Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Unblock Fram in the meantime

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.

---

We can't just say "might no be able to arrange anything until Jun 14th" while there's an overwhelming consensus that Fram should not be banned. Are there no telephones functioning in WMF? I propose that he is unblocked in the meantime, per the community. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

Escalate?...lol... Tiderolls 15:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

And I'd like to remind you, Jimbo, that this was so out-of-process and anti-community that I couldn't really care less what time it is in California. We don't need the office to participate in this, we don't need their buy-in, we just need a community consensus to unblock Fram, and that's not escalating, it's de-escalating. If you see it any other way, perhaps you're too involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Floq's not doing it until noon - plenty of time to get in the office.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

[https://vilook.com/video/5an9OuXKxBw/tex-ritter-the-ballad-of-high-noon-1952-gary-cooper Cue the music!] Wnt (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

(@Wnt: Link to possible malware disabled.) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: Note that while I agree there is no real urgency (important, yes, but not that urgent) regarding the inciting issue, and I would even tentatively agree that Fram would also probably agree with that; the crisis that the original issue has engendered is urgent. The WMF must start to communicate, fast, and not stop doing so until the crisis is resolved. (do I have to specify that it must do so with a humann voice, and not more corporate-speak?) Because if they let this go too long then—regardless of whether it is merited or constructive—it seems overwhelmingly likely that the community or individual community members will take actions that will make it exceedingly difficult to walk this back from the brink. Completely independently of who is right or wrong, if we cross that river it may be impossible for the project to recover from the fallout, and it may well escalate to a movement-wide crisis. Noon Pacific may actually be the literal deadline, no matter whether that is reasonable or not. --Xover (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support thanks for raising this proposal TRM. It would definitely help to have a clear community consensus behind Floq's unblock, which is set to happen in just under four hours. That would make it harder for the WMF to frame it as a rogue admin action. Lepricavark (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support but raise an Arbcom request to examine the evidence given by the WMF to see if there is a necessary sanction, or none. --Fæ (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  The WMF Office account has many, many privileges and immunities, but I'm not sure if "exempt from ArbCom" was one they ever thought of. A formal case between Fram and that account might be a useful vehicle ... might not ... Wnt (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  WP:ARBCOM or some predecessor of that page used to explicitly say that arbcom had no jurisdiction over the wp:office. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support And, pending an unblock, anybody interested (which might be OFFICE) can initiate a case request to evaluate whether Fram is fit enough to be an admin or not, which can proceed as usual, (if accepted). ∯WBG^converse 15:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Personally, I won't be satisfied unless Fram's tools are returned. They should never have been stripped in the first place. Any WMF response that does not include the return of Fram's toolset is inadequate. Lepricavark (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Lepricavark, to be clear enough, I am asserting that he be unblocked and the tools be returned. Pending that, shall anybody wish, he/she remains free to proceed for an ArbcomCase. ∯WBG^converse 15:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Ah, ok. That sounds like an appropriate outcome. Lepricavark (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support Agree with WBoG, if OFFICE is still concerned, take it to ArbCom. Hell, I'd even say we should consider offering them a special--tell 'em that if they unban and file a case request with AC, then the case will be accepted and heard. Additional proposal: Lift Fram's Office-issued IBAN, as, to my knowledge, there has never been any policy that authorizes IBANs as an Office action. If OFFICE feels that the IBAN is necessary, put that into the case request. rdfox 76 (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose (ec) Assuming Good Faith in T&S, the ban should be left in place until the Board or ArbCom has been briefed and can speak on the matter. If T&S chooses to brief neither the board nor ArbCom, in a timely manner (up to one or two weeks), then reinitiate the petition. StudiesWorld (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - These people at the WMF are paid what is presumably a good living which comes as the result of our unpaid labour as volunteers. Then they treat us will utter contempt like this, it is more the dictatorial "statement" they issued ("we aren't going to tell you why we did this and no one can appeal it") than the action itself which is totally unacceptable.Smeat75 (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support – Some time has passed now, and more time will have passed by the time this discussion is closed. By then, it will be enough that the WMF should have responded. It's time to make the WMF stop ignoring us, at least long enough to block Fram again and desysop someone. KSFT ^(t|c) 15:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support. With no indication whatsoever provided by T&S that the matter involves a legal or safety issue, Fram should be unblocked. If anyone has issues with his conduct, they should refer the matter to ArbCom, the highest judicial body on en.wp whose duty is to hear such matters. The ban was a massive overreach and violation of trust. No such user (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support WMF you should be ashamed of yourselves for this. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think escalating this by undoing their action and getting into a wheel war will help. Regardless of whether they should've banned Fram or not, rushing to undo their action before getting a better understanding of why they did it would not exactly place us on the moral high ground. Jimmy and James are trying to get some clarity, I think we should let them try that first. --Deskana (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  It's not escalating, it's the opposite. And it's commensurate with the wishes of the community. There's no great effort being made by anyone at WMF to resolve this, that's just nonsense I'm afraid. Where I'm from, we don't punish people for criticising others. We don't ban people for making valid points about the competence of our ruling elite. That's what Nazis do. Unblocking is perfectly reasonable and would de-escalate the heightened situation immeasurably. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support per Dweller and KSFT et alia. And restore Fram's talk page access, as removal is not an office action per WP:OFFICE. ——SerialNumber54129 15:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - At a bare minimum, this gives "community consensus" weight to the impending unblock by Floq, and should WMF flip the switch again, the second unblock by Bishonen. It's been 24 hours since the initial ban, and in that time the only response received has been boilerplate nonsense. I trust Fram's word as to the communication they have received – it's the only real response given – and on that basis I view these sanctions as an abuse of power and as overreach by the WMF. I'd like to endorse KSFT's comment that this forces the WMF's attention back to the matter at least long enough to block another stellar admin, and then yet another one after that. Unblock away (and restore talk page access too). Mr rnddude (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• I would also support a 72-hour (or longer) block on the WMF office account. This way, if Floq (and Bish) are in fact desysopped for unblocking Fram, the WMF employee taking such an actions cannot hide behind the office account. Lepricavark (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have plenty of concerns about the WMF doing this, but they're mainly concerns about whether this was done the right way, rather than whether the right thing was done. To my mind community processes aren't really great at dealing with abusive or obnoxious community members and I really think there's no point choosing "the right of long-problematic users to go round shouting Fuck Arbcom" as a hill to die on. Still, this issue seems to be a significant extension of the Trust and Safety Team's role, which shouldn't happen without some prior discussion and conversation. The Land (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Based on all available evidence, this block/ban is wholly unjustified. While it may or may not be an "escalation" to unblock Fram at this point, it is absolutely NOT an escalation to determine whether there is consensus to unblock, which is what we are doing in this section. 28bytes (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support, and I don't think ther WMF should be acting as the civility police either. