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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Prior participant pings

Pinging all participants/mentions to this discussion while it was at WP:BN in case they want to watch the page. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Time to move?

The WMF's actions here have rightly sparked outrage, and deserve a coordinated and considered response from as many members of the community as possible. As this thread is now sprawling, to aid a clear and structured discussion I suggest setting up a dedicated page (titled Wikipedia:Community response to Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram or similar), then advertise it through utilities such as WP:CENT and MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages as previously suggested.

Once the discussion has been moved, we should focus on drafting a letter or petition akin to meta:Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer requesting the WMF undo their ban and instead pursue sanctions through usual community processes. More radical proposals such as banning WMF accounts, an administrator strike or halting Main Page activities can also be discussed, but I fear these may not achieve a complete consensus. – Teratix ₵ 11:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Teratix:, possibly, though I'm concerned with us coming up with an answer, and then having the community board members tells us (post the board meeting on the 14th June), that actually, the WMF's actions were justified and justifiably vague. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I am betting against it. ∯WBG^converse 11:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

That scenario can be considered if and when it happens, and if the board does come up and say "actually, the WMF were justified for reason X" – great! But until it does, based on what we know currently I'm struggling to envisage a scenario where the ban has been competently handled all the way through. Assuming Fram is accurately representing the series of events (and until he is contradicted I see no reason to doubt this) there was absolutely no reason to bypass usual community processes, which is the core of the issue, and a one-year ban with no course of appeal for minor to moderate civility violations (possibly even justified, though I haven't looked deeply at the disputes in question) is grossly disproportionate. – Teratix ₵ 12:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes please, I'm fine at least temporary translcuding the page here so people can find it easily and pinging the prior participants on the new page's talk. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  I concur that moving is probably a good idea. In the interest of avoiding edit conflicts - I will perform this move, and will transclude the resulting discussion here when finished. Primefac (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac: thanks for doing the dirty work here, but wouldn't this be better off as a talk page to an actual proposal/statement? This jumble is hardly that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

People still haven't even figured out what they want to propose. Not sure throwing this on a talk page will do any good. Primefac (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Secondary discussion

Would it be feasible to get a watchlist notice on this? Get more people than the usual policy wonks here to weigh in? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 10:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Up until yesterday, this page received about the same number of pageviews as my errors page. Let's reach out to the whole community. Perhaps we can add something to the main page........ The Rambling Man (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I have mentioned this proposal at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages. If there is no opposition it can be added. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe someone can edit T:CENT and add a link to here, and/or announce on the usual dramaboards. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 10:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Idealy we would have a coherent objective (petition, !vote to use sitenotice, whatever).©Geni (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Somebody open an arbcom case against User:WMF Office; that will force hands one way or another. 5.69.233.115 (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)x2 The Committee has no jurisdiction over: (i) official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff;. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 11:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  No. But it can take notice of conduct outside its jurisdiction when making decisions about conduct on the English Wikipedia if such outside conduct impacts or has the potential to impact adversely upon the English Wikipedia or its editors. Even exemplary on-wiki conduct will not prevent a ban for off-wiki harassment, and as far as arbcom jurisdiction is concerned, "official action" and "off-wiki action" are in the same bucket. In the Media Viewer RfC case, I was going to propose a remedy desysopping the (then-) WMF employee had he not resigned his tools. T. Canens (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think a watchlist notice is beneficial, but a CENT notice definitely is. Nosebagbear (talk)
• I don't really have much to say here (and I'm still on the fence on any possible action so I'll not comment on any of the above sections for now), other than that the lack of transparency from the WMF on the matter is worrying, especially after reading Fram's comments. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• As noted below, this discussion is going to be moved elsewhere, which presumably makes such a thing easier. That being said, while the message is "The WMF did a bad thing to en.wiki," I would think the optics are closer to "The WMF did a bad thing to an admin." At least at this juncture, when the leading proposal is "go bonkers" rather than something concrete, I would think such a notice would appear to be closing ranks. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Now the discussion has been moved I have listed it on CENT – this issue clearly needs widespread community input. – Teratix ₵ 13:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• (merged from a standalone comment) There has been some talk of advertising this discussion. I suggest it gets added to T:CENT but as it is currently worded as a "single user issue" that watchlist or "higher" type notifications are unwarranted. Should a general RfC about community/foundation interactions be formulated, I'd support wider advertisement. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Better way of saying what I was trying to. "Come be angry with us" isn't a good watchlist notification, but "Come sign this petition" is. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Fram's explanation

As noted on Wikipediocracy, Fram has made a STATEMENT about the situation at Commons. Personal score settling against one of WMF's biggest critics, it would seem. Carrite (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

It was cross-posted almost immediately to Wikipedia after Fram posted that on Commons. I suspect that where the site you mentioned found the statement (on en.wiki). See [1] Enigma^msg 19:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright and edits from role accounts

(moved from main discussion)

• Just a quick (repeat) observation here that WMFOffice is a WMF contact role account, which is "generally prohibited from editing Wikipedia due to copyright concerns." Please use your staff account. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: We should really have an RFC about that after all this. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  I second this. Who exactly are we hearing from here? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) An office action, including theoretically statements issued using this account on behalf of the WMF, is not subject to consensus. (Also, if releasing a statement from the WMF composed by an employee in that role, copyright lies with the WMF and there are no copyright concerns.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  An employee? I would be fairly surprised if the reply here is the work product of a single employee. Seems more likely to involve several. I mean even a PR 'signed' by the CEO I assume tends to actually involve more people than the CEO in its construction. I agree on the 'work for hire' point. Nil Einne (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Of course, which is another reason it makes sense to use this account. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Withdrawn, per global policy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Question for whomever

I'm probably unable to read things right or something stupid. I just reread the Terms of Use, and now I am confused. I checked to see if anyone else asked about this, and it would seem this comment by Levivich:

• It would be nice if they at least told us which term of the TOU was violated. Otherwise, how is a community suppose to improve its ability to uphold its own autonomous rules and the Terms of Use without knowing what the violation was? "This community has consistently struggled to do something but we won't tell you what it is, instead we're going to ban this admin for a year" is probably not a message that should have been sent. – Levivich 00:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Only in death does duty end did ask So does that mean you have determined that the ENWP's community failed to uphold its own rules or the TOU in relation to Fram, despite no actual case, action or report being raised against Fram on ENWP? in response to the WMF statement.

In the section WMF conduct warnings, there seems to be some speculation on this matter. However, does anyone know or can speculate as to what provision of the TOU Fram is said to have violated?

The closest I've come to an answer is either: (A) It is being said by WMF he was [e]ngaging in harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism, or (B) They are enforcing the preamble to section 4 which ...[encourages users] to be civil and polite in your interactions with others in the community [emphasis added].

Is this about right? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

That accords with my understanding, yes, --Xover (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• I personally suspect, but I doubt it will be confirmed, is that T&S have essentially taken on the role of enforcing their own ideological civility standards. Realistically the only reason under their own current TOU they can block editors for *editor conduct* on a wiki with existing frameworks in place to manage editor conduct is that part I quoted - that they believe the existing processes are insufficient and unable, regardless of if any case is actually raised, to address that conduct. This is leaving aside issues that I *do* expect the T&S team to take the lead on, eg conduct which is a)illegal, b)serious harrassment, c)poses a genuine safety issue, none of which has even been hinted at applying to Fram and there is certainly no on-wiki evidence of such.

My problem with this is that the T&S are not members of the ENWP community. They are employees of the WMF and US-centric corporate ideological culture as to what is and is not 'civil' is not the standard by which ENWP manages its own editors. Its own standards and policies apply and unless those are followed, the T&S is essentially taking on the self-appointed role of civility police. And that is just not going to stand. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Problems with civility among editors have been thought to be a serious problem at ENWP for quite some time. More recently civility problems are seen as being a barrier to more even participation across demographic groups. I share the goal of improving civility. But I do not believe that a one-year office ban of Fram is a good way to achieve that goal: both on process grounds, and because I do not believe Fram's conduct is egregious enough to be worth singling out. UninvitedCompany 19:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

It’s no way to achieve the goal as long as they refuse to specify where they drew the line and why. Hanging a sword of Damocles overhead can at best have a vaguely chilling effect, while mainly serving to heighten the sort of anxiety or paranoia that makes for frayed tempers and overreaction to criticism, hence less civility.—Odysseus1479 22:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

WMFOffice, if you could please address this in your next statement; I'd appreciate it. You mentioned section 4, but did not elaborate on which specific provision of that suggestion is at concern here. Thank you, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

To be quite blunt, it doesn't matter what exactly they think, because they're entitled to block any person for any reason, arbitrarily, should they so choose. Trumblej1986 (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I moved again

I added a 'the' to the title. Please help check if there is and extra cleanup I left out. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 03:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's please hold any new plans or actions until business hours--night attacks are dishonorable

It's my understanding that WMF offices are located in San Francisco. It is far, far too late to be throwing things at media outlets and starting things on Twitter. For those of you who are in my time zone or near it, I suggest you put down the pitchforks and torches for the night. WMF is not going to be able to respond to anything which has been said in here for the past several hours until what is for them and for me, tomorrow morning.

