THIS THING WORKING???" Explanation required. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      Don’t forget Media Viewer —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Iridescent: The cynic in you has some evidence in its favor ... . * Pppery * it has begun... 19:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    • Actually, if the WMF office knew anything, they knew this would blow up. So waiting is inappropriate really, they should have already been in a position to respond immediately to this. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Bureaucrat note: (and response to User:Money emoji) While it is useful to have a notice here about this action, there isn't really anything for 'crats to do right now. The WMF Office action indicates a 1 year prohibition on administrator access at this time that we would not override. Per the administrator policy, former administrators may re-request adminship subsequent to voluntary removal. As Fram's sysop access removal is not recorded as "voluntary", the way I see it is that a new RfA, after the prohibition period, would be the path to regaining admin access (outside of another WMF Office action). — xaosflux Talk 19:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • At ths point I don't even care about the reasoning but there is no way that the WMF can claim this is preventative. If it's so bad that WMF had to act in what appears to be a local matter, why is there no concern about this a year from now? Why, if whatever happened is so bad, is there no concern about ill intent on the hundreds of other projects Fram could edit? I'm not suggesting Fram be indeffed but I think some transparency from WMF is needed here, the optics are very bad and no matter which way I connect the dots on this, it seems extremely punitive. Praxidicae (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the term "Poisoning the Well" comes to mind. Fram comes back, has to go through an RFA if they want the tools back (where they did a hell of a lot of good on preventing shitty code and tools from being unleashed here). There is a substantial population here that will vote against them simply because of this action, being right or not. spryde | talk 22:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
      @Praxidicae: this has the comment I most agree with on the subject. It never was preventative, and I think that being the case is what caused much of the stir. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 13:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah,a big whiskey tango foxtrot from me as well. What the hell are they playing at? Reyk YO! 19:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could this have been self-requested? I can't imagine T&S saying yes, but you never know. In any case, piling on here. An explanation is required. Without one, people will assume the worst, either about Fram, or the WMF. I'm ashamed to admit my mind already went to same place as Iridescent's. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Speculation can take us anywhere of course. Keep in mind there could be additional T&S terms that we are unaware of (such as a speculative "may not hold admin or above access on any project for a year") - functionally, enwiki is the only project where advanced access provisioned, so may have been the only one where rights modifications was warranted. — xaosflux Talk 19:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Add me to the list of those who said "WTF" out loud after seeing this. The scope of the ban is baffling, too; if Fram has violated the terms of use, why only a year, and why only the English Wikipedia? If they haven't, then why a ban at all? Also, the WMF is doubtless aware that Fram was an admin with a long an prolific history of productive editing. Any office action against them was always going to be controversial; so why wait to post a statement at all? I see that the de.wiki bans were also to a single wikimedia project; but I haven't enough German to find any subsequent discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • WTF???? I wasn't aware of any misconduct from Fram that warranted this. I'm eager to know what prompted this ban.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Early betting at Wikipediocracy is that this is preliminary to some sort of centralized imposition of either Superprotect or Flow or Visual Editor, Fram being one of the most outspoken critics of WMF technological incompetence and bureaucratic overreach -- not that there is much room for debate about that at this point. I share the views expressed above: we need answers. Carrite (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Which is clearly way outside any "office actions". That's called "repression" where I come from, should it be in any sense true. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every block needs to be given a reasonable explanation. Without an explanation, we cannot know if a block is valid or not. This entire situation is suspect until an explanation is given. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since it doesnt appear anyone has asked the question: Has anyone asked Fram? I am sure at least one of the admins and/or arbcom has had off-wiki correspondence with them at some point. While obviously asking the subject of a ban for their version of events has its own drawbacks, in absence of any other information.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, no reply. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I've already asked on Commons (where he's not banned) if he wants to make any public statement, and offered to cut-and-paste it across if he does. Technically that would be proxying for a banned editor, but I very much doubt the WMF wants the shit mountain banning Fram and me in the same week would cause. ‑ Iridescent 20:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll do it, then no harm no foul if TRM gets permanently banned. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Well I pinged him before you posted this and offered same. I have no fucks to give and lets see if he likes me more ;) In more seriousness, I am concerned that the WMF has enacted a wiki-specific limited-time ban, which indicates two things: Firstly its a local en-wp issue, possibly linked to a specific ENWP individual editor, and secondly that its punishment not a genuine concern for safety. If it was, you would just ban someone permanently, and from all wikimedia projects. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      To expand a little on the above: I want the WMF to ban editors permanently if there is a *safety* issue. I dont want them interfering in local wikis because someone got their feelings hurt. If they want to do that, they can do the rest of the work policing the userbase too. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) So what, are they repressing people with no explanation now? What did they violate? SemiHypercube 20:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      SemiHypercube, disappearing people without explanation is accepted practice at Wikipedia in extreme circumstances; there are sometimes good reasons we want someone gone and don't want to discuss it publicly for their own privacy's sake. What's unique here is that the WMF are saying that Fram is untrustworthy here, but trustworthy on every other WMF project, and will become trustworthy here in exactly 365 days' time, both of which are confusing to say the least. ‑ Iridescent 20:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Not to mention that "disappearing" someone like Fram is going to cause a shitstorm, unlike the Great Purge, where you just purged those causing the shitstorm too. I'm afraid to say, and Arbcom may now ban me forever, but this looks like incompetence of the highest order by WMF. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • People I trust say this is warranted, but I do object that this was communicated to stewards and not the local ArbCom. Most en.wiki users don’t even know what a steward is, and the local arb with the least support here has more voters for them than even the most popular steward. Stewards do great work and I trust them and have a good working relationship with them, but local only blocks should be disclosed to the local ArbCom, not a global user group that is mostly behind the scenes on en.wiki. This action was guaranteed to get local pushback, and having users who were trusted locally be able to explain it. I’m someone who has a good relationship with the WMF and stewards, and as I said, from what I’ve been told by sensible people this was justified, but if I was trying to think of a better way to make the WMF intentionally look bad on their biggest project, I couldn’t. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I can not recall a single instance an explanation was given in the case of WMF ban (and being active on Commons, I have seen them a lot). I do not expect this situation to be different.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Stewards are informed the reason for every WMF ban, including this one. They can’t say what it is, but considering that this was such an extraordinary event, letting the local group that would be most comparable know the reason would have been the very least that could have been done. Then an arb could say “We’ve seen why and it’s warranted.” TonyBallioni (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      TonyBallioni, given that it only affects en-wiki it must relate to en-wiki. I no longer have Magic Oversight Goggles, but can see nothing remotely problematic in Fram's contributions or deleted contributions in the past month; is there anything in the contributions of Fram (or User:EngFram, who the WMF have also ejected) that raises the slightest concern? (You obviously don't need to specify.) ‑ Iridescent 20:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Iridescent, I don’t see any recent suppressed contributions that raise red flags. I don’t know any more than anyone else other than “Yes, this was intentional, and yes, it looks valid” from people who are generally sensible. Of the WMF departments, T&S is usually one of the most sensible. My objection here is that I know they’re pretty sensible because I’ve worked with them in the past on other things and trust them. Most en.wiki users don’t know that T&S is any different than [insert pet bad idea from the WMF here] and so communicating with the local ArbCom so at least some name recognition here could say they know why. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure WMF has never made a unilateral decision on a local matter that resulted in a long term editor and sysop being removed for local issues either. So...Praxidicae (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    TonyBallioni, now that at least Fram's side is out, do you still trust those people? spryde | talk 13:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This might sound a bit like conspiracy theory nonsense but has anyone checked to see if WMFOffice is compromised? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Ivanvector, I was thinking something similar but that seems unlikely, as stewards have indicated that the ban was justified, and the wmfoffice account doesn't seem compromised, based on its edits. 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 20:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've emailed them - I suggest everyone do the same to push some weight on that route. There are actions that could warrant this - but they'd have to be confident it was Fram not a compromised account. That normally requires a bit of time consideration. Which let's us ask...why such a dramatic sudden action . ARBCOM can handle off-wiki information, so that's even fewer possible actions that could lead to this. We should also ask ARBCOM to discuss it at their monthly chat - I suspect several requests from us would have more impact. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes yes, I emailed them hours ago. Nothing at all, of course. I do wonder how much thought went into this on behalf of WMF. Perhaps the UK government have paid them to create some kind distraction from Brexit? It's probably the only rational explanation. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not matter at this point what the action was as WMF acted only in a local capacity and not the global capacity that they should act under. There is no action as far as I'm concerned that would warrant WMF Office involvement in just a local project, this is black and white in my opinion and if Fram's behavior (or non-behavior, considering we don't know what has happened) was a problem only for the English Wikipedia, it should have been dealt with by measures that are in place on the English Wikipedia and not by a WMF employee/global group acting as a rogue arbcom. Praxidicae (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:OFFICE, the WMF have the right to ban from a single project on the grounds of Repeated misconduct within a single Foundation-supported project, with considerable impact either on that project overall or on individual contributors who are active in that project., but that seems unlikely here, and if there were some kind of misconduct going on, if it were at the level the WMF needed to intervene I'd expect the ban to be permanent. ‑ Iridescent 20:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto, see my comments above. If T&S have to be involved, why are they doing time-limited bans? Thats how ENWP deals with serial problem users. If its a T&S issue they should either not be involved in day-to-day misbehaviour or should be enacting permanent bans. Time-limited either indicates its punishment or that its not an issue that rises to T&S level. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, are we technically prevented from unblocking? Tiderolls 20:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Not in a software sense, but the WMF will insta-desysop anyone who overturns them. ‑ Iridescent 20:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Then they need to get their collective asses in gear before someone does something regrettable. Tiderolls 20:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      Was that fork borne of a constitutional crisis? –xenotalk 20:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      @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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      (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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      Do you think enwp would fare any better if the unpaid administration went on a general strike? –xenotalk 22:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      Also, Sydney Poore is FloNight and her picture is on her user page. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • (self-removed) Legoktm (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Noting that you are *employed* by WMF. ∯WBGconverse 02:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    • +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). –Davey2010Talk 19:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just recently we ran into Guido den Broeder on Commons who immediately started to accuse me of having been canvassed by Fram. (which I wasn't) I suspect Lyrda is a sock of Guido (Guido refuses to even deny it) and Lyrda's talk page contains the note "I have revoked your talk page access after phony claims of rape". Did they proceed to do something to get Fram banned? I can't say for sure. All I'm saying is, I don't like the smell of any of this. - Alexis Jazz 19:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guido is already confirmed as a sockpuppeteer, many times in fact, so that's no news. Also confirmed as lying about their socking. Blocked, unblocked and quickly reblocked. And if I was wrong about Lyrda, they would have no reason not to deny it. - Alexis Jazz 22:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand this by the way. If Fram has done something terrible and unforgivable, they should be blocked indef. If they didn't, WMF should let the community handle it. What possible purpose does a 1-year ban serve here? - Alexis Jazz 22:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • WOAH WHAT?!?! That ban took place while I was on a wikibreak. I never see anything controversial that involves Fram at all. Looking at the statements, I don't see what rules Fram has violated or caused controversy on. INeedSupport :3 21:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a cancer, not an injury. I hope the community looks at this issue in the context of epidemic crackdowns on freedom of speech throughout our world by millions of bureaucratic fiefdoms, big and little. You see, unless we all start paying attention to all of the widespread crackdowns on freedom of speech, thought, and press (Assange, perhaps); wherever they might be, the foundation of our freedoms will be washed away 1 little stone at a time. To quote Dylan, "something is happening here but you don't know what it is, Do you, Mr. Jones."
    I will tell you exactly what is going on, imo. We, the people, are being systematically brainwashed into giving up ( not having them taken away ) all of our precious freedoms of thought, speech, press and association, and its not just some kind of happenstance. It is an orchestrated self perpetuating cultural shift away from aspirational and community empowered governing bodies toward protective, moralizing and pushy governing bodies.
    Voltaire said "the comfort of the rich depends upon an abundance of the poor". I'd say, the power of the top 1/1000 of 1 % depends upon a shallow, self centred and limited focus by us, the masses of people. Its a huge error in judgment and perspective to look at this Fram event as an isolated event; its just part of an injected cancer that's spreading into and around every single aspect and segment of humanity. Its actually trite to call it "evil"; I'd call it an aggressive and global and terminal attack upon every speck of potential goodness that rests within our collective human spirit.
    You must force yourselves to open your eyes to see this incident as just 1 little cancer cell amongst millions; you must recognise and attack the totality of the cancer and must create and/or join a global force to do that. The current banning/& lack of transparency is like a mosquito bite; its the cancer that needs your attention. If you look at it that way, the way to deal with the mosquito will be obvious. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement from the WMF Trust & Safety Team

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

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

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

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

    However, on occasion community members submit evidence strongly indicating cases where local communities consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous rules but the Terms of Use, too. We will continue to consider these rare cases brought to our attention under the framework of the office actions policy. So does that mean you have determined that the ENWP's community failed to uphold its own rules or the TOU in relation to Fram, despite no actual case, action or report being raised against Fram on ENWP? Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Of all the non-answers I've seen in my life, that's possibly one of the most long winded. Reyk YO! 21:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Award-winning. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oooh, this sounds like a whole new way of getting rid of people we don't like... without going through the tedium of due process, ANI, ArbCom or anything. Just badger the WMF with complaints and, hey presto, the user is vanished. Winning!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the most vague statement/response I have ever seen. WMF has mostly described the policies like when, and they can block/ban some individual (not one account by the way [by the way, that made me go: bwahaha]), but they still have not adequately explained why did they ban Fram. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Fram's response on Commons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • +clear right so content fills width: no content change. --Mirokado (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Responses by Jimbo (Jimmy Wales)

    1. "I was entirely unaware of this before just now. I'm reviewing the situation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)"[3][reply]
    2. "[…] Both Doc James and I are on the case, trying to understand what happened here, and the ArbCom is discussing it as well. Drama will not be necessary, but more importantly, drama will not be helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)"[4][reply]
    3. "I can assure you that my commitment to, and support of, appropriate principles and our established constitutional order is far far more important than any personal conflict that I may have ever had with anyone. I'm not taking any position on this yet, because the reasonable thing to do is to listen to all sides calmly and come to an understanding of the issues.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)"[5][reply]
    4. "I'd like to remind everyone that it is my long established view that all bans are appealable to me. I seldom intervene, even if I have some minor disagreement with a ban, because no major constitutional issues or errors are at stake. It is too early to know what is going on in this particular case, but please if anyone is planning to "fall on their sword" for principle, let it be me. But, I really don't think that will be necessary here. The WMF staff are diligent, thoughtful, and hard working. If an error has been made, I'm sure they will revert and work out procedures to make sure it didn't happen again. If the ban was justified, I'm sure they will find a way to make it clear to - at a minimum, if privacy issues play a role, to me, to the board, and to the Arbitration Committee. Therefore, dramatic action would not be helpful at the present time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)"[6][reply]
    5. "I think you and I can both forecast that a wheel war will not serve as a useful introduction to a calm and reasonable discussion. Give it a little time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)"[7][reply]
    6. "I'd like to remind you that it is not even 9am in California. I think it quite clear that unblocking before they've had a chance to even get into the office will simply serve to escalate matters. I suspect that Fram himself would agree that there is no emergency. Rather than cloud the waters and make it even harder (emotionally) for a backdown (if such is warranted - we don't know yet!), it will be best to take the high road and wait until a more appropriate time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)"[8][reply]
    7. "Yes, I'm firmly recommending that we all relax a notch or two. It's not even 9am in California. There is no emergency here. I have raised the issue with the WMF, and so has Doc James. I am also talking to ArbCom. It is really important that we not take actions to escalate conflict - nor are such actions necessary. If there comes a need for a time for the community to firmly disagree with the WMF and take action, then that time is only after a proper reflection on the full situation, with everyone having a chance to weigh in.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)"[9][reply]
    8. "I continue to advise calm and slow movement. Further wheel warring will not be productive and will only tend to escalate matters further. I am recommending the same to WMF, as is Doc James. We are discussing the situation with them in the hopes of finding the right way forward.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)"[10][reply]
    9. "Doc James and I have been pursuing this with diligence. I continue to recommend the following to everyone here:
      • Don't wheel war - it isn't going to be helpful in achieving the goals you want, and could actually make it harder
      • Do express your opinions clearly and firmly and factually, with kindness - it's the best way to get your point across
      • Remember that there is no emergency here - the phrase "important but not urgent" fits very well - getting this right and fixing this situation is incredibly important, but it doesn't have to happen in 4 hours (and it also, of course, shouldn't take months)
      • I applaud those who have kept separate in their minds and words the separate issues here. The issue of Fram's behavior and whether desysopping and/or some form of block are appropriate is separate from the "constitutional issue" of process and procedure. Conflating the two would, I fear, only serve to raise emotions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)"[11][reply]
    10. "To be clear, to the best of my knowledge, there haven't been any direct requests by board members to line workers through middle management here. Certainly, James and I are speaking to the board and CEO, not attempting to intervene at that level at all. The board should only operate at the level of broad principles and through the top management, not detailed management of specific issues.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)"[12][reply]
    11. "[…] This is not about individual people, this is a question about our constitutional order. This is not about this specific situation, but a much more important and broader question about project governance.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)"[13][reply]
    12. "[…] If we characterize this as a clash between ArbCom and the WMF, we are factually in error. It's not as easy as that.
      And of course, if I were to take a dramatic action, some would cheer, and some would scream. And if I go slow and deliberate, some will not like that, either. But it is my way, the only way that I know, and when I stick to slow and thoughtful deliberation I have learned in my life that the outcome is better than if I do something sudden.
      I suppose if I had to decide "whether the community or the foundation is my true heir" I'd go with community. But I actually don't think in that way. My true heir is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. That's what I think we all care the most about, or anyway it is what we should all care the most about. One of the reasons that Wikipedia has succeeded is that we don't take anything as absolutely permanent. WP:IAR and WP:5P5 spring to mind.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)"[14][reply]
    13. "[…] I wasn't trying to contrast or compare the necessity/valuation of the WMF with the community at all. I agree with you that they aren't easily separable, and I also believe that when we fall into a too hasty 'WMF vs community' narrative - either in the community, or in the WMF, we are probably making it harder to see how to optimize and resolve problems.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)"[15][reply]
    14. "We on the board are in active conversations. I think you will receive a comprehensive, cogent reply, but we are looking to be thoughtful, reflective, to examine every aspect of this, and neither allow invalid precedent to be set, nor to set invalid precedent. The best way to avoid a bad outcome is to look to first principles, look at what has gone wrong, and to propose a process for healing but also for building a process that works better in the future.
      In those board discussions, I am stating my own views directly and clearly, but it would be inappropriate to share them here and now, because as we all know, there are those who like to engage in "Jimbo said" argumentation, which doesn't clear the air but instead often only creates more heat.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)"[16][reply]
    15. "This is pretty accurate as a too-brief summary of the history. This is an edited version of the key sentences as I would put it myself: "Jimbo's goals then were for the community to be self-sustaining and self-governing such that it would fulfill its mission with less of his involvement as time went on. It was never a goal for the WMF to have any sort of authority over or involvement in community or content decisions beyond the removal of libellous material and copyright violations and other limited actions for public safety of various kinds, which the WMF took on for reasons of compliance." And that isn't the whole of it really, I would also argue that the WMF can and should have a role of facilitating and guiding community consultations to help the community resolve sticky issues where there is a failing of process. Reading between the lines here, you can likely guess my view of the current situation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)"[17][reply]
    16. "You have clearly misunderstood what I said. Nothing about "facilitating and guiding community consultations" even remotely implies that I think they should be "judge, jury, and executioner". I don't even know what chain of thought got you from one to the other. The point is that there are things we know to be true: there are very few admins created and while most people (the vast majority) think that's a problem, there is no consensus and no process towards consensus towards resolving that issue. It's a thankless task to take on and run a project to work through various options to find something that would get us to a better place - no one has stepped up to do that (a few have tried, and thank goodness for them). WMF community support people have done a great job on consultations around terms of service and so on - we do have some positive examples of how to do this right. It isn't about ramming things down people's throat - it's about taking on the hard job of listening and framing debate, convening real-life groups to work on issues, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)"[18][reply]
    17. "Yes, the ED is aware. The board is still discussing with each other and with staff. I'm a participant in this but not in a position to say when it will come to a conclusion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)"[19][reply]
    18. "Without commenting at this moment on any of the rest of it, I can say that I do not know, and don't personally consider it particularly relevant or interesting, whether legal was consulted beforehand. I don't think legal is the right avenue for any of us to be thinking about how to improve things in this or in related circumstances.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)"[20][reply]
    19. "I will raise the issue. As you can imagine, I'm trying not to cause any additional problems by making any firm declarations of what I am and am not empowered to do in my traditional role in English Wikipedia, but I can indicate that I share the view that I could do that - or should be able to do that. One reason we have kept some vestiges of a "constitutional monarch" system is precisely to have pressure relief valves for highly unusual situations. One reason I haven't tried to be forceful with it is that I don't believe in it as anything other than a safety mechanism. So long as other avenues exist for me to try to help everyone reach reconciliation and find a solution in which almost everyone says "we are now in a better place than we were when this whole mess started" - I'm going to try.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)"[21][reply]
    20. "I think of our constitutional arrangements as being very like those in the UK. A broad array of written and unwritten rules, policies, guidelines, and traditions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)"[22][reply]
    21. "In the current situation, I think that the composition of the board is not a big part of the problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)"[23][reply]
    22. "The Board met yesterday to work on a full statement about this. It's not easy getting to consensus with a large group, but overall I think people are going to be happy with the statement and with the things we are asking the WMF staff to do going forward. As one board member wasn't present, we decided to give a bit more time so that we can get to unanimity.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)" [24][reply]
    23. "Indeed. We've made it abundantly clear. I ask everyone who sees fire to try to soothe people. This is going to go the right way. My own personal view is that drama never helps, but making it clear (through strikes/retirements) that something is unacceptable is a totally respectable and useful way to move the needle in an important way. "There's a giant flame war on the Internet" never really makes a dent. "Our best administrators are writing essays about why this is wrong, and many of them have indicated they will quit" makes a big dent. Also: "The good people protesting are not, for the most part, defending bad behavior. They are asking the WMF to consider how this action undermines our efforts to improve behavior" is helpful." Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC) [25][reply]

    Further comment from the Foundation

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

    Dear members of the English Wikipedia community,

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

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

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

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

    In terms of us providing direct justification for this ban to the community, as both several community members and we have already mentioned, we do not release details about Trust & Safety investigations due to privacy concerns. What do we mean by that? We mean that when someone reports a situation to us, or someone is involved in a case we investigate, we are obligated to keep their identity and any personally-identifying evidence private. That includes not only literally not publishing their name, but often not sharing diffs (which might show things like "who the named party was targeting" or "what dispute this investigation arose from") or even general details (in many cases, even naming the specific infraction will allow interested sleuths to deduce who was involved). What we can say in this case is that the issues reported to us fell under section 4 of the terms of use, as noted above, specifically under the first provision entitled “harassing and abusing others.”

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

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

    Further clarification

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

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

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

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

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

    Reinstatement of Office Action and temporary desysop of Floquenbeam

    Hello all,

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

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

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

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

    Further response from Fram

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

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

    About the ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Statement from Jan Eissfeldt, Lead Manager of Trust & Safety

    Dear members of the English Wikipedia community,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Further comments from Jan Eissfeldt

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

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

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

    Jan Eissfeldt update (06/17/2019)

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

    Community questions, responses, and comments

    • Question. This all seems pretty par for the course; but to Jan (WMF), you never gave a figure as to describe the quantity of requests (only percentage). If you are authorized to make that statistic public, please do so and be sure to ping me. Either way, thank you for this response and the infographic from the team. Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I think it's quite fair to only give percentages, especially over time rather than merely one quarter of results. I found the information quite informative and pretty reassuring and thank Jan for that. It wasn't, however, quite what I had asked for. What I had hoped for was once we entered the approval process grey box, what percentage ultimately end up at all approvals received and what percentage end up with no office action recommended/office action declined. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:X decides to run for a seat on the Arbitration Committee. Just as with most other roles requiring identification, it is possible to run for ArbCom and not identify until after election (steward elections are the only exception I can think of). The WMF T&S team is responsible for updating the noticeboard. Unbeknownst to the community, X has already received two conduct warnings for WMF. How will WMF respond to this? --Rschen7754 03:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting, thanks Jan. I was trying to think of what would be comparable numbers for arbcom, but it's hard to compare apples to apples. Looks like case request acceptance has been in the 10-20% range for the last few years, but we don't keep outcomes data like that for private complaints/requests/etc. I see in that chart a lot of stuff about who approves what in which order, but I wonder if the box where the actual investigation happens can be opened up a little more. What does an "investigation" consist of? What would the investigator look at? Assuming we're talking about a harassment case, would it include things like contacting other possible victims if you discover them, or asking the opinion of others who were affected by the problem behavior but who did not get in touch with T&S? Or is the decision about whether a particular behavior is harassing made by the person doing the investigation? Under what circumstances would a particular report be referred back to arbcom (or to community processes) rather than pursued internally? The chart tells us how WMF staff communicate internally about these things, but not about communication with or information-gathering from anyone other than the directly affected parties. (The table has a bit more, but to be honest I can't understand the "Dissemination of information relevant to the office action to specific groups" row at all. That's quite a mouthful, but since it's separate from the reporter and the affected user, I assume that means other interested parties, but "conduct warning" gets a checkmark for that one and "interaction ban" doesn't? Is that right?) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's definitely not enough. I am rather disappointed because I saw a certain hope in Jan's last posting. He only gives a diagram of the internal process but nothing, literally nothing, about communication to others and also nothing about the reasonings for any decision at any point. So they seem to simply want to continue as before. Everything relevant remains a secret, regardless whether this is necessary or not. No one, literally no one is able to get insight, not even ArbCom or a trustworthy representative. Even the "accused" remains uninformed. Appeal is impossible. This is unfair trial par excellence. As to fairness, this is a word-by-word repetition of the last statement. What I first saw as an offer for discussion seems to be hollow phrase. I intend to open an RfC at Meta but wanted to wait in the hope that something relevant comes up from the side of T&S. This is not so. Mautpreller (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC) (from German Wikipedia).[reply]
    • This is grossly insufficient. I'd like to call attention to the following statement: Generally, we will reach out to the accused party for information if doing so is possible without violating the privacy of the accusing - or other involved - parties This means that T&S is willing to, in some cases, rule against someone completely in absentia. This is not an acceptable system, and T&S needs to make major modifications to it before accepting new cases. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I too find this problematic. Being unable to defend yourself effectively puts someone in a kangaroo court with no means of defense. Buffs (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Jan. The questions I have regarding the harassment investigation process are:
    1) Is there a provision for asking the notifier if they wish ArbCom to be involved, or is it assumed that they do not? If it is assumed they do not, what was the data and rationale behind making that decision?
    2) What is the legal distinction for privacy in these investigations between those who can see the report and those who cannot? ArbCom members have signed the Confidentially Agreement [26] in which it is agreed that "The Wikimedia Foundation may pursue available legal remedies, including injunctive relief or, in the case of willful intent, monetary damages." What extra legal powers do the Foundation have over those individuals who are permitted to see the report that they do not have over ArbCom members who have signed that they agree to being legally pursued? If the distinction is a paid contract, then would paying ArbCom members a token amount per year, overcome the legal hurdles to allowing ArbCom to view such material? Or is the reluctance to share harassment complaints with ArbCom more to do with procedural qualms rather than legal ones?
    3) Several members of the T&S Team are experienced and trusted Wikipedians, including two admins from Wikipedia who have been functionaries, one of whom has served on ArbCom, so I have no doubt that investigations were done with some insight and understanding of both sides of the issue (as there are always two sides). However, as with others who have commented, the lack of consultation with the accused person seems odd. How have the legal and moral rights of the accused been balanced against the legal and moral rights of the accuser? We have heard it stressed that the accuser is to be protected, but what consideration has been given to protecting the accused?
    Thanks in advance for considering these questions. SilkTork (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    SilkTork, we know what happens when volunteers cross the line and become salaried employees (or contractors). In 2013 one was desysoped for particularly egregious behaviour, right in the middle of an outgoing ED's valedictory speech at a Wikimania in which she was presenting a prerecorded video that specifically praised the individual's work (the surpressed sniggers in the lecture theatre were audible). Needless to say, although the community called for it, that individual was not sacked from their paid job. I am reminded of this recent comment by Seraphimblade:
    JEissfeldt (WMF), while I appreciate you at least being willing to put your name on this statement, it is still more of the same. I will be posting a response as to why shortly, point by point to what you said, but in short: The WMF is not a "higher authority" than the English Wikipedia community, and may not overrule it, any more than we could walk into the San Francisco offices, point to an employee, say "You're fired", and expect that to have any effect. WMF is a separate body, but it is not "higher" than the English Wikipedia community. We don't can your employees, you don't can our editors or admins. You also do not overrule or bypass our editorial or community processes.
    Oh, the irony. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Kudpung Sorry, but what does "ED" stand for here? Executive Director? If so I take it you're referring to Sue Gardner's keynote? [27] IntoThinAir (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    IntoThinAir, 'ED' in this context means Executive Director. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have a long-established principle on WP that blocks and bans are intended to be preventative, not punitive. How is a ban like Fram's supposed to prevent future misconduct after it has expired, if it is not made expressly clear to the banned editor in what areas their actions went over the line? Jheald (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can identify a few things that give me significant concerns, and I urge that these receive attention as WMF continues to work on the procedure.
    1. As already noted by others, there needs to be a clearer and more substantive part of the workflow for responses from the accused editor.
    2. Although it's good to have multiple layers of review, it's not clear from the information here whether all of the layers involve serious and independent evaluation of the complaint. There is a serious risk that some of the later, higher-level review steps may just be something like "Well, it's looks like [name] did a good job of checking all the boxes, so we'll just sign off on it and move on."
    3. It's not spelled out, but there really ought to be a sort of "minutes" or other written record of decisions at each step. I do not mean that this should be public, but it can be important to keep internally in the event of subsequent scrutiny from the WMF Board or others, as is happening here. I think it should memorialize any off-the-cuff discussions, to have a record if someone not officially involved in a particular step of the review has nonetheless commented to an involved staff person about it.
    4. As noted by others, there needs to be evaluation of whether the problem could be referred to the local project (ArbCom etc.).
    And more broadly, it is important that office actions be used only for the kinds of purposes for which they have historically been intended. Office actions, especially those involving the larger projects, should never be an alternative forum for a dispute that could instead have been handled locally. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Jan. I have a few questions:
    1. m:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019, tells us,

