Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Response

  • I.e. NOTHING. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    technically we can rule out a Rémi Mathis type issue.©Geni (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Oh cool, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • What TRM said. I'm noting the singular absence of these alleged "community members who raised concerns" from any of these discussions, or of any concerns actually being raised about Fram at any of the venues where community members are actually supposed to raise concerns; would they happen to be either Wikidata-spammers or Visual Editor programmers by any chance? ‑ Iridescent 21:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    • No. Let me translate. They were socking, and someone complained about the actions of the other account. (Based on the statement above, only, and not any inside information) UninvitedCompany 21:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
      • WTF? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
      • That would make sense, if WMFOffice had blocked more than Fram and EngFram. If there's a sock that has caused all of this, they've not blocked it... Nick (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
        • Exactly. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
          • I should point out, socking isnt actually against the TOU. Its a local ENWP policy. I would be surprised if it was a simple sock issue, as thats ENWP specific (no matter how many other wikimedia projects have rules against it). I would be more surprised if T&S was looking into SOCKPUPPETRY as a useful allocation of their resources. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
            • I'm not sure that UninvitedCompany really gets this situation if he thinks it's really about socking. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
              • I doubt very much that it's entirely about socking. I would imagine that it is about whatever the sock did. UninvitedCompany 21:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
      • "the measure covers more than one user account in this case" Perhaps the other account is already blocked. UninvitedCompany 21:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
        • I'm having as much difficulty parsing that steaming pile of nothing as everyone else, but I think that just means the two accounts, Fram, and the legit alt EngFram, both of which were blocked by the WMF. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
          • For those speculating about socking, I doubt it. See the recent Od Mishelu precedent, that was ArbCom only, not WMF. I ully agree about this being a non-response though. GiantSnowman 21:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
            • The WMF has removed functionary access because of socking before: Ciphers was a CU on ar.wiki who was caught vandal socking here on en, and they removed the CU bit, but in that case the block and eventual lock were community actions: I blocked the account and a steward later locked it. From discussions at the time, this was intentional. That is to say: I doubt only socking would have caused this, and if there was admin socking, it is usually handled by the local CUs/ArbCom. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It is the community’s decision what to do with Fram’s administrator access upon the expiration of the Office Action ban. but can I just say. How the fuck can we do that when WMF won't give us any information to make an informed decision ? Nick (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    We can't, which is indisputable proof that the WMF, in this instance, are fucking clueless. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @WMFOffice: Your statement seems premised on "strongly indicating cases where local communities consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous rules but the Terms of Use, too" - could you explain how we've consistently struggled to uphold one or both of these facets. Logically, if there's sufficient evidence to indicate repeated failure, then you should be demonstrating what we've done wrong or there's no reason it wouldn't keep repeating. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Well, the way we would do that is that Fram would make a request at RFA, and we would follow the usual process. If he got thrown under the bus for reasons that are still, at that point, a big secret, then I would imagine that the RFA would be widely supported. UninvitedCompany 21:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    How the fuck can we run an RFA when no-one knows what he was de-sysoped for? And how does the community know whatever he did to invoke the wrath of the WMF won't happen again? Madness. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Well, my view is that we would run an RFA based on the information that we have in hand. And people would support or oppose based on whether they thought that being blocked by WMF for secret reasons a year ago is a good reason to oppose. UninvitedCompany 21:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Well that's just plain stupid if Fram could then be de-sysoped once again on the invisible whim of WMF. Just think about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Translation from WMF-speak: *WMF to en.wiki: Drop dead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The statement is mostly a copy of their post on deWP in February. Sunrise (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    i.e. NOTHING. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • If the implication here is that EnWp failed to uphold some vague terms of use, is there evidence that enwp in any of its various venues for solving disputes were notified, considering arbcom aren’t even aware? This sounds like total bumbling incompetence from WMF and like they’re involving themselves in some sort of editor dispute. Praxidicae (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This seems like the wrong place for this discussion. Can we identify a better place? Thanks S Philbrick(Talk) 21:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Sphilbrick: - other than perhaps peeling this off as a separate page so we don't clog up the Crat's board, it seems a reasonable location. As we are limited on our direct action, it's not like we can turn it into an RfC. Nosebagbear (talk)
    It’s fine to continue here; imo, moving the discussion at this point would just introduce further collective confusion. –xenotalk 21:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Agreed, but at least in theory this could be a good fit for the largely-defunct Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous): it's a community-based discussion without particular relevance to any specific page, policy, or editing function that has ranged from gossip and speculation to vocal outcry and condemnation. In practice, of course, VPM is frequently devoid of activity, so there'd be no use in opening a discussion there to begin with. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • They can't be this stupid, Community Relations has got to be telling them the catastrophes that can come from not involving anyone from a local wiki in banning a local sysop. It's been, what, 3 years since there was major blowup between the WMF and the Community - surely we don't have to relearn the same lessons? Their actions might even be justified - it's how they're going about it that makes it so ludicrous! Nosebagbear (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @GiantSnowman: - the office response says explicitly, "Therefore, the measure covers more than one user account in this case." That is confirmation that it was at least partially a socking incident, isn't it?  — Amakuru (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    No, that's a reference to Fram's legitimate alt account EngFram. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    No it could just mean it was his two stated accounts. If it was socking, there are enough CU's, admins and Arbcom who would be able to work it out damn fast from all blocked users. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Stupid is as stupid does. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Ah, I see. Thanks Pppery.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • WMFOffice you're in the shit here I think. Unless you want a revolution on your hands, you'd better start talking the talk. Don't be obtuse and fob us off with another boilerplate horseshit response. If you have any competence left (yes Arbcom, I know), please clarify in precise terms what has happened here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • We, as a community, need to craft a unified response. Seriously, I see no consensus here for acceptance of this action. With the exception of Fram's privacy in this matter I see no good reason for such a lack of transparency. Tiderolls 21:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Tide rolls: - you're definitely right as regards unified response. There could legitimately be concerns from an accuser of Fram (the unhappiness here probably would increase that). However, that would justify not resolving it on, say, ANI. It would still be a legitimate area for ARBCOM to consider. Given that their "justification" was repeated failures by en-wiki in implementing our rules or the TOS, non-communication is particularly non-acceptable. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    That seems like a great idea in principle but what's really needed is a "Spartacus" moment. Unblock Fram. And keep unblocking Fram, until we run out of admins. This is fucking stupid, and WMF have a huge responsibility here to address the stupidity rather than treating us like fucking idiots and providing boilerplate bollocks. How insulting. How denigrating. Many of us have been here for more than a decade, and to get that bullshit "recorded message" response in reaction to such a hugely controversial measure is beyond belief. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Such a scenario seems extremely unlikely. Even in the event that all admins could be convinced to take part, and it seems unlikely since it seems clear from this discussion that not all agree that T&S were wrong to act, in reality it would probably end with maybe the 1st, 2nd or at most 3rd to try it when the WMF introduces a 'superblock' which can't be overturned by anyone but the WMF. Of course admins are free to resign or stop acting as admins or leave wikipedia as they see fit. They could even take other protest action likely leading to the removal of their tools and maybe other sanction if they desire. But the particular course of action you suggested is never likely to last long. Nil Einne (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Nosebagbear: As has been said already, we have little direct action available. The only direct action I have at my disposal will mean my desysoping. The more the WMF obfuscates the less that scares me. Tiderolls 21:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man and Tide rolls: As long as we don't suddenly find out this was justified after all, there's always proposing a new exception to the socking policy. Then we wouldn't lose you as admins and it would fall to the WMF to perform enforcement. Sunrise (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Tide rolls a unified response? Do you mean something along the lines of a very public vote of no confidence? Sure, it wouldn't be formally binding in any way, but it would terrible publicity for the WMF. Maybe, just maybe, it would force them to give a real explanation. Lepricavark (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    Hi, Lepricavark. I'll assume you're watching here and not aggravate you with a ping. I had no format in mind when I posted. Your interpretation is something I would support. With all the varied participation here my confidence is not high that a single proposal will gain substantial traction. Rest assured that I would lend support to any proposal that stresses community action over WMF interference. Tiderolls 04:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    I think that a broadly worded statement of no confidence would probably garner a not-insignificant level of support right now. The community is rightly angry and so far we evidently haven't been able to get the WMF's attention. As somebody pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the community -- which is never unified -- has been unified against the WMF. That being said, I'm not the best person for drafting a statement. There are others in this thread that could do it, but I won't single anyone out. Lepricavark (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Well that's a massive great amount of absolutely fucking nothing, isn't it? Try again. Black Kite (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Gag order? The statement does not say that Fram is precluded from discussing the issue. I don't think the Office has the authority to issue a gag order, so if Fram isn't talking that suggests he either doesn't want to talk about it, or agreed to a gag order in exchange for something (1 year instead of 2?) I see that some are attempting to contact him. Has any response occurred, even if to simply explain whether he is voluntarily silent or required to be silent?S Philbrick(Talk) 21:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Or hes asleep/away etc and will wake up at some point to a full email inbox and a headache. I generally dont read anything into non-response until its been at least 72 hours. