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

User:Fram banned for 1 year by WMF office

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 Most of these comments were made prior to follow-up statements from Fram and the WMF and may be outdated.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

Fram (talk · contribs · logs · block log) Please note admin User:Fram has been banned for 1 year as per Office action policy by User:WMFOffice. - Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC) What the hell? There had better be a damn good explanation; Fram is arguably the best admin in Wikipedia's history, and while I can imagine problems so bad they warrant an emergency WP:OFFICE ban without discussion, I find it hard to imagine problems that are simultaneously so bad they warrant an emergency ban without discussion but simultaneously so unproblematic that the ban will auto-expire in a year. ‑ Iridescent 18:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC) And also only applicable to enwiki, meaning Fram can communicate on other wikis. I note that the WMF only recently gave themselves the power to do partial bans/temporary bans.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Galobtter - Any clue about whether Fram's ban is the first exercise in implementing these or have other editors been subject to these P-bans, earlier? ∯WBGconverse 18:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Winged Blades of Godric, first on enwiki at least per User:WMFOffice contributions, I checked de wiki and found some more de:Special:Contributions/WMFOffice; the timing of those dewiki bans suggests the policy was put into place to ban those two people. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC) @Winged Blades of Godric: It is not. The first WMF partial bans were done in German Wikipedia. The earliest that I know of is Judith Wahr in February. Policy regarding partial bans were added around the same time (about two hours prior to the bans' implementation). -★- PlyrStar93 →Message me. ← 18:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC) I don't want to import drama from other projects into here but is there any more public info (i.e. discussed on de.wikipedia in a public location and still available) on what went on there? As mentioned, the timing of the policy change suggests it was likely at least partly done to allow a block of that specific user. Given the way the WMF stepped in, I expected something similar to here, may be an experienced editor who was blocked. But they only seem to have around 900 edits. True the ban there was indef though unlike this one and it doesn't seem the editor is particularly interested in editing elsewhere however as others said, it was technically also only a partial ban since it didn't affect other projects suggesting whatever it is wasn't severe enough to prevent editing any WMF projects. Nil Einne (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC) I suspect this isn't going anywhere further but for the benefit of others I had a quick look at machine translations of one of the discussions linked and think that possibly the account linked above was just one of the accounts the editor used which may explain the low edit count. Nil Einne (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC) See #FYI: Similar incident in de.wp some months ago. Which reminded me of something I'd read about but completely forgot when replying. It sounds like the editor concerned was already either blocked or banned by the community so it probably wasn't quite like here where plenty feel any ban of the editor concerned is unjusitified. Of course concerns over WMF's over reach or getting unnecessarily involved in project governance as well as other issues like the WMF ban unlike the community block or ban being unappealable still arose. Nil Einne (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC) I'm with you on this. Fram and I have butted heads a time or two (I think?) but I just am trying to wrap my mind around a decision like this with no real explanation. I understand the nature of WMFOffice blocks but I would think that anything egregious enough for an emergency decision like this would have had some indication prior to it happening, like a community discussion about bad behavior or abuse of tools which would reveal PII (os, cu), but Fram was neither of those. I can't seem to think of a single thing that would warrant such unilateral action that could also result in only a one year ban (as opposed to indefinite, if that makes sense) and so narrowly focused on one local project. Praxidicae (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Going to echo this as well. This is a very cryptic block, which seems very hard to tie to any public behaviour. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Yes, saying "email us" is not sufficient explanation for banning a well-known veteran editor and admin like this.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Per Iri. It's also so unproblematic that he's not banned on any other WMF projects?! Banning from en.wiki only seems like something ArbCom gets to do, not WMF. And I see he's already been desysopped by WMF, instead of locally, too. If there are privacy issues involved, I certainly don't need to know what's going on, but I do want ArbCom informed of what is going on and get their public assurance that they agree with the action, and this isn't bullshit. They even preemptively removed talk page access. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC) User:Whatamidoing (WMF), I know you're heartily sick of my pinging you, but if ever there was a situation that needed an explanation from Commmunity Relations, this is it. ‑ Iridescent 18:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC) This is T&S business and I am not sure if Community Relations knows better. — regards, Revi 18:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Which goes back to my original point: if it's egregious enough (T&S) to warrant a unilateral decision like that, why only a year? Praxidicae (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict) If it's a T&S issue, then why is he still trusted on every other project, and why is it simultaneously so urgent it needs to be done instantly without discussion, but so unproblematic it expires after a year? "We're the WMF, we can do what we like" may be technically true, but the WMF only exists on the back of our work; absent some kind of explanation this looks like a clear-cut case of overreach. As Floq says, if there's an issue here that can't be discussed publicly then fine, but given the history of questionable decisions by the WMF I'm not buying it unless and until I see a statement from Arbcom that they're aware of the circumstances and concur with the actions taken. ‑ Iridescent 18:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC) I've asked ArbCom to comment at WT:AC/N. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC) WTF? Echo everything that Iri says. ∯WBGconverse 18:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC) As above. I am not Fram's biggest fan (the feeling is more than mutual, don't worry) but when I saw this in my watchlist it was an actual spoken 'WTF' moment. We need a good explanation, quickly. GiantSnowman 18:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Office has full-protected Fram's TP in the midst of this discussion; it is hard to believe they do not know it's going on, but certainly easier to believe that they feel they can ignore it. 2A02:C7F:BE76:B700:C9AE:AA89:159B:8D17 (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Like everyone else, I simply fail to understand why the Foundation would ban a good-standing admin for no apparent reason. funplussmart (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC) T&S: training and simulation? Very confused. Talk English please. DrKay (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC) DrKay, T&S means Trust and Safety. funplussmart (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC) m:T&S. Killiondude (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC) A big ‘ole whiskey tango from me too. –xenotalk 19:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC) I've put a note on meta:User talk:JEissfeldt (WMF), I believe that is the place for a wiki-talkpage-request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC) (moved from an) Holy shit, what? That’s insane. It appears that their admin rights have also been removed... can only wmf restore the rights, or will fram have to go through an rfa?💵Money💵emoji💵💸 19:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Neither; this is a WP:OFFICE action so we can't overturn it. Per my comments above, I can't even imagine the circumstances in which this is legitimate, since if it were genuinely something so problematic he needed to be banned instantly without discussion, it would be something warranting a global rather than a local ban, and permanent rather than time-limited. ‑ Iridescent 19:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC) "HELLO? IS THIS THING WORKING???" Explanation required. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC) I sent a note to the WMF email address listed on User:Fram and asked for an explanation. I would suggest that perhaps other people might want to do the same. I imagine that T&S has valid reasons, but I believe that some sort of summary explanation to the community, at a minimum, is called for in this case. UninvitedCompany 19:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC) So have I. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Seems like we are in good company as well. Probably better to wait now for any reply. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Uh, yeah. Explanation required, please WMF. The fact he's only been banned from en.wiki and not globally locked suggests it's regarding something that's happened regarding this wiki. So, we're waiting. Black Kite (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC) In the absence of any explanation, the cynic in me guesses that at some point in the next 12 months the WMF are going to reattempt to introduce the forced integration of either Wikidata, VisualEditor or Superprotect, and are trying to pre-emptively nobble the most vocal critic of forced changes to the interface. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Don’t forget Media Viewer —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC) @Iridescent: The cynic in you has some evidence in its favor ... . * Pppery * it has begun... 19:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC) This is worth quoting in full: This priority will focus on deeper evolutions to the core product — integrating content from Commons, Wikidata, Wikisource and other projects into Wikipedia. This will be accompanied by rich authoring tools and content creation mechanisms for editors that build upon new capabilities in AI-based content generation, structured data, and rich media to augment the article format with new, dynamic knowledge experiences. New form factors will come to life here as the outcomes of earlier experimentation. We will showcase these developments in a launch for Wikipedia’s 20th birthday in 2021. Nice of them to ask if we wanted this, isn't it? ‑ Iridescent 19:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Actually, if the WMF office knew anything, they knew this would blow up. So waiting is inappropriate really, they should have already been in a position to respond immediately to this. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)  Bureaucrat note: (and response to User:Money emoji) While it is useful to have a notice here about this action, there isn't really anything for 'crats to do right now. The WMF Office action indicates a 1 year prohibition on administrator access at this time that we would not override. Per the administrator policy, former administrators may re-request adminship subsequent to voluntary removal. As Fram's sysop access removal is not recorded as "voluntary", the way I see it is that a new RfA, after the prohibition period, would be the path to regaining admin access (outside of another WMF Office action). — xaosflux Talk 19:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC) At ths point I don't even care about the reasoning but there is no way that the WMF can claim this is preventative. If it's so bad that WMF had to act in what appears to be a local matter, why is there no concern about this a year from now? Why, if whatever happened is so bad, is there no concern about ill intent on the hundreds of other projects Fram could edit? I'm not suggesting Fram be indeffed but I think some transparency from WMF is needed here, the optics are very bad and no matter which way I connect the dots on this, it seems extremely punitive. Praxidicae (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Well, the term "Poisoning the Well" comes to mind. Fram comes back, has to go through an RFA if they want the tools back (where they did a hell of a lot of good on preventing shitty code and tools from being unleashed here). There is a substantial population here that will vote against them simply because of this action, being right or not. spryde | talk 22:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Yes, WMF has poisoned the well and provided precisely zero justification for doing so. Heinous. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC) @Praxidicae: this has the comment I most agree with on the subject. It never was preventative, and I think that being the case is what caused much of the stir. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 13:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Yeah,a big whiskey tango foxtrot from me as well. What the hell are they playing at? Reyk YO! 19:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Could this have been self-requested? I can't imagine T&S saying yes, but you never know. In any case, piling on here. An explanation is required. Without one, people will assume the worst, either about Fram, or the WMF. I'm ashamed to admit my mind already went to same place as Iridescent's. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Speculation can take us anywhere of course. Keep in mind there could be additional T&S terms that we are unaware of (such as a speculative "may not hold admin or above access on any project for a year") - functionally, enwiki is the only project where advanced access provisioned, so may have been the only one where rights modifications was warranted. — xaosflux Talk 19:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Add me to the list of those who said "WTF" out loud after seeing this. The scope of the ban is baffling, too; if Fram has violated the terms of use, why only a year, and why only the English Wikipedia? If they haven't, then why a ban at all? Also, the WMF is doubtless aware that Fram was an admin with a long an prolific history of productive editing. Any office action against them was always going to be controversial; so why wait to post a statement at all? I see that the de.wiki bans were also to a single wikimedia project; but I haven't enough German to find any subsequent discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC) WTF???? I wasn't aware of any misconduct from Fram that warranted this. I'm eager to know what prompted this ban.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Early betting at Wikipediocracy is that this is preliminary to some sort of centralized imposition of either Superprotect or Flow or Visual Editor, Fram being one of the most outspoken critics of WMF technological incompetence and bureaucratic overreach -- not that there is much room for debate about that at this point. I share the views expressed above: we need answers. Carrite (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Which is clearly way outside any "office actions". That's called "repression" where I come from, should it be in any sense true. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Every block needs to be given a reasonable explanation. Without an explanation, we cannot know if a block is valid or not. This entire situation is suspect until an explanation is given. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Since it doesnt appear anyone has asked the question: Has anyone asked Fram? I am sure at least one of the admins and/or arbcom has had off-wiki correspondence with them at some point. While obviously asking the subject of a ban for their version of events has its own drawbacks, in absence of any other information.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Yes, no reply. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC) I've already asked on Commons (where he's not banned) if he wants to make any public statement, and offered to cut-and-paste it across if he does. Technically that would be proxying for a banned editor, but I very much doubt the WMF wants the shit mountain banning Fram and me in the same week would cause. ‑ Iridescent 20:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC) I'll do it, then no harm no foul if TRM gets permanently banned. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Well I pinged him before you posted this and offered same. I have no fucks to give and lets see if he likes me more ;) In more seriousness, I am concerned that the WMF has enacted a wiki-specific limited-time ban, which indicates two things: Firstly its a local en-wp issue, possibly linked to a specific ENWP individual editor, and secondly that its punishment not a genuine concern for safety. If it was, you would just ban someone permanently, and from all wikimedia projects. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC) To expand a little on the above: I want the WMF to ban editors permanently if there is a *safety* issue. I dont want them interfering in local wikis because someone got their feelings hurt. If they want to do that, they can do the rest of the work policing the userbase too. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict) So what, are they repressing people with no explanation now? What did they violate? SemiHypercube 20:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC) SemiHypercube, disappearing people without explanation is accepted practice at Wikipedia in extreme circumstances; there are sometimes good reasons we want someone gone and don't want to discuss it publicly for their own privacy's sake. What's unique here is that the WMF are saying that Fram is untrustworthy here, but trustworthy on every other WMF project, and will become trustworthy here in exactly 365 days' time, both of which are confusing to say the least. ‑ Iridescent 20:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Not to mention that "disappearing" someone like Fram is going to cause a shitstorm, unlike the Great Purge, where you just purged those causing the shitstorm too. I'm afraid to say, and Arbcom may now ban me forever, but this looks like incompetence of the highest order by WMF. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC) People I trust say this is warranted, but I do object that this was communicated to stewards and not the local ArbCom. Most en.wiki users don’t even know what a steward is, and the local arb with the least support here has more voters for them than even the most popular steward. Stewards do great work and I trust them and have a good working relationship with them, but local only blocks should be disclosed to the local ArbCom, not a global user group that is mostly behind the scenes on en.wiki. This action was guaranteed to get local pushback, and having users who were trusted locally be able to explain it. I’m someone who has a good relationship with the WMF and stewards, and as I said, from what I’ve been told by sensible people this was justified, but if I was trying to think of a better way to make the WMF intentionally look bad on their biggest project, I couldn’t. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC) I can not recall a single instance an explanation was given in the case of WMF ban (and being active on Commons, I have seen them a lot). I do not expect this situation to be different.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Stewards are informed the reason for every WMF ban, including this one. They can’t say what it is, but considering that this was such an extraordinary event, letting the local group that would be most comparable know the reason would have been the very least that could have been done. Then an arb could say “We’ve seen why and it’s warranted.” TonyBallioni (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC) TonyBallioni, given that it only affects en-wiki it must relate to en-wiki. I no longer have Magic Oversight Goggles, but can see nothing remotely problematic in Fram's contributions or deleted contributions in the past month; is there anything in the contributions of Fram (or User:EngFram, who the WMF have also ejected) that raises the slightest concern? (You obviously don't need to specify.) ‑ Iridescent 20:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Iridescent, I don’t see any recent suppressed contributions that raise red flags. I don’t know any more than anyone else other than “Yes, this was intentional, and yes, it looks valid” from people who are generally sensible. Of the WMF departments, T&S is usually one of the most sensible. My objection here is that I know they’re pretty sensible because I’ve worked with them in the past on other things and trust them. Most en.wiki users don’t know that T&S is any different than [insert pet bad idea from the WMF here] and so communicating with the local ArbCom so at least some name recognition here could say they know why. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Pretty sure WMF has never made a unilateral decision on a local matter that resulted in a long term editor and sysop being removed for local issues either. So...Praxidicae (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC) TonyBallioni, now that at least Fram's side is out, do you still trust those people? spryde | talk 13:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC) This might sound a bit like conspiracy theory nonsense but has anyone checked to see if WMFOffice is compromised? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Ivanvector, I was thinking something similar but that seems unlikely, as stewards have indicated that the ban was justified, and the wmfoffice account doesn't seem compromised, based on its edits. 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 20:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC) I've emailed them - I suggest everyone do the same to push some weight on that route. There are actions that could warrant this - but they'd have to be confident it was Fram not a compromised account. That normally requires a bit of time consideration. Which let's us ask...why such a dramatic sudden action . ARBCOM can handle off-wiki information, so that's even fewer possible actions that could lead to this. We should also ask ARBCOM to discuss it at their monthly chat - I suspect several requests from us would have more impact. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Yes yes, I emailed them hours ago. Nothing at all, of course. I do wonder how much thought went into this on behalf of WMF. Perhaps the UK government have paid them to create some kind distraction from Brexit? It's probably the only rational explanation. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC) It does not matter at this point what the action was as WMF acted only in a local capacity and not the global capacity that they should act under. There is no action as far as I'm concerned that would warrant WMF Office involvement in just a local project, this is black and white in my opinion and if Fram's behavior (or non-behavior, considering we don't know what has happened) was a problem only for the English Wikipedia, it should have been dealt with by measures that are in place on the English Wikipedia and not by a WMF employee/global group acting as a rogue arbcom. Praxidicae (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC) From WP:OFFICE, the WMF have the right to ban from a single project on the grounds of Repeated misconduct within a single Foundation-supported project, with considerable impact either on that project overall or on individual contributors who are active in that project., but that seems unlikely here, and if there were some kind of misconduct going on, if it were at the level the WMF needed to intervene I'd expect the ban to be permanent. ‑ Iridescent 20:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Ditto, see my comments above. If T&S have to be involved, why are they doing time-limited bans? Thats how ENWP deals with serial problem users. If its a T&S issue they should either not be involved in day-to-day misbehaviour or should be enacting permanent bans. Time-limited either indicates its punishment or that its not an issue that rises to T&S level. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC) So, are we technically prevented from unblocking? Tiderolls 20:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Not in a software sense, but the WMF will insta-desysop anyone who overturns them. ‑ Iridescent 20:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Then they need to get their collective asses in gear before someone does something regrettable. Tiderolls 20:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Not really. I agree that the shroud of darkness around this matter is regrettable (they haven't even gone to the extent of telling us "we can't tell you anything" yet...), but as long as we sit on the WMF's servers then we as a community are ultimately powerless to do anything about this. We can ask the question, but if we don't like the answer then our only options are to (a) keep quiet and toe the line, or (b) fork the whole encyclopedia under CC licence on to a new set of servers... (and if Wikivoyage vs Wikitravel is anything to go by, such an exercise would probably not end up a success).  — Amakuru (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Everything you post is true, Amakuru, and I'm still open to the fact that WMF's silence to Fram's advantage. My point is just because the WMF can take an action, doesn't necessarily mean the should take that action. Tiderolls 21:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Was that fork borne of a constitutional crisis? –xenotalk 20:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Actually, Wikivoyage was a fork of Wikitravel, not the other way around. (See Wikitravel#Community fork in 2012). * Pppery * it has begun... 20:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC) @Amakuru: - there is one other step we've seen before. In the wake of the Superprotect saga, and the failure of the Community board members to act, all three were replaced. But before we get that far, and waiting on T&S' "we can't tell you anything for your own good" - perhaps we reach out both to community liasions and to our board members? Nosebagbear (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Indeed, if a sufficient number of admins agree this should be reversed, WMF will be committing suicide to act against them. This will go to the press (I can guarantee that given questions I've received offwiki) and WMF will look stoopids. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict) @Xeno: The details are here... "excessive monetisation of the site (a plan to put links to a booking engine on every page was one example) and the poor and worsening technical support offered by the site's owners" is given as the main reason. So maybe a sort of ongoing low-level constitutional crisis? The trouble is, it hasn't really worked. Last time I checked Wikitravel always appears way further up the Google hits than WV, and has more daily edits.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC) User:Amakuru actually Wikivoyage is now significantly more popular than Wikitravel and has received way more edits for a long time :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC) I don't think forking has ever really worked in the long run. See, for example, Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español. It would probably work even less here given that the English Wikipedia is the world's 5th-(?)largest website and that any fork would likely fizzle. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Do you think enwp would fare any better if the unpaid administration went on a general strike? –xenotalk 22:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC) I think it would earn immeasurable respect for unblocking Fram and dealing with the consequences. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Does anyone know of any T&S team members who would be responsive to the community? Surely one of them has to be a reasonable human being that we can actually communicate with? I find it hard to believe that "Trust" & Safety has no problem (further) decimating community relations without any attempt at damage control. Then again, WMF never fails to disappoint in these situations. ~Swarm~ {sting} 20:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC) The whole lot of them are listed here (you need to scroll down to reach T&S); pick one you think looks trustworthy. ‑ Iridescent 20:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC) 40% of the T&S team don't trust us to let us know what they look like. Enough said. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Not entirely fair—40% of them just haven't copied their photo across from Meta yet (e.g. here's what Sydney Poore looks like). ‑ Iridescent 21:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Not that it is important for this matter now, but Karen Brown is the same person as Fluffernutter--Ymblanter (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Also, Sydney Poore is FloNight and her picture is on her user page. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC) WP:AGF says we should assume good faith on the part of editors. Absent of any further information from the WMF (or indication that there are privacy issues involved), my default assumption is that he did nothing wrong. Unless the WMF issues a real explanation, there's no proof that this isn't just the WMF trying to suppress criticism of its various failed experiments. Also, on any other wiki, site administration acting this tyranically would be a forkable offense. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 00:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC) (self-removed) Legoktm (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Noting that you are *employed* by WMF. ∯WBGconverse 02:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC) I'm a software engineer with a part-time contract with the WMF (technically not an employee), though I've been a Wikipedian for much longer, and it's in that role that I'm writing here. Legoktm (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Based on my interactions and what I've observed on-wiki, it's easy for me see multiple people sending complaints to the WMF - just because those people aren't speaking up here, doesn't mean they don't exist. (my third attempt at leaving a comment here.) Legoktm (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Overly harsh and punitive blocks are rarely never a good idea. Even when the reasons for blocking are clear. I'm sure Fram must feel he has been treated very unjustly. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC) +1 to the "WTF?" camp - I cannot wrap my head around how or even why a veteran admin such as Fram was blocked by the WMFOffice.... I also find it slightly bizarre that the block only goes on for a year and not indef ? (Not that I want it indef but I just find it odd and somewhat pointless). –Davey2010Talk 19:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Just recently we ran into Guido den Broeder on Commons who immediately started to accuse me of having been canvassed by Fram. (which I wasn't) I suspect Lyrda is a sock of Guido (Guido refuses to even deny it) and Lyrda's talk page contains the note "I have revoked your talk page access after phony claims of rape". Did they proceed to do something to get Fram banned? I can't say for sure. All I'm saying is, I don't like the smell of any of this. - Alexis Jazz 19:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC) YOU accused him of being a sockpuppeteer first. Accusing someone of being a sockpuppeteer without showing any hard evidence is at the least incivil and at the worst a sign of harassment. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 19:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC) Guido is already confirmed as a sockpuppeteer, many times in fact, so that's no news. Also confirmed as lying about their socking. Blocked, unblocked and quickly reblocked. And if I was wrong about Lyrda, they would have no reason not to deny it. - Alexis Jazz 22:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC) I don't understand this by the way. If Fram has done something terrible and unforgivable, they should be blocked indef. If they didn't, WMF should let the community handle it. What possible purpose does a 1-year ban serve here? - Alexis Jazz 22:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC) WOAH WHAT?!?! That ban took place while I was on a wikibreak. I never see anything controversial that involves Fram at all. Looking at the statements, I don't see what rules Fram has violated or caused controversy on. INeedSupport :3 21:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC) This is a cancer, not an injury. I hope the community looks at this issue in the context of epidemic crackdowns on freedom of speech throughout our world by millions of bureaucratic fiefdoms, big and little. You see, unless we all start paying attention to all of the widespread crackdowns on freedom of speech, thought, and press (Assange, perhaps); wherever they might be, the foundation of our freedoms will be washed away 1 little stone at a time. To quote Dylan, "something is happening here but you don't know what it is, Do you, Mr. Jones." I will tell you exactly what is going on, imo. We, the people, are being systematically brainwashed into giving up ( not having them taken away ) all of our precious freedoms of thought, speech, press and association, and its not just some kind of happenstance. It is an orchestrated self perpetuating cultural shift away from aspirational and community empowered governing bodies toward protective, moralizing and pushy governing bodies. Voltaire said "the comfort of the rich depends upon an abundance of the poor". I'd say, the power of the top 1/1000 of 1 % depends upon a shallow, self centred and limited focus by us, the masses of people. Its a huge error in judgment and perspective to look at this Fram event as an isolated event; its just part of an injected cancer that's spreading into and around every single aspect and segment of humanity. Its actually trite to call it "evil"; I'd call it an aggressive and global and terminal attack upon every speck of potential goodness that rests within our collective human spirit. You must force yourselves to open your eyes to see this incident as just 1 little cancer cell amongst millions; you must recognise and attack the totality of the cancer and must create and/or join a global force to do that. The current banning/& lack of transparency is like a mosquito bite; its the cancer that needs your attention. If you look at it that way, the way to deal with the mosquito will be obvious. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Statement from the WMF Trust & Safety Team

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

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

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

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

However, on occasion community members submit evidence strongly indicating cases where local communities consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous rules but the Terms of Use, too. We will continue to consider these rare cases brought to our attention under the framework of the office actions policy. So does that mean you have determined that the ENWP's community failed to uphold its own rules or the TOU in relation to Fram, despite no actual case, action or report being raised against Fram on ENWP? Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Of all the non-answers I've seen in my life, that's possibly one of the most long winded. Reyk _YO! 21:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Oooh, this sounds like a whole new way of getting rid of people we don't like... without going through the tedium of due process, ANI, ArbCom or anything. Just badger the WMF with complaints and, hey presto, the user is vanished. Winning!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Fram's response on Commons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responses by Jimbo (Jimmy Wales)

• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 235#Admin Fram locally banned by T&S for one year.
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 235#Semi-humorous aside, not to be taken too seriously.
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 235#Request for action regarding the ban of Fram
• User talk:Jimbo Wales#What was the outcome of the board meeting?

1. "I was entirely unaware of this before just now. I'm reviewing the situation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)"[3]
2. "[…] Both Doc James and I are on the case, trying to understand what happened here, and the ArbCom is discussing it as well. Drama will not be necessary, but more importantly, drama will not be helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)"[4]
3. "I can assure you that my commitment to, and support of, appropriate principles and our established constitutional order is far far more important than any personal conflict that I may have ever had with anyone. I'm not taking any position on this yet, because the reasonable thing to do is to listen to all sides calmly and come to an understanding of the issues.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)"[5]
4. "I'd like to remind everyone that it is my long established view that all bans are appealable to me. I seldom intervene, even if I have some minor disagreement with a ban, because no major constitutional issues or errors are at stake. It is too early to know what is going on in this particular case, but please if anyone is planning to "fall on their sword" for principle, let it be me. But, I really don't think that will be necessary here. The WMF staff are diligent, thoughtful, and hard working. If an error has been made, I'm sure they will revert and work out procedures to make sure it didn't happen again. If the ban was justified, I'm sure they will find a way to make it clear to - at a minimum, if privacy issues play a role, to me, to the board, and to the Arbitration Committee. Therefore, dramatic action would not be helpful at the present time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)"[6]
5. "I think you and I can both forecast that a wheel war will not serve as a useful introduction to a calm and reasonable discussion. Give it a little time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)"[7]
6. "I'd like to remind you that it is not even 9am in California. I think it quite clear that unblocking before they've had a chance to even get into the office will simply serve to escalate matters. I suspect that Fram himself would agree that there is no emergency. Rather than cloud the waters and make it even harder (emotionally) for a backdown (if such is warranted - we don't know yet!), it will be best to take the high road and wait until a more appropriate time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)"[8]
7. "Yes, I'm firmly recommending that we all relax a notch or two. It's not even 9am in California. There is no emergency here. I have raised the issue with the WMF, and so has Doc James. I am also talking to ArbCom. It is really important that we not take actions to escalate conflict - nor are such actions necessary. If there comes a need for a time for the community to firmly disagree with the WMF and take action, then that time is only after a proper reflection on the full situation, with everyone having a chance to weigh in.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)"[9]
8. "I continue to advise calm and slow movement. Further wheel warring will not be productive and will only tend to escalate matters further. I am recommending the same to WMF, as is Doc James. We are discussing the situation with them in the hopes of finding the right way forward.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)"[10]
9. "Doc James and I have been pursuing this with diligence. I continue to recommend the following to everyone here:
   • Don't wheel war - it isn't going to be helpful in achieving the goals you want, and could actually make it harder
   • Do express your opinions clearly and firmly and factually, with kindness - it's the best way to get your point across
   • Remember that there is no emergency here - the phrase "important but not urgent" fits very well - getting this right and fixing this situation is incredibly important, but it doesn't have to happen in 4 hours (and it also, of course, shouldn't take months)
   • I applaud those who have kept separate in their minds and words the separate issues here. The issue of Fram's behavior and whether desysopping and/or some form of block are appropriate is separate from the "constitutional issue" of process and procedure. Conflating the two would, I fear, only serve to raise emotions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)"[11]
10. "To be clear, to the best of my knowledge, there haven't been any direct requests by board members to line workers through middle management here. Certainly, James and I are speaking to the board and CEO, not attempting to intervene at that level at all. The board should only operate at the level of broad principles and through the top management, not detailed management of specific issues.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)"[12]
11. "[…] This is not about individual people, this is a question about our constitutional order. This is not about this specific situation, but a much more important and broader question about project governance.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)"[13]
12. "[…] If we characterize this as a clash between ArbCom and the WMF, we are factually in error. It's not as easy as that.

    And of course, if I were to take a dramatic action, some would cheer, and some would scream. And if I go slow and deliberate, some will not like that, either. But it is my way, the only way that I know, and when I stick to slow and thoughtful deliberation I have learned in my life that the outcome is better than if I do something sudden.

    I suppose if I had to decide "whether the community or the foundation is my true heir" I'd go with community. But I actually don't think in that way. My true heir is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. That's what I think we all care the most about, or anyway it is what we should all care the most about. One of the reasons that Wikipedia has succeeded is that we don't take anything as absolutely permanent. WP:IAR and WP:5P5 spring to mind.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)"[14]

13. "[…] I wasn't trying to contrast or compare the necessity/valuation of the WMF with the community at all. I agree with you that they aren't easily separable, and I also believe that when we fall into a too hasty 'WMF vs community' narrative - either in the community, or in the WMF, we are probably making it harder to see how to optimize and resolve problems.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)"[15]

Further comment from the Foundation

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

Dear members of the English Wikipedia community,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further clarification

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

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

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

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

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

Reinstatement of Office Action and temporary desysop of Floquenbeam

Hello all,

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

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

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

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

Further response from Fram

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

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

About the ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

"However, in the hopes of avoiding any future issues and in the spirit of Laura’s own request on her talk page, we would like to ask that you refrain from making changes to content that she produces, in any way (directly or indirectly), from this point on. This includes but is not limited to direct editing of it, tagging, nominating for deletion, etc. If you happen to find issues with Laura’s content, we suggest that you instead leave it for others to review and handle as they see fit. This approach will allow you to continue to do good work while reducing the potential for conflict between you and Laura.

We hope for your cooperation with the above request, so as to avoid any sanctions from our end in the future. To be clear, we are not placing an interaction ban between you and Laura at this time. We ask that her request to stay away from her and the content she creates be respected, so that there is no need for any form of intervention or punitive actions from our end."

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

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

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

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

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

Statement from Jan Eissfeldt, Lead Manager of Trust & Safety

Dear members of the English Wikipedia community,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to Statement from Jan Eissfeldt, Lead Manager of Trust & Safety

• There are several aspects of this I find troubling, but I respect that you did come forward and put your name to it. It was well-written and it does add some information, considerably more than the statements made by the role account. Enigma^msg 20:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• To quote A. E. Housman, "And since, my soul, we cannot fly / To Saturn nor to Mercury, / Keep we must, if keep we can, / These foreign laws of God and man." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• Really pathetic. Accusations of harassment are very serious. Please provide the diffs. This new type of star chamber judgment against editors is most unwelcome. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  I'm unsure how you think the WMF is able to both provide diffs and protect the anonymity of those that were harassed. Regards SoWhy 07:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• we will not be issuing sanctions against or desysopping those who edited the block or the sysop rights of those who edited the block to date – WHAT??? EEng 21:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  EEng, I don't read that as a pardon by any means – "we will not be issuing sanctions" doesn't mean ArbCom won't be doing so. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  Do you really think ARBCOM will do anything? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  I was simply highlighting the difficulty these people have formulating a coherent sentence. EEng 23:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for coming here and making the statement. The next step should be indeed a constructive discussion outlining the boundaries more clearly, sharing responsibilities, and clarifying how communication can be improved, because, indeed, in this case the communication was a total disaster.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  And, specifically, I can live with the idea that T&S will enforce civility even when the communities are not prepared to accept it, but in this case it must be very clear whic level of civility is expected. Otherwise it turns into a minefield. In this case, I believe, though Fram has been banned, it is still not clear to them which red line exactly have they crossed. They are of the opinion that the "Fuck ArbCom" comment played a role, in which case dozens of users could be banned anytime. --Ymblanter (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• It is regrettable and avoidable that Wikipedia users have taken to onwiki and offwiki harassment of WMF staff, and in this context it is understandable to use the role account. This most recent statement also acknowledges community concerns more clearly than the previous ones. Even so, I suspect other community members will still struggle to understand (1) the necessity of the action taken against Fram in the first place, and (2) by what process of decision WMF will decide to issue sanctions in potentially controversial cases. I suppose we will not get more clarity on the former, but surely in the latter? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  It is striking that Eissfeldt says that the unexpected blocking reflects "changes to the Trust & Safety team’s processes". Yet the link he gives by way of support/explanation of this presents a primary objective of mak[ing] more transparent to the team’s stakeholders - communities, affiliates, Foundation staff, and partners - what kinds of complaints the team refers to community processes under current practice and which types it does handle. This is plainly what has not been achieved, nor does there seem to have been any discussion with the community of the team's processes, its balances, or its outcomes. The community are stakeholders in this project too, and are right to insist on being treated as equal partners. Jheald (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for publishing this statement, and please do endeavour to keep the community informed as to how we can participate in improving the dialogue between ourselves and the Foundation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• This was a good statement, and it addressed a lot of my own personal concerns. I also thank you for the apology that this caused disruption to the community. As a newer editor, I sometimes feel that the power hierarchy built here is intentionally built to shut certain people out. It's almost as if there is a shield of protection that exists for the powerusers, admins, and even established users which simply does not exist for me because I both new and (oftentimes) impulsive. They are a known quality, whereas I am not (nor am I as particularly helpful as they are). Early on, I was told by the users who care about my wellbeing that if I used our pre-existing reporting mechanisms that retaliation would almost be guaranteed. That isn't the system anyone in the community intended to have, but it is the one that best prevents disruption. I really don't have all the answers, but I'm glad that WMF at least wants to have this kind of conversation. I can't say I agree with how this has been handled up by the foundation up to this point, but if at least some good comes out of this then we'll at least have that. [placeholder] –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC) Replaced: 21:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

MJL, thanks for your thoughts on this. I think you expressed many of my main concerns better than I could have. I agree with everything in this comment. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@StudiesWorld: [Thank you for the ping] I'm pretty sure that is the first time someone has ever told me that on wiki. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• While I appreciate the effort to make some kind of statement, I find this tremendously inadequate. Yes, protecting privacy and the general rights of the accusers is very important. But due process for the accused, in any fair system of justice, whether in a court system or not, comes part and parcel with the very notion of a fair adjudication. There has been *zero* effort made to outline what due process the accused can expect in these ex parte hearings and what rights *Fram* has to defend himself against serious charges. Not even the slightest lip service is given to the notion. And anyone for whom the concept of due process is either foreign or merely inconvenient has *zero* business being involved in this project. WMF exists to be the servant of the Wikimedia movement, not its master. It's not supposed to be a jobs program for those who want to cosplay as tin-pot dictators. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

What if the accused disclose the evidence, as occurred here, potentially leading to further harassment of those named in the evidence, whether or not they were involved in or even aware of the complaint? StudiesWorld (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Then the ban should have been escalated immediately. They did not do that, which has ultimately led to a Streisand effect with regards to the likely complainant. The downside to this is that this would have likely have instantly confirmed the complainant's identity. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 22:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of things that can be done to escalate in a situation like that. Like in every other hearing in every single context everywhere, ever. It's WMF's stance that is the gross outlier. People will figure it out and the accused certainly will be able to make some pretty good guesses; if a crime is severe enough for this penalty, it wouldn't be a complete surprise and if the crime isn't, it hasn't any business being taken out of ArbCom's hands. "Sorry, Mr. Hinckley, we can't tell you what president you're accused of shooting, because then you'll know!"CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• My thanks too to Jan for posting what he has. I do have two questions (or points for discussion), though I appreciate Jan may not be able to engage in back-and-forth answering of the many questions people may have.
  • My first question is this (if the ban does end up staying in place): how can Fram, who by virtue of being able to edit other Wikimedia projects is still a member of the Wikimedia movement, participate in discussions on en-Wikipedia relating to changes to the Wikimedia software and similar strategic proposals being made by the WMF? What I foresee, is that others will include his critiques even if they are made on different WMF projects. This is why project-limited bans can be difficult to enforce. For example, if Fram is participating in Meta and MediaWiki discussions on those topics and makes cogent points, will people be able to point to and quote his opinions in discussions here, without being accused of proxying for a banned user?
  • The other question (a bit more difficult to address) is whether the Trust & Safety team can operate effectively if it loses, or has lost, the trust of a community it is policing? If enough people believe that you made the wrong decision here, they will not have trust in any of the decisions you make as a team until those trust issues are addressed.