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support A long-term block is for chronic long-term behaviour that is detrimental to the project, when all other routes have failed. This simply isn't the case here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Weak support though I don't think it'll happen. But at the very least restore talk page access. Reyk _YO! 16:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support. While I don't think the course of action of unblocking at noon is the optimal one, I can certainly understand why two very good, long-term administrators are prepared to undertake it. If the choice is between supporting those two or a faceless "role" account that refuses to justify its actions, well that's not a tough decision, is it? If after all is said and done either Bishonen or Floquenbeam end up needing to run a new RfA, they can count on my unequivocal support. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Assuming they don’t also get banned by T&S. –xeno^talk 16:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Well, the WMF is presumably aware by now of what's proposed, and haven't seen fit to say a word about it, or even so much as a "Please give us a little more time, we're going to discuss this, we just need until _________ to get ready to do that." So, at this point, I rather suspect no further communication is forthcoming, because now would be the time to do that if ever there was one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Seraphimblade, they are well-aware of this page and for long enough. See DW's thread, above. ∯WBG^converse 18:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support. With some well-known exceptions (which have been outlined elsewhere), en.wiki blocks and bans (and desysops) should happen only as a result of en.wiki action (via community consensus or ArbCom). Unless T&S can justify how this ban satisfies the conditions under which they are expected to step in, then I see the ban as invalid. Ideally, I'd like to see an unblock happen by 11:59 PST. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  I'll add that I mean this as a recommendation to WMF on what they should do and that WMF should unblock, not that it would be a good idea for an en.wiki admin to actually unblock if WMF don't. Not right now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support. The ban needs to be justified. Victoria (tk) 16:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Mr rnddude and others. --bonadea contributions talk 16:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - grossly disproportionate, and creates a chilling effect for all others who have legitimate criticisms about WMF incompetence (of which there is not a short supply). MER-C 16:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support Given the available evidence, the ban was a mistake. I'm afraid that this simply makes the point that such bans applied specifically to enwiki have to be reviewable and appealable via an accountable authority. --RexxS (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support: The ban creates a disturbing precedent with regards to speech in the community and on all WikiMedia projects. As such, it should be overturned, on principle if nothing else. Nor is this an escalation: this is the community choosing to override an egregious, unilateral usurpation by the Foundation and the Office. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's no emergency that requires the drastic step of overturning an office action. This can wait. Gamaliel (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support No repercussions to the unblocking administrator either. I'm not even sure what policy that would happen under. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Gamaliel. We must always assume an office action is correct until there is evidence otherwise - any other way lies anarchy. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Thryduulf, are you saying there isn't such evidence right now? I'm just trying to understand. It looks like most of us think there is evidence. If you think there isn't, that's fine, but it would help if you could elaborate. What kind of additional evidence should be waiting for? I can understand wanting to wait (up to a day or two) for Doc and Jimbo to report back, but that's different. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed I am saying there is no such evidence at the moment because those who are in a position to take a neutral look at all the evidence have not yet had the opportunity to do so. All we have evidence for currently is that poor communication from the WMF T&S team has caused a mass emotional reaction based on the assumption that private evidence we have not seen (and almost certainly cannot see) does not support an unpopular decision. I know many people seem to think that an unpopular decision based on private evidence is itself evidence enough that the WMF got it wrong but I could not disagree with that more. Thryduulf (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) Point of order. We can form a consensus that expresses the community's disapproval of the WMF's actions. However, I'm afraid this decision is clearly outside the scope of the community's direct control per WP:CONEXCEPT, and I would warn any administrator looking to unblock Fram "per the community" that they are exceedingly likely to be desysopped – either by the WMF or by ArbCom. Also noting that it has just hit 9 am in California, where the WMF offices are located. I just woke up a few minutes ago to digest all of the new material on this page. I disagree with the WMF's action too, but I would caution administrators not to act hastily here. Mz7 (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed, as a community we have no power to unblock, but I see this as simply telling the WMF what we think should happen - and I think that is valuable. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  From what I can tell, this isn't the view of a number of participants of this discussion. Their view seems to be since we have the ability, and AFAIK we do until and unless the WMF implements a 'superblock'/'officeblock' which we can't overturn, we should unblock and this discussion is about the merits of doing so. Some editors have already expressed the intention to do so before this discussion began. Nil Einne (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, I know of those two admins and the high noon thing, but I'd seen this as something separate and read it as proposing what morally should be done not that an admin should actually unblock here and now. I might have misread it, so I'll clarify my comment above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Nil Einne, the (current) lack of technical features to enforce office actions is a good thing, caused by trust in the community's ability to govern themselves. Requiring the WMF to reintroduce such measures would be destructive to the self-governance that the supporters ask to regain. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support Technically, given the WMF's "office action" powers, the block was not out of process, however, it appears to me, given the available evidence (i.e. Fram's statement) to have been unjustified and, beyond that, extremely unwise. The totality of this page indicates that the community disagrees with the block, which is the primary reason it should be undone. The WMF may own the website, but the English Wikipedia itself is the result of the aggregate work of the community, and, in a moral sense, belongs to them and not to the Foundatrion. When the community expresses its strong opinion, as it has here, it is incumbent on the Foundation to take due notice and undo its action until it can present a clear and convincing explanation which the community agrees with, either through its expressed opinions or through an ArbCom case. Only then should the block be re-instated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support Fram should have the chance to communicate with the rest. Reading this page, the majority think the block should be lifted until the matter is solved. Kante4 (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Kante4: Since Fram is only blocked here, he can (and has) communicate on other projects with someone relaying the message here. So lack of possibilities to communicate is not a major problem. Regards SoWhy 18:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support Waiting might solve the situation if the WMF is sensible now, but as what happened was wholly inappropriate, en-wiki shouldn't just be trodden over. --Pudeo (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment clear and overwhelming consensus to unblock Fram. What time is it in California? Time to respond to the community. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  It is currently 11:20 in California. StudiesWorld (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  And I just realized that I can't do time, ignore me. StudiesWorld (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support, unless there is a response from the WMF with substantive reasons why this should not take place. Does anyone know if there are any guidelines or policies that bar such a step? I would also consider blocking the WMF accounts too, with the exception of the Safety one. (And it's 11:51 in SF, so this should have been discussed there for nearly three hours). - SchroCat (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Gamaliel and Thryduulf, right now this just seems like a rush. We haven't heard from WMF T&S. Let things stay the way they are, nothing will come crashing down in the meanwhile. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Justice delayed is justice denied - SchroCat (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

No, Floq is scheduled to unblock in two minutes. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm unconvinced that it's wise to act in haste in this matter whatever the WMF's failings. Nil Einne (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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.

