Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 2,027: Line 2,027:


And this is now exactly what WMF instigated: a witchhunt until the last stone (of the stonewall) has been lifted. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 06:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
And this is now exactly what WMF instigated: a witchhunt until the last stone (of the stonewall) has been lifted. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 06:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
*If true, this is truly the most depressing display of incompetence that I have ever seen, from the staff that performed the investigation, to Arbcom, all the way up to the board. If they had genuine stalking and harassment on him, then they all were complicit in ''letting him'' sew chaos, vilify and OUT the victim, and demonize their staff, they allowed his narrative to spread and fester for weeks, they allowed the community to rip itself apart, they threw their relations with the community in the garbage, and for what? All because ''no one'' would step in to just counter his false narrative? Because they wanted to prove a point that they would never divulge anything? It took some random nobody (rhetorical, no offense intended Jehochman) to do their own digging and find out what actually happened? If this is true, that's a staggering failure, and whoever was responsible for the stonewall strategy should resign in disgrace, with substantial changes on the WMF end going forward. [[User:Swarm|<span style="color:black">'''~Swarm~'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:DarkViolet">{sting}</span>]]</sup> 06:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:32, 26 June 2019

Shortcuts

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

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

    User:Fram banned for 1 year by WMF office

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

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

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

    Statement from the WMF Trust & Safety Team

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Fram's response on Commons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Responses by Jimbo (Jimmy Wales)

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

    Further comment from the Foundation

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

    Dear members of the English Wikipedia community,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Further clarification

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

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

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

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

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

    Reinstatement of Office Action and temporary desysop of Floquenbeam

    Hello all,

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

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

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

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

    Further response from Fram

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

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

    About the ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Statement from Jan Eissfeldt, Lead Manager of Trust & Safety

    Dear members of the English Wikipedia community,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Further comments from Jan Eissfeldt

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

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

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

    Jan Eissfeldt update (06/17/2019)

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

    Community questions, responses, and comments

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

      There are some rare instances when Wikimedia Foundation Trust and Safety will take actions to protect the safety of the community and the public. This happens where actions on local community governance level are either insufficient or not possible. There may be some rare cases where the Wikimedia Foundation must override local policy, such as to protect the safety of the Wikimedia communities or the public. See Trust & Safety Office actions for more details. [23]

      . Furthermore, WP:OFFICE tells us,

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

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

    Response from Fram to Jan

    Jan Eissfeldt said[24]

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

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

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

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

    A suggested resolution

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

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

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

    Endorse

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

    Oppose

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

    Other

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

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

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

    Discussion

    The problem with this resolution (as several people have pointed out) is that - irrespective of whether it is endorsed or not - it cannot be accepted in full by T&S. They make a very clear statement that when you report harassment to them "[y]our contact to Trust and Safety is kept confidential, so no details about your experience will be shared publicly or with the person you are reporting".[28] They cannot change this after the fact, as they can't promise to maintain confidentially in an existing case and then change their mind to pass their names to the person accused of harassing them just because a few dozen people on Wikipedia tell them to. Whoever raised concerns with T&S has every right to expect T&S to maintain their promise of condifentially, and therefore cannot both unblock Fram and then tell Fram who complained in order to ask Fram to stay away. In the end, it doesn't matter whether we oppose or endorse this, as it is doomed to failure. Therefore, how would it look if it was rewitten in a way that could be accepted by T&S if it was endorsed? - Bilby (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Response from Fram to Newyorkbrad

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

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

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

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

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

    Plan D

    Maybe a bit of discussion about plan D would shake the ivory tower up enough to get some progress on Plan A or Plan B. Plan D would be if it if it turns out that WMF is too arrogant, incompetent, un-transparent and too much of an ivory tower to lord over enwiki, for enwiki to leave. The content is public, the main people could all leave for the new separate enwiki. North8000 (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been discussed at this page at some point. I personally think this is a complete non-starter. To maintain the project, one needs community of the size comparable with the current English Wikipedia community, which is totally unrealistic.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    More to the point, one would also need servers the size of a small city—as of a couple of months ago English Wikipedia came to 18,880,938,139,465 bytes, and an independent en-wiki would no longer be part of the WMF ecosystem so we'd need to mirror Commons as well which would be another 40TB or so. Since Equinix would presumably continue to host the remaining WMF wikis they wouldn't be able to host us due to the COI, which would leave us reliant on either Amazon Web Services, Microsoft or IBM; they in turn would either want substantial payment, or would demand a degree of editorial control, and good luck with your "give us your money so we can pass it straight on to Jeff Bezos" fundraising appeal. For better or worse, we're stuck with the WMF. ‑ Iridescent 16:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. And, well, we will need a legal team. And - surprise, surprise - a T&S team to deal with pedophiles.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to give a sense of the scale of what we're talking about, this is the server load Wikipedia puts on the eqiad server. While we're not quite at the scale of Netflix, we're still talking a huge data flow; IIRC the physical infrastructure of Wikipedia (i.e. excluding all the staff salaries, travel etc) costs $4/minute to run, and unless a fork can persuade some donors to defect, or is willing to run adverts, that adds up. ‑ Iridescent 17:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's about the same as Wikia/Fandom, because they serve far more media on each pageview. If Jimbo could get behind it, I'm sure Wikia would be glad to temporarily host while an alternative Foundation is established. EllenCT (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not meaning to sound condescending, but how many of you have read Office actions? I just read it for the first time and it actually shed quite a bit of light on this situation. I was just wondering...would the reaction to Fram's block been different had we known about this policy beforehand? Would Fram have acted differently as an admin/editor? Atsme Talk 📧 16:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      We're well aware of it and it's been discussed at length here; one of the primary causes of this dispute is the WMF rewriting it a couple of months ago to grant themselves authority to do what they've done without any discussion. (This was what the policy looked like at the time of Fram's alleged offences.) ‑ Iridescent 16:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      They already had that authority; they don't need to re-write wiki pages to change that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      In 2016 the Board gave the Foundation management the authority to change the Terms of Use, which still says to this day that only community processes can impose a project-specific ban. But they never bothered to change the ToU to allow for their undiscussed, unannounced February 2019 office actions policy change, so unless you believe their ability to change the ToU allows them to waive doing so, then they did not in fact have the necessary authority. EllenCT (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Really? Where do they say "only community processes can impose a project-specific ban"? And What part of we reserve the right [...] to [...] Refuse, disable, or restrict access to the contribution of any user who violates these Terms of Use [...] [or to] Ban a user from editing or contributing or block a user's account or access for actions violating these Terms of Use" [or to] Manage otherwise the Project websites in a manner designed to facilitate their proper functioning and protect the rights, property, and safety of ourselves and our users (section: #10. Management of Websites ) do you think does not apply, and why? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • We could leave easily. There are already many mirrors. But where would we go? And would anyone notice?
      Server farms don't grow on trees. Also such an exodus would leave WMF with the upper hand and the strong brand, and they could continue in a way that the editor community couldn't. Just not viable. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it possible to do anything to make forking more viable in the future? It has been pointed out that it is more viable to fork smaller wikis (those in a different language). If enough publicity came of that, it might slowly start to make a difference. But the past examples don't inspire confidence that it could happen. The best route appears to be to establish strong checks and balances in the existing systems. Carcharoth (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Plan Y tho: If the server farm issue can be resolved, somebody just needs to make a bot that redirects every page on Wikipedia to the same page on the new mirror, with explanatory banners. That'll partially solve the issues of traffic and moving the community to a new domain. The WMF will try to stop it, but would that really be within their rights? They own the URL, the community owns the content. This is the content the community wants, and it still fulfills the mission of delivering a free encyclopedia, just not one the WMF can control. Attempting to stop it would be counter to their stated goals, the goals for which they accepted donations, which might even land them in legal hot water. This will also allow a nearly-seamless transition for our readers, which should be a top concern. Wikipedia isn't one of the most-trafficked websites for nothing!
    As for staffing the mirror, we can start with long-term volunteers with lots of free time and who've served in trusted community positions. We've got hundreds of those, including people with formal training in law and business.
    Remember, Wikipedia itself is the project that works in practice, but not in theory. It only stopped working because the WMF strayed from their roots. We did it once, we can do it again. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • A server farm "the size of a small city" is exactly right, and the key point when discussing forking the 5th-most-visited website on the internet. Websites run on computers; computers cost money; whoever is paying for the computers will always have the final say over who can and who cannot use the computers. Hence, there will always be "office actions" that cannot be overturned by "the community", and "the community" will always be subordinate to whoever pays for the computers that "the community" uses. Those editors who have expressed the opinion that the community is sovereign over the WMF are just ignoring the basic fact that we're all using computers that someone else is paying for. The only way around this is to set up something like a co-op where editors are owners of the legal entity that pays for the computers, and that would require the editor-owners to give up anonymity (at least to each other). Bottom line: whoever pays the bills makes the rules. Period, end of story. If editors want to make the rules, they need to pay the bills. – Levivich 17:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Levivich, I don't think that means what you think it means. The WMF does not "pay the bills", any more than my bank pays my bills when I write a check for them. I paid the bill, the bank just acted as a repository for the money, just like the WMF acts as a repository for money donated. The donors paid the bills. But in a very real sense, our editors pay the bills. If you were to total up the value of volunteer labor put into Wikipedia by its editors, I suspect the sum would be staggering and probably substantially more than the WMF puts toward hosting it. WMF does not "pay the bills", even if it signs the checks. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not at all like a bank. When a bank takes your money, it's still your money and they're holding it for you. They won't give it to anyone unless you tell them to. When a nonprofit takes a donation, it becomes the nonprofit's money. Neither the donors nor the editors get to tell the WMF how to spend the money, nor are they accountable for how it's spent. The editors and the donors don't pick the web host, or the office space, or set the salaries. If the money is mis-spent, for example if laws are broken, it's not the editors or the donors who are held accountable, it's the WMF–specifically, its trustees and officers. If the web host bill isn't paid, it's not the editors or the donors who will be sued by the web hosting company, it's the WMF. Because they are held accountable, they get to set the rules. If the community wants to set the rules, it will need to take over the functions of raising and spending the money directly, and it will need to also take on the accountability for it. – Levivich 18:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a minor quibble about branding / donor earmarking, but I keep running into Craig_Newmark#Philanthropy when reading about Wikipedia harassment. I'm not sure Alphabet has donated much towards policing the letterbox yet. I gather their subsidiary (google) donated at least a couple million, but that may have been more related to Project Tiger than harassment, I don't know. (The initiative seems unrelated to Rory (WMF) or to WP:TIGER, but rather towards the Indian market.) Amazon & wa Wapo should have to pay a tithe for all the free links to their products/paywall and use on Siri Alexa/Echo, but I've never heard exactly what their recent donation was earmarked for. Phonetics? Deck-chairs? a Randian data center straight outta' Boise? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh the donors pay the bills. And the donors donate largely because of the English Wikipedia. We are the product that generates revenue. Now we dont have much of a say in this because that product has been freely given away under a CC license so even if we all up and leave they still have a decent sized "encyclopedia", but lets not pretend that the WMF is anything other than a body that exists to solicit and then spend donations off the efforts of a small army of volunteers. nableezy - 17:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      It's true, the WMF wouldn't have donations if it wasn't for the efforts of editors, but it's also true that the WMF wouldn't need to raise donations except to pay for the computers, etc., that editors use. Right now, editors provide the content, but they have no responsibility for the $2 million in web hosting fees (or anything else). We outsource raising and spending that $2 million (and the many other costs associated with it) to someone else. That someone else is legally accountable for raising and spending the money, and thus gets to make the decisions like which web host to pick and who does and doesn't get to edit. If the community wrote to the web hosting company and told them we want them to remove the WMF's access and turn it over to a new organization that "the community of editors" is establishing, do you think the web host would listen? What if the donors made the request, would the web host listen? Nope, they're going to take their orders from the WMF, their customer, the people who actually pay the bills. As long as we leave it to someone else to pay the $2 million, we are going to be subject to their rules. If the community wants to change that, it needs to raise and spend the money for web hosting itself, directly, instead of outsourcing it. – Levivich 18:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Nab. The outcome of arguments often depends on the metaphors employed. We had the owner-tenant trope, which automatically wins the discursive battle for the WMF. Here we have a charity metaphor. There are two donors here (a) Those with money to back the project, and (b) those who donate their unpaid time and write the 5,800,000 articles. (c)The intermediary between the two neither donates money nor is actively engaged in actual article drafting, since its bureaucratic work takes priority. (a) pays (b) is unpaid (c) is paid. The only practical beneficiary of the charity is (c), one gets a highly paid, high-flying job with powerful authority. A lot of things can be imagined or inferred from this. One last point, I don't know how things have changed since the University of Minnesota 2007 study, which concluded that 44% of wikipedia content was created by 0.1% of editors, while 10% created 86% of edits (Daniel Tammet, Embracing the Wide Sky: A Tour Across the Horizons of the Mind, Simon and Schuster, 2009 p.205 ). (c) is selecting for recruitment and retention on the basis of emotional sensitivities. The percentages of (b) suggest this profile is marginal to actual encyclopedic production.Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Or, we discuss starting a worldwide Wiki referendum to write a constitution, dissolve the current WMF (except for those maintaining the code and servers), and build a new top level Wikipedia according to the constitution. Even the mere prospect of one of these might be enough to start evolving towards a fix. North8000 (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not seeing much wrong with the "constitution" we have. The problems lie below that level. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes - they pay the bills. But the only reason they have any money to pay the bills is thanks to the endless hours of volunteer time that has created the product they are making money from. Unfortunately, the absence of viable alternatives has created a monopolistic attitude by the WMF - they can essentially do what they want given the absence of competition. Forking is a weak option, but something live a 3-5 day work stoppage could be effective. We wouldn't be disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point, as we all have every right to leave are not participate as we see fit. However, it's only effective if enough editors do it at the same time. Of course, the down side is that if the effect is negligible, we simply confirm the WMF's view that we are all easily replaceable cogs.--Mojo Hand (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    IMHO the most likely path to a fork of Wikipedia would be as follows:

    • Due to the Foundation's incompetence, the stream of outgoing volunteers exceeds the number of incoming ones, resulting in a steady decline.
    • Eventually the number of volunteers on Wikipedia is so small that they cannot keep up with all of the maintenance tasks, as well as with updating articles let alone writing new ones. Wikpedia acquires an outdated status similar to the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, suffers from link rot, poorly-checked vandalism & is far more an embarrassment than an asset.
    • To halt this decay, the Foundation puts Wikipedia into read-only mode. Maybe articles are reviewed for obvious vandalism & other detrimental information, maybe not. (Or maybe it is decided to delete all Biographies of Living People to avoid possible lawsuits for defamation.) In short, Wikipedia stops growing.
    • Some time after this someone is dissatisfied with one or more articles on Wikipedia, writes his or her own version of these articles, & puts them up on the web. They are good enough &/or popular enough that others add their own revised articles.
    • What began as a collection of pages on the web grows into its own organized web encyclopedia. A new community-based project. And one of the sub-projects of this new encyclopedia is to adapt from the moribund Wikipedia all of the articles with useful content -- just as Wikipedia adapted articles from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica.

    And hopefully this new encyclopedia learns from our mistakes, thus not only offering a better reference source for all, but also engendering a less dysfunctional community. I won't make any predictions when this new encyclopedia will come into existence & replace Wikipedia. Though I hope it is soon enough that some who helped with Wikipedia can participate in the creation of this new encyclopedia. -- llywrch (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    If we are into apocalyptic scenarios, I would rather bet on changing the platform and text encyclopedia becoming outdated. Search inside video formats will be implemented within a couple of years, and I do not see us responding to that in any wat. I discussed this a while ago on wikimedia-l mailing list.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Search inside videos sounds like hell. I hate videos. Rockstonetalk to me! 19:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ymblanter:, I'm sorry you see this as an apocalyptic scenario; it is based on my observations during my lengthy tenure here. One dynamic that will be pushing to this result is that -- & I assume I am preaching to the choir here -- contributing substantially & positively to Wikipedia is hard work. One measure of this is that the labor required to write a reasonably useful article is roughly equivalent to writing a college undergraduate term paper; I say this, having done both. (By "reasonably useful article", I mean what would be graded as a solid "C" quality article; articles that deserve GA or FA ratings require far more work.) In other words, the days when someone could just stop by & spend an odd hour or two contributing with no preparation has long passed. Even constructive maintenance work -- reviewing new articles, participating in AfD, commenting at WP:AN, etc. -- can take hours in order to make one informed decision.

    The other dynamic is that people at the Foundation haven't realized this. They still think some average person can drop by, spend that mythical hour or two typing (assuming this contributor types 65 wpm; twice as long if this person types only 35 wpm as I do), & has produced a Featured article in one draft. As the saying goes, work you don't understand always looks easier than it is; the WMF either doesn't understand how much work we spend here, or has forgotten how much it is. Their chronic acts that offend & alienate the various projects only prove they don't understand. The combination of these two dynamics -- the challenge of making positive & lasting contributions, & the lack of understanding of what we do by the Foundation -- results in a steady exodus of veteran editors. Since, as it has been noted, writing an encyclopedia is an unusual hobby to pursue, the potential pool of contributors is very small. Thus the likelihood that the Foundation will dry up this pool by alienating all potential contributors is very high, & the only question isn't will the Foundation destroy its resource of volunteers, but how soon. (And IMHO a successful fork will only happen once Wikipedia is no longer a viable outlet for us wannabe encyclopedia writers.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Levivich (and anyone else): May I ask the stupid question? How much of that humongous server load would we really need? If we copy article space, talk space, file space (which would expand because we couldn't hot link to Commons), template space (for stuff like As of, citation templates, and the infoboxes), and I guess file talk and template talk, but don't bother with Wikipedia space or Wikipedia talk, and start afresh with user space, user talk, and draft space, does it become manageable enough to be housed in a co-lo and appreciably reduce hosting costs? Or have you already mentally stripped out pages like AN/I and this one?? We'd all have to maintain the same user names to satisfy licensing on this site, I assume, and I was thinking things like old AfD's on talk pages would become external links (as would interwikis). But why would we need to host duoplicates of the back end archives at all? Yngvadottir (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      (You've pinged me rather than Levivich, but I'll answer): the English Wikipedia database as of April came to 18,880,938,139,465 bytes uncompressed. At minimum you'd need to fork mainspace and talkpages which will come to about a fifth of that, so let's say between 2 & 3 terabytes. You'd then need at minimum to import every image on Commons which is currently used anywhere on Wikipedia (very rough guess another 2 TB), and ideally the whole of Commons so the images are available for use on Secessopedia (≈40TB!!!). Then, for every article that draws on Wikidata you'll need to subst the data and take the hit of it going out of date from now on, unless you're also going to mirror Wikidata (550GB). For all of this, you'd need not only the current but every previous version. Remember you not only need a system that can store these volumes of data, you need a system that can server up this kind of data to (literally) millions of people at a time. (Remember the old days when the server kept crashing because too many people were trying to read it?) Then, there's the issue of who hosts it; Equinix presumably will refuse as their contract with the WMF will create a CoI, so that means Amazon, IBM or Microsoft are the only people who could realistically do the job, and few people are going to want to donate if the money is going to go straight into Jeff Bezos's or Bill Gates's pocket. I did post it somewhere when the talk of a fork first started, but this is the server load Wikipedia generates; being a top-five website is expensive. ‑ Iridescent 14:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I was trying to ping both you and Levivich, but I am bad at templates, sorry, and thanks for answering. The second screen of data was one of the things that prompted me to ask. I tried to figure out what we would need; I know we would need complete histories for whatever we imported, and I know non-text files are huge, but there are so many articles with too many images, I thought starting with just those files hosted here and then copying over additional files from Commons on an as-needed basis, discouraging galleries more seriously than we currently do, would work out well (since Commons files are free to use). No way we would need all of Commons; we don't now. Nor would we need Wikidata; what on earth for, that's one of the insults the WMF has inflicted on us. Just the interwikis, which we previously did manually and which could appear as external links (same for the Commons categories). I imagine if we didn't copy the WP and WT namespaces, and put up only a simple main page, we could also trim template space quite a bit, but then I've demonstrated ignorance about templates right here :-) I'm still wondering how big it would have to be if we cut out all but mainspace and essential adjuncts (user space and talk space would be new starts, of course, but I can't imagine they're that huge.) I know hosting is an issue, but first, how unrealistic am I being thinking that the elephant can lose quite a bit of its fat while still remaining lovable? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Yngvadottir: It's good you pinged Iri instead of me, because they can give you a much better answer than I could have. A 50TB hard drive costs a few thousand dollars, and it would take less than a day to transfer that on a 1GB/s internet connection. I think it would be substantially more work/cost to go through 5 million articles and figure out which images to copy and which images not to copy. The more difficult/expensive part, technically, would be handling the 7 billion requests per month from readers to view the content. Imagine a 50TB haystack in which you're trying to find 3,000 different needles every second. (It would still be a monumental task even if the elephant lost half its weight and was only 25TB instead of 50.) And any changes to the haystack would have to "go live" instantly, or else collaborative editing wouldn't work. That requires a server architecture like this: lots of very fast computers, connected to each other with very fast connections, in multiple locations around the world, and to get the 99.99999% up-time we need, with redundancies of redundancies and backups of backups. The WMF is paying about two million dollars per year for that. Most importantly and most expensive is the team of human beings you'd need to hire to maintain all of that equipment, plus the infrastructure you need to support the human beings (like offices, benefits programs, etc.). WMF is paying like forty million a year for that. The reason forking would be expensive isn't so much the size of the encyclopedia but its popularity. One place I'll disagree with Iri here is that I don't think there would be any COI in using the same web host as the WMF, and I think despite the complication and cost of forking, if Secessopedia could raise the money, they'd have no problem finding a company to handle the technical aspects of setting up and hosting a mirrored site. Probably the current web hosting companies would be first in line to take the money (and best positioned to duplicate the existing architecture). – Levivich 17:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      "you need a system that can server up this kind of data to (literally) millions of people at a time. " Really? Where are these "millions of people" going to come from? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've put a bit of thought into this and I don't think the organisational or technical hurdles are insurmountable. Yes, you would need to raise a significant amount of money and yes, you would need to hire some serious server iron. Yes, you would need to choose a jurisdiction and set up some sort of legal body to carry on operations. Yes, you could do it for a LOT less than the WMF does by defunding almost all the useless crap they fund and just run the website. Yes, you will need a largish segment of the community to come with you and a mechanism for those people to claim their existing usernames and rights. None of these is beyond the wit of man. But IMO the major problem is this question: What will be different about the new site that makes it worth doing? Any replacement site is going to have terms of use that will boil down to the same terms the WMF uses. Any replacement foundation is going to have something very similar to Trust & Safety, whose main mission revolves around issues such as child protection, account security, handling DMCA notices, responding to search warrants, handing suicide threats on to law enforcement and so on. These are all things that need to be done on a large, community-based website and whatever you replace T&S with is also inevitably going to be ultimately responsible for enforcing the ToU against editors. So: What will be different about your new, replacement wikipedia that means this specific situation can't happen again? Answers can vary from tinkering such as, "T&S can only do global, indefinite bans," to completely new systems of governance. But so far the impetus for forking doesn't seem to be to fix anything, but just to spite the WMF. If you can't identify anything that will be substantively different about the new site, then forking won't make anything better and, in my view, you are going to struggle to have anything to build a coherent new community around. If you can identify something that will be substantively different about the new site, then IMO it's worth at least trying to make that change on this site first, but you need to actually have some concrete proposals and I haven't seen any yet. If you think the existing governance structures are fine and the only problem is that completely the wrong people have found their way into positions of power and that a new, carbon-copy organisation with the right people would magically make everything better then, well, I think you're being naive. GoldenRing (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Absolutely. It makes sense to establish a working model of interaction between the WMF and communities (remember the English Wikipedia is the biggest project but by no means the only one, or the only big one). If we can not do it, the story will repeat itself after forking (even assuming the forking itself is feasible, which I seriously doubt about).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Plan E

    • Now, leaving is indeed a rather difficult exercise ('Plan D'), and WMF would just run on with the remainers (just like Brexit, the EU will get a hit but still be fine). However, large editorial strikes (of increasing length), in the spirit of 'now we do not harass anyone who adds rubbish', would at a decent pace turn this decent amount of information turn into a decent heap of vandalised, BLP- violating, spammy crap. First 24 hours .. then 3 days .. a week? Imagine no-one harassing those spammers, editors who inappropriately attribute or those who feel offended if their article gets speedied. Any takers? --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Participants 'strike'