I suspect others will want the issues of local autonomy and allowing en-Wikipedia to police their own addressed, so will not say anything on that. Carcharoth (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) The Wikimedia Foundation did not accuse Pudeo, SchroCat or 1989 of proxying for a banned user when they copied Fram's comments from Commons. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• @JEissfeldt (WMF): - thank you for your well written message. But you still don't explain how someone is supposed to defend themselves against non-specific accusations under privacy conditions as strict as these - it end's up in a judge/jury situation, with the accuser getting to set their case, but not the accused. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • That's not a bug, Nosebagbear. It's a feature. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks. We are not done, but that's a good start. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• @JEissfeldt (WMF): You wrote: "It is important that victims of hostilities like harassment have a safe place to make reports and that we uphold and respect their privacy when they do so." There is a striking implication in that statement that Fram was banned for harassment, otherwise such a statement would be very out of place. Would you be so kind as to answer a couple of questions?
  1. Was Fram banned for "hostilities like harassment", or harassment?
  2. If so, was public evidence used in your findings (content that can be found on enwiki pages, or in enwiki logs or revision history).

I'm sure you realize that answering those questions cannot possibly reveal any other parties in the matter, nor would it disclose any private information. Thank you.- MrX 🖋 21:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• That we've been dignified with a substantive statement, in contrast with the boilerplate copy to which we've hitherto been subjected, and that some concessions have been made in earnest make this a not-insignificant step in the right direction. Hopefully the community can match that step with some introspection of our own. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• Statements like this are why I consider T&S to be one of the most competent teams at the WMF. Thank you for acknowledging the confusion here. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• Something strikes me as extremely odd about this. The claim being made is that (1) this block is based on harassment and (2) regardless of what you have said, the basic gist of it remains "everything is privileged". That has led Fram to fill the void, and while he is a biased source and there are things missing in his reply on Commons, you have done nothing in responce to this. I understand this would be counterproductive in some way - Upgrade to a glock, and you essentially confirm what Fram says; confirm it and breach people's privacy - but the way this was handled was such that T&S hasn't done anything at all in responce to this. The only reason these conspiracy theories (of which one of them may eventually be right, and it's looking increasingly likely this was used to "win" a long-running editorial dispute between two users who, frankly, aren't very well liked) have been promulgating is because T&S maintains that literally everything is privileged, dowm to the word "the". This is not only an asinine position to take, but Raystorm's statement emphatically did not help given she accused everyone defending Fram of sexism, which only serves to help confirm those theories.
  The end result does not reflect well at all on the WMF or its Trust & Safety team. "More communication" is impossible if T&S's starting position is "everything is privileged", when I can think of a few things in this situation that would not be (that it's specifically for harassment, that Fram had been warned twice before, and WHY the ban was limited). At a minimum ArbCom should be told the sort of actyion being taken and (in broad strokes) why it is being taken, and while an arb has said that they were told vaguely this and it was provided afterwards in the meeting minutes, that arb (and others) evidently did not expect a ban. The communication has just been grossly mismanaged by T&S from the word go, and because of that T&S as aa whole no longer has the community's trust, as Risker points out so succinctly below. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• simply thx -jkb- (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• I appreciate any effort to clarify and communicate, so thank you for that. But I cannot make sense of it, if I simultaneously believe everything in this statement and also believe everything that Fram has posted about what he says he was told of the reasons for the ban. If I believe that the comment Fram made about ArbCom was the immediate reason for the office action, then it just does not seem like a valid reason for the office action. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• It isn't; it's just the last straw. Fram has outright stated that they've gotten two warnings from T&S over the past year; the ArbCom comment was a third strike of sorts. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Then it isn't a valid last straw. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Jan E. was the man behind Superprotect. This has led to his de-sysop in the German Wikipedia. No, no, no trust in this man. A former german language Wikipedian admin... OMG --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks for stepping up. For any future TS bans where you can't identify the accuser, it may make sense not to say it was for harassment.
• Halfway transparent houses are dangerous for a couple of reasons. 1) Online sleuths on platforms WMF don't control are liable to guess who the accuser was, and then take action against that person(s). So they can cause folk to suffer harassment that might be worse than any excessive scrutiny experienced on wiki. 2) It can be unfair to the accused. I've gone up against Fram several times over the years to defend the outstanding inclusionists he used to attack, so I think I know them quite well. I can see why their actions might validly appear to be harassment, but it always seemned they were in fact just trying to protect the encyclopaedia from what in Fram's misguided but sincere opinion were excessive mistake makers. So it's annoying to see Fram (effectively) labelled a harasser by a star chamber.
• It's great you're going to step up efforts to promote inclusionism. I hope it's appreciated this is a task that may need great tact if you are to avoid alienating the volunteer enforcement wing of the community, who in several ways do a better job than the very expensive and hard to manage paid moderators used by the other large platforms. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• Just for information: Jan was the one who declared the open war of the WMF against the communities together with Eric Möller in the MV-disaster. He was the one who worked with extreme hostility against the deWP. I don't have the faintest idea ,how such a completely disgraced person in regard of community interaction could have become head of trust and safety, he is the very opposite of trustworthy from the community perspective. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 21:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• @JEissfeldt (WMF): Thank you for your statement, Jan. Despite what I'm about to write, I do appreciate you taking the time to make it. First I want to welcome this:
  "We will improve our coordination with community-elected bodies like ArbCom across the movement when carrying out our duties."
  However, I have grave concerns about a couple of the statements you make, namely:
  "the reasons that Trust & Safety cases will not be discussed in public and often not even privately with members of the Wikimedia movement who sign Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) ... This means that even in cases where users have signed a community NDA, our legal obligations may not allow us to share information given to us." This is the part that's unacceptable to the community. It is a mistake to think that your staff are going to be any more capable of preserving privacy than the elected representatives of our community who are bound to the same level of confidentiality. If you have evidence of ArbCom failing to meet their obligations on that front, then say so. There's no need for chapter and verse, but we deserve to be informed if T&S no longer has faith in ArbCom's ability to perform its mandate.
  Secondly, "In cases where community influences or barriers interfere with the meeting of these minimum standards, the Foundation may step in to enforce the standards - even in situations where the local community dislikes or outright opposes those standards. You need to tell us plainly exactly what minimum standards the English Wikipedia community fell short of in this case. You are wrong to suggest that the English Wikipedia community dislikes or opposes any of the standards expressed in TOU, and I hope you'll either justify it or retract that slur. In fact we not only have policies that make clear our support for the standards you're so keen on, but also policies and precedents that show how we deal with breaches of those standards.
  In conclusion, I for one, am not willing to stand by and see T&S arbitrarily impose a parallel, yet unaccountable, scheme of dispute resolution on the English Wikipedia. If you want to meet your remit and supply support for editors who don't feel able to use our dispute resolution procedures themselves, then bring a case on their behalf and allow the community's elected ArbCom to decide the case. Otherwise you need to consider why the English Wikipedia should not simply abandon its present procedures, disband ArbCom and refer all of the disputes to T&S. --RexxS (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

RexxS. My reading of the statement regarding not communicating with NDA users was that it meant that the WMF was under the impression that they had legal obligations to keep some complaints internal. If that is the case, then there would be no way for them to effectively handle these complaints without allowing some internal proceedings. I think that this could be a result of an interpretation of GDPR, based off of discussion higher on this page. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

ARBCOM doesn't decide on cases unless DR or ANI fails first and I for one would never go to ANI on a conduct or bullying issue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

That is simply not true, not in cases involving privacy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Right, but not everyone who may be the victim of harassment is the victim of private harassment. I think that if anything is going to come of this, I hope that, at the very least, ArbCom changes their procedures to allow private hearings of on-wiki evidence. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing as Rexx about the "minimum standards", but he did it better than I would have. We have no idea how the community is 'falling short' of Terms of Service, so we are all literally in the same boat as Fram! I also take umbrage at SuSa will create a complaint processing map of its and related community workflows to make more transparent to the team’s stakeholders - communities, affiliates, Foundation staff, and partners - what kinds of complaints the team refers to community processes under current practice and which types it does handle. The program will reduce the risk of double work on the same issues from staff and volunteer functionaries... To me this is confirming what I suspected - the Trust and Safety goal is to supplant administrators on anything it cares about - and any powers they retain is merely current practice, a historical accident. T&S will super-protect, super-delete, super-ban, super-bias anything it wants any way it wants, and then the community is free to ban anybody else because who really cares. And I expect that like any other social media company, no one will really know why or what they will go after. Wnt (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• I understand that there are going to be times that a final authority will need to exercise some drastic action. However, until now, that has been limited to things that are so serious as to require an indefinite global ban, and I am unaware of any global ban that has seen a wider community challenge it because of that understanding that the tool would only be used for such extremely serious activities (child protection and such things). I am still at a loss as to how a user can have a time-limited ban for behavior and not be informed as to exactly what behavior is at issue. The Foundation is seemingly deciding to both impose on this community a standard on civility that it has repeatedly rejected and also failing to actually define that standard. You are effectively saying to any user dealt in this way that their conduct is lacking, but you cannot tell them what that conduct was, but be sure not to repeat that conduct when they are allowed back despite not knowing what the actual conduct in question is. The Trial is not supposed to be an instruction manual. At the end of the day, this is private property, and you may do whatever you wish to do with that property. You can deny access and ban someone, you can impose access and require us to allow somebody to edit. But if you want us to know what is expected of us then you need to explicitly say what that is. nableezy - 21:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• @JEissfeldt (WMF): when you say "In acknowledgement of the confusion caused by the application of this newer type of ban, we will not be issuing sanctions against or desysopping those who edited the block or the sysop rights of those who edited the block to date", is that an acknowledgement that it was a bad idea to desysop User:Floquenbeam? Do you regret not re-sysopping him before User:WJBscribe stepped in and did it, less than 24 hours ago? Bishonen | talk 21:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC).
• The key element to me is "not to be considered reversible by a local, or even the global, community, no matter the circumstances or community sentiment" - or, in other words, the community be buggered, T&S are the editorial controllers of Wikipedia and nothing you say or do can change that. Fucking disgusting. DuncanHill (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• I like the polite fuck off statement but it solves nothing. There is no escalating blocks or indeed any sort of system to appeal or otherwise moderate it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• This bothers me: While these changes were the result of the changes to the Trust & Safety team’s processes, and are not an expansion of the team’s scope. You have a contentious claim asserted as a fact. You have a link that looks like it might be a supporting source, but doesn't actually support the rebuttal. In an article I'd tag that with a {{cn}}. Guettarda (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• Fire Jan Eissfeldt and his whole T&S-Team. --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Nah. Firing people for their failures only breeds fear, not competence, and not improvement. We need a better response to crises, especially when they're entirely self-created. Guettarda (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• JEissfeldt (WMF), while I appreciate you at least being willing to put your name on this statement, it is still more of the same. I will be posting a response as to why shortly, point by point to what you said, but in short: The WMF is not a "higher authority" than the English Wikipedia community, and may not overrule it, any more than we could walk into the San Francisco offices, point to an employee, say "You're fired", and expect that to have any effect. WMF is a separate body, but it is not "higher" than the English Wikipedia community. We don't can your employees, you don't can our editors or admins. You also do not overrule or bypass our editorial or community processes. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• Jan, assuming you're taking the time to read all of these comments: if the current NDA does not facilitate communication of matters like this between its signatories and the WMF, is Trust & Safety interested in working with WMF Legal to replace it with an agreement which is compatible with such communication? Or is it your position that this is either impossible, or not worth the time? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• I appreciate the statement, Jan, but I continue to have significant and severe questions and concern about both the conduct of the Office, of which you are a member; and the Trust and Safety team, of which you head as Lead Manager. I'm going to be frank: I join the sentiments of DuncanHill and Nableezy completely and fully. Now, I originally wanted to discuss how WP:IRL is a fact; but that has been supplanted by another matter: the nature of the ban itself. You note, Jan, in your statement, that these time- and project-limited bans are for "serious concerns that are considered temporary or project-specific in nature". I'm afraid I don't understand how the actions, statements, and behaviors of Fram in any way qualify or otherwise comport with the statement, more or less, of when such bans are to be used; how, exactly, is this situation time-limited? Clarification, both in general and regarding the specifics of this case, would be appreciated. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 23:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• @JEissfeldt (WMF): Thank you for your statement, however, I would dispute "While these changes were the result of the changes to the Trust & Safety team’s processes, and are not an expansion of the team’s scope..." If the manner in which the sanctions were levied against Fram is an example of how they are intended to work, then what has happened is not merely an "change to the processes", it is a usurpation of community rights which is indeed an expansion of T&S's scope, and an extremely unwarranted one at that. That you cannot see this is a significant part of the problem here, and the actual core of the controversy, not whether the sanctions were justified, but that T&S took upon itself a right which is the community's.
  Further, you have said nothing about whether the sanctions were influenced by pressure from the WMF chair, who is, apparently, a personal friend of the complainant. This, if true, is a matter of institutional corruption, and must be dealt with as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• If it was, they wouldn't dare confirm it so as to protect the complainant. But Raystorm's accusing everybody defending Fram of sexism strongly hints that it is, and I don't think Raystorm realised that was how such an accusation would be received. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 23:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Exactly, Raystorm's playing of the gender/harrasment card simply made it much more probable that she brought implicit or explicit pressure to bear, otherwise there would be no reason to respond in the manner she did. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• @JEissfeldt (WMF): I am concerned about the basis for the ban and suspicion of lack of impartiality behind it. I would only be satisified if the uncensored reasons were shared with another independent body (presumably the arbitration committee or ombudsperson) to review and conclude the basis of the ban was justified or otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• I find the statement from Jan Eissfeldt completely unsatisfactory. Fram has said all he was banned for is on wiki (ie, no email, no personal contacts, etc). Many of us have looked hard at Fram's contributions, and while I have found some which could, say, merit sanctions over language etc, nothing merit the draconian punishment from WMF. My conclusion is that WMF has punished its possible most ardent critic. If you think that will bring WMF any credit: you are wrong. I suspect most Wikipedians find the action of WMF totally despicable, Huldra (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• First, thanks to Mr. Eissfeldt for stepping up and communicating. I can appreciate the need for discretion, but considering this office action has the community deeply concerned about the WMF's commitment to transparency, the previous statements from WMFOffice were anything but helpful. When a significant number of volunteers have serious concerns, it was disappointing (if not entirely surprising) to see the Foundation answer with responses that were impersonal, opaque, and bureaucratic. As I stated previously, this attitude goes against Wikipedia's spirit of free participation and mutual respect. It's my sincere hope this will serve as an opportunity for growth, both for WMF and its staff, and our community at large.

I expect after the board meets tomorrow, there will be further dialogue, and hopefully a little more openness where warranted. For now, in the interest of drawing the right conclusions and focusing our energy toward productive ends, we can reasonably infer a few things from Mr. Eissfeldt's statement:

1. Specifics regarding the case against Fram cannot be made public (or shared with anyone outside WMF) as a requirement of the Privacy Policy, and/or other contractual or legal obligations to the complainant
2. Fram was banned for violating the harassment clause of the Wikimedia Terms of Use, but not necessarily our harassment policy
3. WMF considers WP:HARASS inadequate in covering violations of the ToU, or else it views ArbCom as incapable of adequately enforcing WP:HARASS (or both)

We are not going to get details about who accused Fram of what, ever. Nor would we if this had gone to ArbCom, nor should we in a serious case of harassment. All we can hope is that the board will review it, and if they uphold it, give us a sense of why it was justified. IMHO, a year ban seems like a lot, even for one as prickly as Fram, but I don't know what happened.

I think we can all agree this was needlessly disruptive for a variety of reasons. The core of the issue though, is that the ToU (as interpreted by WMF) don't align with WP:HARASS (as interpreted by ArbCom/the community). We can do very little to change the ToU or the WMF (not that it's stopped us trying), but this would be an opportune time to review our harassment policy and how it's enforced. We may not think there's any problem, but as long as the WMF disagrees, this sort of thing is bound to keep happening. With any luck, we will receive some clarification on how exactly harassment is defined, vis-a-vis the ToU, and what ArbCom would need to do to better enforce it, thus avoiding the need for office action in the first place. —Rutebega (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

That is a conversation I am more than happy to share, but WMF thus far have not told us where it is deficient and are not likely to absent dropping their stance here (and this is the sort of thing that should not be subject to privilege; we can't fix it if we don't know where the flaws in the policy are in the first place). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 00:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the response Jan, it was more informative than what we've received before. But I still do not believe that trust between the community and T&S can be restored until more transparency is provided into the process. In particular:
  1. Will specific details of the case be made known to WMF board members?
  2. Is any portion of the information being withheld for the sole purpose of protecting the Fram's privacy (i.e. as opposed to protecting the privacy of all parties involved)? If so, and if Fram were to waive their right to privacy in that regard, would you be willing to publish it? (I ask this because he has made the claim that all the evidence of his alleged misconduct exists on-wiki, and additionally that he is happy for the contents of the emails to be shared.)
  3. Fram indicates that the WMF office told him that complaints were lodged against him leading up to the April 2018 warning. Were there further complaints between April 2018 and March 2019? between March 2019 and the ban? Or has his case basically always been open since April 2018, with T&S staff proactively monitoring his actions to see if he has made any further violations? Basically I want to know in general terms what instigated the series of internal WMF actions that led to this ban. If you believe that answering this would violate Fram's privacy, see #2. If you believe that answering this would violate the privacy of anyone else or you cannot answer this question for any other reason, please give us an explanation which is not buried in legalese, because I honestly don't see how disclosing the existence of a complaint can violate anyone's privacy (especially given that such disclosure was given to Fram in the April 2018 email).
  4. If the community's processes (including ArbCom) are insufficient at the present moment to deal with harassment/incivility issues, do you envision a future in which every such case, with the exception of anything with legal/child protection/etc. implications, can be referred back to the community or ArbCom? If so, what needs to change in the community procedures to allow that to transpire? Or do you believe that there will always be cases (excluding the obvious exceptions) where the T&S will take action without consulting the community, no matter how scrupulously it self-regulates? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• With respect to 3, knowing that X complaint was received at Y time can lead to exposing the person who filed it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 00:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Not for such a broad period of time, when Fram probably butted heads with dozens of people. Anyways, regarding #3 I mostly care about the general procedure: does T&S only investigate on a new complaint, or does it follow up and keep tabs on the people it has warned indefinitely? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• @JEissfeldt (WMF): are Office bans which are not required for legal compliance reasons, such as bans with blocks for harassment and incivility, appealable to Jimbo Wales?[16] EllenCT (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• @JEissfeldt (WMF): Can you please do something about azwiki? (or some of the other broken Wikipedias like Georgian, Croatian)? In cases where community influences or barriers interfere with the meeting of these minimum standards, the Foundation may step in to enforce the standards - even in situations where the local community dislikes or outright opposes those standards. I don't understand why there is so much focus here and not on other wikis that are promoting genocide denial or other POV editing and copyvios. --Rschen7754 00:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  Is there much focus here? I thought one of the key reasons this blew up is because it's literally the first time they've really intervened in this way on en. Okay there is some private stuff that happened before, but I'm not seeing much evidence of a lot of focus here. All I'm seeing is evidence they intervened in one specific instance against one individual. Since then it blew up, and understandably for good reason the WMF feels they have to see this through and therefore there is a lot of focus on it at the moment, but that doesn't demonstrate a lot of focus on en.

  Of course for better or worse en is the largest wikipedia by far, and the one with the most focus of the world by far. I don't think it's a good thing, and maybe the WMF haven't helped as much as they can, but I do think there's also not much they can do about the general lack of care anyone else has about the other wikipedias and it does mean there's always going to be a divide between dealing with stuff which affects their major by far service, and the more minor ones especially the very minor ones. As I said before, that doesn't mean they should ignore problems in the minor ones but everything else being equal the problems in the more minor ones will get far less attention.

  From what I've read, the problems at az are very serious, way more serious than whatever Fram did although that also doesn't mean that they should have ignored the Fram situation. More importantly, I've seen no real evidence they have been ignoring the az.wikipedia problems. From what I read, it was only about 22 May that people began to really bug them about it. (Although it is possible they were told in private before.)

  We know from their previous statements it often takes about 4 weeks to deal with stuff which from what I've seen of large organisations isn't exactly surprising. And that's with simple cases involving a small number of individuals and concerns over one of them in particular, based on stuff in English, a language I think everyone who works for the WMF speaks. The az stuff seems to be fairly complicated and while some stuff may seem clear cut on the outside, in the interest of fairness as well as ensuring they take all the necessary action, even if it were all in English it will likely take months to deal with. It being in Azerbaijani greatly compounds the problems.

  Of course you don't have to resolve it all in one go, and I'm hoping that the WMF will start to issue bans sometime soon and also ensure that extremely offensive article names are not allowed. But even in the best case, 2 months from when they were notified (22 May) seems reasonable. While the copyvio stuff is one thing, the denial of the Armenian genocide is quite another. It's a very serious matter that urgently needs to be dealt with but at the same time if you're going to ban people for denying the Armenian genocide, even if you're not going to say it's the reason you need to take great care in your evidence and how you go about it. The fact that almost no one will notice, probably receiving not even 1/100 of the attention of the outside world as this case which as far as I know has still largely passed the world by, not withstanding.

  And considering this fallout, and the size of the WMF means this is likely to be diverting significant resources, I would imagine a further delay of 2-3 weeks. To be clear, I'm not saying this is anyone's fault (although I stick with my belief the WMF made mistakes here), simply that it's the nature of the beast that the fall out from this means it's likely diverting most of their attention and they can't just ignore it telling us 'sorry we'll deal with how much you hate us once we're done with Az, in the mean time Fram stays banned'. And for so many reasons, they also can't say 'well we still think we made the right decision here but it blew up and it's taking too much time from dealing with az so we'll overturn the ban for now and re-implement it later when we have time to deal with you'.

  Nil Einne (talk) 03:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I know for Croatian we stewards point-blank asked T&S if they would do anything about it and they said no. --Rschen7754 04:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• I have no idea whather Fram's actions were sancionable or not, and that is in large part beside the point. What is at issue here is a basic principle of natural justice, the accused should be given the right to face their accuser(s) and to defend themselves. This by T&S's own admission has not been allowed to occur. That T&S has explicitly stated that there is no appeal in this instance only adds fuel to the fire. Furthermore, operating a star chamber to institute and oversee such sanctions is not only reprehensible, but is exactly the wrong way to instill confidence in a volutneer organisation over which WMF has chosen for itself to exert some sort of supreme executive power. The tone deafness exhibited here is simply astonishing. At the very least, T&S need to give all the information relating to this action to a trusted, uninvolved and independent third party, I suggest ARBCOM. If that was done and the third party upon consideration of all the circumstances considered that the block and de-sysop of Fram be upheld, then so be it. Otherwise the block and de-sysop and any consequent actions taken against other here such as Floq and Bish, should be overturned and any related entries on their block logs be expunged. I'm not holding my breath, however. I have completely lost faith in WMF to be a reasonable actor with any kind of oversight of the project/ - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• The head of T&S is a former admin desysoped on his home wiki? Unreal. Capeo (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • To be fair, dewiki did a lot of things after superprotect that I am not sure were the "right" things to do. --Rschen7754 04:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    • It does, however, still raise some eyebrows and result in some questions as to how it came to be. In particular, what the process that resulted in it happening ended up being and if anyone thought to ask how this might look if it came up in the future--regardless of whether or not dewiki did the right thing, it's still a pretty questionable optic for the WMF to have. rdfox 76 (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
      • To give some clarification: The process of desysop in de.wp is quite different than in en.wp. Every sysop in de.wp is open to recall. Whoever was responsible for the development of Superprotect, Jan was the one who used it first (with his WMF-account) and the reaction were immediately the 25 votes necessary for a re-election of his private sysop-account, that surely would have no chance in the heated situation, so the desysop was automatically issued after 30 days and does not speak for any wrong-doing in the de.wp besides what he was ordered from the WMF. But maybe the experience is in the back of his mind, when he now wants to protect the T&S-team members from being hold personal accountable for WMF actions. --Magiers (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
        • My comment wasn't in regards to how that all went down or who was in the right or in the wrong. It doesn't matter. It was in the regards to the fact that no competent organization would even risk the impression of bias or COI on the part of employees handling sensitive issues like child protection, threats of harm, stalking, anything that like that. That should be a salaried team of outside hires, professionals in their fields, not contractors from within the editing community. Distance from the community and rock solid impartiality are required for such posts. Familiarity with community norms is not required to detect cases of child grooming or to deal with threats of harm or off-wiki stalking. If the WMF wants some kind of civility enforcement team hired from within the community then fine, do that. I think it's an awful idea, but whatever. Capeo (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Jan: Thank you for your comments. m:Trust and Safety: "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, nor does it serve as an appeal venue for community-made policies and decisions". As I see, you have gone beyond your jurisdiction. You not only intervened in ordinary internal conflict, you went against the will of the community on it. But a few people cannot replace the whole community. English Wikipedia has the most powerful community, ways to resolve conflicts and privacy practices. You must cancel your decision immediately. We must to stop work and reform the Wikimedia Foundation Trust & Safety team. At least, we need to publicly discuss how it works, limits of its competence, discuss how to interact with local communities, introduce direct elections to this team from each language (cultural) community. Yea, Wikimedia is a multicultural movement and it is movement, not a private organization. --sasha (krassotkin) 07:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • FYI: Schiste, Pundit, Doc James, Jimbo Wales, Raystorm, NTymkiv (WMF) (antanana). --sasha (krassotkin) 07:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• I am in ongoing discussions with Jan, and I am finding him open to looking for ways forward. There are aspects of this communication that I find troubling, and it's related to concerns I have already raised with Jan regarding the Foundation speaking to the community rather than with the community. The two main ways forward that we are discussing is A) Having an interface on Wikipedia for the community and the Foundation similar to the 'Crats noticeboard and the ArbCom noticeboard. A place here on this project where we can communicate directly, and where can discuss suggestions collectively. And B) A new system for dealing with civility and harassment issues. I have suggested to Jan that whatever system it is, it needs to come out of open discussions here between the Foundation and the community. It cannot be something imposed on the community by the Foundation. I have suggested a board with members from the community that are trusted by both the community and the Foundation, working alongside members of the Foundation to hear complaints of civility and harassment. Any sanctions are to be notified via the proposed WMF Noticeboard. Sanctions for harassment to appealed to the Foundation legal dept. Sanctions for civility to be appealed to ArbCom. Members of the Civility/Harassment Board should not also be members of ArbCom to ensure impartially in the appeals process. SilkTork (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  A) seems like an excellent idea, and would save a great deal of headaches. I'm still chewing on B), but I'm not at all happy with it, and I'd refer you to SeraphimBlade's excellent commentary below for why a large section of the community will feel that way. In particular, the WMF has no business in garden-variety harassment or civility enforcement, and sticking their nose in it will not be popular. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The suggestion of a Civility/Harassment Board is one idea. A starting point for discussion if you like. My main point is that we need to find a solution to civility/harassment issues together not - as at the moment - separately. I also think it very important that we start to break down the barriers between the community and the Foundation. The more active shared working together we do the better. At the moment the Foundation communicates snippets of information to ArbCom, but rarely actually consults. This situation is rather frustrating. In the present circumstance where the Foundation informed ArbCom that it had concerns regarding Fram, and then blocked Fram, ArbCom get caught up in an impossible situation. The Committee were informed, but could do nothing with the information. And then when Fram is banned, the Committee are asked by the community about our involvement, and the Committee struggle to articulate clearly what is known. I suppose, by default, ArbCom agreed with and are complicit in the ban by not formally protesting the proposal. But the actual proposal came as part of a wider discussion of other matters during a phone call to one Arb, and it came at a time when the Committee were busy with other matters, and were understaffed. And we were arguing about being understaffed! Anyway. a fuller consultation about the situation, such as: "We have received complaints about harassment and incivility by Fram. We are considering banning him from en.wiki for a year. What are your thoughts on this?" would have been, for me, a much more useful and collegial approach. More consultation, and less diktats would be a good way forward. As I said to Jan: "Work with the community and the community will work with you. Work apart from the community, and there will always be a distance, a suspicion, and a certain degree of resentment resulting in push back against unpopular decisions." For the avoidance of doubt, any communications I make while inactive from the Committee are entirely my own. I am not sure yet if I will be returning to the Committee. I may join the list of those willing to unblock Fram. Not because I support Fram or wish to defend his hostile manner of engaging those he disagrees with, but because I feel that the Foundation have got this wrong, and bad things happen when good people do nothing. But it wouldn't be appropriate for me to do that as a member of the Committee, so if I did that I would resign from the Committee and resign CU and OS as well. _{(Sorry, just re-read Jan's post. No need for this as it appears the Foundation will not be reapplying the block).} SilkTork (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• Excellent. Thanks SilkTork both for your steps and for updating the proles. One of the most egregious problems with the currently imposed situation is that this cannot be appealed (even in camera). I understand why a full SanFranBan (Foundation wide, all encompassing, for paedos, etc) does not have one, but for the temporary blocks like this must be able to be discussed and appealed against by those blocked - it goes against all forms of justice I can think of for someone to be punished without a full explanation, in which they are not allowed to put forward arguments in defence and then are forbidden to appeal against overly harsh treatment. - SchroCat (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @SilkTork: I'm really pleased to hear that a member of ArbCom is talking directly with Jan and exploring ways of better cooperation in future. That has to be the best outcome we can hope for. It seems to me that the current issues have exposed a genuine gap in our dispute resolution procedures: that of where an editor feels harassed or bullied or victimised by another editor, especially one with a high profile in the community. Regardless of whether such feelings have any genuine basis, there exists the problem that an editor in that position will find it difficult to commence dispute resolution because of the fear of retribution in the context of our very transparent procedures. We do need some means of support for editors in that situation. However, I remain convinced that although T&S can offer real help (as is their remit) in supporting editors faced with those problems, I believe it is a mistake for T&S to take on the roles of investigator, judge, jury and executioner in those sort of cases. They will clearly be far more empathetic with the complainant, simply because he or she is the one they have worked most closely with. To then use Office action as the means of enforcing their decision in such cases is almost guaranteed to produce a strong reaction from the community, regardless of the propriety of the action. To Tazerdadog, I'd say that T&S actually has the opportunity to help bridge a gap in our systems as a partner with the community (or its representatives), rather than trying to be a replacement for them. --RexxS (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe that working together, the community and the Foundation can come up with a solution. At the very least, as long as there is consensus in whatever solution is agreed, the community will back and support it. SilkTork (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• SilkTork, it's nice that Jan's working on this, but if he wants to work with the community, he needs to work with it, not backdoor with you. Don't get me wrong, I've had my differences with you, but I do trust you in general. But ultimately, if there's to be a community solution, the community must be involved. That must start with WMF backing off from its position that it holds the authority to enforce bans over the consensus of the editor community, and it must start with discussion of this issue by him on the wiki, not via a back channel. Opaque back channeling caused this blowup to start with, and it certainly won't fix it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear. I am not making back door deals. In our email exchange Jan felt that we had different points of agreement on the moment the Foundation could get involved in harassment complaints, and asked me where I felt that moment should be. My response was: "As for where a line should be drawn where if crossed the Foundation should step in. That should be decided in an open discussion with the community. The community have evolved good rules and procedures through open discussion which gains consensus. And the community upholds very strongly the principle of consensus. If the community is involved in discussions, the community buys into any procedures and rules that are agreed. And the community would then back those rules and help enforce them. If the Foundation creates rules in private discussions, and then informs the community of these rules, there is resentment and a certain degree of push back. Work with the community and the community will work with you. Work apart from the community, and there will always be a distance, a suspicion, and a certain degree of resentment resulting in push back against unpopular decisions." I do not wish to speak for the community - my ideal is that the community and the Foundation speak for each other and do so together. SilkTork (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

"I am not making back door deals ... I do not wish to speak for the community", that's a relief to hear, though given your elected role, it's unfortunate that you are in a position where you have to make these statements. Hopefully that means you have not and will not be having any undocumented quasi-official discussions or secret emails, but Arbcom will be properly and officially represented in recorded discussions that not just the current elected Arbcom members will be able to review, but future elected Arbcom members will be able to reference, including all emails with the WMF. If you mean something else, then now would be a jolly good time to spell out what exactly what you are doing and who you represent. --Fæ (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Fae, I do not think there is a reason to believe SilkTork does not have the community's interests at heart, and I think the message he describes sending to Jan is absolutely correct. I know it's hard to presume good faith in instances like this, but I believe we should here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Plenty of good faith, but I have lots of experience with different Arbcom members, both very good and very bad experiences. Arbcom members are elected officials carrying the trust of our community. It is not adequate to have secret conversations while still wearing those hats and later on say "oh, I was only writing in a private capacity, I cannot say anything about what was said or agreed, even for other Arbcom members to review." What we lack here is leaderships on transparency and good governance, you don't fix that by starting yet more secret "unofficial" conversations. There are never good reasons to choose to avoid good practices. --Fæ (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

We've had good and bad people and good and bad editors serve as arbitrators and we've had effective and ineffective arbitrators. However, it strikes me as absurd that any Wikipedian, including the ones who've most explicitly been entrusted by the widest number of people in the community, cannot speak with any (willing) WMF staffer in an individual capacity about Wikipedia matters. SilkTork seems to have shown that they're trustworthy by reporting back what they've said. So far so good in my book. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

If I understand SilkTork correctly, members of the ArbCom have more information about this banning than will ever be released to the rest of our community, hopefully enough to form an opinion on it. If so, I'd find helpful if the ArbCom make a simple statement if they concur, dissent, or decline to comment on the grounds of T&S's ban of Fram. (In other words agree, disagree, or abstain from stating if Fram did something wrong.) And should a case be presented in the future where for whatever reason none of the facts can be made public, the ArbCom should be given the opportunity to make a statement to the same effect. -- llywrch (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Stewards did have a similar conversation with WMF during superprotect, formally and informally. While I understand the concerns about backroom deals, I think it can be helpful for WMF to have a conversation with someone without having to deal with the walls of text on this page and who they know won't personally attack them. --Rschen7754 18:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

For clarity, the information ArbCom had was minimal, along the lines of "concerns raised regarding Fram, looking into it" and "considering ban, looking into it", but no details (not who raised the concerns or what they were concerned about), and no timescale for when a ban might be applied or how it would be done, or if ArbCom would be consulted before it was done. My comment was regarding ArbCom's difficulty in responding to questions about how much ArbCom knew because, clearly, the very fact that the WMF is concerned about a particular user is confidential information. ArbCom can not reveal which users the WMF are concerned about. So ArbCom were put in an awkward position of not being able to deny the Committee knew that WMF were considering a ban, but not able to fully confirm it either as the Committee were unsure of what they could or should reveal. That is what I meant. SilkTork (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• @JEissfeldt (WMF): Your statement is flawed. 1) There is no "non-public information" (other than private complaints to the WMF), unless Fram is lying. We can see all of Fram's contributions and whether they have been rev-deleted. Please show diffs of the harassment, if not, you are casting baseless WP:ASPERSIONS. Tagging new articles for improvement is not harassment. 2) You have not demonstrated that the English Wikipedia was unable to deal with this issue, so this is an unprecedented power-grab. That is the main question, not poor communication. 3) Mimicking private report functions from sites like Twitter or Facebook sounds questionable. They are considered to be pretty arbitrary and are affected by things like coordinated mass-reporting. This way there is no public scrutiny of the evidence. You are not real detectives or better than the community/ArbCom in this. There is a massive difference between enforcing the TOS when it comes to acting against child pornography and interpersonal disputes on-wiki. You are biting more than you can chew. --Pudeo (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• @JEissfeldt (WMF): You have sanctioned Fram on grounds of harassment of another user -- so it seems from all of the evidence others have provided, & your own refusal to clearly provide an alternative interpretation. Congratulations: you have now just taken on legal responsibility for all cases of harassment on Wikipedia: the serious ones, the ones that could be settled through a simple process, & (especially) all of the irresponsible wild accusations that the usual troublemakers who infest online fora make. Failure to handle these in a prompt & reasonable manner means the Foundation legal department will need to handle lawsuits & the threat of lawsuits over this.