Proposal to stop using this page as a list of grievances against the WMF and go back to editing

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.

---

The WMF gets the point, however it must be noted there isn't much of a choice on their end: they enforce the Terms of Use, and they view this as a part of that. Anyways, see section header. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• No. This is very important. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is actually pretty fundamental, as it involves the relationship between the Foundation and its Staff and the collective editors of en.Wikipedia. It seems from the evidence available (not only from the Fram case, but from similar incidents on the German and Chinese wikis) that the Foundation or its Staff, or both, are attempting to alter the balance between those two forces in a way that puts the Community at a considerable disadvantage. Basically, that's not what we signed up for, so a resolution needs to be found. Resolving the Fram issue in such a way that sets an acceptable precedent for future Office/Community interactions is necessary, which is way we shouldn't simply fold up our tents and return to tenant farming with no clear understanding of our rights as the creators of English Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose We are not sharecroppers (I hope). Individual editors can't do much but one of the proposed actions is an admin strike. I think that is still worth considering. If WMF is to micromanage the admins then at minimum it should also pay them. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• No, WMF do not "get it". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• There is a choice for T&S: to hand back jurisdiction over this matter to ArbCom, which already handles plenty of TOU matters as they apply to enwiki. Take a look at m:Trust and Safety and see what their remit actually is:

  We aim to provide compassionate, credible, and comprehensive Trust and Safety services to the Foundation and the volunteer communities and affiliates it supports ... The Wikimedia Foundation aims to defer to local and global community processes to govern on-wiki interactions. However, at times, we must step in to protect the safety and integrity of our users, our contributors, and the public. ... As a part of the Foundation’s commitment to respect community autonomy, the Trust & Safety team does not handle general community or community-member disputes that may be addressed through community processes ... While we are happy to assist community members in need of help, many times that help will consist of assisting the person to find the right community venue to solve their problem.

  I remain completely unconvinced that there was any compulsion to "step in to protect the safety and integrity of our users" over an issue that was well suited to be determined by ArbCom. ArbCom can carry out deliberations and hear cases in camera, and is as bound by privacy considerations as any of the members of T&S. If anybody challenges that, then they need to tell us plainly that they don't trust ArbCom to respect privacy; or that they don't trust ArbCom to enforce the TOU as already codified in emwiki policy. What I fear is the real situation is that T&S didn't trust ArbCom to reach the decision that they thought appropriate, but if that's the case, they need to say so; otherwise the opportunity is here for them to deny that as a factor in their decision to produce a fait acompli, rather than taking the opportunity to present the case to ArbCom on the complainant's behalf. --RexxS (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Mostly it's not a list of grievances, but an an amassment of grievance specific and pertinent to this case, the banning of user:Fram and how it was done, and how it was communicated (and how it was not communicated). That's what you get when you stir up a hornet's nest. Moreover, many if not most of the editors here are simultaneously continuing to edit here, in mainspace and elsewhere. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - WP:YDOW. Either go build an encyclopedia, or move on. 2600:8807:C0C0:17D:9012:FD92:7045:A3C (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Trust & Safety needs to own up to this mistake. They have shown no signs of doing so. What they've done thus far, as well as the subsequent lack of any desire to seriously discuss this, would generally be cause enough to revoke adminship and discuss a siteban for anyone else. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 00:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. this needs sorting out Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. We as the people who actually do the work here have every right to say anything we want about the people who earn fat salaries for getting in our way and for punishing members of our community without even giving us the courtesy of a timely explanation. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I already made all this popcorn. Gamaliel (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. per Yngvadottir and Cas, right above. They waited for the noise to quite down a bit, relocked and took Floq's tools. Ended their message (note how they refer to themselves as "we") with "Best regards". Just. no. Their salaries exist because work we've done here over the years, and they disregard the community stakeholders, community consensus, and long-standing community processes. Victoria (tk) 00:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose in addition to others' points, more information will hopefully come out of the next board meeting on 14 June. – Teratix ₵ 01:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose and per RexxS and Yngvadottir. Anyone who has been around as long as I and many of the others here have will be fully aware that the WMF has a disasterously poor record of management of its communities' needs and its communications with them. Anything and everything that can be addressed on a local project level, should be - even if some of us might not be wholly satisfied or trusting in our own admins and Arbcom; at least we know who we are dealing with. Perhaps the Trustees could adopt a more active managerial role such as that as a Board of Directors, and support the position of the shareholders: the stakeholders being those who do the real work building and maintaining the content, and the readers who use it. Time for some really big changes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'm sorry, buddy, but I'm with Kudpung and Yngvadottir. This action remains an egregious breach of the trust and safety of the community, and requires some sort of remedy. We still don't know what prompted this, after all; we're still being stonewalled. And we have a right to a say; we are, after all, stakeholders in this process, even if we don't always agree with the positions of the Arbitration Committee or fellow editors. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jeske, Yngvadotter, Cas, and others. If we let up on this, then Wikipedia as a whole--not just enwiki, but all languages--loses to a power-grab by the OFFICE. rdfox 76 (talk) 03:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per everyone else. This needs to be settled properly. - SchroCat (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - I was born in East Germany. I know a dictatorship, when I see one. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose and call for a SNOW close here Tazerdadog (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose There is no point in ending as things stand. It is my opinion that until the WMF backs down, everyone should go on strike. Enigma^msg 05:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

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.