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) It is half past midnight in Belgium—there's a very good chance he's just asleep and will wake up to a thousand pings. ‑ Iridescent 21:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    More like half past eleven, actually...  — Amakuru (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Seriously. The translation is pretty straightforward. A user filed a complaint against Fram's behavior onwiki. This behaviour did not occur yesterday, it may have happened a long time ago and it took a while for WMF to investigate, or it could have happened over long time and the person only filed the complained recently. Now, if you want to know what this behavior exactly was, I think it is not very difficult to guess. I have no idea who filed the complaint. I did not do it (and never in fact considered it seriously). There are some obvious candidates, but I do not want to be WMF blocked myself, and therefore will not continue here and will not respond private requests. I do not think this is in any way important at this stage.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    To clarify what I have written is not supposed to be a support of the WMF action, rather a clarification how I understand it.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    They state above it takes about 4 weeks. So my bet is on this Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Seems the likeliest explanation so far.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    But we should remember that a complaint normally taking about 4 weeks to investigate doesn't guarantee whatever it was was four weeks ago. It may be most likely it was around the time of the complaint. But as as Ymblanter was I think intending to say, someone may complain about something that took place longer ago perhaps when they first notice it. (Also it's possible it took longer or much shorter than 4 weeks in a specific instance.) Since this was a time limited and en only ban, it seems unlikely it was something that took place very long ago since if the concerns hadn't repeated in a year (giving a random example) since whatever it is occurred then a 1 year ban doesn't seem to serve much purpose. But still a few months seems possible. In addition, it's possible some of the behaviour was over a year old, and some was more recent In that case it's less clear whether a 1 year ban will be enough but I think the situation is complex enough that it could have happened like that. Especially since we still don't know what communication the WMF had with Fram and have zero definite idea what it's about.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    Well now we have Fram's comment demonstrating it was something about 4 weeks ago. Funnily enough when people suggested it was because of the NPA discussion, I was thinking I seem to recall Fram making some strongly worded comments related to arbcom and possibly some related to the portal mess and the use of wikidata in the recent past. Anyway we also see it does involve older stuff as well as the recent stuff. And as a final comment, I do think it was a mistake to bring any specific suggestion of what it was especially when it involved specific other editors. Maybe the WMF shares the blame for that, but whatever their mistakes, we as a community didn't have to bring up others, especially so soon. (I mean it's still less than 24 hours.) We should be showing we are better than all that. Nil Einne (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    Bollocks. Nothing you've said substantiates a one-year ban on a single Wikipedia. I call bullshit. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Could another way of looking at this be the verdict of a closed-door appeals court to address long-term patterns of behavior among WP:UNBLOCKABLES? There have certainly been lots of calls, both on-wiki and off, for the WMF to intervene with harassment and other intractable behaviors that have proven difficult for the community to address. Note that this isn't a judgment of Fram, whom I wouldn't have thought of in those terms, but an effort to understand what's happening (and what might happen in the future). I think that ultimately any time the WMF intervenes due to "things the community has a hard time addressing" it's going to be difficult all around, since there are of course reasons the community has not addressed it (i.e. another way of wording "hard time addressing" is "decided not to take action"). I'm undecided how I feel about mechanisms that allow for that kind of intervention (i.e. action for reasons other than the particularly egregious sorts of things global bans are used for). There are certainly times when I've thought ANI, etc. has failed to deal with long-term problematic behavior. (Though, again, Fram has not been involved in those, so forgive my abstraction/speculation here). Regardless, it would be good to have some kind of clarity if that's the situation we're in or if indeed there was a single problematic action -- or otherwise something more. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    I did ask for that above, the key point of addressing things that have been difficult for the community to address is that the community has to attempt to address them first before its proven difficult. I cant think of anything in Fram's history that is close to that except for issues that the community as a whole has trouble address (such as the WMF's technical 'advancements' and wikidata's attempts to force itself into everything). Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Rhododendrites: - if it was "something more" then it would be even less justified to tell us nothing, since there wouldn't be any privacy concerns for either Fran or Fran's accuser(s). Nosebagbear (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry, the "something more" was intended to follow "it would be good to have some kind of clarity" (i.e. more information about what happened). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    I have a hard time believing that any situation would warrant that remedy, Rhododendrites, if it was something out in the open. If ANI and ArbCom collectively fail to apply sanctions to a user, then chances are they don't deserve any sanctions. I'm not sure how a different, more remote, set of people are somehow more qualified to take that decision than those we've already entrusted to do so.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Well, I think the argument would be not about qualification but about their focus and the [debatable/hypothetical] benefits of making a judgment from outside the community. When WMF makes a decision, it can remain more focused on the behavior and their own investigation without legions of friends, detractors, grudge-holders, partisans, etc. jumping in and complicating the discussion. I imagine it would prioritize community health over other aspects of the project that the Wikipedia community sometimes weighs differently. When those discussions happen, any admin who closes those threads knows they'll become a villain to some. Is it useful to defer that villainy to people paid to be in that position rather than volunteers who shouldn't have to take the abuse? Or, I suppose the question isn't "is it useful" but "is it worth it to give up autonomy". It's hard. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    (ec, re Rhododendrites' initial post) In which case, I'd expect them to be able to point to the community failing to address an issue. The only dispute I can see Fram involved in in the last couple of months was Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks#Harassment, mocking or otherwise disrespecting someone on the basis of gender identification and pronoun preference, and frankly if the WMF banned everyone Fae made accusations against we'd have about three editors left. (Plus, if they were genuinely looking for a mechanism to get rid of editors the WMF didn't like but whom the community refused to ban, it beggars belief their fancy WP:OFFICE laser cannon wouldn't be fired squarely at Eric Corbett.) ‑ Iridescent 21:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    I don't disagree re: being able to point to the community failing. But yes, basically, my question to understand what's going on could be framed as "would this have happened to Eric if these processes were in place years ago?" (With apologies to Eric, who I don't actually want this to become about). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    There is perhaps at least one difference between me and Fram, who I note has done his duty and banned me on more than one occasion - which must have earned him brownie points- and that is that I don't give a flying fuck what the WMF do. I do however agree with Iridescent and wonder why I've never been at the end of the WMF's weapon du jour, and can only conclude that Fram must have done something far worse than call Jimbo out for being a dishonest c**t. Eric Corbett 22:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Rhododendrites: - it would also require the following: the WMF to always make decisions in line with what is actually beneficial for the project, rather than the WMF's appearance, any specific team's viewpoint etc etc. The Visual-Editor saga showed that those decisions are not well made. If they want reduction in autonomy then they either need oversight accepted by both sides, or to be flawless. That decision would also have to be specifically made by the Community - whereas TOS changes are self-made by the WMF. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    This (Iridescent's idea and link above) does fall under issues 'the community has had difficulty enforcing', so this seems the likeliest explanation put forth so far. Perhaps Fram was singled out because he was an admin, and it fell under ADMINCOND. Softlavender (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
This just seems like a rehash of WP:OFFICE in that it describes the process in general rather than why specifically it was used. Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but still. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This is not an adequate response. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