  You could have easily avoided this result had you first consulted the en.wikipedia community -- either as a whole or a proper representative body such as the ArbCom -- & stepped in only when the process arguably failed to arrive at a just & reasonable result. If you haven't noticed, even our members in good standing get a bit unruly, & our conflict resolution process is busy. Moreover, people are not always happy with the results of our conflict resolution process, sometimes for valid reasons. So where the members of the WMF could watch from some distance our chronic unruliness, & laugh at the ensuing foibles, you are now in this mess with us, & must needs sort out these conflicts for us.

  (Some advice from a long-time Wikipedian, who has witnessed more than a few conflicts here: many of these conflicts are about the content of Wikipedia articles, & to handle these conflicts one needs great familiarity with the subject of the article. Since Wikipedia's articles cover a wide variety of subjects, if I were you I'd get to becoming experts on a lot of different subjects. But don't try to save time by reading Wikipedia articles, since it has been known that some have mistakes, some omit material, & some give undue emphasis to certain points of view -- matters you can only detect by reading reliable sources, not Wikipedia articles.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• no ... system exists for victims to make reports privately without fear that their “case” will be forced to become public. Does the Arbitration Committee not qualify? – Teratix ₵ 13:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• @JEissfeldt (WMF): It is important that victims of hostilities like harassment have a safe place to make reports and that we uphold and respect their privacy when they do so. Why? What you're enabling is anonymous reporting and sweeping punishments without anyone knowing what happened. Either Fram is lying (in which case, he SHOULD be desysop'd) or the accuser is. By masking the details in every way, you're not only masking the justice process, you're encouraging frivolous claims and leaving the rest of us wondering whether we're next. To be blunt, the lack of transparency here is astounding and WMF should be clear. From what I've seen thus far, Fram's ban stems from abusing sysop authority in some manner to harass another user. If that assessment is true, in order to prevent such behavior in the future, just say that. As it stands now, Fram's saying he hasn't and no evidence has been provided to prove otherwise. People are currently left wondering what was said/done and without the means to ensure we don't step into such a situation. Buffs (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Buffs: Jan is right here. It is important for people to have a safe way to report abuses without exposing themselves to harassment. That's not the issue. The issue is wether or not Fram's conduct was actually harassment, or if Fram got banned for making someone feel like they were being harassed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @Headbomb: The problem is the whole thing. People who feel they are victims of harassment should NOT be allowed to anonymously report a situation and expect a punishment of the accused without having to present their evidence publicly (which is exactly what's happened here). I'm sorry, but the #MeToo movement has infiltrated our collective logic to the point that accusations are considered proof. What we have here is private accusation -> private investigation -> private deliberation -> public punishment. Fram had ZERO chance to defend himself. Now, if Fram threatened to kill another editor (or other heinous acts), that's something completely different, but why hide it?! It should be simple enough to say "Oversighted evidence has been submitted that Fram has threatened others and we've decided an outright ban in perpetuity is appropriate" (example only). This would clarify what happened and discourage further misbehavior. As it is, we have no idea what happened. I'm not even supporting him or opposing the ban in general. My problem is that the process here is woefully lacking in transparency. Buffs (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
      • "People who feel they are victims of harassment should NOT be allowed to anonymously report a situation and expect a punishment of the accused without having to present their evidence publicly (which is exactly what's happened here)." They most definitely should be. Let's say you live in Bahrain, and you edit primarily on gay topics. I call you at your home at 3AM every day, posts your personal information elsewhere, defame you on troll forums, and generally engage in fucking creepy behaviour. You have clear evidence of this. This is general reprehensible behaviour, but going with a 'public trial' jeopardizes your life, because it outs you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
        • No, what you're describing is criminal behavior. In such a case, where he was calling this person at 3AM and posting their personal information, then the reaction should have been: "It's been brought to our attention that User:X has engaged in behavior grossly incompatible with their role as an Admin. Given exigent circumstances, we've pre-emptively removed them from such a role and suspended their account indefinitely. In the meantime, the necessary information has been sent to ArbCom for review." It doesn't matter at that point WHO reported it. Instead, they've been unnecessarily vague to the point that no one really knows what is going on. This puts the entire community in the position that an individual has been suspended for unknown reasons. Buffs (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• SilkTork A while back I had this idea, and it seems it taps well into your intentions. Sadly, it never got off the ground... Pundit|utter 05:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Further comments from Jan Eissfeldt

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

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

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

Jan Eissfeldt update (06/17/2019)

• On the question of how many cases reaching T&S result in office actions, the answer is two-fold:

• Roughly 90% of the outreach to T&S does not result in T&S cases. There are two big reasons for that: community self-governance and the hurdle for opening T&S cases being consequently pretty high. Much of the outreach we receive therefore can be routinely addressed by others and is being redirected - including to OTRS, ArbCom, other community processes. Last quarter, for example, the percent of T&S cases opened relative to outreach received was 8.1%, the quarter before 11%.
• Within these ~10% that become investigations, T&S cases resulted in actions in 48.18% of all investigations conducted over the last four years. That number includes both types of office actions: secondary like a private conduct warnings, and primary, like Foundation global bans.
• For historical context: T&S cases historically used to come mainly from the English language projects but that has steadily declined to less than a third of cases (again Q1 and 2 18/19 data). The main cause for the trend has been a consistent rise in requests from other language projects.

• I know some of you have expressed concerns about the new reporting system and the universal code of conduct here and on ArbCom’s talk page. T&S staffer Sydney Poore, who has been pinged by several editors already, will be engaging directly about these initiatives in the conversations.
• On questions on better communications of office action procedures: Going forward, news of all substantive changes to the office actions policy will be going out to all communities; just like technical changes already do. T&S will work with ComRel to make sure it follows the usual setup and feedback reviewed on the policy’s talk page on Meta. We are also reviewing, in line with Vermont’s suggestion from last week, whether to include individual public office actions, which is more complicated.
• We have heard your concerns about fairness to Fram of the case as it proceeded. Balancing fairness to the accused party with the safety of the accusing party is something we have been working on for quite a long time, and it’s not something we’ve perfected. Generally, we will reach out to the accused party for information if doing so is possible without violating the privacy of the accusing - or other involved - parties, but our efforts do remain a work in progress when it comes to finding the right balance in each individual case.

The process T&S cases go through within the Foundation.

• As far as the ability for others to avoid making mistakes and finding themselves unexpectedly sanctioned, unfortunately, we cannot publicly disclose details of this or any particular case, for all the reasons previously discussed. This means that, as much as we understand your wanting the information, we cannot tell you what specific behaviors by Fram brought about this action. We can, however, say that abiding by the ToU is required of everyone who edits a Wikimedia site. That includes refraining from behaviors described by the ToU, including “[e]ngaging in harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism”. In cases where we believe a user may not be aware that they are violating expected behavioral standards, even repeatedly, we give conduct warnings prior to any action being taken. In Fram’s case, as noted on Commons, we did send more than one of those warnings/reminders before the most recent step.
• There have been suggestions that T&S should have piloted the newer office action measures first before proceeding with a potentially controversial case like Fram’s. I don’t agree with that as I think that bending the selection of cases to cherry-pick a good “starter” case endangers the independent investigations approach T&S has to uphold.
• There have been questions about the investigation process itself. As indicated on Friday above, my team has built a graphic to visualize the overall process to make it easier to navigate. Traditionally, it has been documented as a table on Meta and is always followed. I hope that the graphic puts the number I detail in the first bullet of this edit above into its context. ~10% go through the process visualized here and less than half thereof result in office actions taken. Jan (WMF) (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Community questions, responses, and comments

• Question. This all seems pretty par for the course; but to Jan (WMF), you never gave a figure as to describe the quantity of requests (only percentage). If you are authorized to make that statistic public, please do so and be sure to ping me. Either way, thank you for this response and the infographic from the team. Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually I think it's quite fair to only give percentages, especially over time rather than merely one quarter of results. I found the information quite informative and pretty reassuring and thank Jan for that. It wasn't, however, quite what I had asked for. What I had hoped for was once we entered the approval process grey box, what percentage ultimately end up at all approvals received and what percentage end up with no office action recommended/office action declined. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• User:X decides to run for a seat on the Arbitration Committee. Just as with most other roles requiring identification, it is possible to run for ArbCom and not identify until after election (steward elections are the only exception I can think of). The WMF T&S team is responsible for updating the noticeboard. Unbeknownst to the community, X has already received two conduct warnings for WMF. How will WMF respond to this? --Rschen7754 03:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• Interesting, thanks Jan. I was trying to think of what would be comparable numbers for arbcom, but it's hard to compare apples to apples. Looks like case request acceptance has been in the 10-20% range for the last few years, but we don't keep outcomes data like that for private complaints/requests/etc. I see in that chart a lot of stuff about who approves what in which order, but I wonder if the box where the actual investigation happens can be opened up a little more. What does an "investigation" consist of? What would the investigator look at? Assuming we're talking about a harassment case, would it include things like contacting other possible victims if you discover them, or asking the opinion of others who were affected by the problem behavior but who did not get in touch with T&S? Or is the decision about whether a particular behavior is harassing made by the person doing the investigation? Under what circumstances would a particular report be referred back to arbcom (or to community processes) rather than pursued internally? The chart tells us how WMF staff communicate internally about these things, but not about communication with or information-gathering from anyone other than the directly affected parties. (The table has a bit more, but to be honest I can't understand the "Dissemination of information relevant to the office action to specific groups" row at all. That's quite a mouthful, but since it's separate from the reporter and the affected user, I assume that means other interested parties, but "conduct warning" gets a checkmark for that one and "interaction ban" doesn't? Is that right?) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• That's definitely not enough. I am rather disappointed because I saw a certain hope in Jan's last posting. He only gives a diagram of the internal process but nothing, literally nothing, about communication to others and also nothing about the reasonings for any decision at any point. So they seem to simply want to continue as before. Everything relevant remains a secret, regardless whether this is necessary or not. No one, literally no one is able to get insight, not even ArbCom or a trustworthy representative. Even the "accused" remains uninformed. Appeal is impossible. This is unfair trial par excellence. As to fairness, this is a word-by-word repetition of the last statement. What I first saw as an offer for discussion seems to be hollow phrase. I intend to open an RfC at Meta but wanted to wait in the hope that something relevant comes up from the side of T&S. This is not so. Mautpreller (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC) (from German Wikipedia).
• This is grossly insufficient. I'd like to call attention to the following statement: Generally, we will reach out to the accused party for information if doing so is possible without violating the privacy of the accusing - or other involved - parties This means that T&S is willing to, in some cases, rule against someone completely in absentia. This is not an acceptable system, and T&S needs to make major modifications to it before accepting new cases. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I too find this problematic. Being unable to defend yourself effectively puts someone in a kangaroo court with no means of defense. Buffs (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks Jan. The questions I have regarding the harassment investigation process are:

1) Is there a provision for asking the notifier if they wish ArbCom to be involved, or is it assumed that they do not? If it is assumed they do not, what was the data and rationale behind making that decision?

2) What is the legal distinction for privacy in these investigations between those who can see the report and those who cannot? ArbCom members have signed the Confidentially Agreement [17] in which it is agreed that "The Wikimedia Foundation may pursue available legal remedies, including injunctive relief or, in the case of willful intent, monetary damages." What extra legal powers do the Foundation have over those individuals who are permitted to see the report that they do not have over ArbCom members who have signed that they agree to being legally pursued? If the distinction is a paid contract, then would paying ArbCom members a token amount per year, overcome the legal hurdles to allowing ArbCom to view such material? Or is the reluctance to share harassment complaints with ArbCom more to do with procedural qualms rather than legal ones?

3) Several members of the T&S Team are experienced and trusted Wikipedians, including two admins from Wikipedia who have been functionaries, one of whom has served on ArbCom, so I have no doubt that investigations were done with some insight and understanding of both sides of the issue (as there are always two sides). However, as with others who have commented, the lack of consultation with the accused person seems odd. How have the legal and moral rights of the accused been balanced against the legal and moral rights of the accuser? We have heard it stressed that the accuser is to be protected, but what consideration has been given to protecting the accused?

Thanks in advance for considering these questions. SilkTork (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork, we know what happens when volunteers cross the line and become salaried employees (or contractors). In 2013 one was desysoped for particularly egregious behaviour, right in the middle of an outgoing ED's valedictory speech at a Wikimania in which she was presenting a prerecorded video that specifically praised the individual's work (the surpressed sniggers in the lecture theatre were audible). Needless to say, although the community called for it, that individual was not sacked from their paid job. I am reminded of this recent comment by Seraphinblade:

JEissfeldt (WMF), while I appreciate you at least being willing to put your name on this statement, it is still more of the same. I will be posting a response as to why shortly, point by point to what you said, but in short: The WMF is not a "higher authority" than the English Wikipedia community, and may not overrule it, any more than we could walk into the San Francisco offices, point to an employee, say "You're fired", and expect that to have any effect. WMF is a separate body, but it is not "higher" than the English Wikipedia community. We don't can your employees, you don't can our editors or admins. You also do not overrule or bypass our editorial or community processes.

Oh, the irony. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• We have a long-established principle on WP that blocks and bans are intended to be preventative, not punitive. How is a ban like Fram's supposed to prevent future misconduct after it has expired, if it is not made expressly clear to the banned editor in what areas their actions went over the line? Jheald (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• I can identify a few things that give me significant concerns, and I urge that these receive attention as WMF continues to work on the procedure.

1. As already noted by others, there needs to be a clearer and more substantive part of the workflow for responses from the accused editor.
2. Although it's good to have multiple layers of review, it's not clear from the information here whether all of the layers involve serious and independent evaluation of the complaint. There is a serious risk that some of the later, higher-level review steps may just be something like "Well, it's looks like [name] did a good job of checking all the boxes, so we'll just sign off on it and move on."
3. It's not spelled out, but there really ought to be a sort of "minutes" or other written record of decisions at each step. I do not mean that this should be public, but it can be important to keep internally in the event of subsequent scrutiny from the WMF Board or others, as is happening here. I think it should memorialize any off-the-cuff discussions, to have a record if someone not officially involved in a particular step of the review has nonetheless commented to an involved staff person about it.
4. As noted by others, there needs to be evaluation of whether the problem could be referred to the local project (ArbCom etc.).

And more broadly, it is important that office actions be used only for the kinds of purposes for which they have historically been intended. Office actions, especially those involving the larger projects, should never be an alternative forum for a dispute that could instead have been handled locally. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks Jan. I have a few questions:

1. m:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019, tells us,

   There are some rare instances when Wikimedia Foundation Trust and Safety will take actions to protect the safety of the community and the public. This happens where actions on local community governance level are either insufficient or not possible. There may be some rare cases where the Wikimedia Foundation must override local policy, such as to protect the safety of the Wikimedia communities or the public. See Trust & Safety Office actions for more details. [18]

   . Furthermore, WP:OFFICE tells us,

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

   If it's within your purview can you tell us whether the OFFICE action and override of local governance was necessary to protect the community? A simple yes of no is fine, or simply indicate if you're unwilling or unable to answer.

• 1. In the findings of the report written by Harvard Negotiation and Mediation Clinical Program (HNMCP) on page 23, the failures in our noticeboard practices are noted (findings, which, generally seem spot on). [Reporting systems on English Wikipedia (pdf) explains the function of specialized noticeboards (page 9). In the initial "warnings" to Fram (not sure whether I'm using the correct term), I'm wondering whether anyone on your team considered suggesting s/he report issues with users to relevant noticeboards (i.e, WP:AN/I; WP:RSN; WP:CCI? Regardless of the (HNMCP)'s recommendations and that the community should absolute see to strengthening those boards in-house, noticeboards are generally a good first stop, help to get more eyes on a situation and prevent a single editor who is working unilaterally from becoming overly frustrated and from being subjected to "anecdotal" stories. Again, if the question is not something you're able to answer, I'll understand fully.
• Finally, I've spent quite a few hours finding documents, reading, checking sourcing, but had RexxS not posted a series of links here there wouldn't have been a starting point. Would it be feasible to have more information available here on en.wp? Links are easy to post and easy to find, and it is, after all, a wiki. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 00:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Response from Fram to Jan

Jan Eissfeldt said[19]

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

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

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

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

"Writing a universal code of conduct, and making a new user reporting system"

In a few places, eg here, here, people have started wondering about a video "Exploring the gender gap in Wikipedia editors" (YouTube, 3 mins), posted by User:Rosiestep on June 11.

At 02:32 User:SPoore (WMF) (FloNight) talks of

"Two of the big initiatives that are going to be happening this next year - one of them is writing a universal code of conduct, and the second one is us making a new reporting system."

Not clear what the community's role in this will be. Jheald (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Response by Sydney Poore

• (Apologizes for top posting) My name Sydney Poore and I work at Wikimedia Foundation. Some of you may know me as FloNight. I want to address some questions and concerns people have about a comment I made in  the University of Washington video that came out last week. In the video I mentioned the plans for a User reporting system and a Universal Code of Conduct to be developed the next fiscal year. My primary work since I came on staff is to is engage with the Wikimedia communities about initiatives to address harassment, most through tech solutions. On occasion I speak with the media, too. In this instance I responded to a media request for a video interview about this study.

  External videos
  Exploring the gender gap in Wikipedia editors, 3:09, June 11, 2019, University of Washington

• Among other things, I spoke of the upcoming plans for the development of a User Reporting System and a Universal Code of Conduct because I believe that it is important to share information publicly about the Wikimedia movement's work to address issues. I never intended to blindside anyone or give the impression that the opinion of the community is not important. I want to take this opportunity to invite everyone to participate in the consultations. I'm available to answer questions about the User Reporting System and the Universal Code of Conduct. SPoore (WMF), Strategist, Community health initiative (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Discussion

If they intend to ram this through without meaningful input from the community, then this is very scary. Unfortunately, I do not currently doubt that they intend to do exactly that. This has the potential to explain a good deal about the WMF's actions so far in this case - and their initial target. @Doc James:, could you include anything that you know about this in your report to the community? Tazerdadog (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Not aware of any specifics User:Tazerdadog. We at Wiki Project Med Foundation and the Wiki Journal of Medicine are working on codes of conduct. IMO such codes need to be developed by the communities (with potentially some support from the foundation) not by the foundation independently. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

So that the link is on record, the draft CoC that the WikiJournal User Group is working on is here. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Last I checked, the community was still trying to flesh out a broad-brush "strategy for 2030"... wbm1058 (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

A universal code of conduct? That is very scary. Raise a hand everybody who believes that will be based on anything other than US corporate English notions of good conduct, narrowly interpreted and with no room for culturally conditioned variation. I doubt there will be any place for people like me here if that happens. And who would enforce it? T&S, who somebody somewhere described as "having our backs", but who will never in a million years "have the back" of most of us? --bonadea contributions talk 13:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Even worse, "universal" means it is going to involve all WMF projects, I bet. Oh this is so bad. --bonadea contributions talk 13:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Bonadea, be pleased to know that the consultation phase of User-reporting-System is already over and per their timeline, they are either preparing the workflow or designing the final software. I did see no notice over en-wiki, awaring the community of the phase and only 4 admins from en-wiki seem to have participated. ∯WBG^converse 13:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I have seen a notice several times. I believe it was on AN for both consultation rounds, though I might have a memory aberration.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter, possilikely, certainly.

I, for one, searched for the contributions of the relevant stuff and did not come across any (might have used MMS, though) post for the consultation of User-report-system. A string-search over AN led to a sole hit:- a Tech News report mentioning it ;-)

I am not doubting any conspiracy or invoking an ulterior motive in the Community Health plans but running non-advertised consultations or learning of the pending development of an universal CoC from an offsite video, is pretty against our values of transparency. ∯WBG^converse 14:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• A very controversial new initiative, coming to light the day after the disappearing of one of the community's most vocal critics of controversial new initiatives. There appears to have been very little notification of this on enwiki, as far as I can see. Black Kite (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Black Kite, Fram's not banned on meta, where he's free to criticize controversial new initiatives, at least at this time. MLauba ^(Talk) 18:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• As I say above, it may not be fair to read too much into the timing. My take on things so far (though I may have missed bits here and there) is that there will be updates coming down the pipeline (from WMF staff and from Doc James who has said on his talk page that discussions are ongoing) that should make things clearer. Something that is concerning me is that I do think the WMF don't appear to trust the en-wiki ArbCom - might this be related to an earlier (this year or last year) resignation of an arbitrator and whether confidential material was being kept confidential (I may be misremembering)? Finally (apologies for putting it in here but I won't have time this weekend to follow things closely - maybe a really good summary will get written...), could some people keep an eye on Fram's Commons talk page, as that has the potential to blow up if more people start posting over there. I hope people don't lose sight of the fact that there are real people involved here (on all sides), and they need personal resolutions to all this, as well as the big picture, project-wide considerations. Carcharoth (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• English-language Wikipedia is a worldwide project with people coming from extremely different cultures and with varying backgrounds, and very often English is not their first language (myself included - I'm from Switzerland, my first language is Swiss German). Introducing some kind of "universal code of conduct" seems very challenging in this environment. A statement that might be perceived as direct and outspoken, but not offensive in culture A might be seen as a frontal attack in culture B. Of course there are some things that would be universally inacceptable (such as direct threats, something like "I will come to your house and beat you up"), but that doesn't necessarily include things such as swearwords (some of which are, for example, much less taboo in German-speaking countries than in America, I think). Gestumblindi (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• I'm certainly hoping that either Doc James or SPoore (WMF) can shed some light on this subject, but it is...concerning, to put it mildly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• I had been saying the methods suggested by others were OTT...but this would be catastrophic. Hell, it'd be terrible even if they did have user participation because a universal code of conduct can't work for 750 different projects! ...And we don't see any sign of significant community involvement. Along with the reporting system it is functionally a disenfranchisement of every community and the enforcement mechanisms that exist in many of them. We don't have the details yet, but if more comes out in this vein, then we're going to have to change from the "keep it in-house" discussion. If it comes - it's a lock-out the site level. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• By the way, apparently this is being done here on Meta. There's a breathtaking example of doublespeak there: The Wikimedia Foundation’s general approach, as described, in the Terms of Use, section 10, is to respect local self-governance of the volunteer communities it supports where possible....While the Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative will make the final decisions.... Riiiiight. In the same breath, talk about how much you respect local projects' self-governance, and state that you plan not to respect it at all. But, for all the good it'll do, maybe some objections ought to get registered. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Swearwords are considered vulgar and offending language in the same way in german speaking countries than in englisch speaking, but you must compare the right swearwords (not the direct translations or usage of english loan words which some use to sound less offensive, giving perhaps a wrong impression to english readers who notice this). As to the multi-culture background of the english wikipedia, everyone who learns english as a second language gets warnings of using the four or seven letter words, especially from the very countries of the native speakers. So I simply don´t buy any reassurement of some of the editors here that this is nowadays considered a small thing.--Claude J (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Claude J: I think you are oversimplifying. For instance, you are throwing all English-speaking countries together, but there are huge differences when it comes to swearwords e.g. between the UK and the USA. Also, what would be "the right swearwords" to compare? I think that the usual scatological swearwords, for example, such as German "Scheisse", are usually taken very lightly. Also, for example, German television has absolutely no tradition of "bleeping" out swearwords of any kind, English or German (it's only encountered in imported TV shows and sometimes to make fun of this "American thing"). Gestumblindi (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: English-language Wikipedia is not an American, but an international environment. The English language here is only a veneer, not really that unifying as one could believe on the surface. Often, all people involved in an English-language conversation are not native speakers, and native speakers might come from countries so different as Ghana and Scotland. Gestumblindi (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anyone arguing that en.wiki is American. I don't have statistics for this but I'd say the majority of en.wiki users are not American, so it could hardly be referred to as an "American" wiki. The USA's significance is only that I think of any single country, it would have the most editors on en.wiki. Enigma^msg 17:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• I think that there is room for a universal code of conduct - just so we don't get things like azwiki. But it needs to come about a different way. Ideally, it would be decided on Meta and focus on the universal Wikimedia principles - universal enough so that the largest 10 WMF wikis should be able to implement it on Day 1 with little to no changes to local policies. --Rschen7754 15:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, those pages linked to above on Meta are hard to navigate and make me want to cry. --Rschen7754 16:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  Rschen7754, how does one exactly avoid an az-wiki or Croatian-Wiki rerun with a CoC? ∯WBG^converse 16:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  The code of conduct has to encompass more than civility - don't upload copyvios and don't write POV content, for one. --Rschen7754 16:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Rschen7754. There is no reason that a universal code of conduct can't be compatible with local codes of conduct. In the US Army, there is a general code that everyone follows as a soldier. Each individual unit, however, was free to add to this, just not allowed to subtract. We can, as a community decide how much (if anything) we want to add to a universal code of conduct. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• @Megalibrarygirl: - it can only be compatible if every local code of conduct either already met it or changed. The WMF, as considered above, is likely to pick "corporate US civility" as the base level, which would require dramatic changes from multiple communities. The fact that local communities could add is somewhat irrelevant to the concerns. If the WMF picks a "bare, required minimum", which would be good, then they could probably go with it. If and only if they demonstrated they could be trusted and that both harassed and accused could be treated fairly. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• I'm rather annoyed that this didn't get banners but the talk page did. We've only 2 weeks left to comment - I've added it to Cent and VPP (though it might belong in VPR). The timing isn't iffy, but the heavy lack of spreading the word is Nosebagbear (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Megalibrarygirl, I think the issue is not in adding, but in interpretation. "Be civil" means different things in different places and different contexts. It may, for example, be perfectly civil and acceptable for me to swear while out for a beer with my friends, but would be unacceptable to do in a job interview. It may be perfectly okay for me to tell someone who I know well that they're a dumbass if they make a mistake, but would not be civil if I saw a stranger make that same error. I do not want those decisions to be made by some faceless, unaccountable, and probably ultimately outsourced "moderation team" like happens on so many websites. Our means may not be perfect, but at the very least, if you get in trouble for something, you know what you did wrong, you know why the community disapproves of it, and you know what you need to do differently going forward. And perhaps most importantly, you can argue in your defense, which is an absolutely indispensable part of any fair process. The Army might court-martial you if you break their rules, but they will not do it in secret with you not allowed to present a defense or even know what you're accused of. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Beyond them being faceless and unaccountable - their interpretation is based in a completely different community. To continue the analogy - courts martial are tried by individuals in the same communities - understanding expectations and ethoses. T&S (or whoever) have functionally no involvement so they run off their own viewpoints alone. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Megalibrarygirl I agree with Seraphim's comments, plus I don't trust the WMF, as it currently stands, to write a simple bare-minimum code of conduct that individual projects can add to as needed. As with Nosebagbear, I suspect that "corporate US civility" will be the minimum they will consider putting through; based on past WMF communications, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they end up expecting everyone to talk in exactly the same sort of language they use--the sort of content-free legalese we've been getting in this case that is clearly written by an on-retainer lawyer to ensure that there's no way for it to be held against them from a legal standpoint. Given that most of us are not lawyers and can't afford to keep one on retainer to help us draw up every single statement we make on Wikipedia, I'd say the potential chilling effect is clear--and anyone who believes that "corporate US civility" language requirements would do anything to stop harassment or other abusive acts clearly has never spent any time in an American corporate environment, dealing with the levels of office politics that make enwiki's problems look like a drop in the bucket. (Not to mention how political correctness results in continuous change of what constitutes such civility standards, meaning that what's acceptable today may get you fired six weeks from now...) rdfox 76 (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Megalibrarygirl I think the proposed mechanism is understood, what worries at least me is that the defined minimum standard will be, and I have great doubts that it will be in line with current standards onto which community can decide to add some rules, or reverse them in future. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• The military analogy is inapt. WMF is not the commanding officer of English Wikipedia nor is it the WMF's role to instill discipline in their alleged subordinates. The WMF is the *servant* of the Wikipedia movement, not its master. This is more comparable to a military coup, a powerful group that is supposed to be serving the Wikimedia movement that aggressively takes control based on the argument that they have the guns and we do not. All hail Despotpedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Don't take the analogy too literally, CoffeeCrumbs. I used it because it was an example that I'd experienced when I was in the military. I agree that the WMF is not a commanding officer. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Just to point out that there is an ongoing Movement Strategy Process which are looking at questions like:

  How and to whom should movement roles and structures be accountable? What structures, processes, and behaviours will enable us to include all voices (including e.g. current contributors and emerging audiences) in our decision-making?

  How can the ability of communities to govern themselves within the broad framework of the Foundation’s Terms of Use be improved while also respecting the dignity of everyone involved and their contributions towards our shared goals? How can cultural shift in communities be initiated to make contributing a more positive experience for everyone participating in good faith?

  How can cultural shift in communities be initiated to make contributing a more positive experience for everyone participating in good faith? Trying to initiate a cultural shift will cause a lot of shitstorms, and not a lot of cultural shift. This is a scary question for them to be asking in the first place.Tazerdadog (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  That's exactly what happened with the ban of Fram (according to Risker on the talk page). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  That they are even asking that kind of question shows that they have no clue what they are talking about. And yes, scary. --bonadea contributions talk 20:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  Well, it's a question that invites answers. I would observe that culture does in fact change, so presumably it's possible to change it. And the objective of a more positive experience for everyone participating in good faith does not strike me as unreasonable either. It may of course be that some people feel that either the current experience of contributing is so good that it cannot be improved; or that the only way to improve it is by removing/restricting the role of the WMF; or that any cultural change can't start from outside a project... if you hold those views (or, indeed, something else) then please do feed it in to the Working Group page on Meta! The Land (talk) 11:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• The working groups will create some recommendations designed to address these questions in the next few months, and have been inviting community input since roughly April. It's important to note that this is not a WMF-only process, indeed, most of the groups have only a couple of WMF staff on them. If you have views then I'd suggest adding them on Meta... The Land (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Also

  What kind of regulatory framework do we need to prevent harassment and increase accessibility? ("current situation")

  What privileges and power structures are hindering our progress towards our strategic direction and vision?