Elephant in the room

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not, and never would, advocating doxxing and I also know what WO is. I didn't arrive at this connection from WO but instead just from the statement Fram provided and the diffs therein. My immediate conclusion was, wow, this looks bad. No matter who was filing the complaints we're still left with appearance of the WMF side stepping community processes to protect people with WMF connections. I mean, that banner on LauraHale's TP is bizarre, and I'm surprised nobody had brought it up before now. It literally tells Fram what they can and can't do and tells them if they have a problem with it they can take it up with the very WMF employees who eventually banned him. It's doubly bizarre now that we know Fram was given a secret IBAN, making the banner pointless anyway. The only thing the banner achieves, especially in light of Fram's statement, is to solidify the impression of LauraHale getting special treatment from the WMF that bypassed normal community processes. It has less to do with who was making the complaints and more about how they were handled by T&S. Most importantly, would they have handled this the same if the editor in question wasn't a WiR who personally knew WMF employees? I mean, we're talking about unprecedented actions here. So far I haven't seen another admin who has said they too have had secret WMF warnings given to them.Capeo (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Side discussion on Gamergate

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

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

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

To put it succinctly with on-wiki information: María Sefidari (User:Raystorm) is the current Chair of the WMF Board. The Chair has previously criticized Fram and defended User:LauraHale on the English Wikipedia [1][2][3]. LauraHale and the Chair have done several Wikinews articles together, one in which they personally interviewed and photographed the athlete on scene[4][5][6] LauraHale also has a warning to Fram and the names of WMF Trust & Safety employees on her talkpage. So, the only questions are that would someone, who apparently is a personal acquaintance of the WMF Chair, have a "backchannel" to the WMF Safety & Trust? Will the Chair be presiding over the WMF meeting where the Fram block will be discussed on June 14? --Pudeo (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

This is not what I am saying. I think it is likely that she actually filed the complaint. Now, should the WMF (T&S) have rejected the complaint on the sole ground that it was filed by the WMF Board chair? I hope we both agree that it should not have rejected the complaint. Another story is whether she in any way influenced the decision in her capacity of the board chair. I hope not. --Ymblanter (talk) 08:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm actually thinking LauraHale filed the complaint, and Raystorm forced a pull of the metaphorical trigger. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 08:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Okay, so the Chair of the WMF complained to T&S against an editor she had an obvious COI against. T&S shouldn't have disregarded her complaint just because of her COI. Of course we can both agree on that. That's not the issue. T&S supposedly handled a civility complaint from the Chair by an unprecedented unilateral ban and desysop. Why would they do that? What could possibly make you think that that is a normal, understandable response? I've never seen it happen before, have you? It was extraordinary and unprecedented, and wholly rejected by the community. And yet rather than reversing course, they shut down, remained silent, and stonewalled us. You think that's good faith community advocacy? And that improper influence from the Chair had nothing to do with it? This unprecedented enforcement action which was presumably provoked by the WMF Chair is just a coincidence to the Chair's COI? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Swarm, Raystorm is the WMF chair, and LauraHale apparently has some kind of off-wiki connection with Raystorm (thus the COI). T&S involvement in the LauraHale-Fram conflict seems to go back to February 2018.[7] 67.164.113.165 (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

(ec) First, it is quite natural to file a complaint against someone you have COI with - if we consider the whole episode as harassment (note that I am not necessarily advocating this point of view, but the filing person, whoever it was, clearly viewed this as harassment) - than this harassment is exactly what created a COI. Another example (no relation to Fram) - if someone robbed me on the street, they obviously created a COI with me, but it is still quite natural for me to call the police. Or my son to call the police, if needed. Now, the second point. I do believe that WMF here overstepped their authority, and that the matter should have been referred to ArbCom. I also do believe that Maria Sefidari must recuse from all further actions related to this matter, whether she is really involved or not (it is quite possible that someone else filed a complaint). Note also that I am not in any way her friend, in particular, I participated in one of the episodes of this case several years ago, when I thought Fram was right and she was not. But to be honest I do not see any indication that the matter was handled as it was handled because the complaint was (possibly) filed by the WMF board chair. For example, Maggie Dennis must have approved it. I do think (based on what I know) that this was a mistaken decision, and she must have advised the matter to be referred to the community. But I absolutely can not imagine that Maggie Dennis (aka Moonriddengirl) has approved this because the complaint was filed by the Board chair and would have referred it to the community if it was filed by someone else.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter, I don't think anyone says Raystorm filed the complaint. There is/was a theory that Laura filed the complaint and that Raystorm possibly ensured from the inside that it got attention. Raystorm has responded below and says that didn't happen. I find that believeable, given how old the conflict is and how many people's fingers seem to be in it. My alternate picture looks a little bit more like Wnt's, and that isn't pretty either. T&S seems to have appointed itself as a super-admin of en.wp but it is acting cluelessly. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Response from Raystorm

I have had nothing to do with this decision to ban an enwiki admin at all. Office actions do not go through the Board, but even if they did, WMF is aware of any COIs I might have since it is something all trustees proactively disclose. I filed no case against this user and I wasn’t given any prior notification that this was going to happen either, neither did the Board. The bad faith scenario that certain individuals are conjuring up is designed to get people riled up, but it has no basis in truth.

I want to say something else. This community, when confronted with the ban of an admin on the grounds of problematic behavior, instead of examining said behavior immediately turned to find another individual to blame, finally settling on Laura. She has since then been under relentless public examination, with a deep look at her past, the quality of her edits, her being a WiR (in 2013!), her personal relationships, and even people going through Commons and elsewhere to find pictures of her and pictures of me and posting them externally. Her ban (and mine) have been called for – this has no effect for me since this is not my community, but it is de facto what will happen to Laura, since I don’t see how she will be able to continue contributing with say 20+ people following her edits waiting for some kind of error. But even further - this pattern of trying to prove, in order to absolve a banned admin, that there must be either something in her past, or that she must have done something wrong or used undue influence for her own personal gain, is sadly familiar to most women in the internet, and has strong textbook reminiscences of for instance Gamergate. This is not safe. It’s not healthy for this community either. I urge this community to go back to reasonable discussion – one in which there is an honest conversation about the health of this project and how to promote a thriving community, and the role community and WMF can share to ensure this happens. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 09:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The community examined Fram's past edits at length, and found nothing bannable there. Sure, a bit acerbic at times, but always with the goal of improving the encyclopedia. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Raystorm, do you have a COI with Laura? Will you be in the BOD discussion on 14th?

We picked on the dispute between Laura and Fram, since that has been defined by WMF as a relevant problem by choosing to IBann him (one-way) and Laura maintains a nice banner at the top of his page, which would have been normally deleted as polemical.