    • As proposer. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Turn the anti-vandal bots off for a week, see how Jimmy's friends start to complain when their BLP's go unreverted within seconds. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sign me up for that; I stand by everything I said there. If you really want to annoy the WMF, couple it with "everyone write to T&S every time you ever see anyone do anything that violates the Terms of Use". ‑ Iridescent 18:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems like a lot of work. One to figure out exactly what violates the ToU and then two, writing the e-mails. I don't even know if they'll get read. You probably need to be friends with someone in the WMF to get your complaints heard. Enigmamsg 18:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • This prompted me to actually look more closely at T&S's homepage which actually contains no contact information of any kind (other than the Emergency@Wikimedia address used for reporting genuine crisis issues like credible suicide threats). Which in turn begs the question of just how this supposed stream of reports ever reached T&S in the first place, unless they were coming from insiders who knew the personal contact information of members of T&S. With every rock that gets overturned here, it starts to look more and more like the conspiracy theorists are right. ‑ Iridescent 18:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Ha, I didnt believe you and went to check for myself. Thats... special. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, if you were a proper insider, you'd just text them. You need backchannels or you're a mere peon. They stopped being "conspiracy theories" to me when I read Raystorm's response on this page. Enigmamsg 18:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Mayhaps T&S handles whatever comes through the emergency address? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 18:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sure they do, but per the massive warning at emergency@wikimedia.org that's only for genuine life-or-death situations; if someone is using it to snitch on editors they don't like, that's a breach right there. ‑ Iridescent 18:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      The WMF isn't exactly readily available for editor enquiries. A couple of years ago I wanted to contact the WMF in order to ask them what their civility policy actually was. My remembrance of trying to do that is that I would have had to send a physical letter to an address in San Francisco, which meant I would have had to reveal my own address for a reply, which I wasn't happy about. The closest I could get was to contact OTRS. So, when this recent situation arose, I wondered, 'how has someone managed to contact the WMF like that, unless....?' PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      When I was on Arbcom (and consequently better connected than most), when I genuinely did need to contact the WMF they were so resolutely uncommunicative I quite literally ended up needing to contact Jimmy Wales directly and have him relay the message. ‑ Iridescent 19:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      From my awareness, emails at the emergency address are continously monitored (and they have done a good job with it), and it sends out instant notifications to the entire team, so anyone misusing those channels will end up banned if they do it in bad-faith or just be a nuisance. Emails to T&S take a few days to get answered, depending on the severity. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      You know of an email address for T&S? I don't, and nor does their own homepage. ‑ Iridescent 19:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      It is ca@wikimedia.org. It's not present where it should be but I probably picked it up somewhere (tags on office-locked accounts methinks). --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, it's ca@. It's on that page (which I now can't find) that lists who has to sign off on a particular office action. Black Kite (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      {{WMF-legal banned user}} says it's trustandsafety@. —Cryptic 19:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The contact details for each member of T&S are connected from their short bios on the "Team" tab from the homepage. For anyone specifically raising harassment concerns, the Harassment page lists steps they can take, including the email to contact T&S. - Bilby (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...and then it turns out that the whole point of this mess was to get a larger number of reports to T&S, so that T&S can justify a bigger budget with more staff. Or something. Anyway, we don't need to strike or fork or anything like that, because the WMF is still more or less under community control, if very indirectly. Community-elected members of the board are looking into this. If they come back here and say, "turns out the WMF is a hopeless mess, we've hired a new ED to fire everybody except the ops team and rebuild everything from the ground up", well, then we don't need to do anything. If they come back and say, "we've ordered the WMF to have T&S not interfere in matters outside their jurisdiction and set up new rules so that nothing like this happens again", or "turns out this whole mess was caused by someone acting alone who has since been fired", we're also fine. Patience would be helpful now. --Yair rand (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse general strike. Jimmy and Doc haven't reported back to us yet. T&S looks rotten from the inside. Since banning office accounts isn't feasible (and at this point would be meaningless) completely withdrawing from Wikipedia for however long it takes is necessary. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 19:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support in principle, but with extreme caution, and not so 'general'. Please see my 3-point comment in the discussion section below. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, since it's become apparent that the WMF has adopted a wait-'em-out strategy. The scales have fallen from my eyes, FWIW, and I don't see myself ever feeling the same about this place again. It's just another fucking corporation. Miniapolis 22:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per the discussion about a sitenotice below. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this needs to be a bit more clearly defined. If someone leaves death threats for a user or tries to dox a user onwiki, I'm going to act, strike or no. --Rschen7754 00:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I'm not sitting around and watching BLP violations, including potential defamation, get dropped into Wikipedia simply to make a poorly-defined point to the WMF. - Bilby (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Bilby: so, you prefer now to defend the removal of such blp violations and defamations, spammy pages and all until you gather enough people who feel offended by your actions that some contact WMF and get you banned without appeal? Because that is the path WMF seems to have started here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, that is the path that you imagine the WMF have started here. I have no idea what path has been started, as I have no idea what led to Fram's ban.However, if I was concerned about being stopped from removing BLP violations, I'd prefer to address that by a method that doesn't involve stopping the removal of BLP violations. - Bilby (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Imagine, maybe, but barring any explanation .. Bilby, don't get me wrong, I prefer also not to have BLP violations stand (pile up), but in the end it is not your (our) responsibility, it is the reponsibility of the WMF to make sure that you can remove those BLP violations without running the risk that WMF accusing you (banning you for) 'harassing' the editor who introduces them (and I am seeing cases of people who are here spamming, socking, etc. for 8+ years, I cannot imagine how 'harassed' they must feel - maybe I should stop reporting the next socks to SPI so I do not harass them and leave possible copyvio material they introduce alone?). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • If ultimately it was shown that Fram was banned simply for performing standard actions as you describe, then I'd certainly support something. However, while I understand why some might support this, personally I can't reconcile the idea of standing by while BLP violations are added in order to make a statement. It just doesn't work for me. - Bilby (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Nobody ever asked me to join a trade union for Wikipedia editors. (As an administrator, am I management?) But this idea will either fizzle, or if it is moderately effective, would bring widespread public support to the WMF and opprobrium to the "striking" editors. Wow, these elitist nerds are striking in defense of their right to be obnoxious jerks who harass people and throw F-bombs around. That would be the narrative. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as stated. A strike needs a purpose. What are your demands? What would be the conditions for ending the strike? (I'm not watchlisting this monstrously long page, so please ping me if you reply.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Mx. Granger: I mention that in green below (this evolved differently), WMF rescinds all current actions and finds a path to have (members of) the community handle harassment. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for the clarification. I don't think this is a realistic or even a desirable proposal. The relevant team at the WMF has made clear they are not willing to consider rescinding Fram's ban, and as I've argued above, not enough information is public for us to evaluate Fram's ban for ourselves. I'm not sure I fully understand the other part of the proposal – the T&S team is partly composed of longstanding community members, so if I'm not mistaken (which I may be, this is a complicated situation) in some sense it is already true that members of the community are handling harassment. At best, if you're proposing a different way to handle harassment, that's something that should be discussed in a calm, coolheaded manner that carefully weighs the pros and cons, not fought for with a strike. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. This would be very destructive and unlikely to change anything. While I am personally on strike, that is more of a lost-interest-in-editing-because-of-this thing than a this-will-result-in-meaningful-change thing. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Pythoncoder: and that is the point, the only thing that will be felt by WMF is that their top wiki goes to rubbish because people stop 'harassing' other people whose edits are below par. If readers really cannot trust material because it is not maintained they stay away, donations will dry up. I however do agree that it would only be effective if the participation is rather huge, but the prospect of seeing your material deteriorate fast and the consequences it has for WMF .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose We all strike, They say "Fuck you, we'll just pay people to "moderate" the site, That aside I feel going on strike just creates a whole shit-ton of mess that we would have to clean up (pretty sure the WMF won't do bugger all), In theory sounds a great idea but in reality I think it would heavily backfire on us. –Davey2010Talk 00:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion strike

    • I'm concerned that if the community does this, and lets the BLP and copyright violations take over the site, the WMF will interpret it as a reason to grab more supreme executive power from the community. Really, I preferred the idea of grinding the main page to a halt, even if it is a bit WP:POINTy. We did more than that for SOPA, we can do it for this. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I am trying to write a bit of a statement to put here to more clarify:

    --- Statement to WMF --- Harassment is a real problem. But, so much more than child pornography or copyright violations or legal threats, harassment is a two way street.
    Any cleanup action that is performed by one of our volunteers, it being reverting vandalism, blocking socks, cleaning up spam, protecting pages to stop edit wars, tagging or removing COI edits, revdel of copyright violations, tagging of inappropriate or insufficient or lack of attribution, rejection of unsuitable drafts or requesting deletion of new articles, &c. can be interpreted by the volunteer who made the original edit as harassment.
    Generally, these forms of 'harassment' are not systemic, but if the community (or, as it happens, individual members of the community) feel the need to constantly follow up on the edits of certain other volunteers because they are, consistently, not (properly) following our community standards (remember, competency IS required) then that is (even if just perceived) harassing the volunteer that has performed the original edit. In that way, some of us are, consistently or systemic, but in most of the cases not intentionally, 'harassing' copyright violators, spammers, vandals, volunteers who do not properly attribute, sock masters ...
    This encyclopedia is nothing without volunteers cleaning up behind other editors. Problems are not solved by leaving problematic edits alone because the volunteer who made the problematic edit does not like it being handled as such.
    Harassment being a two way street, 'convictions' based on harassment can, never, be executed without looking at both sides. It may be that one volunteer is consistently making inappropriate edits, it may be that the other volunteer is appropriately or inappropriately marking the edits of another party, it may be that both parties are 'in the wrong'. That can NOT be determined without proper, independent and neutral, investigation on both the edits of one volunteer that resulted in the actions performed by another volunteer. That needs to be done by trusted volunteers on wiki, who weigh the edits on both sides.
    The way this has been handled by WMF, makes it for volunteers impossible to work without running the risk of being summarily banned without appeal while trying to keep material in Wikipedia line with our policies and guidelines.
    We, the undersigned volunteers, will go on strikes of increasing length, starting with a full 1 day strike, until the WMF completely rescinds the current actions. During this day, we, the undersigned volunteers, will NOT revert vandalism, spam, etc., will not tag any material that is found which is insufficiently, wrongly or not attributed, not remove material that is violating our non-free content criteria, correct obviously wrong statements, request deletions of any kind, etc. Moreover, participating admins will not perform any actions to stop vandalism, promotion, delete material, block editors, etc. In short, no actions that could possibly be perceived as 'harassment' to anyone editing Wikipedia.

    Thoughts (please, DO harass me over incorrect work, feel free to tag, correct or, even, enhance). --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Lots of good ideas above. How about a high profile meta poll with instant runoff voting to decide between them? When it hits the newspapers that enwiki is trying to decided what to do next amongst the above options, including a worlwide poll to dissolce WMF, seperation of enwiki, the shit will really hiot the fan. The likely decision for "next step" will probably be a strike. North8000 (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @North8000: and you think that having a significant part of en.wikipedia striking will not be in the news soon enough? --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Maybe, but a meta choice with instant runoff structure would move it decisively forward instead of the usual 10 ideas and each of their sub-variants all discussed separately and then nothing moves forward. And having a few extreme measures on there would shift the psychological ground. A milder choice (like a strike) would certainly win as step 1. North8000 (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm doubtful it would be. But it has been damn near a week. Jimmy and Doc have not come back to us. My patience has run out; it's time to force the issue. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 19:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1. The text is far too long. KISS it - short, sharp, and to the point. Avoid aping the WMP's tedious and empty statements. Contrary to their claims, they are not reading everything that is being posted over the FRAMBAN - they are just not bothered.
    2. A strike would only be effective if done specifically by admins (and bureaucrats), and perhaps also by other special rights holders. One must not ignore that after a strike someone will still need to do the clean up and address the backlogs. A few years ago I spearheaded a huge campaign to clean up after a massive and costly blunder by the WMF, and some of us are still smarting from it. The WMF is a bull in a chinashop, they don't really care at all what damage is done through their poor judgment because they always know that the volunteers will sweep up the dirt.
    3. A strike should be the absolute last resort (barring a mass hand-in of admin tools), but one should not have to wait much longer for a reaction from the WMF, the Board, and Arbcom. Something must be forthcoming soon.
    Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't seem to me that a strike would be effective given the number of editors who will assemble to oppose or endlessly delay any action, including admins and I suspect arbs. Let's face it, some people think this is great.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kudpung: I wrote it in a bit of a hurry, it should probably be a statement with a possible hatted clarification regarding scope). I agree that you need a solid number of admins participating, but also editors should follow. I expect that after a 24 hour strike quite some material will be in a dire state. But, to me, that is the message WMF just gave (barring better explanation): stop harassing good faith editors and leave the mediocre or bad material of them standing and let the general content quality go down. The main intent of this strike is that those actions, which to some are (perceived as) harassing, are needed to improve general content. Slow that down and your encyclopedia becomes worthless.
    If the community has over and over to block a reincarnation of a sock, spend 8+ years against one specific spam-company, or months cleaning up after an editor then it is NOT strange that you, even publicly, send such an editor to fuck off (I am not writing it, but some of them I would like to ...). If even higher mechanisms fail (WMF, now even turning against us), then I am not surprised that now some of us will stop 'harassing' editors voluntarily giving the same effect as a strike.
    I hope that 24 hours (or less) will get the message through. I can't imagine what this encyclopedia will look like after a 1 week strike. This place will be FUBAR if we do not 'harass' spammers, vandals, socks, and mediocre editors alike. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:50, 21 Juse 2019 (UTC)
    Beetstra, As I said before, the WMF doesn't care. They know that there will always be enough admind and editors to clear up the mess after a strike. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe a volunteer strike would only work if we organize a publicity committee, who will (1) commission essays explaining the reason for the strike (& which will be posted to non-WMF sites such as Medium); & (2) provide spokespeople to talk to the media.

    The essays need to be posted not only to non-WMF sites because it will otherwise be too easy for them to either be ignored, or obviously suppressed by the WMF. We need to have spokespeople because otherwise reporters will simply contact the usual people (e.g. Jimmy Wales, Katherine Maher, etc.) who can not be trusted to explain the true reason for the strike. In short, a successful strike will require more effort than people simply logging out of their Wikipedia accounts until further notice. (It would also help if we had someone who has been involved in a similar work action to provide advice.) -- llywrch (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Jan Eissfeldt update (06/21/2019)

    • T&S and ArbCom traditionally both triage outreach they receive internally, and then redirect an issue to the other team if appropriate. For example, ArbCom sends child protection issues it becomes aware of to T&S to be handled professionally by staff, while T&S points users who try to side-step community self-governance back to the committee or other community processes. The two teams also have a monthly call to coordinate on shared problems and for the committee to articulate questions or issues they have encountered.
    • To address some of the questions users have raised in response to our process chart, I am happy to provide some more detail where I can. I want to highlight that the T&S workflow is not a parallel process to that of community governance - that is, it and ArbCom, for instance, are not doing the same work - but rather complementary, meaning that ArbCom handles things the Foundation should not, and the Foundation handles things no fitting community processes exist for. Regarding specific questions of our process:
    • What does an investigation consist of?
    • An investigation is a “deep dive” performed by a member of the Trust & Safety team into the information relevant to an incident. This can include material provided to the Foundation in a report, review of past community attempts to resolve the issue, and other relevant information surfaced in further staff research. The aim of a T&S investigation is to not just accurately evaluate the concerns brought to us but to also look at a user’s activities in the context of our projects, publicly and privately, over time. A typical completed investigation document includes a survey and analysis of the case, a suggested course of action, and a risk assessment. All these steps are concluded prior to me receiving the file as the first stage of review for approval as outlined in the graphic.
    • Would a harassment case include things like contacting other possible victims?
    • Yes, we sometimes reach out to other parties whose names come up in the course of an investigation. Whether or not we do this depends, obviously, on whether any other potentially-affected parties are identified, as well as whether it’s possible to reach out to third parties while respecting the privacy and safety of primary involved parties.
    • Who makes the decision about whether a particular behavior is harassment?
    • Initial case conclusions are made by the primary case investigator, who is a member of the Trust & Safety Operations team. As part of their investigation, the team member provides a listing of evidence and conclusions and makes a suggestion of a course of action. That recommendation is then reviewed, in turn and at a minimum, by other members of the Operations team, the manager of Trust & Safety Operations, and me. If the recommendation is something other than “take no action”, the suggestion is then also reviewed by the VP of Support & Services (Maggie Dennis), the Legal team, and the Executive Director. The Communications team and Talent & Culture team are also sometimes involved if the case is relevant to them.
    • Under what circumstances would T&S refer a case back to community processes rather than investigate itself?
    • Most issues are redirected to the community before they ever become a T&S case. This primarily occurs in situations where community governance and attempts to resolve the issue have not been exhausted. For instance, it is not uncommon for users to contact us about behavioral disputes which they have not attempted to resolve using community processes. In other cases, we receive requests to adjudicate a content dispute or complaints about general project governance. Because of our privacy obligations, we are usually not able to refer cases directly to ArbCom or the community - that is, we cannot forward a request on to ArbCom or ANI and say “hey, we think you should investigate this”; instead we will typically reply to the reporting party letting them know that their request is more suited for community governance and suggesting a venue at which they can pursue resolution within those local governance processes.
    • Does T&S ask the case requester whether they want community processes to be involved?
    • It is important to keep in mind that most outreach T&S receives is being redirected to the communities. Because we only take T&S cases where community governance is not a viable option, if we take a case, then the question of using community processes doesn’t arise because it has been looked at in the previous stage. In situations where we do not take a case, we will commonly suggest to the complainant a community process they can use instead.
    • We are aware that proposals have been made that suggest the lifting of the ban on Fram in exchange for varying adjustments, such as the opening of an ArbCom case or the imposition of interaction bans. While we appreciate Fram and other volunteers exploring possible compromises, Foundation bans are non-appealable. I know that is, itself, a point of disagreement for many in the community; however, the policies governing T&S work are clear on this point. I appreciate in particular the idea put forward by Newyorkbrad and his having been explicit that it could only be valid if it is true that the community has reached accurate conclusions about the facts of the case. However, despite efforts by some community members to scrutinize the contributions of Fram and various people who are speculated to have complained to the Foundation, the community does not and cannot have all the facts of this case, meaning that NYB’s condition is not met.--Jan (WMF) (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Community responses

    • JEissfeldt (WMF), the community does not and cannot have all the facts of this case - are you claiming this ban is due to off-wiki evidence? – bradv🍁 15:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll put it more bluntly; either you're lying or Fram is lying, and I know who I believe. Incidentally, who conducted the “deep dive” performed by a member of the Trust & Safety team; was it the member who has a long-standing grudge against Fram based on on-wiki interactions going back years? ‑ Iridescent 15:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @JEissfeldt (WMF): You write Foundation bans are non-appealable. Jimbo has stated that all bans are appealable to him. Could you resolve this contradiction please? Regards SoWhy 15:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to be a broken record, but the puzzling thing remains that the ban was for 1 year. This seems like a highly unusual punishment from the Trust & Safety team. Let's set aside Fram in particular and talk about a hypothetical T&S investigation with information that needs to be kept private (reasonable). If the problem is "fixable", a venial sin, then do a 1-week or 1-month ban, and be willing to offer better terms for kept promises of good behavior. If the problem is not fixable, and the contributor is not a minor, then they should be banned from all Wikimedia sites forever. If Fram really did do something very, very bad, then they should have been perma-banned with no further comment. If the offense was more meager, then T&S should be more amenable to "negotiation" with Fram & the community. The spectrum of offenses "in the middle" seems incredibly rare & narrow. SnowFire (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • It also, as I said at the very start of this page-from-hell, makes no sense to only ban from one project. If someone is so problematic they warrant a year-long ban (pretty much the harshest punishment possible on Wikipedia for anything other than legal cases where someone needs to disappear permanently; even indefblocks are typically appealable after six months), why is the WMF perfectly happy for Fram to continue editing on every other site in their remit? And I'll yet again repeat my challenge; here is Special:Contributions/Fram, please point me to something problematic. If Fram is really such a monster, you should have no difficulty. ‑ Iridescent 15:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Especially if, as Jan seems to be hinting, it involved off-wiki conduct. That makes no sense. shoy (reactions) 15:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be clear, there's all sorts of off-wiki conduct that are 100% worthy of a ban, or bad conduct that won't show up in contribution histories (e.g. misuse of admin/checkuser rights for doxing, violation of privacy, harassment over email, etc.). Almost all of this kind of serious misbehavior should result in a permanent ban though. SnowFire (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • JEissfeldt (WMF), some explicit questions: do you consider the process followed by the T&S team to be infallible? What do you do if new evidence comes to light that shows you were wrong? Do you then re-review a case? What if new incidents occur in a case that was marked 'no action'? If you are prepared to resume taking action on those cases (presumably requiring a 'course correction' to avoid a ban), why would you not resume action on cases where a ban was the wrong result and how does that square with WMF bans being non-appealable? Such a system is fundamentally flawed, and only has a chance of working if those being monitored trust the monitors. If you and your team get it wrong often enough, you will continue to lose trust and eventually a 'course correction' by T&S will be imposed by the WMF Chief Executive or the WMF Board (except you are unlikely to get any conduct warning emails). Carcharoth (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition to that, JEissfeldt (WMF), you say that we don't have all the facts, but not why we don't. So, was the ban related to anything other than Fram's on-wiki conduct? You can answer that question with a "yes" or a "no" without violating anyone's privacy. If there were off-wiki conduct issues, that wouldn't tell us a thing about what they were or who brought them to your attention. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Answering that question could violate someone's privacy if, say, only one person complained about off-wiki conduct. (A "yes" answer would indicate to Fram who the complainant was, if there was only a single off-wiki incident.) I have no idea what the facts of this case are, but your claim re no privacy violations may not be correct, depending on the circumstances. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Calliopejen1, Fram should already know what he supposedly did, and have had the opportunity to deny it or tell his side. If that didn't happen, that's further evidence that this is not at all handled in an acceptable fashion. I could easily, for example, forge an email that looks like it came from you, if I knew your email address. If I did that to joe job you, then you absolutely should have the opportunity to say "I absolutely did not send anything of that sort." (Or "That's taken out of context, here's the whole context", or any number of other things.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • the opportunity to deny it or tell his side.
          • That's precisely how you wind up in a situation where Fram's side of the story gives the necessary clues for others to figure out who the complainant was, and for people on this board to suddenly swarm that person looking for "evidence." Which is exactly what this process is supposed to prevent. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've said it multiple times before, and I'll say it again: T&S's actions resulted in Streisanding who filed the complaint, and regardless of who it is there wouldn't have been such a massive effort to do so if (1) T&S actually explained why the ban was time- and project-limited, (2) they upgraded Fram's ban to a global one either from the start or after the first Commons comment, or (3)co-operated with ArbCom in getting the ban done, as opposed to bypassing them on the ludicrous claim of "conflict-of-interest". —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 19:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • What Jeske said, and in addition to that, that hasn't been presented here anyway. But the primary problem is that it is fundamentally unfair to penalize someone without telling them what they are accused of or giving them the opportunity to defend themself. If allowing them to defend themself results in negative consequences—well, that's unfortunate (and I don't mean that in a dismissive way, that really is unfortunate), but it's still a crucial part of a process to be considered in any way fair. We do not penalize people without telling them why, and if WMF, as they've said here, hope for a "course correction" out of such an action, that can't happen if the individual being "corrected" doesn't know what they're supposed to change! Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • It is fundamentally unfair, but that's how society is heading. It's not just WMF doing this, just look at efforts to censor the names of accusers in court documentation. (although, at least the accused knows who is accusing them and can confront them. There's no due process anymore. Rockstonetalk to me! 20:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Seraphimblade, that leads for me to the following thought: Fram, not knowing what the reason is or who caused this, would now understand that this will just repeat in 1 year from now. Even worse, they is now tainted and the perfect victim for a Joe job when they return, one complaint to WMF and they are out again ('we got another complaint, now it isi ndef and site-wide, you obviously did not change'). In this lack of communication, WMF runs the risk that Fram just outs the whole situation, victimizing maybe some innocents but also the one(s) who really complained and just get banned completely and be done now. The only thing that might stop it is a legal follow up. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Calliopenjen1 the, apparent, fact that the community does not have all information does mean that there is off-wiki evidence. If Fram only talked with one person, then Jan already gave that away. But then, seen that no-one found yet any substantial pattern on wiki does suggest that most evidence (or all evidence) is off wiki (but that contradicts with earlier info). --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to your (T&S/Jan) most recent statement (especially the "I want to highlight that the T&S workflow is not a parallel process to that of community governance - that is, it and ArbCom, for instance, are not doing the same work - but rather complementary, meaning that ArbCom handles things the Foundation should not, and the Foundation handles things no fitting community processes exist for. Regarding specific questions of our process: " part); I'm reminded of the Law of holes. When you find yourself no longer being accurate, or outright bending/breaking the truth - stop. Not that it matters to me (as my recent activity will attest to), but the whole thing is becoming comical. I'm also reminded of The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Credibility is in short supply at the moment. — Ched :  ?  — 17:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Ched, well if you start doubting everything and asking lots of questions you'll get lots of answers.. which creates a bit of a catch-22 on that point of course. So because the community is asking too many questions, the foundation will almost automatically be triggering a Law of holes situation when it answers. If it's not answering, it's 'secretive'. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @TheDJ: perhaps it is not the quantity of responses that people find lacking, but the quality. 28bytes (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should have asked this earlier, but it slipped my mind: if the initial report or review is declined, what processes, if any, does the Trust and Safety team have to remove these blemishes or black marks from a user's "record"? Are they destroyed? Filed away somewhere with "top men"? Or are initial reports allowed to circulate and color the views of others on the T&S team and in other departments? Moreover, if initial review is declined, are said reports simply presented anew later, or what, exactly (or to the ability one can share), occurs? I would appreciate some clarification regarding reports. Likewise, some more clarification on this specific matter, in the vein of the questions above, would also be appreciated. While we may never receive the full entirety of the evidence, the continued stonewalling and distaste toward compromise is not a good look for the Foundation or this team. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 17:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the trust and safety team should be renamed the "stonewalling team". But in all seriousness, the above response is totally unacceptable. Afootpluto (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably just a pile on, but this is a totally unacceptable response. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think WMF just gave us the middle finger. --Rschen7754 18:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 🖕 Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • More stonewalling. At a time when what we need is a clear explanation as to why the ban is one year only and on en.wp only, you give us yet more fucking bloviation. You aren't helping to make your case that Fram's ban was justified, and that's the entire problem here. The fact that you can't be arsed to do so speaks volumes as to the ban's legitimacy. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 18:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • JEissfeldt (WMF), the community does not and cannot have all the facts of this case but I see no reason our elected body for that purpose, ARBCOM, does not or should not. They handle private evidence all the time. Jonathunder (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reading the T&S response felt insulting. Hope this ends well but ready to let go, my ignorance leaves me immune to insults. Alexplaugh12 (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) WP:HARASSMENT has seen significant discussion in the past days, the Community Health Initiative User Reporting System consultation at Meta too, though not as much. I've read proposals on WP:HARASSMENT that reporting should be done to ArbCom... one wonders if it shouldn't be done directly to T&S in the Brave New Wiki-World? If y'all want to direct a lot of mail their way and get them to hire some staff, that would sure show 'em... so I suggest providing WP:LINKLOVE to the anonymous tip jar! :) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 19:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doubt it will work, rather advice the user to talk to a therapist and know whether wikipedia, an unpaid volunteer site and whose admins can be pretty insulting is worth it. I am just saying this from my experience, I have been abused and harrassed but not online. And something I noticed is, people tend to be abusive when they sense weakness or a lack of confidence similar to bullying. If I can think of a way to understand my offline experience in an online space and with wikipedia it will be, an editor can sense a weakness in the way another editor edits, or writes or not follow policy. And you know those who usually enforces all those things.Alexplaugh12 (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @JEissfeldt (WMF): which specific "policies governing T&S work are clear" that "Foundation bans are non-appealable"? EllenCT (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @EllenCT, it was added here in 2017 (the verbiage boils down to "you can only appeal if we give you permission to appeal"). ‑ Iridescent 20:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Which makes the combination of the first two sentences of the last paragraph complete bollocks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Beetstra: sorry I'm not sure what you mean, which two sentences of which last paragraph, please, and why? EllenCT (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @EllenCT: I meantof Jan's statement.
      Anyway, them rescinding the ban and let it go through ArbCom or another community mechanism would not have been an appeal, which makes Jan's statement even more hollow. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I see that page states, "Office actions were originally intended to be temporary actions, alleviating pressures caused by controversial situations and calling community attention to them in the hopes of resolution. However, certain office actions have since evolved to be permanent and non-appealable," without mentioning that there was no community consultation involved with that evolution. And it links to WP:CONEXCEPT, which states, "Decisions, rulings, and acts of the WMF Board and its duly appointed designees take precedence over, and preempt, consensus. A consensus among editors that any such decision, ruling, or act violates Wikimedia Foundation policies may be communicated to the WMF in writing." -- okay, in writing where and/or to whom? EllenCT (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am saddened and disappointed by Jan's response. If the T&S team had a good case for banning Fram there are so many ways that they could convince us of this without violating anyone's privacy. Every verbose non-comment like this further moves me to believe that the Fram ban has no deep or sensible justification. Haukur (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @JEissfeldt (WMF):
      1. Was Fram banned for harassment?
      2. Was Fram's ban based on publicly available information (i.e. in page revision history or logs), or was it based on off-wiki evidence?
    You did not respond to these question when I first asked them eight days ago. I would appreciate if you would answer them now. Thank you.- MrX 🖋 20:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • From Fram's own commons space response, per the information provided to him by the WMF the ban was in respect of the "Fuck the ArbCom..." response to a banner placed on his and others pages. Either Fram is wrong about that - and there has been no comment to that effect from what I have read - or there is deliberate misrepresentation by the WMF on the basis of the ban at that time and where we are now. I cannot believe that volunteers are still being shit upon by people who owe their livelihood to them... no, wait, I can. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only thing this new statement demonstrated is that you're unqualified for the position you're in and ought to be dismissed. You addressed precisely zero of the community's complaints. No need to be so verbose; you can say nothing just as easily with only zero characters. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You would have thought that after SuperProtect, Mr. Eissfeldt would have learnt that "giving the same non-answer over and over again and hoping it all goes away" is not an optimal strategy. We still haven't had an answer to a simple question - why didn't you hand it over to enwiki's ArbCom to deal with? There are a few answers to that, and none of them leave the WMF looking very good at all. Black Kite (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm deeply concerned that a question of substance is answered only by a reference to policy. Foundation bans may be non-appealable - that does not in any way justify upholding what seems to be a misguided and counterproductive block. Unappealable is not the same as unchangeable. Moreover, while essentially everybody seems to be fine with unappealable bans that are necessary from a legal perspective, what a large number of editors does not accept is that this privileged status is automatically extended when the foundation (or T&S) extends it's remit beyond what is legally necessary. If "the policy is clear", then the policy has to be changed. Or there needs to be consensus for it - fat chance for that! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @JEissfeldt (WMF) and WMFOffice: Could you please comment specifically on how and why the ban duration of one year was chosen? Why not a day, a week, a month, or 6 months, especially in light of this wiki's 6-month standard offer practice? Can Fram avail themselves of the 6-month standard offer, and if not, what are the reasons T&S decided to go twice the "standard offer" length? Thank you. – Levivich 18:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break