  More diversity Qs -- Jheald (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• A lot of the problems we are having throughout this dispute have to do with the execution of policies, by fallible human beings, as opposed to what the words on the page are. I think editors who have been around for a while understand what is envisioned in the idea of the kind of harassment that requires an office action. And I think the community has a consensus that the intended meaning of office action is one that we support. Normally, the community would consider a true office action to be something that no admin should revert. But what is happening here is that a rather strange time-delimited and single-project sanction was made as an "office action", but what appears to be the causative conduct does not look like something that would be understood as requiring office action, and the administered remedy does not look like something that is appropriate for the kind of really bad conduct that office actions were intended for. In that sense, nobody reverted an office action, but rather, they reverted something that was mislabeled as an office action. I say that in this talk section because, in principle, the idea of a better WMF structure for dealing with serious bullying, and helping to repair the barriers that women and some other editing populations experience, is actually something with which I agree. In principle. But I think many of us see danger in these new plans about a CoC and reporting system because it looks like they will be subject to the same serious problems in execution that happened with Fram and the subsequent communications. Should there be a safe way for a bullied editor to get help? Yes, I support that concept. But should we have something that looks like a gameable way to disappear someone you don't like? Of course not. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with a lot of what has been said here (not everything, certainly) and would just like to add a couple of points. Caveat: we can never extrapolate from a population to an individual (this applies equally much to individuals who through birth have been randomly assigned to a gender group, as to individuals who have been randomly assigned to a cultural/language group) and so I'm not making claims about any individuals, just general trends among groups of pople. That being said, "civility" is not merely about appropriate word choice, about not swearing when that would cause offence, using politeness phrases, making sure to pick the appropriate gender pronouns, etc. Those are important things but they are only part of civility/politeness/whatever you want to call it. I'll give two examples, which are perhaps not directly relevant to Wikipedia, but still serve to illustrate the issue. a) In the US, it is acceptable to speak well of onself. (Incidentally, one reason I would never go for a RfA is the mandatory question about what contribution one is most proud of - a typical and fairly neutral kind of question in an American context, perfectly fine for many non-Americans as well, but impossible to address for me.) However, in e.g. Australia, people who do that risk being perceived as tall poppies. This has sometimes caused misunderstandings and friction when American business people have done business with Australian colleagues. Not because Americans are ruder than Australians, or vice versa, but because the same language is used differently, and because of differences in what is appropriate to say. b) In the United States and some other part of the Anglo world, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" is often cited as a useful, civil, and desirable way to interact with others. I have seen it said in discussions on Wikipedia, as a matter of fact. However, in many cultures, that cultural script is completely inappropriate, since it encourages people not to mention other people's flaws - which is dishonest to the point of rudeness. This doesn't make one culture more rude than another, certainly not. It just shows that civility and rudeness are concepts that differ in fundamental ways. (I know that the WMF employs people who understand these issues very well indeed, but they won't be involved if this is a "T&S" thing.) Final point: a couple of editors who are often cited as shining examples of civil behaviour are people whose communication styles come across as very patronising to me. That's my own problem obviously, nobody else's, and it doesn't mean I can't communicate with them - but it illustrates the same thing.

TLDR: There is no universal concept of civility. Not even in English. And trying to impose such a code will only erect new barriers. --bonadea contributions talk 20:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure this is considered uncivil, even in Australia. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

No. You're dead wrong. the Prime Minister Bob Hawke joshing with Ron Barassi is proverbial in Melbourne at least for illustrating the language governing mateship codes. Gough Whitlam, the most aristocratic yet comradely politician the post-war world ever heard, loved Ciceronian speech-making, but it didn't exclude him from using the word fuck.Paul Keating in the presence of newspaper reporters. I have relatives from downunder who, studying in the US, have endless anecdotes about the misunderstandings arising from using a 'matey' Australian vernacular with Americans who often give the appearance of being much more guarded and socially cautious, at least in public social discourse, as opposed to their government's foreign policy shenanigans. The proposal strikes me as extremely Americanocentric. Has no one ever read Thomas Szasz on the medicalization of social problems, or Michel Foucault on the problems of the carceral mentality behind the medicalization of life itself in modernization. I guess not. Some culturally thin bureaucrats are legislating 'health care' for editors. Jeezus! What a world of wimps. Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Applying the idea of "mateship" to Wikipedia is treating Wikipedia like a men's space. Some references explaining how "mateship" is a male/masculine concept: [20][21][22] (there are plenty more). Even if one accepts that language that would be considered civil in some contexts might be normal in others, it doesn't follow that we should permit everything in the gray zone here, where we are trying to attract diverse contributors who might be repelled by it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't apply the idea of 'mateship' to wikipedia. I corrected a suggestion about Australian language use. It is not about grey zones either. The assumption in the WMF proposal is that there is a 'universal' code for etiquette, to which they are privy and which they will impose on users from several hundred different cultures. It turns out to be exquisitely americanocentric. A benchmark of honesty in some countries is to look straight into the eyes of the person you're speaking with. In others (Japan) that is taken to be intrusively aggressive. Germaine Greer's contribution to feminism came in good part from her feminist appropriation of the comic, sledging richness of Australian vernacular culture associated till her time with men. The point essentially is, is wiki policy designed to attract people willing to sacrifice their professional time and knowledge to write articles, or is it to prioritize simply recruitment on the basis of sensitivities. In short, are we to mimic the most etiquette-conscious social media so everyone will feel comfortable, whatever they are doing here, or are we to continue in our messy intense passionate individual ways to actually construct something, at some considerable personal cost. Social media may make people 'have a nice day'. They are not known, at the end of the day, for donating to global readers superb articles like Female genital mutilation.Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That... has no bearing at all on anything I wrote above. But even so, how would that be usefully dealt with by a new code of conduct? If that is universally uncivil (I am not saying I disagree about that), what use would a "universal" code have that WP:CIVIL doesn't cover? And then there is the question of shades of grey. I would never consider that post a banning offence. A cause for a request to back off and cool down, certainly, but not for blocking or banning, given the full context. You may disagree, perhaps, but the important thing is that it can be a point of contention, it cannot be absolutely codified. (It is past midnight and I hope I make some sense.) --bonadea contributions talk 22:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

"it can be a point of contention, it cannot be absolutely codified" and it is not for the WMF various activist-filled teams to codify it in the first place. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, as an Australian I would interpret that comment as a sign of frustration with the target of the comment, whether warranted or otherwise. Although it may be somewhat abrupt it is not offensive. Anyone taking offense at such a comment in this country is likely to be laughed at. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Nick Throne has clarified the Australian perspective. Same goes for India. ∯WBG^converse 04:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

That would be regarded as uncivil in Australia and anywhere else. cygnis insignis 11:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Except it would not be. The Fair Work Commission looks very poorly on employers who sack employees for swearing at their bosses: consider this 2012 case where a worker sacked for telling his boss to "get fucked" was found to be unfairly dismissed and ordered to be reinstated. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That ruing is this case in miniature Swearing might have been a grounds for dismissal if the company didn't give "mixed messages" about its use. The company also gave no due process nor time to respond to the charges leveled. So uncivil behavior doesn't have to be tolerated, but the response should be proportional, and a fair process followed which considers someone's whole record. Which part(s) of the preceding sentence people latch onto has great bearing, I think, in how they view this incident. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• The fact that the new "Universal code of conduct" and the "New user reporting system" are explicitly mentioned directly in relation to, and only in relation to, gender issues points up the recurring theme that there is a secretive and non-transparent gender-war going on behind the scenes at WMF, T&S, and elsewhere, that has not been either transparent or clear on EN-wiki. Fram appears to have been the first target/victim, via a new power that T&S/WMFOffice gave itself. Fram was given no plausible explanation for the sudden ban/desysop, and the only warning he got was concerning two posts he made in 2018 on the talkpage of someone with serious conflicts of interests with WMF and WMF's Board of Trustees, and who is a gender-warrior. So Fram is the first victim of the secret, non-transparent gender war. Who is next? Softlavender (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Softlavender your framing of the situation is very perplexing. First of all, what is a "gender-war" and a "gender-warrior?" Why do you consider efforts to make Wikipedia a better place for women and non-binary people to edit safely and in comfort a problem? Surely framing it this way, and the way that Only in death frames the WMF as "activist-filled teams" does not help to discuss the situation in a calm way. If you assume that the "other side" is full of awful, terrible people out to get you, how can you reach consensus? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be under the misapprehension the WMF wants or seeks consensus for its actions. Wikipedia seeks consensus amongst its community. The various WMF teams (tech, T&S etc) have shown, over a number of years and situations, no interest in doing anything other than imposing their own will on the community. I mean, you can continue to be a Neville Chamberlain if you want to, but there are only so many times editors can AGF before they look like fools. And that point was past ages ago. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If WMF didn't want consensus, they wouldn't seek input--which you can see clearly on the meta front page. And there is no need to call me a "Neville Chamberlain" and practically invoke Godwin's law because I don't agree with you. It just shows that you are arguing from a heated position. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The WMF has repeatedly sought input then generally ignored it and done what it wants regardless. Tipping the hat at consultation is a standard corporate tactic for doing something you want to do and give the impression you actually care about what other people want. Given that you have basically spent a good amount of text here being an apologist for an organisation that thinks its acceptable to disappear people without given them the courtesy of seeing the evidence against them or the right to defend themselves perhaps you should be less condescending about arguing from a heated position. You should be heated when they come for you in the night. So less of the 'I can see your angry' passive agressive tactics please. If I wanted to be talked to as if I was a woman being told to calm down there are plenty of other misogynistic locations on the internet. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I never said or implied or assumed anyone or any group is/are "awful, terrible people out to get me", and you failed to address any of my points. Softlavender (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

No, you said what I quoted above. What on earth are you talking about with those terms? One of the biggest issues on Wikipedia is the gender gap and the fact that women and nb folks face a good deal of discrimination. Then when they report it, they face additional harassment. This is a pattern I've heard about over and over from people I trust and edit with. So I see good reason to address gender. I've just never met a gender-warrior and if they have a recruiting office, maybe I'll go find out what it's all about. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: Both things are/can be true here. Women and NB do face additional hurdles and more harassment. At the same time, those additional hurdles and harassment causes a hardening, and a propensity for activism. This activism, is by far, a good thing in most cases. But it also often cause to apply broad generalization that apply in the aggregate to individual cases where nuance is lost.

I have asked a similar question at Wikimania 2017 in Montreal, about how you could go around telling someone from a minority group you are wrong about something, without causing them to hear I know better because I'm member of the social majority, especially when members of that minority group may not be as versed/skilled in the art of encyclopedia writing due to a difference in background, or want to promote/rectify a situation, when we are required to be neutral. We need to find a way on how to do that, but sadly my question was dismissed as too silly to be worth addressing, and a lot of people in the audience reacted in a sadly predictable 'look at the white man thinking he's better than us' way. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I totally understand how you felt in that case, Headbomb. My kiddos are biracial. When I was younger and dating, I met my then-boyfriend's sister and boy did I put my foot in it. I thought I could talk about the black experience because I thought I had a "good enough" connection. I could have walked away from the experience thinking that black people didn't want to hear what I had to say and just gotten angry. Instead, I reflected on it. I realized that black people have heard what I, as a white woman, have been saying over and over again. I wasn't adding to the discussion. Now, I listen. That's most often the best thing an ally can do: listen. Minority groups will always tell you when they need your voice. Often, they do. Listening is one of the greatest gifts we can give to one another. I think that's often where minority groups and women are coming from. As to your question: I'd tell a person from a minority group that needs help that you're there for them if they have any questions. You can tell them they are wrong--to not correct mistakes is infantalizing a person, and is patronizing. There's nothing bad about helping others learn to be better editors. It's helpful. Just do it in the way that is respectful. We all want to be treated with respect. That's what I'm advocating. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Well that's the tricky bit. You can listen all you want, at the end of the day, if the minority group is wrong, you still need to click edit and make changes that don't align with what the minority group wants, and they'll go "there they go again, not listening" or similar. Then they blame their not getting what they want on the person making the changes being part of the patriarchy / white hegemony / whatever. I have no real solution for that, and I don't really know anyone that has. But if someone had at least part of a solution that would be great, both for allies and for the people of minority groups. Because reality being what it is, as an ally, when you get accused of being sexist / anti-trans / anti-whatever, or get dismissed simply for being a white man, it is one of the most infuriating things to happen to you, and a lot of goodwill gets burned. It also sadly (and usually disproportionally) turns people against that minority group, providing the anti-whatever with examples of "SEE THEY'RE ALL NUTS! This guy was perfectly reasonable and they accused him of being an anti-whateverist!" allowing them to dismiss all subsequent claims that someone has some anti-whatever bias as invalid, based on the one claim that was invalid. Causing Jussie Smollett types of damage, even if unintentionally, rather than maliciously. Very few people have the moral backbone to still support a movement that has maligned them, sometimes grossly (I have received harassing calls at work, got stalked at Wikimania 2017, and had my personal appearance mocked as result of it), and overlook the transgression because they know a movement can still be right in the aggregate even if the aren't right 100% of the time, or that some of its members are so deep in the echo chamber that they now resort to the same tactics they claim to oppose, out of a sick sense that any men are "fair targets" because some men behave in less-than-exemplary ways.

However, I know I don't want HR types to adjudicate these sorts of content disputes as if they were harassment. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl "Gender warrior" is indeed the wrong term here, and as you say is not the best way to be constructive. What did happen, however, is that the editor concerned wrote a huge amount of seriously sub-par content, and when called out on it (by no means only by Fram - one of the relevant ArbCom cases didn't even mention him) somehow the narrative shifted to some sort of gender issue because many of her articles were about women. The problem with the articles wasn't that they were about women - it was that they were riddled with errors. Black Kite (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Black Kite Errors need to be corrected always. I agree with that completely. I don't know about the case you're referencing, so I can't speak to it. :( Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Tuttle might also provide context for why some editors are mistrustful of WIR. From my vantage point, the ability to discuss that article on its merits was taken away when numerous WIR editors adopted the mindset that the deletion discussion itself was a moral wrong and an example of gender bias. Unsurprisingly, personal attacks and strawmen were directed at those who did not fall in line with this mindset. Like many, if not most, Wikipedians, I believe we need more articles about women. Yet I don't think we should accomplish this goal by ignoring or downplaying our notability standards in favor of articles on women, nor do I consider it acceptable to assume sexism on the part of editors who are simply trying to enforce GNG. There was a serious lack of AGF in that AfD, yet the editors who needed to assume good faith were unmovable in their unwillingness to do so. At a certain point, one becomes weary of trying to have a reasoned conversation with those who will only resort to ad hominems and strawmen. And Raystorm's own attempt to make this a gender issue helps me to have a much clearer understanding of the reason why Fram was banned. I completely understand Softlavender's attitude. Lepricavark (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: Gender bias is a moral wrong--just as any form of prejudice is. Was everyone on that discussion !voting 'Keep' a member of WIR? I don't think so. One important thing about sexism is that it's part of our culture. I, too, have sexist attitudes. I've learned to recognize them and fight them (most of the time I hope!). We all have them. If someone thinks gender bias is involved, we all owe it to ourselves to look inside and make sure that we aren't acting on the biases that society has given us. Based on the fact that WIR is working to fight bias, I'm not surprised editors are mistrustful: it goes against society's narrative. Whether we want to believe it or not, that's the world we live in. Pretending sexism isn't involved in many situations is just putting our heads in the sand. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: I never said that gender bias was okay. My objection is that some WIR members (including at least one admin) have the capacity to see gender bias in places where it doesn't even exist and also to project gender bias (or outright sexism) onto those who reject their interpretation. That is a backwards way of thinking. And I'm afraid that the WMF, in the name of pursing gender balance, would and does endorse that backwards way of thinking. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if that type of thinking had something to do with Fram's ban. At this point, I'd be surprised if it didn't. Lepricavark (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: I don't think you understand what I'm saying here at all. Sorry for not responding right away. I had other issues to deal with. However, I think you are assuming automatically that there is no sexism in situations, when really, quite often there is -- even if you are not aware of it or don't believe it. I do wish that you would AGF in those who are more used to dealing with gender bias, such as WIR members and the at least one admin you speak of. No one is going to wrongfully or flippantly accuse anyone or any situation of gender bias or sexism: that would weaken our position. It's important, however, to call it out where it exists. It's also one of the hardest and scariest things to do: you know that people aren't going to believe you because they don't want to believe there is bias. We want to believe the world is fair and that everything is a meritocracy. It isn't. Bias affects us all. That's why I told you that even I have bias. For example, if someone tells me to imagine a doctor or a scientist, I first think of a man automatically. That's an example of slight, rather benign gender bias. We all have it in our society. Things only become a problem when we can't talk about it. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: "No one is going to wrongfully or flippantly accuse anyone or any situation of gender bias or sexism: that would weaken our position." Having been on the ass end of such accusations, I can tell you this does indeed happen, and that his does indeed weaken WIR's reputation. I wouldn't necessarily say it's widespread or anywhere near a majority, or anywhere close to the gender bias against women in general, but it's also not non-existent and than there was significant bandwagoning happening. Hence the roundtable idea I brought up on your talk page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, Headbomb. I think that others perceive that gender bias is used flippantly or an a bandwagonesque way. However, I think that false accusations are rare. Instead, it's the fact that we live in a society that's full of gender bias that not everyone gets to see. It reminds me of when I first had a discussion with a black friend in college who told me that he was afraid to run in the city. I was flabbergasted. Why on earth would that be a problem? I'm a white woman, so for me, of course it would never be a problem. But a black, young man would have a different experience. In the same way, many women, nb and even men have experienced gender bias and we call it out. There's a lot of it and it's being reported more and more. So I don't think it's flippant. I just think others don't recognize what we are seeing. I'm really glad you brought up the discussion on my talk page and I do think we need to keep it going. I appreciate your perspective, whether or not I agree fully with your assessment. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You can disagree, but you would be materially wrong. I (along other editors) were told point blank that we couldn't possibly have a legitimate interest in a topic because it dealt with feminism , that we didn't know anything about the topic, and that our goals were to willfully 'keep women down', solely based on us not being in agreement with a group of women while happening to be men. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Although this is going off at something of a tangent, I no longer write on feminist issues after I was told I was in a "privileged position" of being male and therefore "part of the problem". That this was from an Administrator makes it even worse. Perhaps I should have complained to the WMF about such outrageous sexism. - SchroCat (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• {ec} I think that there is a universal concept of civility. We all know when we've been treated poorly. We can communicate the issue to those who cause the harm. Many people at that point will say, "I didn't know this caused you harm. I will stop." But members of the community decide that the harm doesn't count because it wouldn't bother them or that the editor should just not feel the feelings they feel and continue to act in ways that hurt that person, that's not civil. What bothers a person will vary by culture, generation and even their emotional state on a particular day. That doesn't mean that I get to decide that what hurt someone is or is not valid. Only they can decide that. And the outcome should clearly be the offending party please back off. I think there are ways to codify this. We do it every day in the real world. On the job, as a manager I constantly hear complaints that would not personally bother me. However, I do find ways to empathize and respond in such a way that the issue is resolved without escalation. Not all issues are resolved the way a person wants, but I do resolve them fairly. We can do that here, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Megalibrarygirl, I think that works to a degree. If someone told me "I'd really prefer if you didn't use the word ________ when you talk to me", sure, I'll try to accommodate that. On the other hand, if it's "It really hurts my feelings when you nominate an article I wrote for deletion", but I believe the articles in question do in fact fail inclusion criteria and need to be deleted, the response is going to be on the order of "I'm sorry you feel that way, but I will continue to do that if the need continues to arise." So, to a degree, such personal requests can be honored, but there will come many occasions when they cannot be. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• I think you bring up a good distinction, Seraphimblade. Actions that are part of the process that help us build and edit the encyclopedia can't and shouldn't be circumvented just because someone says their feelings are hurt. I think a code of conduct would focus on the interactions we have while doing the editing. If someone says their feelings are hurt because an article is nominated for deletion, we can still be sympathetic (if you wish) to their feelings, but it's not going to stop the rightful process of editing the encyclopedia. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

"And the outcome should clearly be the offending party please back off." that is ... very very dangerous to codify, especially when it comes down to tone policing. Should this not have been written because it offended some people? Should its author have been sanctioned? A lot of activism and progress is caused by people who disturb the status quo, and who aren't afraid to speak up with words that would cause Victorian society to implode. Different cultures have different standards, and I'm not ready to have the American HR Culture become the only acceptable culture allowed. This is why Silver Linings Playbook is rated R (under 17 must be accompanied by adults) in the US and Tous public (everyone) in France, instead of having a United Nations rating that has force of law everywhere on the globe. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I cannot recall an event when this approach ended in anything but a fiasco. It sounds good - lets have a system that has looks at each and every case individually and in the end enforces decision based on the observation of behaviour. But without codified and unified set of rules, it falls apart like a house of cards. One meter shall be applied to one person, another on another one due to subjective nature of such hearing. The rules will not be set up as guideline of what not to do, and what penalty to be had once the line is crossed, but will try to muddle the waters into basically "the judge, jury and prosecution in one will make a decision". Especially if core principle is that offended party gets to decide which action consist of an offence. I mean, is that not what the discussion about Fran v Laura edits has been about?

Perhaps there indeed is an universal understanding of civility. In that case, you will be able to barely fill up a stub with it. Everything outside of it differs depending on a time, place, culture and many other variable factors. And I very much doubt that what WMF is cooking is unified subset of rules that are already in force. Rather, as is often the case with new CoCs, it will decide to up the ante over the heads of community, quoting imaginery concept of safe spaces or whatnot, thus already appropriating position of moral superiority. Lovely. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: I often agree with your position, but please believe me when I say - speaking from a position of actual linguistic expertise - that there isn't "a universal concept of civility". I'm not going to post another wall of text to try to prove that, because I already tried to do so above. It doesn't have to be a problem, as long as it is openly acknowledged and accepted that notions of civility vary a lot - isn't that a more likely way to make communications work smoothly, than setting up a set of rules and telling people from dozens of countries, speaking hundreds of languages, that they have to adjust their thinking about what is "civil"? After the 2011 survey, the WMF talked about the need to hire more staff based in different parts of the world to increase diversity, and the need to attract a more globally diverse set of editors to get more voices heard. A universal code of civility could directly counteract that work, unless it is phrased in such general terms so as to be useless - I'd love to be proven wrong here, but unless the point of departure is that there is no universal law of what is and isn't civil, I don't see how it could be helpful rather than harmful.

As for harassment, it is indeed the person who is being harassed who has the first right of interpretation (the silly English language has no word for that, but there is one in Swedish - tolkningsföreträde), and to deny people the right to have their reports heard and taken seriously is fatal. Of course. But unfortunately, what we very often see is people feeling harassed or insulted by editors who scrupulously stick to the "comment on edits, not on editors" policy, as discussed above. A lot of the flak that en.wiki gets comes from us adhering to notability and verifiability policies, and as long as we are an encyclopedia, that's not going to change.

Another question: above you talk about efforts to make Wikipedia a better place for women and non-binary people to edit safely and in comfort - which is unambiguously a good thing to do. But how would you address the fact that women have expressed on this very page that what the WMF are proposing make them less safe and less likely to want to participate and make their unique voices (unique because they are individuals, not because they are women) part of the conversation? Who has the first right of interpretation of the collective experience of women, when we don't even know which editors are male, female, nb, genderqueer, or something else? Is it unreasonable for me to assume that again, it is going to be a US-American view of what women want, a view that is often deeply offensive to other people (regardless of gender), and directly excludes a large number of people who identify as women? --bonadea contributions talk 09:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I am kind of reminded of another incident (this time on a course) where an immigrant engaged in behavior that was sexual harassment, but not where he came from. Now I do get that we cannot (and should not) impose our values on other countries (the white mans burden all all that). BUt I can see how a corporate entity might want to impose a given set of values on its staff (after all whilst you may not employ child labour in your base nation, the publicity of you doing so in wheerevaistan will still affect your market image in your base nation). Moreover it also would make it easier for those who are not from WASP nations to come here and not fall foul of our standards (such as rules on notability or OR, let alone civility). If we have one set of standards no one can plead "but not from where I come from" as a justification.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I think you bring up some very good points. I'm trying to think of a way that we can all have a universal system of civility, but clearly there will always be situations where we fall short. I don't think that a universal civility process has to be perfect: it just has to work well enough most of the time. For other situations, as you rightly point out, we will have to handle differently somehow. I'm not sure I'm the right person to do that: I'm a librarian and it's not my area of expertise. But I want to start the discussion and not give up on the idea just because it's going to be hard to figure out. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said rules only work (and are only fair) if they are inflexible. Else you get "well he is my mate I will protect him" mentality. So no I did not say (and do not agree with the idea of) we have to take into account "context", cultural; or otherwise, ("well I can tell him to fuck off, but he cannot tell me to"), quite the opposite. What I said was that any corporate entity has to take into account publicity, and how that impacts on its operations. So ultimately any code of conduct has to be informed by where the company has its biggest operations (or its base). It does not matter if Barry come from foregnistan, it does not give him a right to ignore rules on (for example) personal space, culture be damed.Slatersteven (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the candour in the above comments clarifies one view, a sort of undercurrent in the outrage that has been less frankly stated because of its ugliness. cygnis insignis 12:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• There are certainly hurdles to trying to produce some kind of universal code of civility, and if we're pedantic about it then a truly universal one can't exist - because civility means different things to different cultures, backgrounds, and even individuals. But we should not be pedantic and should not throw our hands up and say "We can't have any code then, and have accept everything". Similar to the way a lot of this dispute has led to polarizing of positions, this is another issue where the answer is simply not black or white. The choice we face is not between a perfect code and no code at all. If we should come up with one that is not in keeping with the cultural and/or personal values of some individual editors (which is inevitable), then I think it can be entirely reasonable for those individuals to be expected to moderate their civility approach to match the code. I've been in plenty of different cultural environments, and I've adjusted my approach to civility to fit - I certainly don't go to, say, another country and expect its natives to accept my way of doing things (unlike, sadly, a lot of my compatriots). Some of the civility problems to date have surely been due to different individuals approaching the same issue from different cultural and personal directions and finding each other's approaches lacking - and there's been no central reference to direct people in such cross-cultural situations. I confess I have my doubts about how well a universal code of civility can be developed, and I do get twitchy when I hear of such things. But at this stage, I'm withholding my judgment until I see what it looks like - anything else would be unfair. After all, nobody has yet come up with the faintest working idea of how to deal with incivility, and in many cases we're just getting worse at it. And we have to get better. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
• Wouldn't it be simpler, more effective, and certainly more pertinent to the present case, to develop a code of what is and isn't harassment, rather then attempting to codify "civility", which is not only much more difficult, but is also a much less important issue? It would also be in line with any legal concerns the WMF might have. After all, it seems unlikely that the Foundation would have any reasonable legal exposure for not blocking or banning an editor who was merely impolite, as opposed to one who was actually harassing another editor in the legal sense. Let the WMF define "harassment" as precisely as possible, so that the community and ArbCom have a standard to apply, then T&S can step in if it's not properly enforced at the community level -- but only when it opens the Foundation up to potential legal action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

the Issue is not rules, but uneven enforcement I think.Slatersteven (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

"A universal code of conduct? That is very scary." Almost as scary as a universal policy on paid editing. Oh, wait, we managed to handle that - including WMF-recognised local exceptions - with zero drama. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

New "User reporting system"

For those of us with too much time on our hands, I've put together some links to what I've been able to find out about the background to the initiative to create a new User reporting system. I've added a few quotes to give a flavour of each document.

Start here

m:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 – "The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken."

Volunteer liaisons

m:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation/Volunteer sign up page – Twelve volunteers signed up to be liaison for wikis or affiliates.

Overview of research about English Wikipedia dispute resolution and harassment

Wikipedia:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/Research on dispute resolution and harassment – "quantitative data analysis of posts to AN/I ... 533 total ANI cases, 315 of which were resolved ... 40 cases included the keyword '3RR', 26 'COI', 18 'harassing', 14 'hounding' and 22 'boomerang'".

Research about ANI

Wikipedia:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/Research about Administrators' Noticeboard Incidents – "This survey is intended to understand community sentiments around AN/I, and will not lead to immediate or imposed changes to AN/I from the Foundation. Rather the purpose of the survey is to fill in gaps in data that could lead to on wiki discussions about possible improvements to how AN/I cases are managed. Any changes would need to be backed by the volunteer community on the English Wikipedia."

Admin confidence

Wikipedia:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/Administrator confidence survey/Results − "The Anti-Harassment Tools Team is interested in measuring how admins feel about different kinds of conflict specific activities (wikihounding, vandalism, harassment, sockpuppetry), how confident they feel spotting, mitigating, and intervening in these case types, and if they feel supported with tools and other resources from the Wikimedia Foundation." See especially Comments about policy, reporting, harassment, community culture.

Harvard Negotiation and Mediation Clinical Program

Recommendations on the Development of Anti-Harassment Tools and Behavioural Dispute Resolution Systems for Wikimedia (pdf) — "Findings ... Current systems for reporting, managing, and evaluating user incidents do not appear to be effective at preventing harassment. "

Reporting systems summary

Reporting systems on English Wikipedia (pdf) – "the Wikimedia community highly prizes transparency. For reporting systems, this is interpreted as publicly-viewable processes, outcomes, and the identities of the involved users. Transparency in this case is not just a design consideration put into place to achieve a certain kind of efficiency or mode of operation, but a value to be strived for in the way the entire system operates. Because the current reporting system aligns with a certain dominant interpretation of transparency, the system engenders a feeling of trust from its users. However, we know that the same commitment to transparency can be harmful and serves to chill the participation of other users who are not properly served by the system as it stands. Our current conundrum is the fact that, whatever changes we recommend, it must adhere to these values even as we change key features, otherwise it will not be trustworthy."

Hands up everybody who wasn't even aware that we had an"Anti-Harassment Tools Team" [raises hand]. But that last one is the real kicker, isn't it? I hope somebody will ask Jan if he read the report commissioned for his team, and if he did, what he made of "whatever changes we recommend, it must adhere to these values even as we change key features, otherwise it will not be trustworthy." Given that clear warning dated November 2018, you have to wonder why he didn't see the current shitstorm coming. --RexxS (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I'm quite sure he saw it coming. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

[raises hand]. I hope you're wrong Boing!, because if the WMF knew full-well what the reaction would be, and then did it anyway, that's gross neglect for the relationship between the WMF and the community, and we need to respond with some form of direct protest (Freeze the Main Page?) Tazerdadog (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

However the new power structure was introduced, what do you reckon are the chances there wouldn't be a shitstorm reaction? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The introduction process should have been "Ask first, get a consensus for what editors want to see, and then do that." You'll notice when they followed that process with Visual Editor and MediaViewer, their deployments went very smoothly, whereas when they failed to, it blew up in everyone's face. So, basically, ask us what we want done, don't tell us what will be done. And given those earlier instances, they should already know that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

They wouldn't have got a consensus for what they want, and they were going to do it anyway, so asking us first and then overriding the objections would have probably made it worse. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Simple enough solution, then: Don't do it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

As I say, there were going to do it anyway. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I write better content today and am a more efficient editor because Visual Editor exists. A consensus based community, like we are, is going to be (notice the lowercase letter here) conservative by its nature. Overall this is good - it's why we get praised for the quality of our coverage of difficult topics. However, there are going to be times when this conservatism is going to harm the project in the long-run. Figuring out how to thread that needle of respecting our norms, traditions, and culture, while opening the door to continued viability as a project is the needle the foundation should be trying to thread. And because it's a challenge they're going to get it wrong a bunch. And when they do we should rightly criticize them for it and they should learn from it. But that doesn't mean they should just stop trying to do the bigger kinds of changes that promote longterm health. In this case they've gotten something very wrong and I worry what, if anything, they're going to take away from all this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, IIRC, the core of the problem was not VE itself, but introducing a highly buggy VE, that caused more issues than it solved. There are major differences between today's VE and the one, that was first launched.

A software product must be stable to minimum extents, before throwing it to the masses -- that (apparently) evaded the WMF developers. ∯WBG^converse 04:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric I was indeed not active at that point so I don't know if it was a minimally viable product or not - I am guessing it wasn't just from the animosity that so many feel and you're right it shouldn't have been introduced. But my point was the foundation wasn't wrong to develop it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Besides the initial bugs, they tried to enforce it us. VE was at some point plainly enabled for all users and I had to turn it off. Mediaviewer was just enabled. Standard setting for beta-features is, IIRC, to standard enable any beta feature UNLESS you chose not to. Remember SuperPutsch. WMF has been enforcing stuff on us for a long time becuase they think we need it, With VE, in its buggy status, it was not 'hey guys, we have this new gadget, for those interested please try it and tell us what you think. And if you think it is good enough and there is community consensus, you can turn it on <here>.' (personal complaint, they refuse to work on material that is easily 10 years outdated, source of regular complaints, and would not even do it if it would get enough suppert in the annual Community Wishlist).

Seen its history, I would NOT be surprised that a meta-RfC would gain sufficient traction to throw out WMF or to seriously restrict its powers (though I doubt we are int time for that - they might just block everyone who is against them). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

For reference for those wondering what the controversy the thread above is discussing was: WP:VisualEditor/RFC. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 07:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess I just don't see how we go from superprotect to this (and I don't like bringing up names here but Jan used superprotect). --Rschen7754 18:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hands down; read about it in the usual places. isaacl (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Isaacl, have you read of the User-reporting-system consultation? Please point me to the relevant thread. Reagrds, ∯WBG^converse 19:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I recall seeing this announcement of the community health initiative but never watchlisted the corresponding page (and its talk page), so I've not kept abreast of the progress in this area. isaacl (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hands up everybody who wasn't even aware that we had an"Anti-Harassment Tools Team" [raises hand]. As a shameless plug, for things like this I recommend subscribing to Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter. The efforts of the anti-harassment tools team to improve the blocking interface have been publicized there on several occasions last year: e.g. Jan 2018, Aug 2018, Oct 2018. Mz7 (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Doc James: - were you aware of this (or the team in general) WMore importantly, what do you think of the discussion above: Should the WMF have sought (and obeyed) cross-project consensus first, or should they implement changes they feel are necessary even if the community disagrees? Nosebagbear (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Was aware of the team. They have been working on tools such as partial blocks for EN WP. Am hoping they would also look at improving the CU interface (but as I am not a CU not sure if they are). User:Nosebagbear been busy at work today and need a bit of time to catch up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no worries - I'm sure you came out of the board meeting to an avalanche of pings - plus everything else that draws your time Nosebagbear (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

[Just a small aside...] Gee, all I want to do is edit/create Wikipedia articles. Wasn't aware of the AHT Team or the Community health Initiative either... Shearonink (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Does enwiki have/want a "Volunteer to be a liaison to your wiki community or Wikimedia affiliate"?