Floq gave them the courtesy of a notice and some time to review the situation and attempt to respond. Whatever else you have to say about that, I think that was a good touch on Floq's part. Let's all get some sleep (those of us in the western hemisphere, anyway) and see what WMF has to say in the morning. Again, I don't think it is fair, productive, or responsible to continue to escalate the situation when WMF cannot respond. It is not a giant corporation with thousands of employees staring at Twitter 24/7 to deal with PR issues.

I don't say this to discount anyone, their ideas, their opinions, or their feelings. I'm also not suggesting anyone stop talking, merely that we stop planning actual actions, particularly unilateral ones such as going to the press. I am deeply disappointed in how the WMF has handled this situation. But let's just cool it till the morning. Let's all remember that these are actual people on the other side who have families and goals and lives to take care of, and let's please act accordingly. Prometheus720 (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The focus should be on tech-oriented news sites at this point anyway - Wired, Ars Technica, Techdirt, etc. Since the WMF seems to not want to listen to us anyways, we go for their flank. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 05:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think you are assuming that all WMF employees are based around San Fran but I don't think they are, not by a long shot. I'm also astonished that the Lead for T&S seems to be outsourced to a contractor. - Sitush (talk) 05:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

wait, wat. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 05:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK, all people who don't work at SF office are contractors, and it doesn't mean they are outsourced or anything like that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Galobtter, remote workers outside the US, for various legal reasons, often are better off being employed as contractors than employees of an American institution. While they are technically contractors, they are treated internally like any other employee. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured it was something like that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Please define Night in a global enterprise. Just now the day has just begun, it's early in the morning and I'm consuming my morning coffee. In the UK it's one hour later, in New Zealand it's in the early evening, Australia a bit earlier, the US is somewhere between UK and NZ. So: When, exactly, is night? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 05:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

That would effectively preclude thousands of Eastern Hemisphere users from watching, commenting and participating. Considering the thousands of bytes that were added between 10pm and 7am Australian Eastern time from my perspective, I do understand the difficulty of the situation, but given this whole argument is about the priorities of the WMF against those of the local community, it would be grossly inappropriate to unilaterally restrict the ability of the enWP community to participate. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• There should not be any restrictions on comments based on time of day since this is a worldwide project. I happen to live about 32 miles from the San Francisco WMF offices and it is close to bedtime for me. But if people are making productive, level headed comments instead of incendiary comments, they should not be concerned with the time of day or night in San Francisco. Just keep your cool. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where the offices are. Users of en.wiki are located around the world and indeed, many of the WMF operatives are not located in SF. Enigma^msg 05:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

User right removal

I suppose this is relevant. I have (successfully) requested the removal of my template editor user right, as a direct response to this incident. It seems no one else has posted any similar requests to WP:AN, though. Jc86035 (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Why's that, Jc86035? ——SerialNumber54129 14:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: What are you referring to? (I don't know why no one else has asked for their permissions to be removed on that particular page.) Jc86035 (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I read it as Serial asking why you resigned, although I understood it as a protest measure. Enigma^msg 16:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

What do we want?

If we're going to issue a statement to the WMF, we need to have a clear ask. There's a few proposals on the main page already to the effect of "here's what we're going to do", but I don't see much discussion of what we're actually asking for. I have some thoughts: (these aren't proposals, just brainstorming)

1. Immediately rescind Fram's unilateral office ban?

   ... and then proceed with WP:LEVEL2 procedures?

2. Condemn the behind-closed-doors action of the Trust & Safety team, in an instance where privacy does not appear to have been an issue?

   Community ban T&S' staff accounts, for violating our community banning policy?

   Demand the resignation/termination of Trust & Safety?

3. Demand that the Wikimedia Foundation defer to the enwiki community and/or the Arbitration Committee for local matters, as a first step?

   ... assert that the WMF has no authority to impose local bans at all?

Feel free to add to the list, or discuss below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

1 and the first part of 2 at a minimum. – Teratix ₵ 14:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I for one would like T&S to focus on actual safety issues, in particular child protection, and commit to not involving themselves in civility policing or otherwise interfering with or overruling the processes we have in place for routine disputes among editors. 28bytes (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely endorse that.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Pinged, thank you, was thinking about bats [which are cool] but here I am :| Our colleague is communicating a response, that changes the whole complexion of this situation. I hope that Fram is willing to forbear any inconvenience, because the governance, delegation of authority and our endorsement of that, could hinge on the next actions. @Fram: do you think this agreeable, and that an emergency reversal of the action is not a solution? My outlook is to improvement of our processes, which without detailing some other possibilities for an extraordinary action appear to have taken an undesirable course. cygnis insignis 14:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Cygnis insignis, How are you expecting Fram to answer your ping? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  It is a symbolic yet meaningful gesture, this page is readable and the user can respond if they wish (by proxy). Obvious with AGF, which is another option available to anyone here. cygnis insignis 16:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• I think it's clear that most editors don't want the latter two parts of 2, at least not yet. Certainly User:Floquenbeam doesn't. I think almost everyone wants 1, unless the WMF suddenly shares compelling evidence with arbcom. Personally, I think the second part of 3 needs to be a separate discussion, as even if the community is okay with WMF bans in certain circumstances, they aren't okay with this. In summary, I think you could get a lot of support for a petition with 1 and a watered-down 2 if the WMF doesn't respond today. GreyGreenWhy (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• I would like WMF to make their announcements from accounts associated with specific people. This practice of using a multi-user role account intended for performing office actions for making anonymous announcements about office actions is, in my opinion, a misuse of that permission. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Note that the ban, based on available evidence, is in regards behaviour (civility, in essence) and not abuse of tools or similar. That is, the removal of the bit is incidental to the block. On overturning of the block the bit comes back along with editing access. Any community process following up based on whatever the WMF give as concerns starts with normal behaviour correction (trout, iban, tban, civility restriction, short block, etc.) and only if something specifically incompatible with holding the bit comes up do any procedures for removing the bit come into play. (interface admin or checkuser is perhaps a different matter under the circumstances, but also less important here). None of the entry criteria for L2 are met on the evidence, nor even alleged by the Office. Someone would need to credibly assert that to be the case before L2 is relevant. --Xover (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• So the latter parts of 2 would be absurdly OTT at this point. We'd be risking those with safety issues - the area they should be focusing on. I do support the first part of 2, and probably part 1. Nosebagbear (talk)
• I do support some action (that I've written above), but I'd like to specifically motion that any statement be held in abeyance until June 15th, to give the board and ARBCOM a chance. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I'm going to put my oar in. 1 and 1(a) goes without saying, in full, absent any additional communication on this matter from the Foundation; as does 2. (Of course, L2 criteria are irrelevant in this case, as we, through ArbCom or the community, did not sanction Fram; but if it helps it be more palatable to others, sure.) I'm in favor of 2(a), personally, as this was an egregious insult to the community and the Arbitration Committee (they basically called us incompetent), but even I feel 2(b) is going a bit far. All the same, 2(b) can be watered down. However, it's likely 2(a) and 2(b) will fail if put before a community vote, and it's best to save those for a second (or third) petition, as needed, should this (or something of this magnitude) occur again. Finally, 3 depends on the situation: if it's a suicide threat or death threat or matters of those nature, certainly, the WMF need not defer to us as a first step; but I would hope that the Foundation defers to the community in almost all other matters. But that may or may not pass a vote, as I said. Lastly, 3(b) is a non-starter at this time, both for me and, probably, the community. As GreyGreenWhy notes, that's a separate discussion altogether. And action should be taken before next week, preferably within 96 hours of this comment. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• (responding to many points) When I mentioned LEVEL2, I was thinking that would be a reasonable outcome iff T&S communicates privately to Arbcom that a private submission revealed evidence supporting a case for desysopping, which I believe would be standard practice. I believe Od Mishehu was just very recently desysopped under remarkably similar circumstances: misconduct was reported privately to T&S, T&S informed Arbcom, Arbcom followed process. There's no reason at this point to suspect that the issue with Fram was not something that could have been deferred to Arbcom, as Praxidicae said yesterday it's clearly an issue they didn't feel required global action and it took them six weeks to "investigate" anyway, unless as many have guessed this is also a statement by T&S that they believe Arbcom is incompetent. None of these possibilities are a good look for the WMF.

As for Nosebagbear's point, sure. We can state the background and some demands (I'm using that word loosely), present it to the WMF, and if the Board fails to respond after their meeting, we have stated how we intend to escalate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Formatting - @Seraphimblade: started their own petition just before we all jumped this way. His summary blurs various things, and I wouldn't suggest including it "as-is". However, I think adding the timeline and a summary of what has happened is a worthwhile addition - whatever we opt for here. Any petition would be read by many who were not active in the lengthy discussion on the noticeboard. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Nosebagbear, that's more of a "get thoughts on the page" exercise than anything that's even near fully baked yet. Don't worry, I've got no intention of posting it today or anything like that; I think we need to let the situation settle and WMF have a fair chance to respond first. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• There are a number of things I would like from T&S.