      There are some rare instances when Wikimedia Foundation Trust and Safety will take actions to protect the safety of the community and the public. This happens where actions on local community governance level are either insufficient or not possible. There may be some rare cases where the Wikimedia Foundation must override local policy, such as to protect the safety of the Wikimedia communities or the public. See Trust & Safety Office actions for more details. [28]

      . Furthermore, WP:OFFICE tells us,

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

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

    Response from Fram to Jan

    Jan Eissfeldt said[29]

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

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

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

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

    A suggested resolution

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

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

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

    Endorse

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

    Oppose

    1. This doesn't sound realistic to me. I'm sure that the Trust and Safety team had good reasons for banning Fram, and I have no reason to think a long, angry discussion between editors who don't know the situation constitutes a reason to overturn that ban. I also don't think it's realistic (or desirable) for the WMF to disclose private information that they're not authorized to disclose. The other suggestions seem like good ones. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      To be clear, I do not endorse as I don't see this as a realistic proposal, and I do not support the unauthorized revealing of private information or the reversal of a ban on the basis of objections from people who don't know the reasons for it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Oppose Fram’s incivility has been longstanding and has affected multiple people. This summation outlines the problems better than I could here. If the community thinks the existing system should have been allowed to run its course, too late now. Perhaps an alternative would be to allow ArbCom to review evidence “under seal,” at least what they can legally be permitted to access, and then prepare a statement (perhaps with majority and minority opinions) for the community expressing whether they concur with the ban or if they recommend another solution. “Tell Fram to be nicer” is not going to cut it; if it had, he would have toned it down long ago. Montanabw(talk) 21:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Montanabw: I took the liberty of fixing an obvious typo in your link. I think it only fair to point out that the summation was authored by an editor who had been caught in a great many copyright violations by Fram over the years. EllenCT (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Ellen, thanks for the tweak. But FYI I worked with Blofeld on some FAC projects ( such as Frank Sinatra. Blofeld was a solid editor. Like most WP editors, his later work was better than his earlier efforts. Fram, however, became obsessed about edits dating back a decade, mostly close paraphrasing more than straight plagiarism, and it perfectly illustrates Fram’s obsession about people who violate his personal guidelines. Just because he may be technically right doesn’t grant him carte blanche to hound people like he did. Montanabw(talk) 03:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Then it should have been handled on-wiki through Arbcom. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Oppose "Fram’s incivility has been longstanding and has affected multiple people" - Fram will be nicer is not really cutting it, they also have not agreed to be nicer anyways Govindaharihari (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Oppose "quasi-volunteering to improve decorum" is insufficient. Thank you Montanabw. There seems to be mass amnesia where Fram is concerned, as the focus of their attentions were not simply at newbies, as is clearly shown.[32] While clarification is needed on the roles of enforcing civility, the fact of the matter is that behavior is addressed in the Terms of Use and within the purview of the foundation to step in if the community has failed to address repeated problems. One would hope that clearly defined roles and reporting policies will come of this. SusunW (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Oppose. "Undo everything you've done, abdicate your duty/ability to enforce the Terms of Use, and don't do anything we don't like in the future, despite owning the site." This is not a compromise. It is a takeover. Fork the site if you disagree with the WMF enforcing the Terms of Use. That is your recourse. ~ Rob13Talk 22:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That doesn't really sound like a compromise either.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @BU Rob13: - that is a ridculous all or nothing argument. Firstly, we're not saying revoke the standard areas of WMF ban-control. Secondly, the WMF is free to amend their ToS however they wish, once legal requirements are met. We argue that they have no other ownership than legal - which is not the be all and end all. We have various methods to act against them, and it makes no sense not to at least consider their usage. It's like telling employees at a company who don't like management's actions that their only option is to create a startup. This suggested solution may well be wrong - but it doesn't lead to (all of) your statement's logical conclusions. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Floquenbeam: The compromise, as I see it, is that you and Bishonen haven't lost your sysop flags, and WJBscribe hasn't lost their bureaucrat flag. And that compromise is quite generous, given your collective actions. ~ Rob13Talk 01:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think that it misses the real point to say that the community should either: (1) say "please sir, can I have some more?" or (2) go fork ourselves. If there's anything that WMF should care about, it's the crowdsourcing framework of all WMF projects. As such, it's entirely appropriate that the "crowd" should speak out about problems that concern us. And then, WMF can, I suppose, tell us that they have laid down the law, and we should go fork ourselves. And how would that affect WMF's projects? Is it really in their best interests to encourage their most productive contributors to go and form a competing website? (Hint: no.) The fact that WMF has the legal right to assert their rights of ownership does not mean that it is sensible, practical, or ethical for them to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @BU Rob13: You're suggesting the community is trying to takeover? The community existed before the WMF ever did. There is only one possible direction a takeover could go. Benjamin (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Oppose these suggestions are attempting to address two separate issues, the general and the specific, as if the resolution to the former was dependent on the other. That's not a tenable negotiating position and we need to consider the problem of the imposition of a parallel unaccountable dispute resolution procedure on enwiki separately from the appropriateness or otherwise of the punishment meted out on Fram.
      Let me be clear, I've butted heads with Fram probably as many times as anybody in the past, but I still respect and appreciate their work in defending Wikipedia, and acknowledge that they have make efforts to respond to civility criticisms over the last year or so. I'm opposed to seeing punishment imposed by a body that is not accountable to the community in other than the most egregious and exceptional cases, so I won't feel comfortable with any result for Fram that does not involve ArbCom taking over the sanctions, enforcement and appeal in the specific case.
      Secondly, there exists the general problem of the perception among T&S that enwiki has not dealt adequately with civility and harassment issues because complainants fear the transparency of our systems will further disadvantage them. I believe that the only long-term solution to that must lie in using T&S as an alternative means of raising and investigating those issues in a confidential way, but that the final decision on sanctions, enforcement and appeal should remain with ArbCom, apart from those cases which are genuinely exceptional. If that means we have to make ArbCom proceedings somewhat less transparent to preserve the privacy of complainants in some cases, so be it. I'd find that a far less bitter pill to swallow than the present situation, and I'm damned sure that both Fram and the complainant in this specific case would agree, particularly since T&S have failed abjectly to preserve the complainant's anonymity in this test case. --RexxS (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    7. Oppose. I really expected a smarter solution from you than "ask people to be nicer". Gamaliel (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Heh. I see you've never met User:Newyorkbrad: this is what he does! And lots of us think it is plenty smart, actually. --GRuban (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    8. Oppose It is obvious Fram disagrees with the warnings he was given, rescinding the ban because the community feels it was communicated poorly is just kicking the can down the road. The underlying problem the WMF has raised with Fram in two warnings has not been addressed, and there's no sign that Fram has taken these on board. MLauba (Talk) 00:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    9. Oppose I'm pretty confident the Office Action was done with good cause, and on some sort of 'three strikes' basis after off-wiki warnings. WMF clearly believes this community has failed to get to grips with certain behavioural issues amongst certain long-established editors or admins (that possibly we ourselves wouldn't tolerate coming from new editors?). It seems unreasonable to propose complete termination of the ban for this individual editor, but I could endorse the resolution if the following changes (except #1) applied to everyone in future:
      1. a c.75% reduction in the duration of the ban as a sensible compromise to immediate reinstatement;
      2. no disclosure of any other editors' names to anyone, on or off-wiki (victims shouldn't become targets. Limited disclosure to ArbComm a possibility );
      3. removal of the words "hopefully" and "generally" from our community accepting that T&S Office Actions are taken with good intentions;
      4. recognition by any banned editor that their 'decorum' must 'improve' (NYB's words), and that further Office Actions may ensue if they don't;
      5. that T&S inform ArbComm whenever any editor or admin is issued with an off-wiki warning (possibly extending to sanction implementation by ArbComm, not T&S, per RexxS); and
      6. any admin, desysopped by an Office Action, shall be expected to edit normally for a period equivalent to the length of their ban - up to a max of 6 months - before submitting a new RfA (in order to give the broad community time to decide if it now has confidence in that person being handed back the tools, based upon that editing).
      But I do absolutely endorse the need for a better dialog between WMF's T&S Team, ArbComm and the community (so that we can properly appreciate and act on their intended message, especially if they believe we are 'institutionally failing' in some parts of our editing or admin culture). Nick Moyes (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    10. Oppose though I am open to the suggestions for modification by Nick Moyes. I also agree that since this was done in such as way that caused a huge problem for relations between en.Wiki and the T&S team that further communication is necessary to repair the rift. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    11. Oppose dot points 1, 2 & 3. The facts underlying the ban may be confidential, although I wish WMF would explicitly that if true. Moving forward from here should not depend on Fram. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    12. Oppose per BU_Rob13, you wanted compromise, you have a compromise, nobody other than Fram is banned even though they should have as per the original statement of the ban. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That makes sense if you operate from the principle that the WMF is the sole authority and that their word is automatically law. But from my vantage point, it is not a compromise for long-term encyclopedia-builders like Bish and Floq to not be banned. It's common sense. Lepricavark (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    13. Oppose as, quoting Mx. Granger, "I don't see this as a realistic proposal". I am also open to considering some of the elements suggested by NickMoyes. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    14. Oppose T&S make a commitment not to release details to the person accused of harassment. You can't then ask then to tell that person who complained, even if couched in the terms of "stay away from...". - Bilby (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    15. Oppose Tony (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    16. Oppose Disappointing proposed resolution. Only the last point is a good idea.--I am One of Many (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    17. Oppose expands a dialog is too wooly, an Americanism that just kicks the can down the road. T&S are ungoverned, unaccountable and based on this bizarre case, may well routinely take actions that if assessed in the cold light of day would be found incompetent or perversely unjust. A system with no published procedures, that refuses to answer questions about its procedures or explain basic case evidence that was always public and has no need to be handled like they were the NSA trying to take out terrorists, is wide open for corruption and the deliberate burying of mistakes by banning those that have been treated badly. In comparison, an hour ago I reported a porn revenge Twitter post made by a woman who claimed to be a victim, the process that Twitter follows is open and accountable whilst the cases they remove can remain confidential. Our expectations for T&S should be no less than the incredibly basic and straightforward policies that Twitter follows, just because they are jolly nice people with good intentions who believe they are good at their jobs and protect each other... --Fæ (talk) 08:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      case evidence that was always public Was it? Says who? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      My point was a general one. The Framban case does have public evidence, lots of it actually, including emails the WMF sent to Fram for which there is no NDA in place nor should there be, and folks are still debating whether the claims about secret evidence are credible or represent any significant evidence for the ban action, considering that our elected and trusted Arbcom members do not know of any. --Fæ (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    18. Oppose I can't agree with points 1 and 2, which basically gives Fram a slap over the wrist (I'm AGFing here that the T&S team acted on a serious and legitimate concern, as they don't have a history of doing otherwise, and the claims they targeted Fram for being a trouble maker for the WMF lack credibility). Point 3 is also very unsatisfactory: admins are expected to have a high standard of behaviour and encourage constructive discussions - being only a "little bit" better than ranting about ArbCom is not at all the standard admins should set. A better solution would be to refer this matter to ArbCom, which is where it should have gone in the first place. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    19. Oppose on two grounds: first, because it's a moot point; T&S has seen what the community has to offer in this regard and has chosen not to blink. Another demand for the same is not going to change things, it'll just draw out the drama. Second, because I'm increasingly uncomfortable with the impassioned defense of an admin who may have crossed a line into harassment. The thing about harassment being that the perpetrator doesn't get to define it. Even if Fram believed sincerely they hadn't crossed a line, they may have. And I find the demands that a volunteer suspension be treated with the same gravity and seriousness as a criminal trial cringe-worthy at best. Perhaps Fram will take the year to reflect on how their actions impacted people and will make a change when they return - that door has certainly been left to them by T&S and it's probably the best course of action at this point. Simonm223 (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    20. Oppose per many above, not least Simonm223. Though perhaps after voting to overturn T&S's office action, we could vote for peace in the middle east and a unicorn for everyone? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    21. Oppose per Mx. Granger. However, I wish to extend appreciation and thanks to Newyorkbrad for his measured and reasonable response to the situation, and his efforts to drive us forwards towards a constructive resolution. I can provide moral support, at least. :-) --Deskana (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    22. Oppose because this is not about Fram, it's about the relationship between the Foundation and ArbCom, and the Foundation and enwiki. Fram is one of the symptoms, yes, but we need to be looking at the causes and treating those. I don't think if Fram has been so toxic as the Foundation believe and some here on enwiki believe, that letting him back into the community without investigating those allegations is appropriate. My feeling is that as regards the specific case of Fram in this incident, that ArbCom should take over the ban, and hold a case investigating his behaviour. I said that right at the start to Jan. I would prefer that to shrugging the whole thing off as "he's learnt his lesson" because I'm not sure anyone other than those who complained to the Foundation and those within the Foundation who saw the report knows exactly what that lesson is, particularly not Fram himself. How is Fram to know exactly what he should avoid if he's not aware of it? The only aspect of this that I support is dialogue between the Foundation and enwiki/arbcom, but we have already made that clear. I have suggested that the current ArbCom request be made a focus for that discussion, while OR has suggested a RfC. Dialogue cannot happen until a venue is accepted and agreed. That appears to be the stage we're at. My preference is for the ArbCom case to be the venue because the Clerks have both experience and appropriate authority to maintain decorum, ArbCom are involved (and ArbCom is fairly central to this as the current main point of contact between WMF and enwiki, and the community authorised body to deal with situations like this), and private evidence, if appropriate, can be handled by ArbCom. If the consensus is against that as a venue, then let us do a RfC (and please let us not have any other suggestions for a venue, otherwise time and energy will be dissipated while we argue among ourselves over a venue, thus justifying any concerns the Foundation may have that we are not equipped to deal with serious issues). I think this is a nice gesture NYB, and I appreciate it, but I don't think it addresses the real issues. SilkTork (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      The issue is, and has always been, about the relationship between Wikipedia editors' elected governing body, the Arbitration Committee, and the Foundation. I'm glad to see some Committee members rising to that occasion. The position the Committee takes as a whole, however, is indeed what's key to safeguard against questionable overlap. To do that, the Committee is going to need to assert itself. El_C 14:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    23. Oppose. I cannot endorse this degree of extension of good faith to Trust and Safety or the WMF as a whole after these events and their statements. Nor can I agree to muzzling anyone's criticism of Arbcom, or to going against an RfC that explicitly recognized our right to say "fuck" on-wiki. There are governance issues here, but also classism issues and an abundant assumption of bad faith on the part of the WMF and some of its defenders. I cannot endorse anything that endangers individual editors by endorsing their treatment as pawns, or as subjects without rights. ArbCom has been bad enough in this respect, but at least we can seek to remedy wrongs done by ArbCom. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    24. Oppose. Did Fram harass and abuse people? If the T&S thinks so, I trust their judgement. The identities of his victims should be protected, especially considering the utter vitriol that has been on display on this page. AdA&D 18:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Then why didn't they allow Arbcom to arbitrate? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Sounds like a question to ask the WMF... If I were to guess I'd say it's because ARBCOM's civility standards aren't stringent enough to enforce the Terms of Use. AdA&D 01:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually after rereading this statement it seems it was due to privacy and COI concerns. AdA&D 01:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    25. Oppose The first bullet point itself is ludicrous. There is no real reason why the Office should unban Fram. If Fram were ever to receive the "clean up your act" message, that would have happened years ago. Their statement on Commons, "of course it is rather hard for me to avoid [the involved editors]" doesn't inspire any confidence either. And they still seem to be obsessed about their admin status. SD0001 (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Then why didn't they allow Arbcom to arbitrate? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it's fairly obvious at this point. They can't even agree right now to create a case based on the banning of Fram and/or the three uses of tools to overturn Office actions. The ban is complicated. Creating a case and reaching out to the WMF for details in private is the base minimum that they could do to form their own conclusion whether the ban was proper or not (even if they can't enforce the unbanning). The three uses of tools to overturn Office actions is all on-wiki behavior and we don't have a case on it. At this point, I wouldn't trust them to sift through Fram's edits to examine his on-wiki behavior. — Moe Epsilon 23:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    26. Oppose This kind of remedy has been floating around Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes since time immemorial, and it's not effective. If this sort of action is what it takes to get the message through, I say do it. Banedon (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Also I can imagine the press coverage that could easily happen if Fram is unbanned and the media starts talking to the people he allegedly harassed. Chances are they'll report the allegations, maybe find the diffs (if the victims are willing), and then conclude that on Wikipedia, if the community kicks up enough of a fuss, they can overrule the WMF's actions. Maybe some will like this kind of portrayal, but I find it very unflattering. Banedon (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    27. Oppose while I understand Newyorkbrad is trying to do, I am not convinced the proposals will be enough to address whatever concerns there are with Fram's behaviour without knowing more details of that behaviour which I can't and don't know. I am also concerned that for this proposal to work, it may require T&S share info with Fram they feel they cannot disclose. As others have noted, there's nothing nor anything in the proposal stopping Fram disclosing the identity of the person. (See also later.) While Newyorkbrad has acknowledged that what we don't know may mean the proposals don't work, I am concerned from what I've seen that if we come up with a proposal that is not going to work and send it to the WMF and then they reject it because it was never going to work, this will generate way more heat than light and so is not helping anything. Nil Einne (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      BTW, an additional problem is that since this is all quasi-voluntary and short on details, it's not clear what happens if everyone agrees to it and then it falls apart. For example, from Fram's reponse they agree to it but have noted they may not notice who's page it is when they edit during routine cleanup. As hopefully most of us know, if this were a formal iban, not noticing is rarely an excuse. When you have an iban you do need to make sure you check stuff before editing. It may impose additional work but that's the nature of the best when the community have decided you need to stay apart. What will happen in this case? And if the identity is secretive, even handling it is fraught. And notably, if a perceived violation of the quasi-voluntary iban results in re-imposition of the WMF site ban, even if the community can't figure out who it is from the timing, if Fram feels they were unfairly treated, there's nothing stopping them revealing the details they know including, as mentioned before, the identity of who the iban was with. And one thing which should have occurred to me with Fram's earlier responses but didn't. For any 2 way iban there are additional complications. Even if the other party involved in the iban wants to respond, there are complications. While the community accepts ibans don't preclude the raising of issues about the iban in appropriate places and within limits; WTF happens if lots of other people are talking about the iban on en.wikipedia, based on details perhaps revealed on other communities or outside the WMF universe, somewhat akin to what has happened in this case with one particular person and their private life? Again if you've been around AN/ANI enough you know the community general rejects anyone with an iban getting too much involved in discussions surrounding the iban relating to the person they were ibanned from. While to some extent this is the case even without an iban, it's much more acute when there is an iban. So assuming there is a 2 way iban, and such details were not mention in the original proposal so I have no idea, the complainant finds themselves in an IMO very bad situation. Nil Einne (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    28. Oppose as per Montanabw and endorse proposal by Nick Moyes, especially point 6. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    29. Oppose: (ristrettomente) #1 is unacceptable. WMF has the right to deny service to anyone, just like any website or 24-hour diner. Parenthetically, while sometimes I do agree with some of the reasoning behind Fram's "campaigns," I have never once agreed with their sharp wording in what I've read from them. Let's imagine:
      • an alternate universe in which the WMF did not have the right to "DO WHAT THEY WANT" with or without reason concerning access to their site
      • Fram was "right" about every case they argued
      • Fram was likewise "right" to use extreem language in every case they ever argued.
      In that case... mistakes happen, get over it. Personally, I have done more than twice the amount of time Fram is being asked to serve for nothing more than posting authorship information and asking if "a bit of today politics" had anything to do with Cirt's extensive contributions to "And you are lynching Negroes" (and by implication Fake news & Fake news website). Sometimes, life just isn't fair.  ;( ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 06:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    30. Oppose: The new information shown by Carcharoth below, about the concerns WM Belgium has had with T&S, is enough that I'd say that anything short of a full audit of the WMF, and T&S in particular, is going to be insufficient. rdfox 76 (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    31. Oppose: the proposal is premature, and for the record, it is not about being a FramBasher as some have alleged to be the only motivation to oppose. I am also undecided if it is proper protocol for so many in the community to be WMFBashers. WP isn't the UAW or Teamsters - it's a Foundation with enormous responsibility, and we are simply volunteers doing whatever it is that motivates us to be here. There is nothing I'd like to see more than a harmonious community, but I am simply not convinced that the way we're going about it is the right way, much less the best way. Atsme Talk 📧 04:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    32. Oppose because as written this would require disclosing the people who filed complaints against Fram, which is a nonstarter on several levels. First, there's valid reasons for an anonymous reporting system to exist; second, it would put them at risk; third, even aside from the risk to them, and even if you disagree with the idea of an anonymous reporting system, it's unlikely the WMF even can disclose them in this case without putting itself in legal jeopardy. Finally, the first few points of this resolution all assume that whatever private evidence exists fails to justify Fram's ban, which we don't know. What we need is a system to evaluate (and, yes, accept appeals for) such privileged evidence without disclosing it publically and without keeping the entire process inside the silo of T&S, ensuring at least some degree of community involvement by allowing us to appoint trusted representitives ala ArbCom - I doubt everyone will be completely happy without knowing all the facts, but it could be far better than things are now. --Aquillion (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    33. Oppose So Fram is unblocked gets (in effect though oddly not in wording) more IBAns (does he not have one already) yet retains admin status, despite having IBANS?. Maybe if Fram had been told (not asked nicely, told) to treat others with the same courtesy ans respect (and tolerance) we are being asked to treat him with we would not have been the in the first place. As far as I can see Fram has been told nicely not to do any of this, and has up till now not taken heed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Fram is not currently blocked, and actually Fram being blocked or not has very little to do with this. If what what is meant above is that Fram being unbanned is "oddly not in wording", the first bullet point of the proposal is The Office terminates Fram's ban. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Not is not, its that it odd that we have (in effect) weak IBANS in all but name, but only if we tell him who did it to him. Nothing that prevents him acting playing silly buggers. Given the fact he has been told more then once to tone it down I have no reason to believe it will work this time either. Giving him the names of those who got him banned, without giving them any kind of meaningful protection is not (to my mind ) a solution to this.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      To be clear, I was referring specifically to So Fram is unblocked gets (in effect though oddly not in wording), and not to anything the above "response" addresses. I thought that was obvious. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      That is not the full sentence. As such I am not going to try to explain anymore what I meant, I will let others decide.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Stop breaking the !vote count. 2. I have no earthly idea what That is not the full sentence. means; I guess it's just more evasive trolling like at that recent ANI thread (or that other, current, ANI thread) or on your talk page. So I guess it probably be better to just not feed into it any more. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    34. I didn't realise this had turned into a !vote. Seems fairly pointless, as the plan proposes things we have no power to enact. On #1 I am neutral, given that we don't specifically know what prompted the ban. Letting Fram back early in return for better behaviour would be a useful olive branch, but Fram will be back in June 2020 anyway, and a year isn't such a long time in Wikitime. #2 I Oppose. Aside from the fact that WMF will never in a million years give Fram the names of his accusers, it would be a bad plan anyway. Even assuming good faith on all sides, it would represent a betrayal of those who thought they were communicating with the WMF in confidence. And we've seen what would happen if the community got wind of who the complainants were. We don't need more vengeance seeking, and it's far better to draw a line under the matter. #3, 4 and 5 are reasonable and I hope they will happen anyway. So, taken as a whole, and with thanks to NYB for making the proposal, but I don't see this as a viable plan.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    35. Procedural oppose We can't actually force an ultimatum on the Foundation. Clearly the vast majority of the community would like something like this as a solution, but it's been clear for weeks that we are not going to get it by !voting on it here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    36. Oppose WP:CIVIL is one of the five pillar policies of Wikipedia. Only asking Fram to "improve his decorum a little bit" doesn't square with that policy. Incivility drives new editors away. Admins should be exemplars of civility. Maybe the Foundation over-reached here, but I cannot support asking them to reduce their ban without a strong commitment to change by the banned editor.--agr (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    37. Oppose Very premature and everyone just needs to take a big breath. I think the foundation should lay out what it is aiming to do more explicitly to stop abuse. Chill pill in the interim. I think this won't be noticed by most editors. Just accept it, don't take a sledgehammer to the project, IMHO. Teacup storm. --E.3 (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Other