See the link mentioned above: m:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation/Volunteer sign up page- I don't see anyone representing us and I'm not sure how they would do it in any case. The job seems immense and pretty important. m:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 Thanks to User:RexxS for drawing attention to it. I'll admit I knew about it but wasn't about to volunteer! Doug Weller talk 16:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I know nothing about this particular task, but I dealt with community liasons on other WMF projects who were trying to facilitate the strategy exercise and get the community input - their activity ranged from trying to be useful and getting desperate because they did not manage to engage the community to being outright hostile and telling the community what they expect, but none of those I would call useful. Whereas the institute of liasons could work in some situations, I do not thin k we are currently at the stage any self-appointed or WMF-appointed person can really have a distinctly positive contribution here.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

A suggested resolution

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

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

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

Endorse

1. All of that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. 28bytes (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Samesies. nableezy - 18:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
3. Endorse Sounds good to me. If the Office is acting in good faith, I do not see why they would not accept this. Enigma^msg 18:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4. Endorse as a fair compromise Atlantic306 (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
5. Endorse Fair. CoolSkittle (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
6. Endorse as a reasonable and good faith way out of this mess.--Mojo Hand (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
7. Endorse I like the good faith part and it being reasonable.Yger (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
8. Endorse Seems a reasonable way to try to walk back this situation. Jheald (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
9. Generally Endorse If behavior is inappropriate, WMFOffice should bring it and evidence to the appropriate board immediately (such as ArbCom). The undoing of the ban need not be instantaneous if exigent circumstances are present (such as a death threat and WMF is working with local authorities). Buffs (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

   Addendum: It would also be acceptable to keep a ban in place on all en.wiki activities until such time as an ArbCom case is resolved (consider this the equivalent of house arrest while the case is heard Buffs (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

10. Endorse This feels reasonable and responsive to issues on multiple sides and so I support it. I would hope that this reasonableness would receive a positive response from the foundation rather than it being seen as a negotiating posture (e.g. "well you you asked for immediate reinstatement and we said a year so let's compromise on six months"). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
11. Endorse Perfect / brilliant. We should mention this in the other places that it is being discussed. North8000 (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
12. Reluctant Endorse but pending BoT statement. It might be very plausible that Fram actually did something quite serious enough (in which case, the ban shall stand) or that the staff were plainly incompetent in a bid to discipline and micromanage the community. We need to learn the rough details. Also, echo Headbomb; fuck an institution will be somewhere around 2, on a scale of 10, if we are rating various forms of harassment and bullying. ∯WBG^converse 19:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
13. Sounds like a good plan, and much more sensible than the ArbCom case request. Headbomb makes a good point though. —Kusma (t·c) 19:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
14. Endorse with changes: I do admit that Headbomb has a point. However, having read through enough AN/I and AN threads with Fram's involvement, I'm sure that Fram can improve somewhat in terms of decorum. At least, I do hope so. Now, setting that point aside: I'd like to amend the proposed resolution to provide for the opening of an Arbitration Committee case, pursuant to Fram's request, as seen here. Of course, I may be able to accept it without this change. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
15. I've got a few issues with a detail or two (for example, if I understand right, WMF would refuse to tell Fram who to avoid, though I imagine he could guess as well as the rest of us by now). The overarching idea of the WMF vacating the ban, leaving any action (if needed) against Fram to en.wiki processes, and then having this much talked-about, calm, no-deadline, respectful discussion seems better than what we have now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
16. Endorse with similar qualms and wimpy caveats as Headbomb and Floquenbeam. But peace matters. Thank you, Newyorkbrad! ---Sluzzelin talk 19:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
17. Endorse Sounds perfectly reasonable. (if I may, as I'm mainly active in German-language Wikipedia and on Commons, so I don't feel wholly part of English-language Wikipedia's community - although my first edits were made here, back in 2003 :-) ) Gestumblindi (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
18. Endorse per Floquenbeam. Haukur (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
19. Endorse - with ArbCom case - The main issue here is the question of whether and where our policies are deficient, and that is something the ArbCom is best equipped to figure out (as this may well require assessing past cases where private communications were involved). That said, such an ArbCom case should stick to fact-finding on this subject and interpreting that as much as possible to make recommendations to the community. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 19:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
20. Makes sense to me as a possible option--Ymblanter (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
21. Reluctant Endorse I view any action that leads to Fram no longer being office-banned as progress, although much of this proposal accepts a level of office involvement in the community that I, and probably many other users, feel is excessive. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

    A fair assessment, and if they come out of the board meeting with something that throws more fuel on the fire it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect this option to be taken off the table. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Oppose

1. This doesn't sound realistic to me. I'm sure that the Trust and Safety team had good reasons for banning Fram, and I have no reason to think a long, angry discussion between editors who don't know the situation constitutes a reason to overturn that ban. I also don't think it's realistic (or desirable) for the WMF to disclose private information that they're not authorized to disclose. The other suggestions seem like good ones. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
   To be clear, I do not endorse as I don't see this as a realistic proposal, and I do not support the unauthorized revealing of private information or the reversal of a ban on the basis of objections from people who don't know the reasons for it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose Fram’s incivility has been longstanding and has affected multiple people. This summation outlines the problems better than I could here. If the community thinks the existing system should have been allowed to run its course, too late now. Perhaps an alternative would be to allow ArbCom to review evidence “under seal,” at least what they can legally be permitted to access, and then prepare a statement (perhaps with majority and minority opinions) for the community expressing whether they concur with the ban or if they recommend another solution. “Tell Fram to be nicer” is not going to cut it; if it had, he would have toned it down long ago. Montanabw^(talk) 21:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

   @Montanabw: I took the liberty of fixing an obvious typo in your link. I think it only fair to point out that the summation was authored by an editor who had been caught in a great many copyright violations by Fram over the years. EllenCT (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

   Ellen, thanks for the tweak. But FYI I worked with Blofeld on some FAC projects ( such as Frank Sinatra. Blofeld was a solid editor. Like most WP editors, his later work was better than his earlier efforts. Fram, however, became obsessed about edits dating back a decade, mostly close paraphrasing more than straight plagiarism, and it perfectly illustrates Fram’s obsession about people who violate his personal guidelines. Just because he may be technically right doesn’t grant him carte blanche to hound people like he did. Montanabw^(talk) 03:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

   Then it should have been handled on-wiki through Arbcom. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

3. Oppose "Fram’s incivility has been longstanding and has affected multiple people" - Fram will be nicer is not really cutting it, they also have not agreed to be nicer anyways Govindaharihari (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose "quasi-volunteering to improve decorum" is insufficient. Thank you Montanabw. There seems to be mass amnesia where Fram is concerned, as the focus of their attentions were not simply at newbies, as is clearly shown.[25] While clarification is needed on the roles of enforcing civility, the fact of the matter is that behavior is addressed in the Terms of Use and within the purview of the foundation to step in if the community has failed to address repeated problems. One would hope that clearly defined roles and reporting policies will come of this. SusunW (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
5. Oppose. "Undo everything you've done, abdicate your duty/ability to enforce the Terms of Use, and don't do anything we don't like in the future, despite owning the site." This is not a compromise. It is a takeover. Fork the site if you disagree with the WMF enforcing the Terms of Use. That is your recourse. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
   • That doesn't really sound like a compromise either.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
     • @BU Rob13: - that is a ridculous all or nothing argument. Firstly, we're not saying revoke the standard areas of WMF ban-control. Secondly, the WMF is free to amend their ToS however they wish, once legal requirements are met. We argue that they have no other ownership than legal - which is not the be all and end all. We have various methods to act against them, and it makes no sense not to at least consider their usage. It's like telling employees at a company who don't like management's actions that their only option is to create a startup. This suggested solution may well be wrong - but it doesn't lead to (all of) your statement's logical conclusions. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
     • @Floquenbeam: The compromise, as I see it, is that you and Bishonen haven't lost your sysop flags, and WJBscribe hasn't lost their bureaucrat flag. And that compromise is quite generous, given your collective actions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
       • You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
         • I think that it misses the real point to say that the community should either: (1) say "please sir, can I have some more?" or (2) go fork ourselves. If there's anything that WMF should care about, it's the crowdsourcing framework of all WMF projects. As such, it's entirely appropriate that the "crowd" should speak out about problems that concern us. And then, WMF can, I suppose, tell us that they have laid down the law, and we should go fork ourselves. And how would that affect WMF's projects? Is it really in their best interests to encourage their most productive contributors to go and form a competing website? (Hint: no.) The fact that WMF has the legal right to assert their rights of ownership does not mean that it is sensible, practical, or ethical for them to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
     • @BU Rob13: You're suggesting the community is trying to takeover? The community existed before the WMF ever did. There is only one possible direction a takeover could go. Benjamin (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
6. Oppose these suggestions are attempting to address two separate issues, the general and the specific, as if the resolution to the former was dependent on the other. That's not a tenable negotiating position and we need to consider the problem of the imposition of a parallel unaccountable dispute resolution procedure on enwiki separately from the appropriateness or otherwise of the punishment meted out on Fram.
   Let me be clear, I've butted heads with Fram probably as many times as anybody in the past, but I still respect and appreciate their work in defending Wikipedia, and acknowledge that they have make efforts to respond to civility criticisms over the last year or so. I'm opposed to seeing punishment imposed by a body that is not accountable to the community in other than the most egregious and exceptional cases, so I won't feel comfortable with any result for Fram that does not involve ArbCom taking over the sanctions, enforcement and appeal in the specific case.
   Secondly, there exists the general problem of the perception among T&S that enwiki has not dealt adequately with civility and harassment issues because complainants fear the transparency of our systems will further disadvantage them. I believe that the only long-term solution to that must lie in using T&S as an alternative means of raising and investigating those issues in a confidential way, but that the final decision on sanctions, enforcement and appeal should remain with ArbCom, apart from those cases which are genuinely exceptional. If that means we have to make ArbCom proceedings somewhat less transparent to preserve the privacy of complainants in some cases, so be it. I'd find that a far less bitter pill to swallow than the present situation, and I'm damned sure that both Fram and the complainant in this specific case would agree, particularly since T&S have failed abjectly to preserve the complainant's anonymity in this test case. --RexxS (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
7. Oppose. I really expected a smarter solution from you than "ask people to be nicer". Gamaliel (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

   Heh. I see you've never met User:Newyorkbrad: this is what he does! And lots of us think it is plenty smart, actually. --GRuban (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

8. Oppose It is obvious Fram disagrees with the warnings he was given, rescinding the ban because the community feels it was communicated poorly is just kicking the can down the road. The underlying problem the WMF has raised with Fram in two warnings has not been addressed, and there's no sign that Fram has taken these on board. MLauba ^(Talk) 00:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
9. Oppose I'm pretty confident the Office Action was done with good cause, and on some sort of 'three strikes' basis after off-wiki warnings. WMF clearly believes this community has failed to get to grips with certain behavioural issues amongst certain long-established editors or admins (that possibly we ourselves wouldn't tolerate coming from new editors?). It seems unreasonable to propose complete termination of the ban for this individual editor, but I could endorse the resolution if the following changes (except #1) applied to everyone in future:

   1. a c.75% reduction in the duration of the ban as a sensible compromise to immediate reinstatement;
   2. no disclosure of any other editors' names to anyone, on or off-wiki (victims shouldn't become targets. Limited disclosure to ArbComm a possibility );
   3. removal of the words "hopefully" and "generally" from our community accepting that T&S Office Actions are taken with good intentions;
   4. recognition by any banned editor that their 'decorum' must 'improve' (NYB's words), and that further Office Actions may ensue if they don't;
   5. that T&S inform ArbComm whenever any editor or admin is issued with an off-wiki warning (possibly extending to sanction implementation by ArbComm, not T&S, per RexxS); and
   6. any admin, desysopped by an Office Action, shall be expected to edit normally for a period equivalent to the length of their ban - up to a max of 6 months - before submitting a new RfA (in order to give the broad community time to decide if it now has confidence in that person being handed back the tools, based upon that editing).

   But I do absolutely endorse the need for a better dialog between WMF's T&S Team, ArbComm and the community (so that we can properly appreciate and act on their intended message, especially if they believe we are 'institutionally failing' in some parts of our editing or admin culture). Nick Moyes (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

10. Oppose though I am open to the suggestions for modification by Nick Moyes. I also agree that since this was done in such as way that caused a huge problem for relations between en.Wiki and the T&S team that further communication is necessary to repair the rift. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
11. Oppose dot points 1, 2 & 3. The facts underlying the ban may be confidential, although I wish WMF would explicitly that if true. Moving forward from here should not depend on Fram. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
12. Oppose per BU_Rob13, you wanted compromise, you have a compromise, nobody other than Fram is banned even though they should have as per the original statement of the ban. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    • That makes sense if you operate from the principle that the WMF is the sole authority and that their word is automatically law. But from my vantage point, it is not a compromise for long-term encyclopedia-builders like Bish and Floq to not be banned. It's common sense. Lepricavark (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
13. Oppose as, quoting Mx. Granger, "I don't see this as a realistic proposal". I am also open to considering some of the elements suggested by NickMoyes. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
14. Oppose T&S make a commitment not to release details to the person accused of harassment. You can't then ask then to tell that person who complained, even if couched in the terms of "stay away from...". - Bilby (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
15. Oppose Tony (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
16. Oppose Disappointing proposed resolution. Only the last point is a good idea.--I am One of Many (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
17. Oppose expands a dialog is too wooly, an Americanism that just kicks the can down the road. T&S are ungoverned, unaccountable and based on this bizarre case, may well routinely take actions that if assessed in the cold light of day would be found incompetent or perversely unjust. A system with no published procedures, that refuses to answer questions about its procedures or explain basic case evidence that was always public and has no need to be handled like they were the NSA trying to take out terrorists, is wide open for corruption and the deliberate burying of mistakes by banning those that have been treated badly. In comparison, an hour ago I reported a porn revenge Twitter post made by a woman who claimed to be a victim, the process that Twitter follows is open and accountable whilst the cases they remove can remain confidential. Our expectations for T&S should be no less than the incredibly basic and straightforward policies that Twitter follows, just because they are jolly nice people with good intentions who believe they are good at their jobs and protect each other... --Fæ (talk) 08:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

    case evidence that was always public Was it? Says who? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

    My point was a general one. The Framban case does have public evidence, lots of it actually, including emails the WMF sent to Fram for which there is no NDA in place nor should there be, and folks are still debating whether the claims about secret evidence are credible or represent any significant evidence for the ban action, considering that our elected and trusted Arbcom members do not know of any. --Fæ (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

18. Oppose I can't agree with points 1 and 2, which basically gives Fram a slap over the wrist (I'm AGFing here that the T&S team acted on a serious and legitimate concern, as they don't have a history of doing otherwise, and the claims they targeted Fram for being a trouble maker for the WMF lack credibility). Point 3 is also very unsatisfactory: admins are expected to have a high standard of behaviour and encourage constructive discussions - being only a "little bit" better than ranting about ArbCom is not at all the standard admins should set. A better solution would be to refer this matter to ArbCom, which is where it should have gone in the first place. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
19. Oppose on two grounds: first, because it's a moot point; T&S has seen what the community has to offer in this regard and has chosen not to blink. Another demand for the same is not going to change things, it'll just draw out the drama. Second, because I'm increasingly uncomfortable with the impassioned defense of an admin who may have crossed a line into harassment. The thing about harassment being that the perpetrator doesn't get to define it. Even if Fram believed sincerely they hadn't crossed a line, they may have. And I find the demands that a volunteer suspension be treated with the same gravity and seriousness as a criminal trial cringe-worthy at best. Perhaps Fram will take the year to reflect on how their actions impacted people and will make a change when they return - that door has certainly been left to them by T&S and it's probably the best course of action at this point. Simonm223 (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
20. Oppose per many above, not least Simonm223. Though perhaps after voting to overturn T&S's office action, we could vote for peace in the middle east and a unicorn for everyone? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
21. Oppose per Mx. Granger. However, I wish to extend appreciation and thanks to Newyorkbrad for his measured and reasonable response to the situation, and his efforts to drive us forwards towards a constructive resolution. I can provide moral support, at least. :-) --Deskana (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
22. Oppose because this is not about Fram, it's about the relationship between the Foundation and ArbCom, and the Foundation and enwiki. Fram is one of the symptoms, yes, but we need to be looking at the causes and treating those. I don't think if Fram has been so toxic as the Foundation believe and some here on enwiki believe, that letting him back into the community without investigating those allegations is appropriate. My feeling is that as regards the specific case of Fram in this incident, that ArbCom should take over the ban, and hold a case investigating his behaviour. I said that right at the start to Jan. I would prefer that to shrugging the whole thing off as "he's learnt his lesson" because I'm not sure anyone other than those who complained to the Foundation and those within the Foundation who saw the report knows exactly what that lesson is, particularly not Fram himself. How is Fram to know exactly what he should avoid if he's not aware of it? The only aspect of this that I support is dialogue between the Foundation and enwiki/arbcom, but we have already made that clear. I have suggested that the current ArbCom request be made a focus for that discussion, while OR has suggested a RfC. Dialogue cannot happen until a venue is accepted and agreed. That appears to be the stage we're at. My preference is for the ArbCom case to be the venue because the Clerks have both experience and appropriate authority to maintain decorum, ArbCom are involved (and ArbCom is fairly central to this as the current main point of contact between WMF and enwiki, and the community authorised body to deal with situations like this), and private evidence, if appropriate, can be handled by ArbCom. If the consensus is against that as a venue, then let us do a RfC (and please let us not have any other suggestions for a venue, otherwise time and energy will be dissipated while we argue among ourselves over a venue, thus justifying any concerns the Foundation may have that we are not equipped to deal with serious issues). I think this is a nice gesture NYB, and I appreciate it, but I don't think it addresses the real issues. SilkTork (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

    The issue is, and has always been, about the relationship between Wikipedia editors' elected governing body, the Arbitration Committee, and the Foundation. I'm glad to see some Committee members rising to that occasion. The position the Committee takes as a whole, however, is indeed what's key to safeguard against questionable overlap. To do that, the Committee is going to need to assert itself. El_C 14:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

23. Oppose. I cannot endorse this degree of extension of good faith to Trust and Safety or the WMF as a whole after these events and their statements. Nor can I agree to muzzling anyone's criticism of Arbcom, or to going against an RfC that explicitly recognized our right to say "fuck" on-wiki. There are governance issues here, but also classism issues and an abundant assumption of bad faith on the part of the WMF and some of its defenders. I cannot endorse anything that endangers individual editors by endorsing their treatment as pawns, or as subjects without rights. ArbCom has been bad enough in this respect, but at least we can seek to remedy wrongs done by ArbCom. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
24. Oppose. Did Fram harass and abuse people? If the T&S thinks so, I trust their judgement. The identities of his victims should be protected, especially considering the utter vitriol that has been on display on this page. AdA&D 18:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

    Then why didn't they allow Arbcom to arbitrate? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

    Sounds like a question to ask the WMF... If I were to guess I'd say it's because ARBCOM's civility standards aren't stringent enough to enforce the Terms of Use. AdA&D 01:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

    Actually after rereading this statement it seems it was due to privacy and COI concerns. AdA&D 01:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

25. Oppose The first bullet point itself is ludicrous. There is no real reason why the Office should unban Fram. If Fram were ever to receive the "clean up your act" message, that would have happened years ago. Their statement on Commons, "of course it is rather hard for me to avoid [the involved editors]" doesn't inspire any confidence either. And they still seem to be obsessed about their admin status. SD0001 (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

    Then why didn't they allow Arbcom to arbitrate? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

    I think it's fairly obvious at this point. They can't even agree right now to create a case based on the banning of Fram and/or the three uses of tools to overturn Office actions. The ban is complicated. Creating a case and reaching out to the WMF for details in private is the base minimum that they could do to form their own conclusion whether the ban was proper or not (even if they can't enforce the unbanning). The three uses of tools to overturn Office actions is all on-wiki behavior and we don't have a case on it. At this point, I wouldn't trust them to sift through Fram's edits to examine his on-wiki behavior. — Moe Epsilon 23:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

26. Oppose This kind of remedy has been floating around Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes since time immemorial, and it's not effective. If this sort of action is what it takes to get the message through, I say do it. Banedon (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

    Also I can imagine the press coverage that could easily happen if Fram is unbanned and the media starts talking to the people he allegedly harassed. Chances are they'll report the allegations, maybe find the diffs (if the victims are willing), and then conclude that on Wikipedia, if the community kicks up enough of a fuss, they can overrule the WMF's actions. Maybe some will like this kind of portrayal, but I find it very unflattering. Banedon (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

27. Oppose while I understand Newyorkbrad is trying to do, I am not convinced the proposals will be enough to address whatever concerns there are with Fram's behaviour without knowing more details of that behaviour which I can't and don't know. I am also concerned that for this proposal to work, it may require T&S share info with Fram they feel they cannot disclose. As others have noted, there's nothing nor anything in the proposal stopping Fram disclosing the identity of the person. (See also later.) While Newyorkbrad has acknowledged that what we don't know may mean the proposals don't work, I am concerned from what I've seen that if we come up with a proposal that is not going to work and send it to the WMF and then they reject it because it was never going to work, this will generate way more heat than light and so is not helping anything. Nil Einne (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

    BTW, an additional problem is that since this is all quasi-voluntary and short on details, it's not clear what happens if everyone agrees to it and then it falls apart. For example, from Fram's reponse they agree to it but have noted they may not notice who's page it is when they edit during routine cleanup. As hopefully most of us know, if this were a formal iban, not noticing is rarely an excuse. When you have an iban you do need to make sure you check stuff before editing. It may impose additional work but that's the nature of the best when the community have decided you need to stay apart. What will happen in this case? And if the identity is secretive, even handling it is fraught. And notably, if a perceived violation of the quasi-voluntary iban results in re-imposition of the WMF site ban, even if the community can't figure out who it is from the timing, if Fram feels they were unfairly treated, there's nothing stopping them revealing the details they know including, as mentioned before, the identity of who the iban was with. And one thing which should have occurred to me with Fram's earlier responses but didn't. For any 2 way iban there are additional complications. Even if the other party involved in the iban wants to respond, there are complications. While the community accepts ibans don't preclude the raising of issues about the iban in appropriate places and within limits; WTF happens if lots of other people are talking about the iban on en.wikipedia, based on details perhaps revealed on other communities or outside the WMF universe, somewhat akin to what has happened in this case with one particular person and their private life? Again if you've been around AN/ANI enough you know the community general rejects anyone with an iban getting too much involved in discussions surrounding the iban relating to the person they were ibanned from. While to some extent this is the case even without an iban, it's much more acute when there is an iban. So assuming there is a 2 way iban, and such details were not mention in the original proposal so I have no idea, the complainant finds themselves in an IMO very bad situation. Nil Einne (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

28. Oppose as per Montanabw and endorse proposal by Nick Moyes, especially point 6. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
29. Oppose: (ristrettomente) #1 is unacceptable. WMF has the right to deny service to anyone, just like any website or 24-hour diner. Parenthetically, while sometimes I do agree with some of the reasoning behind Fram's "campaigns," I have never once agreed with their sharp wording in what I've read from them. Let's imagine:

    • an alternate universe in which the WMF did not have the right to "DO WHAT THEY WANT" with or without reason concerning access to their site
    • Fram was "right" about every case they argued
    • Fram was likewise "right" to use extreem language in every case they ever argued.

    In that case... mistakes happen, get over it. Personally, I have done more than twice the amount of time Fram is being asked to serve for nothing more than posting authorship information and asking if "a bit of today politics" had anything to do with Cirt's extensive contributions to "And you are lynching Negroes" (and by implication Fake news & Fake news website). Sometimes, life just isn't fair.  ;( ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 06:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

30. Oppose: The new information shown by Carcharoth below, about the concerns WM Belgium has had with T&S, is enough that I'd say that anything short of a full audit of the WMF, and T&S in particular, is going to be insufficient. rdfox 76 (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Other

• I removed "a little bit" entailing the "improve his decorum" bit as it means nothing additional compared to an arbitrary improvement. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Change reverted. "A little bit" is material. Fram is not being asked to promise to be a saint, but he would be being asked to be more careful. Jheald (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • See WP:TPO, if youd like NYBrad's comment changed you should ask him to change it instead of changing it yourself. nableezy - 19:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
    • If possible, let's focus on the bigger picture here rather than nuances of the wording. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Please don't chastise me about policy, meaningless wording is concerning in a proposal the community has to endorse and I removed it for that sole reason. I personally don't care about being reverted so, meh. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
• Uncertain I endorse this in spirit, although the specifics make me queasy. The main point I disagree with is saying "I am angry" in a "calm collected manner", can be in many situations, much less effective that showing that you are angry (Whether or not FUCK ARBCOM is the most effective way of showing that, I'll leave up to debate). So I don't think Fram should be required (based on what I know of the publicly available evidence, at least) to self impose an interaction ban / clean up his act, especially if that interaction ban leads to the other editor(s) resuming their poor encyclopedic behaviour or Wikipedia institutions failing to hear that something is unacceptable when it is unacceptable. That said, that doesn't mean I'm not in favour of Fram generally improving their behavior (if indeed poor behaviour has occurred), or that I don't acknowledged that it is unpleasant to be on the ass end of a "FUCK <INSTITUTION>" comment. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - it sounds like this plan entails the WMF disclosing to Fram the names of those who reported him. I highly doubt they'll ever do that, unless the reporters themselves agree to it... whatever else may come out of this, the foundation's privacy policy for people who contact them will remain sacrosanct, and I would have thought rightly so. Other than that this may be a reasonable way forward if the WMF and Fram both buy into it, but let's not forget there are other avenues already being explored through Jimbo, DocJames and the board. As for Headbomb's point, I disagree. I've never really got into the discussions over language and tone before, and it offends me not at all, but we should be mindful that Wikipedia has a diverse range of ages, genders, races, creeds and cultures, and if WMF enforce a stricter guideline on the tone we use then I for one won't be complaining. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
• It's hard to find fault with the overall thrust of this proposal, but I think a bit of skepticism needs to be added. Yes, it would undoubtedly be helpful if WMF drops the stick over the ban. Yes, it would unquestionably be a good idea for Fram to be more empathetic in his interactions with others. But are we just kicking the can down the road in the event that, a little later, someone secretly contacts T&S asserting that a recent comment by Fram violates his "quasi" commitment? Yes, the community should be cooperative with WMF staff, rather than adversarial. But I actually think the overwhelming majority of us have been willing to do that all along, and no amount of consensus will dissuade those who really want to be adversarial. And the problem arose from T&S not being willing to cooperate with us, not the other way around. Yes, there needs to be dialog between the community and T&S, as well as between ArbCom and T&S. But a lot of that is already being initiated, and the proof will be in the proverbial pudding. WMF does need to communicate with the community about what they intend, but we need to expect that the community response will be complex, and WMF needs to expect that, if they express it as a top-down take-it-or-leave-it kind of thing, it won't work. I'd actually prefer to decide on all of this only after we find out what the outcome of the Board meeting Friday was, and what the upcoming WMF-ArbCom meeting leads to. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• A fair assessment, and if they come out of the board meeting with something that throws more fuel on the fire it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect this option to be taken off the table. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Unrealistic - The WMF has already claimed ownership of bat, ball, and the field - they aren't going to give any of it back. I'm sorry - really I am - but that's just the way it is. — Ched :  ?  — 22:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
• Moot unless your final bullet point "the Office opens, or reopens, or expands a dialog with the community about what it is trying to accomplish and how to get there" happens first. Like I said in my statement at the pending ArbCom request, it's the Foundation who has the ball in their court to act. You can have "consensus" to do anything here like unblocking Fram's account (even though he still can't edit en.wiki) but it's still the Foundation who gets to decide because they hold the technical access to enforce their decisions at the end of the day. Unless you can actually enforce anything, then this entire discussion is for nothing. If they read this and reach this conclusion themselves and start engaging, then that's the starting point. With as many suggestions that have been thrown about though, it's unlikely this one is going to stand out though anymore than the others. At any rate, the rest of it reads as "everyone gets a slap on the wrist and let's discuss terms of use more", which isn't the problem. Civility is the problem on this website, which is why T&S stepped in. If you don't handle civility on the website, then they will again. — Moe Epsilon 00:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• I don't understand why is it important to terminate Fram's ban. It is not the ban per se, it is the lack of explanation. Give a proper explanation. Details need not be given. If the details of the reason are out of scope for ArbCom and the community, then say so, otherwise refer it back to the community (which includes ArbCom). Fram's possible negotiations to end the ban should be completely separate from resolving issues of WMF heavy-handedness and non-transparency. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• According to Fram, he received a one year ban for saying "fuck Arbcom", and that the Foundation likely employed this draconian move because a grudging complainant against him has connections to the WMF and the Chair herself. This is an oddly specific, extremely outrageous narrative. And, yet, the Foundation will not deny it, nor will they even suggest that there's more to the story. If they will not even try to defend the ban against alleged blatant corruption, then why should we assume that it is legitimate? I would much rather have them simply explain that the ban is for legitimate reasons. But it's highly suspect that they will not do so. It goes beyond simple refusal to explain a ban when the ban is alleged to be unjust. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• @SmokeyJoe: The WMF has already said Fram violated the Terms of Use section that prohibits "harassing and/or abusing others". What more do you want than that, if you're not looking for details? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Hi BU Rob13. You're tempting me to argue the other side to my intended thrust, that the way forward should not require a resolution of the Fram question. I think the resoltuion need only deal with the process of WMF bans, the scope of WMF-only decisions, Community (inc. ArbCom) only decisions, and where there may be overlap. I think User:Newyorkbrad's dot points 4 & 5 should be the focus. But your question is fair:
  A. The assertion "violated the ToS" is sufficient justification for the WMF to act. I am asking for an explanation for why, without details, the ban, ongoing, can't be referred to ArbCom or the community generally. I think it would be very reasonable for WMF to declare a ban, and then refer to ArbCom to review or modify. Surely, ArbCom should have the option to extend the 1 year ban? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• @SmokeyJoe: Lengthen? ArbCom can already do that, if they receive reports related to harassment. Otherwise alter/shorten? That would now put the WMF in very sketchy territory. If they have become aware of an editor harassing others on this site, taken action they felt necessary to enforce the Terms of Use, and then allow another body to overturn that action without having the full evidence, I think that may open them up to liability. (It's worth noting that the WMF's existing procedures/policies prevent them from disclosing the reporter even to ArbCom. That confidentiality may have been the only reason a reporter came forward, because Fram's influence - see this entire page - has a chilling effect on those he chooses to harass and abuse.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• "Confidentially prevents WMF from sharing details with ArbCom", if true, with "violated the ToS", is the minimal sufficient statement I would ask them to give. Have they said that? If they say that, then the Fram ban comes of the table for the purpose of this discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• What kind of liability? Assuming that Fram is truthful that there was no off-wiki harassment, there isn't really anything in his on-wiki activity that would be enough to involve the law. On the other hand, copyvios can get the project in legal trouble; Fram has been doing the dirty work of cleaning it up (it's a fight no one else wants to fight), so preventing a major liability mitigator from doing their work is ironically exposing the project to liability. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• BU Rob13 The ToU clause that you're referring to prohibits harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism. According to Fram, the offending comment that triggered his ban was this, which was certainly uncivil, but not "harassment or abuse" as is defined by the ToU clause that is supposedly being enforced. So, yes, additional explanation beyond "see the ToU" is quite obviously needed, as it doesn't even seem applicable. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Swarm: I encourage you to read. Fram has posted the email he received, and it contained that diff as an example, with the email explicitly noting that it was part of a repeated pattern continued after the past warning. One example diff - likely the least relevant example diff, even, since the worst diffs likely had to be hidden to protect the reporter - does not mean that's "the offending comment that triggered his ban". You are trying to apply the ToU and determine whether it applies to evidence you have not seen. Do you understand how that is an exercise in futility? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• @BU Rob13: Okay. I read it all. It doesn't claim or imply that that clause of the ToU was actually breached. Go back and look, it literally doesn't even imply that Fram was outside the ToU. Actually, no where, from what I see, and no one, has tried to argue that point. The Foundation cited "abusive communications such as X". X is a problem, but it's not a breach of the ToU. There's no mention of anything beyond such "abusive communications". You're just assuming there is. They simply did not cite to Fram or even claim in any of their explanations that he breached the ToU. They cited petty incivility towards Arbcom. So, that gives the impression that Fram was banned for his pattern of petty incivility, rather than breach of the ToU. You trust that that's not true, and that there's a higher level of offense, but it's clear that both Fram's and the community's impression that this is civility policing and nothing more has disrupted the project, demonized the complainant, demonized the Chair, vilified the T&S team, resulted in admins resigning, and harmed community relations. Why, if there was more to the story than "civility policing", has the Foundation simply not said so? All we want is for the Foundation to confirm that Fram actually breached the ToU. I have no personal affinity towards Fram, but this harms my perception of the WMF. Why would they not simply confirm that Fram breached the ToU, unless it would be a lie? Like I said, there's no privacy considerations in simply saying "there was harassment" or "there was stalking". But instead they said "there was abusive communication", which is no different except for the fact that it does not invoke the ToU. That's the only issue here. If there's evidence they can't disclose that's in breach of the ToU, I don't need to see it. I don't need to know about it. I just need to know that it exists. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Swarm: Cool, because they already have. The original email to Fram did not cite ToU violations. The WMF basically never cites ToU violations for office actions, because such statements could open them up to defamation lawsuits, theoretically. I know of one that is making its way through federal district court now, and it will probably be dismissed with prejudice because the WMF so clearly did not make any statements of fact that even have the potential to be false.