    • If members of ArbCom or other functionaries believe they are targets of onwiki harassment by other users and complain to T&S, would T&S refer such a case to the local ArbCom (where it can be handled by community processes) or would you deal with the matter yourself? —Kusma (t·c) 21:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Add me to the editors who are unhappy about this statement. I'm going to speculate that Fram has been telling the truth and that Jan has been also, although one or both are unmistakably leaving something out. Fram says that he didn't do anything off-wiki. Jan says that there is important information that the community cannot know. Well, that means that there is something that T&S considers important that is off-wiki, and that it didn't come from Fram. So we pretty much know now that the ban was based on things that were sent privately to T&S by the person or persons who complained about Fram. And we know what Fram has done on-wiki. And since the ban was from only en-wiki, we know what Fram has done onsite here. And the community, for the most part, doesn't see something that merits a 1-year ban (and what is more, does not merit a global ban). So one or more persons have made accusations to T&S that would apparently be minority opinions on-wiki, and T&S decided that they would take serious action on it. And T&S decided that ArbCom would either be unable or incapable of dealing with it. At a minimum, this means that T&S have stricter standards about something than the community does, and that a relatively small number of editors who have views that are not widely held can forum shop to T&S if they don't like what they are getting here. Many of us have suspected all of this, and now we can be more certain that this is the case.
    I don't expect WMF to clarify this. But I hope that our representative to the WMF Board, and ArbCom, will take a "deep dive", as it were, into that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We also know that Fram is saying the email from WMF said this ban has been triggered following your recent abusive communications on the project (my emphasis); that at no point have any of the assorted WMF people claimed that Fram is falsifying the emails so it's reasonable to assume they're accurate reproductions; and that at the very least myself, Jéské Couriano in this thread, and probably a lot of others, have already done this "deep dive" of going through Fram's history diff-by-diff and found nothing other than "was rude about Arbcom" and had an argument with Fæ (and Fæ has been adamant they had nothing to do with this, something I've no reason at all to doubt; Fæ is not shy about making it known if they've complained about something). If any of these are things T&S consider worthy of a harsher block than the appealable-after-six-months blocks we give out to spammers, sockmasters and long-term vandals, somebody needs to let us know what has changed. ‑ Iridescent 22:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. The "deep dives" that I want to happen should be done on the stuff that the rest of us are not allowed to access. In other words, a "deep dive" into what went wrong, and why. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    These are all Fram's deleted contributions for the past four months as of just after the block; as you can see, they're all just routine maintenance. I know TonyBallioni has checked if there was anything oversighted and found nothing of any concern. Either there's server-side suppression going on (which is technically possible but well into paranoid conspiracy territory), or someone is lying about this block coming from something that happened on-wiki. ‑ Iridescent 22:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've checked through it as well all the way back to the time Fram got the initial warning. Most of it is very boring stuff, new page patrol edits, that kind of thing. I did also check revision deleted edits, but found nothing of concern there; those were deleted due to the actions of others where Fram happened to have an intervening edit, not because Fram said something that triggered a revdelete. There were some suppressed edits from ANI, but that appears to have been a large-scale suppression of many edits, and there's no indication that any inappropriate edit by Fram is what triggered the suppression (and if it were, chances are he'd already have been warned or blocked by the oversighter who handled it). But other than the bit of a spat with Fae (and I fully agree with Iridescent, I believe Fae when he says he had nothing to do with it), and the "fuck ArbCom" bit and some other heated comments in that scenario, I just don't really anything one wouldn't expect to find when looking through any admin or new page patroller's edit history. So either Fram is so good at hiding his misconduct he's fooled all of us, including several experienced admins, but the eagle-eyed WMF spotted what we missed, the WMF is making a mountain out of a molehill, or there is off-wiki evidence that they didn't even advise Fram about. The first scenario is, shall we say, exceedingly unlikely, and either of the latter two are unacceptable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    While server-side suppression is technically possible I don't think it is very likely given that WMF struggles to keep things going already (see phab:T223039 and phab:T224811). Manually deleting things from the database might break a lot of things, and I think we would know if WMF changed the database schema to add an extra field for this new feature. --Rschen7754 00:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I think a third party reported Fram based off of either the ArbCom or Fae incidents, and (as they have been known to do) T&S took the claims at face value without conducting any serious investigation. We know that neither Fae nor any ArbCom member contacted T&S with this information. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 00:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently didn't happen either here or real life. That would leave social media. I have to assume the "deep dive" goes beyond wiki elsewhere on the internet, simply because they'd be stupid not to..--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Email is a more likely vector, not to mention social media is the last place you'd want to air a complaint that requires privacy and discretion. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 04:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lets get some people "the community" trust, say Nybrad, Gorillawarfare, to look at "the evidendence" and report their conclusions. That is what Fram has suggested, but the WMF have stalled. Why? There has to be something else than "this is the law"...those "laws" were not given by God, or chiselled in stone, Huldra (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Huldra and Sphilbrick: I think that we already have a group of people that is authorized by the ENWP community to adjudicate cases with private evidence (if there is any), which is the ENWP Arbitration Committee. One of the many unclear elements of this case for me is how WMF came to have the opinion that Arbcom is untrustworthy. Even if WMF has persuasive evidence that Arbcom is untrustworthy, it appears to me that the manner in which WMF has handled this case is arbitrary, unwise, and disrespectful of the community. --Pine (✉) 02:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What User:Iridescent said. Either User:JEissfeldt (WMF) is lying or Fram is lying, and I know who I believe. (Fram said here that everything he is banned for is on wiki.) At the moment the community's trust in the leader of WMF Trust and Safety is fast approaching zero. Huldra (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on what's publicly available (which I readily concede is not the full story) and the En-Wiki specific penalty, I do not see how the matter here does not fall within ArbCom's scope and competence. As such, the only legitimate reason for the WMF to act in this way is that they do not have confidence in ArbCom and our admins' ability to handle misconduct by high profile admins. If this is the case, and there are some grounds for concern given the difficulty we've experienced over recent years dealing with a few high profile and systematically uncivil editors and the comments from current and recent arbs about problems they experience when dealing with cases of harassment, would be very helpful for the WMF to explain the nature of their concerns so that work can begin work on addressing them - noting that this has to be a high priority. If the WMF acted for a different reason, I have major concerns about this action given that it seems to be a vote of no confidence in ArbCom and the volunteer admins who perform important roles in keeping this Wikipedia running. Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. In what world do you say that our policies and our court-of-last-appeal are deficient and not provide anything that would help get them up to par? Thus far, WMF has not explained how our policies are lacking or why, other than a vague "conflict of interest" handwave, ArbCom is not up to this task. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 00:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is one other possible condition under which the matter would possibly not go to ArbCom: if the person complaining was an employee of the WMF (possibly not the one previously mentioned). The WMF has (as far as I know, and note that I'm not a lawyer), some kind of duty of care towards their employees that might necessitate the matter being dealt with internally rather than by ArbCom, even if "the situation" happened on en-wiki. That wouldn't explain why the ban wasn't global, however - unless T&S thought Fran's behaviour was A-OK on every other project (or... the person(s) involved aren't active on any other projects that Fram is active on). Just throwing this out there. And add me to the people who are deeply disturbed by this office action and strongly object to the way things have been handled by T&S. Ca2james (talk) 03:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a possibility, and we should be mindful of the possibility that this was legitimately a least-worst response from the WMF: it is obviously not in anyone's interest to have a situation where one of their staff members (or anyone else) faces risks or is harmed as the result of lodging a complaint. I'm certainly troubled by Jan's comments about their team needing to be anonymous due to the real risk of threats of violence against them - I'm sure that even the strongest critic of the WMF's actions here want all members of the team to be safe. If it is the case that that issues around a duty of care guided the WMF's response, they should tell us to help efforts to address the problem. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This response is another verbose fuck you. I think the only new information from this post is a confirmation that T&S will not be providing any acceptable response. In my mind this gives the community the green light to implement direct actions to correct this. At this point, I have lost all confidence in Trust and Safety, and I hope Jimbo or Doc James can end this before relations between the community and the broader WMF are further damaged. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be an interesting board election next year if all this continues.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironic that the Trust and Safety team has lost the trust of the community. Either they need to be replaced completely by trustworthy people who know how to communicate in the most basic ways, or they need to have very little, if any, power to do anything on the English Wikipedia. I know for a fact that I do not trust T&S, and safety is questionable at this point given the comments above. - Aoidh (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The T&S team hasn't lost my trust. I think that they have failed to explain why they needed to take action here (in terms of procedure and why it couldn't be handled by ArbCom, rather than the details of the case), but the team has a good track record. Nick-D (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I should not have spoken for everyone. It's possible that what they did was completely legitimate, but given how it's been handled, I don't trust that it was. I also don't trust that they can handle things correctly, even when the reason for the actions are valid. - Aoidh (talk) 02:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • What, exactly is meant by this? However, despite efforts by some community members to scrutinize the contributions of Fram and various people who are speculated to have complained to the Foundation, the community does not and cannot have all the facts of this case, meaning that NYB’s condition is not met. (Emphasis mine) Are you making a list of editors that you suspect have complained to the foundation for the next round? SQLQuery me! 03:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That just refers to the people who have been suggested as having been the person who reported Fram. Are speculated to have complained, not are speculating as to who complained. nableezy - 03:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find this to be confirmation that there exists a body that takes it upon itself the ability to make unaccountable decisions. That the easiest way to get rid of somebody will be to make a complaint to a body who need not even interview the person in question to get their perspective, who will not even inform them of what they are accused of, and who will not allow any appeal. We have all accepted this in the case of certain serious issues, but nobody has even pretended that is the issue here. I was accused the other day of stalking to an article I had edited 6 whole years prior to the person who accused me. The T&S team apparently would take this accusation as proof positive of my guilt and ban me without allowing me the opportunity of offering a defense. Jimbo, if this is not what you had intended to have happen then you need to say so. Loudly, directly, and yes publicly. Because this offends me to my core, and to be honest, I dont even really give a shit about Fram. nableezy - 03:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Foundation bans are non-appealable. I know that is, itself, a point of disagreement for many in the community; however, the policies governing T&S work are clear on this point." Given that these are the policies the foundation created it seems rather odd that there would be an attempt to argue that the foundation can't change them. "Limited by policies" lacks a certain credibility when you wrote said polices.©Geni (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @JEissfeldt (WMF): By blocking Fram and refusing to comment on whether her statement about relevant diffs is true, you have created an "anti"-harassment process where the penalty and the defense are public, but the allegation is unexpressed. The way I see it, either Fram is sanctioned actually because he made some or all of the diffs he mentioned - in which case the penalty is massively unreasonable, no matter whether they were required to put him "on warning" or as the "final straw" - OR you are intentionally leaving some people like User:LauraHale and User:Raystorm in harm's way, leaving them positioned as "fall guys" to take the flack that someone else started, without even being willing to speak up and so "no, it wasn't them." Further, no one believes that you really "HAVE TO" block anybody for a year and only a year - that's not how legal or litigation pressure usually works! So I believe that you want to block someone for reasons you say we don't have, which if true means that you have intentionally set up other editors to take off-wiki and on-wiki abuse and doxxing because you think you can take some kind of secret action "to make the wiki better". No, you are not making the wiki better -- none of this antithetical closed-culture sit-down-and-shut-up not-an-editor-just-a-petitioning-bum-at-the-mercy-of-WMF nonsense is ever going to make the wiki anything but worse. Wnt (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Wnt: One thing you should *never* do when trying to keep the identities of people confidential in cases like this is say "No, it wasn't them", because that sets you up for the next time you fail to say it and the then obvious assumption that it *was* them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd say it's especially boneheaded to give out just one bit of evidence to Fram with a single identifiable "victim", and then stonewall on everything else. It's possible LH would have gotten flak for this regardless, but T&S practically put a target on her back with this stupidity, whether or not she filed the complaint that led to the ban, and whether or not there are secretly 100 other complainants. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Boing! said Zebedee: Normally I would probably agree with you. But there is one exception to that general rule, namely when you've already appeared to point at a person and say it was him. Then it would make some sense to, at the very least, back off and say no, you didn't mean to say that diff was the reason for the block. And the way Fram tells it, it doesn't seem like the 'warning' was really making much effort to keep anything confidential at all, and if the block wouldn't have happened without it, I'd say there's nothing confidential except what, if anything, is Jan Eissfeldt's thought process. Wnt (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @JEissfeldt (WMF): We know already per your responses that off-wiki evidence generated by the complainant(s) was used in the consideration process for the ban. But has any off-wiki activity by Fram been considered? Fram has denied partaking in any questionable behavior off-wiki. If he is lying you should say so explicitly, and we would be satisfied with that answer. If not we expect a better explanation. As Wnt indicated before me, the cat's out of the bag already, so you might as well be fully transparent and quell the rumors. For example, if you provide a dump of 20 or more diffs (the more the merrier) showing the full extent of Fram's behavior that led to the ban it will 1) show the community the standards to which T&S holds the ToU, as "harassment" means different things to different people; and 2) cast a wide net since you'd be showing Fram acting that way to many different people, making it impossible to pinpoint the complainant(s). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @JEissfeldt (WMF):: Although it's true that there's a lot the community doesn't know about this, I feel like you've already told us enough to reach the most important conclusion. The initial statement at the top of the page says that you did consider going through ArbCom (ie. it was an option), but that it was rejected because privacy measures would mean that the best we could have given Arbcom in this case would have been a distillation of the case, severely limiting their ability to handle it and because Fram's criticism of ArbCom could put volunteers into a very difficult position and create the appearance of a conflict of interest regardless of the actual handling of the case. Given the damage the mishandling of this incident has done to the project, I think it's fairly reasonable to say that that was a mistake and that you should have gone with ArbCom regardless? The reputational damage with the community here vastly exceeds anything ArbCom could have suffered from a theoretical conflict of interest (especially since, of course, the WMF was also one of Fram's targets, something that has, inevitably, led to the exact same appearance and ensuing grumbling you were trying to avoid - but with significantly more damage because unlike ArbCom members, the WMF can't be replaced or held accountable in any way if the community thinks they are abusing this trust.) Not only that, but the massive blowback has significantly endangered the people whose complaints led to this situation - that shouldn't be the case, but the reality is that, whether in public or private or offsite or wherever, trying to guess exactly what happened here is going to be a parlor-game for years to come, endangering the privacy of everyone involved. None of that would have happened if you'd just gone through ArbCom - the case might have been awkward, there might have been some grumbling if it led to a ban based on sealed evidence, but this five-alarm catastrophe and the ensuing fallout wouldn't have happened. I think that what most people are looking for, here, is some affirmation that, in similar cases, the WMF will go through ArbCom in the future when it is at all feasible to do so; and that, based on the stated justifications (ie. the things you have told us) there wasn't enough justification to skip past ArbCom in this case. --Aquillion (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the WMF doing?

    So far the WMF has said what actions it's not going to take. It's not going to (and I'm trying to phrase these 2 lists neutrally or failing that pro-WMF):

    • Reverse or allow an appeal Fram's ban (and thus in anyway accept the compromise offered by NewYorkBrad)
    • Disclose the evidence or identities of the person that led to it to anyone outside the WMF
    • Enforce its office action through punitive measures against Floq/Bish/WJB for going against it
    • Provide any additional clarity beyond its current writings and statements about the kinds of actions that could lead to similar bans being handed out in the future

    It is going to:

    • Continue the anti-harassment reporting initiative where it will listen to projects like English Wikipedia but be the one to make the final decision
    • Continue to defer to the community about most complaints
    • Listen to what is said
    • Provide occasional statements about issues raised
    • Answer questions where it can
    • Have a dialogue with ArbCom

    This second list is frustratingly non-responsive to the things it has said it won't do mainly because, other than not taking action against the Fram 3, it doesn't take the community seriously, other than having a dialogue with ArbCom, which at least I thought was already happening and was part of our dismay to learn it wasn't. Without backtracking on anything the foundation has said it won't do, there are still things it could do. I will name two examples, but better thinkers could likely come up with even more and better options.

    • Appoint a high-profile lawyer, thus ensuring privacy/confidentiality is retained, who could affirm both that the process the WMF says was followed was followed (which I don't think anyone is seriously contesting) and that there was a reasonable basis for the action by the WMF rather than deferring to the community.
    • Ask the whole Wikimedia movement to elect 4 people to join 4 WMF staffers on a X month long commission to examine Trust and Safety policies and procedures to see if any changes can be made that would increase fairness to accusers and the accused.

    I would hope that the WMF agrees that there has been long term harm to this project (e.g. by the sysops who've resigned, because of this action). This harm continues to grow rather than dissipate (e.g. the 2 sysops who've stepped away from the toolset in the last day). So even if they don't change anything about what they're not willing to do, I would hope they could accept responsibility for this damage, act as a leader, and offer real, meaningful, steps to mitigate additional harm by offering some concrete steps about what they will do to move forward from here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't want to discourage further brainstorming, but just to keep the record clear here: "dialogue with arbcom" (or the subset able to join in) did happen, the T&S members who attended were very generous with their time, and I think we're all still digesting and considering followup. Sorry that's so opaque. I don't want to get ahead of ourselves, but I don't want people to think nothing happened, either. Opabinia externa (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Opabinia externa (and alter ego Opabinia regalis), is there any plan by the ArbCom to let us know what you can about the call and its results, and any time you think the Committee might do so? I know it will take some discussion, but I think patience is wearing very thin here, and the dismissive say-nothing statements from WMF certainly have not helped in that regard. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "the T&S members who attended were very generous with their time" - given the amount of volunteer time used up (I won't say wasted - standing up to bullying is not wasted time) by this "insufficiently considered" extension of WMF power, I doubt we can break even if the WMF works on this alone during the next year. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yeah. What fraction of War and Peace are we up to now? But it's hard to coordinate schedules across time zones and real-life commitments, and I think we should acknowledge positive steps.
    Sorry, Seraphimblade, I don't have a time frame to post. Arbcom is not speedy in the best of times. But we're working on it, not just waiting around. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'd like to have some positive steps to acknowledge as well. Unfortunately, the only steps by WMF have been negative, in hardening and reinforcing its position. Once we have positive steps to acknowledge, yes, we should consider those, but we need them sooner rather than later. But the step that's ultimately necessary is WMF stepping back from ever intervening in something like this again, and that's really not negotiable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that except for their not pushing things around the perms of the FRAM 3 that the WMF has been incredibly quiet on solutions which. As they have all the information and we don't, they are in some ways best equipped to provide. I had hoped we could draw some thought to actions that WMF could take without them backtracking on anything they've said they won't do because that seems to be our current impasse. But if it's not WMF, arbcom does seem like the next best group and so hopefully their work provides a new Avenue to address all the concerns raised at length here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A very quick estimate suggests we're about halfway through the second copy. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Data analysis for tone

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

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

    I've seen some suggestions here that at least some of the "deep dive" might have been done by AI and textual analysis software. We actually have a tool we can test out: [29], so I've been doing that. The results are that the tool is a fool. Here's what that tool says about the probability of various statements being a personal attack, or aggressive in general.

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

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

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

    Fram's "Fuck ArbCom" comment

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

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

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

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

    Arbitrary break sponsored by big AI corporations

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

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

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

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

    Compilation

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

    Out of interest, why this script? Was it used by the WMF? Did they use software to analyse Fram's edits? - Bilby (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bilby: There is a theory on this page where is considered that (all) volunteers have been profiled using AI (see #On lying, collapsed box and below), and that they took one volunteer who scored high (or low, depending on your perspective) and built a case. That theory would be more likely true if Fram would score pretty bad against their peers, even if we use another (less smart?) algorithm (as long as we build the set using one algorithm). I would just like to see if it is possible that WMF would have performed something this .. stupid .. to assess editors against each other. It could even mean that there are no volunteers that complained about Fram to WMF (and that is why they do not disclose more about the reason that Fram was banned) - it may even just be this algorithm. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is possibly the case, I do have a corollary to the analysis I did above with the tool. Evidently the more text is plugged into it (and this includes a revision ID) the lower the overall score appears to be as opposed to with individual statements in that revision. The "Fuck ArbCom" post, taken as a whole (via searching by revision ID) scores 21% attack/29% aggro. This is, notably, less than the average rating for all the individual statements I scored (~40/~41). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 03:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That is why it would be informative to see whether Fram's average is indeed 'one of the highest ones on this site' (keeping in mind that we know that it doesn't mean a lot). (somehow I expect that this theory is also not right, but lets see if it would be a viable option). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • I have asked @JEissfeldt (WMF): "Can you confirm that the tool has not been used to evaluate editors, and that any papers etc based upon its results will be withdrawn?". Just because the tool has been shut down does not mean it has not already caused harm. There are also questions of competency about its development, but for now we do need to know just what it has been used for. DuncanHill (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    No good is coming out of this

    I can imagine some possible scenarios.

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

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

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

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

    Independence?