1. To accept that the WMF and the ENWP community are co-equal partners who work in different ways to further the same objective.
2. To adjust the balance towards clear, open communication with the community regarding the justification for office actions, while still respecting actual privacy requirements and genuine legal limitations. Nowhere in the privacy policy does it state that users may not be called out for their bad behavior -- on the contrary, the ability to do so is a core part of our culture. For example, in regard to Fram, there is no privacy-related reason not to reveal what part of the Terms of Use were violated, and there is no privacy-related reason not to reveal the history of those violations. There is also no legal exposure in revealing this information, assuming it is factual.
3. To respect the right to informed, considered dissent in matters of project governance, even when it is perhaps not artfully expressed..
4. To recognize that criticism of Wikipedia processes and institutions is not tantamount to a personal attack.
5. To give the community the space that it needs to allow its own processes to work. To forward complaints to representatives of the community when appropriate.
6. Regarding Fram in particular, to give the community leave to reverse the WMF ban and restore adminship itself, while allowing community processes (i.e. arbitration) to proceed if appropriate. I believe it is symbolically important for the actual reversal to be by the community rather than by WMF.
7. To engage with the community regarding WMF's goals for Terms of Use enforcement and civility, rather than trying to create social change through poorly-chosen enforcement actions.

UninvitedCompany 15:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@UninvitedCompany: - point 1 is iffily phrased. Within en-wiki's bit of the community, I'd say we are actually dominant (or should be), but on a global scale, I think the other Communities would right be appalled by such a statement! Phrasing would be rather key in anything we send Nosebagbear (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@UninvitedCompany: notwithstanding any nitpicking about exact wording, I support and endorse this as a framework for a statement of principles. Well done. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

On #1, amend to specify that on enwp T&S and the community process are co-equal etc. For T&S to step in as they appear to have done here might be a very good thing on smaller projects without robust community processes: but on enwp there needs to be very clear boundaries to avoid arbitrary enforcement. The crux of that point is that T&S doesn't operate based on or limited by enwp's policies, and is not subject to the same checks and balances (community review of blocks, say), and we cannot have a situation where the same behaviour is prosecuted to different standards depending on who gets the complaint. On enwp, T&S needs to limit themselves to dealing with the crap the community is fundamentally unable to handle (death treaths, illegal material, etc.), and let the community deal with everything else. On projects without the maturity level of policy and community process that enwp has, the equation is quite different. --Xover (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree, Xover. I had left that out for brevity. Perhaps it does in fact belong. I wonder whether part of the etiology of this whole matter is in WMF/T&S being accustomed to dealing with the myriad fledgling projects that lack strong local leadership, then trying to generalize that approach to DE and EN. UninvitedCompany 17:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Always assume cluelessness before malice. Without direct enwp experience (which we cannot assume all T&S employees have), the above is not obvious, and the resulting crisis seemingly inscrutible and certainly not predictable. Contrariwise, for enwp editors without experience from other, smaller, projects, the T&S actions appear like overreach so egregious that it cannot possibly be motivated by anything but malicious intent. The two groups' frames of reference not only do not overlap but actively contradict eachother. The only way out is good communication; which is nowhere in sight right now, and may in fact soon become impossible unless we can get a reset and deescalate. --Xover (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Looking closer, I'm not sure what sort of culture has emerged at the other once-small projects that have since grown. ENWP was just over 100,000 articles when I got here and had most of the processes developed (including arbcom) by the time it reached 1,000,000 articles. There are now 16 Wikipediae at least that size, plus commons and some of the wiktionaries. Though the small projects may outnumber the large ones, they're both part of the job for WMF staff. UninvitedCompany 19:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• What I want is for the WMF to know their place. We've had similar issues with other 'bodies', where they overreach. Certain editors have made comments about the Fram situation along the lines of "well, I'm sure Fram did something really awful, so the actions must've been justified." What they don't seem to grasp is that what Fram did here should not really be the concern. The concern is the WMF taking actions like these. They refuse to communicate. They blanked and fully protected Fram's user and talk page. They disabled e-mail access, and they took targeted action related to the English Wikipedia. None of this is supposed to be within their purview, although I know they rewrite the rules to make whatever action they take be covered. If there's an English Wikipedia issue, it should be handled on the English Wikipedia, period. Enigma^msg 18:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Speaking for myself, I want to see this "convenience" ban rescinded immediately as overreach by the WMF office. It is not a "trust and safety" issue, so far as I can tell, but rather a kneecapping of an inconvenient person. If the violation were really so egregious, it would not be time limited nor targeted to one wiki only. This is a behavioral punishment, quite clearly. The community regulates behavior on this site, not unappealable, unelected, and frequently ill-informed bureaucrats in San Francisco. We should not give an inch here, otherwise the multimillion dollar corporation in SF will take a mile. If this IS a true "trust and safety" matter, then a detailed explanation is necessary as to why this particular outcome was selected rather than a complete site ban. This whole San Fran Ban system is a slippery slope and it looks to me like wannabe power brokers are flexing... Carrite (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• I would suggest converting the block to an {{ArbComBlock}} and letting ArbCom do their own investigation. --Rschen7754 18:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• To Enigmaman and others posting similar things about the WMF knowing its place: I'm afraid we editors have about the same relationship to the WMF by now, that Facebook members have with Facecorp. I don't think cluelessness and malice are mutually exclusive. WMF might be malicious while simultaneously being clueless enough to not recognize its own malice (we deal with good faith malicious editing on WP all the time). I'm not sure at all that the WMF and the editing communities are pursuing the same goal. I'd agree that the goals at least overlap to some extent. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Ivanvector brainstorming ideas here are wonderful proposals. I am shocked at this ban. I would like Fram to be unbanned and the situation be clarified. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Userbox

Userboxes

This user opposes the Wikimedia Foundation's arbitrary, opaque, and dictatorial office-banning of administrators when the community and ArbCom are more than capable of handling the issue themselves.

This user desires open communication and respect from the Wikimedia Foundation for the English Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes.

This was way overdue. User:Pythoncoder/Userboxes/Wikimedia. Feel free to improve. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I made a similar one with maybe a bit less aggressive language. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC) - I should probably link to it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Just wondering out loud here, but do userboxes have an effect? If one editor has a userbox expressing their displeasure with something, does it have an effect? If it's not merely one, but 50, does it have an effect? I suppose there's not much harm in me adding it to my page, but... Enigma^msg 23:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Enigmaman: no, no effect at all. Just decoration. Some userboxes add users to a category, and these could add to, say, Category:Wikipedians who want Fram unbanned, but this whole thing is complicated enough without waking up the WP:USERCAT police. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The nature of Fram's offense

So here's what this is all about folks: https://i.imgur.com/bfLLmzQ.png https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/magazine/jimmy-wales-is-not-an-internet-billionaire.html Vranak (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a red herring. Fram is (was) a prolific editor and crossed many paths. On his talk page Jimbo sounded uninformed about this at the beginning, rather than leaping in to favor the ban as you'd expect if he'd been the power behind it. Wnt (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. This doesn't mesh at all with the facts we know about. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Wnt and Jéské Couriano: - guys, I too took it seriously at first, but then I thought it was a joke. It's from 2013.... starship.paint (talk) 08:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Vranak: - if this was a joke can you shift it to the talk page? This page is too large already. starship.paint (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Which talk page? You can copy it across if you like. Ping me again when you do. Vranak (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

here's the thing though: if you're getting into conflicts with Jimmy Wales of all people, you're already in the wrong. You've gotta remember who started this whole project. Realpolitik and all that. There's no point in holding fast to your principles when the boss man doesn't like how you're carrying on. Vranak (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Copied at this time. starship.paint (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

What is this "mu" nonsense?

Moved from Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram § What is this "mu" nonsense?

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

What is this "mu" nonsense that some editors are preceding their comments with? DuncanHill (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Mu (negative). Reyk _YO! 14:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh I thought it was just intentional gibberish, or something more akin to a point of order. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, so an intentional use of an obscure term designed to exclude those not regarded as "in". DuncanHill (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Often used to suggest that neither yes nor no is an adequate answer, that categorical answers would be misleading, that the question is unanswerable in any categorical way... etc. In this case, I think, largely being used to suggest that proposals are meaningless. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I think "often" is pushing it. DuncanHill (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hehe, yes, fair point. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it was an answer given in a lot of koans to advise the student they were asking the wrong question. Simonm223 (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

It is a zen way of "unasking" a question. --T*U (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Quoz? cygnis insignis 15:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

It overlaps with American English "moot", and of course the US has closer links with Korea, Japan and China than has the UK, so American editors might not have realised that you wouldn't recognise it. 92.19.31.240 (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

As a four-decade native speaker of American English, I feel safe in saying that I'm fairly fluent in it, and I didn't recognize it until it was explained here, too.rdfox 76 (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Since no one has seen fit to properly write it out, I shall now; 無。 The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I do recall coming across it before, but I suppose that might be the result of reading too many books. Enigma^msg 16:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I would guess that most people bump into it by reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance - MrOllie (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

One can never read too many books. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, where I come from, I think it's best known by pseudo-intellectuals familiar with key works of Robert Pirsig and Douglas Hofstadter. I, of course, qualify as super-pseudo-intellectual, as I can point to both of them on my shelves. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I too can point to them both on my bookshelves (not with any degree of accuracy, as my shelves are somewhat disordered), but the word seems to have made no impression on me. DuncanHill (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A more US-centric politician way of putting it might be "I reject the premise of the question." The classic loaded question of "Have you stopped beating your dog?" is framed as a yes-or-no question, but (hoepfully) the only appropriate response is "mu." ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

It would also be an appropriate response for a creature of the bovine species being asked to testify in a court of law.--WaltCip (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

M'Lord, I call... a cow with a hair lip. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe m'learned friend was referring to the case of Board of Inland Revenue v Haddock, m'lud. DuncanHill (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

And here I was thinking people were just trying to cause friction... creffett (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I did think it might have something to do with icecream vans. DuncanHill (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

My father is a zen buddhist. I learned it from him. Simonm223 (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure I first learned it from Jargon File, in college, which means late 1970's or early 80's. Example of proper usage: Q: When did you first learn about the word "mu"? A: mu.