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

They're well aware of how piss-poor they're handling this. This community has zero trust in the WMF T&S group right now. That's obvious. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The policy seems clear that someone(s) complain(s) about alleged TOU vios (the list of possible offences is kind of broad ); Office decides if it's merited or not; and it's all held privately. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • If it were a one of the "cases where local communities consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous rules but the Terms of Use, too" then not letting the local community know what it's about prevents us taking steps to improve what we do. In my experience when someone says "I'm doing this for your own good, I've got a good reason for doing it, and I'm not going to tell you what that reason is" sooner or later they will be proven to be lying. DuncanHill (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Different languages - could those with multi-lingual capabilities drop a summary of what's happened and a pointer onto a few of the big wikis. If it is going to be a big flare-up (and I'd really want to hear something, even indirectly, from Fram first) then other wikis knowing is worthwhile. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Indeed, some external press agencies in the UK are asking questions too. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    The single best way to get people to dislike you on any other project is to import en.wiki drama. I’m waiting to see if ArbCom can say anything that makes sense, but if your goal is to get the global community behind you, going about it in that way is pretty much guaranteed to backfire. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Tony, I appreciate your endeavour, but since this has nothing to do with Arbcom, it would be shameful if WMF gave you some information that it wasn't prepared to share with the community. That's not how WMF nor Arbcom should be working. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    I’m not on ArbCom (thankfully) my point was more that if they share their reasoning with stewards, they should be willing to share it with the local ArbCom since privacy is within their remit. Anyway, more to Nosebagbear’s point, if someone tried to notify other projects, the response would almost universally be “We don’t care, why are you trying to cause drama here, we have enough of it without you importing en.wiki drama.” TonyBallioni (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Did they not share the reasoning with ArbCom in this case? Since the ban only affects this project that would make sense to me. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Ajraddatz: Since you're here; it strikes me that while this is clearly WMF's responsibility, a statement from one of the stewards could go a long way toward reducing tension here. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    I don't think my personal opinion would add much to this, unfortunately. There has not been any discussion of this among the steward group. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Ajraddatz, are you aware of the reasons? ∯WBGconverse 00:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    I was a steward when WMF global bans became a thing (2015). They would give us maybe a sentence of why the user was banned. Of course, we couldn't say anything about it. --Rschen7754 01:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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