    • I removed "a little bit" entailing the "improve his decorum" bit as it means nothing additional compared to an arbitrary improvement. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Change reverted. "A little bit" is material. Fram is not being asked to promise to be a saint, but he would be being asked to be more careful. Jheald (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • See WP:TPO, if youd like NYBrad's comment changed you should ask him to change it instead of changing it yourself. nableezy - 19:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • If possible, let's focus on the bigger picture here rather than nuances of the wording. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please don't chastise me about policy, meaningless wording is concerning in a proposal the community has to endorse and I removed it for that sole reason. I personally don't care about being reverted so, meh. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uncertain I endorse this in spirit, although the specifics make me queasy. The main point I disagree with is saying "I am angry" in a "calm collected manner", can be in many situations, much less effective that showing that you are angry (Whether or not FUCK ARBCOM is the most effective way of showing that, I'll leave up to debate). So I don't think Fram should be required (based on what I know of the publicly available evidence, at least) to self impose an interaction ban / clean up his act, especially if that interaction ban leads to the other editor(s) resuming their poor encyclopedic behaviour or Wikipedia institutions failing to hear that something is unacceptable when it is unacceptable. That said, that doesn't mean I'm not in favour of Fram generally improving their behavior (if indeed poor behaviour has occurred), or that I don't acknowledged that it is unpleasant to be on the ass end of a "FUCK <INSTITUTION>" comment. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - it sounds like this plan entails the WMF disclosing to Fram the names of those who reported him. I highly doubt they'll ever do that, unless the reporters themselves agree to it... whatever else may come out of this, the foundation's privacy policy for people who contact them will remain sacrosanct, and I would have thought rightly so. Other than that this may be a reasonable way forward if the WMF and Fram both buy into it, but let's not forget there are other avenues already being explored through Jimbo, DocJames and the board. As for Headbomb's point, I disagree. I've never really got into the discussions over language and tone before, and it offends me not at all, but we should be mindful that Wikipedia has a diverse range of ages, genders, races, creeds and cultures, and if WMF enforce a stricter guideline on the tone we use then I for one won't be complaining. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's hard to find fault with the overall thrust of this proposal, but I think a bit of skepticism needs to be added. Yes, it would undoubtedly be helpful if WMF drops the stick over the ban. Yes, it would unquestionably be a good idea for Fram to be more empathetic in his interactions with others. But are we just kicking the can down the road in the event that, a little later, someone secretly contacts T&S asserting that a recent comment by Fram violates his "quasi" commitment? Yes, the community should be cooperative with WMF staff, rather than adversarial. But I actually think the overwhelming majority of us have been willing to do that all along, and no amount of consensus will dissuade those who really want to be adversarial. And the problem arose from T&S not being willing to cooperate with us, not the other way around. Yes, there needs to be dialog between the community and T&S, as well as between ArbCom and T&S. But a lot of that is already being initiated, and the proof will be in the proverbial pudding. WMF does need to communicate with the community about what they intend, but we need to expect that the community response will be complex, and WMF needs to expect that, if they express it as a top-down take-it-or-leave-it kind of thing, it won't work. I'd actually prefer to decide on all of this only after we find out what the outcome of the Board meeting Friday was, and what the upcoming WMF-ArbCom meeting leads to. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • A fair assessment, and if they come out of the board meeting with something that throws more fuel on the fire it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect this option to be taken off the table. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 20:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unrealistic - The WMF has already claimed ownership of bat, ball, and the field - they aren't going to give any of it back. I'm sorry - really I am - but that's just the way it is. — Ched :  ?  — 22:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moot unless your final bullet point "the Office opens, or reopens, or expands a dialog with the community about what it is trying to accomplish and how to get there" happens first. Like I said in my statement at the pending ArbCom request, it's the Foundation who has the ball in their court to act. You can have "consensus" to do anything here like unblocking Fram's account (even though he still can't edit en.wiki) but it's still the Foundation who gets to decide because they hold the technical access to enforce their decisions at the end of the day. Unless you can actually enforce anything, then this entire discussion is for nothing. If they read this and reach this conclusion themselves and start engaging, then that's the starting point. With as many suggestions that have been thrown about though, it's unlikely this one is going to stand out though anymore than the others. At any rate, the rest of it reads as "everyone gets a slap on the wrist and let's discuss terms of use more", which isn't the problem. Civility is the problem on this website, which is why T&S stepped in. If you don't handle civility on the website, then they will again. — Moe Epsilon 00:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand why is it important to terminate Fram's ban. It is not the ban per se, it is the lack of explanation. Give a proper explanation. Details need not be given. If the details of the reason are out of scope for ArbCom and the community, then say so, otherwise refer it back to the community (which includes ArbCom). Fram's possible negotiations to end the ban should be completely separate from resolving issues of WMF heavy-handedness and non-transparency. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to Fram, he received a one year ban for saying "fuck Arbcom", and that the Foundation likely employed this draconian move because a grudging complainant against him has connections to the WMF and the Chair herself. This is an oddly specific, extremely outrageous narrative. And, yet, the Foundation will not deny it, nor will they even suggest that there's more to the story. If they will not even try to defend the ban against alleged blatant corruption, then why should we assume that it is legitimate? I would much rather have them simply explain that the ban is for legitimate reasons. But it's highly suspect that they will not do so. It goes beyond simple refusal to explain a ban when the ban is alleged to be unjust. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SmokeyJoe: The WMF has already said Fram violated the Terms of Use section that prohibits "harassing and/or abusing others". What more do you want than that, if you're not looking for details? ~ Rob13Talk 01:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi BU Rob13. You're tempting me to argue the other side to my intended thrust, that the way forward should not require a resolution of the Fram question. I think the resoltuion need only deal with the process of WMF bans, the scope of WMF-only decisions, Community (inc. ArbCom) only decisions, and where there may be overlap. I think User:Newyorkbrad's dot points 4 & 5 should be the focus. But your question is fair:
      A. The assertion "violated the ToS" is sufficient justification for the WMF to act. I am asking for an explanation for why, without details, the ban, ongoing, can't be referred to ArbCom or the community generally. I think it would be very reasonable for WMF to declare a ban, and then refer to ArbCom to review or modify. Surely, ArbCom should have the option to extend the 1 year ban? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SmokeyJoe: Lengthen? ArbCom can already do that, if they receive reports related to harassment. Otherwise alter/shorten? That would now put the WMF in very sketchy territory. If they have become aware of an editor harassing others on this site, taken action they felt necessary to enforce the Terms of Use, and then allow another body to overturn that action without having the full evidence, I think that may open them up to liability. (It's worth noting that the WMF's existing procedures/policies prevent them from disclosing the reporter even to ArbCom. That confidentiality may have been the only reason a reporter came forward, because Fram's influence - see this entire page - has a chilling effect on those he chooses to harass and abuse.) ~ Rob13Talk 02:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Confidentially prevents WMF from sharing details with ArbCom", if true, with "violated the ToS", is the minimal sufficient statement I would ask them to give. Have they said that? If they say that, then the Fram ban comes of the table for the purpose of this discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • What kind of liability? Assuming that Fram is truthful that there was no off-wiki harassment, there isn't really anything in his on-wiki activity that would be enough to involve the law. On the other hand, copyvios can get the project in legal trouble; Fram has been doing the dirty work of cleaning it up (it's a fight no one else wants to fight), so preventing a major liability mitigator from doing their work is ironically exposing the project to liability. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • BU Rob13 The ToU clause that you're referring to prohibits harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism. According to Fram, the offending comment that triggered his ban was this, which was certainly uncivil, but not "harassment or abuse" as is defined by the ToU clause that is supposedly being enforced. So, yes, additional explanation beyond "see the ToU" is quite obviously needed, as it doesn't even seem applicable. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Swarm: I encourage you to read. Fram has posted the email he received, and it contained that diff as an example, with the email explicitly noting that it was part of a repeated pattern continued after the past warning. One example diff - likely the least relevant example diff, even, since the worst diffs likely had to be hidden to protect the reporter - does not mean that's "the offending comment that triggered his ban". You are trying to apply the ToU and determine whether it applies to evidence you have not seen. Do you understand how that is an exercise in futility? ~ Rob13Talk 03:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BU Rob13: Okay. I read it all. It doesn't claim or imply that that clause of the ToU was actually breached. Go back and look, it literally doesn't even imply that Fram was outside the ToU. Actually, no where, from what I see, and no one, has tried to argue that point. The Foundation cited "abusive communications such as X". X is a problem, but it's not a breach of the ToU. There's no mention of anything beyond such "abusive communications". You're just assuming there is. They simply did not cite to Fram or even claim in any of their explanations that he breached the ToU. They cited petty incivility towards Arbcom. So, that gives the impression that Fram was banned for his pattern of petty incivility, rather than breach of the ToU. You trust that that's not true, and that there's a higher level of offense, but it's clear that both Fram's and the community's impression that this is civility policing and nothing more has disrupted the project, demonized the complainant, demonized the Chair, vilified the T&S team, resulted in admins resigning, and harmed community relations. Why, if there was more to the story than "civility policing", has the Foundation simply not said so? All we want is for the Foundation to confirm that Fram actually breached the ToU. I have no personal affinity towards Fram, but this harms my perception of the WMF. Why would they not simply confirm that Fram breached the ToU, unless it would be a lie? Like I said, there's no privacy considerations in simply saying "there was harassment" or "there was stalking". But instead they said "there was abusive communication", which is no different except for the fact that it does not invoke the ToU. That's the only issue here. If there's evidence they can't disclose that's in breach of the ToU, I don't need to see it. I don't need to know about it. I just need to know that it exists. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Swarm: Cool, because they already have. The original email to Fram did not cite ToU violations. The WMF basically never cites ToU violations for office actions, because such statements could open them up to defamation lawsuits, theoretically. I know of one that is making its way through federal district court now, and it will probably be dismissed with prejudice because the WMF so clearly did not make any statements of fact that even have the potential to be false.

      But the WMF, in their statement to the community on this page, said this particular office action was made pursuant to the "Harassment and/or abusing others" section of the ToU. Their exact wording was thus: "What we can say in this case is that the issues reported to us fell under section 4 of the terms of use, as noted above, specifically under the first provision entitled 'harassing and abusing others.'" This is an extraordinary level of openness, given that it could theoretically get them sued. It is a shame that there are Wikipedians that have just failed to read it, apparently. ~ Rob13Talk 13:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Discussion

    The problem with this resolution (as several people have pointed out) is that - irrespective of whether it is endorsed or not - it cannot be accepted in full by T&S. They make a very clear statement that when you report harassment to them "[y]our contact to Trust and Safety is kept confidential, so no details about your experience will be shared publicly or with the person you are reporting".[33] They cannot change this after the fact, as they can't promise to maintain confidentially in an existing case and then change their mind to pass their names to the person accused of harassing them just because a few dozen people on Wikipedia tell them to. Whoever raised concerns with T&S has every right to expect T&S to maintain their promise of condifentially, and therefore cannot both unblock Fram and then tell Fram who complained in order to ask Fram to stay away. In the end, it doesn't matter whether we oppose or endorse this, as it is doomed to failure. Therefore, how would it look if it was rewitten in a way that could be accepted by T&S if it was endorsed? - Bilby (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Response from Fram to Newyorkbrad

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

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

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

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

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

    Is this page a representative sample of the community?

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

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

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

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

    Edit count is a weak measure - bytes added would be a better measure, but still far from perfect. The sample is certainly a bigger fraction of the total than for most national political polls in major countries. It also is self-selected, so probably not representative. I would assume that many editors who only work in non-controversial mainspace and have little or no interest in governance of the project have not even noticed the kerfuffle. But that is the established way we use for most decisions - interested editors chime in, and the "silent majority" is silently ignored. Look at the numbers of voters at RfA or even for ArbCom elections. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I only have to make 5 more edits to this page before my opinion counts! --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure that there are many others (like me) who are watching and following the events, but not actively participating in the discussions.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In my case, I was watching silently and wanting to participate but fearing reprisal from WMF. It took me a week to get past that worry. My take is, if there is a silent majority or silent group of editors, there is no real way to measure their desires. In that case, silence almost inevitably gets treated as some sort of consent. Some form of anonymous voting would be a better way of getting people involved... but as is the general problem with Wikipedia, the sheer volume of discussion to review to make your choice is repellant on its own. You can dress it up in whatever statistical analysis you want, at the end of the day you're talking about "silence means consent". —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Meaningless. To repeat, a University of Minnesota 2007 study concluded that 44% of wikipedia content was created by 0.1% of editors, while 10% created 86% of edits. So?
    I'm not the only one who makes 1 edit out of a dozen that come to mind on reading threads here, (a) because many comments express what I think, are more incisively and eloquently stated and reduplication is unnecessary (b) the more self-restraint one exercises, the less intimidating the length and density will appear to be, so that a wider range of people will feel comfortable to join in the discussion. The whole point of this immense fuck-up lies in the excessive confidence heads at T&S have in the ability of analytic tools to give one the correct answers by the kind of numerical breakdown we get above. A power freak will look at the above and say, 'Ha! This upset is just a few dozen loud-mouth 'inciters' stirring up a rather lackadaisical mob. Statistically, we can therefore ignore the shitstirrers, as just 1-10% (Lenin's quorum) of the 441 who bothered to grumble, who are in turn less than one percent of the active 'community'.' Nishidani (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) This is no different from how most community discussions go—in fact, in terms of editor participation, it’s much better. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I think the page represents a self-selecting group of editors on Wikipedia. I don't see it reflecting a true consensus. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    One could say that about any discussion page anywhere on Wikipedia. Les absents ont toujours tort DuncanHill (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's weird...what are you positing, that no consensus on Wikipedia represents consensus? All pages represent a self-selecting group of editors. Grandpallama (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not necessary to post every day; not necessary to reiterate what's already been said; copyediting comments skews edit counts; there is an element of fear; this content contributor does care; and finally the last time I commented I was told to back off and watch tone. So, there's no need to contribute. Victoria (tk) 22:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suspect I am not the only one who agrees with many of the sentiments expressed here but does not feel the need to edit repeatedly. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's listed at WP:CENT, and for any other kind of RfC-like process the amount of participation here would be considered sufficient to establish a consensus (or no consensus). Of course, we are dealing here with a particularly difficult and contentious topic, but I don't think that there is a requirement for a higher bar. As in most discussions, there are good-faith editors who disagree with the ultimate consensus, but we don't require unanimity. Editors who feel outnumbered deserve a fair hearing, but ultimately they might consider WP:1AM. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • What Espresso Addict says. Am watching and am unhappy with the train of events, but wary about the risk of polarising camps. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since it's relevant, I'll add a link to my previous comment (scroll to the second part) about why "silent majority" reasoning doesn't work (or at minimum, is a lot less meaningful than the claims typically imply). Sunrise (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think most of the editors never heard about this. If you want to go tell them, be my guest! What you are pointing out is that, once again, we lack a jury system on Wikipedia -- a democratic reform we need to make our community response to harassment better, and to make our community response to totalitarian initiatives against harassment better. Wnt (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been watching, too; no need to say too much. Do appreciate Aquillion's comments, though. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 01:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been watching, here and elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I, too, have mostly been lurking in regards to this whole issue. I have had plenty of IRL stuff going on to keep me busy lately. I have not significantly interacted directly with Fram on-wiki, so I have not formed a strong opinion one way or another about Fram. I am, however, concerned about the lack of transparency, potential backstage conflicts of interest, and finality (i.e. "no appeals because we're 100% infallible") that accompanied the sanctions placed against Fram, among other things. I'll continue to lurk, and I will register my opinion about a particular proposal or topic if I feel strongly compelled to. EclipseDude (Chase Totality) 05:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same, I haven't been commenting, but I'm still waiting for a real explanation from WMF/Jimbo/ArbCom. I suspect I may be waiting for a long time... >:( -FASTILY 05:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I commented a couple of times early on but have just been lurking since then. Like many others, my concern is the process rather than specifically Fram, as I noted at User_talk:Sitush#Fram. I would rather retain my dignity and not edit than be subjected to an undignified "disappearance" at the command of the WMF. - Sitush (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was vocal at the beginning, but now I prefer to let the leaders of this community direct the next steps. Specifically Seraphimblade and Carcharoth are doing excellent work here. Although I feel my voice is welcome, I would rather now let editors I trust implicitly steer us. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't responded earlier, and I haven't read everything, but I've read at least the statements and summaries, and I've been trying to keep up with some of the discussions. I'm starting to form an opinion that's a bit more nuanced than my initial gut reaction. As soon as there's something like a concrete proposal or RFC, I'll try and formulate my stance on that. For the rest, I don't like drama or bureaucracy, so I've stayed silent. There's probably many more people like me, who are reading but not commenting. rchard2scout (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a wikignome and have been reading this page with increasing unhappiness but have not as yet commented. I have today emailed Katherine Maher, copied to Jan Eissfeldt, to express some of that unhappiness, as suggested in the section below. PamD 12:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • +1 to watching, reading, digesting but not feeling I can add anything above or beyond some of the more eloquent arguments on this page. Page views rather than number of editors might be a better yardstick of whether this is representative or not. Woody (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that it depends what you mean by 'the community?' Most people don't get involved in meta discussions like this at all. But this just based on the names we're seeing here, this is a decent subset of the "power users" that are probably going to need to be onboard with any changes to eg. our handling of harassment and WP:CIVIL, in part because they'll be many of the people involved in enforcing it. And the "this page isn't representative of the community" argument makes me slightly nervous because by the standard you're setting here, nothing is representative of the community (even ArbCom elections generally just have a few hundred people participating, for instance.) Pages like this are imperfect, but they're the best voice the community has available - if we discounted them, we'd be left viewing Wikipedia as a vague, amorphous mass that can't meaningfully participate in dialog with WMF at all, which I don't think is useful or entirely accurate. And certainly the sort of 'power users' on this page can produce meaningful changes to Wikipedia's policies and culture over time when we reach a collective agreement - we've managed to do so in the past. It takes time, and often there's going to have to be a more liminal sort of back-and-forth as the things discussed on central pages like this percolate out and attract more back-and-forth with people focused on other parts of the process, gradually refining them; but there's no centralized "voice of the community" or anything like that. This is as good as it gets. That's part of why I've said that, assuming the core issue here is that the WMF feels the community is failing to properly deal with harassment and incivility, the solution is probably a centralized WP:BLP style solution where they hand down a hard dictate on what we have to accomplish, which we then dig into and refine and which slowly gets refined further by the people who didn't participate in the original discussion until it reaches some sort of stable consensus. That's the more Wikipedia-like way of handling these issues - not grand futile gestures by the community members or enigmatic, unanswerable Facebook-style moderation from inside a walled tower. The WMF should be using its authority to make the community do what it wants through existing community channels, and should try to minimize this sort of overt Gordian-knot bypass to our existing policies. I mean, regardless of whether Fram earned a ban or not, he's just one user; if something's wrong with how we're doing things, we need a solution that scales and works within our existing system in a way that can actually impact day-to-day user experience... not random bolts of annihilating lightning from the WMF-heavens. --Aquillion (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to add my name as a previously silent editor who has been concerned by what he has been reading here about the actions of the WMF. Wikipedia is a really impressive example of the WWW working as originally intended, to foster collaboration. I am sure that is because the community is largely self-governed. High-handed, unexplained edicts denying the right of appeal, or even just the appearance of this, could destroy this spirit of cooperation. Jmchutchinson (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Jmchutchinson, Hear-hear! Elfabet (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find this situation troubling and disheartening. My not having posted here is not for a lack of concern; rather that, like Woody, I didn't feel that I could add anything. This should probably be discussed in a different section: I don't recall seeing any mention of today's Wikimedia Research Showcase, scheduled for 11.30 Pacific time, a little less than six hours from now (I think). The topics are 'Trajectories of Blocked Community Members', 'Automatic Detection of Online Abuse in Wikipedia', and 'First Insights from Partial Blocks in Wikimedia Wikis'. I won't be able to watch it, but I hope that others here will, and post anything that might be relevant. (edit) Sorry, on a second reading, I see the 'partial blocks' in the research showcase isn't the 'partial block' Fram got; it's a different kind. I should be sleeping instead of posting. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I only remember fixing a minor technical issue here, not commenting, except at a(n ex-)bureaucrat's page. I may have thanked a few others who resigned expressing the wish that they come back. —PaleoNeonate – 13:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I expressed agreement to an edit at AN. —PaleoNeonate – 13:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 421 editors do NOT represent "the community". Any coalescing of opinions expressed here only represents the consensus of these 421 editors. People who disagree with the tone, language and direction of discourse of this page are keeping their distance and continuing their work on the project. I don't agree with Fram's ban but we also don't know every consideration that went into this decision.
    I'm getting tired of hearing editors say on other discussion pages that the vocal majority HERE represents the larger community EVERYWHERE ELSE. You don't. Most editors are staying out of WMF internal politics and are just getting on with the business of working on the project. Liz Read! Talk! 00:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm reading -- not everything, but I'm trying to keep up -- and waiting. Things are still developing, and I want to give them a chance to shake out before concluding I know enough to form an educated opinion. Until then I'm trying to assume good faith all around. --valereee (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, and if any admin is claiming there's no "consensus" due to a "silent majority", I suggest you think about your own RfA, where far less people commented, and you were promoted anyway despite the lack of consensus and the "silent majority" that obviously felt differently than the people commenting (per the logic presented here). Enigmamsg 15:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suspect lurkers vastly exceed contributors, but what the hell do I know, I'm only a lurker. Oh, I guess not anymore. Well, I guess now I'm hapax, and I plan to stay that way. Mathglot (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Plan F: Ignore copyright violations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Please be wary with this idea. I'm not saying you can't goof off if you want, but if you appear to actively encourage copyright violations by other users and can be alleged to be technically interacting with the posters in some way, you could blunder into one of those awful, totally out of proportion "conspiracy" cases that U.S. prosecutors like to lay against protestors they don't like (cf. DisruptJ20). I despise copyright law and consider it an extension of slave-owner thinking ... don't underestimate the malice of its defenders. Wnt (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wnt: My sincere view on the matter is somewhat more similar to what this guy says between 3:45 and 3:55. Wikipedia articles infringing on outside writers' copyright is more personally offensive to me not because it legally infringes on the rights of third parties but because it is lazy and it is not something Wikipedians are supposed to sink to. (Full disclosure: I became involved in CCI and other such matters after I had the top spot in an editathon stolen from me by an editor who it later turned out had plagiarized a significant portion of the text that put them over the finish line.[34][35] At around the same time I was myself accused of violating someone's copyright, but it turned out that they -- a subsidiary of a Fortune 500 company -- had just copy-pasted my text and not provided the proper attribution.[36] So yeah, it's a two-way street, but essentially copyright is meant to, and does, serve to protect the little people more than keep them down. The only little people it "hurts" in favour of large corporations and rich folks are the ones who really like this or that cultural property but can't afford a copy for themselves, but that has almost nothing to do with Wikipedia since we probably wouldn't be hosting the entirety of Doctor Strange (2016 film) even if it weren't under copyright.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted above, technically copyvio is ToS violation, and I agree we have a moral right to demand WMF to deal with it themselves. But we must prepare exit scenarios in preparation of finding a compromise with the foundation!
    If we don't remove copyrighted text from the articles (just report it to WMF), people will continue editing this text (and so creating derivative works), and as soon as we stop this kinda work-to-rule action, there will be a large mess with the accumulated copyvio. It's probable we will have a lot of work wasted in this case.
    However, with the mediafiles the situation is slightly different: if we collect possibly copyrighted images in a category for WMF staff, no work will be wasted (although it's likely the heap will still accumulate). Ain92 (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it would be great if the WMF would ban copyright violators and their defenders -- you know, rather than what they currently do, which is demand that volunteer editors masochistically open themselves up to harassment for removing copyvio to protect the Foundation's ass legally -- but that's not realistic. When is the community, the admin corps, or ArbCom going to do anything about that kinda stuff? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Send the lot of the copyright violators to Legal. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 22:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Legal won't handle problems like this and this, though. I mean, I guess the foundation banning their friends who did the copyright violation might create a chilling effect -- except that the same could be said of the current situation where their copyright-violating friends are issued with warnings by the community, and that certainly hasn't worked out in reality. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting BuzzFeed News article

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

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

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

    +1. That is a decent article imho which captures the many sides of this affair without coming down heavily in any direction. I note from the just declined Jehochman ArbCom Fram case, that Joe Roe said that the information that ArbCom would need to get to be able to make an independent judgment on the WMF action is not likely to be forthcoming; in that case, it clarifies GorillaWarfare's comment at the Fram case, that there is nothing further to be done by ArbCom on the affair; therefore, wrongly or rightly, WMF will reserve the right to conduct their own civility actions in the future. Silk Tork also clarified at the Fram case that there has been no contact between ArbCom and WMF since the 19 June, but that there was a call set up for the 3 July. Britishfinance (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that was a well-written and reasonable summary. That's quite a pleasant surprise; journalism about Wikipedia is not always the greatest. Of course, if the media attention keeps up, just imagine how things will get when we find ourselves actually writing an article about FRAMBAN. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    JANFRAMBAN? JANBANFRAM? EEng 02:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa, Black Betty GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised no Australian editors have proposed this one Blackmane (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good one. SANFRANFRAMBAN? SANFRANJANBANSFRAM? EEng 14:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't give me ideas ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it too early to call this FRAMGATE?Mojo Hand (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mojo Hand, WP:FRAMGATE exists, but I think we need a few more reliable sources until it gets mainspace. However, User revolt could do with updating. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)You know it’s not a bad idea. Unflattering material about T&S in articlespace as a result of media coverage might force their hand by making T&S less-able to achieve its mission—if you can’t trust them, why report to them? That may or may not bode well for us but I think that’s better than stagnation and status quo. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You could do that, or read a book :| cygnis insignis 21:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not do both?! Genius! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Article-writing would be a nightmare - almost every editor who's participated in this discussion would have a COI! It might have to be an article written by the newcomers to Wikipedia. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The user claims to be a pedant, but says, "… I counted about a dozen errors". Standards have really slipped around this joint. cygnis insignis 22:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well played, sir. 28bytes (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the article. A few factual errors but pretty accurate on both sides. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty much what I was going to say.S Philbrick(Talk) 22:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mhmm. Appreciate you bringing it to our attention, Floq. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks from me too, for bringing the article. Facetiously: The article refers to Fram at one point as being an "asshole". I think someone should alert T&S about this harassing of Fram. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, if the press are making individuals in the community feel less safe to contribute, I would think that falls within T&S's bailiwick, and merit some office action. Perhaps a press release explaining the situation. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Good stuff, thanks. I had put off reading it thinking it would be crap and was surprised.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The news article talks about Wikipediocracy, an almost moribund site (though it links to some others), as if it were a major forum. But if the WMF keeps this up, these sites will not remain moribund -- and they are not prone to paralytic moralizing over victim privacy. Wnt (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • There is so much wrong with that statement, I don't know where to start. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't aware that civility fit any of those TOS labels. I hope the relevant parties have contacted WMF to request litigation holds of all relevant records. This is incoherent enough that I can see this situation becoming very ugly very quickly. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, I think when this article was first posted WMF hadn't made a statement. I distinctly remember it saying that WMF hadn't responded to requests for comment. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Buzzfeed article is a pretty good summary until "Much of that blame fell, perhaps predictably, on a woman and a transgender editor. In 2017, a fledgling Wikipedian accused Fram of monitoring her activity on the site to such an extent that felt like harassment." The "woman" was no "fledgling", having started her account in 2010 and created hundred of articles (about which very many people have had complaints) by 2017. I think her period as wikipedian-in-residence predated 2017 too. The so-called "transgender editor" (for it is xe) makes a point about not identifying in any direction online, but I know xim quite well & have never thought of xim as anything but a gay male, although of course xe often addresses transgender issues. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • To set the record straight, the Buzzfeed article contains a glaring error when referring to my "sarcastic references to a forthcoming Nobel Peace Prize". The certain fact that Wikipedians will eventually be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize is the furthest thing from sarcasm. This grand experiment, born jumping off the deep end, has surprisingly tapped into an unprecedented marriage of societal wisdom, advancing technology, and an almost unfathomable basic trust in the potential of collective unselfishness in the human race. Wikipedia's creation was soon joined by millions of inquisitive sharing minds, and is constantly being recreated, polished, and improved by a literal second-by-second outpouring of intellectual strength. Wikipedia, now a recognizable treasure of civilization, changes the world for the better at an accelerating rate. In 2024, give or take a year or three, when the members of the Nobel Peace Prize committee fully analyze the effect our project has had, and will continue to have, on every person, household, and the historical advancement of knowledge and ethics it provides to every corner of the Earth, the recognition of Wikipedia and Wikipedians will be an obvious and easy choice. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (e/c) It's more likely that this marks this end of Wikipedia as we know it than for anyone involved to be getting a Nobel Prize. Enigmamsg 16:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fram's partial ban wasn't the first (something Buzzfeed claimed to be). Someone pointed out above in one of the collapsed section that 2 users in Germany Wikipedia received partial ban back in February, shortly after partial ban was introduced. The parital ban is probably not something WMF created specifically to address Fram's behaviour, but something they used in their toolkit. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think they were just misusing "Wikipedia" to mean "English Wikipedia", which is fairly common even on here, especially when talking about policies or precedent that is actually only applicable to enwiki. --Aquillion (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It gives a different perception though. The current story reads like WMF created a tool to specifically target Fram but in fact it wasn't. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Good article. I note it has been put to use in mainspace: User_revolt#Framban Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's another article about all this kerfuffle, but I can't post a link because of the spam filter (it's on breitbart.com). Adam9007 (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Breitbart is "journalism" in the same sense that Taco Bell is "Mexican food". They try to make it look vaguely like it, but it's nothing actually like it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    Katherine Maher tweet