I think the most American phrase to sum up mu would be "this is a non-starter[2]." Like a horse that won't actually run a race, whatever is being asked or suggested won't go anywhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Tilting at windmills perhaps also applies. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

From Jimbo's talk page

Jimmy Wales and Doc James have advised the WMF to not engage in further wheel warring per this brief statement on their user talk page. Now the question lies as to whether the WMF will heed this advice. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Note they advised everyone including the WMF so that will include anyone who chooses to revert the WMF next if the WMF does reintroduce the block. (Their post postdated Bush's unblock.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't believe you typo'd Bish as Bush! El_C 09:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I was going to blame that fellow Otto Korrekt.... Shearonink (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The calm requested in these statements seems the best way to go for the good of all involved (personal and institutional). We all know that Fram will be unblocked with time served (days rather than weeks), and that a little cursing between friends is allowed from time to time. But not encouraged and certainly shows frustration at key moments. The ban choice of "a year" (or banned until the orbit of the Earth brings it back to this exact position to the Sun and not an inch sooner) seems extreme to the average onlooker. If Fram was banned for 72 hours for cursing at dad, sorry, office, then none of this would have occurred. No one should be fired or leave (mistakes happen, we've all been there), everyone should get their tools back, and the aforementioned Sun will come out tomorrow. Jeez, drama is viewer appealing, but "Office" could just unban Fram at a time certain, say, Friday, and everyone involved use this temporary release-valve as a great learning tool with built-in dramatic appeal. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

There is an open question about the Hale/Raystorm nexus here. Otherwise, speaking as someone who's been the most blood-knight-y here, some calm would indeed help. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 09:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Apologies to Bishonen, I was using a mobile device. Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

That's My Bush! El_C 09:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• I understand the calls for calm. I never am at the forefront of protest movements, neither here nor in RL. From the diffs that Fram posted, I think there's a real possibility here that Fram's ban and desysop were justified. BUT: A secret trial, no opportunity for the accused to defend themselves, secret accusers, secret accusations, secret evidence, and to top it off, no appeal possible? Sorry, but we don't need calm. This calls for revolution and I want to see heads fall for this. --Randykitty (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  You would do well to read WP:BATTLEGROUND AdA&D 15:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• This isn't a crime, it's a temporary suspension from a volunteer position. So more like a work suspension than a trial. Simonm223 (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Timelines not considered unuseful

I for one considered the timeline useful for all its flaws. The correct way to deal with its flaws would have been to edit it for neutrality, not blank it out altogether. Build upon not tear down. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? We have numerous timelines, take your pick of which you prefer. ‑ Iridescent 12:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I had a timeline up that was later blanked due to neutrality concerns. I'm not going to repost it, but I'm encouraging anyone who wants to use it in any way to do so. No objection to you putting it up and editing it for neutrality. Tazerdadog (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I had to laugh a little after all this is Wikipedia and we have timelines for almost everything lol. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 12:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I missed the timeline. Is there one posted here somewhere? I think a timeline would be AWESOME. The various permutations as this event has perked along over the past several days has been quite hard for me to follow. Heh....maybe we need an (shhhhhh....) Infobox... Shearonink (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Shearonink: link is above —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

pythoncoder Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Is the WMFOffice paying attention

It is morning where I am and I am trying to catch up on the state of play. Other than their two boiler plate statements on the 12th is anything happening on their end? Fram is unblocked, Bishonen was not touched (as far as I can tell) and Floq has the tools back. They don't seem to be addressing any of the communities concerns except in the most cursory of fashions. The whole thing is getting dodgier as the hours pass. Gads there could even be a worst case scenario of a compromised account. The question of who is saying what from the Office still remains. At the least each person in the office should have a separate account - WMFOffice1 - 2 - 3 etc is fine. I guess my final question is how long are they going to let this fiasco continue? MarnetteD|Talk 14:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It's 8:50 currently in California. Just because Wikipedians are active 24/7 doesn't mean staff are. Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It's 7:50am actually (well, 7:57am now). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Oops. Off by an hour. Anyway, the point is it's too early to expect a response. Simonm223 (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I know the time. I live one time zone away from them. Their last statements were well over 24 hours ago - more like 36. Plenty of time to actually respond. MarnetteD|Talk 15:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a board meeting on June 14. I'm pretty sure Jimmy told them to back off on doing anything until that meeting takes place. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

And nothing much happened during office hours yesterday that they could have responded to. WJBscribe's re-op of Floquenbeam occurred a bit after 4:30 Pacific time, likely not enough time for anyone there to respond if they were going to. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales has asked both the community and the WMF to try to de-escalate the situation [3] [4] The WMF appears to be doing the right thing at this point, pending the board meeting.--Mojo Hand (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yep, board meeting is tomorrow (14th), and I certainly don't expect anything before then. And even afterwards, any response is going to need discussion, formulation, sign-off(?). I'd guess late Friday, maybe even Monday, before we hear anything more. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• I note that Fram has now not been blocked for a majority of the time he has been banned by the office. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

They have also respected the ban regardless, by not editing in that time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, you may be interested in a note Fram once left me regarding their gender. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Fram has been referred to using male pronouns many times on the main page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Just telling you what they said to me. How anyone chooses to use that information is up to them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the updates. MarnetteD|Talk 17:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems hard to imagine something that could make this more of a clusterfuck, but a tussle over pronouns would do the trick. EEng 20:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Amusing side note

Moved from Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram § Amusing side note

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

So, does anyone else here find it ironic that, while all this is going on and the WMF is being particularly uncommunicative, we're getting a banner ad for their latest attempt at implementing something along the lines of Flow/LiquidThreads with the text "The Wikimedia Foundation wants to make it easier for you to talk to other editors"? rdfox 76 (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I found that extremely ironic. And arguably in bad taste. Lepricavark (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't find it ironic at all: I think this is one of the reasons behind the timing of blocking a very erudite critic of such ill-considered initiatives. - SchroCat (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

(e/c)A cynic might think that WMF engineered the Fram kerfuffle to detract attention from their other unwanted behaviours. DuncanHill (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Coincidence or not? GiantSnowman 14:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Time for a Garak quote- "I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences."...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rdfox 76: Just to be clear, the people doing that thing are not the same people who are involved in this thing, although the timing for the new banner going up doesn't seem very apt (the report was posted almost a month ago). I don't think it's necessary to censure everyone working at the Foundation for this incident.

It's not very likely that the consultation will involve Flow specifically, given the feedback so far, but any sort of interface change at all would inevitably have to push talk pages to looking and feeling slightly more like Flow just because Flow has a relatively normal interface compared to discussion software on other websites, and I think most editors would agree that the current discussion system might benefit from certain improvements. There are also a few editors who have already spent a lot of time over the past eight months reminding the staff members working on this (and everyone else) that they don't want Flow to come back, and those concerns are reflected in the text of the linked report. Jc86035 (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering why it appeared now, given that the discussion has been underway for so long, but let's not blame them for trying to talk to us given what our complaints are about! Nosebagbear (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, I wasn't ascribing any sort of conspiracy theory to this or intending to insinuate that the new project is intended to actually push any specific solution onto the community; I just thought I'd try and lighten the mood a little by pointing out the ironic humor I found in the coincidence of timing between two separate items. Thanks to QEDK for moving this, as I had just woken up and clearly was still a little muddled in my thought processes to have not realized this should go on the Talkpage.rdfox 76 (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  No worries, we all need our morning coffee as strong as possible. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

You're looking for Funfacts? So as: When you say "Fuck the ArbCom" you get blocked by the WMF. But if you say "Fuck the Community", you get a paid position at the WMF. The WMF is a Janushead with double standards. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

They missed the boat, some idiot thought it was clever to say "fuck business", and they are odds on to be the next UK Prime Minister. --Fæ (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

0.5 MB – time to split!

This page is over 0.5MB – if it were an encyclopedia article it would be our longest. The summary timelines are a good start, but I propose a further split into Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Background (containing WMF statements, Fram's statement etc. and probably discussion concerning them to avoid having to flick between pages for context) and Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Proposals, retaining the main page for other discussion. – Teratix ₵ 12:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Leave things be. Page source size is vastly overemphasized. A page with 5K of text + one moderately large image uses more bandwidth than this one. We don't need the confusion. EEng 14:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The way this page stands now, if it's copied and pasted into Microsoft Word, single-spaced, 12pt font... it's approximately 1,642 pages (at least, that's what Word said before the program crashed). That is insane, and expecting people to be able to read and navigate this mess effectively is unrealistic. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

ONUnicorn, So, apparently, someone needs to summarize it as a picture. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The community's response to the WMF, summarized as a picture. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving

Sphilbrick, Done.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 02:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

ONUnicorn, That's about right. Now, time to remove about 1600 pages. S Philbrick(Talk) 02:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The community's response to the WMF, summarized as another picture

-EEng

WMF's handling of the entire situation from beginning to end, summarized as yet another picture

-EEng

WMF T&S dealing with community reaction

-EEng

EEng constructively contributing to the discussion Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on Wikimedia-l and WikiEN-l mailing lists

For reference of participants on this page and for the benefit of the record, this matter is also being discussed on the Wikimedia-l email list, and has also been discussed on the English Wikipedia mailing list. --Pine (✉) 23:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the threads? –xeno^talk 23:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Archive link is the one to click, such as here. Four posts so far. Like old times. More activity on the wikimedia-l mailing list thread here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

What's stopping the WMF from just turning out the lights?