    It's clear the community does not approve of the WMF's actions or of their ability to arbitrarily ban respected members of the community without saying a word about it. Which leads to the natural question: does the English Wikipedia actually NEED the WMF? Why not give them the boot and just revert exclusively to local control? The people of this wiki should decide matters that concern this wiki, not a bunch of bureaucrats. Jtrainor (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    How would you go about that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Step one: raise a few million with Kickstarter or Gofundme. Step two: hire people who can set up a non-profit, secure the necessary hosting, and handle PR. Step three: copy. – Levivich 23:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just out of curiosity, has anyone actually raised "a few million" with Kickstarter or Gofundme? My imporession is that they were primarily used to raise much smaller amounts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a look at Gofundme a while back, to answer a question about the success of people who turn to it for help with medical emergencies, which is one of the major goals people raise money with it. In short, the chances of success are not good. In this category, only one in four campaigns achieve their intended goals, & those succeed due to aggressive advocacy & a pre-existing & extensive network. (I can provide links, if anyone is interested in further details.) My impression of Gofundme, & of a few other similar programs, is that they offer little more than being a wallet for fundraising, & success heavily, if not exclusively, depends on the people running the campaign. -- llywrch (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    GoFundMe#Notable projects, Kickstarter#Top projects by funds raised, List of highest-funded crowdfunding projects. It's true the campaigns are only as good as the people who run them. I think it would take hundreds of the core community convincing thousands of active editors to support the venture, and that might attract the attention of tens of thousands of donors and a few very rich people to match. – Levivich 06:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So..... the WMF but with a different name? Rockstonetalk to me! 05:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be different if the new non-profit allowed editors to vote for all of the Board seats, thereby giving the community actual control over how money is raised and spent. Without control of the pursestrings, the community doesn't control anything. – Levivich 06:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Some reading on this topic might be done by hitting ctrl+f or cmd+f and searching for the word "fork" on this page and the corresponding talk page. The Foundation owns this site, for better or worse, and the best option to achieve what you're suggesting would be to fork. While doable, there would be much thought needed and likely many who oppose it. Killiondude (talk)
    Wikipedia and Commons between them cost $4 per minute to host. Do you have a spare $2 million to get us through the first year, plus whatever it costs to buy a server farm, hire programmers and technicians, set up a legal department since whoever hosts us the BLP violations will still be there? Obviously, you've already thought of how you're going to persuade the WMF to give up the "Wikipedia" trademark and URL, two of the most valuable pieces of intellectual property in the world. ‑ Iridescent 21:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Jtrainor You don't speak for the whole community. I see a lot of good that WMF does and I do trust that this situation (while not handled the best) was done for good reasons. Just because there's a lot of loud, angry people on this page railing against WMF, doesn't mean the rest of us share that feeling. In my own dealings with WMF, I have found the people involved to be good listeners, pleasant and genuinely concerned both with spreading knowledge and stopping harassment on various Wikis. I can't share the reactionary idea of "Wikipedia good, WMF bad." I think that the situation is obviously more nuanced than that. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything practical than can be done along the lines that Jtrainor suggests (see Iridescent's response above), but, be that as it may, castigating them for "not speaking for the community" is hardly helpful. Jtrainor's opinion is their own, as are the opinions of everyone on this page, but I will say that it's quite obvious that more people generally agree with Jtrainor's POV than agree with yours, Medialibrarygirl. Your opinion is in the minority, notwithstanding that there are other valued and prominent contributors who agree with you. The consensus of the community is quite clear in these discussions, so I would advise that you stop trying to marginalize the opinion of an editor who is more in tune with the community's viewpoint than you are, despite your numerous contributions to the dialogue. (see WP:BLUDGEON) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Megalibrarygirl, I think there's more to it than just "Wikipedia good, WMF bad." I've also worked with WMF, and they're not demons, though at the time I was on ArbCom my perception of their competence was...shall we say, checkered at best. They certainly do in fact do good things. But for a lot of us here, editorial independence and local control is the absolute red line between "The WMF does their thing, we do ours, and we tolerate one another even when we disagree" to "Oh HELL no, this is not going to happen." And at this point, it seems that WMF has crossed that line and intends to keep going, hence the reaction. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To add to that, WMF has made some very interesting choices as to their priorities. MediaViewer and this is apparently more important to them than fixing Croatian Wikipedia and Azerbaijani Wikipedia. --Rschen7754 23:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Megalibrarygirl and neither do you speak for the community. I cannot share the reactionary idea tof "Foundation secret policies and secret processes right, community openness wrong". DuncanHill (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @DuncanHill: Sometimes openness isn't best. I don't leave my bedroom windows open! Privacy is also an important right. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Megalibrarygirl: More so than to know of what one has been accused? No. "He's done such a horrible crime that we can't even tell him what it is" is a vile position to take. A complete denial of any semblance of natural justice or human decency. DuncanHill (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @DuncanHill: when victims are involved, as it seems to be the case, and their privacy is important, I'm going to side with the victims. These victims are whistleblowers, calling out issues of harassment. Most whistleblowers and victims of harassment experience even more harassment when their names are known. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Megalibrarygirl: So any accusation is true, and no one has the right to defend themselves? DuncanHill (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @DuncanHill: I think that's very extreme. Cases can be evaluated and verified to discover if an accusation is true. I'm not going to believe every accusation of anyone without evidence. I don't think that was done here. Do the accused always have the right to defend themselves? Maybe. It depends on the frame of law you're referencing. Even in the US, people aren't privy to Grand Juries. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    All the evidence is on-wiki, as we've been told. Where is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Megalibrarygirl, that one I'll particularly object to. The accused may not necessarily have a right to appear before a grand jury (though in some states they actually do). However, all a grand jury can possibly do is indict someone. A grand jury cannot convict someone. An accused absolutely does, at least in the US, have the right to be advised of what exactly they are charged with doing, who has accused them of it and whose testimony will be used as a witness against them, and to call witnesses, testify on their own behalf, and cross-examine the accuser and witnesses against them. If we're using the US legal system as a model, then certainly no such due process has been followed here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite right. This is a fundamental denial of any right to reply that Fram has. This is silencing the critic, bordering on Nazism. And WMF's silence in response is fuelling the fire of its own destruction. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Maybe you don't leave your bedroom window open. I don't either. But a bedroom is a place where one is entitled to and expects privacy. Wikipedia is not my bedroom, or yours. It is a public place, and no one has the right to expect "privacy" while doing things in full view of the general public. (TRM, pulling a Godwin is not at all helpful.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)@Seraphimblade: Victims of harassment should expect privacy. Like I said above: they are whistleblowers. Anyone who follows what happens to whistleblowers when they're outed knows it isn't pretty. (And thanks for the call out about Godwin.) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would buy the whistleblower aspect if there was any evidence at all that anything off-wiki had occurred. Fram has been clear that he has been told that all evidence is "on wiki", so it's hardly whistle blowing if every single shred of evidence is still available online and yet not one single soul has been able to point to what has led to a unilateral one year ban on en-wiki only without remit for appeal. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Whistleblowing is a questionable comparison to begin with. To my understanding, a whistleblower is an insider in a large and powerful organisation who publicises information about wrongdoing by the organisation and rightfully might fear reprisals by that organisation. In this case, there is no large and powerful organisation - just one admin. And there has been no publication of information - on the contrary, there has (apparently) been some kind of private denunciation. And assuming the alleged victim became public: the damage one admin can do to one user he or she is known to be involved with is minimal. All admin actions are public and are logged - as are all on-wiki communications. And we have community tools like e.g. interaction bans to protect different parties from each other. Of course, there is the potential for off-wiki harassment - but that risk is there, anyways. So in short: no insider, no large organisation, no significant risk for (on-wiki) reprisals. And hence no whistle-blowing. I can understand the desire for privacy, but that has to be balanced against the absolute requirement for a fair process. In this case you can't have both, and I value a fair and transparent process more. We have had secret denunciations, star chambers and witch hunts in several societies in the past - never an episode we are proud of today. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever you say. It stinks, you know it, I know it, and the Nazis did the same thing, fuck Godwin. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The Rambling Man, no, the Nazis did not do the same thing. The Nazis murdered very literally millions of people. I'm certainly pissed off about what happened here, but I think we ought to have some perspective on it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on, don't be silly, I'm comparing the behaviour in this case. That those who spoke out against WMF (the establishment and their friends) suddenly found themselves banned. I don't honestly believe that anyone rational would suggest that WMF are murdering Jewish people, that would be absurd as you well know. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the comparison to Nazis is not particularly apt, and is too emotionally fraught to be useful. I would say rather that the WMF has taken a step toward authoritarianism and its ethos of centralized, rather than popular, control, and that in itself is not a good thing. Of course, it's in tune with the political zeitgeist of this age, but not only does that not make it right, it's really the complete opposite of what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, the comparison is extremist, but then I find WMF's behaviour to be extremist too. There's a lot of talk about Fram's "victims" here, like he's a murderer or a rapist and I'm really not comfortable with it in this context. It seems that this term was used by at least one of the WMF people. Without any demonstration of evidence. So it's a problem, a real one, and now one for Fram too, convicted without a case. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree that there's a tendency -- not only in these discussion, but currently in Western society in general -- to automatically believe that any claims of victimization are absolutely true, and therefore anyone accused is automatically guilty. In many societal situations, evidence is presented to support the claims, and the public (or the courts) can make a decision on the basis of that evidence. That's fine, but it appears to me that some here have convicted Fram without knowing anything substantive about the situation, while others -- the majority, in my view -- draw no conclusions whatsoever about what Fram did or didn't do, and are focused instead on the process by which a sanction was arrived at.
    As I implied in a comment above, I would have no problem if the exact same sanction was applied by ArbCom after dealing with evidence once it was turned over to them. The issue is not Fram, the issue is not the "victims" or their privacy, the one and only issue is that the process was illegitimate and a usurpation of the community's rights. Turn it over to the community to deal with, and Fram, the complainant(s), and the community would be properly services by a legitimate process. To use the "victim card" -- as I see being done here by a number of editors -- is to poison the well: they 'assume' that the sanction was appropriate because they've been told that there have been complaints of harassment. There are "victims" so the person blamed must be guilty. That bothers me a great deal, not only when I see it here, but when I see it in the news, or in my neighborhood. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Megalibrarygirl I completely agree it's more nuanced than that. Unfortunately, no-one is going to find out how more nuanced it is until Jan and the rest of the WMF quit with the "we're right, this is happening, now go away" stuff. We've been here so many times before; Superprotect, Visual Editor, Flow, Image Viewer ... and we know how those turned out. And yes, I know this is not software but policy, and yes we know there are times that the WMF has to globally block editors for good reason ... but as many people have said, there's something not quite right here, and if we aren't being lied to (which, frankly, I doubt, given the WMF's previous track record), we're certainly not being given enough information to make a decision on the situation ourselves - and that information wouldn't even have to involve any outing of complainants or anyone else. As I said above, a simple answer to "if this was all on-wiki, why wasn't it passed to enwiki's ArbCom?" would be enough for now ... Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, WMF have acted so out of line on this, and their ongoing silence is testimony to their mistakes. Anyone who claims to "trust WMF" should now start providing good examples where WMF have "done the right thing" because they sure as fuck haven't here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What information is sufficient Black Kite? Basically, it seems that there is privacy issues and protection issues. So where do we have the right to pry open a privacy issue? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you're privy to information none of the rest of us are, none of us know that. We've asked repeatedly whether there's private information involved, and received no answer. Fram asserts there wasn't and that there was no off-wiki contact with anyone whatsoever, and the WMF has not disputed that. But even if there's private information involved, ArbCom routinely handles private information, and is subject to a legally binding NDA to keep it private. So even if there is something that can't be revealed to the community at large, it could be handled by ArbCom, and that wouldn't breach privacy at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish I knew more, Seraphimblade. People are staying mum. I never interacted with Fram, myself either. I just AGF here. I really do trust that there's something going on that involves the privacy of victims and I think their privacy is important. As I said above, I've had good experiences with WMF, which I know is different from the other editors on this page. I can't imagine them doing this just to be nefarious. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What would you say about m:Requests for comment/Superprotect rights? --Rschen7754 23:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that happened 5 years ago. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't you think that attributing these people with a "victim" claim is also feeding a fire? We, the community, have no idea what has happened here. All this "victim" talk without any evidence whatsoever is deeply deeply prejudicing against Fram. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So private that even Fram isn't aware of what this one-year ban on one Wikipedia is specifically related to? The chilling effect now on all editors that anything WMF suddenly decrees is beyond Arbcom's ability and thus results in a ban is unacceptable. Everything, apparently, is on-wiki, so GFDL applies, there's no privacy problem with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Megalibrarygirl: You AGF of the Foundation, and assume bad faith of Fram, all based on no evidence whatsoever. Why? Why not admit the possibility of cock up followed by cover up? DuncanHill (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @DuncanHill: why would that happen? That's assuming a pretty big conspiracy. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Because WMF made a huge mistake. That's not a conspiracy at all. What is a conspiracy is to hang, draw and quarter an admin without any evidence or discussion whatsoever. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Megalibrarygirl I cannot see any situation in which an answer to the question posed in my last sentence is not possible without revealing any private information. WE don't need to know who complained, or what they complained about (in fact at this point they're verging on being irrelevant). But what was so unique about this case that the WMF trampled over community dispute resolution processes? It's really not a difficult question. Black Kite (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite: there are lots of situations where revealing what happened will lead to people identifying those who complained. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Megalibrarygirl: Cock up followed by cover up? No, not a big conspiracy at all. Happens all the time in all sorts of organisations. Half the time the cover up is unconscious. Why do you assume good faith of the Foundation but not Fram? DuncanHill (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @DuncanHill: Seriously? Everyone at WMF is totally never going to leak if this was just a "cock up?" I don't believe that. Please don't put words in my mouth about Fram. I don't know anything about Fram. I don't even think this discussion is really about Fram at all. It's about issues of autonomy, privacy and the like. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Megalibrarygirl: You're the one who is insisting, without any evidence, that there are victims here, and the WMF banned Fram to protect them. If that's not assuming bad faith about Fram then nothing is. Don't try to weasel out of it. I dare say someone will leak, eventually. Sooner, rather than later, would be better. DuncanHill (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you've nailed it. We don't even know what the discussion is about, yet WMF have summarily destroyed an admin without any justification. And the community thinks it stinks. The WMF have remained resolutely silent on any detail at all. Symptomatic of an omnishambles if all evidence is currently still publicly available. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)@DuncanHill: Jan's statement mentioned victims. They exist. I'm just going off what is on this very page. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Megalibrarygirl: Do they exist? Why can nobody find any evidence that Fram had any "victims"? DuncanHill (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe they do exist. The WMF has been caught lying repeatedly in this matter. Enigmamsg 16:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Enigmaman: - specifically, what are the lies? starship.paint (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    All the claims made were about on-wiki behaviour. No-one appears to be able to find such "victims" other than one who has a huge banner against Fram on her talkpage. Can we clarify this ongoing use of the emotive term "victim" here please? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Rambling Man: - well ArbCom was also one primary target of Fram. starship.paint (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Megalibrarygirl I don't see it. The WMF has globally banned many editors in the past and I AGF enough of them to believe that they were for a good reason, even if we never knew what some of them were. But here this isn't a global ban, it's an enwiki one (together with a desysop), things that should be dealt with my ArbCom. And WMF are stumbling around failing to give any good reason why a ban of one of their biggest critics - another big coincidence, no doubt - wasn't left to enwiki ArbCom, and in the process leaving themselves open to all kinds of conspiracy theories. This is not a good position to be in. Not for the first time, the WMF haven't thought this through, and you would have thought by now that they would understand that "shut up peasants, we know best" isn't exactly the best way to talk to a community. Black Kite (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite: It's super obvious that they didn't go about this the right way. This is causing a lot of grief and trouble. I don't think that the WMF is trying to shut up one of their critics. That seems like an even bigger conspiracy and there are plenty of very vocal critics of WMF going about editing just fine. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Megalibrarygirl My point exactly, really. When you've backed yourself into a corner like the WMF have here, it's only likely that such conspiracy theories are only going to gain credence; and stonewalling when there's really no need to (because they could simply say why it wasn't passed to ArbCom, even in the vaguest of terms) makes that even more likely. Black Kite (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite: - WMF stated they felt it would have been improper to ask the Arbcom to adjudicate a case in which it was one primary target of the person in question. starship.paint (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Starship.paint: Which is a strange reason of itself; Arbcom have routinely accepted (and declined) requests for cases where the complainee(s) have grudges against Arbcom as a group and arbiters specifically as part of the evidence presented. Arbcom allows for that in the public investigation of claim and counterclaim and some individuals will recuse because of past Arbcom interraction with the editor(s) concerned. Ti really is a weak argument that you cannot use the local police station because the arrested individual does not like the building or its employees, so it has to be a Secret Courts issue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello little LessHeard, long time! Weak? Yes. It would be a feeble, frail, infirm, limp, ailing, effete, faint, faltering, ineffective, languid, lethargic, puny, sickly, slack, tired, wan argument. Also a ridiculous, cockamamie argument. But did WMF really offer that argument, Starship.paint? Where? Bishonen | talk 15:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    @Bishonen: #Further comment from the Foundation (2nd statement ever made by WMF here). Secondly, we believe ... Visit WP:FRAMSUM if you need more refreshers. starship.paint (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, OK. Thank you, Starship.paint Bishonen | talk 16:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    Glad to help! starship.paint (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @LessHeard vanU: - I don't think it's a good argument either, on another virtue - Fram was apparently a vocal critic of WMF, so there would apparently a conflict of interest there too. starship.paint (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Starship.paint:A very good point, and one to be remembered in further considerations. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would even go further to say that I know why about 2/3 of the globally banned editors are banned, and it is for good reasons. --Rschen7754 23:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Which makes the point even more of a point - this isn't a global ban. Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Independence seems far too extreme, as the Foundation and the projects have built each other, helped each other, and have almost always given each other a form of its own independence while, together, sharing with the world a treasure yet to be fully realized or honored. That's all the Foundation should realize. They could call "Uncle" and throw Fram to the wolves of Wikipedia. They could also share much more with the community (I kind of like my 300 more full-travel and lodging scholarships to the yearly Wikimania Conference idea, essentially for those productive long-time members who've never been to one). But of course independence isn't warranted as yet, it's way too early in the season for that solution. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Megalibrarygirl, my voice is barely a squeak, lowly content contributor here with no permissions, no prior dealings with the WMF, no nothing except a lot of books and an enormous amount of time tithed to this website. If I'd complained, and there have been instances when it would have been warranted, I want it kept confidential, but more importantly I'd want to trust the person/s I complained to and trust they could deal with the situation appropriately. Fram is not a saint, never has been, so I won't defend some of his actions, but he does care deeply about content and quality control, and not all criticism = harassment. So in that sense I will defend. The biggest issue here, though, is the process or rather the failure thereof. The perception is that men in black swooped in and disappeared him, which is not something we as a community should tolerate, whether it's Fram, or anyone else, except for the very serious exceptions that we've all seen and accepted without a peep. In my view, one of the issues that's problematic is that apparently the nature of Office bans changed sometime around the time WP:OFFICE was updated to reflect partial bans. The update should have been publicized and maybe discussed. Because it wasn't, people are assuming the worst. Trust and safety made an unforced error, opened themselves to being seen as less trustworthy to those who might really be in need of their services in the future (along those lines, why don't they have a page here and supply contact info?), and as such more open lines of communication is vital. We don't have to know the specifics; we as a project and a community, which includes all of us, only need to know whether we can trust them. I'm not sure I can. Back in the day Moonriddengirl was one of the few editors I trusted completely and implicitly, which is still true. Would she have done this with her WMF hat on? Dunno, but during the VE dust up she was there every night responding to questions and that's what's needed now. Victoria (tk) 23:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Victoria. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Victoria, yes indeed, thank you. According to Jan above, yes, she did do that. Moonriddengirl is Mdennis (WMF), and Jan stated that she did review and approve this action. Seraphimblade Talk to me I was not aware of her medical leave, but in this case she may not have (though the process apparently takes a month, so without knowing how long the leave was, she still may have been involved). If she wasn't, however, whoever was standing in for her would still presumably have done the review. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]
    @Seraphimblade: Are you sure? Jan said that is the normal procedure, but Maggie is on medical leave. --Rschen7754 01:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Rschen7754, thanks, I didn't know that, so I've adjusted the comment accordingly. Though even if she didn't, whoever is standing in for her presumably did. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, if the treatment just handed out to Megalibrarygirl is any indication of the treatment given people who step into the walled garden, this is precisely why there IS a “silent majority.” No one wants to be invalidated like she has been with the tone given here, and some of you I consider friends who should know better than to target anyone who arrives in good faith to present an opposing view. The rest of you, well, you also should learn better than to attack at a such personal level —unless your intent is to shut down all opposing views in order to force a false consensus, in which case, bravo, you’re doing well (/sarc). Montanabw(talk) 00:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    A discussion in which a significant proportion of the active editors in the community are participating is hardly a "walled garden" by any definition. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The "silent majority" is also against this action by the WMF. The people approving of the WMF's tactics are a decided minority here. Enigmamsg 02:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's an opinion from one of the formerly silent majority: I really dislike the use of "silent majority" as an argument and as a rhetorical device. Like so much of this saga, while unstated positions might be suspected one way or another, they are unknown. Currently fewer than 1 in 7 "very active" (100+ edits/month) editors have participated on this and related pages. The same is true to the top active wikipedians (3 of 20). There's probably not even anywhere near a majority of active admins (4 of the top 20). Sure it's probably a supermajority of regular dramadiscussion board participants, but my guess is that a sizable chunk of active editors have no idea about this issue, and of those who are aware, some sizable chunk are awaiting something on the outcome of board and Arbcom discussions before they decide how many torches to bring and whether to pack a spare pitchfork. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 05:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    To me, this whole kerfuffle boils down to three related but somewhat different issues: a) the question of whether Fram finally got a long overdue comeuppance, and b) the question of whether the WMF was the entity to deliver said comeuppance, and c) if so, did they do so in the proper manner. From the walls and walls of text across multiple pages (and if folks are looking for diffs, several have been posted, the problem is finding them again), the answer to c) is “no, they botched it.” There are different theories why, and frankly, even if their execution had been perfect, the howls of protest would still be loud. But before c) can be fixed—and it does—the issues of a) and b) need to be addressed.

    For a) Fram is not the worst civility offender, but he is one of the most powerful, and as such was flat-out frightening with his threats and hounding. Earlier voices commenting that Fram should have been sanctioned by the community a long time ago are accurate, but it is also clear that no one wanted to take him on...the time sink and bandwidth this case has taken is proof of what could have happened to someone brave (or foolish) enough to take him on...the dogpiling is substantial and an ArbCom case would eat someone’s life for a month. But in reality, Fram is actually a sideshow, the real issue is b):

    For b), it is perhaps asking a lot of both sides to acknowledge that one one hand, en.wiki is not the quasi-anarchist paradise that a lot of the regulars here have promoted, (as you don’t actually own the servers that make it all possible) but on the other hand, the community has worked long and hard to establish a level of independence and self-governance that needed a nod. So this is why I think it is important for the loudest voices here to settle down and quit whining that your “rights” are being trampled. Maybe they were, but maybe it’s time for some introspection and asking why the community failed to govern itself to the point that such a spectacular crack of the whip was instituted. JMO. Montanabw(talk) 00:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Well there's an example of how to demean and attack a lot of editors without triggering the decency police filters, and indeed without bothering to post any evidence whatsoever. DuncanHill (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Montanabw: - did the "silent majority" weigh in on proposals like Newyorkbrad's? It's alright if they don't want to discuss, but when it comes to deciding on a course of action, they must offer their contribution. If the "silent majority" will not deign to contribute at all, then I don't think they have much say in the matter. Also, without the specifics of the case, how will our introspection even be accurate? starship.paint (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I commented there. You can see the numbers of folks who opposed for different reasons. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I saw that. Megalibrarygirl, I also did see the numbers of folks who opposed for different reasons, you're outnumbered 30:91 which is essentially 1:3. You and Montanabw, who both commented, are not part of the silent majority, but part of the non-silent minority. For the (at least) 62 silent opposers in the "silent majority", time to speak up. starship.paint (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    1/3 is not statistically insignificant. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a majority either, silent or otherwise. DuncanHill (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Megalibrarygirl: - I think you meant 1/4 (25%). In any case, DuncanHill has made my point for me. starship.paint (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not weigh in with either support or oppose. That doesn't mean I ignored it, I read it with extreme interest, and hoped I could weigh in, but I asked some questions, some publicly, some privately, and I determined that I did not have enough information to either support or oppose.S Philbrick(Talk) 02:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sphilbrick: Let's just do a count, and add you to the oppose side, along with one other editor who weighed in NYB's page. That's 2. Let's just add everyone in the neutral section to oppose side. I count 11 editors who made neutral first point responses. So 11 + 2 = 13, which is far from the 62 needed to establish a majority. starship.paint (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Starship.paint: On the other hand, on my part I didn't comment because I consider the outcome to already be clear. In accordance with the principles of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOTAVOTE, I didn't feel a need to say anything because I didn't have anything substantive to add to the discussion. Certainly I would have added an explanation and caveats to my comment, but nothing that I felt to be sufficiently important and that wasn't already being addressed. (Further comments below.) Sunrise (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Well, I don't see how anything wrong was done here. Megalibrarygirl said her piece (which of course she's every right to do), and others responded to it (which of course they've every right to do), and now you've said yours (see previous). Yes, there were a few over-the-top responses, but well, that's going to happen in a difficult and frustrating situation. And while we don't perhaps "own the servers", that's due to an accident of history more than anything. Volunteers ran this site for quite a long time before the WMF even existed, and ran those servers for quite some time after it did too. So, the main point here is that the WMF has no right to own any whips at all, let alone crack them. WMF is there to keep the lights on and servers humming, not to assert its authoriTAH over...anything the community does. It doesn't have any authority like that. Now, of course, if WMF thinks we should change something, they're welcome to suggest (suggest, not mandate) that and put forth their reasons why. But that would require actually telling us what they think we should change and why. If their ideas are good, hey, let's hear them. But thus far, we can't get an answer to even so simple a question as "Do you trust ArbCom?" or "What's your goal here?". It is hard to listen to someone who is giving you the silent treatment. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think it improper to challenge someone's assumptions that may not be correct. That being said, I do feel that some of the responses by other editors were unnecessarily aggressive. --Rschen7754 01:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Seraphimblade you have been very reasonable and while I disagree with you at times, I appreciate your approach. It attempts to bridge the gap. Have you tried emailing individuals at WMF? Have others? Or is everything just confined to this page? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Megalibrarygirl, no, I haven't, but I think that might illustrate what the disconnect is here. I don't see emailing as really leading anywhere. I do not expect WMF to answer to me, as an individual. I expect WMF to answer to us, as a community. If I got an answer by private communication (which I would not share without permission), then even if that satisfied me, that does no good here. Transparency really is the expectation and the default. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Seraphimblade why not appoint a representative to discuss via email? It would accomplish both goals? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We already have. That's who WMF should've been talking to in the first place, if private information was involved. They've already signed NDAs, so they could review any applicable private information without violation of anyone's privacy. This case should've been referred to ArbCom to begin with, and then this multiple-megabyte page would never have existed, and we'd all have gone on about our business. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, ArbCom are our elected community representatives. If there are privacy matters, the whole community does not need to know who the accusers are, and what the specifics are. But ArbCom, as our community representatives, need to know everything. starship.paint (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (Montanabw)I've worked in what is considered one of the most 'toxic' areas (I/P) of wikipedia for 13 years, and it is completely beyond my grasp to understand complaints about some putative quality of aggressiveness, of 'targeting' dissenters from the overall consensus view emerging here. I read last night, slowly, from top to bottom, the extensive chronology of office problem at the WMF over a two year period, and it documents extensively how many people who work there have left or complained of an atmosphere of intimidation there. This may be wholly subjective, or resolved by now. I don't know, but I would suggest that anyone tempted to think that our practical Wikipedia or the hostility imputed to Fram is something alien from the workplace that is now arrogating to itself the function of civility control should read, of any dozen examples hosted there, things like this.

    "I have taken great care to speak with civility during these months of conflict, particularly when I have spoken in public. I have also expressed my concerns about the potential for retaliation to my manager and to HR. I have been repeatedly assured that I have nothing to worry about due to the care I take with my words, but the specific standards that are being used to define 'aggressive', 'unprofessional', and 'uncivil' are still unclear to me. I hear my colleagues' concerns and see some of them being censured for speaking in ways that I have found sharply critical but still fundamentally honest and civil, and I worry that someday I will be the one who is suddenly found to have stepped over lines which were previously invisible or unspoken. I fear that even making this reply with my volunteer account will be considered 'unprofessional': it is both critical and public, and no clarification has been given yet on the question of what constitutes 'professional' usage of our staff and volunteer accounts." The edit summary is, "reply to Pine: I'm still afraid." There has been no response from Tretikov.' Frances Hocutt, a software developer for the Wikimedia Foundation, responds to a thread containing concerns about employee intimidation at the Wikimedia February 1, 2016

    I.e. what is known to be dysfunctional in their office, an atmosphere of extreme politically correct awareness inhibiting a free exchange of views, one leading to repeated resignations, has not be resolved there, but is being extended, projected onto this open forum which actually does the hard unpaid labour of encyclopedic construction. Unlike the multiple situations of simmering conflict documented there with ultra cautious allusiveness, on this Wikipedia we make conflict, the behavior of parties, a matter of open, explicit analysis and commentary, and the tone overwhelmingly has been focused and civil. If what was variously said to Megalibrarygirl is read as hostile, then one may as well wrap up any debate as intrinsically 'disputative' and therefore not to be held.Nishidani (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I've seen Katherine Maher did a pretty good job of stabilising that situation and I don't think such events are really a concern at this point beyond the long term damage they did to getting things done.©Geni (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "Silent majority" reasoning is highly flawed because it can be used to justify literally anything. Someone can say "The silent majority believes that Wikipedia editors should wear clown suits on alternate Thursdays", and the silent majority will not show up to disprove them because they're silent. It's definitely possible a silent majority might exist, but in the absence of additional information the only valid approach is to assume (e.g. by Occam's razor) that we have a representative sample. In this case some information probably exists, although only indirectly relevant - I'm pretty sure there's data to the effect of "90% of editors believe the English Wikipedia should be more civil", and I'm in the majority there (as are most of the editors on this page, probably) - but it needs to be cited in any relevant arguments. As an additional problem, over the last few years I have not been impressed with the WMF's data-gathering capabilities, e.g. their ability to design a survey that's reasonably robust to bias, and so I expect that any data they've collected would not be very useful in any case.
    Similarly, it's not a valid argument to object to the results of pages like these as not "speaking for the community", e.g. on the grounds that the participants are only a small fraction of the total number of editors. While it's something to keep in mind, ironically the only way it would mean anything is that the person objecting has to be speaking for a larger proportion of the community - at least enough to bring the total to 50%, in this case. I can certainly speculate, and e.g. I would be entirely unsurprised to find that those likely to comment here are also likely to have a greater tolerance for incivility (although it would be irresponsible to be certain, because social data often seems obvious when it isn't). If that can be quantified, then some degree of bias correction can be applied. However, it cannot simply be asserted, and it especially cannot be asserted that the difference is large enough to reverse the outcome for whichever issue is under discussion at any particular time. Sunrise (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate it's very difficult to try to accommodate the views of those who haven't expressed an opinion (the polling model work that pollsters do is where they earn their keep). But the explanation with the fewest assumptions for the discussions being held on this page and elsewhere isn't that the participants form a representative sample—that would be a rather extraordinary coincidence. isaacl (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, you're misunderstanding how the statistics works. The issue is about finding the best estimate for the true value given the available information. Roughly speaking, the observed percentage will be at the center of the predicted distribution for the true percentage (e.g. this will be the value at which the prediction's expected error is minimized). It is not that the observed percentage must be unbiased, but the possibility it is biased in one direction is always balanced out by the possibility that it is biased in the other direction. Claiming that you can make a judgement about that means that you are incorporating additional information that is not available to others. Such information might exist, but then it needs to be presented so that a corrected estimate can be made. (To be exact, this form of the explanation approximates a proportion to be a fully continuous variable, but that's usually a valid assumption and the difference is likely to be a fraction of a percent.) Or in terms of Occam's Razor, you have to add the assumption that your beliefs about the direction of bias are correct, and then a second assumption that the difference is large enough to change the outcome. Note that "direction of bias" refers to the total amount of bias in the sample, not the existence or direction of any particular bias. I'm happy to explain further if anything is unclear. Sunrise (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As another commenter said, I'd appreciate it if you didn't make assumptions about what I have and haven't understood. A priori, there's no reason to assume that the self-selected set of commenters on this page, for example, is a representative sample of the English Wikipedia community as a whole. In fact, given that many of the participants will recognize the other user names, there is reason to believe that the sample is biased towards more activist editors. So as per Occam's razor, I don't believe it is reasonable to make the assumption that the sampling on this page is a representative sample. (Whether or not the responses on this page is the best estimator of the general population's views, given the available observations, is a different question.) isaacl (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies if I made an inaccurate assumption - I think we basically agree with each other. I'm just adding that while any one type of bias tends to push the result in one direction, there are also other types that push the result in the other direction. The assumption is not that the sample is "definitely representative", it's that on average the biases cancel, because we don't know how strong they are and which direction they're pointing. Speculation is valid of course, as long as it's recognized as speculation. (If you like, I can rephrase the claim to say that the probability estimate for the true proportion approximately forms a normal distribution with a mean equal to the observed proportion, which is technically "more correct" than the wording I used - however, the point becomes harder to get across, and for the purposes of directly making decisions based on the proportion's value the result is the same.) Sunrise (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If the expressed opinions were based on a random sampling of editors, then it may be the case that biases tend to fall in all directions. However given the self-selected nature of the participants and the aggressiveness of responses towards those offering dissenting opinions, it's unlikely that biases are canceling out. Note I'm not saying if there is a silent majority viewpoint that differs from the viewpoints expressed here. As I alluded to originally, it's an unknown that is hard to accommodate. isaacl (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the volunteer efforts that built this database are also the basis for Siri, Alexa, Cortana, etc. the new charity could approach Apple, Amazon and Microsoft for start-up donations. It could also approach the chapters and interest groups. Very few people like unaccountable bullies, and once people hear what has happened here with the T&S squad, I predict there would be general public support and utilization of the fork. Hlevy2 (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • In the arguments about victims and whistleblowers, I think there's another possibility that needs to be considered. We don't know who complained to T&S. There is no reason to believe that it was the same person who was, allegedly, victimized. It's entirely possible that it was someone who wasn't even directly involved, but who decided to be a self-appointed righter-of-wrongs. Or not. Of course, if it was somebody who self-appointed to make the complaint, that is actually even worse in terms of the procedures followed being very badly flawed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is actually the theory I'm operating under. It's highly unlikely an ArbCom member reported Fram, and we know Fae didn't, so the only possible option left is someone unrelated to Fram or the people he's had disputes with. That assumes that it *was* reported as opposed to being a lone-wolf action. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 03:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    More bits bite the dust

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

    Extended content

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

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

    We've been patient enough, and it's time to take next steps

    It has been nearly two weeks since Fram's ban. It has been nine days since the WMF board meeting. The supposed call with ArbCom has already taken place last week. We have heard either nothing, or from WMF, worse than nothing—we have received patronizing, insulting, pat-on-the-head type responses from them which said nothing of any substance at all.