  But the WMF, in their statement to the community on this page, said this particular office action was made pursuant to the "Harassment and/or abusing others" section of the ToU. Their exact wording was thus: "What we can say in this case is that the issues reported to us fell under section 4 of the terms of use, as noted above, specifically under the first provision entitled 'harassing and abusing others.'" This is an extraordinary level of openness, given that it could theoretically get them sued. It is a shame that there are Wikipedians that have just failed to read it, apparently. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Okay, so you believe the WMF without any question, evidence, or explanation. I really don't believe the same thing. You resigned from Arbcom in the face of overwhelming community condemnation. I don't believe blame [sorry, legitimate typo] you for sympathizing with the WMF in a similar situation. However, I'm just asking for a cursory acknowledgment of my concern, which the WMF refuses to provide. You are unable to provide that beyond blind trust, and while I don't hold your position against you, I don't think it's necessarily the truth. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 13:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Especially because the terms are somewhat subjective. Let's take "stalking," for example. At RFA voters routinely go check through a candidates past contributions, sometimes in great detail, to find edits that reveal a mindset not suitable for the tools. Rob himself, at RFA not too long ago, had this to say about candidates with a somewhat low edit count - Trust me, in the future, I'll go through every single edit and highlight every potentially objectionable one when an editor has less than 4,000 edits. One could consider that stalking, a violation of ToU Section 4, and worthy of a WMF ban. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Umm.... This seems like textbook stalking; our self-proclaimed-retired friend might have something to state ..... ∯WBG^converse 15:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Vetting an RfA candidate is stalking? Get real. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  Correcting an error prone editor's mistakes is harassment? Mr Ernie (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Swarm: "Overwhelming community condemnation"? This is just false, and a personal attack. Nice. I resigned from the Arbitration Committee for a variety of reasons, none of which included pressure from the community. Moreover, you are demonstrating plainly that you fail to assume good faith in anyone on the project, apparently. Again, fork the project if you don't like the fact that the WMF has legal obligations. Or, better yet, approach the Foundation and offer to take on all legal liability that Fram's future actions may bring them in exchange for his unban. If you are so certain that the Foundation is acting with sinister intentions and that Fram has done nothing wrong, that should be no problem, no? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Wait, what? "I don't believe you" was a typo, I meant "I don't blame you". But that said, "overwhelming community condemnation" was quite obviously and unequivocally the response to wording of the Arbcom circular. I don't recall a single person speaking up in favor of it. Virtually 100% of the community response was negative. So I'm not sure why you'd call "community condemnation" a "personal attack". Why would I personally attack you? As I said at the time, I think you're one of our best administrators. I'm not sure why you're being so hostile and defensive. You resigned, citing an essay that the community does not treat Arbcom with the same assumption of good faith that is the standard. Not sure how all of a sudden the community had nothing to do with your resignation. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral I don't mind the proposal, but it's not our position to compromise. I hate to say it, but unless all of us stop contributing to the project, we really don't have control over this. SportingFlyer T·C 01:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Even if, if we're being honest with ourselves. nableezy - 01:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    • "Control" is irrelevant, moral influence is. Gandhi had no control over the British in India, M. L. King had no control over Jim Crow laws in the South or the Federal government, what they both had, and built up more of as time went on, was moral influence. That is our lever, not whether we "own" the website or who can turn it off if they want to. People really don't appear to be understanding this, which is as much a part of the real worl as who possesses the keys to the place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
      • An issue with this is that you lose moral influence by condoning wrongdoing. Acting as if nothing has happened is a form of condoning. In other words, the guilt of the WMF rests on us all if we know what is going on and yet act as if things are normal. Reflected in the comments above are radically different conceptions of authority. In Hegelian-derived philosophy, authority belongs at the collective-subjective level, as the final judgment of history at the end of time is unavailable. Authority bleeds in at many levels, wherever people act rationally and in good faith. In Kantian thought, authority derives from the chief executive down through subordinates. Both concepts are used today--for example, in science, an authority is someone who is has established themselves as knowledgeable through hard work, study, and a good track record. Their authority is channeled down through to TAs, teachers, journalists to the public. On wikipedia, we call them "reliable sources." On the other hand, appeals to "the community" to enforce something is an example of the collective-subjective form of authority. Appeals towards passive aggression are consistent with Hegelian thought, as in Hegelianism an irrational governance can be legitimately subverted (think Red-Scare style infiltration). In contrast, in Kantian governance the resistance must be allowable in a constitutional sense where opposing parties can act against each other in an orderly fashion (e.g. Kant's "nation of devils" quote), or the resisting parties may be Lesser magistrates (in this case, Floquenbeam and Bishonen are acting as resisting lesser magistrates). Subversion is not allowable because honesty and truth are too valuable and lying is extremely wrong. In contrast, Hegelians tend to be more relativist and see honesty and truth as being at least somewhat compromised in the dialectic process, which will not resolve as long as history endures. One Kantian approach would be to let some of the other higher-ups deal with it, and to not take a position one way or another, or to just leave wikipedia and not think about it to maintain moral purity, maybe to go to a rival wikipedia website instead. Because in Hegelianism, "whatever is, is right," there can be a tremendous need to win, while in Kantianism maintaining your individual moral purity and establishing the truth is more important because what is right is determined through careful ethical analysis.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• In Hegelianism, the broader levels of authority encompass the lower levels. For example, the state is expected to have an antithetical relationship to the authority of the family, and this is expected to be a good thing. Fran's request that the ArbCom "Just crawl into a corner and shut up until the community asks you to do something within your remit, but don't try to rule enwiki as if you have the right and the competence to do so." does not reflect this understanding with reflect to the ArbCom. ArbCom, due to both the democratic character of its selection and the rationality of its actions, could be considered a broader level of synthesis than the ordinary English Wikipedia community. Fran rejects this completely on the basis of past experience with ArbCom. This form of argument is an Existentialist critique of Hegelianism. His appeal to an impartial jury is compatible with both Existentialist and Kantian forms of authority, but should ArbCom grant it, they are admitting that they are not the broadest and most supreme level of collective-subjective authority.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• It isnt about owning the website that makes whether or not we all stop editing irrelevant. Its the tiny proportion to the wider community that is present here. Yeah, a lot of us are active in the WP namespace and a ton of the admins here do a huge amount of work in the day to day functioning of this website, and yes there are a number of content creators here that have helped make this place something that the WMF can say hey give us millions of dollars to keep running. But as of this writing there have been 365 editors to this page. I posit that if every single one of these people, and every single person who has edited the AC case request page, including the arbitrators, suddenly stopped editing Wikipedia tomorrow the effect would be negligible, at least as far as WMF is concerned. There will be articles that get either vandalized, or skewed to a POV, BLP violations will be undealt with. But for the most part Wikipedia will continue on. Im not trying to be Debbie Downer, just a realist on the limits of my own power here. nableezy - 05:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• In politics, decisions are strongly influenced by a numbers game: in ethics, calculations of numbers are ignored. General human behavior tends to think and act politically, 'can I get away with this,'; 'they are wrong, but if I protest, and no one else does, I'll cop it too.' etc. Ethics, as opposed to morality and politics, is not 'realist' - proceeding only after carefully assaying whether one has sufficient support or not. The crux was illustrated by Antigones' clash with Creon,-her stance is echoed in Luther's Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders,- a tragedy given a famous reading by Hegel. I remember taking a train in the city, sitting down to read in anticipation of an hour-long trip, noting with a smile a young couple of kids smooching opposite, and burying myself in my book. Three stops down, the train pulled up at a station opposite a football ground - and the compartment was filled with drunken fans disappointed in their side losing that day. One of the group of 6, full as a bull's bum from an afternoon of beers but built like a brick shithouse, eyed enviously the boy smooching with his girlfriend, and without much ado, went over, grabbed him in a headlock and began punching him in the head. The girl screamed, the kid wept - and I, opposite, made the natural rapid calculation. If I intervene, there are five of his mates who will join and and beat the shit out of me. But one had no option - you can't watch passively as someone is mercilessly beaten or ill-treated. With a sickening feeling in the pit of my stomach, I reached out and caught his wrist as it drew back to land another punch. I won't recount the following 25 minutes,-a stand-off with me holding my grip while palavering to stop the other five from doing anything other than menacing me, but no other person of the 20 or so male adults in the carriage looked up from their newspapers. It's not that folks are generally unethical - it's that before acting according to their inner lights, they tend instinctively from a self-survival biological reflex to calculate their own interests. The banning of Fram in obscure circumstances created, for some, an ethical dilemma, and Floqueanbeam, Bishonen and WJBScribe essentially said that the high risk of silent complicity in the exercise of blind power gave them little option but to do what they did, challenge the higher body by overruling it. I expect that the assertion of secretive powers will automatically translate into a very small minority being compelled in conscience to desist from donating (I'm not a tenant on this property) their labour to a charitable institution. I know that a bureaucracy doesn't worry about marginal attrition, a number of analyses like your's will tell them it will have a negligible impact. That others see no problem, and just move on with their hobby is the normal reaction one would expect. And all this crisis of conscience because? because somewhere across the world a small board is obsessed by legislating to objectify what is a cultural variable, good manners, and enforce an Americanocentric code globally regardless of what communities elsewhere may, if they ever do, think. It is unlikely to step back because there is a question of face that, as usual, rules out creative conflict resolution. Nishidani (talk) 09:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• What's not clear from above is what happens to Fram's status as an editor, and as an admin? I was recently reminded of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1001#Block of Martinevans123 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive991#Personal attacks, a block and an unblock: review requested where Fram was strongly criticised (if not actually admonished as such) for controversially blocking two longstanding editors. Combined with "fuck the Arbcom", incivil edit summaries and picking a fight with BU Rob13, and that many people have criticised the WMF getting involved and overriding the community / Arbcom with no possible appeal, rather than Fram's actual conduct, I would like to see a guarantee of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram before I can support this. It would allow everyone to have their say and if the consensus is that Fram hasn't done anything terrible enough to take any long term action, then at least everyone will have had their say. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  Assuming Fram gets unbanned there seem to be three options: 1) he gets the sysop bit back automatically 2) we have an RfA to decide, or 3) ArbCom case decides. I don't see much wrong with any of these options, a nice change from the lose-lose scenarios surrounding pretty much everything else in this drama. Reyk _YO! 11:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  Over the particular discussion about Security-Circular, nearly everyone was at their non optimal behaviours. And, tone-deafness from a few arbs compounded it. Given that Fram's conduct definitely improved throughout the year, it's unfortunate that he be put to an ArbCom case because of this mess. Obviously, anybody might propose a case but I will urge for a decline. ∯WBG^converse 11:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I disagree with 3/5's of the proposal - however since the oppose section above appears to be made of people who are opposing any resolution because they have issues with Fram I am sticking my response here instead.

  Point 1 - should be a demand regardless. The WMF should not be banning people from the ENWP community unless there is an actual safety issue or child protection issue. That is it.

  Point 2 - this sets a dangerous precedent in that it both encourages and enables problem editors (who are pulled up on their actions) to go running to the WMF. It rewards them for not following dispute resolution and chills future discussion - what admin or editor is going to risk dealing with them if it risks being muzzled. "Without admitting any wrong-doing" - quasi legalistic reference to WoP - which while in a technical legal sense is no admission of liability, it is *always* taken as such by everyone - "I'm not admitting anything but im doing what you say anyway" just instantly means everyone goes "Oh hes totally guilty". If there is an editor that Fram needs to be interaction banned with, then Frams interactions in relation to that editor need to be scrutinised by either the community or arbcom. The stealth interaction ban-but-not-ban by the WMF in communication with Fram is one of the more disturbing things to come to light as a result of this. Its saying the WMF is ready to prevent scrutiny of editors on the encyclopedia - directly interfering with editorial control.

  Point 3 - Completely pointless and appears to just be a sop to the 'Fram is awful' crowd with past axes to grind. Fram's editing record is already out there. Take a look at the last's years interactions with other editors and compare it to say the previous 2 or 3. Its effectively holding Fram to an unrealistic and intangible standard given he has already improved beyond which many respected editors already operate.

  Point 4 - Evidence not provided that T&S are there with good intentions. While I agree that its unlikely any of them joined the WMF specifically to take over ENWP - that doesnt mean they wont take the chance to do so given the opportunity. And given who they are is public knowledge, so is their history. Jan certainly has zero credibility after the superprotect fiasco, and the place-that-shall-not-be-named has links about other members of the staff involved in this situation that are extremely problematic for what are supposed to be employees engaged in ensuring the safety of wikipedians. Their actions so far lead me to conclude that they are there to protect wikipedians they approve of.

  Point 5 - About the only point I agree with in its entirety. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Unclear difference between what this says and what people have been proposing/demanding throughout this page. First of all, the last bulletpoint should happen regardless. But as for the rest, it's perhaps more diplomatically worded to allow a little bit of face-saving with ~"everyone admit they can do a little better" but still boils down to T&S backing down and Fram making non-binding assurances that he'll take [the mostly unspecified] criticism on board. If everything else wasn't persuasive, I don't see why one more !vote would be.
  Advice for T&S: There are a lot of users that WMF will never convince -- people who has a strong distrust for the WMF in general, people who don't think the WMF should ever supersede community process, people who don't think there's any reason to ever keep things private, people who worry about themselves if WMF is starting to issue blocks for long-term behavioral problems, etc. But there are also a lot of people you can convince: people who do think that there is a role to play for T&S to address intractable long-term behavioral problems that the community has failed to address -- people who support the concept, but who are confused or bothered or concerned about what has happened in this particular case. "Severe enough to keep everything a secret and take office action without involving the community" is difficult to reconcile with "you can still use all the other projects and you can come back to this one after a year." If this were a global ban I dare say it would be less controversial in that way (which is not to say uncontroversial, obviously). The other problem is that diffs were provided, but only a handful, and they came from Fram, not from T&S. Those diffs shaped the narrative, and makes the conversation about whether those diffs merited action. That's not a good place to be.
  The approach I think would be most effective -- which would've been best at the outset of this case -- is premised on the idea that this isn't actually just about the LH diffs and the diff directed at arbcom that Fram supplied (that those were tipping points but it was more about a longer-term pattern). Assuming that's the case, and that T&S was stepping in to address something which, in their judgment, was severe enough and which the community failed to address, then they should release a big data dump showing (a) a long-term pattern of behavior and (b) community efforts failing to address it sufficiently. I suspect you already have that data. Releasing it would at least would shift the discussion of evidence from what Fram provided to a bigger picture that's harder to point to and say "that's it?" By casting a wide net as such, it's possible you'd actually be better protecting complainants than by forcing speculation through Fram's diffs. It would take time to compile, but I suspect you're already spending quite a lot of time on this.
  The other way forward, which isn't very likely but about the only compromise I can see being at all possible, is through a hand-off to ArbCom with conditions, including the understanding that some of the material will still be private and the understanding that it's about a long-term pattern (it's not atypical to see older diffs dismissed or limited consideration to particular types of behavior). ArbCom cases are reasonably well equipped to handle lots of diffs and lots of evidence, on-wiki and off. This has been articulated better by others already, of course. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

This whole story has nothing to do with Fram. (a)A principle is at stake, (b) massive open discussion by one affected party has been met with oracular comuniqués by the other.(c) in conflict theory this disparity is something everyone here and at the WMF office would deplore were the face-off with this communicative dissonance to occur with a real state. The outcome is usually brinksmanship to see who is bluffing. We huff here, and have no means to bluff. I'm sure that was not the WMF's intention, but their failure to perceive the obvious implications of their communication 'strategy' is deeply disturbing.

Emotionally, I would endorse. But I see strong sense also in SilkTork's oppose, but disagree strongly with most other comments and editors in that section. Only in death does duty end has summed up concisely what I also think are the basic reservations about an otherwise sensible attempt at compromise. I have no problem with leadership, but in critical times, leaders who have made a mark do so for the fact that, if they err, they made a difficult gesture, symbolic or otherwise, of stepping back. They drop the issue of face-saving. Do that, and you will find people far more accommodating than otherwise seems the case.Nishidani (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• I appreciate the thought that went into this proposal, but it goes a touch too far for me. Obviously, a large number of people here believe Fram to be completely innocent, but the fact is that the community does not have the ability to make that judgement, and given the presence of private information, is never going to have that ability. I don't see a way out of this that does not involve a community-appointed body (ideally, ARBCOM; but it could be someone else) investigating the situation in full, including the private evidence, and determining whether the ban is necessary. Also, Fram should be unbanned while such a determination is made. Obviously, the nature of the complaint process means that the identity of the complainant cannot be revealed to Fram; but anything claiming that it cannot be revealed to ARBCOM is legalistic nonsense. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

The problem with this resolution (as several people have pointed out) is that - irrespective of whether it is endorsed or not - it cannot be accepted in full by T&S. They make a very clear statement that when you report harassment to them "[y]our contact to Trust and Safety is kept confidential, so no details about your experience will be shared publicly or with the person you are reporting".[26] They cannot change this after the fact, as they can't promise to maintain confidentially in an existing case and then change their mind to pass their names to the person accused of harassing them just because a few dozen people on Wikipedia tell them to. Whoever raised concerns with T&S has every right to expect T&S to maintain their promise of condifentially, and therefore cannot both unblock Fram and then tell Fram who complained in order to ask Fram to stay away. In the end, it doesn't matter whether we oppose or endorse this, as it is doomed to failure. Therefore, how would it look if it was rewitten in a way that could be accepted by T&S if it was endorsed? - Bilby (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I note that neither Fram or Laura Hale have edited (EN) WP for ten and eight days respectively. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  Lugnuts, Fram is communicating from Commons. Not sure about how he can edit en.wiki, given that T&S have threatened to impose a global-ban, shall he ever try that. ∯WBG^converse 07:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  Well, Fram is currently banned and probably couldn't edit even his own talk page. Reyk _YO! 07:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  He can certainly edit over en-wiki; unblocked, he is. ∯WBG^converse 07:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  The Foundation blocked him with Talk revoked, so presumably the ban extends to his talk page. See Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Statement from Jan Eissfeldt, Lead Manager of Trust & Safety -- If he edits enwiki, he will be globally blocked and globally locked. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks both. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe Laura Hale has had anything directly to do with this and the vitriol directed at her is quite unpleasant. If a bunch of people shouted at you, "your work sucks, don't let the door hit you on the way out", would you ever want to contribute again? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree on the first aspect. But, to be mild, d/dt(Laura's learning curve) was too negligible. Mis-use of sources, incoherent paragraphs, weird synthesis, writing unsourced stuff ..... And I went through only a few of his crrations. Sometimes, we need to realise that Everyone can Edit ought not be taken in a very-literal sense. ∯WBG^converse 11:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, The way I would put it is that "everyone can edit" doesn't necessarily mean that "Everyone should edit"S Philbrick(Talk) 15:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

"I don't believe Laura Hale has had anything directly to do with this" and pigs might fly. Given the only evidence given to Fram so far by the T&S team points to his interactions with her previously as a causitive factor for the ban. We all know the reason why T&S have no wish for Arbcom to get involved, it is because arbcom (despite its many flaws) will take a look at all editors in a dispute/complaint and judge actions by their context. And that basic principle of fairness is directly at odds to T&S and certain editors ideological totalitarian approach to dealing with those not of the body. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I mean that I don't believe Laura Hale has directly complained to T&S about Fram, or at least not recently enough in the last 18 months which is the timeframe that seems to be under discussion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Given their history I just dont agree with you on that one. T&S however wont reveal that information so its a pointless dispute. What is relevant is that editors above are trying to claim that this is a result of long terms actions on the part of Fram. And arguing on the one hand that its a result of long term interaction issues onwiki while trying to exclude editors involved in that time period, despite that they are the cause of one of the few direct interactions between Fram and the T&S team, is being deliberately deceptive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm almost certain I know who triggered the recent T&S involvement (95%+ if I was a betting man), and if I'm correct, it's not Laura. I won't share how I was able to put the puzzle together because I could well be wrong, and if I'm right, well, I'm not going to reveal their identity either for more or less the same reasons T&S won't. I'll say that the complainer wasn't necessarily wrong to contact T&S if they are who I think they are, and T&S certainly made the right call in withholding who made the complaint. I'm still really not sure T&S had the moral authority to make that call over the community, and I'm still not sure it doesn't involve putting feeling harassed over being harassed. But if the complainer was who I think they are, it at least makes me believe that T&S acted in good faith. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

So it's a riddle, wrapped in an enigma, wrapped in a vest. El_C 17:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect T&S to expose their identities regardless of who filed the complaint, and, speaking as someone who has pushed the Laura theory, you're right about not revealing your sources or who the putative suspect is. But you being able to do so is still an indictment of T&S here because all they have done here is ban a user in (presumably) good standing with little warning, no explanation of anything, and limited to one wiki for a year. If a T&S member (using the WMFOffice account) had done the outrageous and unthinkable step of explaining just why Fram was banned at the time of the block and the unusual limits on the block we wouldn't be speculating as much as to whose cereal Fram pissed in. Their secrecy in this case resulted in a Streisand effect which has the potential to (if it hasn't already here or on off-wiki fora) out the complainant. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 09:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: I can also guess my way to a story where what happened (including the secrecy) makes sense to the complainant and to T&S, without involving any long-term conspiracies, gender wars or gamergate relations. But I still wouldn't agree with the outcome, nor that this issue was worth damaging the WMF-Community relations even further. Unappealable secret bans have no appeal to me whatsoever. —Kusma (t·c) 19:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: the vitriol directed at Laura is not only "quite unpleasant", it is also exactly the sort of thing WMF are talking about when they made their decision to repatriate some powers to block users for abuse. There should be action taken against people who have hounded her during this saga, based on unproven allegations that she was involved in the banning of Fram, because by no stretch of the imagination is it acceptable. You and I, and the majority of Wikipedians don't act this way, and it's expressly against policy, so why should we tolerate those who do?  — Amakuru (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Are people going to her talk page or emailing her to harass her, or abusing her because of this as she edits? That would be wrong.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: I don't know exactly where it's been, to be honest. I gather that there has been a huge amount of negative coverage and digging into her personal life off-Wiki somewhere, probably some of it by people who also edit here, some of which has spilled into accusations and undue pressure on-Wiki. I don't have the time to keep up with all that drama though. BU Rob13 knows more of the details, I believe. Apologies for being vague, but I'm not accusing any specific individuals it's just based on what I've heard. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Response from Fram to Newyorkbrad

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

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

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

Is there any reason the WMF or Arbcom can't ask the complainant(s) whether they object to a confidential disclosure of their identities to Fram in order to effect an interaction ban? EllenCT (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

This would be self-defeating - Not only would this expose them to Fram, but Fram isn't gagged (per T&S' own actions) so this would end up blowing up in their faces. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 05:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I asked about this, and Fram agreed to keep the names of such subjects of an interaction ban confidential and take additional steps to avoid them which would not ordinarily be part of Fram's new page patrolling, if the WMF were to accept this compromise. EllenCT (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

It would still require the WMF to disclose those names to Fram, which they explicitly state they will not do, and doing so - after informing those who complained that they won't - would be highly unethical. And to ask those who believe that they've been harassed by Fram to trust that Fram would never reveal who that are seems foolish. - Bilby (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have suggested that Fram has ever betrayed anyone's trust, so perhaps the Foundation would be willing to ask them if they would consent to letting Fram know who they are to effect an interaction ban. Frankly though, this is silly. Fram's original compromise proposal for an independent binding evidence review is less lenient, so the Foundation should go with that. EllenCT (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that Fram is accused of harassing one or more editors to the point that those editors lodged a complaint with the WMF under the guarantee that their details would not be provided to Fram. Obviously, the WMF can't then release those details. I agree that the WMF could ask them, but as they raised their concerns with the WMF, possibly in order to avoid being revealed as the ones raising the complaint, I can't see that they would want this shared with Fram. And if, as we have every reason to assume, they believe that Fram has been harassing them, how can we ask them to trust that Fram will never tell anyone else who they are? You say that Fram has never betrayed anyone's trust, but I imagine to them Fram has betrayed theirs (especially if Fram had previously been warned), so I can't see how we can expect them to trust Fram in this way. I don't know what the solution is, but saying to Fram that "these are the people who complained about you - don't interact with them and don't tell anyone who they are" seems very unlikely to be happen if it depends on getting the permission of the people Fram is accused of harassing, and unethical if it doesn't.

The WMF don't need to compromise at all, so choosing between revealing who the people are to Fram, and revealing who the people are to Fram and others, isn't a choice that they need to make. They can work out their own solution, or enforce this one, or walk away. - Bilby (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

You know, I really don't like the idea of harassment going one way like this. People accusing others of harassment should be forced to reveal themselves, or otherwise both the accused and accuser should be secret. That's the only fair way, otherwise the accused loses any degree of anonymity while the accuser is protected. As much as I hate the way Universities define harassment (like I said earlier), at least they keep the names of both individuals secret. I don't know why Wikimedia couldn't have come up with something less arduous than a yearly ban, anyway. Fram, I'm rooting for you. Rockstonetalk to me! 19:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I've seen enough situations where people are scared to complain due to the fear of retaliation, and live with harassment rather than face something worse. I've also seen enough situations where that fear was realised. Having some channel that allows people to confidentially raise their concerns is important. - Bilby (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

From admin to one-year block, in a blink of an eye

Can I just clarify, and I know we've had 100KB of chatter, so forgive me once again... Fram went from being an admin, to being banned with no right to appeal, on en.wiki only, in one instant? Was he issued with on-wiki warnings? Was he subject to a series of increasing blocks as a result of bad behaviour (sic)? Was his behaviour damaging to Wikipedia, in a sense that needed a ban, on this Wikipedia only? I'm tired out by the MB of blather, but is WMF looking at this as a precedent now, that any editor can be summarily banned for a year without appeal without any definition of their wrongdoing? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly my concern. I have no idea whether Frsm's behaviour warranted sanction and I'm not inclined to go and look through mountains of edits on en.wiki to find out. However, taking precipitate action based on secret allegations presented in secret by a secret accuser to a secret panel is simply a total abrogation of natural justice. As far as I am concerned the WMF should refuse to accept secret accusations and expecially should refuse to act on them. This stinks to high heaven. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems like the answer is yes, it was in one instant, with no on-wiki warnings. Several off-wiki messages were sent, snippets of which can be seen at #An interesting paragraph and #Fram's response on Commons. --Yair rand (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, any of us could be banned out of the blue if we were to write "f*** the WMF." Jonathunder (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it, the basis of the block and desysop was harassment and the evidence is private so as not to subject the accuser to further harassment. If this is indeed the truth, I can understand shielding him/her because it often feels like a mob here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

If it was harassment, then why did they not escalate Fram's block to global in responce to his Commons reply? Anyone with any sense can make a very compelling argument that they're technically furthering the harassment. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 01:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Harassment of whom? AFAIK, there are only two parties who've been named in this whole mess as possible victims. Arbcom and an editor who's wikipedia name begins L. While some here have gone to the extent of looking in to the personal life of the latter editor, we have no real evidence that any of the recent stuff has anything to do with this editor. I'm doubtful it's just the arbcom stuff either which suggests it could very well be some other party.

WMF have explained why they feel they cannot reveal any details which may lead to the identity of who is being harassed or other details over this while mess, whether or not people agree with these views I see no reason to think they aren't sincerely held. As someone who lives in NZ where name suppression of criminal defendants and especially convicts is often a big deal, I can say that while plenty of people feel that it creates problems for others who aren't the defendant or convict given the risk people may think it is them (as some details are still revealed like 'prominent entertainer'), there are also plenty of people who feel it's not a compelling reason to end the practice. (Which doesn't mean they must agree with the practice or feel that it should continue.)

Likewise, I can perfectly understand that the WMF may feel it is inappropriate for them to comment on the identity in any way, even simply saying it it is not the person a lot of people are assuming it is. How they handle the problems this creates for the person who may have been unfairly affected I don't know, but there are no easy solutions.

And getting back to the earlier point, assuming that what Fram has told us is mostly or completely correct, I'm not sure they can really be blamed for the fact that people here are continually assuming it involves someone who who it may not be because they've made assumptions with very little evidence to the extent these people are analysing said person's private life. If anything it's the people here who are guilty of harassment, not Fram or what they said on Commons. But of course, with the way this blew up, banning more people for harassment was may not be a good idea.

Oh and of course what has happened here has pretty much ensured that if it is someone else who was affected (who let's remember may or may not even be the complainant, here they may not even be aware of the complaint), as much sympathy as the person may have for the editor L and how they've been affected by this all, there is no way in hell they will ever agree to their identity being revealed. Frankly I suspect probably not even to Fram even if Fram signs an NDA. Heck given the history, probably not even to arbcom. No matter what the situation was and even if in the end it means nothing happens to Fram. The WMF needs to consider whether this is an acceptable outcome based on what they know. If they do not, I really have no idea how they should proceed from here, that's one of the reasons why I'd probably never work in any role remotely like that. (To be clear, as I've said in previous discussions, I do think they handled this poorly especially early on which hasn't helped the situation any.)

Nil Einne (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, let's try it. Fuck the WMF! Nope, not banned yet. Gamaliel (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Not so soon. Remember it takes about a month of internal meetings and quite a lot of expensive staff time to then issue a punishment so long after the event that it only serves to confuse the situation and increase the nameless dread aspect of editing. Of course this may actually be the WMF's intention. The occasional random block of an established editor for unspecified but slightly creepy sounding reasons could be just the thing to boost their metrics for site activity and bond the community against the common enemy. By contrast if they wanted to change behaviour on the site they would have made sure that the first few times they applied a 12 month ban it was very clear what sort of behaviour they wanted to stop happening. ϢereSpielChequers 11:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

If an IP editor attempted to insert this kind of conspiracy theory in an article they'd get blocked. But we have dozens of long-time veteran editors indulging in them in this matter. It makes me fear for the quality of the content that they have been producing here over the years. Gamaliel (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

From what I've seen, much better than an admonished administrator who seems to have a general proficiency at casting aspersions. ∯WBG^converse 13:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be developing quite an obsession with me. Want to come edit my userpage again? Gamaliel (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Nah; these days folks retire to participate in more dramas -- give them an edge. I ought to have known that. And most certainly, less than your obsession of using the wrong tools at the wrong place. ∯WBG^converse 15:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see a parallel between an unknown IP posting conspiracy theories in mainspace and numerous respected, well-established members of the community sharing their concerns on a Wikipedia-space page. Lepricavark (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

When the "concerns" stray into manufacturing motives and actions out of pure conjecture, that's conspiracy theory territory. Gamaliel (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

See appeal to the stone.--WaltCip (talk) 12:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, the reaction on this page, with theories proposed about the potential harassed parties and quite a bit of scrutiny placed upon them and their edit histories demonstrates clearly why it's good that WMF won't reveal the names of the offended parties. I am also somewhat confused that Fram was given only a year-long suspension, as I do fully support throwing the book at harassers, but frankly the complaint from the community has not generally been, "Fram was not penalized severely enough for what they were accused of," but rather, "how dare the WMF suspend one of the WP:UNBLOCKABLES!" Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I mean, come on, people have been digging into the personal lives, up to, and including living arrangements, of hypothesized accusers on the basis of Fram's account. That's kind of disturbing to say the least. Far more disturbing, tbh, than what may constitute minor overreach from WMF. Simonm223 (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Simonm223 One thing we know about this case is that T&S do permanently site ban people for harassment, but whatever they consider that Fram has done, they don't consider he merited the punishment that they give out to harassers. Whatever else has been said, I'm not seeing people say that T&S should stop "throwing the book at harassers". As for unblockables, yes there are people suggesting that WP:UNBLOCKABLES be redefined to include Fram. But there are also people reminding us that Fram has in the past been the brave admin threatening to block an unblockable if that person continued to make personal attacks. As for "people have been digging into the personal lives, up to, and including living arrangements, of hypothesized accusers on the basis of Fram's account" that does sound like the sort of doxxing that does get people banned. I'd hope if people have evidence of that they would take it to ArbCom who have banned and desysopped people for that sort of thing. ϢereSpielChequers 18:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Well it's all over this page, which I'm sure Arbcom is watching, so... Simonm223 (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man:

• in one instant?

Yes

Was he issued with on-wiki warnings?

No

Was he subject to a series of increasing blocks as a result of bad behaviour (sic)?

No

Was his behaviour damaging to Wikipedia, in a sense that needed a ban

No

on this Wikipedia only?

Yes

is WMF looking at this as a precedent now, that any editor can be summarily banned for a year without appeal without any definition of their wrongdoing?

Ostensibly yes.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

More troubling is the explicit lying from WMF employees.

The (uncontested) WMF email sent to Fram states "With those actions in mind, this ban has been triggered following your recent abusive communications on the project..." followed by the "fuck Arbcom" diff, but later this has been retrospectively reframed (firstly anonymously by "WMF Office" on this page, then by statements from Jan Eissfeldt) as all being about harassment complaints sent to WMF T&S. Nobody can find any smoking gun that demonstrates harassment and folks have jumped to the conclusion that there must be some terrible off-wiki harassment going on. If that was the case, then why would not the WMF email state clearly and honestly that you are banned because of complaints received of serious harassment, rather than lie about it? Not only do the responses from WMF T&S make no sense, they appear to be deliberately designed to be misleading and misinformation. Consequently the unelected WMF T&S employees with access to the WMF Office account are reserving the authority to ban without appeal, without a fair right to see and respond to evidence, in cases which appear entirely suitable to leave it to Arbcom or Stewards to make proper decisions about sanctions, but also to explicitly lie to everyone before and after about why they are blocking editors, even well established Wikipedians.

