Jump to content

Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 14

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. Enigmamsg 18:32, 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 Emergency@Wikimedia address used for reporting genuine crisis issues like credible suicide threats). Which in turn begs the question of just how this supposed stream of reports ever reached T&S in the first place, unless they were coming from insiders who knew the personal contact information of members of T&S. With every rock that gets overturned here, it starts to look more and more like the conspiracy theorists are right. ‑ Iridescent 18:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    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. Enigmamsg 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 emergency@wikimedia.org that's only for genuine life-or-death situations; if someone is using it to snitch on editors they don't like, that's a breach right there. ‑ Iridescent 18:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    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 ca@wikimedia.org. It's not present where it should be but I probably picked it up somewhere (tags on office-locked accounts methinks). --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    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)
      • 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)
      Thank you for the clarification. I don't think this is a realistic or even a desirable proposal. The relevant team at the WMF has made clear they are not willing to consider rescinding Fram's ban, and as I've argued above, not enough information is public for us to evaluate Fram's ban for ourselves. I'm not sure I fully understand the other part of the proposal – the T&S team is partly composed of longstanding community members, so if I'm not mistaken (which I may be, this is a complicated situation) in some sense it is already true that members of the community are handling harassment. At best, if you're proposing a different way to handle harassment, that's something that should be discussed in a calm, coolheaded manner that carefully weighs the pros and cons, not fought for with a strike. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This would be very destructive and unlikely to change anything. While I am personally on strike, that is more of a lost-interest-in-editing-because-of-this thing than a this-will-result-in-meaningful-change thing. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @Pythoncoder: and that is the point, the only thing that will be felt by WMF is that their top wiki goes to rubbish because people stop 'harassing' other people whose edits are below par. If readers really cannot trust material because it is not maintained they stay away, donations will dry up. I however do agree that it would only be effective if the participation is rather huge, but the prospect of seeing your material deteriorate fast and the consequences it has for WMF .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

*Oppose We all strike, They say "Fuck you, we'll just pay people to "moderate" the site, That aside I feel going on strike just creates a whole shit-ton of mess that we would have to clean up (pretty sure the WMF won't do bugger all), In theory sounds a great idea but in reality I think it would heavily backfire on us. –Davey2010Talk 00:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Striking as ironically 4 days later I went on strike (and as of writing this I still am). –Davey2010Talk 02:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion strike

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of RfC on correctness of the change

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

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

Independence?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jan Eissfeldt update (06/21/2019)