  • Seriously, if it is something to do with this, we might as well all give up now, because the main users that caused the issue in the first place remain editing. Black Kite (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Indeed. And no, we shouldn't be coerced into sending begging letters to WMF to let them know what a fuck-up they're making of this. They know this. They should fix it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Well even if T&S were taking action over the that dispute, it may be for whatever reason (possibly including private info, who knows) they saw what Fram did there worse than you or TRM or a few others saw it. To be clear, I'm not saying the WMF was right to feel that way, I'm only loosely aware of the dispute and have intention of looking in to it, especially since I have no idea of it's relevance to anything. My only point is that it may be that even if that was part of the reason, no one else is likely to be blocked for similar reasons despite getting into dispute with one of the editors concerns. And in addition, someone will need to complain to the WMF. The fact that someone may have done here doesn't meant they will do so in every other dispute involving any specific editor. We really have no way of knowing who and why. Even the person themselves may not really know. I'm sure that I'm not the only person to notice sometimes a confluence of factors not all of which you can identify, you take some particular dispute more severely then others even if to other observers they look similar. Nil Einne (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Has anyone considered asking Jimbo to give us some sort of explanation or force the office to give us a meaningful explanation? Seriously, this is the sort of thing where I'd say that we need to consider going over the Foundation's collective head. rdfox 76 (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Rdfox 76, User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Admin_Fram_locally_banned_by_T&S_for_one_year. SQLQuery me! 22:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Brainstorming, the possible behaviors this could have been in response to (if they occurred) include: socking, misuse of tools (sysop tools, CU tools, etc.), personal attacks, outing or borderline/attempted/threatened outing, or ADMINCOND. There my be other possibilities that I haven't thought of. Softlavender (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    All of which we have mechanisms to deal with, and do so on a regular basis. What makes any of those so unique that the WMF gets to overrule both our own community processes and Arbcom? As has been pointed out ad nauseam, in the four week timescale they mention in their statement, there has been no complaint made about Fram at any venue, so how is this a case where local communities consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous rules but the Terms of Use? ‑ Iridescent 23:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Did the committee receive a complaint and neglect to act? So this was an appeal of the committee’s decision? If not, I don’t see how the argument that the local community has struggled, if not given an opportunity. –xenotalk 23:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Xeno: An arbitrator has denied that hypothesis. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    No idea, Iri. I think whoever complained must have convinced WMF, or WMF convinced itself, that EN-wiki doesn't deal with whatever situation it was very optimally. I'm obviously not approving either the action or the secrecy. They should at least tell us which of the categories I listed it falls under. I made my list because no one had made a comprehensive list of the possibilities. Softlavender (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The partial ban here can only be done after review by Legal, Maggie Dennis, and the Executive Director [1], the only people left are the Board (and not Jimbo alone) but it's hard to imagine the Board overruling the entire staff or going against legal who will no doubt advise, keep it private. (and when will the Board even meet next, Wikimania?) Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Jfc, what a joke. A boilerplate legalese response from a faceless role account that says absolutely nothing. Still waiting on ANYONE from T&S with integrity to come forward as an individual and actually communicate in a reasonable fashion like a human talking to other humans. It's actually hilarious how not a single person will. I actually feel less confident in the WMF now than I did when we had no response. This looks dirty. If it's not, quit acting like a soulless, faceless, evil corporation run by sociopaths trying to cover up corruption, and start acting like a fucking humanitarian non-profit that wants a good working relationship with its volunteers. Literally no on-wiki issue ever comes close to uniting the community like this. And yet you're doing it, you're uniting the community against you. Do you really just not even care? ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Swarm: I've come to the realization that the WMF actually think they're doing the right thing. They may be, but their communication skills are inhibited by unimaginable disconnect or unlimited hubris. You've been around long enough to recognize the pattern. I'm tired of rolling over. Tiderolls 01:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It would be nice if they at least told us which term of the TOU was violated. Otherwise, how is a community suppose to improve its ability to uphold its own autonomous rules and the Terms of Use without knowing what the violation was? "This community has consistently struggled to do something but we won't tell you what it is, instead we're going to ban this admin for a year" is probably not a message that should have been sent. – Levivich 00:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • With respect to next steps, it appears arbcom has reached out to the WMF. I just became aware of this issue when someone above pinged me. We have our next board meeting on Jun 14th 2019. A good first step would be someone providing us Fram's position on this. I am than happy to reach out to folks at the WMF and fellow board members to see if we need to look at this issue (if Fram so requests). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    Doc James, do you have concerns about this? I would hope that the Board is unable to get the specifics of cases like this, but I would imagine that you know people on T&S. StudiesWorld (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    StudiesWorld the first step is does Fram want anyone to look into this further or do they accept the ban? Well the board would be unlikely to provide any details we could likely at least confirm whether or not it was justified (and at that point you may simple be required to take our word at it). Arbcom may already be performing such a role per the comments above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    Doc James, that makes sense. So, as I understand it: at this time, you have no specific cause for concern, are investigating the situation, and will let us know if you believe it to have been inappropriate. StudiesWorld (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Doc James The issue is not necessarily the ban itself. The ban may be 100% justified, and Fram may have no grounds to contest it, nor intention to. If that is the case, that doesn't make everything okay. This is, primarily, a community relations disaster that the Foundation does not appear to be taking seriously—in this regard, the merits of the ban are completely irrelevant. If that is the case, that arguably makes it worse, because a simple, bare bones explanation would be all that is needed to avert this crisis, and yet the Foundation appears unwilling to provide even that. That is the issue. Whether the ban was deserved, or whether Fram accepts the ban is entirely irrelevant. The only reason people are suggesting it's a corrupt "disappearance" is genuinely because that's the most plausible explanation for this bizarre stonewalling. In the best case scenario, the Foundation is harming its relations with the community for no good reason. Anything less than that is a truly frightening thought. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The legal will almost certainly advice T&S/Jimbo/XYZ-(WMF) to refrain from issuing any non-generic statements and I don't see them deviating from it; our best bet lies with the ArbCom. ∯WBGconverse 01:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    As far as I know this block has nothing to do with anything Fram wrote to me, and it would be jaw droppingly astonishing if this action had anything to do with the campaign of transphobic abuse and death threats I have been targeted with recently. Fæ (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    I would have preferred that other users had not filled the void of information with reference to that incident. cygnis insignis 05:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a messy non-explanation from WMF. I think we deserve to know something about this office ban. And what gives with bypassing the community so blatantly? Worrisome behavior, at the very least. I'll be watching this very closely. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 01:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Karen (Fluffernutter), something serious enough to warrant WMF action should not attract a one-year block on this site only. Anything not serious enough for a permanent global block by the WMF should be handled by the community or ArbCom. We therefore need a fuller statement, signed by an individual, as soon as possible. It isn't clear from this page who is in charge of Trust and Safety, so I'm pinging you as the first name and as someone I trust. SarahSV (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I've just noticed that Jan Eissfeldt is the lead manager. I didn't notice that earlier because he is described as a contractor. Hi Jan, we would appreciate a fuller statement as soon as possible. SarahSV (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This mess is creating a huge cloud over ArbCom. If ArbCom knows of issues with Fram and has declined to act (which is one interpretation of the WMF statement), then action against ArbCom should follow. If ArbCom doesn't know (as seems likely from WT:ACN statements) and the WMF acted in the belief ArbCom wouldn't act on a local matter, then enWP is being left with an ArbCom that the WMF doesn't trust – which is also something the community needs to know and action would be needed. If the complaint went to T&S and they bypassed ArbCom because it is a non-local issue, why was Fram only restricted at enWP? If the issue is local and ArbCom was bypassed for no good reason then T&S are demonstrating questionable competence. WMFOffice, should we be expected an OFFICE action dismissing the present ArbCom or a statement declaring the WMF's lack of confidence in them? Will the WMF be taking over ArbCom's roles and responsibilities? Or, has Fram been banned only from enWP over a non-local issue... and if so, why? Or, is this a case of T&S incompetence? Is there a possibility I've missed? Whether intentionally or not, the WMF actions appear to me to undermine ArbCom in a grossly unfair way, as well as harming relations between the WMF and the largest WP community. Doc James, irrespective of Fram's view, isn't it a board-level problem when T&S undermines ArbCom in this way? EdChem (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    • This had nothing to do with ArbCom, therefore it is mostly certainly not "creating a huge cloud over ArbCom". The only "cloud" it seems to be creating is over WMF. Softlavender (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
      • The statement from WMF strongly implies a lack of trust in Arbcom to take necessary action ("on occasion community members submit evidence strongly indicating cases where local communities consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous rules but the Terms of Use, too"). That's creating a pretty big cloud. Absconded Northerner (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I considered creating Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fram 2, but I was too scared of what the WMF’s Ministry of Love would do to me. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    A candidate is required to accept their RfA for it to begin. Fram is incapable of doing so while he is still banned. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • That is one of the more bizarre statements I have ever read. The whole thing could've been summed up in one sentence. It was remarkably long and said essentially nothing other than the fact that they are not going to bother explaining anything. The last paragraph was particularly irksome. Enigmamsg 03:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • If the intent was to do damage control as a result of taking an unpopular and (widely-seen-as) disproportionate and unjustified action, then they have failed miserably. This is not how you do this shit, Trust & Safety. You've gone and made a martyr at the expense of pariahing everybody who had any real say in this decision. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 03:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I find it very strange that Fram's page was completely locked and he was given no ability to even speak in his defense on his own talk page. If whatever he supposedly did is so bad that we can't even trust him to post on his own talk page, then why is the ban only for one year? If it's going to be for a limited period of time, why is a year any better than 3 months or 6 months or 2 years? Seems kinda arbitrary, unless they had a specific reason for keeping Fram out of our community for a year and would only need him blocked for that long. I'm aware of the conspiracy theory floated above and our longstanding lack of trust in the WMF coupled with the complete lack of a genuine response certainly make me uncomfortable. Lepricavark (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It's not just that they did that; they also revoked email access. I can understand revoking talk page - this block can't be appealed, and the only use of a talk page while blocked is to appeal - but why block email? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 05:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It's of course possible that email was one area where concerns arose. Nil Einne (talk) 07:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It bloody well better not be, given that Fram can send and receive e-mails via our sister projects. Nick (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I find it completely inappropriate to blank the user and talk page, aside from fully protecting them so no one can say anything. They could've simply added a box at the top rather than getting rid of the pages. Enigmamsg