    Utterly unimpressed with Katherine Maher's subtweet about the article:" When you have to retweet your shitty pseudo-thinkpiece three times because no one cares."[37] (referring to https://twitter.com/Bernstein?s=03) Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbs, you need to see this above. @GorillaWarfare, Worm That Turned, and Callanecc: @Mkdw, Premeditated Chaos, and Joe Roe: @AGK, KrakatoaKatie, SilkTork, and Opabinia regalis:. Extremely likely reference to a media piece [38] by Bernstein. starship.paint (talk) 03:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]
    Wow. That's pretty stunning, actually. 28bytes (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we'd all been waiting for a statement. —Cryptic 01:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In comparison with the rest of her tweets it's pretty good. But only in that comparison. And it's a low bar. I'd be interested to know if this was anything to do with our current woes. DuncanHill (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt it, she clarified later that she was editing something that had been prepared by a vendor. (And apparently the turnaround here is not 24 hours, and we might be lucky to hit 24 days). Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Welp, I rescind my earlier endorsement of the idea that writing her personally will be helpful. It clearly will not. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Something else just struck me: If "no one" cares about this Buzzfeed News article... what does that make all of us here in her eyes? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Unbelievable, but it explains a good part of why the WMF culture is what it is.- MrX 🖋 02:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mendaliv See, the Maher tweet is not telling us anything new. I thought it was already clear from the previous statements that the WMF has considerable disdain for Wikipedia editors and views us as subhuman (I wanted to use the proper German term but that would lead to Godwin being invoked). Enigmamsg 11:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk about pouring flaming napalm on troubled waters... This was a communications director before being promoted? Tarl N. (discuss) 02:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • I support what Newyorkbrad wrote and am deeply disappointed by this tweet, which I see as completely dismissive of the legitimate concerns expressed by many highly respected editors. I am shocked. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So, out of idle curiosity, what does T&S do when they receive anonymous reports about a WP editor harassing another WP editor offline about a Wikipedia-related issue? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Prediction: Not a fucking thing. Not. A. Fucking. Thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Floquenbeam: - this is a serious issue, I think we should go straight to the WMF CEO on this. starship.paint (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, we could be good little sheep, like the WMF wants, and block User:Katherine (WMF) for harassment ourselves. Knowing what we do about the kind of environment they would like us to be. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • [Re Maher's tweet] That's an incredibly disappointing piece of double standards. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have gone to Meta Wikimedia to ask Katherine to explain her tweet. [39] If you are also curious, you may wish to ask too. starship.paint (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Appreciate the ping, Starship.paint. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @GorillaWarfare: - do whatever you want. I merely wanted you to be informed. Maybe I should have pinged you after I found the list of people who publicly liked the tweet (this is public info on Twitter) including James Alexander, Joseph Seddon, Joe Sutherland, jdforrester and Gregory Varnum. These 4 3 stated on Twitter that they are part of Wikimedia (Liker Joseph Seddon didn't say they were part of Wikimedia, but apparently is a Free Knowledge advocate. EDIT: Joseph Seddon unliked the tweet). I don't want to ping every Arb again, so could you help me inform the rest of the Arbs on this. starship.paint (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Yep, the link to this section has been shared on our email list. For what it's worth, James Alexander has not worked at the Wikimedia Foundation for some time now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh... Trust and Safety at Twitter and Periscope. I got confused. I'm sorry, James! starship.paint (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Starship.paint: Since I've spent 12 years of my life contributing in some way shape or form to Wikipedia and Wikimedia, I would hope I can in some way lay claim to that fact I am an advocate for free knowledge. I've not publicly commented on this whole Fram issue and another voice is not going help on either side of the argument. Given that a single like is going to severely misrepresent my views on this matter and arbitrarily and somewhat incorrectly place me on "a side", I've reversed that action. Seddon talk 05:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Seddon: - my wording was too vague. I've never questioned that you are an advocate for free knowledge. What I meant is, you didn't say you were part of Wikimedia on your Twitter profile. starship.paint (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • wow.... just... wow. Have those at WMF gone on a "How to piss off your volunteers" course? Between that, the Gamergate accusation and the heavy-handed power grab, they seem to be making such a ham-fisted mess of absolutely everything here. - SchroCat (talk) 04:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ha. This just gets more and more bizarre. She won't even try to justify the office action that shattered the project's stability far more than Fram ever could, but when the press inevitably runs the story, she will stoop to respond—not to make her case, but to personally attack the journalist with childish insults? WTF? This is the Executive Director? And other WMF officials are endorsing her? What kind of sad joke is this? I mean, that Tweet is not even as respectable as Trump Tweeting "fake news!" at an unfavorable story. The self-awareness is nonexistent. The professional competence is nonexistent. This is who we're trying to reason with? This is who's at the helm? Honestly, what's the point? This kind of shameful public conduct isn't tolerated in any professional field, at any level. I mean, seriously, a fast food chain wouldn't even tolerate this from an acne-faced shift manager. It really is stunning that the WMF Executive Director is not held and does not hold herself to even a basic standard of civility, maturity or professionalism in the public eye, particularly as the staff purports to hold Wikipedia to a higher standard. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh Maher's former PR so responding to the press is kinda expected. As a response it does seem rather odd although given the conditions under which she took over the foundation I can understand it would be important to be seen as having her employee's backs. Still if the tweet is about what we think it is about it is kinda unfortunate.©Geni (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This a joke? Ignoring a community controversy over your own actions, to the point where it gets so out of control that the press picks it up, and then only breaking your silence to call the article a "shitty pseudo-thinkpiece" that "nobody cares" about is about the farthest thing from competent PR that I can even imagine. Like I said, this behavior is not tolerated in any professional setting, with or without PR professionals. So the fact that you'd actually go so far as to point out that "she's PR", as if that makes it more understandable, is hilarious. All that means is that she knows better, and yet she literally can not give two shits anyways! Lol!! ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • A public tweet in response to a journalist by the Executive Director of the organization is no longer "inside baseball". What it is, is unprofessional and a fine example of "Do as I say, not as I do" that will not, shall we say, serve to help the situation. She could have expressed disagreement with what was written without doing it like that. (Not to mention she's apparently got time to be tweeting about all manner of things, but none to respond to the concerns raised here.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • All true, but at some point we all have to calm down and stop jumping on each other. I have a felling that "The Tweet" may be the twig that moves this mudslide back up the hill. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we consider WMF execs and the like to be part of "each other" we're really doomed. There's a damn good reason execs and management aren't given a vote when a workplace unionizes. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems the only way that this drama will have to shake out, as the concept of putting the encyclopedia first guides well. I think today's events have moved the dial towards unification of purpose and the probable solutions to this energized crisis, no matter how it looks right now. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is stunningly tonedeaf and entirely inappropriate. Entirely separate from the WMF's original action, this comment should not be coming from any WMF employee, let alone the person at the top. Doc James, I hope this will be a topic of conversation at a future Board meeting... ~ Rob13Talk 05:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been contributing to Wikipedia for over 16 years, & there have been times when I've drifted away & seriously considered finding another hobby, but I come back because I basically believed in Wikipedia's mission -- making information free for everyone -- despite that writing useful articles at this point is hard & often tedious work. But when I read such a casually & flippantly nasty response from one of the people who are supposed to set an example for the rest of us ... well, it sucks to discover I've been a sucker. I hope she enjoys that job with a 6-figure salary I helped to create for her. -- llywrch (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, that's basically how I feel. I had even been mostly on the WMF's side, but now I want to burn it all down. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • A further reply: [40] --Rschen7754 05:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I perceive it as declining any connection with Bernstein's piece but the original coincidence was too well, to be an accident. ∯WBGconverse 05:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I guess I don't know. I mean, I have a Twitter account (with an easily guessable handle) but I rarely post anymore. I don't really get all the nuances of this subtweeting thing. It doesn't read to me like an explicit denial. --Rschen7754 05:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Maher is no idiot. If she wanted to say we were completely wrong, she'd outright say it. She wouldn't muse at how we squirmed at the knife in our collective backs. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      That's a point. ∯WBGconverse 06:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, I don't see her coming out and saying "You got me, it was referring to the Buzzfeed article". But if she doesn't come out with an explicit denial within 24 hours, or deletes the tweet, I think we can draw our own conclusions. --Rschen7754 06:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Well that's kind of my point. Yeah, fair enough, we can't take anything she says as a confirmation because she's not gonna outright do that. But if we were completely incorrect and she was just cursing the darkness a little bit, or complaining about someone else, it would cost her nothing to say "You have it wrong," or even in that exchange say, "The crazy thing is that they're going crazy about something I'm not even talking about." —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I absolutely do not buy that explanation in the follow-up tweet. If she wants me to believe her, she needs to post a link to the actual article she was criticizing. starship.paint (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the ping above, starship.paint. I've asked a question about this here. (Here is an archive of both relevant tweets, for reference.) Otherwise - there's a lot of interest in this thread about likes and replies and such; let's please all continue to be careful about off-wiki identities. (Also, I have no idea how the WMF works, but there are workplaces where liking, sharing, and otherwise signal-boosting your boss's or organization's social media is part of the expectations of the job, so please don't be tempted to draw undue conclusions about other editors.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Opabinia regalis: - you're welcome. So, you asked on en.wiki, I asked on meta.wiki. Let's just see what replies she have for us. starship.paint (talk) 07:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some comments from Jimmy Wales himself, and some more from Katharine down further on the thread [41]. --Rschen7754 06:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep, they're gonna keep posting on Twitter to keep their donors believing that they're trying to do something, rather than actually putting out this fire. I'm this close to just saying "Let it burn." This project may need to end tonight. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read that that as tacit acknowledgement that it does indeed relate to the article. This wasn’t even meant to be something that rose to the level of Wikidrama. seems to imply that it was indeed related to Wikipedia (after all, why else would anything rise to the level of Wikidrama...) ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 06:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Bellezzasolo - thank you for that astute observation. starship.paint (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So the T&S people liked it by mistake?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The backpedaling is pathetic. I wholeheartedly echo Dan's call for her resignation. It is, on multiple levels, necessary at this point. A Twitter cyberbully with the regrettable title of "WMF Executive Director" is an embarrassment to the WMF and to the enwiki community alike, and will do nothing to heal the deep wounds that have been created in the community and in the public eye. His call for the board's resignation would be a plus as well. Though Jimbo can stay. He retweeted the article, rather than attacking the author. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't go so far as to call for a resignation for this tweet. This is her livelihood, after all, and I don't think this was egregious enough to warrant a resignation. But we do need a full explanation, and an apology if a mistake was made. starship.paint (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm OK with getting up a collection to send Jimmy and the three board members who supposedly represent the community a matched set of second-hand fiddles with a request for their resignation burned into the wood.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • For a community who claims they can handle their own disputes on harassment, you sure did a good job of following someone onto Twitter, following their followers likes, and inflaming the situation by tying a vague tweet to the block of Fram, even after denial it had to do with anything on-wiki. Good job! — Moe Epsilon 07:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Moe Epsilon: - writing This wasn’t even meant to be something that rose to the level of Wikidrama. isn't a very strong denial. I agree with Bellezzasolo that it instead seems to imply that it was indeed related to Wikipedia (after all, why else would anything rise to the level of Wikidrama...) starship.paint (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can say that, but she's explicitly denied it being related to any one piece or author in further tweets. If you don't believe her then that's your problem. — Moe Epsilon 07:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Moe Epsilon: - if you actually believe that this quote retweet your shitty pseudo-thinkpiece three times is not related to any one author, that's your problem. starship.paint (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's funny because you think being a public figure gives you any more right to go after other people. At any rate, she can say what she wants on her own social media account any more than you can. If we're holding people accountable for what they say on Twitter now, I suggest we talk to those launching personal attacks at her on Twitter. — Moe Epsilon 10:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we're holding people accountable for what they say on Twitter now is thoroughly, deliberately disingenuous. We are holding the head of the WMF for what she says on her Twitter account, where she posts as WMF head, for statements she makes about Wikipedia. Your counter here is intellectually dishonest dissembling. Grandpallama (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Grandpallama:: No, I am being entirely serious. Quick question, before the incident with Fram, did you ever check her Twitter for updates about the Foundation? Because if you look at her timeline, I would think you'd stop going there for updates since she doesn't frequently post updates on it but rather her every day life. — Moe Epsilon 17:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • So? Someone usually uses their gun for target practice; one day they accidentally shoot someone in the face. The fact that they generally don't shoot at people means they didn't really shoot someone in the face? Come on...there is absolutely no realistic interpretation that this tweet wasn't about the current situation. Grandpallama (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was a very tone deaf tweet from Katherine Maher; does she not realise that the article is from Buzzfeed News [42], one of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, as designated in 2019. Why does this crisis keep self-perputating at very opportunity? Britishfinance (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Britishfinance: - just because a source is perennial doesn't mean it is reliable (there are unreliable perennial sources), though There is consensus that BuzzFeed News is generally reliable. starship.paint (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Starship.paint: We are all aware of that; however, many editors (incl. Katherine I am guessing), may not be aware of its status as an WP:RSP. Britishfinance (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Twitter is a fucking wasteland of Minimum Prosecutable Units without details or context being sprayed back and forth in conversations you can't follow or figure out. Wikipedia has Talk Pages, it has a mailing list, it has Bugzilla -- why the hell are we finding out that all the BIG STUFF is being said by various hotshots I never heard of like Women in Red and Executive Directors, out on this wasteland blogosphere medium? Exalted glitterati of Wikimedia, get back on the bus before you get run over! Wnt (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find it rather rude to say that very few people had asked her directly when she failed to respond to any of those that did (including myself). For that matter, none of the WMF staff I emailed did, except 1 who I asked about an interpretation of a WMF ToS explanation and redirected me to the general email (no reply from them either). Nosebagbear (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      To be honest, I am not sure that writing directly to all WMF employees is in any way a good idea. All of them have certain job descriptions, and most job descriptions do not include communication with volunteers. One can argue that they should include this, and any request, onwiki, on a mailing list, by e-mail, whatever, to any WMF employee must be immediately answered, but then they will be all the time answering the requests and not doing their job. I think by this time we have enough evidence that Katherine Maher is aware of WP:FRAM, and I do not see how another 357 e-mails, tweets and pings would do any better.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      AFAIK, a board meeting can't be held w/o her. And, since the BoT discussed this on the 14th, she ought to have been aware of the circumstances, from that point of time onwards. ∯WBGconverse 12:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Hashtag

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

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

    Katherine Maher responses on Twitter

    These are her responses. Bolded parts describe her initial tweet.
    1. 10:21 PM - 27 Jun 2019 This wasn’t even meant to be something that rose to the level of Wikidrama. Had I wanted to do that I would have taken it on directly. This was just garden variety the world is burning subtweeting. [43]
    2. 11:09 PM - 27 Jun 2019 This tweet was not a comment on the gravity of concerns of English Wikipedians. I am not someone who shies from criticism or holding ground for my own perspectives. Had that been my intention, I’d have spoken to it directly. [44]
    3. 11:12 PM - 27 Jun 2019 Dan, I entirely concur with Jimmy. I regret the timing of the tweet, but I’m now in between deleting something that was not intended to be wiki-inflammatory, or being accused of ill intent. I’d prefer the transparency of being held to account, and to leave it up, but that requires being taken at face value. [45]
    4. 11:54 PM - 27 Jun 2019 Well, no, because it wasn’t about a specific author or article. The part two years have been electrified on various issues. There’s a rich tradition of crappy thinkpieces out there, and I live in the Bay Area, which is full of bad takes on gender, income, and equity. [46]
    5. 11:56 PM - 27 Jun 2019 But all of that doesn’t change the fact that people now feel diminished and diesregarded. That’s terrible. [47]
    6. 11:59 PM - 27 Jun 2019 Even when I disagree with “the community” - which is a monolith misnomer, not least because one thing I love about Wikimedia is a room full of 10 Wikipedians usually has 20 opinions - I always respect that we each person brings their opinion earnestly and with integrity. [48]
    7. 12:03 PM - 28 Jun 2019 So, in short - I regret tweeting something that members of our community felt was directed st them, and disrespectful to their efforts, contributions, or perspectives. That certainly was not my intention. [49]
    8. 12:08 AM - 28 Jun 2019 I know this will sound odd, but until today, very few folks have asked me directly. I see that’s changed tonight with a number of questions on my talk page, which I’ll have to answer tomorrow - it’s past midnight now. [50]
    9. 12:20 AM - 28 Jun 2019 Being marginalized in change, intentional or otherwise, is a truly terrible feeling. [51]
    10. 12:28 AM - 28 Jun 2019 This was not a directed comment. The world is full of bad takes, and bad take pushers. It is a good thing when people start tuning them out in favor of critical information, challenging opinions, and informed debate. [52]

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

    Why should I find that interesting?Slatersteven (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven: - I thought you personally emailed her. Did I get that wrong? starship.paint (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Still not seeing why I should find this interesting.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I just read that. It's probably true. There were only a handful of us who wrote to her directly, and she appears not to have noticed the emails, only that which was in public view. While I am disappointed that she still hasn't acknowledged (except via Twitter) that we contacted her, I am even more disappointed that so few in our community did write to her, especially in view of how many people have been involved in this page, either to propose ideas or support or comment on those ideas, or just to read. We can't blame the CEO for not getting the message if people didn't send her the message. Please, folks, do it now. Contact her in whichever manner you prefer or feel is appropriate - email, twitter, or her account here on enwiki or on Media. But whichever means you do, please, please, please, be civil. You can indicate you are angry, emotional, disappointed, frustrated, whatever. But don't be hostile, don't be insulting, don't be rude. She has said that our community is a "monolith misnomer" because 10 Wikipedians come up with 20 different opinions. Can we show her that we are a unified community, and what we want is improved communications and a better ongoing relationship between WMF and enwiki. We don't wish to be ignored, insulted, and treated as fractious and toxic. We want to be treated with respect and equality, and for enwiki and WMF to work together to continue our existing work on building this project. SilkTork (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    When we've had ArbCom in telephone meeting with the WMF, and we've had Jimmy Wales and Doc James working on this as board members (and having had a meeting covering it), it's hardly our fault if the ED isn't getting the message. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be relative, if we all wrote to her (who are participating here) what percentage of Wikipedians would that be? If it is over 100,000 this would be less the 1% (of 1%), by any stretch of the imagination that is "very few" people who actually care or have noticed.Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So no-one should do anything, Slatersteven? Not sure what your point is but the issue of an alleged silent majority has been raised here before and one outcome of that was an influx of previously silent people acknowledging that they have concerns. - Sitush (talk) 09:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    When did I say no one should say anything? I never once said no one should comment, and really fail, to see how my Post could in any read be seen in that way. I am not saying there is a silent majority who holds an opinion, I have said most users have no commented, and so only a few have really shown any interest in this issue (you will note, I did fact include the possibility they just have not heard of this case).Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked you a question as to the point of your post. I didn't say you believe no-one should do anything. You're writing quite a lot of irrelevant and/or repetitive stuff here and, as is common, obfuscating matters. - Sitush (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You asked me if I said something that there was no possible way you could have read into my comment. Someone asked why she said X, I ...no because you will just strawman whatever I say. This is my last response to you on this subject, if you cannot debate honestly then I cannot be arsed to debate with you.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Break it up guys, let's not fight over this, alright? starship.paint (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To echo Boing’s point, if the ED isn’t aware of this conflict between the community and the WMF because the community hasn’t told her, it reflects poorly on the internal communication at the WMF, or strengthens the point that the WMF sees this as so inconsequential that they don’t need to inform the management. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven: - it's true that the 460 editors who have weighed in here are only small subset of the community. But, how many singular issues in the community can even generate a response from 460 editors? According to Newyorkbrad, we have now [53] achieved a record number of statements for an Arbitration case request at over 120. This is momentous in Wikipedia history. starship.paint (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is why she said "so few people". Now it may well be true this has generated more controversy then any other single issue here. But that does not mean that it is still a lot of people commenting (or contacting her), just a lot more then usual. So it does not make her statement false or misleading.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The point isn't that 460 editors have responded. It's the proportion of the top 10% or even 5% of active editors who have responded. Mjroots (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • My tweet to Ms Maher [54] DuncanHill (talk) 09:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • And her reply to me [55]. DuncanHill (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • If I may note what follows, I'd rather the conversation be here on-wiki, too. I have significant concerns regarding the usage of off-wiki sources to handle on-wiki matters in this case. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 18:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think I've ever gone off-wiki to ask something that should be asked on-wiki before. I disliked having to do it, but it was clear that the only way of attracting her attention was to go to Twitter. I really shouldn't say any more. But I will, I am appalled at her behaviour. I don't think she gives a flying fuck about editors. And I'm sure she'll come out with a load of "we're listening, we want to bring you with us" bullshit when she does eventually manage to remember how to log in to Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I couldn't sleep so I also responded to her tweet [56]. -- llywrch (talk) 10:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Very few people have asked her directly" -- well of course not. We're not on her site. If you want to have a say in Wikipedia, obviously you should spend your time on Twitter! The WMF Office has tried its best to make plots to redesign Wikipedia to look a little more like Twitter so we can get used to it so we can stop talking here and move over to where All The Big Stuff Happens. There, under the watchful eye of Twitter censors, the competent posters who have networks of PR bots behind them can get the upvotes they need to be accepted as Serious Players worthy of the WMF's respect! Someday we can replace all of Wikipedia with Twitter and if you think something is a good source on ghost imaging or seventeenth-century iron smelting you can just retweet the citation -- ought to work so much better than our system of article writing! Wnt (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is an odd response, inasmuch as at least three people emailed her about this issue three days ago. She might claim that in the crush of emails she (presumably) receives she had missed seeing them, but (presumably) her subordinates did update her that there was some serious pushback on en.wikipedia about this matter. -- llywrch (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Just saw the thread above. I plead lack of sleep week nights for way too long in defense of repeating information clearly visible. -- llywrch (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Starship.paint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was just blocked, I assume for this post. His talk page access was also revoked. MrX 🖋 14:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Clarifcation: I was definitely blocked for inappropriate questions asked on en.wiki of two WMF staffers, definitely considering a warning for inappropriate questions I asked of a former Arb. A question to a WMF staffer on meta.wiki may have also contributed to the block. Obviously, I am unblocked now. However, my contributions to this page will be cut down. starship.paint (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Not just that post.--MONGO (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Odd that he was blocked longer than Fram, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if the block notice is correct he had already been warned about this sort of thing before. But it does seem to be an overreaction, is there a history of outing here?Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Poor blighter was indeffed for lèse-majesté. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Katherine has replied to me to say that she is in meetings this afternoon (Pacific Time) but will take a look at her talk page after. I want a response as well, but it's not unreasonable to give her some time to attend to her meeting schedule. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Swell.- MrX 🖋 19:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah. The feeling I get is that this all came as a great surprise to her and she is just now trying to get back onto a good footing. Even if she comes around on it, this is breathtakingly unsatisfactory. How on earth could anyone with her job have been so oblivious to what has been going on, for all this time? It's not our fault for failing to do a good enough job of reaching out to her. It's her job to be aware of these things. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Katherine Maher's tweet is unacceptable and reminds me of something Katie Hopkins or Ann Coulter would write. I would be thoroughly unimpressed if an admin said it, much less the editing director of the WMF. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from Guerillero

    Since Katherine Maher seems to have poured petrol on the fire by tweeting about the Buzzfeed article, I guess I should say something. The Tom Fish mentioned in the article is myself. I was connected with the author on twitter by a friend who saw that Joe was asking for a Wikipedia admin to talk to. I was worried that the piece could turn out poorly and I knew that commenting here wasn't going to move the needle with the WMF. (It seems to have made impact by broadening the conversation beyond just us.) I tried my hardest to be a guide to our community and provide background information. None of the information in the section about harassment came from me. I am unimpressed by her statement below and I am planning on resigning my tools/positions in the community if the board doesn't say something in a week. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for helping make that article good. I for one commend you. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Guerillero, the article turned out well, so apparently your information was helpful and well-received. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I thank you for your candour and for helping with the article. It turned out surprisingly well. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 04:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Guerillero, Great job. Thanks for taking that on. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Katherine Maher's reply

    Copying Katherine's reply here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi folks. I'm not very active here mostly because it's not a very active page in general. It's usually vandalism, which is quickly reverted by folks who watch the page (thank you!). But when I'm pinged there's a lot of activity here, like today, you have my attention, and here I am.

    I understand people are very upset about my tweet yesterday. My tweet wasn't really meant to be about the BuzzFeed article about the situation here on enWP, it was meant more a comment about Twitter and media culture in general. (If I’d wanted to comment on the article, I would have linked to it directly.) But I understand why it was upsetting, and why it could be seen as dismissing or dismissive of perspectives and people here in the en-wiki community. That truly wasn't my intention, and I apologize. (It was also a somewhat ill-conceived and hasty throwaway, which is Twitter in a nutshell, versus what I hope will be a more thoughtful and well-written reflection here, more in line with the nature of this community.) Thank you for reaching out and inviting me to clarify my intention here.

    My actual feeling on the BuzzFeed article, which I also clarified on Twitter, is that it accurately covers the situation in the community and the anger or frustration people have expressed about the ban and the Foundation's action. In general, I don't have issues with negative press coverage of criticisms about the Foundation or my own judgment and actions. That’s part of my role, and often I find it very useful to help me learn and improve. To that end, the coverage of the conversations was a fair characterization of many perspectives here. Very often the press doesn't really understand the workings of Wikimedia, however, the journalist clearly did his homework to understand community conversations and processes. He put in the effort, so kudos - that's not easy and it often takes people a long time. (I personally found the “culture war” framing to be strange, because seemed like it was trying to make a Wikipedia issue into a comment on society as a whole, using a very American perspective for what is a fairly international community.)

    However, while I don't have any issues with the things I described above, I did felt the way it handled reporting on the alleged targets of harassment was objectionable. For people who know how the communities work, it would be very easy from the article to identify those individuals. That is not okay, and it would have been possible to write the article on the issue and the controversy without needing to take that approach. The Foundation communications team has been in touch with the Buzzfeed editors with our concerns around that. I take very seriously the matter of protecting members of our community, especially ones being harmed by harassment. Criticism is fine, but you shouldn't make it harder for people who already are in a hard place in order to make a point. Or, as I've been taught, don't 'punch down.'

    Even if I’ve not been vocal here on my talk page or on other discussions, I’ve been closely monitoring what’s been going on here on en-wiki, and will continue to do so. I believe there are things that could have been handled better on the Foundation side, including my own communications. My goal, which I’ve shared with the Board and am happy to share with you all here, is to find a path to de-escalate the current situation and build better, lasting solutions to the issues of harassment. To me, this means consulting with the enWP community to address your articulated concerns about our respective roles and community processes, identifying some clear next steps to resolve some of the current concerns, and consulting on how we can work together to strengthen community self-governance while also cultivating a respectful editing environment that safeguards everyone in the community.

    As always, I appreciate people's passion and the community's efforts toward holding the Foundation accountable, even when these conversations are difficult. I recognize I've also not answered every question or responded to every comment on my page today -- there's a lot, and I wanted to focus on the things that seemed most important and to have the most energy around them.