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

Community responses

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

Arbitrary break

  • If members of ArbCom or other functionaries believe they are targets of onwiki harassment by other users and complain to T&S, would T&S refer such a case to the local ArbCom (where it can be handled by community processes) or would you deal with the matter yourself? —Kusma (t·c) 21:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Add me to the editors who are unhappy about this statement. I'm going to speculate that Fram has been telling the truth and that Jan has been also, although one or both are unmistakably leaving something out. Fram says that he didn't do anything off-wiki. Jan says that there is important information that the community cannot know. Well, that means that there is something that T&S considers important that is off-wiki, and that it didn't come from Fram. So we pretty much know now that the ban was based on things that were sent privately to T&S by the person or persons who complained about Fram. And we know what Fram has done on-wiki. And since the ban was from only en-wiki, we know what Fram has done onsite here. And the community, for the most part, doesn't see something that merits a 1-year ban (and what is more, does not merit a global ban). So one or more persons have made accusations to T&S that would apparently be minority opinions on-wiki, and T&S decided that they would take serious action on it. And T&S decided that ArbCom would either be unable or incapable of dealing with it. At a minimum, this means that T&S have stricter standards about something than the community does, and that a relatively small number of editors who have views that are not widely held can forum shop to T&S if they don't like what they are getting here. Many of us have suspected all of this, and now we can be more certain that this is the case.
I don't expect WMF to clarify this. But I hope that our representative to the WMF Board, and ArbCom, will take a "deep dive", as it were, into that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
We also know that Fram is saying the email from WMF said this ban has been triggered following your recent abusive communications on the project (my emphasis); that at no point have any of the assorted WMF people claimed that Fram is falsifying the emails so it's reasonable to assume they're accurate reproductions; and that at the very least myself, Jéské Couriano in this thread, and probably a lot of others, have already done this "deep dive" of going through Fram's history diff-by-diff and found nothing other than "was rude about Arbcom" and had an argument with Fæ (and Fæ has been adamant they had nothing to do with this, something I've no reason at all to doubt; Fæ is not shy about making it known if they've complained about something). If any of these are things T&S consider worthy of a harsher block than the appealable-after-six-months blocks we give out to spammers, sockmasters and long-term vandals, somebody needs to let us know what has changed. ‑ Iridescent 22:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree. The "deep dives" that I want to happen should be done on the stuff that the rest of us are not allowed to access. In other words, a "deep dive" into what went wrong, and why. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
These are all Fram's deleted contributions for the past four months as of just after the block; as you can see, they're all just routine maintenance. I know TonyBallioni has checked if there was anything oversighted and found nothing of any concern. Either there's server-side suppression going on (which is technically possible but well into paranoid conspiracy territory), or someone is lying about this block coming from something that happened on-wiki. ‑ Iridescent 22:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I've checked through it as well all the way back to the time Fram got the initial warning. Most of it is very boring stuff, new page patrol edits, that kind of thing. I did also check revision deleted edits, but found nothing of concern there; those were deleted due to the actions of others where Fram happened to have an intervening edit, not because Fram said something that triggered a revdelete. There were some suppressed edits from ANI, but that appears to have been a large-scale suppression of many edits, and there's no indication that any inappropriate edit by Fram is what triggered the suppression (and if it were, chances are he'd already have been warned or blocked by the oversighter who handled it). But other than the bit of a spat with Fae (and I fully agree with Iridescent, I believe Fae when he says he had nothing to do with it), and the "fuck ArbCom" bit and some other heated comments in that scenario, I just don't really anything one wouldn't expect to find when looking through any admin or new page patroller's edit history. So either Fram is so good at hiding his misconduct he's fooled all of us, including several experienced admins, but the eagle-eyed WMF spotted what we missed, the WMF is making a mountain out of a molehill, or there is off-wiki evidence that they didn't even advise Fram about. The first scenario is, shall we say, exceedingly unlikely, and either of the latter two are unacceptable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
While server-side suppression is technically possible I don't think it is very likely given that WMF struggles to keep things going already (see phab:T223039 and phab:T224811). Manually deleting things from the database might break a lot of things, and I think we would know if WMF changed the database schema to add an extra field for this new feature. --Rschen7754 00:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I think a third party reported Fram based off of either the ArbCom or Fae incidents, and (as they have been known to do) T&S took the claims at face value without conducting any serious investigation. We know that neither Fae nor any ArbCom member contacted T&S with this information. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 00:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I am struggling to see how this is not a power grab by WMF. I am disappointed and I feel that the community is being treated disrespectfully. --Pine (✉) 22:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Apparently didn't happen either here or real life. That would leave social media. I have to assume the "deep dive" goes beyond wiki elsewhere on the internet, simply because they'd be stupid not to..--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Email is a more likely vector, not to mention social media is the last place you'd want to air a complaint that requires privacy and discretion. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 04:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Lets get some people "the community" trust, say Nybrad, Gorillawarfare, to look at "the evidendence" and report their conclusions. That is what Fram has suggested, but the WMF have stalled. Why? There has to be something else than "this is the law"...those "laws" were not given by God, or chiselled in stone, Huldra (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Huldra and Sphilbrick: I think that we already have a group of people that is authorized by the ENWP community to adjudicate cases with private evidence (if there is any), which is the ENWP Arbitration Committee. One of the many unclear elements of this case for me is how WMF came to have the opinion that Arbcom is untrustworthy. Even if WMF has persuasive evidence that Arbcom is untrustworthy, it appears to me that the manner in which WMF has handled this case is arbitrary, unwise, and disrespectful of the community. --Pine (✉) 02:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