    It is apparently necessary to take more drastic and obvious measures, as was necessary in the past cases when WMF overstepped. I hoped that they had learned from their mistakes, but they had not. However, I think it fair to give them a chance to provide a substantive response rather than needing to take those steps. So, JEissfeldt (WMF): One more chance, but if all you're going to say is "This is our policy and we won't change it", please don't waste your time. To Board members Jimbo Wales, Raystorm, Pundit, and Doc James: "Discussion is ongoing" is no longer sufficient. Provide a deadline by which we should expect to hear from you. To arbitrators AGK, Callanecc, GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, SilkTork, and Worm That Turned: We need to know what happened on that call now, not weeks from now.

    It's been more than long enough to hear appropriate responses. We understand that a response won't come in a day, but it has been two weeks, and we have heard nothing but insulting condescension from the WMF and nothing from anyone else. It is time to get moving, or it will be necessary to take more drastic measures to ensure that the community has your attention and isn't being blown off. And please believe me that we will, if need be, get your attention. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Hear, hear! El_C 19:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, Seraphimblade, but these things do take time. There was a lot to go through, on top of Arbcom's usual business (we have 2 cases live at the moment on top of everything going on here and A/R/C, and a significantly reduced committee). I understand your frustration, but there's little any of us can tell you at the moment. WormTT(talk) 19:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      So when can you tell us anything? This is, of course, nonsense, and as Arbcom, Jimbo et al can see, tearing the community apart. Do they actually give a shit about that? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Arbcom is slow. We always have been, by design. Needless to say, we aren't ignoring the situation, and of course we care about the health of the community. Do you see a magic bullet that will make this all better? I don't. WormTT(talk) 19:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Worm That Turned, you know as well as I do that in certain situations, where the matter was urgent, ArbCom acted swiftly. I can't discuss those here, but I will cite them to you over email if you would like. This is an urgent situation, and ArbCom needs to treat it as such.

      And yes, there is a magic bullet that makes this better immediately. WMF backs off what they did, assures us that they realize their mistake and will never again interfere in day-to-day community governance issues, and turns the matter over to either the community (if all the problems were on-wiki) via either a complaint or a public ArbCom case, or turns the matter over to ArbCom if private information must be handled. From there, whatever happens, well, happens. If there is private evidence, and ArbCom evaluates it and determines that the ban is warranted, I will accept that decision. If an ArbCom case is held, and the result is that Fram is sanctioned, I will accept that. Quite honestly, I don't care too much about Fram, I don't even very much like Fram, and I'm rather irritated at being put in the position of defending Fram. But this isn't, at the end of the day, a referendum on Fram. It is a question of the English Wikipedia's editorial independence and self-governance, and the "magic bullet" is for WMF to respect that and never again do something like this. But yes, that magic bullet does exist, and it is in WMF's hands right now. That said, I do appreciate your willingness to reply here, but "We'll get to it someday" is no longer acceptable. "Someday" needs to be specified. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      you know as well as I do that in certain situations, where the matter was urgent, ArbCom acted swiftly. I can't discuss those here, but I will cite them to you over email if you would like. The problem is that in this case, I think it's pretty clear that the WMF (or at least some people on the board) have their backs up. Jimbo's statement that they're trying to reach an outcome that will "neither allow invalid precedent to be set, nor to set invalid precedent" coupled with the constant insistence, above, that WMF bans are above appeal and therefore all of this needs to go away gives the impression that some people on the board recognize that they screwed up but that they're trying to talk down others who have their backs up about refusing to give an inch to the community in fear of setting an "invalid precedent", ie. giving the community the impression that it can question WMF decisions or that they're subject to any sort of community review. That sucks - if that's really the tone of discussions, I think anyone with that mindset absolutely doesn't belong on the board or in a position of authority at Trust and Safety; it's the worst sort of managerial incompetence - but right now ArbCom and Jimbo need to cope with that sort of obstructive never-admit-fault, never-give-an-inch resistance from people on the board, and it's inevitable that this will require caution. While obviously a lot of what happened here will have to remain unknown for privacy reasons, I do hope we eventually learn the details of the boards' deliberations on the topic and who took what position - anonymous complaints deserve privacy; people on the board of the fifth-largest website in the world do not, at least not for actions and positions they take when running that website. Some degree of accountability and transparency for the WMF is required here. But right now our tools are limited and it's inevitable that discussions will go slowly. --Aquillion (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Arbcom is deliberate by nature. Their delays are understandable under the circumstances. The lack of communication from the board is another matter. It underwhelms.- MrX 🖋 19:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not quite as simple as that, there are a number of factors, which I don't feel comfortable elaborating on while discussions are ongoing. I think the case request is reaching some clarity on a way forward, which should happen in the short term. Arbcom cannot over-rule the WMF, we hold no jurisdiction over their actions, beyond community dissent - even by your own yardstick, Arbcom has no magic bullet. What we can do is work with the WMF on options that might work going forward - it takes time. I know this is frustrating, but I'd like a decent solution. WormTT(talk) 19:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Worm That Turned: Has there been any thought to delaying the other cases? If things go south on this WMF thing, well there might not be a need for an ArbCom pretty soon and whatever you guys decide might be moot and overshadowed by WMF. --Rschen7754 19:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Rschen7754, I've seen no discussion of delaying other cases. Not do I think those participants would be very happy about it, since not all the community is actually following this. WormTT(talk) 20:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Worm That Turned "I've seen no discussion of delaying other cases."—I assumed the week delay with the Canadian politics case was due to this. That's not the case? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Curly Turkey, I believe this was due to the drafting arbs real world commitments, though I'm sure this took their attention. The reduced committee size, combined with a high amount of inactivity at the same time has taken its toll, a discussion for another day. WormTT(talk) 06:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Speaking as one of the drafters on that case, yes, it was real-life stuff rather than this incident that caused that particular delay. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree. Personally, I feel responsible for continuing to provide local community dispute resolution on those matters. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      "Arbcom cannot over-rule the WMF" - right. But you can make your opinion known. "We hold no jurisdiction over their actions" - right, and it's also not your duty to defend their errors. "Beyond community dissent" - and that is the point. ArbCom members are elected as community representatives. I would hope they take that mandate seriously. It's not your job to settle on a bad compromise to sweep T&S mess under the carpet. There is nothing wrong with going for a good compromise - but I think it must be clear that ArbCom does not stand in the middle between the WMF and the community, but firmly on the communities side. And thanks for being responsive! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Stephan Schulz, every member of the committee is a member of the community, and one that was elected to Arbcom. I'm sure we are in the community's side. I'm moving on to my phone now, but if you (or anyone else) wants to discuss my thoughts further, please do email me. WormTT(talk) 20:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      WTT, I was not suggesting that Arbcom attempt to overrule WMF. Arbcom has been mooted. I was making a point that the WMF, via it's department-level representative and its Board of Trustees, has failed spectacularly at communication and damage control. - MrX 🖋 20:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]
    • Quoting Board member Pundit (from 3 days ago): "the discussion is ongoing, and another problem is that some Board members are more difficult to reach (due to justified reasons). I am frustrated by our pace, but also hope for a sensible outcome." We can wait a little more, I think. --Yair rand (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. We are actively and rapidly hemorrhaging trust and volunteers. Producing a substantive statement needs to be a priority. Providing a deadline for that statement needs to happen very quickly. Our community is tearing itself apart, and the longer it continues the harder it will be to move forward from this. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sorry user:Worm That Turned, 2 weeks of absolutely NOTHING is inexcusable. The WMF is tearing the community apart, admins are resigning by bushes and other volunteers are inactive. You are our elected body if the community is not capable to solve the problem. The fact that you comment here, but cannot say 'the WMF does have a case, bear with us for a couple more days' does not give us hope that you will come with a beleivable answer, but merely that you are waiting for a fabrication from WMF.
    Maybe already clear, user:Seraphimblade seen my proposal above: +1 (and likely also with a statement from ArbCom that is Janesque). --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are looking for an answer to a different question than I, Beetstra. WormTT(talk) 20:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, just waiting for AN answer that I can trust, WTT. The longer it takes, the less I trust. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. I get that it takes time to make a decision, but you can at least indicate whether you have the means to make a decision. We all get that you're short-staffed and it's summer so some of you will be out of reach, but just "T&S has told us what Fram is alleged to have done and we now need time to discuss it" or similar would be fine. Even "T&S told us to go fuck ourselves and from now on they'll do what they like" would let us know where we stand. ‑ Iridescent 19:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this is about Fram. Arbcom aren't looking to "take over" any ban. The question is more about how this could have happened differently and how we can manage things going forward. So, I can't really tell you what T&S have said, because it's not my place to do so. WormTT(talk) 20:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Worm That Turned: I would say it's your job, as a serving arbitrator, to explain exactly what the Arbitration Committee now knows, and how they now know those things (subject to the usual privacy constraints). I know you're a volunteer and all this pish, but you did volunteer for this task and it's really about time we started getting answers, not bullshit excuses. Nick (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nick, Arbs have explained to the best of our abilities what has happened - we are subject to privacy constraints. There has been a discussion with the WMF, and as a committee we are still discussing that meeting. As to your other point - Arbs volunteered to sort out disputes within the community, private and public, but nowhere in the job description does it state that we should be "representing the community to the WMF". As it happens, because every Arb is a community member and is passionate about the project, we often do that willingly, but to be clear it's not the task we volunteered for. WormTT(talk) 10:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How can the community be torn apart if we assume good faith? There are a few things we should learn from Wikipedia, assuming good faith among them. But there should also be some big changes at the end of this, community respect and all. Attica! Attica! (whoops, sorry, wrong film). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "WP:AGF is not a suicide pact" is something I read a while ago that sees relevant. Maybe even more to the point, it's not a one-way street. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course not. It does mean that some editors assume good faith in the foundation and people like Jimbo and Doc James, and trust that when the dust settles the respect between the WMF and the Wikipedian community will have to be repaired. I've suggested a good common sense peace offering above (300 new full travel and room scholarships a year to Wikimania for long-term editors who've never gone, funded by a special goal directed corporate donation drive). Better than throwing rocks at a window neither "side" really wants to break. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    AGF is not a suicide pact, and since there is NO info, I also assume good faith on Fram (and even more so after Superputsch, VE, MV, the material that they let rot away and the empty statements from Jan - my AGF runs so thin that I will not even believe ArbCom telling methat WMF is right if they do not come with sufficient evidence). --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I was a steward during superprotect. By this time WMF had gotten the message and had privately come to us to see how they could try and make things better (and I think publicly too, I don't remember). It worries me that this has not happened yet. --Rschen7754 19:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's been two weeks and we don't have an answer as to whether Fram even committed a violation. Seriously. He was banned under a ToU clause that prohibits certain behaviors. I'm simply asking the question if he actually violated the clause. Nothing beyond that. And I still can't get an answer. I even asked Doc James, our community-appointed board member, who was supposedly investigating this, whether Fram actually breached the ToU. He said "I don't have insight into the investigation", and then deleted his comment because he's "going hiking for a few days". This is where we're at. Our own community representative on the board can't even confirm for us that there was a ToU violation. Literally nobody involved is capable of telling us that it wasn't a dirty move. ~Swarm~ {sting} 20:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This narrative that we're "tearing ourselves apart" is an exaggeration. Most of you are on the same side of the aisle and just shouting at the void because aren't able to get all the facts yourself, but you ran out of steam a week ago. The list of casualties, besides Fram, are those who voluntarily desysopped and can immediately get the bit back with one post to WP:BN. There's no substance behind doing something temporary like that and only creates this façade of an emergency in front of discussion that doesn't seemingly have anywhere to go. You all discussed forking, striking, leaving, hashtags and banners among the myriad of options but one option never got more support so it's a bit like RFA reform. By the time this resolves, Fram's ban will be damn-near over with and those who "retired" will be back with the tools again. This all just seems so pointless now. — Moe Epsilon 20:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      This ^. There is certainly a conversation to have with the WMF about how to make this process better moving forward. But it's clear from the quickly dropping participation outside the same few names on this page that these "solutions" aren't going anywhere. Let the board, ArbCom, and other people who are taking a reasoned and measured response to the situation have time to do their work. The sky isn't going to fall, even if this is left for a few months. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      How many admins and editors will we lose over those few months? Edit: even a "We screwed up and we are negotiating a solution" would be better than the patronizing nonsense we continue to receive from WMF. --Rschen7754 20:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Have we permanently lost anyone? Admins do diva resignations literally all the time, and many of the names on that list of eight have done one or two before over other situations. As Moe said, they can get their tools back at any time. We don't know the permanent damage yet and won't for a few months at least. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, that's not how it works. Sure, people can come back from having resigned, but not everyone does. Even if we only lose half the admins who either resigned or were banned, that's a substantial loss. To say nothing of anyone else who just left and didn't say why, and there's no way we can measure that, but I would wager you a substantial amount of money that the number there is greater than zero. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      There's still literally no benefit to announce your desysopping in this situation. If you leave permanently, either it will resolve or it won't and you won't be here to care either way. If they come back, it pretty much makes them a hypocrite to request their tools back since they'd still be administrating under the terms of use of the WMF and the T&S team again. Barring something very drastic such as the WMF/T&S team dissolving, why not just wait? — Moe Epsilon 20:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      If WMF does not change the path they are on, maybe. Also, global renamer (for example) cannot be automatically restored. --Rschen7754 20:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Meh, we're all replaceable, and as volunteers we all get to decide what to do with our time. Is it unfortunate that people have left over this? Absolutely, and that's why we need to work collaborative towards a solution. But the fact that people have left shouldn't be a reason to demand immediate action, especially when the WMF hasn't responded to the pitchfork approach thus far. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    'we're all replaceable.' I keep sighting that thoughtless phrase. If Leonardo had been aborted, someone else would have painted The Mona Lisa; if Proust had died in childhood, someone else would have written À la recherche du temps perdu; if Shakespeare didn't exist, Hamlet, or sonnet 30, would have been written by Ben Jonson or someone else. No one is replaceable, except in corporate groupthink. Any editor here knows that innumerable articles would not have been written to the comprehensive level of excellence and expertise they display, were it not for dedication of an individual or two who drove them forward to FA status.Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We are all unique individuals that bring our own gifts and contributions to the table. But the reality is that the project will survive if any of us (or even groups of us) leave, and to assume otherwise is the height of self-importance. We can't be responsible for ensuring that 100% of editors will stay all the time, and as I've argued below I think that the pitchfork approach won't accomplish the goal of retaining people anyway because it isn't working. I'd even say that this approach is actively harmful: if you were the WMF, would you want to engage with a community of people that were attacking you and attempting to out the victims of the alleged harassment? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well to answer that would derail the argument of this thread. I will just note however that in writing 'attempting to out the victims of the alleged harassment,' everything is in the placement of the adjective 'alleged' before harassment, rather than before victims. 98% of these pages has been about the fundamental principles of a democratic project, in any case, and the politics of the innovative turf dispute. Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, people who are used to being able to judge cases for themselves are not comfortable with leaving all the evidence to a private tribunal that is not accountable to them. That is understandable, and we should be working with the WMF to create a more accountable and transparent system that better meshes their "internal to a hierarchical organization" approach with our open democratic approach. But continuing to demand more information when they've already said they can't/won't talk specifics, continuing to demand that they unban Fram when they've said they won't, and continuing to personally attack WMF staff are collectively just not a viable way forward here. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to miss the point of a protest. It is to change someones stance, even if they don't want to. At the moment, the first and most important change is for the WMF to talk to the community at eye level. The community needs the WMF mainly for practical reasons - they provide the infrastructure. In principle, they can be replaced (in practice, this would be very painful, of course). The WMF, on the other hand, would not even exist without the community. An I doubt they can find a new community. There are many tools the community has to increase the pressure - just imagine any future fund raiser being accompanied by community banners requesting that money should be given to local organisations instead. Or to Amnesty International or the Red Cross. Or imagine a discussion of this constitutional crisis on the main page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would appreciate it if you didn't belittle me and my comments by saying that I have missed the point, but to clarify, my point is that actions can, should and will be done that don't involve the tactics being used on this page. The WMF needs us, we need them, let's work together to find a system that works or is at least tolerable for all of us. Mend fences and build relationships over further destroying a relationship that is already strained through actions by both sides. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Ajraddatz, I certainly hope you don't think I'm belittling you in any way, but I think "missing the point" might be somewhat appropriate. I'm all for having candid discussions with the WMF, but they don't seem to be willing to have them with us. But any process we can live with involves the WMF staying out of the day-to-day governance of the English Wikipedia. That would include either unbanning Fram or turning all evidence for the ban over to the ArbCom and letting them make the decision, and a firm pledge to never do that again. Those portions are not something we can or should compromise on. Now, if the WMF thinks we can improve in other ways, let's hear that from them, but candidly, not in corporatese, and with a firm understanding that the community will decide whether or not to accept their recommendations, and if we don't, tough. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand your point and I disagree with it. I think that the WMF does have a role to play here, and that we need to meet in the middle rather than continuing to demand some kind of autonomy that I don't think we've ever had, and would not be beneficial to us to have. But I know that you disagree and I respect that. Edit: to be clear, I'm not offended over the suggestion that I've missed the point. But this entire discussion has made me realise just how often we passively question each-others competence and intelligence, and passively (and sometimes actively) insult each-other during discussions. I'm trying to both make sure that I maintain an acceptable level of decorum myself, but also point it out when I see it directed towards me. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ajraddatz: Can you say for certain that nobody left permanently because of superprotect? I remember a lot of dewiki admin resignations and I don't think that is a wiki that will autoresysoponrequest. I also don't remember people saying stuff like The sky isn't going to fall, even if this is left for a few months during that either - if I had said that during superprotect I can guarantee you I would not have been reconfirmed in 2015 had I run. --Rschen7754 20:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I obviously can't say anything like that, and again I'm not excusing what is obviously a colossal communication and process failure by the WMF here (if not in their action, then in how it was done and communicated). But that damage has largely been done, and they think that Fram has been appropriately banned and aren't going to change it. As I've said before, the pitchfork approach hasn't worked yet and I doubt it will in the future especially with such reduced participation here. So let's try the mature reasoned approach instead. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Which is? We've asked some simple questions point-blank and gotten patronizing nonsense in response. I would even say that Jan's response this Friday is what prompted some of these resignations. --Rschen7754 20:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      They've told the general public everything that they are comfortable saying. What they've said already has lead to attempting outing of the victims of Fram's alleged harassment, which kinda proves why they don't want to say more publicly. They can say more to the board / ArbCom, and are currently in that process. And if those avenues don't work, then I plan on trying to form some sort of working group with T&S and community people to go over process workflows and figure out a better system that would be tolerable for both sides. I've done this before on a different issue to satisfactory results. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Can they actually say more to ArbCom? According to Jan, the community does not and cannot have all the facts of this case. I also note the very disturbing statement from Jan on Friday that Foundation bans are non-appealable, which would imply that decisions are final and cannot be changed, ever, even if T&S is proved wrong later. That is why people got so worked up about the statement Jan made on Friday. --Rschen7754 21:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know, we'll see. It might be that we can't move the needle on this specific ban, but that doesn't mean we can't try to make a better and more accountable system moving forward. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was posting above when I saw the ping from this thread, so see there for a brief response. Otherwise I agree with what WTT has said here. I think this is an issue on which everyone is very sensitive to a sense of precedent, as well as the specific facts of this case, and that means thinking things through, even if it's a little slow. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see what's unclear here. The precedent that must be set is very clear: WMF screwed up and they must never do this again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I mentioned above, I find the talk of everyone being sensitive to a sense of precedent alarming, because it gives the impression that the WMF recognizes that it screwed up but refuses to back down because unbanning Fram and acknowledging a mistake would "set a bad precedent". If it is possible to convey anything to the WMF, the most important thing is that that outlook is toxic and unsustainable - it's an entirely inappropriate position for someone in an a position of authority over any project to take, since it leads to endless doubling-down and constant exacerbation of what could have been minor, easily-corrected errors. This is even worse if it's in defense of the idea that WMF bans are not appealable, since that position is not and will never be sustainable (is the WMF insisting that they would, if necessary, leave a flat error in place simply to make a point?) --Aquillion (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Thanks for the ping, Seraphimblade. I unfortunately was not able to be on the call—it was during my work hours, and though I'd originally planned to step into a private room and get on the call at the office, an issue came up that my team needed to urgently handle. That issue has taken up a fair amount of my time and energy this week, so I am still playing catchup somewhat, but I have read the meeting notes and caught up on emails, and am currently catching up on all the various and sundry conversations happening onwiki.
    As for the matter of urgency, you are right that the ArbCom can act urgently when needed. But usually we only do in cases where there is extremely urgent danger to the wiki, and it's best to act first and sort things out later (for example, level 1 desysop procedures for potentially compromised admin accounts). While I agree that there is certainly danger to the wiki in this case, acting quickly would be unwise. Please remember all of the factors here that affect timing: the differing timezones and work/family/life obligations of the ArbCom members who need to discuss and work together on this, the other wiki-related demands on arbitrators' time (the existing case requests, block appeals, email matters, etc.), the work schedules of the WMF employees handling this situation, the availability of board members and Jimbo, etc. The worst thing we could do is act quickly and rashly, without giving this issue the consideration it deserves. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    GorillaWarfare, I certainly appreciate those things, having dealt with them myself. But ArbCom itself puts dates on what it does. What I am asking for is something more concrete than "We'll get to it when we get to it." I do not believe that such a request is unreasonable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Seraphimblade, there's a big difference between "we'll get to it when we get to it" and "we'll give you an answer when we have one". This is the latter WormTT(talk) 20:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Worm That Turned, if WMF didn't give you any useful information on the call, we need to know that too. If they did, we need to know what it was. If the result was "They didn't say anything we didn't already know", well, just say so, and we'll go from there. But we do need to have a summary of what happened on it, sooner rather than later. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm behind on this and desperately trying to catch up, but can we please bear in mind that ArbCom and the WMF/T&S are separate bodies. We (ArbCom) are doing what we can to look at the case in front of us, at our usual slowish pace, and to get information from T&S behind-the-scenes. But we have little more insight into what T&S and the WMF board are doing than you guys do. We certainly can't set deadlines for them. – Joe (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You can tell them to pull their fingers out. You can tell them just how damaging their actions - and inactions - are. And you can tell T&S that they do not have the trust of the community. Given the racist and homophobic behavioural tool developed by the Foundation (see above) I don't feel safe, and I would certainly never trust them with any more personal material than I absolutely have to. Tell them that. Go on. DuncanHill (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Joe Roe, Worm That Turned, and GorillaWarfare: (and other members from ArbCom active in this thread): Well, the opening of this thread was first addressed to members of WMF, as earlier posts here. I (we all) know WMF is slow, opaque, and I fully understand that you guys are further behind. What I miss here until now is statements from members of ArbCom stating that they, like the volunteers here, push for clarity. Is ArbCom understanding the anger of the community, and does ArbCom have the feeling that WMF understands it? Until now you all seem to be (meekly?) waiting, which makes me worried that your answers are not going to satisfy the community either. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I apologize that it seems like that. The ArbCom is (and has been) actively discussing how to proceed now that we've had the meeting with T&S. As I've said, I would like to allow some time to see what will be forthcoming from other parties involved here (namely, a statement the board apparently plans to make). I don't think anyone plans to wait indefinitely; I have personally just voted in favor of resolving the open arbitration case by motion and organizing an RfC, and others have voted as well recently. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @GorillaWarfare: Allow some time? Days, weeks, months, years? Until the next statement asking us to allow some time? The one after that? DuncanHill (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I'm not proposing at this point that the ArbCom hold any specific action until statements have been made, but rather be cognizant if/when we begin to move forward with anything (RfC, case, etc.) that a statement is in the works. Jimbo did not make any reference to how long it would be before this statement would be made, but I think it would be reasonable for it to take a week or two. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @GorillaWarfare: A week or two - that means three weeks to a month after the ban? Have I got my maths right? DuncanHill (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, your math is correct. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @GorillaWarfare: Does that strike you as reasonable? DuncanHill (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am simply saying that given Jimbo mentioned the board is "in active conversations" on the 21st, I would expect that means a statement will come in the next week or two. I of course would prefer a statement sooner, but I am not in the position to impose deadlines on the board. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @GorillaWarfare: That's a very diplomatic way of saying you think the delay is unreasonable. DuncanHill (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To say that would be to say that I was expecting the board to make a statement, which I was not. I am glad they are making one, even if it may take a while. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @GorillaWarfare: In other words, the Committee is meekly waiting, and neither you nor WMF has any clue how angry the community is. I am sorry: user:Seraphimblade, the only way forward is to seriously damage the reputationof WMF or en.wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @GorillaWarfare: The trouble is, the month will pass and they will still not have got around to making a statement, or any statement will be as patronising and empty as those from T&S so far. Then, when editors continue to complain, we'll be told they're discussing it again and we should wait for them to make a statement. DuncanHill (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @DuncanHill: I'm beginning to get a little confused on this page, where "they" is being used to refer variously to the ArbCom, the board, and the T&S team. Are you referring to the ArbCom here, or the board? GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @GorillaWarfare: The Board. You are being very elusive when being asked what you think of their delays. Do you think a month is a reasonable time for them to take? I've asked before and you deflected it. DuncanHill (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying. I'm not trying to be elusive or deflect anything, I'm trying to be clear. I did not expect the board to get involved at all, so to say they're being unreasonable seems to imply that I was expecting their involvement. Now that they have decided to become involved, I do think a month is too long to meaningfully assuage any concerns the community has—the time for assuaging concerns has clearly passed. But I suspect their statement will be about how to move forward from this, not an attempt to assuage concerns about the specific incident. We shall see. I hope this has been clearer. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @GorillaWarfare: Thank you, yes that is much clearer. If they do simply try to "assuage concerns" they will have completely missed the point, and the boat. We need something meaningful from them, not the usual WMF "Oh we love you very much but we are right and you mere volunteers who cannot possibly understand what the grown-ups do" crap that the Foundation is so very, very, fond of. I don't know who advises them on PR but it's clearly an idiot. DuncanHill (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be one thing if the Arbs who commented here had said something like "Huh? Fram? Who is that?" But it's clearly the very opposite of that. I don't mean to insult anyone, really, but I think it's a little childish to demand a response right-now-or-else. I'm still willing to be patient. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tryptofish:I think it's a little patronising to criticise people for asking for an indication of just how much time "some time" is. I don't mean to insult anybody, really. DuncanHill (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I do not think it is "childish" to expect that after two weeks, if an immediate response isn't possible, we would at least have a commitment to making one by a particular date, rather than "Oh, someday or another". Really, it seems to me childish to handle a major issue with "Oh, I suppose we'll say something sometime." I don't think anyone would reasonably consider that acceptable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think both of you are over-reacting. Yes, I agree this is important, and yes, I agree that the answers so far have been inadequate. But I also think the people who represent us are actually working on it, rather than stonewalling us. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is all a matter of morale. What is the chance we believe they are genuinely working toward a decision to listen to the community? What is the chance we believe that they know they have decided to give another non-response, and they are waiting until as many people as they can manage have gotten bored of waiting and given up hope and slumbered off, before making it? Wnt (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that's a very good point. I hope that it's entirely clear that the community is not going to get distracted from this. And I think it's reasonable to consider it a lost cause to get a better answer from any of the persons who have repeatedly given us corporate-speak answers. And it's clear that, within the subset of the community that is active in these discussions, nerves have gotten frayed, which is something that WMF ought to care about. I wasn't clear enough about it in my earlier comment, but I see nothing wrong with asking about a time frame, and nothing wrong with expressing profound dissatisfaction with what we have heard so far. I just don't like the idea – at least not yet – of making ultimatums, nor do I think we should ABF about ArbCom or Doc James. When we get to the stage of those people coming back and saying WMF are not cooperating with them, then that's the right time for more drastic action. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the supposed 'reduction in activity' here is more likely to be people waiting to see what statements are forthcoming from ArbCom and the WMF Board. Once that has happened, the anger in the community over this (which is real and is not going away despite what some are saying) may turn in certain directions. If ArbCom do not stand up for the community, then the community has the power to change the arbitration policy, disband the current ArbCom (with no reflection on the current members) and elect a new ArbCom that truly represents the feelings of the community on this matter and empowered to transmit that message to the WMF. That may be the strongest signal possible to send to the WMF, short of the strike and/or redirect all behavioural matters to the T&S email address options. There are sufficient numbers of people (well over the required 100) to make these changes. For whatever reason, ArbCom are not seeing the very real danger they are in here, of either being disempowered by the WMF or ejected by the community. Carcharoth (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Acknowledging the ping. Unfortunately there's nothing I can add to what's already been said. As an individual user of the site I have had no further response from Jan to the email I mentioned on this page some days past. Personal emails I've had as a member of the Committee have mostly been from other users of the site in support of the proposal for the requested ArbCom case to be a forum for a discussion between enwiki and WMF, though there have been conspiracy theory emails as well, which I have read, but not responded to. I suspect other Committee members have received similar. People here are aware that there was a phone call discussion between some members of the Committee and Jan - as reported above the contents of that discussion are still being chewed over. As it was a private meeting, at this stage we cannot indicate what was discussed without agreement from those involved in the discussion. When I looked at the email list a few minutes ago, there are proposals for summarising what was said, but no agreement as yet. My feeling, as an individual on the Committee but not as a representative of the Committee, ie, my purely personal feeling, is that the Committee is caught in a difficult position, and I'm not entirely clear what our role here is or should be. What everyone agrees is that there should be some form of dialogue between enwiki and WMF. Where there are differences in thought is in the exact nature of that dialogue. I feel this is not just about Fram, nor just about Office Actions, but about the relationship between enwiki and WMF going forward. However, whatever anyone here on enwiki thinks and agrees, any discussion is entirely subject to agreement and involvement from representatives of WMF. I am not sure how much the WMF are monitoring this page. Nor am I sure how effective or helpful gestures of civil disobedience would be, though I quite understand the passion that propels such ideas. I feel the same passions and frustrations. My suggestion (again, I stress, as an individual member of this community) would be for folks to communicate directly to WMF. Not rudely or aggressively, but in the same spirit of creative humanist endeavour that propelled this community to make Wikipedia in the first place. If everyone, instead of posting here, wrote a polite email to people in WMF explaining how they feel about this situation, and how they feel that what is needed right now is open dialogue between the community and WMF as to how we can better work together, that might achieve something. From various things I have read recently that have been linked here about the Foundation's proposals for our "toxic" community, I suspect that there has been a fix in the Foundation on the negative aspects of the community. I think it is time we showed that we are not entirely toxic, but that we are people who care passionately for creating a free encyclopedia that is comprehensive, trustworthy and reliable. And that, above all, we welcome open and honest discussion. If there is evidence of toxicity in our community we would welcome that being pointed out so we can deal with it. Openly, honestly, and fairly. SilkTork (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @SilkTork: A simple question: who do you email? Jan? ca@? --Rschen7754 18:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest using this page [30] as a starting point. It might help to cross-reference with the flow chart - File:Trust and Safety Office action workflow.png = to better target those who may have some influence or interest in the matter. I will copy this message to a new section as I think it may have got lost in all the text that appears on this page. SilkTork (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see evidence of toxicity in our community on this very page (and its archives). I see bludgeoning, personal attacks, piling onto people with opposing points of view, almost doxing (though most of it was off wiki), and in the midst of all that, a bit of constructive conversation. – Levivich 19:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it appropriate to see this page alone as representative of the enwiki community. I think the whole of Wikipedia is what represents us best, and not just the articles, but also our guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and projects such as Wikipedia:Teahouse. I see a community which has not only created the world's most popular encyclopedia, but an entire system to ensure that the encyclopedia, which remains open to all to contribute, is well written and reliable, and the rules which govern how the encyclopedia is written, and which topics are allowed, are fair and open and which can be challenged and amended at any time, meaning the project and the rules remain fluid and progressive. The task before us would seem almost impossible given the tendency of teenagers, people with an agenda, and malcontents to try to sabotage or undermine what we do on an hourly basis, but is achieved through the positive spirit and supportive camaraderie of the community. Wikipedia is one of mankind's greatest achievements, made even greater by knowing that it has been made communally by willing volunteers who all have an equal say in what happens, and where we vote on everything. And this has been done without external assistance, including that of the Foundation which was created two years after Wikipedia was founded, by which time we had nearly 6 million articles, and our policy and guidelines looked this this: [31]. The idea of being respectful and avoiding personal attacks was already established. So, I hear what you're saying about strained behaviour in these strained circumstances, but put that into context of what we have achieved and continue to achieve, and also put it into context of why people are angry. SilkTork (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's clearly a lot of unproductive gnashing of teeth here, but this is a bit of an unusual situation. Beyond that, while I absolutely agree that there's toxicity on Wikipedia and we could do more to stem it and enforce WP:CIVIL, I'm extremely skeptical of the ability of T&S to do so effectively on a community of this size using the approach they're taking here - they seem to be taking the approach Facebook or Twitter or YouTube is taking for moderating their platforms (a moderation system using professional, non-community moderators that makes final, unappealable decisions based on anonomyous reports from within a walled silo, so to speak.) And all else aside that sort of system has a very poor track record on large social-media-ish communities due to scaling poorly and providing so little transparency; Wikipedia has its issues, but I would still say that our moderation and conflict-resolution system is better than the others I mentioned. Changing Wikipedia's culture will require working with the community. That's why I've said that if they want to set dictates from above (which is their call and may, yes, be necessary), what they should do is something akin to what was done with WP:BLP - give the community an ultimatium of "you have to do better on this", be a bit specific about what "better" means, and then give us a chance to hash out and enforce stricter policies to represent that. We're capable of self-moderation, but we need to know, specifically, the standard they want to hold us to so we can adjust our policies to match. And this assumes that that is the problem at all - if SilkTork, who knows more about the situation, says they have the impression that that's the case, I'm incined to believe it, but the WMF's public statements have been frustratingly vague. If they want harassment to be treated more strictly on Wikipedia, or for there to be safer ways to send in complaints about it or whatever, the first step ought to be to convey that to the community rather than to throw a bunch of random top-down solutions at us with no community involvement. If we completely fail, then they can do it themselves, but it feels like working with the community hasn't really been tried yet. --Aquillion (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Worm That Turned, I offer the following middle ground solution:
    1. WMF rescinds its prior ruling and refrains from such rulings in the future without allowing ArbCom to assess.
    2. At the same time WMF enacts a suspension of Fram's privileges until such time as ArbCom can rule on the behavior. (much like pretrial confinement)
    This would still allow for a review of the behavior in question while curtailing all activities of Fram. It would also allow ArbCom to adjudicate the proceedings, provide a check against such power, and fix the gap in autonomy/independence. In no way does this revoke WMF's roles or prevent them from acting independently, should the need arise. By skipping over ArbCom in the manner they chose, they enacted a solution that was incomplete. IMHO, if the behavior in question was as bad as they say it was, a 1 year ban is inappropriately low. Likewise, keeping the Admin bit makes even less sense.
    Please respond if/when able. Buffs (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Next Steps