I urge you to have a reasonable discussion with WMF – one in which there is an honest conversation about the role of WMF in micromanaging the wikis, about how they are to serve us, about how they can be transparent, about how they can remedy their tone-deafness, about how they can not appropriate the role of community-elected bodies to deal with routine issues and about how they can bring changes to their work-flow to promote a more thriving community-WMF relation. ∯WBG^converse 09:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't intend to be present at any briefing of this case. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 09:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Raystorm, would you have been if this issue hadn't been raised? You shouldn't let some conspiracy theory from the usual places stop you from acting in your capacity as Chair. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

It's a fair question. No, I don't think so. But I appreciate the comment. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 12:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You don't think users are entitled to have some suspicions when the first time ever the WMF has done a block like this, it happened to someone who has had a spat with an apparent personal acquaintance of the WMF Chair, and someone who has been a long-time critic of WMF programs like VisualEditor and Wikidata? How else can we held you accountable if not by investigating things? But OK, atleast I trust you if you say you've never discussed this with T&S personnel. And yes, in a normal community process, both the on-wiki actions of Fram and LauraHale would be assessed instead of one-sided private complaints. --Pudeo (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Please note that we didn't "immediately turn to find another individual to blame". We asked several times for an explanation of the ban and desysop and the process involved, and got none. Fram communicated (via Commons) what he knew, which was that he was cryptically warned via email in April 2018 without explanation about a conduct complaint by anonymous editors, and then warned again in March 2019 about two posts he had made on LauraHale's talkpage in October 2018, and that instead of going through EN-wiki's normal processes to resolve any such issues, he was suddenly banned, desysopped, and gagged on the basis of a single ArbCom post he made more than five weeks ago. Since we have no explanation from WMF as to why normal Wikipedia processes were not used to resolve any dispute or conduct issues, and since Fram was also given no explanation of his ban/desysop beyond those brief emails, and since the only actual referent we have on this case (besides an angry post to ArbCom) is LauraHale and her talkpage, and since LauraHale has clear and discernable ties to WMF, and since WMF still refuses to even remotely explain or justify its actions and continued actions in this case, the current apparent conclusion (not blame) seems to return to the warnings and ban/desysop having something at least remotely to do with her and possibly also to her connection to WMF. Since the WMF actions are unappealable and WMF is wheel-warring over them, the conclusion becomes even more likely. WMF could do a lot to restore confidence by reversion of its decisions and actions in this matter, and coming absolutely clean on how, why, and on what basis Fram, a long-term admin in good standing, was targeted with an out-of-process, virtually unexplained, unappealable, and bizarre sanction. Softlavender (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. This entire situation would have been avoided had WMFOffice actually communicated as opposed to throwing content-free boilerplate at us and stonewalling. I, and everyone here with any sense, cannot accept the position they're taking that everything with respect to this action is privileged. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 10:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• A non-denial denial. Not unpredictable, and misses most of the rather relevant questions that have been raised too. - SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  to me it reads like a pretty comprehensive denial: Raystorm is not, has not been, and will not be involved in the whole situation. What else were you hoping to read? The Land (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Given your comments elsewhere on this page, I am unsurprised you kowtow to the WMF. To try and blame the community for the fubar, given it is entirely of the WMF's making, is utterly disingenuous. As Softlavender has pointed out just above, to claim the community "immediately turn[ed] to find another individual to blame" is an outright fabrication. There was uproar for most of yesterday at the WMF's action before any other name was brought into the situation. "She has since then been under relentless public examination, with a deep look at ... the quality of her edits": Untrue. Not since her name was raised here: here was an examination of the quality of her edits as far back as 2012. I am not pointing the finger at LauraHale, who I have never interacted with, but to be misled by the chair of the WMF Board is deeply concerning. To try and say it's a "textbook reminiscences of for instance Gamergate" is little more than an attempt to shift the spotlight away from the WMF's crass action onto a favoured bogeyman. "this is not my community" tells me an awful lot about someone who is earning their crust of bread on the basis of the efforts of the people who actually do the editing that earns the funding. - SchroCat (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  ^^Agree with that. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• This is blatant corruption and cronyism. The T&S team, maybe the whole WMF, needs to resign or be fired. I hope this will be picked up by the Guardian or the NYT or such.Smeat75 (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Rather than taking the community seriously, we have: [A ban against myself has] been called for – this has no effect for me since this is not my community ... I don't intend to be present at any [WMF board consideration] of this case. Thanks, this looks great attributed to the WMF Chair, in response to a very real community concerns about an unprecedented and inexplicable ban of an admin who does not actually appear to deserve it when his edits are examined. I will be sure to memorialize this statement on my user page, in recognition of the integrity. It's nothing short of humorous how you're dismissing a full fledged community revolt as sexism, while not presenting any rational explanation to counter the speculation that there was any sort of COIs or string pulling. I take the gender gap on Wikipedia seriously, and I will be among the first to speak out against anything that appears sexist, and there is nothing anyone can possibly pull up from my editing history to even suggest otherwise (to the extent that it's insulting that I have to explain that I'm not a misogynist), yet my concerns are being dismissed as "Gamergate 2.0". Funny how no one from the community has even suggested such a thing is behind this uproar, in fact, we have at least one female admin sacrificing her bit over this, but the only person who's crying "sexism" is the very person being accused of the corruption. Great leadership we're seeing here, thanks. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 10:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Raystorm: - "when confronted with the ban of an admin on the grounds of problematic behavior" - what was the behaviour? You don't have to give specifics, but you can give a broad overview without naming names. I'd particularly be keen to understand why gender is a factor you felt needed to be emphasized, also. Fish+Karate 10:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  I don't have insight to the T&S investigation, if that's what you're asking. For the second question - could you clarify? I'm not sure if you mean that it is controversial to say that the pattern of behavior I described above would be familiar to most women in the internet. Is that correct? Raystorm (¿Sí?) 12:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• this is not my community...sounds like a letter of resignation. ——SerialNumber54129 10:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • How so? This is not my home wiki, I don't know people here and I assume most people are unfamiliar with me. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 12:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @Serial Number 54129: That comment was a bit average, and with the benefit of hindsight it is potentially unhelpful. cygnis insignis 13:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes, Cygnis insignis, I'd agree that boasting how a ban will have no effect is kinetically unhelpful. I dunno wot "average" means though? ——SerialNumber54129 13:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• @Raystorm: Thanks for making a statement. Please keep in mind there is clear blue water between off-wiki trolls looking to be simply nasty, and the concerns related to good governance of WMF Office actions on Wikimedia projects. It is good practice for you to recuse from the board discussion, thanks for making that decision up front. When lessons are learned from this case, I hope that you will have an active role in ensuring that our shared values of transparency and openness remain central. To date, there is nothing about the sanction taken against Fram that could not have been handled via the conventional Arbcom procedures, where case evidence can be presented by confidential email if a party has reason to do so. No doubt it is clear to interested WMF trustees and interested WMF management, that this case has been handled badly, astonishingly badly in fact, and would be better immediately handed off to Arbcom so that that committee can take responsibility for sanctions based on the evidence. The sooner that is done, the sooner everyone can focus on improvement to Trust & Safety procedures and practices, or the implementation of Wikipedia policies for harassment and administrator conduct, rather than personalities and conspiracy theories. Lastly a note for known Wikipedians that are at this moment enjoying collaborating with the trolling off-wiki and making it worse, (Personal attack removed) I hope you get banned, you have no role here on Wikipedia. Thanks! --Fæ (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• The personal attacks are not helpful, Fae. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 10:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, good job that the only personal attacks related to this case are by other people, not me. Unless you are actually intending to support trolling and personal attacks as a good thing, please actually read what I wrote. Thanks! --Fæ (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