What User:Iridescent said. Either User:JEissfeldt (WMF) is lying or Fram is lying, and I know who I believe. (Fram said here that everything he is banned for is on wiki.) At the moment the community's trust in the leader of WMF Trust and Safety is fast approaching zero. Huldra (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Based on what's publicly available (which I readily concede is not the full story) and the En-Wiki specific penalty, I do not see how the matter here does not fall within ArbCom's scope and competence. As such, the only legitimate reason for the WMF to act in this way is that they do not have confidence in ArbCom and our admins' ability to handle misconduct by high profile admins. If this is the case, and there are some grounds for concern given the difficulty we've experienced over recent years dealing with a few high profile and systematically uncivil editors and the comments from current and recent arbs about problems they experience when dealing with cases of harassment, would be very helpful for the WMF to explain the nature of their concerns so that work can begin work on addressing them - noting that this has to be a high priority. If the WMF acted for a different reason, I have major concerns about this action given that it seems to be a vote of no confidence in ArbCom and the volunteer admins who perform important roles in keeping this Wikipedia running. Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Exactly. In what world do you say that our policies and our court-of-last-appeal are deficient and not provide anything that would help get them up to par? Thus far, WMF has not explained how our policies are lacking or why, other than a vague "conflict of interest" handwave, ArbCom is not up to this task. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 00:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • There is one other possible condition under which the matter would possibly not go to ArbCom: if the person complaining was an employee of the WMF (possibly not the one previously mentioned). The WMF has (as far as I know, and note that I'm not a lawyer), some kind of duty of care towards their employees that might necessitate the matter being dealt with internally rather than by ArbCom, even if "the situation" happened on en-wiki. That wouldn't explain why the ban wasn't global, however - unless T&S thought Fran's behaviour was A-OK on every other project (or... the person(s) involved aren't active on any other projects that Fram is active on). Just throwing this out there. And add me to the people who are deeply disturbed by this office action and strongly object to the way things have been handled by T&S. Ca2james (talk) 03:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • That is a possibility, and we should be mindful of the possibility that this was legitimately a least-worst response from the WMF: it is obviously not in anyone's interest to have a situation where one of their staff members (or anyone else) faces risks or is harmed as the result of lodging a complaint. I'm certainly troubled by Jan's comments about their team needing to be anonymous due to the real risk of threats of violence against them - I'm sure that even the strongest critic of the WMF's actions here want all members of the team to be safe. If it is the case that that issues around a duty of care guided the WMF's response, they should tell us to help efforts to address the problem. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • But if that legitimately is the case that the commplainant's calling from inside the house, then talling us anything has a much greater risk of outing them given the relatively small number of WMF employees in question. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 10:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This response is another verbose fuck you. I think the only new information from this post is a confirmation that T&S will not be providing any acceptable response. In my mind this gives the community the green light to implement direct actions to correct this. At this point, I have lost all confidence in Trust and Safety, and I hope Jimbo or Doc James can end this before relations between the community and the broader WMF are further damaged. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
It should be an interesting board election next year if all this continues.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Ironic that the Trust and Safety team has lost the trust of the community. Either they need to be replaced completely by trustworthy people who know how to communicate in the most basic ways, or they need to have very little, if any, power to do anything on the English Wikipedia. I know for a fact that I do not trust T&S, and safety is questionable at this point given the comments above. - Aoidh (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
The T&S team hasn't lost my trust. I think that they have failed to explain why they needed to take action here (in terms of procedure and why it couldn't be handled by ArbCom, rather than the details of the case), but the team has a good track record. Nick-D (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
You're right, I should not have spoken for everyone. It's possible that what they did was completely legitimate, but given how it's been handled, I don't trust that it was. I also don't trust that they can handle things correctly, even when the reason for the actions are valid. - Aoidh (talk) 02:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • What, exactly is meant by this? However, despite efforts by some community members to scrutinize the contributions of Fram and various people who are speculated to have complained to the Foundation, the community does not and cannot have all the facts of this case, meaning that NYB’s condition is not met. (Emphasis mine) Are you making a list of editors that you suspect have complained to the foundation for the next round? SQLQuery me! 03:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
That just refers to the people who have been suggested as having been the person who reported Fram. Are speculated to have complained, not are speculating as to who complained. nableezy - 03:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I find this to be confirmation that there exists a body that takes it upon itself the ability to make unaccountable decisions. That the easiest way to get rid of somebody will be to make a complaint to a body who need not even interview the person in question to get their perspective, who will not even inform them of what they are accused of, and who will not allow any appeal. We have all accepted this in the case of certain serious issues, but nobody has even pretended that is the issue here. I was accused the other day of stalking to an article I had edited 6 whole years prior to the person who accused me. The T&S team apparently would take this accusation as proof positive of my guilt and ban me without allowing me the opportunity of offering a defense. Jimbo, if this is not what you had intended to have happen then you need to say so. Loudly, directly, and yes publicly. Because this offends me to my core, and to be honest, I dont even really give a shit about Fram. nableezy - 03:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Foundation bans are non-appealable. I know that is, itself, a point of disagreement for many in the community; however, the policies governing T&S work are clear on this point." Given that these are the policies the foundation created it seems rather odd that there would be an attempt to argue that the foundation can't change them. "Limited by policies" lacks a certain credibility when you wrote said polices.