  • I've spent some time reading about Meta:Trust and Safety, and what their purpose and remit is, and Meta:Office actions/WP:Office actions and what their scope is. I can't currently envisage a scenario involving Fram that would merit an undiscussed, unwarned (unwarned on-wiki), unilateral, unexplained, virtually extrajudicial desysop and one-year site-ban and TP+email lockdown, unless the activities/actions occurred off-wiki. Among other things, I would like to find out somehow, ideally from Fram, whether he received an email warning or any opportunity to discuss prior to the ban and desysop. Softlavender (talk) 04:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't understand...does anyone understand? Shearonink (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • All I understand is that the WMF's quiet act has backfired on it. Surely there's some information that doesn't implicate privacy or legal policies that will be helpful in understanding why Fram's (time-limted, mind you) block was justified, since the boilerplate the office gave us is functionally useless. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 05:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Shearonink: The community is lacking information at this stage, the situation is unusual but currently static. The blocked user has made no comment in the brief time since this was announced, which constrains how members of the local community can and should respond or any actions that can be taken. That is where things are up to, at least, the important bits as I have seen this emerge. cygnis insignis 05:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Softlavender I know Fram is unable to comment on-wiki and that editors' email access from WP-->him has been disabled. I still don't understand...if his behavior, either on- or off-wiki has been so [fill in the blank here folks...we don't know what we don't know] that he is barred from his own user-talk so he cannot communicate with us on-wiki AND his email access has been borked both outgoing and incoming via EnWiki...why does the ban/block only last a year? Shearonink (talk) 07:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) All of this makes me think that I need to find at least one long-term Wikipedian that I trust, confirm my identity with them so that if I get banned by a WMF Office Action I can still be able to communicate with someone who can still post here. I'll have to have my own Designated Survivor on-wiki... Shearonink (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (modification EC) Well one of the reasons why this ban seems to be contentious is because it was only partial suggesting whatever the problem is it wasn't severe enough to warranty a complete ban from WMF projects. So Fram can comment elsewhere if they desire albeit risking being blocked by the other project for importing drama. Then again it's arguably on-topic at meta and at a stretch anywhere since people are uncertain what's the reason for the block and therefore people in other projects may also be uncertain whether there's reason to be concerned over Fram editing their project. Probably the bigger issue is the WMF could consider commenting on the ban elsewhere justification to extend the ban to the other project. And of course, Fram is also able to comment anywhere outside WMF project. I'm not sure if they have any existing identities connected to them elsewhere but realistically a joe job is likely to be quickly noticed. I recall some mention somewhere in this long discussion that others have been in contact outside the WMF universe before this blew up so added reason why it would be impossible to joe job if Fram is interested in commenting. Now whether or not we are able to discuss Fram's comments on en.wikipedia, even more so if they are posted outside of the WMF universe is less clear cut. Still the point remains Fram is able to comment if they wish to. As others have mentioned there is a possibility that Fram has agreed not to comment for whatever reason. More likely they either are not even aware of this yet, are aware but are holding off on commenting for now, or maybe don't even intend do ever for whatever reason. Nil Einne (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • At the risk of taking this a bit too far, I have a few thoughts:
As a matter of procedure, this decision and announcement has been in the works for at least around four weeks, and potentially a lot longer. The WMF knew what the reaction to this would be, but they also know how much power they hold, and probably expects us to complain for a week or so, until most of us eventually get tired and forget all this happened. And after all, what is one admin? Some among us may miss him, but will the project?
If we stop and think, we see the real issue: if we do nothing, this will happen again. The WMF grows year after year, and they become increasingly obsessed with their image, their brand. When they aren't satisfied with the community process, they will intervene. They will give themselves additional powers, bypass community consensus, shape projects as they see fit. And why not? There are no consequences. All the content here is free, but the means of distributing it is not, which means they hold all the cards.
But what is the cost? The fundamental appeal of Wikipedia is that it is free and open, it belongs to no one, and has no agenda. When the WMF takes actions such as this, they undermine those values. In rendering unappealable dictates they deny participation to communitymembers; by subverting existing disciplinary processes they take control from the hands of ordinary users; by concealing their reasoning and motives they engender fear, mistrust, and uncertainty. These actions have a profoundly chilling and disruptive effect.
So what can we do? The WMF would like nothing better than to post their vague non-statement and disappear, to let this peter out. If we wait for them to come back for Q&A, we will be waiting a long time. Our only real option is to force them to engage with us (or our representatives) by presenting a united front and using whatever leverage we have combined. What exactly that entails or how it could be organized I couldn't begin to speculate, but it seems worthy of consideration. Bear in mind: the issue isn't one ban/desysop, it's the role of the WMF in our project and how far we're willing to let them push their authority before we push back. —Rutebega (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • There's one I can think of, but it would likely result in the admin and bureaucrat doing it being whacked - do to WMFOffice what they did to Fram, minus revoking talk page and email, and leave them blocked unless and until they can come up with a satisfactory explanation for this. It's clear the Trust and Safety team fucked this up, so the easiest way to make it clear we disapprove is to block and deop the main office account. It is symbolic more than anything, but it would, if nothing else, force them to acknowledge that there is unrest among the serfs. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 05:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, that's an interesting thought: We can ban by consensus of the community. Granted, the WMF may not honor such a ban and may do what they're doing anyway, but I think just being subject to such a sanction would be a significant statement in itself. (And if the WMF themselves are evading a ban, can they complain if someone else evades one of theirs?) Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • We can't overrule OFFICE (which blocking the associated account amounts to); but is there any ToU reason we can't ban any account ending in "… (WMF)"? So far as I can tell, they haven't carved out a loophole for employee-role accounts anywhere, and that would send a pretty loud signal about our unhappiness at this situation. Accumulating WMF-account block logs over years would also be a nice way to keep track of incidents of overreach over time. --Xover (talk) 06:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • There's a similar long discussion at de.wiki over here. From my cursory glances, I see that the Foundation had ignored the editors in entirety, after posting the same boilerplate statement. We ought not expect anything different, over here. ∯WBGconverse 05:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • So, several problems here. The first is the lack of transparency. I know there are cases where private, off-wiki evidence is used in a decision, and in that case, privacy issues are what they are. But in that case, WMF should at least say that they made their decision partially or entirely based upon evidence which cannot be released to the community. (Of course, they should only be making decisions in those cases; if everything is available to the community, the community should be making the decision as to what to do about it, including nothing.) And in those cases, where they're too sensitive for even ArbCom to handle, I was aware of the details of a few when I was on ArbCom, and there was never a case where only a year's ban was justified. Situations grave enough to be handled by WMF should be cases where a user has done something extremely egregious with serious off-wiki consequences, and should be cases where that person should never, under any circumstances, be allowed back. Not your run of the mill edit warring, or editors sniping at one another during a discussion; that should be handled on-wiki, and WMF should not be handling matters where only a time-limited sanction would be the appropriate remedy. If the issue was, as UninvitedCompany guessed above, related to sockpuppetry, well—in the very thread above this one, ArbCom and the CheckUser team handled an admin inappropriately using socks. So that is clearly not a case where, even by the WMF's own policy, the community can't handle that issue. We literally just handled it. So, this seems like a way for WMF to step in and overrule decisions by the community (including a decision not to act at all, which is itself a decision made), and to do it with "We have banned __________ because they...did something. The evidence of that is...we won't tell you. Our reasons for deciding the ban was warranted are...well, won't tell you those either, but they were very good ones; just trust us." One of the values of the community has always been that decisions are, to the greatest extent possible, made transparently, publicly, and by consensus. By doing things this way, we don't even know what to do next. The WMF statement says Fram can run a new RfA, and, well, sure, he can, but what do we do from there? Is Fram a victim of WMF overzealousness or an error in judgment, or did he do something we legitimately should be concerned about? Should Fram be welcomed back with open arms, watched closely, or perhaps even sanctioned further? Well, because of this Star Chamber style of doing things, we don't know. So, based upon all this, I will, if no one else gets to it first, be preparing a statement of no confidence for editors to comment on, and if that gains broad consensus, the next step from there might be community sanctions or a ban against User:WMFOffice. I think it's time to remind WMF that they are here to serve, not rule, the Wikimedia projects and their communities. I thought that lesson had been sufficiently taught to them with the last few software fiascos and their increased engagement with the community following that, but perhaps Trust & Safety, too, need to learn that "We're going to do what we do, we're not going to tell you why, and fuck you if you don't like it", which is what their statement says (if in more polite language and a great deal more of it), is never an acceptable approach for dealing with the volunteers here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I think this is an excellent idea, and I would love to help you draft the statement. Starting a discussion among the community and determining consensus, if it exists, is the way we make all our important decisions, and it would help organize us and send an unambiguous message to the WMF that we disapprove. We occasionally need the their legal protection, but we don't need this overreach. Community sanctions against WMFOffice, if done right, could show that this community can handle itself, its rules, and its members. It also might be interesting to consider an RFA for Fram in absentia, conditional on the WMF not saying anything more. The page WP:RFA is nothing more than a place to form consensus about whether an editor should be made an admin, and there's no reason we can't form that consensus without the editor in question accepting a nomination at the conventional page. I think starting with a statement like you suggest is the right way to go about any of this. KSFT (t|c) 07:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Banned without the right of correspondence. Careful. You, the unfortunate reader, could be next. EclipseDude (Chase Totality) 06:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The real point is this. "However, on occasion community members submit evidence strongly indicating cases where local communities consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous rules but the Terms of Use, too.". Now, we know that Fram hasn't broken the TOU with their editing on enwiki in the last few months because we can see their contributions. Unless they've been socking, and I'm pretty sure that if that was the case Office would have blocked any socks as well, which they haven't. This only leaves off-wiki activity (including email). In which case, why didn't they just say that - no details would have to be given. Also, anything off-wiki serious enough for Fram to be "disappeared" from enwiki would almost certainly have resulted in a global lock anyway. So we need answers - after all, any of us could be next. Black Kite (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see how we can know that. For starters, how many of us have actually looked at even 5% of Fram's contribs in the past few months? I probably haven't even looked at 0.1%. More to the point, even if every single wikipedia contributor had and none of them who didn't work for the WMF had found a TOU violation, it doesn't mean the WMF didn't find one. Now this disconnect between how the WMF feels and how other contributors feel is likely to be a problem, but it doesn't mean it can't happen. And for better or worse, barring legal action the WMF is the final arbitrator on what is and what is not a violation of their TOU. (And most TOU tend to be written, and the law surrounding them likely, gives wide latitude for the company to interpret them however they wish.) And of course even when legal action proves them wrong, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Actually similar things happen all the time in far more serious areas e.g. employment disputes. Ultimate point being, if people want to say 'in my opinion from what I've seen of Fram's on wikipedia contribs, none of them are TOU violations so I'd like to more info on what contribs, if any, that the WMF found are violations since if I don't agree I want to express my disagreement/stop editing here/whatever' that's fine. But we cannot know that the WMF didn't find some of their contribs were since we have too little info. Nil Einne (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, re "I'm pretty sure that if that was the case Office would have blocked any socks as well, which they haven't" I don't think we can be so certain of this either. If there was a socking issue, perhaps involving an· IP, then there would be privacy issues involved with linking the sock to Fram, and they would have had to find some other mechanism for blocking rather than the same account making that block and Fram's as its only action that day.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, they'd have gotten one of their trusted admins to quietly block the sock account. But I don't think there are any other accounts involved apart from the legitimate EngFram alt. I still strongly suspect this is about Fram's vocal opposition to things like WikiData and VisualEditor. Reyk YO! 07:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment 1) I want to wait a day or two in hope of hearing from Fram, before going bonkers. Fram can figure out ways to communicate with us even if all of xer(?) (that's supposed to be the possessive of the disputed pronoun "xe") wikiproject accounts are blocked. 2) But maybe someone can check if xe has a working email link at commons or meta, since the one here on en.wp is apparently disabled. 3) Yes WMF is showing a considerable tin ear, but that's ok, they lost sight of Wikipedia's supposed goals many years ago already (a rant for another place and time). I appreciate Doc James' efforts to look into this. 4) As someone already mentioned, socking per se is not against the Wikimedia TOU. Abusive socking could have been handled by the local wiki if it had been reported, but it apparently wasn't. 5) I can think of some things that might infringe the TOU without running afoul of en.wp policy (example: using a bot to scrape too many wiki pages) but this reaction seems extreme unless there is a considerable backstory. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: The Inner Party has spoken, so all of us proles just need to suck it up and accept their power creep? That's what I got from the WMF Office statement (and their follow-up statement). From my view, this action violates WP:5P4 by not showing any respect at all to the enwiki community and its established policies and procedures. The claim of "protecting privacy" is ridiculous as multiple groups associated with Wikipedia (ArbCom, Oversight, Check User, OTRS, Stewards, and perhaps others) handle sensitive and private information regularly without any issues. We (enwiki) have people who can and do handle very sensitive and very private information on a DAILY basis. To say that such information couldn't or wouldn't be handled with just as much care by ArbCom is blatantly false. If it's an issue with an editor on a specific wiki, let the established groups on that wiki handle it. If it's so egregious, I have no doubt that ArbCom would act swiftly and decisively to protect the integrity of the project. If it's just someone getting all offended and needing a safe space, then perhaps they need to suck it up and be an adult. People are going to be offended by content on Wikipedia regardless of how careful we are. If it's an issue with someone's alleged actions, we have established procedures for dealing with that. WMFOffice needs to back off and stop micromanaging. </steps off soapbox and goes back to mostly lurking> ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Need for a shorter Resume