With regard to censorship of my remark (not a personal attack on any individual, just being honest about some VERY nasty trolls) - here - that's daft. If you cannot call out blatant trolling and personal attacks as being the actions of dick heads because that's too rude for Wikipedia, it is utter hypocrisy to be complaining that Fram is being sanctioned by the WMF (apparently) for telling Arbcom to fuck off. Thanks! --Fæ (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fae. I'm not going to disagree that this could and should be a learning experience procedure-wise - there's probably a conversation worth having there, and I am not necessarily the best positioned to comment since I am unfamiliar with the mechanisms this project may or may not have. I'm just making a call for reasonable discussion. Thanks, Raystorm (¿Sí?) 12:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Fae's comment here. The people harassing Raystorm and Laura, trying to dig dirt on them or cause disruption off-wiki, whoever they may be, are breaking our rules and deserve to be called out for it and blocked. There is no place for people like that on Wikipedia. This situation is an exceptional one, but the rights of Wikipedians not to be have their privacy invaded is still absolutely paramount. I'm also disturbed by the apparent refusal to WP:AGF in some of the responses to this statement. Unless proven otherwise we can take the statement at face value, and it seems plausible. Let's make sure we concentrate on the actions of the WMF as a body rather than any individuals, and what action we can take to get Fram back on the project (assuming there's nothing more to their conduct than what we already know). And ensure that the community and the WMF are on the same page re blocking policy.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• As a rare visitor on en-wiki, I have to say that I'm continuously puzzled by the level of hostility, profanities and aggression that is accepted here, and that would have been banned on other language wikis. As a Trustee, I want to support Maria's position here in respect to the fact that she has always consistently recused herself from any discussions even remotely related to her personally. The barrage of questions, assumptions and attacks here is overwhelming. ASG, and please, do not beat me down just because I put my head out. Pundit|utter 11:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Pundit, what's ASG? ∯WBG^converse 11:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Aaah, a typo I meant AGF (assume good faith). Definitely not suggesting we should resolve this with Air Soft Guns! Pundit|utter 11:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  That solution could be much more entertaining. StudiesWorld (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Pundit, it doesn't seem like you're the problem. You're coming here and giving us your views, as a person, to other people. That's what we're asking for. Whether or not I agree with what you (or Raystorm) have said, you are having a conversation with us like we are human beings, not cogs in a machine. The thing that's most exacerbated the situation, I think, is the use of the faceless WMFOffice account, to shout say-nothing, corporate-speak pablum and orders at us through a megaphone from behind a mask, rather than the person responsible for this decision coming to join the discussion and defend their actions as a person, not a faceless corporate drone. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, that I understand. And thanks. Pundit|utter 12:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• The "not my community" thing is another red herring. Raystorm is most active on the Spanish Wikipedia: [8] and hadn't edited on en.wikipedia for a year previously. There's enough to try to figure out here without intentional misunderstandings. Wnt (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• WMF chair calls us all sexist, trustee Pundit says we are bad mouthed aggressive lots. Insulting! You don't like us and we don't like you. Ban us all or resign.Smeat75 (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Meh. (a) that did not happen (b) any trustee that chips in on this page deserves our thanks for engaging, especially as they know every word they write will be nitpicked in precisely the way you are doing. Worth repeating, meh. --Fæ (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Requesting archiving of this section before too many people say things that will no doubt be regretted later. Thank you to Raystorm for the helpful clarification: I have had nothing to do with this decision to ban an enwiki admin at all. There is therefore no need for further discussion about this issue on this page, which is only about the FRAMBAN. – Teratix ₵ 12:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• @Raystorm: thank you for making yourself available here and offering your input, knowing as you must have that you would open yourself to various forms of harassment (good show, everyone!). In your statement, you mentioned that the Board is not involved in Office actions, and I suppose that's natural for a Board to not be directly involved with operations. However, an arbitrator who recently resigned from the current term of the Committee suggested that Office actions are reviewed by several departments including "Executive", which I would presume includes the Chair of the Board (though I don't have an org chart). He also suggested that the Board should be the community's first point of contact for concerns regarding Office actions. Your statement seems as though it contradicts that advice. I assume that arbitrators have more direct exposure to WMF affairs then most members of the community, but I also assume that arbitrators are nonetheless like the rest of us, seeing WMF business happen inside a black box for the most part. Would you be able to enlighten us as to what the actual process is when the Office hears a complaint of the sort that led to Fram's ban, and how it goes from anonymous complaint to banning one of Wikipedia's oldest and most active administrators? Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Executive" is actually not a term that has ever been clarified for me, but I assume it refers to the Office of the Chief Executive Office and Executive Director. I was not referring to the Board. I suggested that the community go to community members on the Board, because the Board has oversight over the WMF as a whole. Those are the community members who have a prominent voice within the WMF organization. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    • One more Thank you to Raystorm for contributing and clarifying. Hopefully it is acceptable to add this outside the closed marks? --GRuban (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

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.

Let's start a hashtag!

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.