    At this point, I think it's pretty clear that a substantive comment is not coming in the near future. In my mind, it's time to start exploring in an organized way what "drastic and obvious measures" should specifically look like.

    I'm floating 3 principles, and a concrete proposal here so that we can quickly find the appropriate course of action. The hope is that we don't get a lot of staunch "Supports" and "Opposes" at this stage, but rather generate insightful commentary to shape a proposal that we can formally discuss.

    1. The community should not, in any organized way, ignore BLP violations or copyright violations. Obviously, we're all volunteers here, and we can't force anyone to do the cleanup, but these are the categories of problems that have legal implications and shouldn't be ignored because we're mad.
    2. The community should not actively make articles worse. No inserting vandalism. There shouldn't be a cleanup after this is sorted.
    3. With the possible exception of the main page, the protest should stay out of reader-facing space. This is still an internal squabble, and we don't need the nuclear option of advertising it to every reader who clicks on any Wikipedia article. This means that things like full blackouts and reader-facing banners are overkill at this stage.

    At the same time, this is a protest, and a protest is meant to disrupt. Here is my best idea on how to do that:

    • Freeze the main page. Keep it in its current state, and allow it to fall out of date. The symbolism behind that is that volunteers are the force that keeps the encyclopedia moving, and this conflict is having a very negative effect on the volunteer community. I know The Rambling Man has suspended his errors page for this mess already. It also is difficult for the WMF to reverse. What are they going to do, have a staffer manually learn and perform the processes that make the main page tick? That seems both unlikely and inconvenient. It also gives the WMF a progressive clock - the sooner they fix this, the less disruption is caused. Once the main page is actively out of date, we can put a small link at the bottom to an explanatory page. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tazerdadog, They already have a progressive clock. The damage adds up every single day. We lost good admins today, and we're likely going to lose more. I'm afraid that either we're in some sort of a 'hot potato' situation where no one wants to make a decision in either direction - or, possibly more likely, they're hoping that after a while we'll give up.
      I agree, this would turn the heat up a couple notches however. SQLQuery me! 02:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • So far as next steps go, I did have a concrete proposal in mind. It has the additional advantage that it will take some time before any action is actually taken, so if it's true that this could still be worked out, that can be done. My proposal would, first, be to use the above ideas of a sitenotice to communicate the intent to put pressure on the WMF. Every editor who has participated in this discussion will be invited as well. On a specified date, the editors who agree to the proposal will begin to report every violation of the terms of use to Trust & Safety. And a lot of things are: Vandalism is against the TOU. Copyright violations are against the TOU. BLP violations, spamming/advertising, suspected undisclosed paid editing, block or ban evasion? All a TOU violation. Send them a report each and every time one of those things happens. Even if it's already been handled by someone not participating, make sure they get a report, so T&S can make sure the rubes didn't screw it up. I say we let T&S handle all of it, and see just how much work the volunteers who have kept this project running for nearly two decades deal with every day. If they think they can do it better than we do, let's send them a message: Prove it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pragmatically, this may be a way forward, simply because we don't need consensus to allow people to send emails. One possibility to turn up the pressure would be to expect WMF to answer every email, and when they (inevitably) don't, send a followup asking for a response. --Rschen7754 03:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Freezing the mainpage does NOT acclish anything. Putting a statement on it regarding the situation will not accomplish anything. WMF will replace it with a neutral text, reprotect it saying it is an office action, and any community member that uses their admin bit to revert them will be reverted and desysopped for a certain amount of time. If we are strong enough in the end it will result in just the only thing they feel: loss of so much community that the encyclopedia is not maintained anymore. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, they could do that, but I doubt they would given the further backlash it would cause. --Rschen7754 03:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rschen7754: you think, they don't seem impressed at he moment. (some admins already stopped updating the templates behind main page, we lost 8 admins). I mean, I fully support the idea, even if one would suggest to add a banner or similar. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I think "freezing" the Main Page doesn't really do much in this situation, unless you actually protect/delete/whatever every process that updates it, but that would be tantamount to disruption as well. The real problem is the next part of your plan: to add a notice as to why it's out of date. Most of anyone who cares about this is already here discussing it. The average reader will read the notice and will wonder the following things: "Why do I care about Fram when he's the accused party, not the victim?" and "Why do I care about internal Wikipedia governance and how their dispute resolution is handled?" and then skip the page to the content they came here for. The only ones who will care about it being out-of-date are editors who will make changes to fix it if they're able to. Something I want someone to do is explain this situation to someone who doesn't edit Wikipedia but knows of Wikipedia's existence (a relative, a friend, an online friend) and gauge their reaction. My guess is 1) it takes about forty-five minutes just explaining the fine detail and the fifty hoops you jump through editing here to get to this point and 2) they won't be impressed with you at the end when it boils down to "one person was accused of something we don't have all the facts on and banned by the website owners, but no one who uses the website agrees with the website owners having that much power and want to do it themselves". Ridiculous. — Moe Epsilon 09:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not us who need to explain. Having material (even only the mainpage) deteriorate should make readers either not coming back (i.e. funds drying up), or the readers should ask WMF for answers. Let WMF explain your friend why the volunteers fail to maintain the site. The optional banner could read 'due to untransparant actions of the site owners (WMF), our volunteers do not feel to maintain (the front page/the content on this page). Please direct your questions to ca@ for clarification'. In the meantime, you can direct the wrong things you find to the same email. You are under no obligation to repair it or explain it, and I don't think WMF is currently in the right position to lecture you about the ethics. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    No confidence vote

    What about a good old fashioned no confidence vote? Have a short statement stating that, in light of recent events, the undersigned have no confidence in the WMF Trust & Safety team and urge them to take urgent steps to remedy the position. WJBscribe (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Was that not tried here before a bot archived it because no-one had added to it for two days? I do think a proper summary of the situation needs to be written, which will take time. My view is that one of the strongest possible signals to send to the WMF would be to disband the current ArbCom and elect a new one. This depends on whether the current ArbCom are capable of doing what they need to do. Carcharoth (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My suspicion is that a no confidence vote would garner increased levels of support now that it has become evident that no satisfactory response is forthcoming. Lepricavark (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I thought that too. People may have lost confidence for a number of different reasons, rather than all taking issue with the same elements, and we need a statement broad enough that it can be endorsed by the maximum number of editors. WJBscribe (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    New Constitution and then...

    WMF has a long history of incompetence and power grabs in some areas. Structural fundamental flaws underly this. Board-appointed board members is one example. Being able to be tried by a secret clan in response to a secret complaint, a trial which you can't participate in, and where nobody ever even tells you what you supposedly did wrong is another example. Them being able to build themselves an ivory tower is nother. Let's write a new constitution and ratify it. If WMF goes rogue and ignores, it we tell the world about the problems and tell them to send their wiki money to a new foundation instead which would then take over and operate by the constitution.North8000 (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Precedent

    Some thoughts in response to the statement by Jimbo, #14 above:

    We on the board are in active conversations. I think you will receive a comprehensive, cogent reply, but we are looking to be thoughtful, reflective, to examine every aspect of this, and neither allow invalid precedent to be set, nor to set invalid precedent. The best way to avoid a bad outcome is to look to first principles, look at what has gone wrong, and to propose a process for healing but also for building a process that works better in the future.

    • By creating a process which can levy an unappealable sanction, the WMF created this situation. If a system has no built-in appeal, egregious errors cannot be rectified by the system itself, because there is no automatic safety valve. The pressure created by the error still exists, so the system breaks in response to the unusual amount of pressure. That's where we are right now: the T&S system, which apparently has worked sufficiently well in the past, generated an egregiously bad sanction, and the community pressure that was provoked by it had nowhere to go. That system is now broken, and needs to be fixed.
    • The most obvious fix for the future is the creation of a specialized Appeals Board, consisting of a small number (probably 5 would be optimal) of trusted people not connected to T&S, all of whom have already signed NDAs - maybe Stewards and community-based Arbs, CUs and Oversighters, to be appointed or elected by a process to be determined, but probably similar to current ArbCom and Steward elections. The Board's mandate would not be to oversee every T&S sanction, but only those which provoke considerable community reaction. This is the safety valve in the system.
    • In regard to setting precedent, it's very unclear to me what the WMF is worried about. I think that the vast majority of editors would agree with Tony Ballioni's feeling that we don't want the community to get involved with sanctioning pedophiles, for instance, we have (or have had) sufficient trust in T&S's handling of those situations that they do not cause community outrage. It is only because the current sanction was a usurpation of traditional community power to police itself, and that it was handled in an atrocious manner, that there has been this tremendous outpouring of discontent. That's in part because if you create an unappealable sanction you have to be extremely careful that your decisions are absolutely unimpeachable.
    • So, if the WMF was to do what I suggested above, rollback the clock to before the T&S sanction against Fram, and turn that matter over to the community via ArbCom, what precedent would be set? Only this one: if T&S makes a really, really, really bad decision that triggers hundreds of thousands of words of dismay, discussion and protest, civil disobedience, and admins giving up the bit in protest, then it's reasonable to start over from square one. That's hardly a precedent that's "invalid", unacceptable, or unlivable. How many times does the WMF expect that kind of error to be made? If it's more than once every 5-7 years or so, then it's clearly the wrong people who are making the decisions, and they should be changed. In short, this is a highly unusual situation which is unlikely to re-occur as long as the people making the decisions do their job well and correctly, so any precedent set is unlikely to be called on in the future.
    • It is especially unlikely to be called on if there is an appeals process, and the entire concept of an "unappealable sanction" is deep-sixed, as it should be. Find a name for a sanction which is unappealable unless massive numbers of editors of all types and beliefs protest against the sanction.

    Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Jimbo Wales: In all fairness, bringing Jimbo's attention to the comment above this, as it was in response to a comment of his. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong agreement with point 1, but point 2 is where it gets awry. T&S have made it clear they will not accept anyone above them (note that they didn't share anything with ArbCom which is elected by the community and is the top-most community-level body of enwiki), so this Appeals Board idea would be outright rejected. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I am essentially addressing here Jimbo and the WMF Board, which would have to overrule T&S's apparent intransigence, adjust the Office Actions policy, and set up any appeals process. It's not T&S which is ultimately legally and morally responsible for its actions, it's the WMF Board.
      If "discussions are ongoing" is just cover for waiting for the dust to settle, that's obviously a big problem, but if it means that they are, indeed, looking hard at the situation and attempting to craft a solution which will both appease the community and allow themselves to save face and not completely throw T&S under the bus, so it can go about doing the things it has done well in the past, I wanted to express these ideas just in case they hadn't already come up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering the WMF has done a sum total of nothing till now and the fact that statements from reps of T&S are literally just "IDGAF in a nutshell". Idk man. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • My feeling is that the people in T&S and the WMF who are most dead-set on grabbing the reins and hard-stonewalling any hint of anything that could allow WMF bans to be appealed are probably the ones who have been the loudest in this case, since by definition the people who wanted Fram banned are going to be the ones who were paying attention to his case and have the most emotional investment in avoiding having it overturned. But I think it's reasonable to assume that there are cooler heads on the board, too, who are willing to listen to proposals to find a way out of this crisis that isn't just "the WMF does not make mistakes and its actions therefore cannot be appealed, no further information is available, goodbye." --Aquillion (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • T&S specifically stated that they considered going through ArbCom in this case and rejected at the time over concerns that "the best we could have given Arbcom in this case would have been a distillation of the case, severely limiting their ability to handle it" and because they feared Fram's criticism of ArbCom "could put volunteers into a very difficult position and create the appearance of a conflict of interest regardless of the actual handling of the case". Those two points seem to be the crux of this crisis (since they led to the WMF screwing up and trying to handle, themselves, something that should have gone to ArbCom); and we can address both, both to convince the WMF to hand Fram's fate to ArbCom and to avoid mistakes like this in the future. The conflict-of-interest concern is one the community can address by making it clear that they prefer ArbCom to handle these things even when there is an (apparent) conflict of interest - though of course in this case, the WMF was just as much a target of Fram's ire as ArbCom, so it's unclear what was gained; but at the very least we can make it clear that we trust ArbCom to navigate and recuse as necessary in the face of conflicts of interests and don't want or need the WMF making that decision for them. And the privileged-information concern can mostly be addressed by making it clear that even a "limited" ArbCom involvement with partial information would be preferable to WMF handling things of this nature entirely on its own. There's some things about this case T&S has declined to share for various reasons, but they've gone into detail on why they didn't want ArbCom to handle this, which means we can reasonably make an argument for why bypassing ArbCom was a mistake and how conduct issues (outside of a few narrowly-defined specific types) should always first go to ArbCom by default in the future. T&S wouldn't even be giving up the option to override ArbCom if they feel they reached the "wrong" decision; but it would lead to far less fireworks to have these decisions deferred to people who have the community's trust, even if they have to make decisions based on limited, anonymized information. At a bare minimum, it would be nice to have an option to request that the WMF deliver the anonymized version of the complaints against a user in contested cases like this to ArbCom for review - they have specifically indicated they could create such an anonymized report, and did consider creating and using for this purpose. --Aquillion (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond My Ken, I fully understand the reaction of many editors to the notion that the decisions cannot be appealed. I also think I can imagine a set of decisions that should not have an appeal option, so if we want to push for an appeals mechanism I think it's worth making the distinction. In the expectation that someone will my suggestion that they can be legitimate situations without an appeal let me try to give a realistic example (hypothetical). Imagine that an editor has been committing serial copyright violations over a long period of time. The copyright holder realizes that their copyrights have been violated, and contacts our legal department. They request the real name of the editor in question and indicate that they plan to prosecute and push for jail time. Imagine that our legal department offers a counter proposal. The WMF will arrange to have all copyright violations reverted and oversighted, and the editor in question will be banned from Wikimedia projects for life. The copyright holder accepts this counteroffer and agrees to drop plans for prosecution. Suppose after making this agreement, the community becomes aware that this editor has received a lifetime ban as a result of an office action, and decides to avail themselves of the approval process being proposed. I hope you can all agree that this should be a nonstarter. If the legal department agrees to abandon exchange for saving the editor from prosecution, the back and say oopswe forgot to tell you about our appeal process and the community has decided that the editor should not be banned. In other words, we should identify a set of office actions that are subject to appeal, and a set of actions that are not subject to appeal. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that any process can, inevitably, make mistakes. The idea that there are bans that cannot be appealed is therefore either axiomatically wrong (there's always some proof and some sufficiently-bad ban that would lead to it being overturned) or a sign of completely boneheaded policy (ie. an insistence that even a ban based on a flat, unequivocal error would not be overturned.) It's corporate-speak, the kind of thing you expect to see from some sort of massive SAS vendor to its users when it wants to avoid paying for a communication channel or a review process. Hearing it from T&S obviously erodes trust in them every time it's repeated. They might not like the idea of having to overturn a ban, but we do need some sort of policies for it, because it's not something they can avoid in the long term (especially if they intend to be more aggressive with bans, like this one, that would previously have been handled by the community.) Otherwise, while it may or may not be the case here, they're setting themselves up for exactly the kind of humiliating walkback they're desperately trying to avoid in this case when (not if, when) they make a clear-cut error that can't just be stonewalled away. --Aquillion (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    −

    I don't think they the copyvio / jail time scenario outlined above would have to be ipso facto unappealable. Simply that, when presented with all the available evidence (as outlined in BMK's proposal), the appeals board would know fill well that it could not grant the appeal. And would itself independently inform the candidate of that. Of course, because WMF ultimately holds the risk and the responsibility for the whole project, from a legal point of view, they would have to retain a final veto in the situation gnat the appeals board unexpectedly reversed a decision that could not be reversed for legal reasons. But the point of the appeal board is to provide checks and balances, and I would think it could be deployed in all scenarios, with the above provisos.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In the above scenario, what if the editor did not, in fact, commit the copyright violations? There have been plenty of cases where companies have claimed copyright (e.g. from AT&T to SCO with respect to UNIX/Linux, or several stock photo companies with respect to public domain images) where none exists. Again, it's an "assumed guilty" case, where the party has no chance of defence. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Stephan Schulz, I'm not assuming that our legal department can make a deal without the input and concurrence of the editor. If the editor is convinced they didn't violate copyright, then the response to such a deal would be "Hell no". Obviously, our legal team might mis-assess the situation, and offer too much or too little, but if the editor in question agrees to the deal, I suggest it's absurd that this community could say "sorry, no we're going to override the deal. We want this editor not to have a ban and will take the chance that he or she might serve jail time." S Philbrick(Talk) 00:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there's necessarily a problem then. For this example, the deal could include an agreement that the editor will waive their appeal. The community would then be informed of this, which I think even on its own would be enough for most reasonable people. Hopefully the WMF would be willing to reveal other non-private information, plus oversighters would be able to confirm that oversighted materials were involved, and so on. Sunrise (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Amakuru, I'm not opposed to a board. I call it a "Review Board" rather than an "Appeal Board". The review board, probably populated by a subset of Arbcom, plus a couple of others like NewYorkBrad, would be empowered to hear all of the relevant information, and in the case of appeal-able actions would act as an appeal board, in the case of nonappeal-able actions, would act as a review board to provide confidential oversight. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    An alternative to Beyond My Ken's Proposal

    As my suggestion is so closely aligned to BYK's excellent proposal, I would place it here rather than a separate section. It can be forked without advising me if it is felt necessary.