    I know it doesn’t seem like it to many people at the moment, but I wholeheartedly support and am committed to the principle of partnership with members of this and other project communities. It’s been a part of my commitment as a Foundation employee for five years, and consultation is something I’ve made an effort to embed in every aspect of our work, from the movement strategy conversations to the product development process. We don’t always get it right, and even if we do, we don’t and won’t always agree on everything. But I know that collaboration and discourse is essential, and something we all -- Foundation and staff alike -- should always be working toward. Thank you. Katherine (WMF) (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

    It's unclear to me who she's apologizing to, or for what, and if she's told the members of T&S who hastened to associate themselves with her tweet that her present stance is that she was not criticizing the BuzzFeed article. Aside from that, to stay on the Shakespeare meme, it would have been helpful to have more matter, with less art.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to say thanks to the arbs, former arbs, admins and veteran editors who have engaged with Maher on her talk page over this crisis. I am proud of you and although I am not nearly as active or committed to this project as you are, your frankness with her makes me feel represented and that I am part of a community that it is a privilege to belong to. Smeat75 (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, she was not intending to criticize the article. She just so happened to be using it as an example to make a general criticism about media and Twitter culture. Nothing even to do with Wikipedia. Pay no attention to the fact that the article's about her, or to the fact that she called it a "shitty pseudo-thinkpiece" that "no one cares" about. That has nothing to do with Wikipedia or the article. It was just a philosophical meta-commentary on Twitter culture. She knows she directly attacked it, but that has nothing to do with her intent. If she wanted to criticize the article, she obviously would have directly referenced it. Perhaps it wasn't the wisest tweet, but that's Twitter, you guys get that, right? Anyway, I'm glad we're all forgiven for the misunderstanding. I really feel like this has been a come together moment. On that note, she really appreciates us holding the WMF accountable. They've been stonewalling and ignoring us, but rest assured, that doesn't mean anything. They're taking accountability and transparency seriously. Just like her tweet, the obvious evidence to the contrary is completely meaningless. Just ignore it. They're on our side. Oh, by the way, "harassment". That's right, "harassment". Oh, and "victims". Don't forget about the "victims". WMF is getting serious about it, that's what this is all about. No, they still haven't confirmed that this incident has anything to do with harassment as opposed to incivility, but don't question that. They're gonna drop the buzzword in a generic, nonspecific way instead—draw your own conclusions! I have to give Katherine credit for the most human-sounding response to date, but this still boils down to empty rhetoric, which is more than likely necessary to save her job and/or reputation at this point. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The reply makes no sense to me: lots of being "kind" and corporate twaddle but little substance that gels with any logical reading of the tweets. It seems to be an attempt to square a circle, and perhaps even a little bit reverse ferret-ish. When I make a mistake I own it but there is precious little owning here and if indeed we have misinterpreted the intent then perhaps that indicates the ED as being someone who is not fit to hold a post for which communication skills surely are a prequisite. - Sitush (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why WMF needs to be careful. I recalled Frams name, but could not recall form what dispute, now I know. A dispute that involved (as I recall) one of the proles getting warned for (what in effect) Fram was also doing.Slatersteven (talk) 08:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Like Swarm and Sitush, I find this message somewhat underwhelming. "My tweet wasn't really meant to be about the BuzzFeed article". Either it was about it or it wasn't - wasn't really meant is linguistically slippery; it implies that the result didn't match the intention, and thus shifts the focus from observable fact (the tweet) to something with more wriggle room (the intention). And "I’ve been closely monitoring what’s been going on here on en-wiki, and will continue to do so" - closely monitoring, but saying nothing. Er, thanks for watching? And then there's the transferral of some responsibility from one's own words to the medium that carries them (Ms Maher doesn't go quite so far as to say 'Twitter made me do it', but it's not far off). Still, there is an apology in there, and an acknowledgement that the WMF has handled this badly, which is something. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an apology that really isn't, as it is not directed at anyone and it doesn't say what it is for. It's actually worse than the WIR apology, which apologized to the empty air, rather than to Fram, for implying "crimes" on the grounds that it was imprecise. I must say I am impressed by the competence of WMF and in particular Katherine, and possibly Legal. When I, in the course of my legal practice, have written a blow-off letter, I was never successful in making it half as long as this one. It takes talent to say nothing in so many words.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Katherine has replied to a couple of my tweets (the less pointed ones, @dennislbrown). When I told her we should be having this conversation onwiki and not on twitter, she replied "You’re right, that is where we should be having that conversation, and that’s what tried to start this afternoon. I plan to continue." (~1am EST 5/29) I have no idea where she tried, or what she has planned this afternoon (or what time zone she is in for "afternoon"). I haven't seen anything, but will reserve judgement for 24 hours. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Over the course of these discussions, some editors have expressed dissatisfaction with the slowness of getting a clear statement from ArbCom. I think it's important to take note of the comments that multiple Arbs put on Maher's talk page. Those comments show unambiguously that they understand what the rest of us have been so upset about, and that they really are trying to get that message across to WMF. So I want to say that it's not ArbCom's fault that we have gotten so little in the way of adequate responses from WMF. The fault rests squarely with WMF themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tryptofish: For clarity you're referring to comments starting about the 27th? Looking at both meta and en talk pages those look to be when people started commenting, I mean not just arbcom members. I'm not complaining, just trying to understand the timeline here because a lot of people are surprised she has indicated she didn't know that well what was going on here or the level of reaction but it also looks to me like a lot of the direct approaches to her are fairly recent. Of course emailing or similar was likely a better bet anyway, and I see some discussion about that above but it sort of looks like that also only took off on the 25th i.e. very recent, although it's difficult to know how many did before then. It does seem things have really taken off now with the Tweet and the controversy surrounding it. For clarity, I make no comment whether she should have known from the BoT meetings or other means. It's more that I'm surprised given how strongly some here feel about the WMF's actions that approaching the ED directly seems to potentially be a fairly recent thing. Nil Einne (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't have any particular comments about ArbCom in mind. Indeed, at this point I can hardly even keep track of who has said what. So I wasn't so much criticizing any particular comments, as praising the work done by ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's interesting that, in her statement above, Maher says the following: "Even if I’ve not been vocal here on my talk page or on other discussions, I’ve been closely monitoring what’s been going on here on en-wiki, and will continue to do so" - dated 28 June. Though she didn't state when she started "closely monitoring" it. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    A less desired news source

    • A breitbart news article (can't directly link), titled Wikipedia Editors Revolt over Site’s Ban of Veteran Administrator has now been made. To be fair, it's less biased and significantly better than most of the publication's usual articles. It doesn't consider the other side as much, and has more errors, but is still not miles off. Not the 2nd news source I'd have liked to have cover it. It's also starting to twig up more elsewhere (Quora, reddit etc) from non-participants Nosebagbear (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nosebagbear: - I see that the bottom of that article states: T. D. Adler edited Wikipedia as The Devil’s Advocate. He was banned after privately reporting conflict of interest editing by one of the site’s administrators. Due to previous witch-hunts led by mainstream Wikipedians against their critics, Adler writes under an alias. starship.paint (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nosebagbear, actually the Breitbart piece contains a very interesting clue to all of this. It appears Fram violated their WMF imposed IBAN on May 8, which leads me to assume the WMF saw it and banned for that violation (or someone brought it up to them), not any of the other possible complaints. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      May 8 had some ugly diffs. [57][58] but I don't see a violation of the IBAN. This one [59] is close but probably not a violation. Jehochman Talk 03:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Jehochman, It may not be an IBAN violation by the traditional definition. The WMF told Fram "we would like to ask that you refrain from making changes to content that she produces, in any way (directly or indirectly), from this point on. This includes but is not limited to direct editing of it, tagging, nominating for deletion, etc." This is a special sanction the WMF cooked up. I wonder if we could ask T&S if they used this diff in justification of the 1 year ban. I guess there's no chance they would ever answer that though. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Given the length of this it will be very of putting. I think it might be better to have a fresh start. But yes I think something like "Admin Fram has been blocked for a year, please comment here" would be a good idea. Lets try and get this out to a a few more users. But I also think any such forum must have strict civility in place. We get no where if we misrepresent, shout at, call name or whatever. What this should not be is another toxic forum most users steer clear of.Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Slatersteven, sounds like you are trying to direct things onto an unproductive path? I've read your previous comments. Would you prefer the banner to be in Klingonese?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No I am trying to say that if we want wider community input then we must avoid all the pitfalls that normally drive most users way from the drama boards. Otherwise all we get get is just this forum all over again, the same users saying the same things with the same results. Why do you think so few users get involved in the dramas, many of therm care enough to edit article space?Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say we need a full-scale RfC for such a banner.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, despite what I see as arrogant condescension from an out-of-touch WMF, I still think using the encyclopedia itself as a form of publicity for an internal conflict is wrong. If everyday users of the encyclopedia are benefiting from it in blissful unawareness of what's going on behind the scenes, that's good, and I hope it stays that way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I put "for logged-in users" in bold and changed the headline to make it very clear that the proposed banner isn't aimed at and won't be shown to the everyday users who don't have an account and just read our encyclopedia. Ain92 (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Plenty of people are logged in, often just so they can just keep watchlists of articles they wish to refer back to - watchlists are very useful to readers. And many stay logged in so they can make the occasional correction to spelling and grammar etc, while still essentially being a Wikipedia reader and uninterested in the political back office. Those people should be left alone without being dragged into the crisis du jour. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have never heard about such a practice and I doubt there is plenty of such people (compared to the number of editors), do you think you could substantiate your claim in some way please? Ain92 (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, every reader of Wikipedia does not have to be made aware of this backroom dispute. It could cause a loss of confidence, making of the sausage and all. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not the reader but the editor, see above. Ain92 (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally banners/watchlist notice invite users to actually do something. What would be the purpose of this one? We hardly need further comments on this page. If an RfC with a solid proposal of what to do emerges, maybe it would be worth doing, but an entry on WP:CENT probably reaches most of the people actually interested in commenting on backroom dramas. – Joe (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • What Boing said. The reason I joined was to help the reader. I don't want to burden them by dragging them into the political cesspool of the back pages. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not the reader but the editor, see above. Ain92 (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That I allways what I assumed you meant.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Still, dragging people who are peripherally interested isn't likely to create a better outcome, and I don't like the idea of using the interface for what is essentially a political problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Above there is a debate about whether or not this issue is cared about by the rest of the community. It seems to me we need to actually gauge how much the rest of the community cares, if Wikipedia belongs to the community it belongs to all of it, not just a select few who follow the drama boards. We cannot claim to speak for the 80% of active editors who have not commented here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Principles don't require an absolute majority to uphold. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe not, but saying you are acting in the name of somebody else requires their agreement you are. Also whilst an absolute majority may not be needed I would question if a majority of 1/5 would be enough to uphold a principle.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a strawman, Slatersteven. 462 users have participated here and the vast majority of them are the editors who are active in the maintenance and governance of en.Wiki. That's more than enough for a major policy debate without inviting all the users who aren't interested in the back office or who don't understand it. Or have you never heard of ACTRIAL - for example? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Then we will have to agree to disagree on whether or not you can claim to speak on behalf of someone who you have not even asked.Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you not have an impression that WMF thinks that Wikipedia users don't actually care? Even if we here agree that 462 is enough, but WMF decides it's not, the latter is not going to compromise with us on anything. Ain92 (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "saying you are acting in the name of somebody else requires their agreement you are" - how do you think actual governments work? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said it is clear my view of democracy and others here is not the same (and we are not a government, we are a community).Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we are talking government of a sort, but perhaps we should just call it governance, and I personally don't know of any existing governance system of any size that works on an absolute majority system for all its representative decisions. But anyway, the point is that the Wikipedia Community uses a representative governance system, where that representation is decided by consensus among those who choose to take part, and has never tried to be an absolute democracy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In have no issue with the idea that any choice made will be (according to the rules of Wikipedia) a consensus decision. That is not the same as saying "representative of the community". This is especially true if (as a number of outside sources claim) there is an issue with certain viewpoints or demographics being forced off of the dram boards by an unduly hostile environment. This is my concern, who are we in fact representing, those who care or just hose who are willing to put up with shit throwing? But this will now be my last word in this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If it falls to me to have the last word, I'll make it simple - I do understand your point, which is very much a valid one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • +1 That was partially my reasoning as well. I myself was an editor who doesn't follow the drama boards (neither here nor in other projects where I participate), who found out about the issue in an unofficial Telegram chat of Russian Wikipedia, and who considered this problem important enough to be worth my attention. This is not about the drama itself, but the unprecedentedness and the importance. Ain92 (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Ain92, using the interface to promote a manifesto is definitely something not to be taken lightly. However, it may prove to be necessary to force the WMF to pay attention. I do think that we should play things slowly, though.
      There’s clearly a consensus here that the WMF f***ed... oh wait, can’t say that... screwed up. Let's see if they pay attention to this cacophony.
      If they don't engage with us, we then can move to a Watchlist notice, probably in the form of a community-sourced statement on the issue. Give the WMF 500 words with which to state their case. Have an endorse/oppose increased WMF intervention survey. I'd suggest limiting the advertising of such a survey to EC users - anyone welcome to participate, of course.
      If that fails, we've probably reached out to most of the active community by that point. That's when I'd endorse drastic action like a Main Page blackout or something of that ilk. They couldn't prevent such an action without reinvoking superprotect. It would very much be a direct confrontation with the WMF by that point.
      Regarding policy, I think we overwhelmingly believe that our self-governance is beneficial to the encyclopaedia. Therefore it's simple IAR territory- extraordinary circumstances like these are exactly the time to deploy IAR.
      But we need to proceed slowly, give the WMF time to respond. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, quite strong arguments have been made on this page against any measure that hurts our readers, including the Main Page blackout, while a Sitenotice (thanks for the correct term BTW) for logged-in users is as harmless for the readers as a Watchlist notice. I didn't consider the latter because I never read those notices, and I don't expect it from other exopedians since the information regularly posted there is irrelevant for us. Metapedians on the other hand, are likely to already know about the Framgate. There may be some use for the editors in between though. Ain92 (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • P.S. I agree we better play things without a haste, and I have nothing against giving WMF a bit more time to react, but this amount of time should be limited. Ain92 (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Ain92, I agree - a Main Page blackout would be an extreme measure, and it would hurt the readership. If it came to it, I'd support such a measure, arguing that the short term harm was worth offsetting the long term damage to the community. But I'd absolutely only contemplate it as a last resort. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think one takeaway from this is that we need some community-appointed, community-recallable role whose designated purpose is to represent the views of the community to the WMF. Part of the problem here is that none of the existing channels seem to be considered valid - ArbCom is explicitly unable to override the WMF and therefore has no formal role to communicate with it, while the community-appointed board members are at too much of a disconnect from day-to-day WMF decisions to intercede until everything is already on fire - and even then, they're bound by the rest of the board and aren't really explicitly recognized as the "voice of the community." Without such a role, there's simply no way for the community to convey anything to the WMF in a manner the WMF accepts - these tweets carry the strong implication that anything short of a vote by 51% of all editors would be seen as illegitimate and not worth listening to, which isn't reasonable and makes dialog with the WMF impossible. Said role could overlap with ArbCom or with the community board members, or it could be something new, but either way the point would be that it would give the community a clear voice and avoid having our concerns dismissed as coming from a faceless mass whose true opinions are impossible to divine. --Aquillion (talk) 00:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree wholeheartedly with what you said, but I do not understand why did you decide to post it here, where few people would notice it, and not in a new section. Ain92 (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aquillion It seems to me a community ombuds network (whose primary role is communicating b/t community and foundation, each responsible to one community, and maintaining persistence of communication + expectations over time), and a federation of editors that can summarize and prioritize needs / concerns / desires of the editing communities, would both be valuable counterpoints to current systems. – SJ + 17:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think I accidentally placed this in the wrong section after numerous edit conflicts while trying to post it. The high-traffic nature of this page makes long comments a bit difficult. --Aquillion (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I would not be surprised to see a lot of resignations after the next Signpost hits on June 30. --Rschen7754 02:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that a sitenotice is something we might want to consider as a last resort, but it's not appropriate yet. I feel it's the biggest gun we could reasonably deploy to actual effect (it would definitely attract more media attention, and unlike some of the more out-there burn-it-down suggestions it's at least reasonably implementable and might prove effective), but it also carries significant risk of backlash and would escalate the situation whether it succeeds or fails, damaging the reputation of both Wikipedia and the WMF. It's something we should only do if or when it's clear absolutely all our other avenues for appeal have failed - if it seems likely that T&S, the WMF, and the Board intend to just buckle down and go full-speed ahead with taking over what has traditionally been community moderation of enwiki, or if they ever attempt a ban of this nature a second time. --Aquillion (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Hurting so bad right now

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

    • I've bit my tongue more than once and limited it to a couple of pointed remarks on Twitter and here, but yes, it does seem to be crumbling down and they don't even notice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for writing this as I am also feeling the the hurt. For me this retirement is another blow and part of my hurt. I've written here how I think only WMF can fix this and their lack of desire to do so, and perhaps their thinking that there's nothing to fix, makes all of this ever more difficult. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Maher appears to be so detached from the fabric of what makes Wikipedia what it is, that she should be ashamed. Happily tweeting off some banal denials and leaving it as-is, while the community is losing good people left, right and centre, is a complete dereliction of duty. Astonishing that her position exists because of people in the community, yet she has no time to address those same people. Truly enlightening and saddening. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can somebody keep Katherine away from Twitter, for the next week? ∯WBGconverse 18:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You see, it's not that she doesn't want to communicate with us; it's that she doesn't know how to. What's this confusing Wikipedia thing they keep talking about? Meh, a few tweets between meetings should keep them quiet until I can figure it out.
    What has she been doing for the past 18 days while this place has been burning??? - MrX 🖋 19:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been arguing against taking strong steps against WMF and for being patient. I'm starting to change my mind. Maybe I was wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks SilkTork. I'm mourning for the community that has been such a large part of my life for 15 years. I'd be just as upset if this was some conspiracy by WMF, but I don't think it's anything but incompetence, much makes it all so fucking pointless. Guettarda (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could probably write a lot about this, and maybe I will when I feel up to it, but everything that's happened here makes me incredibly sad. It's not just that the project is losing experienced, proficient, highly active editors, but the fact that prominent admins are also community leaders in a very real, if informal sense. I've looked up to Floq, Boing, 28Bytes, Dennis, Beeblebrox (and many more) since I started editing. Beyond the loss of their direct involvement, seeing them go, especially in these circumstances, is a tremendous symbolic and moral loss. Wikipedia relies on hardworking, committed volunteers to keep everything on the rails, and that system only works because there are so many of us that believe in the ideals that launched Wikipedia in the first place. When the foundation displays such complete disregard for the community, and longstanding pillars of that community lose faith, we will find fewer and fewer reasons to return. There's a lot of talk on this page about leaving in protest, or striking to force the foundation's hand, but I dread the day when the people running this project have completely alienated everyone aligned with its original vision, when the community is dead and the few remaining volunteers can do little but revert the worst of the vandalism and manage this encyclopedia's gradual decay. I hope that day never comes, but I hope also that anyone even remotely connected to the WMF sees that future and knows how very possible it is. —Rutebega (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • All this uproar about people resigning is hyperbolic alarmism apparently designed to help fan the fires of outrage (it appears to be working well). Most or all of the resignations/retirements are temporary and contingent, whether explicitly framed that way or not, and are not as cataclysmic as they are being made out to be. If an editor leaves and stays gone, it won't be because WMF appeared to drag their feet in responding here, so we should stop suggesting that the latter is causing the former. It's disingenuous and unhelpful. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Strike

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

    • It would not be fruitful. The Board/WMF is definitely, 100% aware of this and looking to take some action to calm this down. A strike would not help. Vermont (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, to be strictly accurate the WMF has said that “the community” is a monolith misnomer. ‑ Iridescent 21:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mjroots, as I've said above, I don't think the time is ripe for drastic action. Lets see what the board have to offer. If it's unsatisfactory, or doesn't manifest itself within the promised 7 days, then we can look at taking action. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why I've suggested 8 July, although that date is open to being moved backwards, depending on what transpires in the next 7 days. Mjroots (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mjroots, I think 8 July is too early - the response may turn up on 4th or 5th. We then have to digest it, decide it's lacklustre, then organise a coordinated strike. I don't see that happening in 3 or 4 days. 10 July, marking 1 month since Fram's ban, would give us more time to coordinate. and also be quite symbolic. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's take the trade union approach then. Prepare for a strike on a certain date. Get the publicity out. A strike can always be called off. 10 July is a very good suggestion. Mjroots (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doubt the vast majority of the people who actually edit articles on a daily basis are even aware of this dispute. A strike by only those who are taking part in the discussion on this page will have no effect at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What Boing! said. My watchlist is still full of people I've never heard of or IPs tinkering away with articles. They won't care about this, unless perhaps, heaven forbid, somebody like Trump makes a comment on it one way or another and it gets stuck on mainstream news. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ha-ha, I can only imagine how this scandal would fade in comparison of a shitshow which would happen if some right-wing current or former Wikipedian baited Trump to tweet about the scandal in "left LGBT+ feminists oppress white men" terms. Ain92 (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would not accomplish what we want, kind of like swallowing poison and waiting for the other person to get sick. But one thing I'm increasingly sure of: there need to be repercussions in the next election for the Board of Trustees. (To be clear, I don't mean Doc James there. But some other members, that's another matter.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Tryptofish, don't hold your breath. They quietly extended their terms from two to three years, so there's not going to be a 2019 election; the next elections aren't until June 2020. ‑ Iridescent 21:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Facepalm Facepalm See also: learned helplessness. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Not really quietly, there was a (meta) community discussion about this, and every single user who posted in that discussion was against the third term extension.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Tryptofish I am working quite hard on daily basis over the last weeks to resolve this. This includes communication and ad-hoc phone calls with the Board members, drafting letters that would be agreeable by a majority of people, and similarly *entertaining* tasks. Even though I am not really active on en-wiki, I'm replying to every question that I'm pinged at or that pops on my discussion page related to this case. Pundit|utter 17:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Pundit, thank you very much for that. It's clear to me that you and Doc James are on the right side of this controversy. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "limited exceptions" could be a problem. It seems that such edits might (sadly) be a significant portion of the daily volume, and continuing with those edits during the strike would likely reduce its noticeability. (ec) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't done any edits in article space since this started and don't intend to do any more until it is satisfactorily resolved.Smeat75 (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It just occurred to me: I've been doing almost nothing on content, not really as an intentional strike, but just because I've become too upset with this to have an interest in regular editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nor have I; nor will I. Victoria (tk) 21:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Same here, Tryptofish, Victoria. I'm just maintaining.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me say this. I've been quietly watching this from the sidelines as an admin, I find all the admins/checkusers/etc resigning to be a ginormous mistake given the lack of RFAs the last 5–6 years. I've watched this from every single angle. I also have friends talking about this on Twitter who don't even edit here. While I think it is incredibly clear change is needed, resigning tools and giving up on 18 years of progress is not the way to go here. I'm in most agreement that change is needed, but "strikes", resigning tools, etc. is not the answer, It disappoints me to have to watch people do that. Do we really want to give up on 18 years of progress on this? Heaven knows I'm not. Mitch32(Fame is a four letter word.) 21:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    +1 Daniel Case (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mistake on whose part? I've been here since 2006, admin since 2012. It isn't a mistake for me to resign the bit if I feel that the editors here and myself have been marginalized. That's a choice. I don't think a strike is a viable option, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • A strike would be ill-advised, as would other disruptive acts. I suspect some face to face discussion at wikimania will be substantive and (hopefully) productive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree. We don't need to resort to things we would regret. Not for them, but any disruption only hurts fellow editors. I don't hold out hope that face to face time will make a difference, but I hope you are right. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Casliber: But how many of the editors in this & related fora are likely to attend Wikimania? I doubt Stockholm is convenient for many on en-wiki who are not receiving travel grants. We're fundamentally an online site with a widely distributed user base, many of whom are unwaged. There are technologies for consulting in real time with such groups; why is the Foundation not employing them? Espresso Addict (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a few people going who want to discuss things - and face to face is often alot more productive than remotely. However, I do agree I'd like to see something alot sooner than that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you know that the Wikimedia Foundation has started banning long-term respected contributors to Wikipedia while refusing to either explain their decision or offering a way to appeal the sanction? In the news: The stability of Wikipedia, a successful online encyclopaedia, is being threatened by a unilateral extension of the Wikimedia Foundation's exercise of direct control, bypassing the editing community that build most of the project. I also think Non-cooperation movement and maybe even Sabotage could be brought to Featured status and go on the main page... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that it is not yet time for a strike. High-profile admin resignations are already, hopefully, sending a strong message. As above once we hear the board statement, apparently in 1 week at most, we can consider other avenues including a site notice banner as discussed above, which could open a broad discussion on options including a strike.Dialectric (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • SHUT IT DOWN. Enough is enough. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes .. keep on delaying this. I am sure that they will voluntarily give a message. Either after this meeting, or maybe after the next. It is, after all, just 2 weeks and a couple of days. </sarcasm> On the 5th of July you get half a bone and another meeting date. You wait another 2 weeks (4 'because of a holiday') ... ad nauseam. Start a massive strike now, and by the time the meeting is Wikipedia starts to turn into a mess and they will be covered in a sea of reports of ToU violations that we did not solve but reported to them. At some point, to have some credibility, they will have to lock en.wikipedia and revert it back a couple of days. Shut it down. NOW. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In line with the concept of a worker strike (which I have participated in in RL more than once), I cannot in good conscience continue to implement the Wikipedia Editor of the Week Award at this time, until progress has been made toward de-escalating the situation at WP:FRAMBAN. This award has been distributed weekly since 2013. I'm not sure what progress I should expect but I'll know it when I see it. My sincere hope is that whatever comes about will lead to more respect for the workers in the front lines.―Buster7 ☎ 13:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I think calling for a general strike is pointless, I completely understand why individuals would choose to not participate in editing or maintenance. I haven't myself, even when seeing something that needed fixing. Honestly, I just didn't feel like it. It isn't about defiance so much as "I don't want to", a lack of motivation given the current environment. We are volunteers, after all, with no obligation to do anything. Anyone who criticizes that is simply not understanding the meaning of "volunteer". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • An editor strike would not be pointless if it could be given enough publicity by the mainstream media and enough people were to take part. I'm not looking to completely shut down Wikipedia like we did for the SOPA and PIPA protest. Mjroots (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary updaters

    At least for the moment, I will not be updating the summary at WP:FRAMSUM. I have gotten too involved in WP:FRAM and was blocked. As such, I will be taking a step back, and I may not return to contributing to the summary. I welcome additions and updates from other editors. You can leave your name there if you contribute. Thank you. starship.paint (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Starship.paint, Thanks for starting that fine summary. I've been away a couple days, and haven't followed the saga of your block, but I'm sorry it happened. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I added Starship.paint's block to the timeline about Fram's block that Starship.paint was maintaining; hopefully it won't become a whole thing that requires its own sub-timeline. If it does, I request that someone else step in to maintain the timeline of my block when I inevitably get blocked for some screwup I make while maintaining a timeline of events related to Starship.paint's block. --Aquillion (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have continued User:Seraphimblade's timeline on a very sparse basis. I assume someone will come along and clean it up when (if) the dust settles. --Rschen7754 02:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I find the Starship.paint summary extremely useful in keeping up to date on this never-ending/ever-expanding affair, and I have urged them to return to maintaining it. I propose that we hat the Seraphimblade list given it is not being maintained (as per the Swarm list), to avoid distraction. Let us have one proper live list of the events?. Britishfinance (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    what I suggest is move Sphilbrick’s one up to #2, Seraphim stays at #3 and Swarm goes to #4. Don’t think any hats are needed when the less updated summaries are at the bottom. starship.paint (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No issue with changing the order, but I would still propose hatting all others bar yours. Things are already complicated enough. One good list that has captures all the main events in an NPOV form is all we need; and I think your list does this. Britishfinance (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Britishfinance, I'm not opposed to hatting of the locations, but I'm too close to it, so happy with whatever others think is helpful. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, having read it fully, I think the table is good (ultimately, this is a complex affair), and I have moved it to below the main summary. thanks Britishfinance (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Sadly this may satisfy some

    Just as a point of information (I also posted on Jimbos talk page) one of significant victims of Fram has vanished their user page. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Victim of Fram? Are you sure about that - see comments in previous section about the vanishing. - Sitush (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, we don’t know if she’s a victim of anybody. Unless and until T&S discloses information we may be engaged in BLP-violative speculation. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we can safely say she decided to vanish because of the whole situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. If not a victim of Fram, then a victim of the mob. But likely both. ~ Rob13Talk 16:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather a victim of T&S, which started, and terribly handled, the whole episode which now culminated on her autoban. Darwin Ahoy! 17:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Odd heading - as many recognize, this is bigger than Fram, or the unknown other(s) directly involved in his case. Seeing long term admins resign might also satisfy some, but bigger issues are not resolved. Harassment is still a issue on wikipedia with or without Fram, and unprecedented changes to WMF process appear to have infringed upon wikipedia's long-established systems for self-policing.Dialectric (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read the at the top of the talk page directed toward Fram and specifically asking him to communicate with her through named T&S staff members to resolve any future dispute, Laura Hale was quite public about her complaints to T&S (rather than through the normal community channels.) Question: when users vanish voluntarily, are they eligible for WMF-funded travel to future events? Hlevy2 (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WMF funds real people, with name and surname, not users. (This is not to speculate whether LH would ever be interested in attending any WMF events, but we have for example a couple of Board members who have never edited Wikimedia projects and who are, strictly speaking, no users).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I don't find it satisfying in the least that this individual exercised her right to vanish. I don't think it would be satisfying to see Fram unbanned either. This isn't about Fram. It's about the process, particularly the lack of any process. Having seen some of what Fram's said recently, as far as I'm concerned he can stay banned, but the process must change. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sad situation. Even if we were to accept that Fram deserved the ban, the way they went about it ensured the aftermath and was avoidable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed it is. Fram really isn't the issue anymore. The ban stands, Fram is honoring it even though they are not blocked now, and ArbCom isn't taking up a case regarding the ban, so nothing will happen. This portion of the issue is but a minor steam vent of the enormous volcano of problems the WMF has created in mismanaging this case. In abstract, had the WMF shown the competence and maturity one would expect of a company that had been in existence for 16 years, much of the fallout of this would have been predicted, their management of it adjusted beforehand to assist in managing it, and a team of people to manage public communications of this event would have been briefed and at the ready. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In abstract, had the WMF shown the competence and maturity one would expect of a company that had been in existence for 16 years, much of the fallout of this would have been predicted, their management of it adjusted beforehand to assist in managing it, and a team of people to manage public communications of this event would have been briefed and at the ready. Yep, this. Instead, I'm just getting impressions of Amy's Baking Company. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Why wee are here [[60]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm greatly saddened by this development. It's fair to say that the admin corps (myself included) and higher failed this person, who has been subjected to years of abuse for no sensible reason. It is awful to see this continuing above. While it does illustrate the foolishness of the WMF's intervention, which has lead to the re-victimisation of several editors, the immature reactions by multiple editors here who wanted to blame the (potential - who knows?) victim have been utterly reprehensible. Nick-D (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    So, about the supposed "harassment"

    I don't know what kind of statement the OP's trying to make with that header. That said, I suppose this answers the question as to whether Laura was indeed the user who complained to the WMF. This was strongly implied from the very beginning, but this would seem to confirm it. This is a problem, because it means that Fram was not banned for harassment. Fram was already banned from interacting with Laura, and regardless of the merits of that IBAN, we know that he was not harassing her at the time of the ban. This would also apparently mean that there is not a second party who Fram was harassing. This is how it's looking right now:

    • Fram interacted with LauraHale in a manner that even the WMF admitted was editorially in the right, even getting her formally sanctioned, but he was still assessed as "harassing" her and IBANNED accordingly. This alone seems to run counter to our own standard of harassment.
    • Fram abided by the IBAN, yet Laura continued to police Fram's behavior, and subsequently reported him for continued uncivil conduct that was not in breach of the ToU, and that's why he was banned.