In light of discussions that seem to be taking place about blocking the WMF Office accounts from carrying out blocks or de-sysops, it's occurred to me that WMF could simply just take the ultimate route of freezing Wikipedia to prevent any further admin activity from taking place. Per the Terms of Use: "In certain (hopefully unlikely) circumstances it may be necessary for either ourselves or the Wikimedia community or its members (as described in Section 10) to terminate part or all of our services, [or] terminate these Terms of Use [...] We reserve the right to suspend or end the services at any time, with or without cause, and with or without notice." Is this the endgame that people supporting civil disobedience are playing towards? If there's a continual cycle of WMF wheel-warring against the devout admin corps, I see this as inevitable. --WaltCip (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

And that will be the end of WMF and the start of Facebook-pedia. ∯WBG^converse 12:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Other than the fact that their paycheques are a result of this project and the volunteers that create it? –xeno^talk 12:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The ToU were conceived–written before the WMF played with millions. Geese and golden eggs spring to mind. ——SerialNumber54129 12:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Pigs don't vote to abolish the trough. DuncanHill (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I've never heard that saying before, but I must admit it's quite elegant in its succinctness.--WaltCip (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

That's the first time I'me hearing something like that and is a succinctly nice metaphor. ∯WBG^converse 12:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

How about they... lock the database from editing while taking further actions. Then they remove all advanced rights. Next they re-enable editing, but only by logged in users who have, say, 500+ edits, that minimises the risk of vandalism. Then they abolish the existing community structure and rules and ask interested editors to apply for advanced rights and "positions of authority" on the new Wikipedia. They insist of positive confirmation of real identity before allocating advanced rights. What's the impact of this? In my opinion, 90% of editors will not even have noticed the behind-the-scenes drama and will just keep editing. There will be enough of them wanting a "promotion" to create a new group of admins happy to work under WMF imposed rules rather than community designed ones. The project will move forward, changed, worse, but still earning the money. There are lots of variants on this - basically, there are lots of ways of continuing WP even if they remove all the current "protesters" permanently. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

That was essentially the process I had envisioned. If the relationship between the WMF and the volunteer admin corps is the reigning issue here, and the WMF ultimately has the governing authority per the Terms of Use to take action for the future good of the encyclopedia, something along those lines would be what they would do.--WaltCip (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

That would basically be Citezendium and we have seen how that turned out. Despite what many people think, IPs and editors with less than 500 edits add a lot of useful stuff and only a small percentage of those are vandalism. Wikipedia only worked and works because the barriers for any kind of participation are low. And I'm pretty sure most people at the WMF know that. Regards SoWhy 16:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a reminder: The community was first. WMF was created two years after Wikipedia took off. The foundation is a tool to enable the community to build open knowledge repositories like Wikipedia. Not the other way round. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• As of 31 Jan 2019 there were 30,684 "active" accounts (defined as 5+ edits in the preceding 30 days) ([5]). I doubt the WMF is going to do something so drastic over such a tiny minority of its volunteer base being upset about something. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  The Pareto principle is something which might need to be taken into account here.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  Even if we accept the Pareto principle at face value (something which I wish more organizations would be cautious about) that'd suggest that some 6,000 accounts would still need to be considered. Simonm223 (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Mainly because all the sane individuals agree that forking, these days, would be unbelievably hard. However this might be the only action sufficient to trigger it - though a shattering of the whole set-up would seem more likely Nosebagbear (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Anyone

knows about the timing of the board meeting? ∯WBG^converse 15:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Almost inevitably, sometime around now or a few hours later - there are only a few hours between San Francisco waking up, and Europe going to bed. I wouldn't expect any immediate response either, it's not like any of the WMF trustees are going to pop up here saying "it's ok guys we sorted it Fram's unbanned and we're sacking everyone". The Land (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Let me second The Land, above. It's doubtful that the board meeting will result in any immediate action or communication. It's not impossible, but boards deal with issues at the highest levels and let them filter downwards, generally. That being said, I'd like to be wrong. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The Land, the second part is too obvious :-) ∯WBG^converse 16:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I think "Fram has been unbanned and the Foundation will not do this again" would suffice. No one that I've seen has asked for anyone to be sacked, we're just asking for WMF to stay on their side of the fence. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I've actually seen a couple of people on Team! Outrage! calling for the firing of Jan, of the T&S team or of all the people employed by Wikimedia. So rather not "no one". Although, being fair, only a couple of people.Simonm223 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure I could find a diff where someone suggests the right solution is to nuke San Francisco from orbit, but I agree, that isn't representative. :) My money is on the Board / some members making a statement in a few days, probably with a further parallel statement from either the Trust and Safety Team or the Director of Community engagement. Roughly no chance of Fram being immediately unbanned as a result, though some chance that the WMF ask Arbcom to review/ratify their decision somehow. The Land (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's the only way to be sure... Nosebagbear (talk)

Collating WMF's statements and Fram's statements?

Should all of WMF's statements be on one page? As well as all of Fram's statements? starship.paint (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

NSA Hypocrisy

Moved from Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram § NSA Hypocrisy

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

The WMF has, for some time now, been engaged in long-running lawsuit against the NSA.

The NSA have indeed been extremely non-transparent about their actions, and are now prepping a state secret defence that they need to keep it secret in order to protect others. The WMF has opposed this viewpoint significantly.

Yet the WMF now expects us to accept a complete lack of transparency on the pure justification on the protection of others - despite significant negative side effects.

...The hypocrisy seems unbelievable Nosebagbear (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The slight difference being that the WMF hid the identity of a victim of harassment while the NSA hid that they spied on millions of people. AdA&D 22:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, but many defend the NSA's actions as necessary for saving lives - and a lack of trust makes accepting that transparency morally risky, however justified it may fundamentally be Nosebagbear (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

WMF should at least just tell us what happened if a major ban is going on. It's like Trump keeping a hostage and not telling us why. DerpieDerpie:D 01:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Derpdadoodle: - has Trump ever done that?? starship.paint (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay prison is something close (though Bush did start it) —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Fairly sure you're mistaking the WMF for wikileaks or Julian Assange. I've never seen anything from the WMF remotely suggesting that they have a belief that secrecy is absolutely never justified. The belief that secrecy is not justified in one instance, doesn't mean you believe it's not justified in another. As someone who values my personally privacy at times, I'm thankfully it's only a tiny number of people who share the extremist wikileaks/Julian Assange that secrecy is basically never justified. (Although I sometimes get the feeling even they don't believe that, when it comes to them.) Of course none of this is intended as commentary on whether and what level of secrecy is justified in either instance you referred to. But I will say, considering one involves a massive US government operation and organisation against a large number of people including citizens of said government, with all the legal including US constitutional requirements thereof, and the other involves claims of misbehaviour by one or more individuals against another individual reported in private and then investigated by the foundation in control of the website where the misbehaviour is alleged to have occurred resulting in the editor being temporarily banned by the website the foundation controls with perhaps limited info offered why and no appeal, I do think whatever similarities may exist are too minor for the cases to be useful comparisons. The funny thing of course is that AFAIK, Fram's real life identity is largely unknown. Many of us will rightfully be horrified if it's revealed under the mistaken belief there is never any need for secrecy. So I don't believe many here share the view anyway. In fact, the only one I can think of who seems to share it is maybe User:Wnt. Nil Einne (talk) 03:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

No, Nosebagbear didn't, Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA. --qedk (t 桜 c) 03:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

And the NSA's argument is being tested in a court of law, not on an internet forum. You, a banned editor, or anyone else, also have recourse to the law, for the same purpose. Good luck with that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Except my point wasn't raised on legal grounds, instead both discussions is heavily based on morality and pragmatism. The NSA dispute has already been declined to be settled on those grounds, hence the need for legal disputes. Even if someone did have the capability to sue the WMF (resources and unequal battlefield aside), they'd have already lost the broader argument. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

And if they tell us happened other may be able to find out who the victim was using that information ans harass them. I think online harassment and bullying is far more serious then someone being banned form Wikipedia. In fact there may well be a similarity with the NSA case, people abusing their position to spy on people and use that against them. So lets say (for example) that is the case, Fram used their access to private information to make it clear they knew who user they were in dispute with was, nothing more then that (but an blatant abuse of admin privileges). If WMF were to say that, Fram would know who it was who got them the block. They could then contact their mates here on Wikipedia to start up a campaign of "not harassment no we are just watching a problem user", as in fact they are trying to get the harassment policies re-written now to make that not harassment. As to transparency, well when all communications about a topic here are only carried out here (rather then private e-mails between users and admins, to "put their case" stop, when in fact we see all any any communications about (say) an ANI. Sure lets hear the whines about transparency. But as long as users engage in private communications that the rest of us cannot see, then transparency is not an issue you care about as long as you are the ones not being transparent (and that is hypocrisy).Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, that entire comment is pure speculation and could be construed as casting aspersions on Fram to say that he'd do such a thing (which is in no way in keeping with his historic MO). But what I'd really like to point out here is: So lets say (for example) that is the case, Fram used their access to private information to make it clear they knew who user they were in dispute with was, nothing more then that (but an blatant abuse of admin privileges). If WMF were to say that, Fram would know who it was who got them the block. If that was the situation--which does not in any way seem to jibe with what little information we've been given--then WMF could give the reason as "harassment" and/or "blatant abuse of admin privileges" and I think most of the people objecting would be, if not satisfied, at least mollified that there was a problem that needed to be addressed. They might still think it would be WMF overreach, but at least then we'd know what Fram had supposedly done wrong, and have a good idea of how others could avoid getting the same treatment in the future. Sure, you'd have the usual conspiracy nuts and the people who get up in arms any time ArbCom does something in camera involving off-wiki or privacy-sensitive evidence complaining, and you'd probably have a lot of people looking to convince T&S that they needed to give enwiki's dispute resolution apparatus a chance to try and work, but you wouldn't have this level of open revolt, simply because we wouldn't be sitting here wondering why it happened and how to avoid getting the T&S banhammer ourselves.