Separately others are acting as creative apologists, explaining that the WMF cannot say anything about harassment because of the legal exposure. Fine, that still does not explain the lying. There is zero legal exposure from honestly stating to Fram that there is both on-wiki behaviour and off-wiki behaviour that has contributed to "abusing communications", or that complaints about targeted harassment have been received, then point to the process for handing T&S harassment complaints. In the struggle to have their cake and eat it, the WMF appears to both want to pretend to be well governed and transparent, while behaving like self appointed sheriffs in the Wild West of San Fran, who are taking pot shots at perps using international modern drone strikes, because they can, rather than bothering with the flimflam of justice and juries. --Fæ (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

This. The only thing they have bothered to claim when pressed is the nonsensical "everything about this mmatter is privileged", a claim which is belied by T&S' own actions in not sanctioning Fram for their Commons edit and by longstanding precedent with regard to Office bans, which at least explains the reason for doing so at time of blocking (none was forthcoming until after Fram's Commons post). Not only did they not provide a reason until much later, after everything blew up in their face, but they have not provided a satisfactory explanation as to why the ban is limited as it is. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 05:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

My hypothesis that someone originally issued the ban for less than adequate reasons. It might be simple inexperience or error of judgement, but there are speculations that it might be due to a personal request or as a favour. Now that the issue has exploded, the WMF has circled the wagons and tries to come up with retroactive justifications. This happens more easily than one might think, and sometimes for the best of reasons (a manager sticking up for an employee on his or her team, then getting ego-bound to that initial reaction is quite normal). I hope they have the institutional integrity to extract themselves from this mess. Errors are unavoidable, but they should be corrected, not extended. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Table of relevant locations

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram § Table of relevant locations

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC draft

I intend to open an RfC on the subject of the Trust&Safety resp. WMF justice on Meta, with the main issue of fair trial. I wrote a draft in English which is not my native language (as it's the main language of Meta). What do you think about it? I invite you to work on this, esp. concerning factual and language errors. See de:User:Mautpreller/Meta. Mautpreller (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Belgium concerns about WMF

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram § Wikimedia Belgium concerns about WMF

--qedk (t 桜 c) 17:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Not strictly related, but worth pointing out as it also concerns Trust and Safety actions. See this wikimedia-l post and thread: New board for Wikimedia Belgium + evaluation behaviour WMF. Long, but worth at least skim reading. Ends with: "At the General Assembly it was requested to request an internal audit in WMF to bring all the problems there to the light.". Carcharoth (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

This is probably one of the most scathing things that I've come across about the Trust & Safety team, and this is much, much worse than anything I've heard anywhere else. I'm moving this to the main page for further discussion with a set locus, I'll provide a summary explanation right after. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no words. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• I think this recent revelation deserves more discussion here, primarily because a lot of the community has operated under the conclusion that T&S has operated in an demonstrably bad, and probably accidental manner. But, reading the email thread above proves the fact that is behaviour that T&S has engaged in before, which makes it so much rarer that this was an incident gone bad, and not WMF overreaching their authority because they feel they have a right to. Keeping in mind, that multiple editors, some involved with the WMF stated that this should have been done better, if it was so, why is there no proper outcome yet? If T&S can bully entire organizations, I'm sure Fram is pebble lying by and it's even more worrying that this is the same Trust & Safety team that chose, and this is me paraphrasing, took a decision which went across desks and various levels of staff. I'm sorry but this just sounds like an echo room to me, where someone from the team just decides what to do and everyone goes with it. Is this team even capable of handling the other situations we entrust to them? I'm not so sure. But if I'm sure of anything, it is that our approach to this particular group of people (and the WMF as a whole) needs to change, including how we are choosing to respond as a community. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• I recall the Wikimania incident, it stuck with me because as a partially deaf person I also get the too loud and too close comments occasionally, I didn't realise (I don't think it was public previously) all the rest of it, only what was released on the mailing list. This is frankly evidence of an ongoing professional negligence issue within the WMF T&S team. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• Wait, they signed off on using T&S to harass a disabled guy? Why the fuck do any of you let these people tell you what to do? They clearly are not worthy of your trust. If this incident had happened in the US, that guy could have sued for discrimination against him due to his disability and had a pretty good chance of winning. Jtrainor (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

  TLDR for people reading the above comment: Someone at Grants worked in cohort with T&S to harass the treasurer of WMBE at a public conference, who btw was also disabled. Let that sink in. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

  If you read the responses in the thread, a sizable share of the responses attack the credibility of the person who wrote this email, despite that at least one person has stepped up to confirm at least part of the story. -- llywrch (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

  The person who alleged they were harassed, confirmed the story and stated that they didn't want to be mentioned like this, but you're forgetting the context in which the email was written and the fact that they weren't asked to disclose their identity, nor was it disclosed (it is written as "anonymous complaints"). They made the assertion in the public forum, is that somehow the fault of the person? I really don't understand. As for the credibility of the person, it did eventually turn out to be a WMBE statement, which was written by a different person, so, again, I do not get your point. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

  Sorry, I didn't think my comment was vague. I simply pointed out that a number of people attacked the person who wrote the email, undermining the writer's credibility, instead of discussing what was contained in the email: ad hominem attacks. Which I hope it's clear I don't endorse. FWIW, a surprising share of the emails in the foundation mailing list were dismissive of our concerns in this matter, evidently believing the Foundation can do no wrong. -- llywrch (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

  "...evidently believing the Foundation can do no wrong." Sadly, we've had a number of such comments on this very page. Enigma^msg 21:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying. I get your point now, I took you in the manner exactly opposite and replied in that regard, apologies for that. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• As someone who has a spectrum disorder this is absolutely appalling for me, and demonstrates that T&S aren't trustworthy for their role. Being able to separate a legitimate complaint from a spurious one should be a requirement for that position. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 19:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • As someone who has both hearing loss *and* an autism spectrum disorder, I share your feelings. That's really gross on behalf of the WMF if true. Rockstonetalk to me! 20:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
•  Note: One of my personal concerns is the bigotry displayed in someone related to WMF making a comment ...suggesting that Belgium has no culture... (per the email). This could have easily been rectified by WMF doing an internal investigation, but according to the email this was never done. Seriously, that is not okay. >:/ (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

  I'm striking my statement until we know more. mailarchive:wikimedia-l/2019-June/092829.html gives me pause. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

  Also this and this. @Pundit: Can you please set this conversation straight when you get the chance. It can probably use your personal insight before it gets too off-the-rails. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

  The person in question stated in a later email that the way they were forced to step up is that the incident was being discussed, not that anyone actually forced the person, but that they felt like they were forced. They state that they had to step up to correct the wrong details when T&S had resolved the situation, which is questionable in its own right for two reasons: 1) the fact that they consider it harassment in bad faith when the person in question apologized for the behaviour which they stated was unintentional and might have been a product of their disability 2) there was never any proper investigation into the alleged harassment, simply that T&S took action. How in the hell is that permissible? --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

  Bluntly put: it's not. If T&S is going to be acting on harassment claims it behooves them to investigate these claims as discreetly as possible. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

  My understanding is that at Wikimania T&S team acts when someone reports to them harassment or discomfort. Given the fact that there definitely are misunderstandings (relating from different cultures, possible disabilities, and many other factors) they are mainly focused on minimizing risks, e.g. by asking an involved party to not engage any more, without passing a judgment if they were intentionally harassing anyone. I would definitely find it upsetting to learn that I made someone uncomfortable to the level that they reported me and I understand why the person involved felt this way, too. However, I think that the thing is blown out of proportion right now. AFAIK nobody was banned from an event. The only consequences were common sense - somebody got upset by you for whatever reason? Try to avoid them. Of course, the problem is that the person contacted by T&S will often feel hurt, too - and we need to care about their well-being as well. Unless there is something I don't know about this case, I don't think there is anything clearly easily improvable in the procedures though. Of course we can always improve them, and cases like this definitely should be reflected upon. This is my personal view - I basically don't have a better idea how T&S could operate better without risking a situation in which harassment reports are ignored because they may be misunderstandings. There is no need for intentionality or bad will - in fact, I think that we probably should clarify that T&S team intervenes not only in the cases of harassment (which to many may be immediately associated with crimes). Pundit|utter 05:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• I would absolutely say that's related. I think it goes very much toward showing that this is not an isolated mistake, but rather may be indicative of a substantially deeper problem within T&S and perhaps the entire WMF. Especially serious are the allegations that the WMF sanctioned someone at least in part because he stood close to people to compensate for a hearing impairment, and mistreated people who had autism. (The latter especially hits home; I'm autistic myself.) If those things are true, they violate not only the WMF's own stated policy of nondiscrimination, but very possibly the law. In the US, that would be the Americans with Disabilities Act and many concurrent state regulations, and I'm sure European countries have analogous regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability. The fact that Trust & Safety did not apparently see fit to investigate and follow up on these very serious concerns show that this may not be an isolated instance of misjudgment, but rather point to a serious problem with the leadership and culture of that team (and makes a mockery out of any idea of them attempting to mitigate potential legal problems). Anyone who has been in management anywhere knows very, very well that when someone claims discrimination, you damn well better take that seriously. Blowing off discrimination complaints can be a very, very costly mistake, and does not uphold the WMF's fiduciary duties to those who donate to it. Paying for a preventable discrimination lawsuit would not be a good use of donor funds, to say nothing of the PR. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• I'm as disturbed as anyone by the WMF banning an editor without any attempt at using the existing community based dispute mechanisms. However, I see this Belgium issue as so completely different in character that I think it's a potential distraction from the main issue at hand. Hopefully we will hear something soon from Doc James or Jimbo Wales as to whether there is any progress coming from recent the board meeting. Of course, it's better to do it right than to do it quickly.--Mojo Hand (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• It may be different in character, but the basic gist of it is not too dissimilar to leading theories about their behaviour here - T&S gets a report from someone who is feeling harassed, takes them at face value with little to no investigation, warns the person in as vague of terms as possible (thus making a course-correction impossible to do intentionally), and then sanctions them for not course-correcting. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 22:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• This response from a sitting trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation does not exactly inspire confidence. Beyond simply taking reports seriously, it strikes me as an implicit endorsement of confirmation bias a la irrational primacy. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Holy shit, that's frightening. First we have the WMF enabling harassment of a disabled officer of one of its constituent regional... uh... actually, I'm not sure exactly how to describe the relationship between WMF and WM Belgium. But WMF enabling harassment there, then blowing off concerns about it from all quarters, then having Trustees making excuses for T&S not doing their jobs. At a minimum, this demands an external audit of the WMF from top to bottom; it seems to indicate that T&S is running amok, and nobody else in the OFFICE is willing to try and stop it. rdfox 76 (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

  "Wikimedia movement affiliates" is the official term. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• I am not endorsing confirmation bias. My understanding of events is that a person got reported as "harassing" someone. This person was not banned from the event, but requested to avoid the person who felt uncomfortable. Given the nature of large events, and also the fact that the reported incident was not major, I basically do not know how the T&S procedure could be improved. I personally know the person who was reported and I genuinely believe he was acting in good faith and in an amicable way. It is absolutely possible to cause distress unintentionally. My understanding is that there were no longterm repercussions, and that the case is taken out now without good reason, while adding to the stress of the person who felt harassed now. Pundit|utter 06:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• I too am concerned that a mere accusation of "that makes me feel uncomfortable" would be taken as harassment with enforceable warnings issued. In contentious issues, this is a recipe for abuse:

  Person A: "That's an absurd conclusion based on the available reliable sources"

  Person B: "I'm being persecuted! Make it stop, Mr Admin X!"

  Admin X: "Person A, your actions are clearly being perceived negatively and you should back off"

  Person A: "My conclusions are based on the available reliable resources. I'm open to other sources too"

  Person B: <makes another change to an article based on a highly biased, personal blog>

  Person A: "This is an example of what I'm talking about. Please stop" <reverts change>

  Person B: <private message> "Person A continues to repress the opinions of a notable minority. Make it stop, T&S!"

  T&S: "Person A has been previously warned for such behavior. Person A's actions are causing stress in the community. Person A is banned for 1 year"

• I'd like to see clearer guidance on the subject before we all go around claiming we're offended. Buffs (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• "I'm offended when I see boy bands. They're corporate shills posing as musicians to further a modeling career." Enigma^msg 20:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The good news about this is that WMBE should be in an excellent position to begin forking the project. They represent Belgian editors for a Belgian edition, and could probably win their independence quickly. A set of independent national Wikipedias probably is probably a good way to reduce the bureaucratic abuses and create redundancy against national censorship. The bad news is that the rest of us have a malfunctional T&S team trying to destroy our project. Anyone knowledgeable of COINTELPRO should be asking, who is trying to destroy WMF with moles? Is it a company, or a government? Wnt (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I sincerely suspect it's just the same sort of bureaucratic incompetence you see in any organization as it matures, and all of which can be driven entirely by cognitive biases rather than malice: Middle managers are more interested in keeping their job than doing their job and work hard to create the appearance that their team is not only worth keeping, but must be expanded; higher ups have little to no idea what actually goes on lower down, especially if there is no bad press and money is rolling in; everyone pretends to be an expert in whatever they are doing; growth is considered a good thing without exception; and it is more important to appear to solve a problem than to even identify the problem, let alone actually solve it. In my opinion, a major cultural advantage of Wikipedia's local administration and ArbCom over T&S is that we don't pretend to be the perfect, unimpeachable experts on conflict resolution, but instead consent to having our actions reviewed, as most of us admit to just being amateurs trying our best. "I am better off than he is,—for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows; I neither know nor think that I know." I will admit the possibility that I am completely wrong about everything here, but the deliberate opacity we've been met with makes it impossible to tell the difference. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Someguy1221, I think you've hit upon a possible part of the issue. We see all these levels of review on the charts Jan and Sydney have posted above—but all those reviews are internal to WMF. And if someone says "no" to one, they still have to come to work with the people they just snubbed the next day. On-wiki, we know what we don't know, so to speak, so we've built in checks and balances. Admins have special permissions, but taking an action with one of those tools always generates a publicly-viewable log, and those actions are subject to review at Deletion Review, by posting an {{unblock}} request or contacting UTRS, objecting to the action at ANI, or any number of other means, and admins can always be held to account by ArbCom. For functionaries (checkuser/oversight), those things can't be reviewable publicly for obvious reasons, but the functionaries are reviewed by one another. (And having been on those teams, I can tell you that those peer reviews do in fact happen with some frequency; they're not just a hypothetical possibility). And of course, they can also be reviewed and held to account by ArbCom. ArbCom itself does indeed handle some matters that can't be disclosed to others, but ArbCom itself is reviewable by the community every year at election time. So, yes, that kind of stuff can happen. And that's not even necessarily to assert malice. It just may very well be that someone who's reviewing the decision might know that Joe generally knows his stuff, and dammit I've got five thousand things to catch up on, so, sure, I'll take a quick look at his ban proposal, looks fine, sign off, move on to the next thing I need to do today, failing to catch the crucial piece of context that Joe also missed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: you know I hadn't even considered groupthink, which you seem to be suggesting as playing a part. This is also in line with Llywrch's observation about the general dismissiveness in the email thread. It makes sense. Create for yourself a system where you are accountable to no one outside your little group, and you can choose to side with that little group, or with what is essentially a bunch of randos. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

‘The rule of law ..degenerates to rigidity and inertia in procedures and over-regulation, specialization of bureaucrats leads to civil servants who perform acts without understanding their consequences, and personal stability and arcane internal rules create a closed system out of touch with its environment. One possible consequence of the latter is groupthink. Groupthink means the unconscious minimizing of intra-organizational conflict in making decisions at the price of their quality, which can lead to disaster.'Wolfgang C. Müller, 'Governments and Bureaucracies,' in Daniele Caramani(ed.),Comparative Politics, Oxford University Press, 2017 pp.136-154 p.149

‘In too many corporations, . the incentive system was (and is) skewed against dissent and independent analysis. A 1962 study of young executives, for instance, found that the more anxious they were about moving up the job ladder, “the less accurately they communicate(d) problem-related information.” They were smart to do so. Another study of fifty-two middle managers found that there was a correlation between upward mobility and not telling the boss about things that had gone wrong. The most successful executives tended not to disclose information about fights, budget problems, and so on.’ James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds, Knopf Doubleday 2005 p.205

These two are just an extremely small excerpt from a vast literature on bureaucracies and their problems, and what is disconcerting for many editors is that, in the massive bungling evident here, internally and at a communicative level, the body asserting this innovative power over an encyclopedic experiment seems totally unaware of the academic literature bearing on its own liabilities to error, groupthink, and the internal dynamics of closed organisations.Nishidani (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no opposition in a echo chamber, effectively cultivating the "righteousness" of a certain action. The WMF T&S team seems to have a history of zero transparency and accountability, and acting on mere suppositions. Given the fact that we have observed this behaviour in the past and now, it is obvious that no one within the WMF has red-flagged their actions (which led me to conclude T&S is an echo chamber) otherwise, actions like this would not be met with increased stonewalling and lack of responses, when let's keep it mind, their main job is to enforce trust and safety. Gotta give it to them for being so ironic. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Romaine now stated on the same mailing list that he will never attend any WMF-funded event as he does not feel safe to do so.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

For reference, the mailing list post is here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Jesus that's terrifying - at the top of any meta discussion page, we need a combined list of T&S-caused incidents. The issue with Fram could be viewed as a good-faith epic cock-up and abysmal communication. The Belgium issue warrants disciplinary actions to be taken against the T&S staff. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  I concur Buffs (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• I know you're following @Doc James: (and heavily pinged) but I just wanted to make absolutely sure you were aware of this issue. No immediate outburst of anger but a well-thought through concern by an entire chapter. Depending on if the ZH-wiki issues are included we now have at least 3/4 major T&S issues, at least 1 of which is definitely not a good-faith incident. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Clarification is here that the message was from a specific individual not from the chapter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• The initial message, triggering this discussion, was a private message from Romaine (WMBE Board member) on his own initiative; not verified, nor approved by (the Board of) Wikimedia Belgium. Please read this reply carefully in order to try to bring more clarity.

I have immediately notified Romaine that he abused his function in the WMBE Board to communicate private matters on the general mailinglist.

Since Monday I am in private contact, both with T&S and the management of Wikimedia Nederland to follow-up this dispute. This caused delay in replying to this message. The Wikimedia Belgium Board will continue to evaluate the situation and take further measures.

Wikimedia Belgium wants to apologize for any moral damage that the initial message provoked.

What one member of the general assembly did propose is that an internal audit could be requested to investigate the general behavior, the working, the completeness of procedures, and the treatment of cases by the Trust and Safety (T&S), and the grants team.

Specifically, we have encountered as a chapter repeatedly during the last several years a lack of appeal, both in the T&S complaints handling, and in the grants team handling sAPG requests.

Specifically in the T&S handling procedures, the rights of the alleged offender are not sufficiently guaranteed. There is a possibility that rumors are invoking a punishment without careful verification of the facts, without the defendants being sanctioned in a neutral way, and without taking into account certain handicaps like hard-hearing, or autism.

That being said, please stop discussing this specific conflict publicly, because a lot of important details are missing, are single-sided interpretations, or even completely wrong.

-- Geertivp (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC) Geert Van Pamel, chair of Wikimedia Belgium.

Genuinely more impressive than anything we've had from WMF relating to the Fram case. Geert, I applaud you. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

OTOH, from my POV, this discussion highlights once again how we've failed as a community in our response. People have taken the private view of one individual as representing the whole organisation for no good reason. Further the incident which seems to be of most concern is not something new. I recall reading about a while ago, from somewhere. (I have little interest in wikimania or such things so not sure how I came across it. I think maybe it was from a signpost news report.) It's been extensively discussed and even before Geert Van Pamel's comments, I'm not sure there was any reason for us to discuss that specific case publicly here, especially without looking into the details which to be blunt I'm not sure how many here have. It would be rather sad if what I read a few months ago means I'm better informed than even 20% of the people commenting here. Nil Einne (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

P.S. A quick search found that the incident itself was about 11 months ago, or at least discussion of it I found was. As per above, I'm not sure if this is when I read about it. Also I probably should mention my reading at the time was it was quite difficult to get a balanced assessment of precisely what happened between the parties because at least some of them weren't interested in talking about it publicly in detail. While there could still be reasonable criticisms of various aspects of how the WMF handled the incident from a transparency, communication, investigation, appeals and rights of the offender stand point; coming to the conclusion that the WMF's actions were unjustified is difficult without knowing both sides of the story and even if I had looked in depth I don't think I could have known back then. It seems perhaps more has been said now that it's come up again although still probably not enough. Yet it seems people here are quite willing to do so. Funnily enough one of the reasonable concerns over the WMF's actions both in that case and in this case, is whether the WMF themselves made enough efforts to understand both sides of the story. Yet from what I see here, people here are quite willing to do the same. (I would note there is one particularly important aspect of this issue. This was established very early on in the email thread and even clearer now we have confirmation that the message was a private email and not sent on behalf of the Wikimedia Belgium. Yet I'm not sure whether all commentators here appreciate even though they probably should. I'm not going to say exactly what it is since I do agree that there is no need for more public discussion of the issue. I'm hesitant to even post this, but feel it's perhaps the best balance of appealing to those here to investigate if they are going to comment.) I do praise those who have withdrawn their comments when realising perhaps there is more here than meets the eye, although note any investigation probably should have happened before commenting. Of course by no means is this unique to one side, in fact my vague memory of the specific case is there appeared to be examples of it on both sides in the email and discussions over the case back then. But given the current feelings against the WMF, the discussion here does seem to have been mostly in one direction. Nil Einne (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Thanks for posting this: it needed to be said, and a few trivial quibbles aside, I agree with all that you write here. However, let me also add that this exemplifies perfectly why "Framgate" is so egregious: it has destroyed so much of the community's trust in T&S (and by extension the WMF as a whole), and that trust is critical for the long term health of the project (and, quite possibly, the movement as a whole).

The mailinglist messages also demonstrate aptly that—completely regardless of what the intent was—T&S's handling of issues in effect pits different vulnerable groups up against one another, and making the community take sides: which vulnerable group is most deserving of our support and protection? Which group gets to have unconditional respect for their experience of a situation, and which group has their views dismissed as simply self-serving? We need to find ways of handling such issues with individuals that supports and protects all vulnerable groups equally. And that includes preserving some dignity and possibility of redemption even for those individuals who have ojectively and demonstrably acted in a way that hurt others (which may or may not have been the case here). Whatever else is the truth of what happened, T&S have not managed to achieve that here.

Perhaps that was always impossible in this specific situation, but the observable results are in themselves grounds for introspection and looking for lessons to learn. The sentiment expressed (by someone who shall remain nameless: several people have expressed similar sentiments) that How can we feel safe … if the decisions of T&S are questionned … is precisely the worst possible response. When there are negative effects of T&S's actions (and losing a long term prolific volunteer that was clearly seen as a positive force by many is a negative effect) the first people to question the decision should be T&S; and the community should absolutely question their actions and hold them to account. The conclusion may well be that there was no better way to handle that particular situation, and that it was necessary to prevent even greater negative effects, but there is no entity in this entire movement that should not be exempt from having their acts and decisions questioned! Politely and constructively, preferably, but definitely questioned.--Xover (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• T&S seems to operate under a presumption of guilt until innocence is proven beyond even a slightly unreasonable doubt, using their own undisclosed criteria for the determination thereof. At best, this would seem to indicate carelessness on their part; at worst, it's a willful abuse of power. Either way, it's going to do a lot of damage to the WMF's credibility for a long time to come.Kurtis ^(talk) 10:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Jimbo's authority

At the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/History

Until the beginning of 2004, Jimbo Wales dealt with all serious disputes other than simple vandalism (straightforward vandals could be blocked by any administrator). He was also the only person with the authority to ban users. In December 2003 he delegated that role in dispute handling to an Arbitration Committee, with initial membership of volunteer experienced users. Wales wrote in January 2004:

The Arbitration Committee [...] can impose a solution that I'll consider to be binding, with of course the exception that I reserve the right of executive clemency and indeed even to dissolve the whole thing if it turns out to be a disaster. But I regard that as unlikely, and I plan to do it about as often as the Queen of England dissolves Parliament against their wishes, i.e., basically never, but it is one last safety valve for our values.

In April 2007, Wales confirmed that the Committee could overturn any decision he makes in his traditional capacity within Wikipedia.

Maybe the above will help. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources

• Rather interesting. Thank you for this reminder. I gather that the community was meant to have the final say if there was a dissent between the community and Jimbo, or the Foundation. This makes case law.--Aschmidt (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

And a week ago:

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.... 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.... --Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I asked the WMFOffice account whether they agree with Jimbo here, and asked the same of Jan here and on his staff talk page without any reply. I also asked Arbcom and on Meta, at the User Reporting System Consultation and the Roles & Responsibilities and Community Health strategy working groups. There has been no answer to the question anywhere yet. EllenCT (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, we speak about a binding pledge upon myself, so it is an irrevocable move. I remember this period in the founding of Wikipedia because when I was a member of the German ArbCom I researched the history of the ArbComs, how they came into being and how they developed up to then. Jimbo was quite keen to get rid of his role as a benevolent dictator at the time. This was not just for fun, and it cannot later be undone.--Aschmidt (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• This discussion is largely moot. Wiki(m|p)edia has no legal system, no case law. We have a set of community and Foundation policies and governance structures. Jimbo has exactly as much authority as the community and Foundation say he has: at the Foundation, he has no authority beyond his board seat, and within the community, he only has the technical ability to perform actions on the English Wikipedia. Functions previously held by him are now held by elected and accountable members of the community. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

As I recall, when Jimbo has a COI, no appeal is possible. Given the conflict between them, Jimbo likely does. Possibly explains the offer.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: - did Fram also stridently criticize WMF? Then WMF has a possible COI also? (WMF noted that ArbCom was one primary target of Fram's harrassment and/or abuse, which could create the appearance of a conflict of interest) starship.paint (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The owner doesn't get disqualified for COI.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I know we're arguing for the sake of argument, but that just means all this time we've been enforcing our COI policies over those innocent article subjects, alas! --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:BAN#Appeal to Jimbo Wales (along with WP:ARBPOL#Appeal of decisions) recognizes Jimbo as the final avenue of appeal for the banned. If the Foundation thinks an unnanounced edit to WP:OFFICE can contravene Section 10 of the Terms of Use ("In contrast to ... these Terms of Use, policies established by the community ... may cover a single Project") then how can they claim that their bans are unappealable? EllenCT (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The scope of the WMF to sanction users is not limited in section 10 of the ToU. T&S bans are unappealable regardless of what local policies may exist. And even if ambiguous wording in the ToU might imply that T&S is bound by local policies in this regard, it would be an issue of clarifying the wording rather than T&S acting outside of their scope. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Where do you draw the line? If you don't take it to mean what it says about local control, what's to stop the Foundation from re-imposing superprotect? What's to stop them from sanctioning contributors who criticize fundraising operations? In your view, if the T&S team decides that homeopathy is reasonable, could they sanction editors who prevent homeopathy advocates from adding their material to medical articles? EllenCT (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: That's way too obsequious for my liking. Are the ToU community-approved? No. Is the very existence of T&S (or WMF for that matter) community-approved? No. Is there anything about English Wikipedia that is beyond the remit of its contributors? No. I think it is about time to draw a line of what is out of scope for WMF. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with both of your normative arguments: we should work with the WMF to create a system that is as transparent and accountable as possible. But we aren't going to accomplish that through pointing out potential loopholes in the WMF's policies, because their stated policy intent is that the bans be unappealable. And a side note about the Jimbo of it all: I'd prefer that any sort of community oversight of the process or results come from the community or ArbCom, not him. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The owner doesn't get disqualified for COI. In all our discussions, we need to (a) distinguish between WMF, the entity, Katherine Maher, the ED, the line employees (e.g., T&S) and, ultimately, the Board. Only (a) is the "owner" here, and everyone else has roles and responsibilities that are contractually or legally specified.

Policies can be changed. Guettarda (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Plan D

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

This has been discussed at this page at some point. I personally think this is a complete non-starter. To maintain the project, one needs community of the size comparable with the current English Wikipedia community, which is totally unrealistic.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

More to the point, one would also need servers the size of a small city—as of a couple of months ago English Wikipedia came to 18,880,938,139,465 bytes, and an independent en-wiki would no longer be part of the WMF ecosystem so we'd need to mirror Commons as well which would be another 40TB or so. Since Equinix would presumably continue to host the remaining WMF wikis they wouldn't be able to host us due to the COI, which would leave us reliant on either Amazon Web Services, Microsoft or IBM; they in turn would either want substantial payment, or would demand a degree of editorial control, and good luck with your "give us your money so we can pass it straight on to Jeff Bezos" fundraising appeal. For better or worse, we're stuck with the WMF. ‑ Iridescent 16:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. And, well, we will need a legal team. And - surprise, surprise - a T&S team to deal with pedophiles.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Just to give a sense of the scale of what we're talking about, this is the server load Wikipedia puts on the eqiad server. While we're not quite at the scale of Netflix, we're still talking a huge data flow; IIRC the physical infrastructure of Wikipedia (i.e. excluding all the staff salaries, travel etc) costs $4/minute to run, and unless a fork can persuade some donors to defect, or is willing to run adverts, that adds up. ‑ Iridescent 17:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

That's about the same as Wikia/Fandom, because they serve far more media on each pageview. If Jimbo could get behind it, I'm sure Wikia would be glad to temporarily host while an alternative Foundation is established. EllenCT (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Not meaning to sound condescending, but how many of you have read Office actions? I just read it for the first time and it actually shed quite a bit of light on this situation. I was just wondering...would the reaction to Fram's block been different had we known about this policy beforehand? Would Fram have acted differently as an admin/editor? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  We're well aware of it and it's been discussed at length here; one of the primary causes of this dispute is the WMF rewriting it a couple of months ago to grant themselves authority to do what they've done without any discussion. (This was what the policy looked like at the time of Fram's alleged offences.) ‑ Iridescent 16:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  They already had that authority; they don't need to re-write wiki pages to change that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  In 2016 the Board gave the Foundation management the authority to change the Terms of Use, which still says to this day that only community processes can impose a project-specific ban. But they never bothered to change the ToU to allow for their undiscussed, unannounced February 2019 office actions policy change, so unless you believe their ability to change the ToU allows them to waive doing so, then they did not in fact have the necessary authority. EllenCT (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• We could leave easily. There are already many mirrors. But where would we go? And would anyone notice?
  Server farms don't grow on trees. Also such an exodus would leave WMF with the upper hand and the strong brand, and they could continue in a way that the editor community couldn't. Just not viable. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• Is it possible to do anything to make forking more viable in the future? It has been pointed out that it is more viable to fork smaller wikis (those in a different language). If enough publicity came of that, it might slowly start to make a difference. But the past examples don't inspire confidence that it could happen. The best route appears to be to establish strong checks and balances in the existing systems. Carcharoth (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• A server farm "the size of a small city" is exactly right, and the key point when discussing forking the 5th-most-visited website on the internet. Websites run on computers; computers cost money; whoever is paying for the computers will always have the final say over who can and who cannot use the computers. Hence, there will always be "office actions" that cannot be overturned by "the community", and "the community" will always be subordinate to whoever pays for the computers that "the community" uses. Those editors who have expressed the opinion that the community is sovereign over the WMF are just ignoring the basic fact that we're all using computers that someone else is paying for. The only way around this is to set up something like a co-op where editors are owners of the legal entity that pays for the computers, and that would require the editor-owners to give up anonymity (at least to each other). Bottom line: whoever pays the bills makes the rules. Period, end of story. If editors want to make the rules, they need to pay the bills. – Levivich 17:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  Levivich, I don't think that means what you think it means. The WMF does not "pay the bills", any more than my bank pays my bills when I write a check for them. I paid the bill, the bank just acted as a repository for the money, just like the WMF acts as a repository for money donated. The donors paid the bills. But in a very real sense, our editors pay the bills. If you were to total up the value of volunteer labor put into Wikipedia by its editors, I suspect the sum would be staggering and probably substantially more than the WMF puts toward hosting it. WMF does not "pay the bills", even if it signs the checks. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  It's not at all like a bank. When a bank takes your money, it's still your money and they're holding it for you. They won't give it to anyone unless you tell them to. When a nonprofit takes a donation, it becomes the nonprofit's money. Neither the donors nor the editors get to tell the WMF how to spend the money, nor are they accountable for how it's spent. The editors and the donors don't pick the web host, or the office space, or set the salaries. If the money is mis-spent, for example if laws are broken, it's not the editors or the donors who are held accountable, it's the WMF–specifically, its trustees and officers. If the web host bill isn't paid, it's not the editors or the donors who will be sued by the web hosting company, it's the WMF. Because they are held accountable, they get to set the rules. If the community wants to set the rules, it will need to take over the functions of raising and spending the money directly, and it will need to also take on the accountability for it. – Levivich 18:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  Uh the donors pay the bills. And the donors donate largely because of the English Wikipedia. We are the product that generates revenue. Now we dont have much of a say in this because that product has been freely given away under a CC license so even if we all up and leave they still have a decent sized "encyclopedia", but lets not pretend that the WMF is anything other than a body that exists to solicit and then spend donations off the efforts of a small army of volunteers. nableezy - 17:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  It's true, the WMF wouldn't have donations if it wasn't for the efforts of editors, but it's also true that the WMF wouldn't need to raise donations except to pay for the computers, etc., that editors use. Right now, editors provide the content, but they have no responsibility for the $2 million in web hosting fees (or anything else). We outsource raising and spending that $2 million (and the many other costs associated with it) to someone else. That someone else is legally accountable for raising and spending the money, and thus gets to make the decisions like which web host to pick and who does and doesn't get to edit. If the community wrote to the web hosting company and told them we want them to remove the WMF's access and turn it over to a new organization that "the community of editors" is establishing, do you think the web host would listen? What if the donors made the request, would the web host listen? Nope, they're going to take their orders from the WMF, their customer, the people who actually pay the bills. As long as we leave it to someone else to pay the $2 million, we are going to be subject to their rules. If the community wants to change that, it needs to raise and spend the money for web hosting itself, directly, instead of outsourcing it. – Levivich 18:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  Nab. The outcome of arguments often depends on the metaphors employed. We had the owner-tenant trope, which automatically wins the discursive battle for the WMF. Here we have a charity metaphor. There are two donors here (a) Those with money to back the project, and (b) those who donate their unpaid time and write the 5,800,000 articles. (c)The intermediary between the two neither donates money nor is actively engaged in actual article drafting, since its bureaucratic work takes priority. (a) pays (b) is unpaid (c) is paid. The only practical beneficiary of the charity is (c), one gets a highly paid, high-flying job with powerful authority. A lot of things can be imagined or inferred from this. One last point, I don't know how things have changed since the University of Minnesota 2007 study, which concluded that 44% of wikipedia content was created by 0.1% of editors, while 10% created 86% of edits (Daniel Tammet, Embracing the Wide Sky: A Tour Across the Horizons of the Mind, Simon and Schuster, 2009 p.205 ). (c) is selecting for recruitment and retention on the basis of emotional sensitivities. The percentages of (b) suggest this profile is marginal to actual encyclopedic production.Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