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

This discussion is longer than 0,5 GBMB. I'd be happy to read a shorter resume of the above text. --Perohanych (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

To view the summary by starship.paint (talk), click [show] to the right --->

Starship's summary

  • WMF bans and desysops Fram, a WP:MOSTACTIVE user and admin who retains the enwiki community mandate, without warning or explanation.
  • Community begs for an explantion, WMF refuses to provide one.
  • The community gets pissed, starts speculating about corruption being behind it.
  • WMF responds from a faceless role account with meaningless legalese that doesn't say anything.
  • Fram reveals that it's a civility block following prior intervention on behalf of User:LauraHale, a user with ties to the WMF Chair.
  • Community is so united in its rebuke of the WMF that an admin unblocks Fram in recognition of the community consensus.
  • WMF reblocks Fram and desysops Floquenbeam (the unblocking admin), still without any good explanation.
  • A second admin unblocks Fram. Consequences to be seen, but apparently will be fairly obvious.
  • We start speculating about just how corrupt the WMF is, what behind the scenes biases and conflicts of interests led to this, and what little we can do against it. ~Swarm~ {sting} 09:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    • The WMF Chair, accused of a direct conflict of interest against Fram, responds, declaring "... this is not my community ...", and blaming the entire incident on sexism, referencing Gamergate. A user speculates that her sensationalist narrative will be run by the media above the community's concerns of corruption. ~Swarm~ {sting} 10:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Swarm, We have no idea who made the complaint that led to the block - so I would ask that you fix "on behalf of User:LauraHale". As an aside, I think this discussion shows precisely why T&S keeps the identity of complainents secret - even merely the guess that Laura or Raystorm filed the complaint or were behind the ban (the latter who has denied having anything to do with it, btw), has led to intense scrutiny on Laura (and internet stalking on the Site That Shall Not Be Named), which is certainly what no one wants to happen to them when they file a complaint. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I wonder how much of that is due to Streisanding, though? We've been trying to get any sort of information from WMFOffice, and we may as well have been trying to wring blood from a rock since they claim everything is privileged information - which is facially absurd given Fram has faced no further consequences for what he has said on Commons. I understand there are some things that'd need kept secret in this case - but not everything. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 10:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Making a subpage out of this. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 10:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Galobtter, please spare the blame on all those editors who have dragged Laura. She maintains a near-polemical banner at the top of her t/p (we have deleted such edit-notices and banners over MFDs) which prominently links her, Fram and T&S. We have also come to know that Fram had been IBanned by T&S with her. Given that Laura was hardly a low-profile editor and was subject to two ArbCom cases, (whereupon it was found that one of her protector admins did not disclose necessary conflicts), it's quite obvious that the links will be scrutinized.
I don't support anyone posting private pictures over external sites but as a neutral admin has noted over here, Raystorm had participated in the dispute between Fram and laura, with an entirely one-sided approach and had extensively collaborated with Laura over multiple wiki-spheres, from writing reports to delivering talks. Given that she also holds a BOD seat, it's obvious that Raystorm will be asked to provide explanations about potential conflicts. ∯WBGconverse 10:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I did not say "we know", I said "Fram revealed". But that said I have cleaned up the wording. ~Swarm~ {sting} 10:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Summary has been made. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 10:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I have independently posted a timeline below. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Tazerdadog: Sounds useful, but where is it? ——SerialNumber54129 11:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Blanked – Teratix ₵ 11:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: I was informed that it was far enough from a neutral summary to be actively problematic. I think I'm too far on one side of this issue to be well-placed to make a timeline. Feel free to use any parts of it for anything at your discretion, but I will not be re-posting it. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Revert WMF actions related to this conflict

[MOVED to Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Proposals about WMF Office ]

I'm trying to start a split to a subpage for WMFOffice-specific actions, so I moved this over there. Please consider editing this section over there, if acceptable. Wnt (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Office RFC

[MOVED to Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Proposals about WMF Office ]

I'm trying to start a split to a subpage for WMFOffice-specific actions, so I moved this over there. Please consider editing this section over there, if acceptable. Wnt (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Ban WMF people from en.wp?

[MOVED to Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Proposals about WMF Office ]

I'm trying to start a split to a subpage for WMFOffice-specific actions, so I moved this over there. Please consider editing this section over there, if acceptable. Wnt (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for volunteer journalism for The Signpost

——SerialNumber54129 14:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

You might hate me, but Support. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 02:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Nope, oppose. GiantSnowman 08:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Split this page and summary style, obviously. Wnt (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Mu. You can't stop people from making proposals. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • By proposing that we stop making proposals, you have already violated your proposal! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Amusing side note

--qedk (t 桜 c) 15:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

What is this "mu" nonsense?

- SchroCat (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

more like muved to talk Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Your rights have been revoked per our ToU chapter 6 appendix iii point 4.b where you subjected another editor to a terrible pun. Whether the community wishes for you to keep your rights is a different matter but we wanted to block you, so we did! --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Essay about conduct

I wrote that essay for my own benefit. A lot of stuff is getting repetitive and becoming a collective drain on the project. I'm just really tired about how much we have let this all affect how we conduct ourselves.

Everyone is welcome to sign the statement onto it if they so agree with this sentiment. I know everyone won't, and at least some people will be upset at this suggestion. I just would have kicked myself if I didn't actually put this out there, though.

Thank you again. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A perspective on ArbCom's ability to handle sensitive matters discreetly

--Galobtter (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Reactions to further clarification

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

@WMFOffice: I am concerned that this statement does not reflect the realities that everyday administrators/functionaries face about dealing with editors criticizing themselves:
  1. CheckUsers and stewards frequently take action against accounts obviously attacking themselves, using profanities, references to genitalia/race/sexual orientation/occupation/address/relatives' names etc. that I won't use here and that are a lot worse than what Fram said. Are you saying that they can no longer do so and must refer such cases to the foundation?
  2. Fram has also attacked WMF. The logical implications of your statement mean that you cannot take action against Fram, either. --Rschen7754 00:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I note with very deep disappointment that none my substantive yes-or-no questions which could have been addressed without exposing private information were addressed unambiguously. The extent to which the "clarification" obviously evaded the central yes-or-no issues is plain to all. It is so sad that we are now governed by those with such regard for reciprocity and fairness. Chilling in the worst way. EllenCT (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Could WMFOffice please confirm in their next statement whether off-wiki evidence was involved in this specific case? It has been strongly hinted throughout but as far as I can see was never explicitly stated, and Fram contradicted this in his statement ("Everything I did is visible on enwiki, no privacy issues are involved, and all necessary complaint, investigations, actions, could have been made onwiki.") – Teratix ₵ 02:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "WMFOffice", whoever you are, the next time you post anything here, please sign your name(s). The Wiki community doesn't talk with faceless bureaucracies hiding behind an anonymous role account. If you have anything to tell us, tell us who you are. If there's a specific person behind these announcements, I want to know who that person is. If you genuinely composed these statements collectively, that's fine too, but then by all means tell us that. We are people, not institutions, and you guys are people too, so talk as people. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with FPaS. Hiding behind an anonymous account is discourteous and uncivil. Consider yourself conduct-warned by this (not very active, but long-standing) administrator. I don't even know if "you" is just a trigger-happy overeager naive newbie or a power-drunk cabal in a self-reinforcing justification circle. At least, one cannot personally attack an impersonal account, I assume. As for the alleged misconduct: Wikipedia is not a Victorian girl school, and people standing for ArbCom know what they are in for. Fram's comment was an honest response adequately describing the situation at hand. It's not a style I would normally choose, but is entirely within the envelope of normal and widely tolerated behaviour. At most something like this might result in a talk page warning, or after 5 public escalating warnings in a mild slap at AN/I. In particular, it has nothing whatsoever to do with "trust and safety", unless you are in full newspeak mode. Please politely undo this action, apologize, and step back from further stupidity before even more community trust and support is lost. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Petitioning

Moved [2] to Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Proposals about WMF Office since there hasn't been much attention on this thread. @Teratix, Trumblej1986, StudiesWorld, and Seraphimblade: You may revert me if you wish. starship.paint (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