Honestly, the way the situation feels, from my POV, is like enwiki editors are supposed to play golf by strict rules, but WMF gets to play Calvinball as the referee--and then doesn't even have to tell us why we're getting penalty strokes when they do decide to penalize us. This is not the way to, as T&S put it, "foster a safe working environment," it's a way to instill paranoia in the user base, never knowing when someone at T&S will decide we've broken a rule that we were never allowed to know existed and, accordingly, nuke us from orbit as the only way to be sure. rdfox 76 (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

So have many of the comments in support of them, that is the point. The issue (see below) is that no everyone go to play golf by the same rules, its like playing gulf at a Donnie club, if he plays you play by his rules. If you play anyone else you play the club rules. You talk about "casting aspersions" and " paranoia" and yet then go on about not being allowed to know the rules. No we know the rules, and the clear statement is Fram broke them, we just do not know what rule. Maybe if the Framaphiles were not so keen to cast aspersions and assume some wicked conspiracy the rest of us would not need to engage in counter speculation equally as invalid.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Women in Red project accusing Wikipedians of "REAL CRIMES"

Per Twitter, should WiR really be using external social media to accuse Fram of "REAL CRIMES" let alone exacerbate the ongoing issue? Who is responsible for posting for WiR? Isn't this kind of thing exactly the sort of issue that the WMF should be actively working to prevent? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

First rule of internet social justice warriors, harrassment and unfounded accusations are perfectly legitimate tactics when in pursuit of the cause. Its only when their enemies use them its bad. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Could we like, all take a chill pill here and de-escalate things by 41 levels? The WIR twitter thing is in poor taste, if Fram was rightfully banned, it's gravedancing. If Fram's ban should not have occurred, it's basically slander/well-poisoning. But let's focus on Fram and the WMF, not the twitter echo chambers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, Headbomb. We can discuss WP:WiR's behaviour at a later time, once the question of whether T&S went too far is resolved. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 22:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

We also don't really know what those people on Twitter were reacting to. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, as long as the record shows that whoever took to Twitter from WiP needs some serious training on how to deal with such a crisis, and accusing individuals of "real crimes" should not go without the usual sanctions. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

If it's really bugging you, bring it up on the Arbcom request and suggest that the Project be made a party to the case. I mean, hell, we're making enough new case law with this one, why not bring an entire WikiProject to Arbcom while we're at it? rdfox 76 (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Better to take a chill pill per Headbomb. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

No, it works both ways. If WiR are using social media to accuse Fram of "crimes", whatever that means, it's completely and fundamentally unacceptable, especially given that (apparently) we don't know what Fram has done. Enough telling people to "chill out". If you people were on the other end of social media exploitation and accusations, perhaps you'd be less chilled out. Get a grip, this is completely unacceptable and the people running the WiR Twitter feed should be called out. The Rambling Man (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 14 June 2019‎ (UTC)

Just report the tweet for targeted harrassment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

To whom? Twitter?? Are you joking?! They let this stuff go a million times a day. No, what's more troubling is the "official" status of the account, the numerous Wikipedians and admins (and Jimbo) that follow it, posting out accusations of crimes. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone in the WMF confirm if the WiR Twitter account is an official organ of WMF please? Who runs the WiR Twitter account? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I doubt the WMF has anything to do with the Twitter account. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_10#Twitter. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Aha, so at least one Wikipedian here claims to be tweeting on behalf of WiR. The same account which is now publicly accusing Fram of crimes? The same account which Jimbo Wales follows... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Its likely (like most other twitter accounts on behalf of a group) a shared account. So could be any of the prime drivers in the project. Or all of them. Fram was not exactly popular there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure. So WMF and Jimbo and Wikpedia's communities are content with WiR tossing out criminal accusations on Twitter? The Rambling Man (talk)

I don't think the comment on Twitter went so far as to be criminal. Perhaps you ought to strike your unfounded accusation of criminality. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

"Accusations of committing criminal acts" not "accusations that are in themselves criminal". I am pretty sure everyone with half a brain understood this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You are so sure of that interpretation that it allows you dismiss any other reading in that way? Give your interpretation, not your opinion of others, the second sentence is unnecessary. cygnis insignis 14:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting choice of words, OiD, in a discussion centred on civility. Fortunately, my brain is sufficiently complete as to be able to construct a parody of TRM's misrepresentation of WiR's tweet, in order to demonstrate that it is possible to deliberately and hypocritically (or perhaps through failure or inability to properly analyse, inadvertently) misconstrue something that is colloquially, rather than forensically, worded. Pity you missed that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Don't think this should be here, reported my extraordinary action to AN/I Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_war_over_twitter_storm. cygnis insignis 23:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that deletion of the tweet really solves anything, or sheds any more light on what really has been happening. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I wrote that comment in response to the now-reverted closure, where the rationale was that this discussion should be closed because the tweet was deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed; I've unclosed the non-admin closure. Softlavender (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Please Everyone knows it's the pretend-feminist ARS types using WIR as an excuse to push an agenda that would make Wikipedia's systemic bias worse by having articles on non-notable self-promoting women and ten times more on non-notable self-promoting men (not to mention a disproportionately large number of articles on porn stars and fictional characters featured in "men's" entertainment) who are the real problem with WIR, right? And we all know that such editors are almost exclusively male, don't we? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  I've re-read the above post several times and still can't figure out what on earth it is saying. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Meh; poorly thought out wording. At any case, it's their usual echo-chamber and remarkably, the silent majority, seems to be silent over everywhere. ∯WBG^converse 07:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I appear to have misread the title of this thread as Women in Women in Red project accusing Wikipedians of "REAL CRIMES", which resulted in me responding to an argument no one made. If I were to mount a defense of my above comment in this context it would be to say that, even if WIR is getting negative attention for those tweets, the project's "real problem" (read: more serious than the one being discussed here) remains the fact of its having been infiltrated/coopted by (mostly male) reactionary editors who treat it like "Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) for Women" when such activities actually benefit non-notable men more than women and make systemic bias worse, which is counter to the stated goal of the project. As for the "porn stars" thing, I probably stated that point more clearly here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that explanation helps. Does WiR have anything to do with biographies of men?? I thought they worked specifically on biographies of women. The ones I saw connected with the Jess Wade drama didn't seem like self-promoters, but I don't know what else WiR works on. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 08:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

There's an effort against systemic bias on Wikipedia. The WP:ARS types are hijacking it and using it as cover for their own philosophy of loading the encyclopedia up with poorly sourced hagiographies of non-notable people. This won't fix the systemic bias issue; it'll just produce shit articles with roughly the same gender breakdown, or worse, as the somewhat decent articles we currently have. I wouldn't tar the whole ARS with that brush, though I can think of two or tree of its prominent members who definitely want to play these games. Reyk _YO! 10:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it's practically a given that the gender breakdown would be worse. Or rather, the systemic bias -- WP:POKEMON has nothing to do with gender but plenty to do with systemic bias, and WP:PORNBIO might be somewhat more gendered, but it could also be argued that prioritizing women entertainers who appeal mostly to men over, say, female civil servants, academics, artists, etc., is not combating systemic bias.

As for I wouldn't tar the whole ARS with that brush: yeah, I basically agree, but I have noticed that the more reasonable members are ... not as willing to cooperate in keeping the project's more virulent members in check than one might hope.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I have made a statement to ArbCom about the tweets by WiR's Twitter account. starship.paint (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Meh. WiR will take on board any good faith feedback on how to improve project communications, they have a great track record and a great project. Being shouted at is unlikely to be taken as 'feedback'. --Fæ (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Whowever's fucking around with the Twitter account is unlikely to be doing it on behalf of the majority of WiR members, and clearly have their own agenda. Black Kite (talk) 11:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I noticed some AFD canvassing at WIR one time, called the editor in question out, and another WIR member disagreed with me; then when the disruption continued and became more transparent, the other editor actually came to my talk page and said "Yeah, you were right. My bad." This should be how all Wikipedia conflicts work, but I've encountered very few editors who are willing to admit they've made a mistake (most who "lose" content or other disputes will just try to rewrite history and pretend they "won"), and yet every WIR member I've encountered who wasn't using it as "ARS for women" has been better than that. So yeah, I agree with both the above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

This is problematic, users should not be accusing other users of "real Crimes". But I think it may indicate why Fram was banned, they engender some very polerising opinions. And the whole point of sanctions is to stop conflict, thus it may be the loss of an admin was considered less of a concern then ending the constant drama over their attitude (as well as losing far more then one user). Especially if (and it is an if) this was link ed in some way to gamergate or some other "SJW" issue (or the kind of attitude that uses SJW). It may well be this was about limiting the damage to the reputation of the project by the fairly constant claims of sexism and exclusivity of a male dominated project.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Does Wikimedia selectively give information to certain groups but not to the whole community?