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

I'm not seeing much wrong with the "constitution" we have. The problems lie below that level. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes - they pay the bills. But the only reason they have any money to pay the bills is thanks to the endless hours of volunteer time that has created the product they are making money from. Unfortunately, the absence of viable alternatives has created a monopolistic attitude by the WMF - they can essentially do what they want given the absence of competition. Forking is a weak option, but something live a 3-5 day work stoppage could be effective. We wouldn't be disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point, as we all have every right to leave are not participate as we see fit. However, it's only effective if enough editors do it at the same time. Of course, the down side is that if the effect is negligible, we simply confirm the WMF's view that we are all easily replaceable cogs.--Mojo Hand (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I encourage a work stoppage because I think every editor who participates will learn something. – Levivich 18:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

If we are into apocalyptic scenarios, I would rather bet on changing the platform and text encyclopedia becoming outdated. Search inside video formats will be implemented within a couple of years, and I do not see us responding to that in any wat. I discussed this a while ago on wikimedia-l mailing list.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Search inside videos sounds like hell. I hate videos. Rockstonetalk to me! 19:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Plan E

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

Participants 'strike'

• As proposer. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• Turn the anti-vandal bots off for a week, see how Jimmy's friends start to complain when their BLP's go unreverted within seconds. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• Sign me up for that; I stand by everything I said there. If you really want to annoy the WMF, couple it with "everyone write to T&S every time you ever see anyone do anything that violates the Terms of Use". ‑ Iridescent 18:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Seems like a lot of work. One to figure out exactly what violates the ToU and then two, writing the e-mails. I don't even know if they'll get read. You probably need to be friends with someone in the WMF to get your complaints heard. Enigma^msg 18:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I actually have templates for this at work. I am pretty sure we can knock up a 'insert name here, tick box for your flavour of harrassment* quick enough. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  • This prompted me to actually look more closely at T&S's homepage which actually contains no contact information of any kind (other than the EmergencyWikimedia address used for reporting genuine crisis issues like credible suicide threats). Which in turn begs the question of just how this supposed stream of reports ever reached T&S in the first place, unless they were coming from insiders who knew the personal contact information of members of T&S. With every rock that gets overturned here, it starts to look more and more like the conspiracy theorists are right. ‑ Iridescent 18:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  Ha, I didnt believe you and went to check for myself. Thats... special. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Well, if you were a proper insider, you'd just text them. You need backchannels or you're a mere peon. They stopped being "conspiracy theories" to me when I read Raystorm's response on this page. Enigma^msg 18:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  Mayhaps T&S handles whatever comes through the emergency address? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 18:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  I'm sure they do, but per the massive warning at emergencywikimedia.org that's only for genuine life-or-death situations; if someone is using it to snitch on editors they don't like, that's a breach right there. ‑ Iridescent 18:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  The WMF isn't exactly readily available for editor enquiries. A couple of years ago I wanted to contact the WMF in order to ask them what their civility policy actually was. My remembrance of trying to do that is that I would have had to send a physical letter to an address in San Francisco, which meant I would have had to reveal my own address for a reply, which I wasn't happy about. The closest I could get was to contact OTRS. So, when this recent situation arose, I wondered, 'how has someone managed to contact the WMF like that, unless....?' PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  When I was on Arbcom (and consequently better connected than most), when I genuinely did need to contact the WMF they were so resolutely uncommunicative I quite literally ended up needing to contact Jimmy Wales directly and have him relay the message. ‑ Iridescent 19:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  From my awareness, emails at the emergency address are continously monitored (and they have done a good job with it), and it sends out instant notifications to the entire team, so anyone misusing those channels will end up banned if they do it in bad-faith or just be a nuisance. Emails to T&S take a few days to get answered, depending on the severity. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  You know of an email address for T&S? I don't, and nor does their own homepage. ‑ Iridescent 19:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  It is cawikimedia.org. It's not present where it should be but I probably picked it up somewhere (tags on office-locked accounts methinks). --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, it's ca@. It's on that page (which I now can't find) that lists who has to sign off on a particular office action. Black Kite (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  {{WMF-legal banned user}} says it's trustandsafety@. —Cryptic 19:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  • The contact details for each member of T&S are connected from their short bios on the "Team" tab from the homepage. For anyone specifically raising harassment concerns, the Harassment page lists steps they can take, including the email to contact T&S. - Bilby (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  • ...and then it turns out that the whole point of this mess was to get a larger number of reports to T&S, so that T&S can justify a bigger budget with more staff. Or something. Anyway, we don't need to strike or fork or anything like that, because the WMF is still more or less under community control, if very indirectly. Community-elected members of the board are looking into this. If they come back here and say, "turns out the WMF is a hopeless mess, we've hired a new ED to fire everybody except the ops team and rebuild everything from the ground up", well, then we don't need to do anything. If they come back and say, "we've ordered the WMF to have T&S not interfere in matters outside their jurisdiction and set up new rules so that nothing like this happens again", or "turns out this whole mess was caused by someone acting alone who has since been fired", we're also fine. Patience would be helpful now. --Yair rand (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    • How's that? The Board has ten members: three elected by the community, six corporate types appointed with no community input, and one Jimmy. Unless the six unelected members are already split on an issue, the community electees have no control whatsoever. ‑ Iridescent 19:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
      • To clarify there are 3 community selected, 2 affiliate selected, 4 appointed by the board itself, and one Jimmy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Patience? NO statement in ... how long? 10 days, two weeks? They just hope this will blow over and that people lose interest. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse general strike. Jimmy and Doc haven't reported back to us yet. T&S looks rotten from the inside. Since banning office accounts isn't feasible (and at this point would be meaningless) completely withdrawing from Wikipedia for however long it takes is necessary. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 19:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support in principle, but with extreme caution, and not so 'general'. Please see my 3-point comment in the discussion section below. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support, since it's become apparent that the WMF has adopted a wait-'em-out strategy. The scales have fallen from my eyes, FWIW, and I don't see myself ever feeling the same about this place again. It's just another fucking corporation. Miniapolis 22:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per the discussion about a sitenotice below. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• I think this needs to be a bit more clearly defined. If someone leaves death threats for a user or tries to dox a user onwiki, I'm going to act, strike or no. --Rschen7754 00:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not sitting around and watching BLP violations, including potential defamation, get dropped into Wikipedia simply to make a poorly-defined point to the WMF. - Bilby (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Bilby: so, you prefer now to defend the removal of such blp violations and defamations, spammy pages and all until you gather enough people who feel offended by your actions that some contact WMF and get you banned without appeal? Because that is the path WMF seems to have started here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    • No, that is the path that you imagine the WMF have started here. I have no idea what path has been started, as I have no idea what led to Fram's ban.However, if I was concerned about being stopped from removing BLP violations, I'd prefer to address that by a method that doesn't involve stopping the removal of BLP violations. - Bilby (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Imagine, maybe, but barring any explanation .. Bilby, don't get me wrong, I prefer also not to have BLP violations stand (pile up), but in the end it is not your (our) responsibility, it is the reponsibility of the WMF to make sure that you can remove those BLP violations without running the risk that WMF accusing you (banning you for) 'harassing' the editor who introduces them (and I am seeing cases of people who are here spamming, socking, etc. for 8+ years, I cannot imagine how 'harassed' they must feel - maybe I should stop reporting the next socks to SPI so I do not harass them and leave possible copyvio material they introduce alone?). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
        • If ultimately it was shown that Fram was banned simply for performing standard actions as you describe, then I'd certainly support something. However, while I understand why some might support this, personally I can't reconcile the idea of standing by while BLP violations are added in order to make a statement. It just doesn't work for me. - Bilby (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Nobody ever asked me to join a trade union for Wikipedia editors. (As an administrator, am I management?) But this idea will either fizzle, or if it is moderately effective, would bring widespread public support to the WMF and opprobrium to the "striking" editors. Wow, these elitist nerds are striking in defense of their right to be obnoxious jerks who harass people and throw F-bombs around. That would be the narrative. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as stated. A strike needs a purpose. What are your demands? What would be the conditions for ending the strike? (I'm not watchlisting this monstrously long page, so please ping me if you reply.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Mx. Granger: I mention that in green below (this evolved differently), WMF rescinds all current actions and finds a path to have (members of) the community handle harassment. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
    • No offense, but based on this thread, I don't see how you think the people here could handle harassment complaints if they can't handle the WMF not responding for 24 hours. It's unrealistic for you to handle them yourself. — Moe Epsilon 07:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
      • 24 hours? It is 2 weeks. And I agree that we need harassment control (see my green statement below), but what the WMF did here is NOT the way. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion strike

• Shouldn't we try an all-editor petition before striking? The proposal to petition the Board, CEO, and Community Engagement Chief (T&S's C-level manager) by putting such a request with their contact information in MediaWiki:Editpage-head-copy-warn got archived before even ten people had !voted on it. EllenCT (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that if the community does this, and lets the BLP and copyright violations take over the site, the WMF will interpret it as a reason to grab more supreme executive power from the community. Really, I preferred the idea of grinding the main page to a halt, even if it is a bit WP:POINTy. We did more than that for SOPA, we can do it for this. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • What are they going to do? Clean up the BLPs themselves and harass the editors that created them? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

@North8000: and you think that having a significant part of en.wikipedia striking will not be in the news soon enough? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Maybe, but a meta choice with instant runoff structure would move it decisively forward instead of the usual 10 ideas and each of their sub-variants all discussed separately and then nothing moves forward. And having a few extreme measures on there would shift the psychological ground. A milder choice (like a strike) would certainly win as step 1. North8000 (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm doubtful it would be. But it has been damn near a week. Jimmy and Doc have not come back to us. My patience has run out; it's time to force the issue. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 19:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• 1. The text is far too long. KISS it - short, sharp, and to the point. Avoid aping the WMP's tedious and empty statements. Contrary to their claims, they are not reading everything that is being posted over the FRAMBAN - they are just not bothered.

2. A strike would only be effective if done specifically by admins (and bureaucrats), and perhaps also by other special rights holders. One must not ignore that after a strike someone will still need to do the clean up and address the backlogs. A few years ago I spearheaded a huge campaign to clean up after a massive and costly blunder by the WMF, and some of us are still smarting from it. The WMF is a bull in a chinashop, they don't really care at all what damage is done through their poor judgment because they always know that the volunteers will sweep up the dirt.

3. A strike should be the absolute last resort (barring a mass hand-in of admin tools), but one should not have to wait much longer for a reaction from the WMF, the Board, and Arbcom. Something must be forthcoming soon.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that a strike would be effective given the number of editors who will assemble to oppose or endlessly delay any action, including admins and I suspect arbs. Let's face it, some people think this is great.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I wrote it in a bit of a hurry, it should probably be a statement with a possible hatted clarification regarding scope). I agree that you need a solid number of admins participating, but also editors should follow. I expect that after a 24 hour strike quite some material will be in a dire state. But, to me, that is the message WMF just gave (barring better explanation): stop harassing good faith editors and leave the mediocre or bad material of them standing and let the general content quality go down. The main intent of this strike is that those actions, which to some are (perceived as) harassing, are needed to improve general content. Slow that down and your encyclopedia becomes worthless.

If the community has over and over to block a reincarnation of a sock, spend 8+ years against one specific spam-company, or months cleaning up after an editor then it is NOT strange that you, even publicly, send such an editor to fuck off (I am not writing it, but some of them I would like to ...). If even higher mechanisms fail (WMF, now even turning against us), then I am not surprised that now some of us will stop 'harassing' editors voluntarily giving the same effect as a strike.

I hope that 24 hours (or less) will get the message through. I can't imagine what this encyclopedia will look like after a 1 week strike. This place will be FUBAR if we do not 'harass' spammers, vandals, socks, and mediocre editors alike. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:50, 21 Juse 2019 (UTC)

Beetstra, As I said before, the WMF doesn't care. They know that there will always be enough admind and editors to clear up the mess after a strike. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Sitenotice

Setting up a sitenotice urging all editors to directly petition the WMF is the best idea I have. I'm sure this had been said before but I'm not sure why it can't be done. It's noticeable and minimally invasive, except to the image of the WMF ofc. It's a pretty simple community response and should be "that's that" from our side. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Support

• Yes, let's ask for endorsements to a Board petition to rescind foundation:Resolution:Delegation of policy-making authority. That would require any ToU-level changes to be made by the Board, which was the status quo until 2016. The Foundation has shown by their actions that they are insufficiently mature to be trusted with the delegated authority, so the delegation should be rescinded. EllenCT (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with EllenCT's proposal that we should petition the WMF for the complete removal of the delegation, with a new agreeable solution being set into place at their next meeting. Ofcourse, the specifics cannot be determined by us, but individual petitioning is still individual petitioning. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• This does not conflict in any form with other ideas and might increase the pressure further. Obviously waiting for the next WMF action/statement does not seem to help ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with the message and further agree that this is not mutually-exclusive with a general editor strike. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 19:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• Agree and would like for it to replace the "pride" message that keeps popping up on every page. That is unnecessary. Enigma^msg 19:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Enigmaman: FYI, that was put up without consensus. See m:CentralNotice/Request/Wiki Loves Pride 2019. I've asked the responsible CN-admin to revert the addition. --Yair rand (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  Good to hear. I had no idea who approved putting that up, yet it was popping up on every page last night when I was navigating Wikipedia. Just inappropriate. If there is to be a sitenotice, it should be related to this. Enigma^msg 20:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Agree - this is an excellent idea, and is not something that could be said to cause any collateral damage, so is a suitable addition to any other action undertaken. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• Agree per all above. CoolSkittle (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• This I can get behind. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, we should do this, whether or not accompanied by any other action(s). I should note that I've been on strike already since this dropped, and I don't plan to stop. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  Likewise. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 19:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support as a less-nuclear option. Miniapolis 22:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support I think the best way to do this is to set a deadline a week out for the WMF board to respond and then put it up if they don't respond by then. --Rschen7754 00:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose. Wait for the board to finish looking into the mess. --Yair rand (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• We're not going to move at the speed of the Board. We've been waiting with bated breath for a week. How much longer do you expect us to wait, a year? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 19:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  It's been six days since the meeting, and the board members don't all have that much free time. Give it at least a couple weeks before requiring something. --Yair rand (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Mu.--WaltCip (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Fuck your Kau. This affects us to a grave extent, and all you can muster is "this isn't our problem"? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see how this is Mu-able. This is clearly within the technical capability of the community to do. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The whole dispute here boils down to that the WMF is perceived as having communicated this ban poorly, which is at least arguable. (Some seem to think the action itself was inappropriate, but that can't be determined except by the WMF, as the decision relies on private information, so that argument is a non-starter.) All the sky-is-falling drama over it is a ridiculous over-reaction to the perceived problem of 'they didn't tell us what they were doing well enough!'. The merits of it aren't cut and dried for people who are following it, never mind for random people being petitioned. (The community isn't particularly united against the WMF, as far as I see, only a rather vocal subset of it.) There's no need to drag readers into the dispute as well. Leave up the Pride central notice instead, and let's step back from this and breathe a bit. It's not the end of the world. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 20:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Just a question: Did you read anything about T&S's interactions with the Belgian branch yet? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Jéské Couriano: Yes, I read the thread on the mailing list and some of the comments here yesterday. It's not clear to me which party to that dispute is correct. In my view, that issue should be discussed between WMBE, WMF, and the participants of the dispute, perhaps with lawyers; adjudication by a pitchfork-wielding mob seems inappropriate. I would not be opposed to the creation of an ombuds commission to arbitrate appeals to WMF's decisions. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 21:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose this, and D and E and probably more of the alphabet as well. I'm as disappointed as anyone with the slowness of a response, but I truly believe that Doc James would not go along with hoodwinking the community. Also, ArbCom is having a separate meeting with WMF (today, I think), and they would be very likely to tell us something when they are ready to do so (even if they tell us that they got stonewalled – and that, not what we have now, is what could reasonably trigger a strong community response). I think it's rather probable that the internal investigations have revealed a very serious screw-up, and they are being very careful to get their ducks in a row before they go public. That's an unfortunate situation, but it doesn't mean that we are being ignored. Grown-up people don't keep asking "are we there yet?" We have not yet reached a deadline. And I don't like making the encyclopedia less useful for our readers, either. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, but not in principle. I said earlier in this discussion that we ought to wait at least until after this week to hear a substantive response. We are, after all, asking the leadership and Board of Directors of a pretty major organization for their responses, and that's not going to happen in a day or two—but it better not happen in a year or two, either. And such leaders are expected to deliver more than carefully crafted obfuscation when that's needed. At the very least, let's await hearing the outcome of the ArbCom call today before we do anything drastic. But I will be clear that if we keep getting stonewalling and thousand-words-to-say-nothing responses, further action, and possibly substantially more drastic action, may be required. Or in short, let's be reasonably patient, but let's also be very clear that this is not an "Ignore them and they'll go away" situation. Much as some people at WMF may like it to, this situation is not going to vanish on its own. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  Well said. --Yair rand (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Goldenshimmer. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Just a question: Did you read anything about T&S's interactions with the Belgian branch yet? (Same rationale, same reply.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• I did, and I can't say I'm as worked up about it as anyone else. It seems like a he said, she said case, and I can't uncritically accept the alleged facts of either the incident or the investigation from the he-said side. I'm not sure what the correct resolution there should have been (and I don't think any of us here could be sure) but I what I read did not leave me up in arms. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
• I just saw what Goldenshimmer wrote, and I agree with them entirely. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• What would be in this sitenotice? "Wikipedia community angry after WMF tries to enforce a basic level of behavioural standards without getting a vote first"? "Wikipedia community bullies off at least one supportive admin after user with a long-term history of incivility is banned"? "Wikipedia community exposes all sorts of conspiracy theories and attempts to out harassment victim"? This page is an embarrassment, we shouldn't be trying to make it more public. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  Agree! Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  I think it was pretty clear that the purpose of the sitenotice was to encourage editors to petition the WMF regarding their actions. It does not need to be at all deliberately inflammatory in the manner you suggest, but as simple as, "This has happened. Please consider sending an email/petitioning/talking to these people." --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  That's not a reasonable, fair-minded summary of the situation at hand. If you can't accurately present the anti-WMF position(s), then kindly stop pretending that you can. Lepricavark (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Seraphimblade-ish and that it's simply an overreaction. Further, I'm of the opinion that any consensus developed here is not enough to warrant a sitenotice, even one only for logged in users. Many of the moderate-viewed users and users who aren't particularly suited for this sort of discussion have left. In total, this page has had less than 400 editors, most of which haven't inputted recently. Vermont (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this is the thing that keeps on giving. a sitenotice urging all editors to directly petition the WMF , who is speaking for the thousands amd thousands of wikipedia editors and readers that are not interested in this at all.Govindaharihari (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  Ah yes, because the Community wishlist survey, LGBT+, Anti-harassment tools sitenotices are assented to by 1000s of Wikipedia editors that are interested in them. Please keep your strawmans far and away from this thread and argue it on the basis that has been explicity argued, a community response. You're welcome. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  not sure what your actually saying, but a tiny-is amout of the conrtibutors to this project are bothered about Fram being banned, sorry. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  What I am saying is, what makes you think that sitenotices are placed because thousand of editors assent to it? It's placed by a group of editors, or even one, to make a larger number aware of a certain matter, which is what we're trying to do now. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  Sorry, this suggestion is going nowhere,there will be no such site notice, it's a rubbish idea, move on. The most embarrasing thing is when I see experianced quality contributors to the project suggesting and supporting such as this. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, in your mind, it certainly is going nowhere, but quit with your WP:IDLI attitude. Argue the merits of the idea instead of calling it a rubbish idea and asking me to move on, when there are multiple editors endorsing this as well, just because you don't like it does not discredit the idea. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  well good luck to you. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  Govindaharihari: ...the whole rubbish emotional reaction of a vocal minority of the so called wikipedia community. That's your opinion, but among those 400 are many of the editors and admins who represent the core of users who are concerned by the way Wikipedia is organised and managed and who have been singly or jointly responsible for bringing about some of the most important changes over the years. Whilst I acknowledge your oppose, you are not one of those people and your comments lack seriousness and professionalism. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  Well, if you would indent correctly that would be a start. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  we are getting off track, I have commented, take it or leave it, I am happy with either, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose for now, but not in principle per Seraphimblade. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Yair rand and Goldenshimmer. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose precisely for the reasoning given by Seraphimblade.Nishidani (talk) 06:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Plan F - Technical Feasibility of Black Out

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.

---

Striking has the risk of doing damage that we will literally never be able to undo, while risking actually giving more authority to the WMF.

Thus: Does the en-wiki community have the technical capability to lock and black-out the entirety of en-wiki?

I know it's normally handled by the Devs, but I imagine they might balk at getting involved. Thus, even if not done by the same means I was wondering if we could do something similar (even if "blunter" and less easily done)?

I think the WMF would be on more dubious grounds to overrule it (as it has been done before to advocate for actions to protect wikipedia), and it would let us present a case...which would give us both better moral and public grounds then a strike would. Finally it would be a dramatic step without ongoing damage to the project we fight to protect. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Technical Feasibility

• The community has the technical ability to do almost anything ... * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on the proposal if feasible

• Do we have to black-out all of en-wiki? We could just black out the frontpage. Rockstonetalk to me! 22:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

That would certainly be an alternate option, I mapped the SOPA angle, but a less extreme response would also make sense. Nosebagbear (talk)

• Absolutely not - The only reason a Wikipedia should be blacking out is to protest laws and ordinances that pose an existential threat to it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 22:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I proposed this as lots of editors have been thinking that the change of control does pose an existential threat to (depending on viewpoint) - wikipedia, en-wiki, the community etc. Thus far that's always been against laws - but I would dispute that those are the only potential variant. Nosebagbear (talk)

This is internal politics that, at worst, drastically changes the makeup of the editor corps and guts what few active administrators we have. A blackout is intended to draw readers' minds to an issue, and it goes without saying most readers are (1) unregistered and (2) don't care about the backstage areas or the politicking that goes on between the WMF and the projects. They will care after the fact, which is too late. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 22:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• No thanks, as per my reasons given in multiple sections above. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• I opposed the SOPA blackout, I oppose this too. Black out the fundraising banner if you like, but spare the content.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bori. This is an internal political matter and is the last thing we should be airing to the general public. This dirty laundry will eventually get out into the mainstream media, let's not help it along. Blackmane (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Wehwalt. Jimbo blacked out the site years ago over some political grandstanding, - I opposed it then - I oppose it now. — Ched :  ?  — 23:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I'd only support a blackout for something of much greater global importance than this. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Compared to the readers of Wikipedia and even its users, this is relatively minor—it's not nearly 'major' enough to warrant a blackout. Abequinn14 (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose doing anything directly destructive to the encyclopedia. While I supported that during SOPA, that was an existential threat to the project. This matter, while serious, is hopefully something that can still be worked out. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. I feel cold... —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: This is neither the time nor the proper situation for use of the nuclear option. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I would say "strong oppose" but I do not need to use "strong" to indicate the depth of my opposition. There have been many bad ideas floated in the last 10 days in response to this failure to communicate, and this is among the worst. This is a problem that needs serious ongoing work by level-headed people on both sides. This proposal is comparable to throwing a hand grenade into your rich landlord's house in a dispute over unresolved maintenance problems at your apartment and a rent increase that you do not like. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - keep our problems to ourselves and resolve them internally. No need to annoy millions of readers. Anarchyte (talk | work) 05:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - We need an open, full and proper explanation from the WMF, and then a discussion with them as to what is going wrong and what the future relationship should be. This is more like firebombing Parliament because you don't like a small change in the way taxes are collected. - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• I doubt I could be convinced to support anything that would cause collateral damage to our readers. People use our articles for potentially life-altering reasons. Once everything else has already been tried, then I might support Wehwalt's suggestion of blocking the fundraising banner. Directly affecting the WMF's bottom line is probably a much more effective form of protest anyways. Sunrise (talk) 07:41, 21 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.

Previous objections to this behavior from the WMF

In 2018, the WMF unilaterally removed the "selfunblock" ability from administrators, with minimal behind-the-scenes discussion, and no community consultation. At the time, there was a contentious discussion going on as to whether the community wanted to remove this ability, which went completely ignored by the WMF staff. I objected to the move for practical reasons, but regardless of the merits of the decision that was made, I noted my ideological objections, which are more relevant than ever before, and I think adequately summarize the problem we have right now:

• "... the point of contention about WMF staff showing a complete disregard for the community is a bigger issue. Completely unacceptable in any business situation, additionally insulting coming from an NPO towards its own volunteers, and even more so in the context of the precedent that Jimbo set to purportedly let the community govern. If you're going to take a decision out of the community's hands while they're actively discussing something, at least have the decency to be accountable for that ... you're still suggesting that you don't even see what the big deal is here. There's a contentious community discussion going on, you guys make a judgment call on your end to handle it unilaterally, and to you, that's the long and short of it. To us, okay, you've unilaterally overridden a community consensus-building process, something we hold sacred, something that no member of the community, regardless of standing, would ever be able to do, and you don't even have the decency to explain to us what you're doing and why, not even to give us the slightest indication that you're listening to the community's concerns, or even that you take the concept of a community-based project seriously, at all. The fact that you find this backlash 'strange' suggests that you don't understand the high level of importance that longstanding precedent, and transparency, and communication, and accountability have here, and it's all just happily arbitrary on your end, that's concerning, because it reveals a large disconnect between the culture at WMF and the culture within the community itself. I don't think the WMF has disdain for the community, but those are the optics you project in situations like this." —Swarm, 27 November 2018 — ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• I do not think it is fair to connect two unrelated incidents to make a case — the WMF devs working on Wikimedia-Site-requests are not related at all to the Trust & Safety team. There was an emergency situation and the devs took the correct reactive measure. There's no more to it. I do not have comments on your ideological rebuttal to the WMF but the removal of self-unblock right was necessary and warranted. --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @QEDK: although I agree that these two parts of WMF are not related, I also have the same type of comments on yet another part of WMF. I have now for 10 years been 'fighting' to get an extension overhauled (one that regularly results in questions from the community), and have in the last 2 years written a suggestion in the yearly meta community wishlist. In this last year, I was bluntly told that even if the request would gather enough !votes (it didn't), it would still not be considered as the devs do not have time for that. They on the other hand have time to write VE, MV, Superprotect.  This is NOT a T&S problem only, it is a general situation with WMF that they seem not to consider the community and what the community wants. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    • VE/MV were both in development for a long time and it was primarily that their development was so disconnected from the community that they being introduced received immediate backlash. As for superprotect, it was made to give WMF dictatorial rights, and I was, and I still am, in complete opposition to it, but bless the WMF for doing the correct thing and deprecating the right then. I agree that the WMF community engagement is well, not up to the mark, but that's probably an understatement. If I am right, though, you're referring to a MediaWiki extension, which although does intersect with the developers working on WMF sites, are done by different teams. And I am indeed aware of the voting system in place, the only way to sometimes get things done is to have a horde of editors agreeing with you, that there is an issue in the first place. I hope the WMF employs more people in technical areas with all the donations they get due to the hours we contribute for free, but I think, and I say this with great regret, the divide between the community and WMF is just getting wider and will continue being so. When WMF employees were involved in the community and worked in a close-knit group, things were better, but I doubt things will look like that anytime soon. But I'm sure, some of them, maybe a lot of them, are on our side, even if they were never editors in our community. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. It is a third part of WMF that shows an utter disconnect from editor community. The WMF has their own plan, and what the community wants/accepts/needs does not matter. And that criticism is utterly ignored by WMF (and other bodies have similar tendencies) ... until you break someone's back and they lash out (and normally ArbCom would then pull out the banhammer, remove the editor, not the problem). Their (WMF's) response here, banning Fram, is the same, but it just resulted in more of the community lashing out (and I don't think we ran out of 'rogue admins', you can just wait for the next situation). You don't solve the tumor, you remove the symptom. I'm sorry, all of us, editors and admins alike, 'harass' vandals, spammers, COI-editors, copyright violators, editors who do not or insufficiently cite their sources and you name it (and some of them are utter persistent). There are two ways of stopping that harassment: block the editor, or give them the tools to solve the problem. That is why we have pillars, policies and guidelines, but WMF (and similarly, often, ArbCom) choses to use the opposite, ban the editor and deny them the proper tools. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Swarm: I disagree about your summation of the 'unblockself' change, this was certainly done in coordination with community discussions to meet a need, these discussions led to the building of the special vengenceblock exception that was also incorporated at the time. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed. There was significant discussion on phabricator as well as other projects. Due to the global nature of account security, it was an action taken globally, and the WMF cannot ignore editors and discussions from other projects to favor English ones. Vermont (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't selfunblock removed in responce to the rash of account compromises (during which two admins were hit)? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

(←) You guys misremember. The community discussion was open and contentious at the time that "unblockself" was removed. "Vengenceblock" was added after the fact, as a result of condemnation and outcry. It was hastily added as a countermeasure, before things got out of hand. And, it is a reasonable countermeasure to accompany the removal of unblockself. I'm not trying to rehash that aspect. That said, the assessment of the WMF staff's behavior, in unilaterally making a major change to longstanding status quo behind the scenes with minimal discussion and no community consultation, is absolutely spot-on. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Plans A-Z

Set a course to serve up a "next step" choice between all of the above plans (plus a "do nothing unusual" option) for instant-runoff voting starting 2-3 weeks from now. Between now and then do the homework. If WMF comes through before that quite reasonable time frame, call it off. North8000 (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem with this is that the dialogue and compromise solutions (A&C I believe) are contingent on the WMF engaging - we can't make a unilateral decision to do it. Judging by the reaction to mine (F), that's out, so that leaves the current "action" plans of D&E: Forking and striking.

Both of them would require in excess of 75% compliance to be effective, and unlike, say, a policy, it requires 75% of every active editor - whether or not they engage in the discussion.

The point of this being that we'd need a discussion on what was to be accepted as sufficient support before a vote was held. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Jan Eissfeldt update (06/21/2019)

• 6/13
• 6/14
• 6/17

• T&S and ArbCom traditionally both triage outreach they receive internally, and then redirect an issue to the other team if appropriate. For example, ArbCom sends child protection issues it becomes aware of to T&S to be handled professionally by staff, while T&S points users who try to side-step community self-governance back to the committee or other community processes. The two teams also have a monthly call to coordinate on shared problems and for the committee to articulate questions or issues they have encountered.
• To address some of the questions users have raised in response to our process chart, I am happy to provide some more detail where I can. I want to highlight that the T&S workflow is not a parallel process to that of community governance - that is, it and ArbCom, for instance, are not doing the same work - but rather complementary, meaning that ArbCom handles things the Foundation should not, and the Foundation handles things no fitting community processes exist for. Regarding specific questions of our process:

• What does an investigation consist of?

• An investigation is a “deep dive” performed by a member of the Trust & Safety team into the information relevant to an incident. This can include material provided to the Foundation in a report, review of past community attempts to resolve the issue, and other relevant information surfaced in further staff research. The aim of a T&S investigation is to not just accurately evaluate the concerns brought to us but to also look at a user’s activities in the context of our projects, publicly and privately, over time. A typical completed investigation document includes a survey and analysis of the case, a suggested course of action, and a risk assessment. All these steps are concluded prior to me receiving the file as the first stage of review for approval as outlined in the graphic.

• Would a harassment case include things like contacting other possible victims?

• Yes, we sometimes reach out to other parties whose names come up in the course of an investigation. Whether or not we do this depends, obviously, on whether any other potentially-affected parties are identified, as well as whether it’s possible to reach out to third parties while respecting the privacy and safety of primary involved parties.

• Who makes the decision about whether a particular behavior is harassment?

• Initial case conclusions are made by the primary case investigator, who is a member of the Trust & Safety Operations team. As part of their investigation, the team member provides a listing of evidence and conclusions and makes a suggestion of a course of action. That recommendation is then reviewed, in turn and at a minimum, by other members of the Operations team, the manager of Trust & Safety Operations, and me. If the recommendation is something other than “take no action”, the suggestion is then also reviewed by the VP of Support & Services (Maggie Dennis), the Legal team, and the Executive Director. The Communications team and Talent & Culture team are also sometimes involved if the case is relevant to them.

• Under what circumstances would T&S refer a case back to community processes rather than investigate itself?

• Most issues are redirected to the community before they ever become a T&S case. This primarily occurs in situations where community governance and attempts to resolve the issue have not been exhausted. For instance, it is not uncommon for users to contact us about behavioral disputes which they have not attempted to resolve using community processes. In other cases, we receive requests to adjudicate a content dispute or complaints about general project governance. Because of our privacy obligations, we are usually not able to refer cases directly to ArbCom or the community - that is, we cannot forward a request on to ArbCom or ANI and say “hey, we think you should investigate this”; instead we will typically reply to the reporting party letting them know that their request is more suited for community governance and suggesting a venue at which they can pursue resolution within those local governance processes.

• Does T&S ask the case requester whether they want community processes to be involved?

• It is important to keep in mind that most outreach T&S receives is being redirected to the communities. Because we only take T&S cases where community governance is not a viable option, if we take a case, then the question of using community processes doesn’t arise because it has been looked at in the previous stage. In situations where we do not take a case, we will commonly suggest to the complainant a community process they can use instead.

• We are aware that proposals have been made that suggest the lifting of the ban on Fram in exchange for varying adjustments, such as the opening of an ArbCom case or the imposition of interaction bans. While we appreciate Fram and other volunteers exploring possible compromises, Foundation bans are non-appealable. I know that is, itself, a point of disagreement for many in the community; however, the policies governing T&S work are clear on this point. I appreciate in particular the idea put forward by Newyorkbrad and his having been explicit that it could only be valid if it is true that the community has reached accurate conclusions about the facts of the case. However, despite efforts by some community members to scrutinize the contributions of Fram and various people who are speculated to have complained to the Foundation, the community does not and cannot have all the facts of this case, meaning that NYB’s condition is not met.--Jan (WMF) (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)