A request to the Office

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

Well said. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, thank you for this level-headed and measured response.StudiesWorld (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I've been watching this for some hours now, and trying to figure out what I want to say, but I think that Newyorkbrad just said it better than I could have. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Well said, Newyorkbrad. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah pretty much this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, thank you. Hey Cas Liber, nice to see you again. I hear the birds outside, so it must be winter for you. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Brad: Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Very well put. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • WMF Office: please de-escalate the situation by leaving Fram blocked banned if you wish, but turning jurisdiction over the block ban over to the en.wp DR system (ANI or Arbcom) for discussion and possible reversal. This includes the IBAN with the WIR member. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC) (edited) 21:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    He's already unblocked. What? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    Floquenbeam unblocked Fram by community consensus (see Fram's user log). I edited my wording since BU Rob13 posted a caution/observation/concern trolling/warning/whatever on Fram's user talk that the WMF ban is still in force and it could be extended if Fram "evades" it. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I want to sign onto this. I think I understand why they banned Fram. I am perhaps one of the few who think Fram is a significant net negative for the project. And I can see the frustration in letting him continue to have advanced rights given how uncivil and hounding he can be. But this was ham handed at best, foolish at worst. How the heck did this action get taken without a least running it by the board first? Looks rushed and ill-thought out. Yes, doing this right would have taken time. But as the line goes "You don't have time to do it right, but you do have time to do it again?". You've made him a martyr. Hobit (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, so much for restraint (see “Reinstatement …” § below). Vengeance is theirs, sayeth the role-account from behind the curtain. Do we start Floq’s RFA now, or should we wait 23 days?—Odysseus1479 00:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not sure which part of "a RfA can be opened once 30 days elapse" is unclear. Neither "now" nor "23" are given. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    Or else what? But, I wouldn't support starting an RFA at all. WMF should restore Floq's bit. If they don't, it's up to Floq whether they want to participate in an RFA. I'm much less invested in the wiki-hat thing so I'm speaking only for myself, but if it were me in that situation I'd decline. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I endorse Newyorkbrad's assessment, and would urge community members to be cautious about escalating the situation. This crisis needs level headed work toward de-escalation, not more inflammatory rhetoric. There has been far too much of that already. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I also echo Newyorkbrad's statement. There's a lot of ill feeling going round at the moment but jumping up, waving our hands angrily and spilling the beer isn't the way to go about it. Blackmane (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I endorse the call for calm and reasoned behaviour. I also fully endorse Hobit's comment. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Welp, I'm going to take the good advice for calm and restraint to heart and not comment any further on this. I hope the meeting on the 14th ends up with a satisfactory resolution. But before I sign off I want to say the following. The english wikipedia is the flagship of the whole empire and you on the WMF get paid because of the unpaid volunteer work of editors here, who you then treat with contempt. The fact that you've arrogated to yourselves the role of ArbCom instead of letting us handle our own business, that you think we're either dumb enough to be fobbed off with boilerplate non-answers or spineless enough to not object to them, proves that you have a low opinion of us. Your bungling of the reblock also shows that you don't quite get how things work here. We may have accept that office functionaries are necessary to step in in extreme circumstances; that does not mean we can't complain if you mess it up. And, unfortunately, the way this has all happened has given the unmistakable impression that office powers have been used to pursue a personal vendetta on behalf of an acquaintance. In short, this has been a catastrophic fuckup and if you don't want to drive a permanent wedge between yourselves and the people who actually write the encyclopedia you'll resolve this issue in a transparent and responsible way. Reyk YO! 12:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
A day and a half later, and this reasoned appeal still seems like the seed for a consensus resolution. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Specific questions for second response as promised

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A more specific follow-up: Does the WMF contest the version of events presented by Fram? StudiesWorld (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Regarding #6: doesn't Arbcom...was one primary target of the person in question basically confirm that Fram's comments to ArbCom was at least part of the reason for the ban? Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but as Fram noted the topic that he was venting about was one that was controversial from the word go anyways, and attracted a lot of anger towards ArbCom. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 20:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
If WMF would have let the ArbCom conduct pass, but there was something else that they felt necessitated a ban, I'd like them to say so - even if they can't say what the something else was. bd2412 T 20:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
BD2412, my reading of their second statement is that they've already said as much. If Arbcom was one primary target, that means it wasn't the only primary target, right? – Levivich 20:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd like it in their words. Basically, if Fram hadn't posted what he did in ArbCom, would they still have blocked him based on whatever the other stuff was that they can't tell us about. bd2412 T 21:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I would add that the above statement says: We take these actions only in situations where we believe no other option is available that will preserve the health and/or safety of the community. My question is, to the WMF Trust & Safety team, can you, after reviewing this discussion and the consequences of what you did, still say with a straight face that you believe the decision you made was beneficial to this community? Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, it was. (My reasoning is above.) Rivselis (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC) CU-blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I can't take this latest statement seriously either. If the fact that Fram said "Fuck ArbCom" was sufficient for T&S to act because ArbCom had a "CoI", then if Fram had also said "Fuck T&S", would they have recused themselves as well? Does this mean that if we all say "Fuck ArbCom; Fuck T&S", we're all safe from being banned? It sounds like we have a simple resolution for this problem: shall I start a page for us all to express ourselves? --RexxS (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This is how Wikipedia settles disputes: a) figure out who is better than who and has the power to silence him; b) whoever has more power does whatever the fuck he wants. It just happened to me right here in this discussion [3] because I called out the original sin of all the hierarchicalization. Wikipedia is turtles all the way down, and under that, us. Wnt (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    That was a dumb suggestion (regarding spilling BEANS) and I don't think the person who reverted it is particularly powerful. I don't want to encourage or enable new kinds of vandalism. But, I'm all in favor of turning the duties of handling the old kind of vandalism over to the WMF. If it wants to micromanage Wikipedia admins, it can manage the vandals on its own resources instead of having us do it as volunteers. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Wow. After reviewing this pathetic excuse of an explanation, it's blatantly obvious the WMF no longer upholds the interests of the community it was established to protect. The above statement is both patronizing and insulting to the community. I strongly agree with most of what's already been said. I'd like to see a) an apology and b) an actual transparent explanation. -FASTILY 23:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not accept for one second that saying 'FUCK ARBCOM', or words to that effect, is anywhere near a 'trust and safety' issue or within the WMF's remit, and it is ludicrous to hold that ARBCOM is unable to deal with such criticism. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

That might have been more feasible earlier in Wikipedia's life, but at this point inertia would make it very difficult to survive if we did fork the project and take it elsewhere. Nevertheless, I would Support this as a last resort. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 02:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Isn't it the size and activity of the Wikipedia community that makes self-governance feasible? Isn't it completely counterproductive to create a smaller community that is more likely to require intervention? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
No not at all, Wikipedia started out with Jimbo running things but took off on its own quite quickly. Bori is right about inertia though, and I think the WMF itself has seen to it. That's why I've said for years that the WMF has a conflict of interest. I recommend to you all the site http://wagesforfacebook.com (a parody of Wages for housework). The annoying scrolling effect is part of the message, but you can make it stop by disabling javascript in your browser.