    Why can't WP:EN form its own Trust & Safety entity, by which people with vulnerability can anonymously seek relief? This could be created and staffed in the same way as ArbCom, CU, Oversight, and 'Crats. These would be volunteers from the community, and would need the guidance of the WMF and only be able to sanction within the EN community. While necessarily working without community oversight in its deliberations, functionaries would be open to re-election and deselection as per agreed terms. Any egregious behaviour considered beyond the EN's remit can be referred to the WMF T&S dept. and of course complainers will still be able to go directly to WMF T&S. That body would be able to refer cases to the local/EN wiki, if they can be convinced that EN is capable of handling its own affairs... If this is done in such a way that most users would feel that EN:T&S is a competent avenue of recourse, then we worry as much as WP:T&S' opinion as they seem to do with ours. Oh, and actions would be appealable to Arbcom, under NDA protocols. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    How is this proposal different from the Arbitration Committee? * Pppery * it has begun... 23:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery: The case cannot be refused, and the request and investigation is done in camera - and rather than the entire arbcom it is done by as few as one person to ensure privacy is paramount. Only on appeal would other persons be required to review the data. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You see, the same issue can still arise though. A prominent editor/admin is reported anonymously and investigated by this new committee. They spend three-four weeks investigating the allegations and determine they're ban-worthy. What then? The masses have the ability to appeal to ArbCom and continue to not get details because that's what T&S requires? You now have two committees who are deliberating in private to protect the privacy of a victim for a couple weeks? They may determine to take it to the actual T&S team who will then deliberate even longer? It's just the Fram ban with extra steps. T&S is a necessary evil. — Moe Epsilon 23:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would just say we should use ArbCom for such things, as mentioned above. But either way the difference is that such a committee is answerable to the community, enjoys more of their trust, was selected by them, and often has more experience with community procedures. They'll feel more pressure to talk to us insofar as they're allowed and can do so safely without endangering the people who made the reports or revealing hidden information. I think it's extremely obvious from the tone of the T&S responses to date that T&S feels no such pressure - for instance, they've openly said that they are capable of producing an anonymous summery of events that they could share and yet declined to do so, and have declined to even indicate whether eg. there are any potential legal issues involved or whether the case involved off-wiki evidence (extremely basic checklist-style statements that wouldn't put anyone at risk and which could make it more clear-cut what sort of situations call for this sort of step - it could even be boilerplate chosen from a list of explanations, to avoid giving away more information than is necessary.) Additionally, ArbCom members can be more easily removed or replaced at the next ArbCom election, which means that even though the community won't always know all the details, if they're dissatisfied with the overall outcome of ArbCom results they would have at least some recourse. ArbCom has handled cases with privileged / secret information in the past and they were always far better at it than this; there was some grumbling, but nothing compared to the massive backlash we're seeing here. If ArbCom had said "we're talking a case against Fram based on privileged information" and then later said "all right, based on that, we're banning Fram for [off-wiki/on-wiki] harassment based on privileged evidence that we can't share", sure, many people would have been upset, but it wouldn't have created nearly this level of blowback, because the ArbCom (despite some of the back-and-forth) enjoys way more trust from the community as a whole than T&S on account of being composed of experienced editors who were selected by (and who are ultimately accountable to) the community. --Aquillion (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moe Epsilon: The EN T&S would be confined to issues originating within WP:EN only - if there is evidence or claims of issues exceeding that remit (off wiki harassment, or over several projects) then that can be passed to WMF:T&S. This would not preclude the EN investigation being held and sanctions applied if found necessary. What happens outside of WP:EN is not our concern. What this builds is trust that people familiar with the environment will review the complaint, people generally trusted by the community, and anyone unhappy with the results - including the complainant - can ask ArbCom to review the decision to ensure competent handling. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both of these proposals remind me of General Buck Turgidson: "Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines..." Oh, to be sure, it is what I was expecting -- indeed, if you go by the hypothesis that Fram was purged for being a 'trouble-maker', specifically to ArbCom, as per what better way than to fob the dirty work off on someone else, then bring it right back to a question of more power for the exact people he was criticizing! Or, in the second case, some other -- people who want power rarely oppose more job openings for themselves. But the answer to any harassment that does not require secrecy for legal reasons beyond our control is to say that we are a community that requires transparency for reasons of being open, participative, and democratic. NO to any proposals for new powers. The only thing worse than two Star Chambers is three! Wnt (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I do believe it would be worthwhile to look further into this suggestion, in order that cases of harassment in the future would be handled better. The process for T/S cases is that the recommendation from T/S is to be approved by the manger inside WMF, and finally by the CEO of WMF. This could be seen as OK for severe cases of misconduct but is really questionable when it comes to harassment. What it the approval in cases of harassment within enp was instead to be approved by ArbCom? Yger (talk) 05:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Demand for appealability

    Those of you here who are emphasizing the importance of appeal, how is this different to you than multiple levels of review before a sanction is announced in the first instance? (We have been told: "If the recommendation is something other than “take no action”, the suggestion is then also reviewed by the VP of Support & Services (Maggie Dennis), the Legal team, and the Executive Director.") Is the difference that you want an appellate body outside the WMF? Or that you believe there should be some transparency in an appeal? Or something else? I guess I'm not seeing the value of appeal for appeal's sake, given that someone has to be the final arbiter (and that there are already multiple levels of review built into the existing system)... unless something about the appeal makes it different from the original determination. What is that something that you all want? (Or am I wrong, and you would be happy with a non-transparent WMF appeal? Assuming the answer to that question is no....) Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Under the current system, the accused may never get the chance to speak in their own defense at all. Transparancy is a core value, but not the crucial point here. Most T&S bans will have to be discussed in camera anyway. Similarly, it's nice if the appellate body is outside the WMF, but this is not a strict requirement. However, usually when you have some sort of final arbiter, the decisions made are still appealable to that final arbiter. If nothing has changed, the appeal will be quickly denied, but it allows new arguments or developments to be weighed at any time. Historically, this body on Wikipedia has been Jimbo. In principle, and perhaps in practice, Jimbo can still serve that role. I'd obviously prefer a committee of, say, Jimbo plus a few community reps, a WMF legal rep and a WMF T&S rep, but that's an idealistic solution. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • At least as far as my own opinion goes, I'm less concerned with what any sort of appeals process would look like in particular (though definitely passing the anonymized case to ArbCom to get their feedback would be a good start) and more with the mindset that it shows, especially coupled with the fixation on "precedent" that seems to be behind a lot of the stonewalling we've encountered. Wikipedia is intended to be community-run; the purpose of the WMF, T&S, etc. is to handle things that cannot be managed in that fashion. I get that they're asserting that this is such a situation (although they've sort of vacillated on that point when conceding that ArbCom was an option), but the constant refrain that WMF and T&S are above question undermines trust in their commitment to community governance, which in turn makes people less likely to trust that the WMF and T&S are being forthright about how necessary it was to do this via an extra-community process. Furthermore, the constant claim that T&S actions cannot be appealed is simply not true - everything can be appealed to Jimbo and the board, without exception - and the fact that people know this further reduces trust in T&S every time that statement is repeated. By definition, T&S' mission requires deep, two-way trust with the community, and it's pretty clear that isn't present at the moment. (In fact, part of the reason we got in this mess is because it seems that T&S didn't trust ArbCom to handle this situation.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are two factors here: First, the lack of pre-ban notice of charges and an opportunity to be heard in any form, even to argue that the grounds for the ban are flat out incorrect, a case of mistaken identity, or god knows what else. Second, the lack of any independent review. My belief is that these both would be addressed best through commercial arbitration, such as through AAA. These can be kept confidential and no direct testimony need be taken. These would be professional arbitrators, not volunteers, not community members, and not WMF employees. Loser pays arbitration costs. This is the industry standard for a reason. If you're that attached to the community and genuinely believe you've been done wrong, you can make your case before an impartial body, and WMF has assurances that there's no BS being done to harass the victim by dragging him or her into court as a witness or party, or discovering that person's identity. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The idea of using AAA to resolve these disputes is insane, by the way. Loser pays the costs? What Wikipedia editor is going to want to go through this process at the risk of paying literally thousands of dollars?[32] I'm an attorney and have handled professional arbitrations on a variety of occasions. They are less different from in-court litigation than you might think, and quite expensive. Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • That’s the point. WMF will never accede to external review unless the person seeking review has to risk something real. Someone convinced that they’re right and able to prove it will do it. It’s not supposed to be how every case or even many cases are handled. This is also a major incentive to WMF to get it right. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Something that very much concerns me about the layers of review in the current system is that it can give the appearance of serious review at every step, without that actually happening. It's entirely possible that the first T&S staffer to read the complaint makes an erroneous interpretation of what's going on, and then the subsequent people in the chain of command just say something like "it looks like [name] has checked all the boxes, so let's OK this and move on to the next agenda item". --Tryptofish (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, this: What's described is not review in any way, shape, or form. It's approval. The goal isn't to determine whether it's the right action, but whether there's a reason why the action shouldn't be taken, and if not, correcting the action so it's the action that should be taken. Review, or appeal, or anything even resembling process, has at its core audi alteram partem—Let the other side be heard. And a core requirement of being able to be heard is actually knowing what's happening, what you're accused of, and what might happen. The ability to write T&S and complain about being banned isn't an opportunity to be heard. There needs to be an actual review and the actual possibility of a changed outcome, no matter how small. What Mr. Eissfeldt has indicated is that they have decided to under no circumstances alter a T&S action once it's finalized. That is outrageous. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree. Internal review is fine to help determine that the sanction is approved of internally by the sanctioning organization -- i.e. that the WMF approves of the decision made by T&S to sanction -- but that's not in any way the same as a review done by a, hopefully unbiased, external entity. Multiple bureaucratic levels of a federal agency, or even its internal Inspector General, may approve an action, but that's not the same thing as the action being appealed to a court. What the internal review can do is to cut down on bad decisions, but once a bad decision has passed the internal gantlet and been issued, there needs to be a review by an impartial external entity. This is basic "how to set up check and balances" stuff, and I'm disturbed that some people aren't seeing that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would tend to agree with Mendaliv and BMK. The problem is in that someone might be banned without even getting to tell their side. The truly unacceptable part to this, aside from it being a massive overreach to begin with, is that the person accused of wrongdoing isn't even told who accused them of what, to give them an opportunity to deny that, put it in context, tell their side of the story, whatever have you. That is absolutely antithetical to how we do things here. But yes, there also should be an external review process. Internal review in an organization can be subject to groupthink, where if the last twenty proposals Sally gave you were good ones, you may only give the twenty-first a cursory look since she always knows her stuff, and miss the same things she missed. Outside review would eliminate that issue. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on what he said he has not responded to WMF. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 03:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, remember, in order to be able to respond to or tell your side to WMF, it has to be non-futile. That doesn't mean you need to have a realistic chance of success, and they can be utterly convinced they did the right thing. What we have here is, as Mr. Eissfeldt made clear (albeit obliquely), a categorical refusal to consider anything after the enactment of the ban. It doesn't matter if Fram sent them anything: It cannot affect the outcome and therefore will not be considered. That is not an opportunity to be heard. An opportunity to be heard is more than a hole in which to shout your grievances. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a bit of a red herring. Yes, making WMF bans appealable via some process would be a step in the right direction. But the core understanding must be that the WMF runs the servers, not the project. The project has been, to the degree legally possible, self-governing, and that is how it should be. Yes, not everything is perfect and peachy. But the idea that it becomes better if a small, unelected group of people starts making decisions in a top-down process is naive. Yes, it might help in some situations. But it is not sustainable, it is not scalable, and it comes at a price that I, for one, are not willing to pay. Cries for "a strong man", someone who will "clean up", should ring a warning bell in anyone with marginal historical awareness. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 Exactly, the community howevr also may need to do a better job in running things.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that’s the beauty in this project: Because it’s not a print encyclopedia, we can change. There is no deadline. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue here is that T&S won't tell us where we need to change, despite alleging our policies are deficient in these matters. We can't make any meaningful change if we don't know where and what the issues are. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 19:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrespectively of what T&S wants and of what we think of T&S we clearly have issues in the community which need to be fixed ASAP.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That I will not disagree with - no community is perfectly saintly - but this situation is specifically about certain policies, and odds are some of the problems here will get fixed if we can address those policies. Which is why T&S's silence here is self-defeating. We can't expect to course-correct if the map we've been given just says "Hc svnt dracones" and has nothing else of use. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 20:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I will - at least in the abstract. Yes, we should always strive to improve how the community works. But we need to accept that at a certain level attempts to further improve the situation become counterproductive - either because we waste resources with no further improvement, but also because type 2 errors are at least as damaging (and probably more so) than type 1 errors - and statistically, by decreasing one, you increase the other. That said, in the concrete, I think there are things we can improve - e.g. more structured discussion forms that avoid the impression of overwhelming minority opinions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    T&S has given us some hints, I think? We'd need some sort of community position capable of handling privileged evidence. That requires a degree of cooperation from their side (we'd need to eg. select people or designate ArbCom as that point of contact, then have them sign NDAs and whatever else is necessary), but it's a clear way forward to prevent this from happening again. An additional caveat is that, in addition to the privileged-information issue, the WMA has said that they decided not to use ArbCom here because they felt it would be precieved as biased due to previous criticism of it by Fram; I think in that case we need to make it clear that it is ArbCom, not the WMA, that should be making the decision of when to recuse itself, and that the community trusts ArbCom more in that regard than it trusts representatives of the WMA. --Aquillion (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aquillion: - at a minimum, since the forced recusing was based because they might be biased against Fram...they should have let Fram decide if he wanted to recuse them. Nosebagbear (talk)
    • Let's keep in mind that the 'no appeal' thing is right on when it concerns things like actual legal or safety issues, like child porn, death threats, etc... The issue is when WMF issue behavioral bans based on nebulous concepts of 'harassment' which seem to be based on 'feelings' and perceived rudeness, rather than things that actually fall within the remit of T&S. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The FA/NI community should expire all bans over a year

    As explained at [33], the ban on Fram is part of supplementing what formerly was the "autonomous" Wikipedia community and now is the "informal" Wikipedia community. It stands to reason that the Formerly Autonomous/Now Informal community should not be making or enforcing long-term bans. The FA/NI community has long had a habit of making very long, punitive bans either by AN/I or ArbCom, and every once in a while people have noticed and complained about how crazy it is that 10% or more of the most prolific editors who built the encyclopedia are blocked. Let's recognize that one silver lining from the loss of power is that all this can be wound down. If the New Founder, Jan Eissfeldt, and his hired team want to block someone for multiple years, they can. We don't need to. Wnt (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh wait, this is a WMF plot to free Betacommand? --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ha. That would actually be a bonus. Unblocking every long term abuse account, harassers, racists, homophobes, misogynists, legal threateners and vandalism-only accounts may not be the best idea, though. Black Kite (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Why not? When did we get this soulless bureaucratic notion that anyone who was rude or had a wrong political belief must be banned for ever and ever? I mean, I know we see this all over society, but it doesn't make any sense any one of the thousand times you see it. For most of a century people could bail out of jail for robbing a cabbie, walk out to the street and stick out their thumb to hail a cab. Now all of a sudden they have 'rideshare' services that tie into the internal passports we call "smart phones" and everybody believes, like a good NKVD officer, that if someone ever once used a racist term they should never again be able to hail a ride, because .... why exactly? Ditto Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Purpose of T&S, can someone explain?

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

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

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

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

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

    As far as I can see its purpose is to undermine trust in the WMF, and create an unsafe environment in which editors can never know if they are being subject to secret processes enforcing secret policies. DuncanHill (talk) 10:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Just because something is "clearly legal", that doesn't mean it's appropriate for an online encyclopaedia-building community. Wikimedia have written a lengthy terms of use, much of which is designed to ensure that people of all backgrounds can edit here in a safe and collegiate environment. T&S can, and IMHO should, intervene where those terms of use are seriously broken, illegally or otherwise. Not commenting in whether it was justified in the case of Fram, because I don't know. But in general I don't think it's unreasonable for them to take action in such cases. — Amakuru (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone does something illegal, the police might be responsible for persecuting said individual in the real world but the WMF (and specifically T&S) needs to remove illegal content and ban such users as well because otherwise they would be prosecuted. Reporting something to the authorities and removing something here are not mutually exclusive, in fact, they are both needed. Something similar applies to clear ToS violations, especially when the evidence cannot be published without putting real people at risk. So it makes sense to have someone deal with such cases. Whether this was one of those, is another question. Regards SoWhy 11:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pgallert, this post shows a significant lack of knowledge about what the legal responsibilities of a web host are —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Legal where? There are an awful lot of legal systems around the world with completely different expectations. Jehochman Talk 16:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reporting something to the police does not absolve the WMF of their legal obligations, ie. if something flatly illegal is posted here they have to remove it regardless of whether they report it or not, and can't just subject that to community consensus (or, well, technically they could, but they'd have to override us if we reached the wrong decision - technically this is the case on some WP:COPYVIO stuff, where the rules and enforcement are done by the community and there's some gray areas where we can decide how, precisely, to implement and enforce them, especially around fair use, but we don't realistically have the option to just stop enforcing them entirely, and the WMF would clearly have to step in if we tried.) That said, I agree that T&S needs to be more unambiguous about when it will step in and when it won't, both for the sake of relations with the community and so people making reports will know where they should go. The explanations for why this case couldn't be handled by ArbCom seem insufficient. --Aquillion (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Wikipedia:Office actions changed from a policy page to an information page

    I've changed the Wikipedia:Office actions page from a policy page to an information page. It is clear that it no longer holds local community support to be considered a policy following the update of February 2019. –xenotalk 12:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, this should be interesting. Popcorn, anyone? rdfox 76 (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please get a small with butter for me? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Good.- MrX 🖋 13:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Good. An essential change. ∯WBGconverse 13:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I did ask that the current ArbCom case consider comments on that status in any "motion" based closings; though I do think there is a "policy" type consideration for it - I also think it extends well beyond the English Wikipedia and should probably be moved to foundation wiki. — xaosflux Talk 13:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it was your statement that prompted me. Maybe you can note the change, I don’t want. to add Yet Another Statement. –xenotalk 13:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It was that or 'Obsolete'... LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The ripples of this incident continue to widen and WMF continue to play the fiddle, hoping it'll all just go away. It's on fire, chaps. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd rather see it marked "historical". Short of that, this should do fine. This should be read as a support.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that this change is also under discussion on WT:OFFICE. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Good job. Can we just move it into the userspace of WMFOffice and call it an 'essay'? --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a bit like unblocking Fram's account without getting him unbanned, but whatever. It doesn't change anything. — Moe Epsilon 17:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Fram could at any point decide to resume his good work on Wikipedia and then we shall see if Jan and his team really want to fight this further. Haukur (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No? They have already explicitly said that if he resumes editing Wikipedia under the ban, his account will be globally locked. So no, it changed nothing. — Moe Epsilon 17:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Haukurth, they have explicitly said that shall Fram do so, he will be global-locked, which effectively means a global ban (a locked user ain't able to even login on any project). ∯WBGconverse 17:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but presumably this will not trigger automatically but will require someone to decide that yes, they want to affirmatively pursue this debacle further. Haukur (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably better to discuss rather than chance it. It wouldn't improve the situation either way I expect..--Wehwalt (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be a last resort but in any case it is Fram's decision to make. Haukur (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Notification of RfC on correctness of the change

    An RfC has been started on whether Xeno’s change of the pace from policy to information was correct. Editors may wish to weigh in. starship.paint (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Starship.paint, I'm wondering if we instead ought to have separate tags for community policy and WMF policy? Adam9007 (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Adam9007 - I’m the wrong person to ask, I don’t have much expertise in WMF related matters. starship.paint (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Perspective & choices

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

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

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

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

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

    2: Accept and rationalize the justification for the abusive authoritarianism

    3: Demonstrate/Protest against the specific incident/event

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

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

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

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

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

    To do #4, write and ratify a new constitution. If WMF won't "start over" following it, we tell the world what the problem is, and tell them to redirect their Wiki donations to a new foundation. Whatever fraction they get will be enough to start a new un-bloated foundation to run it within the new constitution. Or merely starting on this path might be enough to get the needed changes in the current WMF. North8000 (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WMF is not a government that we are forced to deal with. We are subject to its authority only if we want to edit on its websites. Consequently, a Choice 5 exists: to reduce or end one's participation in Wikipedia activities. There are other things that we can do with our spare time besides editing or performing administrative functions for Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this page a representative sample of the community?

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

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

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

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

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

    Please contact WMF

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

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

    I would suggest using this page [34] as a starting point. It might help to cross-reference with the flow chart - File:Trust and Safety Office action workflow.png - to better target those who may have some influence or interest in the matter. This page gets something like 7,000 daily visitors; if everyone of those wrote a polite and pleasant email to the Foundation CEO, Katherine Maher (contact page here) saying something like how they would welcome greater open dialogue between the enwiki community and the Foundation so we can work together to make Wikipedia an even greater place, then I really think we could achieve something. SilkTork (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Although admittedly it's not specifically focused on the controversy here, there is also this: [35], where this controversy has been discussed by en-wiki editors, and I sure would hope that WMF are at least paying attention to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SilkTork: Some members of ArbCom have, as I understand it, held a discussion with T&S. Should editors here understand your suggestion to imply that you feel that the message did not get through to WMF from that discussion? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I commented above on that phone call. I'll repeat it here for convenience: "People here are aware that there was a phone call discussion between some members of the Committee and Jan - as reported above, the contents of that discussion are still being chewed over. As it was a private meeting, at this stage we cannot indicate what was discussed without agreement from those involved in the discussion. When I looked at the email list a few minutes ago, there are proposals for summarising what was said, but no agreement as yet."
    I was not at the meeting, but it looks like only three members of WMF were there, and none from higher up the organisation. As the flowchart of responsibility for Office Actions includes the CEO, I should imagine she is aware of this situation, but how detailed her awareness is I couldn't say. The Foundation tend to put their messages and notices on Meta and assume that enwiki people will go there to be kept up to date. I don't know how many do, but I suspect it's a fraction of those who are looking at this page. In the same way, we cannot be putting our messages here and assuming that the Foundation, particularly the CEO, are paying close attention to our every word. But those who do contact Katherine Maher directly, will at least know for sure that she knows about the situation from them, and how they feel about it. Indeed, it may be helpful for people to report back here that they have emailed so we have some kind of record that somebody here did make her aware of it. SilkTork (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply, and in fact I had already read what you reproduced here. My reading of your reply is that there are still some things that ArbCom are thinking over, but overall that discussion ArbCom had with WMF was not all that productive, in terms of what en-wiki is looking for. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty skeptical that they'll listen to anything anyone here has to say, but what do I know? Sometimes it's time to stop being a pessimist. I guess at least nobody can accuse us of not trying to escalate this. Maybe an old-fashioned letter-writing campaign is a good idea. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well—it can't hurt. I don't know if it will do any good either, but I see no harm in giving it a try. Let's please just all remember to remain civil if you do; I'm as pissed off about that as anyone, but yelling and swearing will just get you ignored. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Hello Katherine Maher

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

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

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

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

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

    With regards

    Steve (SilkTork)

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

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

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

    Dear Katherine Maher.

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

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

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

    Best regards,

    Dr. Haukur Þorgeirsson

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

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

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

    A plea for civility and to avoid hounding

    Other people have discussed these topics in a few places but I think that these subjects are important enough that they should get their own section on this page.