---

We should start using the hashtag #JusticeforFram on Wikipedia and possibly social media to help get him unbanned. All of us editors will spread the hashtag and as a result, pressure WMF into unbanning him. The hashtag will link back to this page as well. X-Editor (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion that misses the point. For most of us I think, our main objection is not the fact that Fram was banned (though we do disagree with that), but that the WMF has overruled the community's authority and failed to be transparent. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: That's exactly why we should use this hashtag, to tell the WMF that they can't overrule the community's authority and that they can't fail to be transparent. X-Editor (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I mean, we shouldn't make this about Fram. This is about something bigger. I don't have any better ideas for a hashtag, however. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: How about #GetConsensusFirstWMF. X-Editor (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

"Darn, they started a hashtag. Nothing more for us to do, they clearly have the upper hand." —the WMF, no doubt – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Juliancolton: While a hashtag alone might not be enough to get the WMF to reverse their decision on banning Fram, it certainly would be a crucial stepping stone to doing so, because setting up a banner and petition on the main page as proposed in a discussion further above about the ban would take a lot more time, whereas a hashtag can start pretty much instantly, and because raising awareness about an issue is the first step to solving an issue, and that can be easily done through a hashtag. The point is, the hashtag won't stop the WMF in its tracks, but it will certainly lead to other events that might do so. X-Editor (talk) 04:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that helps us much. Anyone not already familiar with this situation might briefly wonder "Who the hell is Fram?" before moving on to the next tweet, and pointing them back to this page (again, if they're not already familiar) will have their eyes glaze in short order. I think the idea of a banner, pointing to a short synopsis of the issue easy to understand for people not already familiar with the problem or internal Wikipedia processes, is a much better option. I think that will be more true as time goes on, especially if more admins openly defy WMF's earlier statement—after a few iterations of that, the optics start getting really, really bad for them. For right now, though, we do have to be seen to be fair. WMF has said they'll say more; my personal bet is on yet another many-words-to-say-nothing "answer" from the faceless "WMFOffice" role account, but let's give them some reasonable amount of time to say what they've got to say. If they feed us yet more tripe, that just strengthens the case against them for being opaque. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A hashtag would fail for the same reason the matter probably won't be picked up by the press; no-one really cares outside the community and in fact someone unfamiliar with internal Wikipedia processes and community–Foundation dynamics may believe the Foundation has a greater role in resolving disputes and day-to-day administration than it actually does (akin to social media companies moderating their own sites), which misses the real problem here that the Foundation is imposing a sanction that, based on all evidence available, should have been handled through existing community processes. – Teratix ₵ 04:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Bah, we're upset here because the WMF is acting like Twitter's (or Facebook's) corporate nitwits. So you want to protest the issue on the actual twitter? Dumb idea if you ask me. Dumb idea, at least from my illtwitterate perspective. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 04:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I will note I am currently having a discussion about this on Twitter and as an admin, I had no idea this was going on. I doubt the one person I'm talking about it is the only one doing so. Mitch32^{(Fame is a four letter word.)} 05:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I think getting anyone outside of Wikipedia interested in this is sort of a hard sell. "OMG the WMF banned someone!" "Why did they do that?" "It's not exactly clear but something to do with harassing someone and telling people to go fuck themselves" "Ok why are you protesting?" "Because the WMF banned them without consulting the Wikipedia community and without involving Arbcom! This is an outrage!" "So, that stuff about harassing someone and telling people to go fuck themselves, you're fine with that, are you?" "Well, idk, but we haven't seen adequate evidence of it and most importantly the WMF didn't follow the existing procedure..." The Land (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Point out the Wikipediocracy allegations. There is something there that is worth a journalist's time to investigate. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 06:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

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.

Request to live stream the June 14, 2019 WMF board meeting

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.

---

In view of concerns expressed on this lengthy page, I suggest and request that the WMF meeting in San Francisco on Friday June 14 be live streamed. If sensitive material need be discussed in closed session, partial coverage would be better than none, with discussion of this page. It would be a nice touch to be able to see it on this page, but wherever is fine, thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

You read my mind. I was thinking the exact same think earlier today. It will never happen, but hope springs...- MrX 🖋 02:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

This would be an excellent move for the WMF to make at this point. I hope they surprise me by making it, and echo the request that they do so. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@WMFOffice: here’s a ping. Should this be suggested elsewhere? Jusdafax (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

How about record it and upload it to YouTube or something. Or one of our own sites. starship.paint (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think a board meeting can be publicized in entirety; privacy concerns and all. ∯WBG^converse 02:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Knowingly being watched by hundreds of ill-disposed internet viewers likely has an adverse effect on the productivity of a meeting. Knowing that there will likely be permanent copies and quotes taken out of context in the future will also not help. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• An excellent suggestion to ensure that the Board cannot learn any details whatsoever of the office action. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  If sensitive material need be discussed in closed session, partial coverage would be better than none Tazerdadog (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  Partial coverage of what? I'm fairly sure what people want to see is something to do with the Fram situation and the fallout from it. But nearly everything involved is going to have to be in said private session. So all people will actually see would be typical exchanges of pleasantries, roll calls, confirmation of minutes, maybe some parts of discussion on the WMF's plans and how far they are to achieving them, maybe some parts of discussion on fundraising, other things I can't think of but which probably no one in this discussion is actually interested in hearing about. In other words, I fail to see how partial coverage is going to interest anyone. It's not like everyone here is suddenly particularly interested in the nitty gritty of what goes on in board meetings, they're only interested in one particular area but that's precisely the one thing which will be almost entirely in private. Nil Einne (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• On this point, at least, I agree with Rob. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Even from a technology standpoint it is probably too late, unless you want to watch the worst quality livestream ever. --Rschen7754 03:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• I doubt whether any meaningful discussion of this issue could take place in open session, given T&S's covenants to protect the privacy of complainants. Pointless. Choess (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

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.

Administrators general strike

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Community support (general strike)

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

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

Discussion (general strike)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I do think, from what we know now, that this was an overreach by WMF, taking actions that should have been left to the established mechanisms here. In particular I strongly object that they took this action without any kind of warning to Fram or any attempt to hear what he might say; he was blindsided by it. This was a Kangaroo court procedure and should be condemned almost no matter what their justification was. BUT: I will not join a "strike". I will not stop doing what I do at Wikipedia as some kind of statement. I completely agree with Tony and others here. As I said above, this would be a classic example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point - and would be violating the trust the community put in us when they gave us the tools. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Let's be patient and wait for the June 14 board meeting to see if anything comes out of it. If not, I fully support taking drastic measures to show the WMF that it cannot disregard the will of the community like this. Otherwise the issue will just fizzle out and the WMF will be even more emboldened the next time. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• TonyBallioni and bd1242, the idea is WMF can handle any BLP issues its own self, given that it's decided it can also handle blocking admins. If it decides otherwise, it can end the strike instantly anytime it wants, by unblocking Fram. King of Hearts, June 14 seems like a reasonable wait, though given Wikipedia's limited attention span, who knows. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• Concerning an admin general strike, I think it would be damaging to the 'pedia and therefore do not support it, but I would support general admin civil disobedience, via mass unblocking and resysopping -- as often as necessary -- of Fram and Floquenbeam. The more admins who get involved with that the better. It's easy enough to discipline one admin, another thing entirely to do so to a dozen or more. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• I would have quite a problem with an admin general strike. Admins are trusted members of the community elected to serve the community and protect the encyclopedia. Going on strike in effect is a failure to uphold that responsibility. Furthermore, as Fram is an admin, there would no doubt be a view that this would be the admin corps going on strike to protect one of their own (an extreme view, but the view that the admin corps protects their own does crop up on ANI every now and then). Going on strike achieves little beyond damaging trust between editors and administrators. Any action directed in response to this fiasco has to be seen by the WMF as a united front by editors and not a disparate effort by editors and administrators. Blackmane (talk) 07:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Statement of intent