    Fram's story continues to check out, and the WMF continues to be unable to even claim that he's not telling the truth. It really appears that this isn't about harassment, it's about revenge. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't believe that LH reported Fram, and am in fact running on the assumption that either an unrelated third party did or T&S was watching Fram like a hawk since the first or second warning. It's more likely LH left because of harassment due to the Wikipediocracy allegations and Raystorm deciding to fight a fire with petrol, which in turn heightened the scrutiny on LH due to said allegations. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 04:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As a matter of simple behavioral logic, I think it borders on desperate to even try to claim that a user who has a public conflict with Fram advertised on her user page, who has connections to the WMF, who was named here as the suspected culprit, and who actually had nothing to do with this whatsoever, would actually stop editing and vanish her account rather than simply make a comment clarifying that she was not the reporter and that she's not to blame for this. Occam's Razor. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, more victim blaming - complete with someone who stated that they were a victim of harassment by Fram being labelled a "suspected culprit". It simply does not matter who, if anyone, reported Fram. Blaming a victim is pretty much the best possible way to enable harassment and protect people who engage in it. The issue here is how reports of harassment are handled by this community and the WMF. Nick-D (talk) 05:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly the point. Laura wasn't a harassment victim. She was already protected by an IBAN. Fram was not harassing her. Therefore, if she reported Fram, she did so because she was stalking him, not because he was victimizing her. It so follows that the Foundation blocked Fram for subsequent incivility, not harassment. That would mean the ToU was falsely invoked, and that the ban was inappropriate, as Fram has claimed all along. You suggesting that Fram was harassing her without evidence is an aspersion at best, libel at worst. I'm not blaming anyone, I'm just reviewing what we know. Your venomous attack against what is nothing but an objective review of what we know is strange, to say the least. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've amended my post to clarify my knowledge of the issue (to wit, the statement on LH's user page requesting that Fram stay away), not least as I don't wish to descend to the type of vitriol you are spewing towards LH and myself here (accusing someone of stalking, for instance, doesn't seem great...). Nick-D (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, you so you changed "a victim of harassment" to "someone who stated that they were a victim of harassment". When you consider the fact that the user was protected by an IBAN against their supposed harasser, that doesn't really help your argument form a factual point of view, and instead builds credibility on the part of the victim, who, AFAIK, is Fram. ~Swarm~ {sting} 08:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an important point, and something being forgotten here: WP:BLP applies sitewide. Even for Fram. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As well as for LH, who, contrary to Fram, was not editing under a pseudonym. But hey, let's continue treating the guy who got two warnings and a sanction better than one of the alleged victims. MLauba (Talk) 14:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, let's not have a race to the bottom, but let's treat everybody decently. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Another one

    BU Rob13's been renamed. [61] Guess he's really left, now. starship.paint (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The WMF is disconnected from the editing community

    The members of the WMF Board of Trustees are listed here. If you click on each member, you get taken to a bio of that person. If you don't already know who all of them are, please go there and look at that now, and then come back here to read the rest of my comment.

    What stands out to me is that there are only three members who are selected by the community (and, as it happens, one of them has a major conflict of interest here). Many of the others are appointed because of their expertise and experience in human rights and serving underrepresented communities. Please understand: I believe very strongly that these are good things for the Board to be looking at. The problem is not that they are the wrong people. It's that they, by themselves, are not enough. In other words, there is too little representation from people who are actually creating the content of the Wikimedia websites.

    You can almost see why it's been so long without a Board statement. Doc James and a few others really do "get it", but if the Board Chair says that she and the victim are undergoing so much harassment, the majority of Board members are going to need an awful lot of convincing that it really isn't as simple as that. Too many of them have no idea what goes on at places like WP:ANI and WP:AE, and without that perspective, they may well think that so many of us complaining here, and so many admins resigning, are just a bunch of trolls that the project would be better without.

    Similarly, if you look at the people who work for WMF, there also is some significant disconnect from the editing community. It's really quite breathtaking that Katherine Maher has been taken so very much by surprise by the turmoil that has been going on here. When we got the flow chart of how there appear to be multiple levels of review of each T&S complaint, it wasn't clear how much real, independent review happens at each level. Increasingly, it looks like a single T&S staff member, whose expertise may be in software development rather than in complex human relations, may process each complaint as it comes in, and then whatever that person decides gets signed off on in a very perfunctory way by higher ups.

    This is how we got to the mess we are in now. There needs to be much better awareness of how editing actually works, both on the Board and in the staff leadership. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    These elections (apparently every 3 years now) really do matter. There are two additional seats that are chosen by Wikimedia chapters, which does provide some community input (and I have contacted them, though they don't edit that much - here and here. But I do share your concerns. --Rschen7754 22:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Like Rschen7754, I fully share your concerns; folks who don't have any experience on the ground won't know what it's like. (If I may opine: I've always found it strange that, at very least, a majority of the board isn't elected by the constituent communities of Wikimedia.) —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As an alternative to waiting for elections, perhaps we could have a petition page calling for more representation, and perhaps a lot of editors would sign it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't object, but I know the Board wouldn't like that. Asking for folks in power to leave is a difficult and delicate task. Still, worth a shot. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not asking for anyone to leave. Rather, asking for more people to be added, as well as for paying more attention. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also advocate asking the board to go to staggered terms for community-designated members beginning at the next election. It's ridiculous that a community as dynamic as this has been only would get to weigh in every three years.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't object to staggered terms, quite frankly: more chances to elect new members means (possibly) more qualified editors who can vote, and that can only be a good thing in terms of greater discussion and sharing of ideas (regarding candidates, etc.). Of course, for that matter, asking for greater (possibly more proportional) representation is also good; and more attention paid to all communities over, say, the vagaries of fundraising can't hurt. In short, both are good points. I hope to see them addressed. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 04:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be worth trying to contact the affiliate members through the pages above, it may be worth a try. --Rschen7754 23:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about two other apparent experienced Wikipedians at the Board, namely N. Tymkiv and D. Jemielniak (not sure who of them was "selected by the community")? Have they commented on the issue? Unfortunately I don't know their aliases here. Ain92 (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Pundit and Antanana. Dariusz commented several times here. Nataliia did not comment here, as far as I know, but she is sufficiently aware of the issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Pundit answered just today here on this page and thanked the ArbCom for the Open Letter. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I am commenting relatively regularly and responding to questions about the topic. Short of making statements on my own, I am making everything I can to result in a situation when the Board makes a statement soon, and I've been working on this on daily basis for a while. Pundit|utter 17:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you! We need more people like you and DocJames at the Board IMO. Ain92 (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe it is not the board of trustees that is too weakly connected to the Wikipedia community—perhaps working groups like T&S should have representatives from the editing community who have a transmission belt and auditing function through frequent, scheduled contact.
    My image of the journey of how we got here includes a rather crude concept of where harassment and discrimination enter the process of building an inclusive editing community of "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". Unlike most (All?) volunteer organizations with the influence of Wikipedia, activists can work here without ever having face-to-face discussions with other editors. There is no guide to how we interact save for the Five Pillars. What each of us has inside our head and heart is unknown. Rudeness and incivility can be signs of relatively common and harmless character expression—or signs of political (in the broad sense) conflict. In my experience, Wikipedia is unique. From where could you staff T&S with people with experience relevant to pbeing part of the Wikipedia editing community? From experience I've seen the difficulties in building organizations with inclusive goals for society and memberships—but, unlike Wikipedia, with common, basic political goals. Editors from across the political spectrum come here. Editors can not be excluded for their ideology unless their writing can never follow consensus and reliable sources. We get only narrow glimpses of the whole person.
    The current breakdown indicates corrective action must be started more quickly than a board's cycle time (and management's also)! With better reporting from T&S, the board can be in volved. I do not see any role management need play here. — Neonorange (Phil) 19:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Idea

    Here's an idea. Every week/month/whatever, everyone, or possibly just the WMF big wigs, gets a summary of what's happening at the big discussion boards. If the ED doesn't have time to check in on what happens here, then get a deputy/staff member to give her a distilled summary. Likewise, if the Vice-Chairman doesn't have time to check in, get a deputy/staff member to summarize things for him. It is crucial that the top level of the WMF has its finger on the pulse. These summaries don't have to be big, but you could have something like

    For distribution to WMF Staff
    Summary of local issues and discussions - June 2019
    commons
    dewiki
    enwiki
    frwiki
    • ...
    wikt
    • ...

    It's a mockup, but the final 'summary' should include all kinds of mid- to high-level discussions from all projects, whether technical-related, social-related, or policy-related. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    We already do some of this this, although somewhat less systematically, not on a specific schedule (or at least it's not on a schedule for me; others might take a different approach). I'm always happy when anyone pings me to a discussion that someone in the WMF might want to know. Usually, I pass those links along to interested people/teams, and sometimes to larger groups, including C-levels. You might consider the new m:Wikimedia Space as a central space. An area for "What's going on right now?" might be interesting to far more than just WMF managers.
    (Your ping list includes several former staff.) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate efforts to keep staff up to date, and I'm happy to be pinged (though probably best to do so on my Staff account so the streams don't cross too much). I'll pass along things that seem potentially relevant to other staff who otherwise might miss them, as I see them. Thanks! Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Whatamidoing (WMF) and Jmorgan (WMF): It's good that there's some mini version of this at the level of individual teams, but the idea here is that the WMF would be proactive in seeking out mid- and high-level discussion to know what's going on, rather than be passive/reactive in their involvement. Being proactive is not a small effort (it would involved that relevant noticeboards first get identified, then summarized daily/weekly/monthly/as needed), which is why I suggest that someone specific is assigned the role of seeking out such discussions and summarizing them. This is also something that's more important as you go up the WMF ladder. The techie that's responsible for toolserver maintenance has much less of a need to be kept up to date on matters related to say dewiki governance. But the Executive Director, Chairman, and anyone with a bigwig should follow the broad strokes of what is going on the projects, and not just what's going on at the WMF. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It also works the other way. This morning while I was reading the Wikimedia-L list, I happened on this email announcing "New Code of Conduct committee candidates". Hmm, I thought, this looks like something we need to have someone from en.wikipedia involved with. Only to discover that it was announcing the results of the selection process. And that "the deadline for the public feedback was yesterday [19 June]." Kinda hard to participate in a process when one doesn't hear about it in time. (And the two new members selected were announced by their legal names, not their user names, making it harder for us to contact them.)

    I'll AGF, & suspect this was announced over on Meta. Which means we need one or more volunteers to watch announcements on Meta & relay them back to us -- say at WP:PUMP -- so interested people on en.wikipedia know about these opportunities. -- llywrch (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Llywrch: Yes! I very much support adding the diffusion of WMF-related stuff to wikimedia projects by that same person. They'd be in effect, a community liaison/communications officer or whatever you want to call that. Maybe such a position already exists, in which case something like this should become part of their regular responsibilities. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Katherine Maher on leaving the Fram case to ArbCom

    It might get lost in the storm but I think there is an important point in one of Katherine's comments today:

    I think the best way forward likely involves ideas that many people in the community also seem to be recommending. There is likely a role for ArbCom in the immediate case (although I want to be clear that, while Foundation T&S staff have had conversations with members of the committee through regular channels, I am not speaking for the committee and do not want to misrepresent any perspectives they may have or actions they may take). [62]

    It seems she wants to leave the Fram case to ArbCom but can't quite promise that yet because she wants to get buy-in from ArbCom and other parties first. This seems like a pretty big step forward. Hopefully the details can be ironed out in the next couple of days. Haukur (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a start, and a very well-needed one. Kudos to her for recognising that cutting ArbCom out was boneheaded. Unfortunately, this doesn't help when a fair chunk of the problem is T&S stonewalling ArbCom just as much as they're stonewalling the community writ large. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 22:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, it's a big start, but we can't let it end there. This isn't about Fram, this is about process. Unless there's a formalized process that comes out of this, we've gotten nowhere. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it's a good first step, but not the whole solution. I think getting ArbCom to be willing to examine the complaint (presumably in private, rather than as an on-wiki case) will not be hard. The main issue will be the handing over of confidential information. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. And PS – I don't think you were wasting our time with the proposal, as said in some senses it seemed the best proposal yet, and like you said you didn't want us to act on it immediately. It was just it seemed a bit of a nuclear option, so thanks for withdrawing. But please keep the ideas coming! FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye. I'm with FeydHuxtable. I enjoy reading your novel ideas, Tryptofish, even if I don't always agree with them. Please do keep them coming! —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 23:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I appreciate that a lot. I figure there are so many productive discussions, and it would be best if everyone gets back to those sooner rather than later. It clearly was never going to get consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wanted to note, this is something that probably most of the relevant players have thought about on some level, but you're right, Tryptofish, the devil is in the details. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that is a far cry from saying they won't do this again, hoping we don't raise so much hell, so it falls short. The issue isn't this one case, it is the principle of autonomy at enwp. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      The issue is the repeated failure of enwp to adequately address the problem of harassment. Unless enwp finds a pathway to reform the culture of entitlement, further intervention is inevitable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Hawkeye7: Indeed. I minimise my presence on WP nowadays because of the toxic culture. Tony (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Toxic culture, certainly. ∯WBGconverse 18:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that we do not adequately handle harassment, indeed. But this action by WMF was not the way forward either. Regarding the case: my feelings towards WMF will not change with a fully in-camera ArbCom case. My trust of ArbCom regarding this has gone so low that I believe they are likely going to meekly follow WMF. Moreover, they have a COI here just like WMF. They are to examine all public evidence in public, and make it reasonable to expect that there is sufficient off-wiki evidence that a ban is justified. --Dirk Beetstra T C 01:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      En-wiki does not handle harassment well, this is true. If T&S bypassed en-wiki for that reason, they took an action that was guaranteed to cause huge amounts of disruption (resulting in further harassment). If T&S was/is dissatisfied with the way en-wiki deals with harassment, they needed to come to en-wiki and say, "we need en-wiki to do a better job handling harassment. Within (some timeframe), we need you to come up with a plan to handle it according to (principles and guidelines T&S/WMF made) or else we're going to start stepping in." Had they said that, and then the community failed to develop those processes, then stepping in and enacting a mysteriously project-specific, time-limited ban would have at least made some sense. Ca2james (talk) 01:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Eh the community would have responded with "define harassment in an unambigious manner and objectively define better job of handling". It would have been a difficult conversation.©Geni (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not hard. It's just that we keep trying to reinvent the wheel when it comes to public policy issues like this, and wind up feeling like we're failing our community when those newly-invented policies have problems. It doesn't have to be this hard. Go look at the law in any particular jurisdiction. I'll quote one good example here:

      "Stalking" means engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person, and he or she knows or should know that this course of conduct would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her safety, the safety of a workplace, school, or place of worship, or the safety of a third person or suffer emotional distress. Stalking does not include an exercise of the right to free speech or assembly that is otherwise lawful or picketing occurring at the workplace that is otherwise lawful and arises out of a bona fide labor dispute, including any controversy concerning wages, salaries, hours, working conditions or benefits, including health and welfare, sick leave, insurance, and pension or retirement provisions, the making or maintaining of collective bargaining agreements, and the terms to be included in those agreements.

      740 ILCS 21/10. Sure there's a lot that's not relevant to us there, and it's a definition for "stalking" rather than "harassment", but it's a good starting point. It makes a lot of sense as well: a course of conduct (i.e., not just a single incident), that the actor knows or should know would cause a reasonable person to be fearful or suffer emotional distress. It also doesn't include certain protected actions (we might think of those as analogous to our WP:BANEX, like reverting obvious vandalism). It's reasonable in that it doesn't provide a bludgeon to invoke in a dispute: the conduct must be what would cause a reasonable person to feel fearful. Moreover, it requires that the actor have reason to know that such conduct would be harmful. And on the flipside, it's easy to enforce: Any admin can evaluate this, and the Arbitration Committee can evaluate it as well: "Would that pattern of conduct make a reasonable person fearful?" The fact that a complaint is self-serving is not a problem either, because we're using an objective rather than a subjective standard; if it's objectively unreasonable conduct, it should be prohibited even if nobody complains. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      It's far easier to effectively define what constitutes harassment, and it behooves us to do just that as a matter of practicality. Right now, outside of obvious red flags (contacting an editor's employer or family in real life, doxing, needlessly camping an editor's contributions to nitpick or revert them, sending them to noticeboards ad nauseam for the most minor of things) it's just too ill defined. WP:Harassment lays out a list of actions that are considered harassment, but the one that is possibly the vaguest is the section on hounding. That section would need to be rewritten somewhat. There also needs to be some more teeth to the policy in general, and if that ultimately means T&S stepping in to deop and block admins and users who know about the harassment but do fuck all about it then so be it. But the biggest thing we can do to address this is to completely get rid of the notion of the "unblockable" editor. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 10:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      This is probably true, but if so, they need to say so clearly, and give us indicators for what they feel we need to do to bring ourselves back in compliance with the ToS (coupled with a promise that as long as we do meet those requirements, T&S will abstain from engaging in the sort of moderation usually done internally going forwards, possibly with some update to WP:OFFICE to make it clear that these kinds of bans are outside of their scope; they can always just change it back if they feel we're failing later on, but it would at least be an important gesture of good faith.) Changing Wikipedia's culture is going to require a lot of time and effort; in order to do so, we're going to have to be able to point to clear indicators that the WMF cares about our efforts and that doing so will ensure T&S won't just decide to go it alone again further down the line. (And, either way, T&S needs to make all their bans appealable in some form, preferably via the community. If there's one thing this shows it's that they badly need some sort of release valve so they're not just trapped like a deer in the headlights when they screw up, frantically doubling-down on poorly-considered policies. They seem to think that appeals would undermine their authority when, in fact, a well-made appeal system might have just let someone the community trusts examine the ban and then say "no, really, it's fine, Fram's ban is appropriate.") --Aquillion (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's not burn down the wiki

    I hope in time some of the people who retired in protest, disgust or frustration will return. Meanwhile, let's try to keep the place clean and presentable. This trouble will eventually be resolved to our satisfaction. There is no possible way WMF can manage this site without us. Jehochman Talk 00:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jehochman: If the WMF treats volunteers with respect then yes, most will return and more newcomers will come. I am sorry, I currently do not feel like maintaining mainspace under this unclarity. I will return after some basic justice is served, but until then: let them do it themselves. We know about people who handed in bits, we don't know about how many volunteers left over this. Some of that is not repairable. Do you really think that WMF is caring when the angry volunteers just keep on working to make sure that their money comes in? --Dirk Beetstra T C 01:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a difference between "burning down the wiki" (e.g., vandalizing the Main Page, or any number of more destructive things I won't describe here), and saying "I don't think volunteering for this is how I want to spend my time any more." I will greatly miss some of those who have left (and those are just the ones I know of), and I very much do hope they decide to come back around one day. But the WMF must know that if they mistreat us, we will leave. Because yes, they depend on us far more than we depend on them. Volunteers used to run the servers, fix Mediawiki bugs, even handle serious complaints like child protection and the like. We can do that without them; having someone else able to is a "nice to have". But the project cannot continue without the volunteers that keep it going day to day. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so. “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” (geesh, I can't believe I'm quoting Ayn Rand. Jimmy save me.)
    Spending time in your own communities' project is simply not the same thing as spending time on a corporation's project which tolerates your unpaid presence.--Gmaxwell (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure that is the issue, walking way fine. But not walking away but rather just being obstreperous or denialist is. If you do not want to do it resign (I have some respect for then ones who have) but do not just throw tantrums and scream ans scram and scream until you are sick. Do not deliberately try to ruin things by "active" inaction.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This trouble will eventually be resolved to our satisfaction. - This seems far from a certainty to me. Relatively minor acts that are designed to ensure that this resolution actually happens in a timely manner seem like they could become both justified and possibly necessary. I'm willing to give Doc James his week. After that, if there is no statement or it's broadly unsatisfactory, we've broadly exhausted what we can do without escalating this, and we should entertain those ideas seriously. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I see very little chance that management will force T&S to turn from the path they seem to have been moving toward for quite some time. If they do, great, obviously. But I would not overly rely on statements that are designed to sound good but say nothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Waiting a week for a statement from the board when it's already been almost three weeks since the eruption of this incident is utterly, completely unacceptable. Let this sink in for a moment; what if CEO Munoz of United Airlines had waited three weeks to make a statement after the United Express Flight 3411 incident? It took 48 hours for Munoz to realize United Airlines blew it, and make a statement of apology and to take corrective action. We are now 19 days into this and the CEO of the WMF has yet to issue any apology for the WMF's handling of this incident, nor make any statement about corrective action the WMF is going to take, only some general speculation on what they might do. Instead, we've been told "it is the weekend"...this, after it had already been more than two weeks since the crisis erupted. The WMF isn't a tiddlywinks back room club. They are an ostensibly professional organization with US$100 million in gross revenue. For them to take what will be three weeks and a half weeks to make a statement in response to the community revolt is absurd. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only that, they're trying to avoid the situation as much as possible. This is evident when some WMF staff vanished. INeedSupport :3 03:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Short answer (ok, not even vaguely short!) - WMF has no clue what the value of the community it. And it's hard to blame them, because no one understands the lightning-in-a-bottle nature of what we have here. I believe that WMF believes that if they did drive away a lot of editors, they'd be able to recruit new ones. In fact, they probably think they'd have a much easier time recruiting new editors if they got rid of the old, abrasive, newbie-biting crowd that's here already. People seem to think that if it wasn't for the rudeness of the community, new editors would be flooding in like they did in 2006.
    I'm convinced that they're wrong.
    Over the last 9 years, we've brought in almost 60,000 student editors. Many, many thousands of these are bright, motivated people who come away from the experience feeling like they've had a hand in changing the world (and in a real sense, that's true, even though for us making substantial edits to one article seems like a pretty small deal). We give them the tools to edit, we try to teach them how to interact with the community, and we answer questions. I think they do remarkable work, on average, but the quality of the work they do is immaterial to the point I want to make. The point I want to make is that the vast majority of student editors have a good experience contributing to Wikipedia. (I should know - I get the complaints when they don't have a good experience, either from them, or from their instructors, or from members of the community.) When you hang around ANI, you only see the bad experiences. When you look at thousands of interactions between Wikipedians and newcomers, you see lots of people who are willing to help student editors. But despite having brought tens of thousands of people to Wikipedia, despite them making hundreds of thousands of edits and adding over 50 million words to mainspace, we've created a tiny number of people who contribute to Wikipedia in a sustained, ongoing fashion.
    If all it took to create Wikipedians was to bring them to Wikipedia, teach them to edit, and let them work in a constructive atmosphere, we'd be recruiting thousands of new Wikipedians to the community each year. Or at least hundreds.
    So why isn't the editing community growing by leaps and bounds? Is it because Wikipedia has a bad interface, or the editing tools are too difficult, or the talk pages are too hard to use, or because we're all a bunch of rude jerks? No. It's because potential Wikipedians are extremely rare. The people who become people like us, for the most part, show up here and feel like they've come home. They feel like this is what they need to do with their lives.
    Now, obviously, a toxic environment can drive people away, and it probably disproportionately drives women away. Harassment is real, and it's a real problem that we need to fix. Diversity is a problem, and it's a real problem that we need to fix.
    I honestly don't think WMF gets this about Wikipedians. I honestly don't believe that we get this about ourselves. The project will go on without any one of us - it may even go on better without some of us - but the community is, in a very real sense, irreplaceable.
    WMF doesn't get that. We probably look like a set of whiny, self-indulgent people, who want to set the rules for a playground we don't even own, rather than a community whose members have contributed millions of hours to build this mind-boggling source of free knowledge. We're tearing ourselves apart because we understand, at some level, the value of the community to the project, and we're really, really damn committed to the vision that underlies this project. Even the Wikipedians you can't stand, even the ones who you think we'd be better off without, are, overwhelmingly, people who believe so strongly in the mission of this project that they'd donate thousands of hours to it. It seems like WMF is willing to burn up all that goodwill and commitment because they don't get how fucking unusual a creature Wikipedians are.
    And what makes me most frustrated is that there's no way to convince them otherwise. The people who need to read this pages aren't going to read this page. Guettarda (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I found this very insightful. Thank you for writing it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guettarda: - please, send this to Katherine, Jan, and any other community liaison from WMF. starship.paint (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, absolutely this, and this must be a compulsory reading material for every WMF staffer who starts the job. Recently the high WMF management was very clear that we ("unorganized volunteers") are just easily replaceable. Ideally, it is best if volunteers do not even existm, and the articles are generated by themselves, but they are happy to tolerate volunteers as far as they shut up and do not meddle into important business such as Wikimedia Strategy. If we disappear, someone else would volunteer their time. And, unsuprisingly, this is very well correlated with the fact that the majority of WMF staffers have no editing experience on the projects.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent overview. It is what you look at which determines whether you come away with the impression Wikipedia is 'toxic' or a Wikipedian 'deleterious to the project' or not. Evaluate its achievement in volume and quality of articles produced at zero cost since labour is not factored in because we are voluntaries, it is little short of a miracle in terms of contemporary doctrines about homo economicus, and almost universally recognized as such. If you haunt AE/ANI etc., you get the impression of endless, vindictive, petty squabbling. I have the former impression because I don't follows those arbitration forums except (which has been quite often) when I'm hauled there as a noxious, hounding, harassing, anti-Semitic, foul-mouthed arsehole, and have to read the complaints to defend myself. If you look at the sheer volume of edits, and articles produced, as opposed to the evidence for conflict, whether for the encyclopedia as a whole or by individual contributors, the problematical stuff/incidents suddenly looks exiguous to the point of being negligible. What T&S and the WMF seem to be doing is designing an ideal prototype of the ideal wikipedian editor characterized not by work capacity, tenacious regard for quality, acumen of judgment in sourcing, care for neutrality, etc., but by impeccable sociability. There is no evidence I know off that mild manners have anything to do with high achievement (to the contrary - the link with a certain obsessive strain is strongly attested). You are of course going to get blips, as your stakhanovites get on a short fuse, blow their tops or make snide remarks, but the mechanisms to sanction them, even permaban them are in place. 'But they're not perfect'; there are 'untouchables', 'justice often is not done'. True, just like any real world system of regulation. But the failure to achieve perfect outcome in any system of law is not,ipso facto an indictment either of the juridical system or its society. which must therefore act to engineer souls on a vast scale. Only dystopian totalitarian regimes take that road, with predictable results. Life's messy even in its most functional activities, and Wikipedia, if it is to continue to thrive, must accept unevenness in desired results, and disavow any temptation to railroad the vast diversity of people with different backgrounds and interests into a monotype, of unknown abilities, but soma-soaked with a sense of feeling comfortably at home in an unconflicted 'community' .Nishidani (talk) 07:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guettarda:, that is a point I've been trying to figure out how to make for years. Once upon a time, say 2002 when I joined, writing an acceptable article took maybe an hour or two of labor because the standards were so low: the emphasis was in getting content on the website, just to attract attention & hope that it would be improved soon. Since then, we've learned that throwing up a few sentences won't result in the magical creation of a Featured Article: if you want a useful article, you have to write it yourself. Which requires research, thought, & work. At least as much work as writing an undergraduate college term paper. (And producing a Good Article, let alone a Featured Article requires even much more work.) And all this assumes the article is written in isolation; if the subject has even the smallest amount of controversy, the effort required to make it useful increases exponentially.

    And maintenance chores likewise a lot of work in order to do them right. I can say this because I've dabbled in most of them.