I read through starship.paint's summary where it is mentioned, that the @WikiWomenInRed twitter account tweeted about Fram, mentioning crimes that the Foundation is not allowed to publish. However, why did a WikiProject information that the whole community did not get? This is all very cryptic. --Christian140 (talk) 07:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• To be fair, that's the least likely scenario. Far more likely are;

• (1) Someone involved (but not the WMF) contacted whoever runs the WiR Twitter account, with "information" (whether true or not)
• (2) No-one contacted WiR and the Tweet was hyperbole / completely made up

• Black Kite (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• I guess since the tweet was retracted with apologies, we have (2) confirmed.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Christian140: - in response to this thread, I have added Rosiestep's apology to the summary. starship.paint (talk) 10:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

That anyone was for a minute willing to countanace the first scenario shows just how bizarrely paranoid the atmosphere has become. I thought we were supposed to be the experts at countering fake news? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia, you are in, not WikiTribune. ∯WBG^converse 14:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Page should be split up

It's too big. I propose splitting it up like this:

• The beginning up to but not including Further comment from the Foundation
• Further comment from the Foundation up to but not including Statement from Jan Eissfeldt, Lead Manager of Trust & Safety
• Statement from Jan Eissfeldt, Lead Manager of Trust & Safety until the end

AdA&D 23:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps simply auto-archiving at 24 hours or so. –xeno^talk 23:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem is mostly that almost every section is active, and the 'inactive' ones are statements that need to be up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Where is the Statement from Jan Eissfeldt, Lead Manager of Trust & Safety? Link/s, etc. Thx, Shearonink (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#Statement from Jan Eissfeldt, Lead Manager of Trust & Safety. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

This page will need to be split up by force at some point; it's already over 5/12 the maximum technically possible length of a MediaWiki page and its growth shows no signs of slowing down as long as Fram remains office-banned. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

That might be a better solution. We can put {{Do not archive until}} in sections that contain statements that shouldn't be archived. AdA&D 00:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's an idea, and almost the original idea of this section: Leave the title as is and archive the present discussions except for Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#Editorial independence of the English Wikipedia community and response to Jan, but only if the information in the initial post is correct. If it is correct it makes almost everything else mute, and would then make the point quite clearly. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• We are in fact on 180,000 words (not counting the Talk Page) - the size of a decent novel. I've seen a couple of longer discussions, but we're racing them down (and it doesn't include the suggested solution to harassment discussion on WP:AC/N. That said, Headbomb is right that the discussions remain active. I disagree with Randy Kryn's separation - there are smaller threads that are helpful but not a duplication to the later threads. There are a couple of duplicates now in existence (e.g. the earlier summaries, now replaced). If we get to, say, another 20%, perhaps we should drop warnings that a force-break could be required. This break could duplicate the statements onto each? Nosebagbear (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I've just manually archived about 140K's worth. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

While I'm not sure about all of them, they generally seem reasonable choices, nicely done. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, that archiving is a net positive even if some of those sections weren't fully dead or were useful to reference Tazerdadog (talk) 10:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

"useful to reference" is why we have archives. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Now ~208K! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure the 2nd zh-wiki statement/discussion should have been removed (the 1st one obvs could). "Useful to reference" has both active and latent forms, and only the latter should be in the archives. It's really quite relevant and there now isn't much mention of it at all. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Archiving undone

I see that User:Tazerdadog recently undid the bot's archiving of fifteen stale sections, restoring 154,215 bytes of content to this near-megabyte long page, on the basis that "This really needs to be done manually". When do you plan to do that manual archiving, Tazerdadog? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Would you like me to attempt to do so, despite not really be familiar with how the process works? If so, I'll start immediately. Will just copy/pasting the sections to an archive break attribution or anything important? Tazerdadog (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

In that case, what you should have done was to ask here for someone to unarchive the specific sections which you believe were archived prematurely; or tell us now - though, again, something you could already have done - which sections those are, so that, if there is consensus to do so, they can be excluded from future archiving. Otherwise, the bot will simply archive the same sections again tomorrow. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Doing so now. Give me a few minutes and I'll give you a list. Tazerdadog (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The following sections should have all of the text archived. The section heading should remain, with a link to the text in the archive.

• Response
• Discussion about the "Forthcoming shortly" placeholder
• Discussion about second WMFOffice comment, now that it is actually posted
• Reactions to further clarification
• Need for a shorter Resume

The following sections are just pointers to a discussion happening elsewhere. They are compact, and should not be further archived. They are good examples of what the sections in the category above should turn into.

• Office RFC
• Ban WMF people from en.wp?
• Revert WMF actions related to this conflict
• Request for volunteer journalism for The Signpost
• What is this "mu" nonsense?
• Amusing side note
• Essay about conduct
• A perspective on ArbCom's ability to handle sensitive matters discreetly

The following sections are actually relevant as a reference, or useful in some other way, despite not being added to.

• Banned but not blocked (This remains the current situation)
• Can we all stop proposing things and stick to the ones that already exist (Probably useful to keep the discussion compact, and relatively short itself.)

The following sections are active proposals that need a formal closure.

• Unban Fram

Courtesy ping @Pigsonthewing:

Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I for one disagree with several of your proposals; chiefly those where you propose keeping "pointers to a discussion happening elsewhere", when those discussions have already ended. As for those where you suggest "the section heading should remain, with a link to the text in the archive", that's not how archiving works on Wikipedia. Meanwhile the page currently has 958,345 bytes, which is probably more of a barrier to involvement for far more editors than archiving dead discussions ever could be. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Neither of those are a hill I want to fight and die on. The one section that I think was grossly misarchived was the "Unban Fram" section. As for the rest, my thoughts are that keeping compact sections does not significantly affect loading times, and would be helpful to someone trying to catch up to the current discussion chronologically. That said, there's no point in sections that link to a dead proposal or a dead section that doesn't give context to the rest of the discussion. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for volunteer journalism for The Signpost

The Signpost is Wikipedia's newspaper of record and the vehicle for producing journalism related to the experience of being a Wikipedia editor. For some years the average issue's readership has been about 4000 people, and the best information we have is that those people are experienced Wikipedia editors wanting to stay informed of wiki community news.

Like everything else wiki, The Signpost is a volunteer project relying on user contributions. Is there any individual who is interested in this case willing to start a draft article of this story and welcome others to collaboratively edit it? If so, please pitch the idea into the newsroom at the submissions desk and start the article in any neutral space - a sandbox, a userpage, or any Wikimedia: space. The final article can be any length - comprehensive or just a few sentences - as the journalists on this story decide.

There seem to be people here who are passionate about this case and the social circumstances around it! If the story is not in The Signpost, then it may be forgotten! Join history, write history, be history, write for The Signpost!

Sort of related - The Signpost is also seeking people who will provide commentary on the article traffic report, summarize external media coverage, present recently featured articles, and otherwise write anything for the newspaper. Benefits include that you get to promote wiki community discussion, choose to share interesting pictures when they are relevant, and get a byline. Please consider contributing. Anyone can jump into the task list at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom. Please direct questions to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I reposted this to the front page. I will not edit back and forth, but I made a case for why I thought it should be front of sight. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

It's too 'in-house' and will be too delayed. Asking for volunteers should be here, not on the ridiculously long page (the past above points out the length and Pigsonthewing has already archived a fair chunk of stuff already), so please take it off the main page and leave this one going. - SchroCat (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@SchroCat: You or anyone else have my support in removing it. I do not agree and feel that journalism is a measurable and definable response, but I will not contest it. If no one takes action now, then I more agree with this being cut to any subpage or talk page when this unwieldy discussion gets split as seems to be happening soon. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, I've done it once and don't want to war over it, so I'll leave it to see if anyone else feels the same way. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I 100% endorse its removal as inappropriate. I'd also add that, wherever it ends up, If the story is not in The Signpost, then it may be forgotten! has a possible claim to be the single most ridiculous piece of hyperbole anyone has claimed throughout this entire fiasco. ‑ Iridescent 14:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

If it is not in the Signpost, there will be no single coherent account easily available to the ordinary WPedian, or for people who will join after this has been settled. The purpose of journalism is not current discussion, but an overall account and a record. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: - you can take a look at Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Summary. I, and others, may have done some work for you there. starship.paint (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Bluerasberry - I'd qualify it to read Wikipedia:VOCAL Community's response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Summary as the silent majority waits patiently to learn more about what we don't know. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Unblockable

I see a bunch of references to Fram as a WP:UNBLOCKABLE. I thought I knew what term meant, and it referred to polarizing editors who got blocked repeatedly but got unblocked equally often. That is, they were "unblockable" because they wouldn't stay blocked, not that they didn't get blocked. I looked at the essay and that was basically the description it gave (the long block log wasn't a strict requirement, but it was common for such editors).