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

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

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

Please don't do that. It is really unnecessary. Both Doc James and I are on the case, trying to understand what happened here, and the ArbCom is discussing it as well. Drama will not be necessary, but more importantly, drama will not be helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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

I think you and I can both forecast that a wheel war will not serve as a useful introduction to a calm and reasonable discussion. Give it a little time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Something needs to be done, most certainly, but I'm not sure what. I've been a harsh critic of the WMF many times - and I've also received some really impolite threatening emails from the WMF in the past, some signed, some unsigned on generic WMF email accounts, but I've refused to be bullied and I've got stuff done. If someone comes up with a good idea, I'll support it and then probably have a lot more to say. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• @Floquenbeam: WTF is "noon San Francisco time" — could you please speak to be understood? What time UTC do you intend to block? I was interested to read your statement of intent just as I was typing up my own intention to unblock, which would have had a ping of you specifically, asking for your support. But I'm always too slow, and this time I also had a dental appointment. :-( Anyway, I'm with you, Floq, and I'll be Spartacus if you are. I'll mention that I saw the diff Fram says he was blocked for, this one, at the time. I thought it inappropriate and asked him to stop with the personal stuff.[9] I was thinking especially of the attacks on AGK. Admittedly my comment didn't seem to do any good, inasmuch as Fram replied quite combatively.[10] But I would still say my approach was on a better level than a fucking non-appealable one-year block. A sanction might have been appropriate, but should have been up to the community, for instance via WP:AN. (I wouldn't go directly to ArbCom. The community should have a go first.) Incidentally, I can't say I have much faith in Jimbo accomplishing anything in this case. He's quite keen on civility policing AFAIK. Anyway. Bishonen | talk 13:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC).

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

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

I can assure you that my commitment to, and support of, appropriate principles and our established constitutional order is far far more important than any personal conflict that I may have ever had with anyone. I'm not taking any position on this yet, because the reasonable thing to do is to listen to all sides calmly and come to an understanding of the issues.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I'd like to remind everyone that it is my long established view that all bans are appealable to me. I seldom intervene, even if I have some minor disagreement with a ban, because no major constitutional issues or errors are at stake. It is too early to know what is going on in this particular case, but please if anyone is planning to "fall on their sword" for principle, let it be me. But, I really don't think that will be necessary here. The WMF staff are diligent, thoughtful, and hard working. If an error has been made, I'm sure they will revert and work out procedures to make sure it didn't happen again. If the ban was justified, I'm sure they will find a way to make it clear to - at a minimum, if privacy issues play a role, to me, to the board, and to the Arbitration Committee. Therefore, dramatic action would not be helpful at the present time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hypothetical question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Has the WMF been notified of this discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Board

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

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

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

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

Doc James and I have been pursuing this with diligence. I continue to recommend the following to everyone here:

• Don't wheel war - it isn't going to be helpful in achieving the goals you want, and could actually make it harder
• Do express your opinions clearly and firmly and factually, with kindness - it's the best way to get your point across
• Remember that there is no emergency here - the phrase "important but not urgent" fits very well - getting this right and fixing this situation is incredibly important, but it doesn't have to happen in 4 hours (and it also, of course, shouldn't take months)
• I applaud those who have kept separate in their minds and words the separate issues here. The issue of Fram's behavior and whether desysopping and/or some form of block are appropriate is separate from the "constitutional issue" of process and procedure. Conflating the two would, I fear, only serve to raise emotions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Jimbo, the Office are the ones that have wheel-warred here. This mess—by which I mean the future relationship between the WMF and the community, including the recent power-grab by the office to step into Arbcom's role without any recourse to an appeals procedure—needs to be sorted quickly - even if that means hitting a reset button and going through a more transparent process with regards to Fram, at which members of the en.Wp community (Arbcom, perhaps) are the ones with the information and responsibility. - SchroCat (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
• The Office is currently taking actions directly against community consensus. The Office should cease taking any action regarding this matter until more details are known and the community can decide. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie you don't know if you have community consensus. English Wikipedia is made up of a lot more editors than have posted on this page. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl, ok feel free to change how community consensus is understood. Does every member of the community comment on RFC's or RFA's? I'm clearly speaking about consensus by participants on this page. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie this page does not reflect community consensus either. Plenty of us disagree with the so-called consensus on this page. In addition, just because not everyone participates in RFC's does not mean that for something very large... like this... that we shouldn't have a much broader consensus. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• I have to say I am somewhat heartened by Jimbo Wales's comments above - the cynic in me didn't really expect him to do anything about this and I am cautiously optimistic that the enquiries mentioned by Jimbo and DocJames may actually result in what most of us want, which is either (a) a reversal of the ban (and probably the good faith unblocks made by Floq and Bish too), or (b) an assurance that the is justified, for reasons that haven't been, or can't be, made public. For now I am thinking that we should all follow his suggestions and put this on the back-burner for a while. Unlike the Community, the WMF is a 9-to-5 organisation with real employees, for whom this is a professional and legal matter. i.e. not something you rush. To be clear, I am not defending the WMF action and I am certainly not defending the PR surrounding it - clearly there is a lot of reflection needed around that and a fresh approach in future. But those of us on the outside don't necessarily have all the facts yet and we should await the opinions of those who do before running around unblocking ad infinitum, symbolically banning the office etc. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Doc James and Jimmy Wales, thank you for your response. It is great to read that you are looking into the situation. You have my full support to look into this case. As a community member I do not have all the facts, but to me this seems like a wrong application of an Office Ban, as everything I read so far falls within the scope of the enwiki community and the arbitration committee. At the very least it is not necesary for this to escalate as much as it does. You call for calm is very much supported. It is good that the situation is reviewed from within the Foundation. I look forward to reading your further updates. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)