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

Let me know if you do this; I'd love it. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Forking would only be realistic if you could get the backing of one of the big search engines. As long as Google, Bing and Yandex all top-rank Wikipedia, that's where the traffic is going to go, and the fork will just wither. It's entirely possible that one of the major tech players would be interested in hosting a fork, but that would bring problems of its own; if you find the WMF's ethical flexibility troubling, you're certainly not going to want to work for Muskopedia, Applepedia or English Language Baidu. ‑ Iridescent 07:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I know I cannot possibly imagine the difficulties; but a lot of us who actually write the encyclopedia are fed up with constantly having to deal with new technical challenges, messages that the servers are down for maintenance, crap imported from Wikidata&nbsp... it might even be possible to leave the huge apparatus of discretionary sanctions behind. Heck, there might even be less nomination of articles for deletion without notification of contributors. I don't edit for page views; I edit to put information out there for people who want to read it, and to clarify what others have written. I can't believe Google would not index it, esp. since I understand we would have the right and ability to fork the existing encyclopedia, so they'd find it hard not to list the forked versions somewhere for readers to find them? I already often have to go to the 2nd or 3rd page of search results to get past the chaff. Plus citing Google Books has in the past been a fast track for my articles to get indexed, and they couldn't exactly ban such links? No, I wouldn't want to work for any other the other big techs. But Raystorm's statement on this page encapsulates the arrogance of the WMF. We are to take on faith whatever they say—or don't bother to say—because they believe they own us and our work. They just monetise it, and I am fed up with being monetised. They don't even give us services to do our work: their version of Toolserver crapped out on me yesterday with a 7-hour lag. How much can it possibly cost to set up rival servers, and we can undoubtedly find better programmers. The WMF is a ball and chain that lashes our ankles with knives, even leaving out of the metaphor its misusing our names to raise money it doesn't need. Why on earth would we want to continue to work with them when we do not even receive the slightest bit of respect. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Is not going to work, realistically. In the Wikitravel/Wikivoyage case, even when essentially the whole community split, and even when the whole project was taken over by WMF, it was way below the Wikitravel in search engines and, if I am not mistaken, only recently caught up (I am talking about the English version, other languages had different trajectories). There is zero chance that a significant part of the community will leave with the fork, and thus it is not going to be a success story.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
So you can end up like Voat? Q T C 16:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Meh, Citizendium is still running and someone is still editing it.[4] I thought Wikinfo was gone (it was around for a very long time), but it is (maybe again) up, and the same person is editing it too.[5] I don't care much about "success" since nobody is paying us either way. It would be nice to have a new place to edit that's free of Wikipedia's more annoying bullshit. Of course it would have its own bullshit if it gets any traction at all, but at least it would be different bullshit. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
This is a lazy response to difficult situations. "Fork off if you don't like it" has been used on Wikipedia since it started, rather than resolving hard issues. In practice either the community can defend itself from hostile takeovers and fend off the inevitable slow death by natural entropy, or it dies. Hopefully it will be replaced by something a magnitude better, but that will not happen with a fork which can only ever hope to create something worse. --Fæ (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Forking is feasible if you have substantial support and you can tolerate greater freedom. That second part is the central curse for us -- Wikipedia was a child of an enlightened age; it is hard to believe that today's goons wouldn't have found a way to strangle that child in the cradle. IF you can find an Exalted Master of Men with the money to run a big server with all the content on it, yet one so enlightened he doesn't turn it into his own crooked preserve, then you can make a new encyclopedia with changes. But with so much content and so few people those changes are going to include the usual sort of company vanity articles, spam, Encyclopedia Dramatica style biographies written by axe-grinders. And then the cries of horror that somebody somewhere anywhere would be allowed to be less censored than Wikipedia, which obviously T&S doesn't think is near censored enough, probably as representatives of a larger corporate/governmental belief system. So honestly, I think at this point you should scale back the "fork" plan to something that is also very useful but more practical: we need to get archive.org to back up this entire site. Because the Powers That Be wouldn't be making a move to seize control if they didn't have something they wanted to wipe out. Wnt (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Wnt, that's silly. You can download a dump of every Wikipedia page with its history intact at [6]. I gather it's around 16TB uncompressed. Plus there are numerous full Wikipedia mirrors already if what you want is a third-party backup. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • They own the computers, and the computer users will always be subject to the rules of the computer owners. That means the owners' interpretation of civility will override the users' interpretation. If there is a civility problem in the eyes of the owners, and the users can't handle it on their own, the owners will step in and handle it. That's because we users can say whatever we want here and not really face any consequences, whereas the owners are the ones who have to deal with the real-life legal authorities and consequences (like getting sued and getting subpoenaed). If Wikipedia forked and had someone else host, that someone else would raise and spend the money necessary to host the site, and they would become the new computer owners, and we'd just have a new WMF. The community is not in charge here, it never was, and it never will be, unless the computer users also become the computer owners. Set up a non-profit corporation where every registered non-anonymous editor (that is, registered under their verified real-life identity) gets a share in the corporation. One share per verified named editor. One vote per share. The shareholder editors vote for the Board of Directors, and the Board is in charge of raising and spending the money (including hiring an Executive Director and other officers, buying equipment, renting space, etc.). This would lead to a two-tier editing community: named, voting editors, and anonymous editors, but at least the community would own the computers its using. Someone would have to put up the seed money to get it started (including setting up an identity verification system). A faster way to do it is to petition the WMF to amend its own Bylaws to create this system. (They have the money already.) That might require like a general strike to accomplish. And even if this were done, there would, nevertheless, be politics and drama, as well as incivility and harassment issues. – Levivich 23:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
And also somehow implement blockchain. Everyone loves blockchain, right? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Does the project really need even that many employees? One of the biggest problems with the WMF from my perspective is their constant self-serving drive to encumber us with new and more complex software, forced transclusions from Wikidata, requirements to use lots of complex templates ... whereas the original interface was written to be quick and dirty, and the constant changes mess up our workflow; especially because they employ the most inept programmers they can possibly find, but also because they impose change for reasons unrelated to writing good encyclopedic text, and often for change's sake. We don't need new skins, a headache-inducing media viewer, redesigned talk pages, ever more complicated ways to add references ... and the Toolserver was what, 2 servers and 2 sysops funded entirely by Wikimedia Deutschland, and worked better than the bells and whistles thing they forced on us ever has. (Not to mention we can't get urgent bugs fixed or community software requests fulfilled for any amount of asking.) I can't help but think we could host the encyclopedia on a relative shoestring and under a really small non-profit. (Not hosting huge conventions would also help.) This dog is being wagged by an immense tail. My biggest regret would be that you are probably right about real names being required for having a share in ownership. The WMF itself is in my view responsible for the single greatest threat to the security of community members by urging real-name use, which particularly endangers female, LGBTQ, and politically dissenting editors, and I will always argue that requiring real names is at best insensitive and from anyone who invokes Gamergate, hypocritical and callous. But it's probably a necessity for the kind of legal structure you envisage. I would hope that can be circumvented as much as possibl;e, because our diversity is one of our greatest strengths. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Yngvadottir, where does WMF encourage real-name use? At any case, forking is entirely unfeasible and we need a lot of those employees.
Certain (typically) non-visible WMF teams do a *lot* (I cannot over-emphasise that) to keep this site running and reasonably accessible. Running the 5th largest website in the world ain't child's play and if you're interested enough, I can go into the details of running data-centers, maintaining site-security, operations and allied stuff, but they do a lot.
A decade back, you would not have been surprised to have found your popular geek-website "down" for a few hours; today, it will be sheer unacceptable, even if measured in minutes. For all the VEs and MVs, (what's the issue with skins and adding refs, by the way?) they have done good work -- handling edit-conflicts, introduction of Lua, library-partnerships et al. Also, most of Mediawiki was crowd-sourced by random high school students (IIRC, Abuse-Filter is one such example and pathetic, as to code-quality) and WMF devs have taken a lot of efforts to streamline and re-organise that.
Further, you need to enable a proper fundraising (which will need it's folks) for running the site, maintaining some sort of contingency fund and to tackle legal issues (which is highly important and needs house-staff, despite outsourcing some/much of it). For an example about why so many folks are employed, the folks w.r.t travelling seems to be superflous but Risker (IIRC) has given some insider-justification about doing valuable work, which I can't recall now.
Credit must be given where it's due despite WMF's fair share of outright incompetent (and likely more-visible) engineers, at least one of whom treated the wikis as some sort of personal sandbox for trialing clueless product-designs. To be fair, we can definitely cull some of the staff, but not too many and am certain at that. ∯WBGconverse 18:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I am probably naive. But no, we don't need constantly new ways to do things, and templates are harder to use than the original code (things like two apostrophes to enclose italicized text and square brackets and a space to make a link), which were designed to be easily learned and typable; this is the only place I ever use squiggly brackets, and much of my previewing is for the templates. This stuff may be user-friendly for a tech maven, but it's really offputting—not to mention we used to worry about tenplate overload slowing load times, but apparently everyone has very fast computers now. Except that not everyone does. The WMF relentlessly pushes citation templates (probably they "emit metadata") and I have to think they are behind the push for "sfn", which is a step beyond. The point is, we don't need this complexity. And as for downtime; in the past few days I've had repeated "Our servers are feeling poorly" messages when I try to check my edits in draft space. And up to 7-hour lags on the Supercount or whatever it's called. That is not acceptable performance. They don't even deliver acceptable performance.
They require real names for attendance at any of their meetups, for a good start. (And then tag the photos with real names on Commons.) I'm not far from SF; I considered going to a meetup but they're all held in a secure building requiring ID. They editorialise about the desirability of editing under a real name. I've come to regard the T-shirts as phishing attempts, I'm afraid. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

NSA Hypocrisy

--qedk (t 桜 c) 02:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram/Archive_3&oldid=1145334027"