I checked Fram's block log, and before the WMF action, Fram had never been blocked. I don't think xe fits the unblockable profile, so the comparison is a red herring. There are valid criticisms I could still make of Fram, but not that particular one. I just thought this had to be said. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Precisely right, which underlines why this completely leftfield year-long ban without involving Arbcom, or even enabling them to handle such an issue, is such in appropriate course of action. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

In this case "unblockable" was referring to multiple complaints against Fram that ultimately went nowhere, for various reasons. To folks who thought the complaints were valid, it felt like other admins were just refusing to hold Fram to the same standards as a non-admin. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Its how I read it, users (and admins) who can do what they like and will have the same faces show up to defend each other.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

referring to the user as 'xe' is both pointy and correct, according to a statement I just saw linked they [Fram] want their gender to remain a source of speculation. Which implies something I wanted to note, with some trepidation, that no one has said they have met the user in the real world. I don't think it should be necessary, real world and off-site confirmation is a help and hindrance, but it is something that those who think they know exactly what is going on might want to consider. cygnis insignis 15:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I looked at some of the complaints against Fram (like that arb case someone filed) and the ones I saw wouldn't have been upheld against anyone. I'd be interested in seeing an example. I'd also like to see any example of Fram persistently criticizing the work of an ordinary (low volume, non badge-collecting) or newbie editor. WP is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so we should have low expectations of someone who shows up and makes a few contributions. But we also give various baubles like WP:GA badges to recognize high-effort, high-quality work by editors who know what they are doing. Someone who tries to get the recognition without doing the work is basically a poseur. I've seen several examples of Fram being arch to those people, but never anything I'd call abusive.

(Also:) I referred to Fram as "xe" once or twice as a somewhat jocular reference to the dustup between Fram and Fae over Fram calling Fae "xe". But then I stuck with it because of the link that Cygnis insignis mentioned. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Over time yes, but not one incident, plenty of "both sides" are at fault, but Fram is an admin. They are supposed to lead by example. Examples of bad blocks, and a tone of "well this is not how we expect users to act".Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

If someone is editing in an area or style that connotes that they know how to meet expectations, but they don't meet those expectations and act like they shouldn't have to, what kind of tone are they supposed to get? 67.164.113.165 (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean that fram had a tone that was seen as "well this is not how we expect users to act". Thus its not so much a case of one major incident but a lot of low level attitude. They seemed to be unable to deal calmly with certain situations that (it can be argued) were inconsistent with being an admin, yet were allowed to get way with it for a long time. To be fair they are not the worst example of the Unblockable's.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I understood. I've seen Fram act that way in areas where users are expected to meet quite high standards but don't meet them (e.g. at WP:GA). Xe had to do quite a lot of work showing the shortcomings (finding errors interpreting sources, etc.) so I can sympathize with xyr impatience. There are other areas where user expectations should be lower (e.g. WP:BITE). I'm asking if Fram had significant issues with the lower-expectation type of user. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

And just to be clear, I am unaware of any situation that warrants a block on Fram, or only really familiar with the one you are are 'humorously' referencing. I have avoided the 'research' others are undertaking, for the he-said-she-said everyone is so desperate to find. That people are ignorant of the vortex of hate this stuff triggers is a deep concern, using a shield of ignorance (thick skin) to criticise with impunity is a cry for help from a position of weakness and confusion. I hope xe is ok, sincerely, everyone deserves compassion. cygnis insignis 17:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course everyone deserves compassion. I'm missing some of the referents in your post. I hope everyone is ok (Fram and the complainers and everyone else) and I presume you do too, but I'm not sure if your last sentence meant Fram in particular, and I have trouble understanding the rest of the sentences as well. I had a series of questions that I decided not to post because it made me sound like a wise-ass when it really is only about genuine confusion. If you mean the BADSITE posters are going overboard in relishing digging up dirt on a specific complainer, I agree with you. But the saying goes: xe who seeks equity must do equity. If a complainer is actually an abuser xyrself, weaponizing the T&S process to take out an opponent, that is a wrong in itself. Maxims of equity seems like a relevant link. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I see where the confusion probably lay, my third sentence is a comment on those who have been inadvertently weaponising divisiveness, adopting a battle mode for a win or lose mentality, all this stuff that has nothing to do with collaborative writing of an encyclopedia. Nothing to do with Fram, almost completely unaware of their contributions. I'll read the article, cheers. cygnis insignis 23:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I still don't understand the 3rd sentence but that's ok. The people I thought you were talking about aren't doing anything inadvertent: they're malcontents for sure, but they're outraged like many of us up here about Fram's situation. And their theory (grounded in reasonable evidence though not conclusively proved) is that the "weaponizer" really did see Fram as an obstacle to xyr longer term goals, so was willing to be ruthless to neutralize Fram. There's a little more discussion about Fram on my usertalk that you can look at, and I wrote another post there that I reverted to post it here instead, which I'll do shortly. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 02:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Irony

As well as being moderately active here, I also follow some of the mailing lists and facebook groups, so I'm now used to the idea that the WMF wants a more civil atmosphere on EN:WP than the community is enforcing. I have been around long enough to remember when that situation was reversed, so the WMF has moved a long way, especially as civility standards here seem to have risen a bit in the last few years. Note how people keep referring back to a c word incident from some years ago? I doubt that the community would accept such behaviour now, and while calling someone a c*** is uncivil, in my view it isn't as serious as a death threat. But the ironic twist, which I have only just spotted, is that six years ago it was Fram who helped raise the conduct standards here, by threatening to block people, even WMF staffers, for things on IRC that were rather worse than use of the C word. My concerns about the current situation include that de facto the rules appear to have changed, but we don't know where the bar is now set. Worse, the person who is being made an example of for reasons we can't be told, is the very person who threatened to block a WMF staffer if he continued to make personal attacks on other users on the communities IRC channels. To my mind that doesn't look good, whether or not this is really about Fram being more deletionist than some people like.

I still consider myself the most deletionist admin in the Article Rescue Squadron, so I'm not a natural defender of Fram, and to add to the irony, if I knew what the WMF were trying to achieve by this block I met well agree with them. But one can agree with someone's aims whilst still criticising their methods. My suggestion to the WMF is that if you want to stop certain behaviour on EN wiki, and you don't think you can get consensus for change, announce the new rule, make sure everyone knows when it comes into effect, and then start off with warnings for the first month. You could even try individually emailing the people whose behaviour you want to change with a friendly "just to tip you off, from next month phrases such as you used here will become blockworthy". I'd still have a concern that an arbitrary rule change from the WMF could mean that if in future the WMF reverted back to the WMF we used to know, rules might move in the opposite direction. So I'd prefer a community decision, but in lieu of that, we need to know what sort of behaviour can earn you a 12 month single project ban by the office. Once you have publicly and clearly lowered the bar and had some public examples made of people who ignored the new standards, then you can start quietly enforcing that standard on people where you can't publicly say why you have done so. The problem is in tightening the rules, and then issuing your first 12 month ban in an opaque manner. At best this was an incivil way to treat the community, at worst it was retrospective and arbitrary. ϢereSpielChequers 20:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm of the belief that there is no blockworthy diff or specific terrible incident involving Fram and that's why the office is being so opaque. The lack of a blockworthy incident IMHO isn't in conflict with someone believing Fram's editing career taken as a whole is blockworthy. Before we had so many codified policies, that used to be called banning someone for exhausting the community's patience. Basically that meant the person engaged in a long enough pattern of annoying behaviour that the site decided it was better off without them, even though no specific incident warranted booting them in its own right. There are multiple editors I myself would like to see banned on that basis, though Fram doesn't happen to be one of them. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The greatest irony is that WMF accused Fram of "counterproductive escalations", yet by banning him for a year they have escalated the conflict a thousand times over. If "counterproductive escalations" is a banable offence, then obviously each and every member behind Fram's ban should also be banned. Huldra (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

(Note: this was originally written for a different page and responded to a claim Fram was motivated by sexism.)

I know that one of the complaints against Fram is about Fram's persistence in criticizing the persistent work of persistently crappy editors (I.e. the complainers want Fram to relent and let the crappy editing through after a while). I can say in the examples I saw closely, what Fram did was necessary; it was difficult and tedious work and the crappy editors should really have been stopped by other editors much earlier; and the editors in question were male computer geeks (clueless bot operators), so that couldn't have been sexism. The bots also mean there was an enormous volume of machine edits involved. The number of diffs Fram looked at must have been stupefying. I cringe just thinking of it years later, and I wasn't even the one who had to do it. I'd sure be saltier than Fram if I did that as a volunteer.

I could make a reasonable case for paying someone like Fram to do that level of close scrutiny of other people's crappy edits, and also requiring xem (if xey accept the job) to be nice to the editors (i.e. make the same criticisms, equally relentlessly, but more politely, on the basis of "you knew this job required suffering fools when you took it"). Otherwise a code of conduct that requires us to be nice to crappy editors should also let us get rid of persistent ones. Such a code would be an enforceable version of WP:BITE, which is fine. But it can't demand infinite patience towards contributors who suck up volunteer resources fixing their errors because they can't or won't get their own act together. Those contributors would have to shape up or leave. Otherwise we get a situation where the incompetent editors drive the competent ones away, and are left running the wiki themselves. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 03:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)