©Geni (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @JEissfeldt (WMF): By blocking Fram and refusing to comment on whether her statement about relevant diffs is true, you have created an "anti"-harassment process where the penalty and the defense are public, but the allegation is unexpressed. The way I see it, either Fram is sanctioned actually because he made some or all of the diffs he mentioned - in which case the penalty is massively unreasonable, no matter whether they were required to put him "on warning" or as the "final straw" - OR you are intentionally leaving some people like User:LauraHale and User:Raystorm in harm's way, leaving them positioned as "fall guys" to take the flack that someone else started, without even being willing to speak up and so "no, it wasn't them." Further, no one believes that you really "HAVE TO" block anybody for a year and only a year - that's not how legal or litigation pressure usually works! So I believe that you want to block someone for reasons you say we don't have, which if true means that you have intentionally set up other editors to take off-wiki and on-wiki abuse and doxxing because you think you can take some kind of secret action "to make the wiki better". No, you are not making the wiki better -- none of this antithetical closed-culture sit-down-and-shut-up not-an-editor-just-a-petitioning-bum-at-the-mercy-of-WMF nonsense is ever going to make the wiki anything but worse. Wnt (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Wnt: One thing you should *never* do when trying to keep the identities of people confidential in cases like this is say "No, it wasn't them", because that sets you up for the next time you fail to say it and the then obvious assumption that it *was* them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
    I'd say it's especially boneheaded to give out just one bit of evidence to Fram with a single identifiable "victim", and then stonewall on everything else. It's possible LH would have gotten flak for this regardless, but T&S practically put a target on her back with this stupidity, whether or not she filed the complaint that led to the ban, and whether or not there are secretly 100 other complainants. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Boing! said Zebedee: Normally I would probably agree with you. But there is one exception to that general rule, namely when you've already appeared to point at a person and say it was him. Then it would make some sense to, at the very least, back off and say no, you didn't mean to say that diff was the reason for the block. And the way Fram tells it, it doesn't seem like the 'warning' was really making much effort to keep anything confidential at all, and if the block wouldn't have happened without it, I'd say there's nothing confidential except what, if anything, is Jan Eissfeldt's thought process. Wnt (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @JEissfeldt (WMF): We know already per your responses that off-wiki evidence generated by the complainant(s) was used in the consideration process for the ban. But has any off-wiki activity by Fram been considered? Fram has denied partaking in any questionable behavior off-wiki. If he is lying you should say so explicitly, and we would be satisfied with that answer. If not we expect a better explanation. As Wnt indicated before me, the cat's out of the bag already, so you might as well be fully transparent and quell the rumors. For example, if you provide a dump of 20 or more diffs (the more the merrier) showing the full extent of Fram's behavior that led to the ban it will 1) show the community the standards to which T&S holds the ToU, as "harassment" means different things to different people; and 2) cast a wide net since you'd be showing Fram acting that way to many different people, making it impossible to pinpoint the complainant(s). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @JEissfeldt (WMF):: Although it's true that there's a lot the community doesn't know about this, I feel like you've already told us enough to reach the most important conclusion. The initial statement at the top of the page says that you did consider going through ArbCom (ie. it was an option), but that it was rejected because privacy measures would mean that the best we could have given Arbcom in this case would have been a distillation of the case, severely limiting their ability to handle it and because Fram's criticism of ArbCom could put volunteers into a very difficult position and create the appearance of a conflict of interest regardless of the actual handling of the case. Given the damage the mishandling of this incident has done to the project, I think it's fairly reasonable to say that that was a mistake and that you should have gone with ArbCom regardless? The reputational damage with the community here vastly exceeds anything ArbCom could have suffered from a theoretical conflict of interest (especially since, of course, the WMF was also one of Fram's targets, something that has, inevitably, led to the exact same appearance and ensuing grumbling you were trying to avoid - but with significantly more damage because unlike ArbCom members, the WMF can't be replaced or held accountable in any way if the community thinks they are abusing this trust.) Not only that, but the massive blowback has significantly endangered the people whose complaints led to this situation - that shouldn't be the case, but the reality is that, whether in public or private or offsite or wherever, trying to guess exactly what happened here is going to be a parlor-game for years to come, endangering the privacy of everyone involved. None of that would have happened if you'd just gone through ArbCom - the case might have been awkward, there might have been some grumbling if it led to a ban based on sealed evidence, but this five-alarm catastrophe and the ensuing fallout wouldn't have happened. I think that what most people are looking for, here, is some affirmation that, in similar cases, the WMF will go through ArbCom in the future when it is at all feasible to do so; and that, based on the stated justifications (ie. the things you have told us) there wasn't enough justification to skip past ArbCom in this case. --Aquillion (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

What is the WMF doing?

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

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

It is going to:

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

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

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

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

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

The flowchart

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

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

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

A plea for civility and to avoid hounding

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram/Archive_9&oldid=1143187090"