    To want to do this kind of work for free, & without much public attention, & do it well, requires a certain kind of person. (I wouldn't be surprised if all of us have a masochistic streak.) So I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise that the Foundation is so clueless about this. But it is a surprise that the Foundation nevertheless constantly finds the wrong approach every time they have to handle a serious problem with their member communities. (Based on their track record so far, I wouldn't be surprised if the WMF is someday written up as a Harvard Business School case study of how not to manage volunteer labor.) -- llywrch (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know about the masochism. I think many people contribute because they own their own accomplishments-- not the work product, but their collective contribution to it. I am proud of the many things I contributed to Wikipedia and smile when I see my work excerpted or policy I helped design quoted. Wikimedia was created by and as part of the community, to the extent that you could say it was something separate from the community it was a peer and co-collaborator. When the community is overridden except in emergencies or on inconsequential matters the community stops looking like the creators of Wikipedia, people who can feel proud of their own accomplishments by their own minds and sweat, but instead become simple labourers undertaking someone else's project-- unpaid ones, at that. If you look at frequent contributors you find many people of such a calibre that Wikimedia couldn't hope to hire more than a fraction of them at even a huge multiple of its current budget. These are not people who will contribute with such passion and volume just to serve someone elses design, it has to be their own through collaboration. A few people on this page have complained that there is harassment on Wikipedia-- I'm sure there is-- but the WMF approach exhibited here-- authoritarian, uneven, unaccountable-- seems to mirrors the handling of issues by sites like twitter which are abject failures at preventing harassment and fostering civil conduct. There might be a debate to be had that abandoning the approach that has taken Wikipedia this far could be justified for a superior alternative, but the T&S approach has no evidence that I've seen of being superior as a general mechanism for improving interactions in a large community, and I think the pattern we can see in other sites suggests that there is a continuum of decreasing effectiveness with greater centralization and authoritarianism and increasing effectiveness with increased community self-governance.--Gmaxwell (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    One point I may not been clear about in my sentence -- "To want to do this kind of work for free, & without much public attention, & do it well, requires a certain kind of person." It is that we work here & receive little direct acknowledgement for our contributions, except in rare & exceptional cases. I believe this lack of acknowledgement can't help but contribute to the toxic atmosphere here. (Blanket cliche compliments such as "You Wikipedians are doing a wonderful job" doesn't make much a difference when one is locked in a vicious fight to improve or protect Wikipedia.) It is inevitable that people who work hard but receive little or no acknowledgement for that work feel frustrated & angry over this lack of attention; even the most generous of people can only rationalize this lack of attention so far, & being human will sublimate it thru uncivil treatment of other people. One example of this happened many years ago: a volunteer started sorting stub tags -- up to that time, all stub articles were dumped into one, unwieldy category -- & received so much hostility for sorting stubs instead of turning them into much more informative articles that he left Wikipedia a few months later. Another, perhaps more relevant, example would be the steady dribble of hard-working admins who crash & burn before being escorted from the project. People wonder why each ended their Wikipedia career on such a negative note: lack of acknowledgement for their hard work is the overlooked answer. Perhaps if there was more acknowledgement of Wikipedians' contributions -- instead of dismissing our work as the hobby of students & retired people -- would detoxify the atmosphere significantly. -- llywrch (talk) 06:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    [ec] Guettarda, I found this pretty obvious, so clearly I agree. Kudos for making such a clear expression of what quite of number of Wikipedians would find a reasonable description of what we see as the reality. Sometimes you don't know what you've got till its gone. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Guettarda:, that's a very good take, do you think you could make it into a brief essay or spare it from being buried in the archives in some other way? Ain92 (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I was thinking about the issue of "how do we want to present ourselves to the WMF" myself. Some thoughts:

    • We should, at least for now, approach this from the angle of "the WMF was unhappy with enwiki's handling of civility / harassment issues, and took an unfortunately drastic step because of that; we want to know how we can improve so that sort of step is no longer necessary." That's a position that allows the WMF to save face, while hopefully resolving some of the underlying tensions. (I should add that when I say we should approach it from that angle, I'm not totally certain that that's actually how we got here, but I think there's enough people in the WMF ad on the board who understand Wikipedia well enough to recognize that they screwed up; and I think this is a framing they could sell to the others.)
    • To that end, we should focus on the idea of harassment and civility issues as cultural and social problems that aren't particularly well-suited to solving by this sort of lightning-from-heaven approach. It works for a small forum, but it doesn't scale to a project like Wikipedia.
    • The people who are heavily-involved in these discussions, while numerically small relative to Wikipedia's population, are generally policy wonks - they're the people who know the policy, who hang out on relevant policy boards to answer questions, show up to RFCs, weigh in on changes, edit extensively on high-trafficked articles, and, in many cases, are the people doing the gruntwork of enforcing those policies. Therefore, we're the best people to work with when it comes to changing Wikipedia's policies and culture, and with getting those changes to stick. The actual process is a lot longer and more involved and involves long-term back and forth with more and more people overtime as changes sink in and other editors notice them, push back, suggest tweaks, and so on, but the kinds of people who reacted to this ban with a ! are generally the ones who you'd want shepherding any sort of major policy change. That is to say, it's worthwhile to at least listen to us, talk to us, tell us what you want done, and so on.
    • Sending that message requires that we come across as not-insane, as willing to discuss overarching changes, and as generally willing to accept the goals of T&S even if we dislike how this was handled.
    • That said, there's also fairly clearly a faction in the WMF who wants to send the message that the WMF is unquestionable, its decisions cannot be challenged or appealed, and who absolutely do not want to yield anything at all (and who believe any sort of meaningful dialogue with us would be yielding to the mob.) So it's important to keep up the pressure through the channels we have available and to send the general message that first, the way they handled this isn't working; and that second, they can't step into day-to-day moderation for complex things like civility and expect to remain unquestionable and absolute, not in a community with Wikipedia's size and history.

    We need to give the WMF an 'out'. There are people in the WMF and on the board who understand our history and culture and who are trying to argue our side in this, but the people they need to convince think the WMF is an absolute authority and see any sort of concessions as unacceptable; and as stupid as that might be, none of them are people we can easily remove or route around right now. So at the moment, if we want to avoid the worst possible outcome, we need to focus on a framing that they can be persuaded to accept, which means avoiding ridiculous demands for absolute surrender and the like. If we come across as "those crazies who want to burn down Wikipedia because they banned Fram", we're going to lose. --Aquillion (talk) 07:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Whereas I understand the arguments of those who say that this page does not necessarily represent the majority view because of its toxic atmosphere (and I have seen a couple of dissenters literally booed away), an Rfc or a series of RfCs on civility/harassment/whatever, especially if the get endorsed by ArbCom, is a completely different issue, since they will be announced wiki-wide and hopefully moderated so that everybody will have a chance to give their opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want to thank Guettarda and many of the editors who replied for some of the most insightful analyses of what has been going on. Great work, and thanks again! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Rather them smash the crockery how about suggestions about how we can improve the systems that allow users to get away with harassment and bigotry because "they are too useful"?Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that's hyperbole. It really isn't us-against-them. I do think the community needs to have a long and thoughtful discussion about civility. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that that's the way forward (I said so in a more long-winded way above), but I do also feel that before we can actually move forward in a serious way, we need the WMF to indicate what improvements they want and to make it clear that they'll stop doing things like this if we address their concerns. While we can discuss ideas and maybe make some incremental improvements even without that, I don't think we're getting any major changes through under the climate created by their most recent missteps until / unless we have a clear indicator from them along the lines of "this is the problem, you have to solve it, and if you do we'll back down." We do want to obtain some assurance that enwiki's editorial independence will be respected going forward, including when it comes to our policies, as long as we draw within the broad lines of necessities painted by the WMF. We can only get the changes we need through, basically, if it's clear that this is a substitute for T&S stepping in on traditionally enwiki-handled conduct disputes, not a supplement to it. But I do think that coming up with some general proposals and testing the waters with them (to show the WMF what we can accomplish if they're willing to trust us and work with us rather than trying to go it alone as they have here) might help in that respect. --Aquillion (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's an astonishingly naive point of view, and only really works well if your mission is to spread the Californian idea of "harassment" and "civility" across the whole of the English Wikipedia, forgetting that most English-language cultures have a far more robust view of language than the San Francisco snowflakes. Eric Corbett 21:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Eric, this is a really good example of the problem. You could have said the same thing without throwing around insults and generalizations. But that's just now how you work. I know that, and no one really wants to deal with the conflict associated with pointing it out to you. So these kind of aggressions go unchecked. No one of them is a big deal, but overall it makes this place less civil and frankly less pleasant to deal with. And frankly they don't bother me personally. But they do drive away conflict-adverse editors. And that's probably been a lot of people over the years. Hobit (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    -1. There was nothing aggressive in that statement. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Many people take offense to having their points of view characterized as astonishingly naive (and various other put-downs). It's entirely unnecessary abrasiveness unmitigated by an "I think" preface, it's how fights get started, and it's easily replaced by "I strongly disagree". ―Mandruss ☎ 02:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't aggression, it's just rudeness. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. My +1 was in support of the general gist, not that isolated word. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In what sense is it "rude" to state my opinion of your opinion? Eric Corbett 13:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact it's you Hobit who so clearly demonstrate the problem here, not me. And the fact that you criticise my opinion while at the same time casting unsupported accusations at me is equally astonishing to me, demonstrating that your attitude is at best inconsistent and at worst downright dishonest; I'm going for dishonest. Eric Corbett 13:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm - I'm not sure how else I'd put your use of "San Fransisco Snowflakes" than as an "insult and generalization" :( .... I strongly agree with Mandruss and Hobit. Count me in for an editor that for the longest time has mostly stayed out of both article space and policy discussions and similar to avoid: a) being worn down by long unproductive discussion (not at issue here!), and b) commonly default language that is rather unfriendly, rather than in an air of community.
    I have very little I can say to your last response itself - it seems like doubling down on the attack to avoid having to acknowledge that there is an issue with your tone... Sean Heron (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no reason for you to respond at all, particularly as I have absolutely no interest in anything you might have to say. Eric Corbett 15:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware that you object to WP:CIVIL and have no illusions that you are persuadable on that topic. Nonetheless, Wikipedia is a cooperative endeavor, and WP:CIVIL is therefore a cornerstone of our continued operation. If you cannot work well with others and continuously drive off those you work with, then you are a net negative to the project regardless of your other qualities - in a collaborative project, the ability to interact non-abrasively with others is as much a WP:COMPETENCE issue as having correct grammar and spelling. This is not some sort of strange and arcane sorcery practiced only in anarchistic, freewheeling San Francisco; indeed, in my experience that is if anything one of the looser parts of the world, one where you can have whatever ridiculous punk hairdo you want, wear whatever angry screw-the-whoever shirt, curse and swear even most workplaces and so on. In less liberal parts of the world, if you want to work on a collaborative project, you wear your shirt and tie, you make nice to people you need to collaborate with, you set basic ground rules for civility and you follow them - or you get the boot. The fact that Wikipedia is a volunteer project doesn't free us from the need for at least some of that, no more than it frees us from the need to ensure that volunteers have basic language skills or from rest of WP:COMPETENCE. In fact, in some ways the need for basic standards of civility is more pressing here, because without rules for civility it becomes tempting for people to use abrasiveness as a way to win disputes by driving off people with whom they disagree - something that, in the long run, damages the project as a whole by costing us valuable editors and sabotaging dispute resolution. We can and should avoid unnecessary restrictions, especially ones that don't relate to retaining editors - Wikipedia, obviously, isn't a shirt-and-tie place - but intentionally being abrasive to fellow editors is either deliberately harming the project or expressing a callous disregard for its well-being so severe that it undermines your contributions, and should therefore be treated the same way as overt vandalism or expressing a total disregard for grammar. --Aquillion (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aquillion: Very well articulated, mirrors my thinking precisely. Perhaps that would be a useful addition to the essay WP:DISRESPECT, I guess as a separate section. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I also discussed bad behaviour being used to win disputes in Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Encouraging collaborative behaviour. I believe English Wikipedia needs better content-dispute resolution mechanisms so that unco-operative behaviour is not a good strategy to win a dispute, and instead collaborative behaviours are encouraged. By creating an environment where positive behaviours are selected for, negative ones will be diminished. isaacl (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Somewhere on this long page there was a invitation for long-standing non-administrators to comment. I am not an admin, because I never saw WP as an obligation, or a career move. It is good to see so many names of my wiki-heros on one page all singing more or less from the same hymn sheet- expressing so many shades of revulsion. Two words came to mind: snowflake and Scunthorpe. I have seen this occur in so many charities- you employ some for their finance or charity law skills, which is a bit specialised- they need assistance so employ another expert- and immediately the business becomes part of the charity career path, and the employees don't have time to stay in-touch with the volunteers, and the goals of the project are lost to the needs to set up compliance committees, which in their turn start restricting and repelling the volunteers. I do about 300 edits a month- even if we insisted that each of our representatives and employees did 30, they wouldn't be really building up sufficient experience to form global judgements.
    We know the destruction that ip-editors can cause, I class ip-complainants in the same class. I had a steep learning curve when I went from Didsbury, to Cheetham Hill where the register of language had changed; where Fxxx, cum ere ya dozy Fxxxxx, you cxxx was a expression of endearment from mother to child. My Didsbury snowflake upbringing still prevents my from typing it half a century later. The word Fxxx is used verbally as a form of punctuation.
    But on the street, the language that would be used to describe some snitch that went making mallicious allegations anonymously about long-standing respected editor that happened to use a different language register would be colourful. Try tell them that someone has banned said long-standing editor, but wont tell them why! Then try telling them that someone has never actually edited! Where are they going to send their drone next.
    Scunthorpe- early internet attempts to block 'rude' words- bit of an urban legend.
    I suggest that the WMF is seriously out of its depth here, and should fess up, and ask the community whether there ever was actually a problem? ClemRutter (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Didsbury?? Eh lad, you were fxxxing lucky. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently WMF Office and the old en.Wikipedian establishment challenge authority of each other. Surely WMF Office can manage the site without old admins – it isn’t very difficult to hire scores of replacement ones. And vice versa, the establishment (theoretically) can do without the umbrella structure as well. But neither, obviously, is willing to back off. The real point is that nowadays the brand “Wikipedia” has a huge capitalization and two cliques attempt to decide who is its “rightful” owner, of the expensive brand. As for users, these are IMHO brawls of oligarchs, and some form of online encyclopedia will persist whoever going to win now. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Incnis Mrsi: Things are not that simple. I don't know how many employees the WMF would have to hire to replace the current all volunteer Admin/Bureaucrat/Functionary corps in English Wikipedia, but it would probably be at least 100, plus supervisors (not counting the other projects). Each of those employees would have to be well versed in policy. They would also be dependent on volunteer editors to report problems to them. While I suspect that many contributing editors would continue as before, the sort of editors that are engaged enough with the goals and spirit of Wikipedia to seek to become admins are not necessarly a good fit to become employees of the WMF (I have known several editors/admins who have gone to work for the WMF, but few have stayed there long term). - Donald Albury 14:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    When this saga began, I thought "almost never, do I look for a page on wikipedia and not find it. Wikipedia has covered almost all of history already. So, maybe WMF think they can now run Wikipedia as a business by hiring editors,admins, what have you; without the need of volunteers at all if need be (plus there's always going to be a ton of COI editors adding material here)." Three weeks later, I find that ridiculous. Very few articles in here are complete and decades worth of volunteer work is still required to make all of wikipedia up to standards. No way WMF can do without engaged volunteers, exactly the kind that's unhappy due to this whole thing. So, no other way than to bow down to community consensus (vocal part of it anyway). The best they can hope for is the community doesn't come after their jobs when the dust settles. Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 14:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly making the coup would not be a trivial endeavor, but on the other hand Jehochman’s sentiment is fairly naïve. How many sysops will resign (in solidarity with the old establishment) on such event? How much of its admin force will en.Wikipedia lose? Possibly some 40%, perhaps 50%, but IMHO by any mean less than 80%. Certain functions may be promptly unbundled from the default admin package and no administrative collapse would happen. As of “other projects”, how fool does Donald Albury expect the Office party to be to disrupt all wikis at once? Irrelevant. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing stops them from appointing more. They could even take advice from on-wiki groups of their choice.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Each of those employees would have to be well versed in policy. If WMF replaced the volunteer corps with professional admins and functionaries, there's nothing to keep them from completely replacing our policies at the same moment. They would also be dependent on volunteer editors to report problems to them. Same issue: They could just move to a Facebook model of reporting where it's anonymous and through a complaints form, and each report gets spun through some machine learning algorithm to sort out the more serious ones. Nah, making enwiki non-volunteer isn't inconceivable, nor does it necessarily follow that WMF needs to make the other language wikis non-volunteer. They aren't the problem children in WMF's view. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what it would take to push enough high-productivity admins to resign to significantly impact the quality of Wikipedia. Some of the admins who have resigned have been very productive, a few have taken fewer admin actions in the past year than I have (I am a little below 300th on the list of admins ranked by admin actions). Of course, many admins do things that don't get counted on that list, such as closing difficult discussions, that I don't do. I do keep in mind something I learned a long time ago, when I quit a job I didn't like, that while I might be irreplacable in a job, I wasn't indispensible. Organizations usually find a way to make do, unless that way is so expensive that it puts them out of business. I haven't decided what I will do in the long run about this, although I have, for more than one reason, [stopped editing] in the Main space for the past week. I haven't quite settled where I stand on the issues. I suspect that there are other issues that have been largely ignored in all of the hullaballoo. In any case, I've been somewhat leery of the WMF for many years, after involvement in a WMF initiative that I thought did not end well. The bottom line is that I just want to add well-sourced content to Wikipedia, but feel obligated to contribute to the fight to keep crap out. That part frequently frustrates me, to the point that I have taken several long breaks over the years. This whole business may be the start of another break for me. The WMF taking away the choice of admins from the community probably would push me away permanently. I am under no illussion that my leaving would significantly harm Wikipedia. WMF taking over direct administration of the English Wikipedia would change it in ways that I would no longer feel comfortable contributing to. Another of my life lessons is, if what you are doing isn't fun anymore, find something else to do. - Donald Albury 15:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Possible outcomes are not limited to an overt hostile takeover or maintaining status quo. Think Donald Albury – how many votes could Fram earn on an RfA having their “fuck you ArbCom” escapades on the record? The fact that establishment members once passed RfA doesn’t make all of them trusted. WMF could, indeed, accelerate some processes, such as removal of the least competent admins—instead of making a clear takeover. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Signpost article

    A preview: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-06-30/Special report , and reply to it from Fram.Yger (talk) 06:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Yger: - Five of these respondents complained to T&S about him, or informally informed Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. - this is vague. It would be better to split these categories apart if your sources allowed you to. (EDIT: brought my concern to the Newsroom) starship.paint (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yger: - Fram then answered complaints he believed might have been made by ten named editors. - what does this mean? Fram came up with a list of ten editors which Fram believed complained to T&S? Then Fram came up with (and rebutted) supposed complaints from these ten editors? (EDIT: brought my concern to the Newsroom) starship.paint (talk) 07:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's certainly what it reads like, which is somewhat of a bombshell. If one is warned for harassment and can immediately rattle off ten editors that likely felt they had been harassed, that's a big clue that there's something not quite right with their conduct. It also speaks to Fram's awareness that his actions likely do have the effect of making others feel harassed, whether he intends that or not, and yet he does not change course. ~ Rob13Talk 09:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is what some of us have been saying here for a while. This was not just one incident, it was just the final straw. I would also say it goes further, if you can name any editor who thinks you might be harassing them then that might be a sign you think you are. Of course if they have all complained about harassment in the past that would be different.Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You're preaching to the choir; I'm quoted in that Signpost article, and I'm not particularly positive on Fram. The first bombshell in that article is that Fram can immediately rattle off ten editors that likely felt harassed by him when given a conduct warning. The second is that multiple editors made reports to T&S and ArbCom over a duration of years without any community action being done. This upends the narrative of T&S doing some hasty, sneaky action and doing a complete end-run around community processes. The community processes abjectly failed here, and so in response to an apparent deluge of complaints, T&S eventually had no choice but to act. ~ Rob13Talk 09:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Rob, you were still on the committee in the run up to this, so you know full well that T&S never told us that they felt we were failing to deal with Fram. – Joe (talk) 09:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joe Roe: And where did I say they did? They absolutely did communicate to us that Fram's behavior was the subject of an investigation and conduct warning. That included outlining the general types of behavior that were concerning them. When those same types of behavior independently showed up on our doorstep quite recently, I could not convince the Committee to take even the mildest of action. ~ Rob13Talk 10:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The community processes abjectly failed here, and so in response to an apparent deluge of complaints, T&S eventually had no choice but to act – a very obvious alternative choice would be to ask us to do better before they waded in themselves. – Joe (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid that there is little confidence that you as a representative body are willing to deal with these matters, especially where high profile, resident editors, the "big swinging dicks" of the project, are concerned. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Then vote the bastards out in favour of those who will. ArbCom's makeup by design changes regularly. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 10:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • So maybe Fram is the worst editor and worst admin ever, and there are ten aggrieved parties with a good case for Fram's defrocking. In which case T&S have still behaved poorly here. They have still sidestepped ArbCom, kept en:WP in the dark, and kept Fram in the dark. They've also imposed a bizarre one-wiki, time-limited ban, which is supposedly in relation to actions not even on that wiki. So no, I don't see "Look how terrible Fram has been!" as really changing anything here, even if that (which is not what I'm claiming) turned out to be true (and Fram should be banned by ArbCom, if so). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is why I thought the Signpost buried the lede a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    "we are not happy about how you are handling this" "So?" "We are looking into this" "And?" "We are now taking action ourselves" "How dare you...you should have asked us first". This has been going on for years, with at least two arbcom requests, exactly how much longer did arbcom need? "Yes I know mum I will do it ina minute".Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=824688727#Fram is from Feb 2018 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=746359373#Fram is from October 2016. These would be the two declined cases. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 10:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, why did it go from there? If ArbCom is to make any difference, the decision needs to go there to be made. WMF is free to say what they think ought to be done, but not to override a decision they don't like. If the idea is "Do what we'd do or we will override you anyway", it's wasteful to have an ArbCom to begin with. The idea should be "We disagree with your decision, and we'll say why, but we will respect it." Outside child protection or threats, ArbCom should be as high as one can escalate a complaint; T&S should not be a "superior court" that can overturn their decisions. The principle stands that the WMF shouldn't be overruling community decisions. If ArbCom is to be a rubber stamp, told by the WMF how they'll be deciding this case or that one, let's not participate such a charade. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note from The Signpost newsroom. The June edition (more permanent link) has been published. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • There's a big difference between ArbCom having been incapable of handling the situation correctly (not true), and people who were apparently incapable of convincing other people of their viewpoints blaming everyone but themselves (which is what some of this is starting to look like). --Tryptofish (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on the two declined requests, one of them indeed looks exactly like that. I'm not sold on that being the case with the other one. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 18:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    ArbCom case over article

    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Disputed Signpost article has been filed (after an ANI thread) over this Signpost article, regarding the anonymous complaint of June 2019: It is difficult and embarrassing as a man... starship.paint (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Open letter from the Arbitration Committee to the WMF Board

    The Arbitration Committee has sent the following open letter to the WMF Board of Trustees, regarding the WMF ban of Fram.

    OPEN LETTER TO THE WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM THE ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

    30 June 2019

    On 10 June 2019, the administrator Fram was banned from the English Wikipedia for one year as an office action initiated by the Wikimedia Foundation’s (WMF) Trust and Safety team (T&S). In a later statement, T&S Lead Manager Jan Eissfeldt clarified that Fram was banned for harassment, citing the passage of the WMF Terms of Use prohibiting “[e]ngaging in harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism.” The Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) has followed with concern the English Wikipedia community’s reaction to this action. We have received three related arbitration case requests, and multiple editors have asked us to intervene on the community’s behalf. As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk, and a number of other editors have resigned their positions and/or retired from Wikipedia editing in relation to this issue.

    ArbCom is a group of volunteers elected by the community to adjudicate serious conduct disputes in accordance with the English Wikipedia’s arbitration policy. This policy also delegates matters unsuitable for public discussion to ArbCom, and all members of the committee are required to meet and agree to the WMF’s access to non-public personal data policy. Over the years, ArbCom has passed responsibility for some matters, including child protection issues, legal matters, and threats of violence, to the WMF’s Legal and T&S teams. We are grateful for T&S’ assistance on these difficult cases and for their efforts to support ArbCom’s work in general. However, despite requests, we have not seen any indication that Fram’s case falls into one of the categories of issues that T&S normally handles, otherwise lies outside of our remit, or was handled by them due to a lack of trust in our ability to handle harassment cases. Rather, we must conclude that T&S’ action is an attempt to extend the use of office actions into enforcing behavioural norms in local communities, an area conventionally left to community self-governance.

    Together with a large section of the community, we have been awaiting an adequate response to these concerns from the WMF since 10 June. The Board has yet to issue a statement, and sporadic comments by individual WMF employees (including the Executive Director Katherine Maher) have been non-committal with regard to the substance of the dispute. In the last public statement by Jan Eissfeldt (21 June) and in our private meetings, T&S have reiterated that they are not willing to reconsider the ban, nor will they turn the full evidence over to the community or ArbCom for review. The ban itself was actioned using a recently-introduced T&S process for local, time-limited bans, which although announced in T&S’ 2018–2019 Annual Plan, was not adequately communicated to the English Wikipedia community, and not subject to any form of community consultation.

    We understand that this change in policy from T&S comes in the context of efforts to tackle harassment and hostility in the Wikimedia movement. Individually and as a committee, we fully support this initiative. We also acknowledge that ArbCom has struggled to handle civility and harassment complaints in a way that adequately balances privacy against transparency, and due process to the accused against victim protection. However, if the WMF have also been concerned about ArbCom’s ability to handle harassment complaints, they have not communicated this concern with us, nor have they provided any suggestions for changing our policies or procedures. If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness, consensus, and self-governance.

    We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local processes. Those unsuitable for public discussion should be referred to the Arbitration Committee. We will solicit comment from the community and the WMF to develop clear procedures for dealing with confidential allegations of harassment, based on the existing provision for private hearings in the arbitration policy. Complaints that can be discussed publicly should be referred to an appropriate community dispute resolution process. If the Trust & Safety team seeks to assume responsibility for these cases, they should do so by proposing an amendment to the arbitration policy, or an equivalent process of community consensus-building. Otherwise, we would appreciate the WMF’s continued support in improving our response to harassment and hostility on the English Wikipedia.

    We feel strongly that this commitment is necessary for the Arbitration Committee to continue to perform the role it is assigned by the English Wikipedia community. If we are unable to find a satisfactory resolution, at least four members of the committee have expressed the intention to resign.

    Yours sincerely,

    The undersigned members of the Arbitration Committee,

    Molly White (GorillaWarfare)
    Joe Roe
    KrakatoaKatie
    Mkdw
    Opabinia regalis
    Premeditated Chaos
    RickinBaltimore
    Steve Pereira (SilkTork)
    Dave Craven (Worm That Turned)

    For the Arbitration Committee, GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Open letter to the WMF Board
    I linked this on meta at the talk pages of the board and of T&S. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the letter. I'm passing it on to fellow Board members. Pundit|utter 10:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for this thorough letter and for publishing it here. – SJ + 15:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • An excellent letter. Thank you, well done. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Applause 👏👏👏 --Yair rand (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good statement. I am looking forward to the WMF response. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not perfect, but plenty good enough to endorse! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your efforts; now to wait for a response...if one is forthcoming. Lectonar (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on the available information this seems entirely reasonable, and I support this wholeheartedly. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for saying this. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. This is why the ArbCom is respected. --RaphaelQS (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Time for an Amendment

    In light of this action, which follows on the heels of so many catastrophic missteps resulting from thoughtless, careless, or otherwise ill conceived and/or executed actions with little if any thought put into how they effect the community, I think it time that the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use were amended to include a statement that

    "No action affecting editors or editing communities under the jurisprudence of the Wikimedia Foundation shall take effect until such time as 1) the community shall have a chance to convene and ratify the proposal, or 2) the Wikimedia Foundation determines that all other applicable courses or recourse have been otherwise exhausted by the community."

    This should stop these BS interventions by our woefully out of touch WMF members by requiring that they gain and/or maintain consensus for changes on site that may be controversial (such as those related to the media viewer and the resulting superprotect incident) or show that they had no choice but to intervene in a matter as it was judged to have been beyond the scope of the given project (ie persistent cross-wiki vandalism).

    God help me I've tried to assume good faith with the foundation, but every freakin step they take these days leaves a Chernobyl-sized nuclear disaster in its wake, and frankly this is sort of "peacekeeping" - riding to our rescue with no knowledge of the situation or respect for individual community process to resolve these issues - does far more harm to us as editors and contributors then they think. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    (Discussion refactored - Sean Heron (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC))[reply]

    • This is simultaneously too much and too little. As others have noted, the spirit of this amendment would prohibit the WMF from dealing with things that we want them to handle; at the same time, they could simply declare that all other courses of recourse have been exhausted whenever they want to ignore this amendment, and we'd have no way to object. I think that if we're going to try to approach this at a structural level, we'd need to actually change the incentives and pressures affecting the people making decisions. Rules are easy to ignore in any case - what, exactly, would our recourse be if we decide that the WMF is ignoring this? If we want to ensure that Wikipedia remains community controlled, the only real solution is to ensure that the community has rejection or recall authority over the majority of the board (perhaps even the entire board), as well as anyone assigned to lead the WMF or major initiatives like T&S. That's going to be a hard sell - there would be constant concern that that could be abused, not to mention risks of ballot-stuffing when there's no higher authority to intercede in the case of an emergency - and it would be difficult to picture exactly how it would look. But I feel that the people who take positions of authority on one of the largest websites in the world do ultimately need to be answerable to the community that creates and maintains the site they're seeking to oversee. If they want a quiet job without that sort of responsibility, they ought to look elsewhere. --Aquillion (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    Need for novel Community Action to address issues of (broadly construed) "Harassment" ?