    I think that most people are trying to be civil, while expressing feelings such as anger, confusion, dismay, or betrayal. However, I am concerned about reports that one or more people have been hounded off wiki regarding their possible involvement in this incident. I am also concerned by a few comments that I have read that seem likely to create additional personal conflicts that are secondary to the main issue. I am not claiming to be a perfect model of civility, but I am concerned about the Wikipedia community equivalent of collateral damage, which can happen when a good person becomes stressed or agitated enough that they abruptly quit. (This is different from someone resigning from positions in thoughtfully considered protest.) I request that we keep in mind the value of civility when having tense discussions such as this one, both on wiki and off wiki. I am not saying that we should pretend that everything is okay or that we should be shy about sharing our opinions about WMF's actions. However, I request that we avoid hounding and that we try to be civil to each other in this difficult situation, both on wiki and off wiki. Thank you. --Pine (✉) 03:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Kumbaya. People who’ve invested a decade or more of volunteer work feel betrayed. All blame for the consequences rests with those committing the betrayal. The sooner they make reparations, the less collateral damage there will be. It’s real easy. They can just rescind the action against Fram and rescind the changes they snuck through without consulting any of us. Then, we all get together and discuss a path forward as equals, not as master and servant. Jehochman Talk 03:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    just an aside... about the song Kumbaya , its origins & its changing meanings throughout its history (in the Library of Congress Folklife blog). Shearonink (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]
    I too am frustrated with WMF. In my comments in this section I was focusing on how we in the community treat each other in these difficult circumstances. --Pine (✉) 03:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    [ec] It is possible that you have misunderstood what was being outlined, who is leaving and why, or I don't like what is being suggested. cygnis insignis 03:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone's hounding someone and you have specific information about it, I urge you to report it to the appropriate place or call it out where you see it. I'm not looking closely at everything, and really not looking at individual user talk pages or other places that hounding might take place, and as such haven't really seen anything I'd characterize as going beyond spirited discussion. As to civility, if that principle is being pushed beyond its ideal, that's not desirable, but in my view forgivable considering the circumstances. The Foundation has acquired a substantial amount of bad will with this power move. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "Kumbaya" in this context is dismissive of the legitimate concerns bring expressed. We don't need divisiveness. Coincidentally, it has been almost exactly ten years that I have been editing. I do not "feel betrayed" although I am worried and concerned and want far better communication and collaboration from the WMF. Why not say "some people" feel betrayed? If you demand unconditional surrender, do not be surprised if you fail when your opponent holds all the power and pretty much all the cards. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you but I prefer to speak for myself. Please speak for yourself. I said "people" (in my comment above) because there are others who feel the same way I do. Jehochman Talk 03:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jehochman: Please clarify what you, and your bunch of people, mean to say, because it reads badly. cygnis insignis 04:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don’t ping me and issue commands. I’m not your servant. Jehochman Talk 04:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    EEP! Now I'm on another list. cygnis insignis 04:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You're off the hook. I've edited my comment to possibly make it clear. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Jehochman Talk 11:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Easy, Jehochman. I believe he simply wants to talk. -- llywrch (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Pine: - Who are being hounded? Which editors are involved in hounding? We need specifics, not vagueness, to deal with this. starship.paint (talk) 04:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Starship.paint: thank you for the good faith interest. My vagueness may seem unhelpful if someone would like to hunt for offenders, but my intent in my statement above was to encourage self-reflection. --Pine (✉) 05:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pine: - my point is not really to hunt for offenders. I guess I didn't bring my point across clearly. I'm more interested in, what is the offending behaviour we want to avoid or prevent? This goes for Fram's case too, some editors ask us to reflect on what led to this point, when we don't know exactly what went wrong. We can't point to specific diffs from WMF (because they gave us none) and say, "This is what went wrong! This is what we must avoid!" Fram has given us 3 diffs, but since WMF hasn't confirmed anything, we don't know if he's telling the whole truth too. We only know harassment and abuse happened per WMF, but we don't know what they really believe is harassment and abuse. starship.paint (talk) 07:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Starship.paint: At the moment I will refrain from speculating regarding WMF's thinking about Fram beyond my previous criticism of WMF's actions. An "offending behavior" that I think that we should avoid is posting irrelevant personal information of anyone who might have made a complaint to WMF regarding Fram, including posting such information off wiki. I think that people should not be discouraged from making good faith complaints, whether or not I agree with those complaints, and I am concerned that publishing irrelevant personal details about the background of a complainant could discourage people from making good faith complaints. I am not excusing anything that Fram might or might not have done, but I am also concerned about protecting people who make good faith complaints from retaliation, trolling, harassment, or similar attacks. --Pine (✉) 19:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pine:- As to your writeup :-I am concerned about reports that one or more people have been hounded off wiki - if we are thinking about the same issue, a vast majority (>~90%) of the hounding was done by someone over a off-wiki fora and that part. person claims to not edit over here. Even if he/she edits, we have no scope to determine that. I agree that it is bad but how do we, the Wikipedians, avoid that? ∯WBGconverse 05:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Winged Blades of Godric: thanks for your question. For better and for worse, the ENWP community has little ability to control what happens off-wiki. In limited circumstances I might support on-wiki penalties for off-wiki activities by someone who participates both on-wiki and off-wiki, but if someone shares information only off-wiki then I believe that the only recourse against them would be to reach out to the authorities of the relevant off-wiki platform(s) or to legal authorities. Legal authorities have significant variability in their willingness to take action regarding online activities, and the authorities for the off-wiki platforms may or may not cooperate. --Pine (✉) 19:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Remember, if you would consider it hounding of you it is also hounding if it is against someone else. Experience does not alter that, being a 15 year long service veteran does not give you an excuse to act like Rimmer.Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Another proposal for work stoppage

    No questions have been answered, no changes are being made, no mistakes admitted, no mistaken decisions reversed, and our alleged representatives on the WMF board have been absolutely impotent, with Arbcom not a whit better. It's time to start focusing on direct action to move WMF... Two things come to mind: (1) If WMF is so all-fired hot on micromanaging this site, I propose letting them micromanage it. All administrators to stand down from admnistrative duties, including but not limited to vandalism reversal, account name violations, page protection, sock puppetry investigation, COI and paid editing investigation, copyright violation investigation, deletion debates, and all noticeboard activities. If it is auxiliary work, it is shut down until this situation is fixed... Go ahead and build an encyclopedia, but leave the maintenance of the site to the Eissfeldten in San Francisco, and may they have fun with it. (2) Fundraising happens in November-December. If things aren't fixed by then, time for a big, coordinated fuss in the mainstream media with a view to shaving multimillions from the donation skim off our labor. Additional suggestions? Carrite (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    In particular, the bots need to be shut off. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You will need widespread consensus to carry out such protest actions effectively and I for one will oppose them for now, at least until our elected representatives, including Doc James and Jimbo Wales and ArbCom, have reported back to us. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, the bot operators just need to stop maintaining them. The bits of string holding the servers together will do the work for them. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Cullen, but I think it's a bit unconvincing to suggest that the continued silence doesn't mean anything, and that we just need to be patient. Doc James has skipped town to go "hiking for a few days". Prior to that he could literally not even confirm, upon direct questioning, that the ban was for an actual violation, instead claiming that he had no answers. It's unconvincing that he, or Jimbo, or Arbcom, still have not figured out what the hell happened, and if any one user involved has deduced that there was an objective ToU violation, they would surely be immediately forthcoming with that information, rather than joining the Foundation in their wall of silence. This reeks of a coverup. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    One idea would be to fix the vandalism but refer the vandal to WMF by pinging Jan, and also, so that there may be oversight by board members, also pinging our community-designated board members and Jimbo each time. We should not be undermining Jan's paid labor by providing it free.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We also have three paid "Community Engagement" staff and eleven paid "Community Relations" staff, all of whom have been distinctly absent from this collapse of community engagement and community relations. If you click on their photos, there's an "email this person" link on each of their staff profile pages. ‑ Iridescent 09:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That Foundation staff page is horrible. There is something very odd in how it loads. It's slow and scrolls as it loads. Half the linked profiles don't actually tell you anything, but hey, the staff get to pose and look cool in photos. It's not a page to actually either help you find someone, or know what someone does if you do find them. DuncanHill (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wehwalt: what is the use to ping Jan (or Jimbo ..) if you have reverted the vandalism? You expect a 'thank you!' letter? They're likely just ignoring it. Better would be that you send the vandalism to them, so they can revert and talk to the editor who is vandalisingharassing our encyclopedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be to deal with the editor in question, since they have taken on that function. I think that what I wrote does speak for itself. And I don't want to pull a Doc James on the community but I'm probably not going to be available until late this afternoon as I will be driving, should you need a reply.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    But one of the few things we do know here is that T&S consider maintenance and tagging to constitute "harassment" of the vandal/spammer. I would suggest "I am concerned that if I revert this vandalism/spam/copyright violation you would consider it harassment, so am forwarding it to you to discuss the appropriate action to take" as a suitable cover notice. ‑ Iridescent 10:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. I think the idea would be that, if there is to be action, enough people would participate to provide suitable cover, or it would not happen. And with that, I must go for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • diff. I will adhere to above request for an indefinite time. I am sorry, anyone who is commenting here with 'we have to wait until Jan, Jimbo, Doc, the ArbCom etc. have come back to us': we have requested answers from them for a long time, and we have been absolutely stonewalled. ArbCom clearly has not much more information than what we have (if any) suggesting that they are stonewalled as well. No-one we could possibly trust has even given any idea on which way WMF wants to go, whether things were (un)reasonable, or what timeline there is on it. And the longer trusted editors take, the less I am going to trust the answer. We have lost 8 admins over this (which already will have some effect on the maintenance of this site), this just needs to be a growing movement. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what's up with the delay. On one hand, if WMF Board was going to give us crap like this I think they would have by now. On the other, it is disconcerting to see admin after admin resign. Either they are endlessly arguing about the matter or they are hoping it will suddenly die down. --Rschen7754 06:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, I would stop short of imposing drastic, self-inflicted harm to the project. We'd ultimately be damaging the credibility of Wikipedia and ourselves. However, that's not to say we should allow them to get away with endless delays until this dies down. There are users involved who are directly accountable to us, and we should not let them forget that should they side with the WMF in a coverup. ~Swarm~ {sting} 07:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I did look at that. Apparently we've switched from two- to three-year terms for community-designated board members so they aren't up for election until next year. Perhaps James will put off answering questions then on the grounds he is going windsailing (one of the few remaining excuses in the book). Or perhaps he'll take another hike. Probably a large part of the community would tell him to, given the opportunity.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    All administrators to stand down from admnistrative duties, including but not limited to vandalism reversal, account name violations, page protection, sock puppetry investigation, COI and paid editing investigation, copyright violation investigation, deletion debates, and all noticeboard activities. Way ahead of you. I don't want to ever again contribute even a single drop to the WMF's gravy train. Fish+Karate 09:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. I'm not doing any more mainspace work until we get a satisfying and credible answer to the question, "what the hell are the WMF up to?". And I'm certainly not giving any more money to their fundraisers either. Reyk YO! 10:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Folks want to take direct action, write firm letters of complaint, or run a huge request for comment, great. But avoid using Stonewall as a rallying cry, that historic event that started a literal lifetime of protests for equality, deserves more respect than to be used as a disposable label for an inside baseball debate. --Fæ (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a reference to Stonewalling—nothing to do with either the bar or the riots. ‑ Iridescent 10:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How odd, thanks for the info. In the context of protest, it seems automatic to think of Stonewall. If others are promoting a protest activity, I suggest they imagine of another way of phrasing it, as I doubt I'm that much of an outlier reader. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed the thread title to something more generic. There just isn't any reason in my mind to make this comparison, or to even suggest that we might be connecting our bit of outrage with a well-known landmark historic event, especially since its 60th anniversary is in a few days. It just doesn't help the cause here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the 50th anniversary. Also, I'm pretty sure the term 'stonewall' for WMF's tactics significantly pre-dated the Stonewall riots. Enigmamsg 14:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It dates back at least to its use by Stonewall Jackson as a general term for a particular type of tactic. Tying it to the Stonewall riots and claiming that's its origin (or is perceived thusly by most readers of English) is silly. Grandpallama (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 November 14#Origin of the verb 'To stonewall'. Deor (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the end of the day, they are the ones with the big bucks and financial incentive to protect their paying jobs, so I have little hope anything of value will come of this. The Foundation has been constantly encroaching on the community for years now, and their actions over the years to engage us (Oliver as liason???) has been pitiful. Not trying to be dramatic, but it really does feel like they look down upon us, mere volunteers and the paid employees are the really important people. It's one of the reasons I've gotten less involved as of late, as every interaction I've had with the WMF has been an exercise in being talked down to. It would be interested to be a fly on the wall and hear how they really talk about the community in private. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • WMF management have profiles on the most active volunteers, so they know what to think of you, and me. I discovered this for myself when Gardner was WMF CEO and I was chair of WMUK. Search the wikimedia-l archives and you'll find WMF Legal officially denying me access to the report(s) they hold on me. They have never denied that reports exist. --Fæ (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • They may have options on you or I but that doesn't mean they give a damn what you think. WMF has turned into a cash cow that has different priorities than the community. Most overlap, but not all, and most do put themselves above us. This is not based on this one incident, but on a series of them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Again I have to say many organisations do this, for the precise reason of "well you did not deny it last time now you are, ergo last time it was true". Say nothing and no one can read anything into it (well they can try, but it has no logical basis) respond just once and ever more what you say is judged by that. I also have to say that every organisation I have even worked for (paid or unpaid) has always treated it workers according to their pay grade. Why should Wikipedia be any different, because its the internet?Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm assuming most of those other organisations you worked for didn't have "We solve problems better together. For it to work well, each of us needs to be honest, accountable, and transparent to one another.", "We are there for one another; we support one another through life’s ups and downs, our mistakes, our successes. We challenge one another in service of our personal and professional development.", "We strive for empathy, we accept no less than civility.", "If we do not understand what the other is feeling, we are still open-minded to where they are coming from." and "With curiosity and humility, we learn from our mistakes as well as our successes." hard-wired into their written principles, though. (Connoisseurs of West Coast touchy-feely corporate babble should cherish that page.) ‑ Iridescent 11:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm reminded of Animal Farm. "No animal may sleep in a bed......with sheets". Just waiting for the rules to change. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you mean "have written rules which say what they can and cannot do" yes (in fact I was once used as a means of breaching such rules, in a way not wholly unanalagous to this situation), hell we even have laws that say what they must do (and yes I was one of my other tasks has been to enable a company the breach those laws). They still find ways round them. Yes they all pay lip service to ideals they never uphold (often very publicly).Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    If you think WMF is micromanaging, striking isn't the best course of action - they'll never notice. Submit requests to investigate sockpuppets. Ask them to handle speedy deletions. In particular, since it was mentioned as a thing Fram handled problematically "even if [their] concerns have been valid", ask T&S to handle copyvios.

    On that note in particular, since we can be banned for doing it wrong, I'd like proper guidance on how to do it right. Preferably a training module and a flowchart of appropriate actions. Guettarda (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I winder, what level of support would this actually get? And if it is admnis (rather then just edds) all it means is more work for them when it is over, after all all that stored up trouble will still have to be dealt with. Thius does rather smack of biting of your nose to spite your face ("the only way to save Wikipedia is to destroy it, now start the bombing").Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It's better than simply not doing these tasks and not telling anyone about them. But more to the point, copyvios and sockpuppetry are TOS violations, as are things like PAID violations. If they want to handle those tasks, maybe we should let them. Guettarda (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Have they said they want to handle them? that is not my impression of what is. Trying to break Wikipedia to make a point (and that is what this is) is (ironically) a violation of policy. It also plays into the impression this is less about protecting Wikipedia then it is about protecting mates. If you withdraw labour (either secretly or openly) all you will do is play into the hands of those who say the problem is amdinship and arbcom, and edds who stack the system to protect their vision of the project. As I said all you are going to do is store up more trouble for when you come off your breaks, not only workload but the inevitability that a new batch of admins and arbcom members will have to have been appointed. Ones who are not only not part of your clique, but whose whole alligence is to WMF. I have said above (more then once) part of the problem (assuming it is a problem, and not in fact a solution) is the changing demographics of Wikipedia, and that is only going to be hastened by withdrawing labour.Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven: there is a distinct difference between breaking wikipedia, and not making sure that the encyclopedia doesn't break. But making sure the encyclopedia doesn't break may result in you getting banned by WMF. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, for me the issue is intent, not how you achieve it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we need to take gradual yet escalating approach to any work actions. As inviting as turning off the bots or sabotaging the next fundraiser may be, either will result in a mess which will fall on us to clean up. Then there is the issue that not all Wikipedians are eager to go as far as either of these actions. And why do something as extreme as these if we can at least get the Foundation to talk to us with less effort? So I propose we set up a series of actions, starting with modest acts & working our way to the more extreme responses. For example:

    • We start with what has been proposed by some of the leading voices here: wait for ArbCom to release a statement, & engage in a letter-writing campaign to any & all WMF staff in an attempt to get them to discuss this matter -- per SilkTork's suggestion above. We continue this for a few weeks.
    • If we feel we are not getting results at this stage, we begin to discontinue maintenance work on Wikipedia. One of the first steps might be to shut down the entire dispute resolution process & forward it all to T&S. And I mean everything: every squabble, obvious trolling, etc. that appears on WP:AN/I goes to them; in fact, we replace WP:AN & WP:AN/I with pages containing the email addresses of the T&S staff. Let them deal with the finger-pointing, the petty bickering, the drama. (Which might be a good thing: less drama, more time to work on content.)
    • Next step would be to stop performing the non-automated maintenance. No more New Page Review, no more deleting pages, etc. Now we are getting into the space where we'll have a mess when this is all over.
    • After this, the next step is to shut down the bots. By my rough calculations, this will be 2-3 months from now, at the earliest. This is where each of us takes a gut-check, & decide whether to fight, to acquiesce, or simply leave.
    • The last step will come in November/December when the Foundation has their annual fundraiser. That is when we volunteers launch our own counter-campaign explaining why people should not give. The message at that point will be quite clear: none of the money is really going to help keep Wikipedia -- or the other projects -- going, only to pay the salaries of Foundation functionaries who have proven they don't care about the projects. By that point actions will only strengthen this message.

    I'll be honest: I hope this doesn't even get as far as replacing WP:AN/I with Jan Eissenfeldt's email address -- although it might be fun if it went that far or a little further. But if we take this step by step -- rather than one massive & extreme motion -- I feel that this will strengthen us as a community, & those who are wavering or siding with the WMF will solidify with us. Maybe, if this all fails, we will end up with a core of people strong enough to make a fork work. -- llywrch (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    "When they go low, we go high". I think that should be the guiding principle in any sort of protest. --Rschen7754 18:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    ArbCom Vacancies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Grandpallama, Nobody need be precluded from participation. In the example above where I talked about how I handled a paper's committee, I mentioned I was skipping some details. I'll provide one of those details. If a particular paper is assigned to, say, five of the 15 or so reviewers, they provide a preliminary position which is shared with the entire committee. In some cases, the entire committee will be perfectly satisfied with the report, but in some cases, one or more of the remainder of the committee might decide to get personally involved, and if they find that the initial report was deficient, it could change. The same concept could easily apply to ArbCom. Asking a subset of the committee to be assigned to the case doesn't mean those are the only members that can look at the material. It means those selected members are expected to immerse themselves in all aspects of the case, but any other member could monitor the workshop and decide to get involved if they feel that something important is being missed. It most definitely does not mean that any member of the committee is precluded from reviewing any case (with the obvious exception of conflicts of interest requiring recusal).S Philbrick(Talk) 18:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sphilbrick, I do understand what you're positing, but it still doesn't get to Doug's concern (which I share) that the entire committee isn't necessarily involved. What if there are five people assigned to a case that concerns me, but three of those are committee members whose judgment I have very little faith in and didn't vote for, while I have trust in the overall committee? We vote for the people we want to be in these roles to make these decisions, so creating a situation in which those elected persons might not even be involved undercuts the purpose of the election in the first place. Grandpallama (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Sphilbrick but what we need to understand is that the numbers are too low to institute this system. To effectively prevent biasing our panel, we would need to up the members to 20-25 and have panels of 7-8 in rotation. Just for trivia, but the Indian Supreme Court has a membership of 30+1 and listens to cases in panels of 3, ultimately disposing 1.6 million cases in a year (I'm quoting the numbers for 2017). If we increase the numbers of arbs, I wholeheartedly support this idea. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Wikimania

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

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

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

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

    Who is meant to use T&S and how and why

    There is a question here that needs answering, namely who is entitled to use the WMF's T&S process if they are feeling harassed during the course of their editing or other on-wiki and off-wiki activities, and whether T&S are able to act impartially in the process. My concern here is that people in positions of trust and responsibility are using the T&S process and the cloak of anonymity it affords them to avoid the transparency need to be able to trust those in positions of responsibility, and that complaints made by those in the following positions may be given preferential treatment (even if not intended). Given that, should the following be afforded the use of the T&S process, or should their concerns be handled a different way using a different process?

    • Various functionaries (e.g. checkusers and oversighters) making complaints about how they have been treated while carrying out their work
    • Arbitrators making complaints about how they have been treated while engaging in arbitration work
    • Stewards making complaints about how they have been treated while carrying out their work
    • WMF employees making complaints about how they have been treated while engaging in work for the WMF
    • WMF Board members making complaints about how they have been treated while engaging in their work as Board members
    • All the above, if they edit using a personal (community) account and wish to make a complaint from that account about how they have been treated

    As an example, if a WMF employee raised concerns with their line manager or people in the HR department about how their treatment on-wiki was affecting their ability to do their job, should they or HR legitimately be able to use the T&S process to anonymously raise their concerns, or should it be handled a different way? Should an arbitrator be able to use T&S to anonymously raise concerns about an on-wiki comment made about them as an arbitrator or ArbCom as a group? Should WMF Board members be allowed to make an anonymous complaint to T&S if on-wiki criticism is made about actions they have taken? Compare all these with a complaint made by an ordinary editor (the vast majority of cases) and consider whether T&S can act impartially in such cases, especially if they work with, or for, or know the people making the complaints. Are there checks and balances in the T&S process to avoid such conflicts of interest arising? Carcharoth (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    As most of us didn't even know T&S existed before their recent actions, I do wonder indeed who it is that is behind the alleged allegations. I say alleged allegations as we actually don't really know if any allegations were made, still less what they may have been. All we have is the action. DuncanHill (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew they existed, and was on several of the monthly ArbCom calls with them, but so far as I knew, they only handled situations such as child protection or threats of harm (where law enforcement contact might be required), or massive cross-wiki abuse (and I figured the stewards generally handled that). I had no idea they were planning to handle run-of-the-mill issues like disputes between editors, and from all indications, the current ArbCom was caught off-guard by that too. Seems like something they might have wanted to discuss in advance. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Stewards can only handle so much in terms of cross-wiki abuse. A sockmaster with 100 accounts, stewards can just lock all the accounts. A user who is blocked from one wiki but who has thousands of contributions on another? That's hard, because it infringes on the community global bans process. Sometimes stewards will lock an account with a lot of edits that is blocked indefinitely on most/all of the wikis they are active on, but it very well might get overturned on appeal. (Stewards are not a global ArbCom). --Rschen7754 18:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    According to File:Community_Engagement_-_Maps_of_teams_and_workflows.svg "Maintain Quick and Public Response" is one of the stops on the Trust & Safety tube. DuncanHill (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The flowchart

    The search function in the archives box doesn't seem to work; I can't find that flowchart of office actions that I know I've seen somewhere. Someone who knows where it is will earn a coveted "thanks" click from me for posting a link.

    Anyway, I'm curious; User:WMFOffice, when you desysopped me, did the decision to do so go thru the entire chain of command shown in that flowchart? Seems like it took significantly less than a month. If not, then this flowchart seems more aspirational than fact-based, and it is dishonest to say that T&S always follows it. And if you didn't follow it for me, I'm concerned you may not have followed it for Fram. If so, I wonder if you anticipated the blowback, and had decided in advance to desysop anyone who unblocked Fram; it would seem useful for people to know that you knew it would cause an uproar and did it anyway. I find it hard to believe that you were able to navigate that bureaucracy so quickly, when every single other thing the WMF has done (added:) regarding this ban has been marked by a glacial pace and pleas to give it some time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Search for "flow chart" on this page (not the archives!) and you find: File:Trust and Safety Office action workflow.png. Carcharoth (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    D'oh. I searched for "flowchart". --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "workflow" works as well, but not "work flow"... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Floquenbeam: "every single other thing" and "glacial pace"? From my recollection, when admins have needed WMF (and I'm pretty sure it is the T&S department) to help them recover their compromised accounts, the process has been fairly rapid - to the point where the response was so fast recently (e.g. Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_41#Level_1_desysop_of_Nv8200pa) that it led to discussion on reviewing our processes due to their speed. Same for when they need help recovering from bad management of their own 2FA settings. — xaosflux Talk 14:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was unclear. Added clarification above. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Floquenbeam: thanks for the update, I agree the "behavior management" type of stuff is certainly glacial! — xaosflux Talk 15:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we sure that the process for installing a WMF ban is the same as the one for enforcing it? I mean, here on enWiki we need a ban discussion for banning editors but only a {{CSD-G5}} tag for zapping their creator. ArbCom often bans an editor during a full case but desysops an admin overriding an Arbcom decision by motion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The whole notion that "enforcing copyvios puts you at risk of a T&S ban" is absurd. I agree, that notion is nuts. If that's the notion being conveyed here, I'd like to personally disavow any agreement with that idea, and I think it's important that the other participants here articulate the same. I'm mostly here because there's an inscrutable system with inadequate process, no meaningful opportunity to be heard, and no clear community involvement in how this system is used. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    One way to play Battleships is to hit random squares and note which ones are complete misses. If we have established that the WMF is OK with enforcement of copyvio then lets move on to other possible areas where the new secret rules are stricter than the rules that we know about. I'd prefer that we were told, or better consulted as to what the new rules were, I might even support the change. But I don't like the current situation and I want to work out what the new regime is. To paraphrase the Great Detective, when all other possibilities are eliminated as absurd. you have your solution. ϢereSpielChequers 23:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The community, admin corps, and presumably also ArbCom already ignore copyright violations. I can name at least three serial copyright violators (and many, many more "copyvio apologists") who have avoided facing sanctions by crying "hound". This situation needs to change, but I just can't see it happening as long as so much of the community is either (a) ignorant of copyright policy or (b) willing to feign ignorance to push an agenda or to create drahma. I have mixed feelings about how all this relates to Fram, however: I don't recall Fram ever lifting a finger to address any of these problems (or protect the victims of the false hounding accusations), so his invoking them in his own defense is a little weird. If we extended it to be about Floq and Bish, both those editors actually have blood on their hands when it comes to this problem. I have a great deal of respect for the latter and the former ... I can accept that they are not wrong in this case, but neither is, IMO, a strong voice for reason in the "copyright violators vs. alleged hounds" debate. Floq especially. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Ahem...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • I'm baffled by your position, frankly. Perhaps you could help me. What would a hypothetically satisfactory statement from the WMF say? "That thing we said before - it's still true." Would that do it? ~ Rob13Talk 05:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "We have reviewed the T&S investigation and we can confirm that Fram did indeed unequivocally violate the "Abuse and harassment" clause of the ToU, and thus was justifiably sanctioned under that clause. He was not blocked for incivility or personal attacks or any reason that is not articulated by the ToU clause we have already mentioned." That's it. That's all that needs to be confirmed. "That thing we said before" was "Fram was banned under the ToU, no further comment". That's meaningless when Fram alleges that he did not violate the ToU and that the ban was corrupt. There is no reason for the WMF to deny such claims if they are baseless. So deny it. That's all I'm looking for. If it's not true, deny it. They have not denied it. Why can they not deny it? I asked Doc James to deny it. He wouldn't deny it. If it's not true, deny it! That's my position. If you can't deny such a blatant accusation of wrongdoing, that's suspicious. Why stonewall and delay? Why be silent? If you've done nothing wrong, just deny the accusation. I don't think that's an unreasonable position, and the situation is exceedingly simple here. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Jehochman found something about Fram

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

    • At the Arbcom case request: [37] I’ve found evidence on wiki that justifies the ban ... Anybody who wants to talk with me about it, please email me.
    • At WP:BN: [38] I’ve dug through the history. The ban is absolutely justified.
    • At WP:BN: [39] I won’t identify the victim. If you look deep enough you can figure out what happened.
    • [40] I looked and found harassment.
    • [41] This FRAMBAN appears to be about harassment and stalking. I think the ArbCom diff was cited to help protect the victim(s) from further harassment by others. Fram’s explanation lacks critical details.
    • [42] I believe ArbCom or at least some of its members are fully aware of what transpired with Fram.

    Judging by Jehochman's contributions, he probably found something between 14:57 and 21:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC). That's that. starship.paint (talk) 06:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    • If true, this is truly the most depressing display of incompetence that I have ever seen, from the staff that performed the investigation, to Arbcom, all the way up to the board. If they had genuine stalking and harassment on him, then they all were complicit in letting him sew chaos, vilify and OUT the victim, and demonize their staff, they allowed his narrative to spread and fester for weeks, they allowed the community to rip itself apart, they threw their relations with the community in the garbage, and for what? All because no one would step in to just counter his false narrative? Because they wanted to prove a point that they would never divulge anything? It took some random nobody (rhetorical, no offense intended Jehochman) to do their own digging and find out what actually happened? If this is true, that's a staggering failure, and whoever was responsible for the stonewall strategy should resign in disgrace, with substantial changes on the WMF end going forward. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram&oldid=903531252"