    (Referring to the OP of WP:FRAM#Time for an Amendment )

    Not sure it would as they could argue that the community had already not acted, despite complaints. This (it can be argued) is a reaction to the unbanables, the users who can act virtually how they like because "they are too useful to do anything about". See the section above about how Fram could think of 10 editors who could accuse him of harassment.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. But I bet he can't show that all 10 went through rfc, dispute resolutions, and arbitration enforcement before the WMF got involved. If he can then so be it, I strike my comment/suggestion and withdraw my proposal. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently at least two were refused at arbcom, at least one ANI was launched. If people are refusing to take action, of course others will stop bothering to report why expose yourself to more harassment.Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) This question will sound more aggressive than it is intended, I suspect, but it is genuine. How much additional harassment and conflict do you expect a harassment victim to endure before they get a resolution? You want them to open an RfC (1 month), go to ANI (multiple weeks, usually with people digging through your contributions and heavily scrutinizing them, regular victim blaming), and then go to ArbCom publicly (about 6 weeks, almost all civility/harassment case requests are either declined or end in a wrist-slap admonishment and a plea that we all just get along). If someone were to go through all steps consecutively, it would probably take about three months, and the end result would be ... well, not much. Maybe an IBAN is implemented, at which point the person who engaged in harassment gets to go find some other poor sap to be his punching bag as he restarts the cycle. A follow-up question, if I may: How many newer editors will go through that instead of simply turning around and walking out the door? ~ Rob13Talk 09:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    BU Rob13, I think this is the real problem that we need to address. If anyone here doesn't view that as a problem, I would sincerely like an explanation to attempt to understand that position. Otherwise, we should then proceed to attempting to remedy the situation. StudiesWorld (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    StudiesWorld Seconded. I greatly appreciate the AC letter's thoughtful framing and decision trees; yet it does not directly address the high default burden (in time & endurance) on anyone bringing forward a case. What specific proposals are there to reduce that burden? – SJ + 15:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    The proposed amendment sends the question of dealing with child predators, for example, right back at Arbcom who had been asking for years that the WMF steps in. And pardon me, in particular in light of the upcoming Signpost article, the notion that they "rode in to our rescue with no knowledge of the situation" is becoming less and less tenable. It's increasingly clear that whenever arbcom had an opportunity to act, they declined to do so. MLauba (Talk) 11:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a group of editors, known to everyone who reads ANI who, upon seeing any case raised concerning the behaviour of their long-time associates here, will immediately shut down the discussion as "nothing to see here" or some disparaging put-down suggesting trouts or accusing the raiser of trolling. Start by dealing with that so that these people are exposed to the sunlight of examination. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This, this, so much this. To both of these comments, really. ~ Rob13Talk 11:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So how would you deal with it? Editor's like me can't. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Elect arbitrators who will take this issue seriously. Show up in droves to protest when an admin cuts off discussion of a long-term editor’s Incivility. If they refuse to reopen a prematurely closed discussion, file a case request with ArbCom both to examine the initial issue and to examine the admin’s suitability for the tools. ~ Rob13Talk 11:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    May I please remind everyone that since 10 February 2019 we have a very clear statement by ArbCom that administrators must not close topics before consensus has been achieved.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You and I were involved in such a case yesterday. Such a response would have been met with derision, or worse. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was thinking about pursuing it, but the issue was resolved anyway. I was more interested in this case in solving the issue that fighting for law enforcement.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To deal with limitations of ANI, arbcom escalation is not the only option. We can also discuss constructive proposals on Wikipedia:Village pump. We used to have WP:RFC/U to address issues with a single editor, and it had its own problems, but could be something to work from in shaping an alternative process. Dialectric (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd argue that the issue of civility and harassment is a structural one, and one that is very, very difficult to change. I'd be very happy for a more friendly environment at the Wikipedia :/ . But / So I'm totally in favor of Studiesworld's suggestion ("Proceed to attempting to remedy the situation")! Sean Heron (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've stated elsewhere, there needs to be a separation between the site's quasi judicial decision making and the protagonists involved in disputes. At the moment, particularly at ANI, the site's insistence on solving by 'consensus' means that editors with the most friends tend to fare best, which isn't a very fair system. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. – SJ + 15:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    See here for a very recent example. An editor made a clearly inappropriate comment, which was reverted by another editor, and the ANI discussion resulted in no action (not even a warning) because the comment had been removed. This is, unfortunately, par for the course. –dlthewave ☎ 21:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    BU Rob13, funny enough, I remember an administrator calling out 5 or 6 editors at ANI a few months ago, and then someone blocked that administrator for personal attacks. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mr Ernie: can you kindly link the ANI thread? ∯WBGconverse 16:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that it is absolutely critical that the issues so articulately raised by BU Rob13 and PaleCloudedWhite are addressed, as the protection of possible victims is paramount. Few of us have the energy for months on end of public drama as a case goes through the ANI/ARBCOM gauntlet, particularly where there are errors of judgement on both sides. Further, WP:BOOMERANG is too often applied to sanction people who bring complaints in good faith, or a “we can’t sort it out, so you both get punished” sanction gets applied. Other times, Volume from the offender’s supporters often creates a false consensus and results in unjust outcomes. What we have created on WP is a hybrid of quasi-libertarian anarchy combined with something of an evolving “common law” of policies and guidelines, some of which have disputed interpretations, are misused or deliberately misapplied, or are in conflict with one another. Then, when the system breaks down, a collective mom/god-king (originally Jimbo, now the WMF) steps in and issues decrees from on high, often without a full understanding of the issue. This is no way to operate. We need more of a true “rule of law” here, with enough flexibility so that justice can be tempered by mercy and common sense when needed. The lines between what is the responsibility of ArbCom and the WMF need to be clearer, and the point at which the WMF can step in to override ArbCom needs to be clarified ahead of time. I’ve additional thoughts on this, but I’m already into tl;dr land, so shall close here for now. Montanabw(talk) 17:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    We need more of a true “rule of law” here, with enough flexibility so that justice can be tempered by mercy and common sense when needed. Hear, hear. I remember you first talking about this a long time ago, Montanabw, and thought it made loads of sense then. It makes even more sense now. I think the time may be right to form an informal "working group" that cuts through the nonsense on this and makes a formal proposal. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Montanabw: Your comments are intriguing. I would like to pose two questions to you if you don't mind:
    1. If you had to guess, how many legitimate harassment incidents occur in any give unit of time on enwiki?
    2. What process would you propose to address incidents of harassment promptly, justly, and without exposing victims to additional harassment?- MrX 🖋 18:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may, I'd like to remind everyone here that we have long chosen not to be a quasi-judicial body. Protection of victims is important, absolutely. But I do hope that any proposal in that regard takes into account the long-standing principles and policies of the English Wikipedia community. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 18:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And with respect, this is why we need a working group made up of people versed in policymaking to deal with this rather than having it be a free-for-all RfC. We aren't a cyberanarchist paradise anymore. We haven't been for years, and our behavior in venues like RFA, ANI, and AE are clear proof of it. The era where WP:NOTLAW is a response to any policymaking behavior is over. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How one would shield victims is a difficult question. Use of this power by T&S has come with a gigantic Streisand effect, one that has reflected a spotlight on many with a difficult relationship with Fram, to the discomfort of more than one. It does not appear to have accomplished a purpose of removing someone from the scene so that another may peacefully edit, and there has been much speculation about many things, on this and other sites. It will probably be the same next time. Is it really worth it for T&S to push that button, given the collateral damage that is sure to result?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The Streisand effect here has more to do with not revealing anything at all - and as I have pointed out repeatedly, explaining why the ban was limited, why ArbCom had a conflict of interest/was not the proper venue, and what changes need to be made to our policies could all be answered to our satisfaction without exposing the complainant. Had T&S given us an answer on all of those, we'd probably be at the tail end of a serious discussion about adjusting our harassment and Arbitration policies as opposed to just now starting them. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 21:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mendaliv, I don't mind seeing people form a "working group" coming up with a proposal. Hell, people can form one of those on their own; they don't need permission from anyone to do it. But that proposal will be accepted, rejected, or modified by the community, at, yes, an RfC. We are not run by "working groups" who tell us "Now, here's what everyone will do", and the day that changes is the day a whole lot of us leave. It's never been a "cyberanarchist paradise", but it's not a bureaucracy, either. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Active admins and contributions from resigned admins

    I threw together a quick analysis, summarized at this table.

    My preliminary conclusions:

    Observations:

    • There are 731 editors (current or recent admins) with one or more admin actions in the one year.
    • This number overstates the number of active administrators — some of those actions may literally have been to avoid a desysop 115, including Jimbo, has 1 or 2 in last year
    • As a very low bar, there are 574 with five or more actions in the year
    • As a more reasonable bar, there are 411 with 24 or more in the year (i.e. averaging two a month)
    • As a higher bar, there are 237 with 240 or more in the year (i.e. averaging 20 a month)
    • The 20 resigned admins were responsible for 18,347 admin actions or 2.3% of the total (updated)

    Feedback welcomeS Philbrick(Talk) 14:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. What does the second column mean? I can not figure it out.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ymblanter, The second column is (or I should say was) the index column generated by the original report. I left it in so one could sort by that column and see the order of the original report but that's not necessary in this table, so I removed it as it means almost nothing and just generates questions :) S Philbrick(Talk) 15:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I assume contribution of those who resigned unrelated to the Fram incident, or were desysopped, or Fram, were not included.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ymblanter, yes (with the caveat that you summarized my intent, whether I achieved it will be soon determined). Fram is definitely excluded, as are some recent desysops unrelated to this incident. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Tnx, this is indeed now clear.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've also had thoughts along these lines [63], but I think we also have to acknowledge that reducing things to bare numbers doesn't allow for some of the intangibles. Many of the resignations were by very visible and highly respected admins. (I'm not saying others aren't respected too). The impact this has had lies beyond the black and white of "just the facts ma'am". I'm not criticizing, in fact I think this is very well done and I thank you. — Ched :  ?  — 15:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Ched, In fact, your comment was one of the motivations for doing this. I'm in total agreement that bare numbers don't tell the whole story, but I've seen some off-the-cuff guesstimates, some of which have been way off, so I thought it would be worth taking a stab at a rough quantification. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Thanks for throwing this together. I would note that many of the admins who have resigned filled important roles not captured by this analysis; acting as functionaries and checkusers, closing reports on the admin noticeboards, and working on the main page. This isn't a criticism your analysis at all; but given that many of those resigning are our most experienced mop-wielders, we're likely to see an impact beyond what the numbers suggest (as an aside, we've lost five functionaries, by my count; a considerably higher proportion of those we had before framgate). Vanamonde (Talk) 15:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well its too early to say if this will have an impact, so lets wait and see.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a lot. And a lot of very good admins. I'm hopeful most will come back once this gets resolved (if it does...) Hobit (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a lot. But I'm also surprised that some of the admins who resigned were not very active recently even though they had been admins for a very long time. My impression is that the level of activity goes through highs and lows and sometimes highs again, meaning that it really varies over time quite a deal.
    Plus, as Vanamonde says, there is a lot of admin behavior, like noticeboard and user talk discussions, that doesn't get quantified at all. I think most of the admins at the high end spend much of their time on page deletion and blocks which can add up more easily than, for instance, closing RfCs or warning editors of problematic conduct. I think more than the number of admin acts, what we are losing is years of admin experience which, to me, is more important than how many file deletions one has processed. But thanks for pulling this together, it's interesting data. Liz Read! Talk! 19:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz, I totally agree, and mentioned that on the linked page, but not in the summary I copied over. I don't want to minimize the contributions of people like RHaworth, Fastily, and Explicit who have 192000 deletions between them. It does take some time to correctly assess that a deletion should be carried out, but an admin who spends a lot of time sorting out an edit war may spend an hour or two or more and end up with one or possibly zero logged actions. If anyone has any ideas on how to better measure that, even if as simple as counting non-article space edits by the resigned admin's in the last year, I'm open to alternative measures if they can be done with a reasonable amount of work. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz, I've never had many 'admin' actions. That's mostly because the administrative actions that I do (tech stuff) mostly are "edit protected page", not counted by that tool indeed. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's startling, and you should put that somewhere that the WMF will see it. These aren't just admins who have already been gone a year anyway. And these statistics don't even count all the things experienced admins can do to help out without pushing any of the red buttons and creating any logs; sometimes as simple as a "Hey, let's everybody cool it here a bit." Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two percent in a matter of days, if that was a currency, the markets would be in turmoil. Indeed, this is really troubling, and it's great SPhilbrick took the time to alert us about how fragile the situation is. Indeed, another week or two could see a further 2-3% drop. This is serious, and I hope WMF can get their collective heads round that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You write "some of those actions may literally have been to avoid a desysop". As far as I know, Admins need one edit per year to maintain admin status, not one admin action. And I'm pretty sure about his, having not used the tools in 2018, but having no problem doing so in 2019... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      It's one edit or admin action. So it may be just as easy for the admin who wants to avoid the inactivity desysop to do some uncontroversial admin action (say, a U1 or G7 deletion) that no one's going to argue with them over, as to do an edit. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Seraphimblade, Oops, good point. I saw a number with a single action, thought about the inactivity requirement, but forgot it was edit or logged action. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's 731 administrators, yeah? Not 731 editors? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Ivanvector, Yes. 731 counts current admins and the 19 who recently resigned, but all are (or recently were) admins. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sphilbrick: I was meaning to point out that you wrote on this page and the one you linked to that you counted 731 editors, and should change it to reflect that you meant 731 administrators. There are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30,000 active editors. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ivanvector, Yes, it just sunk in why you asked. I used "editors" because 712 are admins and 19 were admins during the year but are not now, so "editors" was the easiest word to use. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • And, as TRM alludes, it doesn't take into account the walking wounded who—like me—are editing at a much-reduced level and probably easing into retirement (hence two new RfAs today, with the same nominator). The scales have fallen from my eyes about this place. Miniapolis 23:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • It really is disheartening watching so many people you respect walk away. Anarchyte (talk | work) 04:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sphilbrick. That is very interesting, well done. What percentage of the "higher-bar" admins (i.e. the 237), which I would consider to be current "active admins" corps, have resigned? Were all of the 19 who have resigned considered "higher-bar" admins? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see the answer is 12 (from your table). So 12 of the admins who have resigned where in the "higher-bar" group? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Britishfinance, Yes. which is 5% and very troubling. S Philbrick(Talk) 10:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely! Well done again, very interesting analysis. Britishfinance (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Even if the WMF completely reverses itself today, I think that the community is forever going to be altered. We probably will get most of the admins back who resigned, but not all of them. People are burned out and exhausted over this matter, and some may still leave because they don't trust the WMF won't do this again. Tensions are still high. There are quite a few current ArbCom case requests that are pretty nasty, and some of them will inevitably have to be accepted. There's still more to be done. --Rschen7754 18:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I guess most of us are well aware that from time to time WMF does outrageously stupid (or, at the very least, outrageously not thought-out) things and then for quite some time refuses to reverse them. This happened in the past, and this will happen in the future. Can we say for example that the community has significantly changed over superprotect? Or over the image filter (or what was the name)? In some sense, yes, on the other hand, it has never been crucial. This one has a higher backslash, and the effects will last longer, but so far I do not see any evidence that provided it has been satisfactorily resolved on a reasonable time scale, we are moving to a very different equilibrium. Actually, if we are lucky, this is our chance to inprove the project.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but improvements will only happen with a lot of hard work, not automatically. --Rschen7754 00:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    So, just for reference on seeing that damn depressing issue of the administrators' newsletter today, in addition to the above, we have lost:

    • Two of 20 bureaucrats. (Wizardman left before any of this started.)
    • Two of 15 interface admins.
    • Three of 43 checkusers.
    • Four of 44 oversighters.

    So it's not just admins who are a concern. Some of those functionary teams have had losses of nearly 10% of their membership, and interface admins tend to be people with high technical skill. (And of course, this reflects only those who actually requested removal, not anyone who just walked away and will not be back). This didn't happen even during the software deployment and superprotect debacles. So, Jimbo Wales, and the rest—let's not delay too long with those statements. I think we've lost enough good editors already. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    We have to be careful because some people may have reduced their editing levels during the last month and are not related to WP:FRAM. I am only guessing here but we have to remain calm. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is anyone aware of other admins/functionaries who said they'd resign because of this and seem to have done so - we all think there are others who have resigned (without specifically downing their tools), and I'm just interested to know what % that might be. Nosebagbear (talk)
    • Both because of this, and because of the discussion itself, is having a noticeable affect on all the standard backlog areas. ANI discussions also have far fewer comments per discussion - which some might view as a plus. This obviously has clear negatives but also is part of the point of the very resignations - but I felt it worthy of note. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement from Jimbo

    The Board met yesterday to work on a full statement about this. It's not easy getting to consensus with a large group, but overall I think people are going to be happy with the statement and with the things we are asking the WMF staff to do going forward. As one board member wasn't present, we decided to give a bit more time so that we can get to unanimity. diff Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 12:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • I hope Jimbo is right. Fingers crossed. This is good news. Rockstonetalk to me! 18:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good, and the entire event will hopefully be a great learning curve for both "sides" which, in truth, should be playing well together on the same team. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Nope, nothing will make this a "great learning curve", that's patently absurd. WMF stopped playing on the same team when they did what they did and then went into three (or more) weeks) of radio silence. Gross negligence. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      We should be playing together in the same team, indeed. I hope people pay more attention in the next round of elections to the Board, and chose someone that can actually make a difference there in terms of regaining the WMF to the Wikimedia Movement. The Board is made by 10 persons - 5 of them are chosen by the communities (2 affiliates + 3 all communities), which in turn appoint the other 5 places (1 of them is fixed, Jimbo). This means that the power is actually with us to decide the fate of the WMF. We just need to have more "Wikimedia citizenship" on those elections and participate in them, instead of ignoring them and letting others decide for ourselves. Darwin Ahoy! 22:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I suspect that the problem isn't on the board level, actually. The board only interacts with the WMF via the Executive Director, and the WMF staff have been drifting away without a simple way of the board pulling them back. I think that fixing this will have to involve bringing more WMF staff activities on-wiki and encouraging regular interaction between individual employees and volunteers about their (the employee's) work. This would be a lot easier if the WMF was smaller (and if turnover was slower), but we should be able to influence the WMF on a culture/ideology level. (Also, we need a bigger community megaphone pointed at the WMF and a smaller WMF megaphone pointed at the community, but that might be harder.) --Yair rand (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • A statement after several weeks. How wonderful. Perhaps by this time next year we can expect an action. Really. The WMF is making Motch McConnell's response to 9/11 first responders look like a speed demon in action. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good news, thank you Jimbo. Let's hope the statement sets out clearly what the community expects of the WMF, while also providing a forum for them to tell us how they expect us to deal with issues pertaining to the terms-of-use. And to those still complaining about the speed of this, it seems fairly obvious to me that a real-life legal entity, with multiple moving parts, is not going to give results at the same pace as the community, which is 24-hour and real-time.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • For me, it is important that any action respects sensitive data too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • So? when's it coming?LetUsNotLoseHearT 22:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    According to this, any moment now. Watch this space... GirthSummit (blether) 22:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This just in...

    Wikipedia’s “Constitutional Crisis” Pits Community Against Foundation - MrX 🖋 16:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is damn good and quite well balanced from all aspects. Can somebody ping those folks up above, who had confidently predicted that no reputable external media was even going to be bothered about covering these insider-baseball issues? ∯WBGconverse 16:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I was surprised it took this long. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We need to keep going though. People need to contribute guest columns wherever they can. Two articles (three by some accounts) is a good start, but this needs to snowball, and we need to control the offsite narrative better. The claim in the Slate article that T&S would only act if it was "incredibly obvious" there was "serious harassment" (is there any harassment that isn't serious?) is bananas. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Turning off the office coffee pot knowing that your disliked coworker hasn't had his morning cup yet is non-serious harassment. EEng 18:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how having inflamed Wikipedia editors contribute guest columns will result in balanced coverage. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Above people were saying that the media would look at us as a bunch of entitled brats. And let's be realistic, no editor is going to run something that's self-interested invective because it'll harm their brand. And the people who have the wherewithal to get things published know better than to write that way. Our job is to get coverage to control the offsite narrative in order to ensure WMF can be pressured into acceding to our demands. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    no editor is going to run something that's self-interested invective because it'll harm their brand – Then how do you explain Fox News carrying phone interviews with Trump all the time? EEng 18:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Their job is to get coverage to control the narrative in order to ensure others can be pressured into acceding to their demands? cygnis insignis 19:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for what it is worth, the 'mistakes' clearly show that there have been no insiders contributing to the article. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't there an AfD or something? Seems to be a second RS here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fram controversy. Various aspects of WP:NEVENT still apply, however, and I doubt that the notability is actually established at this point. WP:PERSISTENCE poses a particular problem. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This meets the bare minimum of WP:GNG, but there's still room to debate whether it should be covered on its own article or the general List of Wikipedia controversies page (several things there with no article of their own have more coverage, so at the moment there would be potential WP:DUE issues.) That said, this implies to me that there's likely to be more coverage down the line, so I suspect we'll end up with a standalone article at some point. Also, the headline here supports something I mentioned earlier, which is that ArbCom (with its general perception as the "Wikipedia Supreme Court") is our best voice for attracting attention to issues of concern to the community - it seems likely that their open letter played a role in convincing Slate that the issue was worth covering. "Wikipedia constitutional crisis" is a framing that makes intuitive sense even to people with no knowledge of our internal policies. The ArbCom letter also gives news sources a concise summary of why the community is concerned, which is very useful in terms of attracting coverage to an issue whose policy and cultural dimensions can sometimes get a bit arcane. EDIT: The concern is that if the Wikimedia Foundation runs Wikipedia as Facebook and Twitter run their so-called communities, it would kill the encyclopedia. Hmm, I recognize that comparison... --Aquillion (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Very, very nice article. My main sticking point:

    “The only thing that happens is that people get dragged before the court of public opinion and told that everything they feel and experience is invalid.” You’re not alone if the thought of crowdsourced justice makes you queasy.

    That isn't what's being advocated here at all. If anything it's what we're trying to fight back against, because an inscrutable Office Action invites public speculation and dissection of everyone and anyone with whom the banned editor ever clashed. So not only is the complainant presumably harmed, but everyone—even people who were just opponents and not victims—become victimized by the mob. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    While we choose not to think of what we are doing as crowd-sourced justice, it is easy to see how the way we handle discipline (especially AN/ANI, but to some extent also ArbCom), where everyone chimes in and debates what would be best until some consensus emerges, would seem to an outsider like civilized mob rule. As the harassment of innocents that you cite reveals, there's an argument to be made that it only works for as long as we choose to not behave like a mob. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is talking about AN/ANI or public witch trials for harassers, and if that's what you're getting out of this discussion, I suggest you read more closely. We are calling for self governance and separation of powers. We don't want an inscrutable black box of God-knows-who reviewing God-knows-what and deciding both that an investigation is merited and punishment is warranted. We don't want our community standards decided by people from outside of enwiki who weren't chosen for being in touch with our community standards.
    Let me make this absolutely clear: Nobody here is calling for fully public trials, a fully public airing of evidence, or an ad hoc decision made by a consensus of participating editors in cases of harassment. Nobody has called for that and it's insulting to compare what we're trying to achieve here with ANI. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I justified my position poorly. What I was trying to communicate is that most outsiders will expect a difference in competence and professionalism between paid, full-time rule enforcers (the WMF staff, in this case) and random volunteers (that is, whatever community process you want to choose). I'm not advancing this position, merely claiming it is not absurd, and that I don't think its fair to bash the professional journalist for not standing up for our (really rather flawed) community processes for dealing with harassment. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    But what ArbCom is doing is not passing judgment. It is protecting the Wiki. People do not get sanctioned/banned as punishment; it happens because they are impairing the quality of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this point gets blurred because most of the cases brought to ArbCom involve volunteer misbehavior. And there is the fact that all of this ponderous process -- RfCs, WP:AN/I, ArbCom -- is not to punish but simply to get people to change their behavior, to learn that the motto "anyone can edit" does have a number of restrictions. Do we need to point out that an editor who is otherwise unobjectionable -- is civil, avoids conflict, follows the rules as best as they can -- can still be banned if they fail WP:COMPETENCE? We've banned people whose English is abysmal. The issue of harassment has been missed in large part because it doesn't directly relate to protecting the Wiki, but needs to be addressed. (And needless to say, harassment needs to be handled in a manner that the community agrees to. Or the community will dissolve.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not perfect but a decent article that seems reasonably balanced and accurate. As for FRAMGATE being notable enough for its own article, I'd say no. Although if more coverage were to appear and especially if this is still being discussed in a few months outside the community, my opinion could change. Alas if this is still an issue in a few months, I won't be here to contribute to the discussion. For good or ill I believe this is going to be the decisive week. IMHO by next week this will either be over or we will at least have a good idea which way it is going to end. If the WMF hasn't given a satisfactory response by then, that will be an answer in itself. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There was already a separate article attempted. Consensus at AfD was to merge it into List of Wikipedia controversies, which probably remains the right call. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I saw that and agree that it was, and for now, remains the right call. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a fair presentation except the gloom and doom guesswork at the end. But Jimbo has promised that a statement has been agreed to and forthcoming shortly which will make the community happy, so hopefully Slate will cover that as a part of their story when it occurs. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a damn good article!, I would say it's a lot better than Buzzfeeds too (Never been a fan of BF tbh), I do concur with Ad Orientem tho there's not enough coverage out there just yet for an article. –Davey2010Talk 21:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Board statement

    Everyone,

    The Board is a deliberative body and we strongly believe that it is important that we consider issues of high importance thoroughly. We realize that for many of our community members our silence has been frustrating, but we genuinely used this time.

    A recent ban of an editor by the Wikimedia Foundation under the Terms of Use on the English Wikipedia has generated discussions and debate. There were calls for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees to respond to the discussions.

    Almost three years ago, the board published a strong statement against toxic behaviors and directed the Wikimedia Foundation teams to work to make Wikimedia communities safer for all good faith editors. A safe and respectful environment is not only one of our five pillars, it will also allow for more diverse voices to join our communities, bringing new knowledge with them.

    While we remain fully committed to this position, we also recognize the critical importance of allowing communities to be self-governing and for the movement, as a whole, to make high-level decisions. While we realize that the Wikimedia Foundation staff did not take this decision lightly, we also believe that we need the right processes to reach the right results.

    It is also evident that existing processes within the communities and T&S have failed, as we have cases which obviously need some form of sanctions, in which sanctions have not occurred.

    We believe that the communities should be able to deal with these types of situations and should take this as a wake-up call to improve our enforcement processes to deal with so-called "unblockables". In fact, those in a position of authority should be held to a higher standard. We also recognize that the communities may need support to carry out these needed steps.

    This could include funding for training of community members involved in dealing with harassment or helping long term contributors correct behaviors that are inappropriate. We support the provision of the necessary resources to allow the community and its representatives to discuss these issues with the board and staff members.

    Even the larger projects struggle to effectively address the most difficult and controversial cases. There is a gap between our movement principles and practices. This is an issue we need to solve together. That is a task that needs to be led by the communities, with the support of staff and guidance from the board.

    As such, we have asked Katherine Maher, CEO of Wikimedia Foundation, to work closely with staff in support of our communities to identify the shortcomings of current processes and to propose solutions. This could include current and upcoming initiatives, as well as re-evaluating or adding community input to the two new office action policy tools (temporary and partial Foundation bans).

    We recognize that T&S has established a track record for managing highly complex situations. While the aforementioned conversations between T&S and our communities take place, we recommend T&S focus on the most severe cases, for instance: the handling of legal issues, threats of violence, cross-wiki abuse, and child protection issues until consultation and agreement between T&S and the community are achieved.

    Any changes in the long-established practices of dealing with toxic behavior within the communities should be introduced carefully and only following close collaboration with the communities. As discussed above, we have directed the Foundation to take on that conversation.

    We support ArbCom reviewing this ban. We have asked T&S to work with the English Wikipedia ArbCom to review this case. We encourage Arbcom to assess the length and scope of Fram’s ban, based on the case materials that can be released to the committee. While the review is ongoing, Fram’s ban will remain in effect, although Arbcom and T&S may need ways to allow Fram to participate in the proceedings.

    We do not consider any of the admin resignations related to the current events to be “under a cloud” (under suspicion) though we also realize that the final decision with respect to this lies with the community.

    The Board views this as part of a much-needed community debate on toxic behavior. In spite of the considerable disruption this has caused for many, we hope this serves as a catalyzing moment for us to move forward together to ensure the health and vitality of our communities.

    The chair has formally delegated this matter to the vice chair and was not involved in the issuing of this statement or in any of the deliberations that led to our response.

    On behalf of the board, Schiste (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram&oldid=904552644"