Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

What is a conduct warning?

I'm not sure where this belongs, but I haven't seen it discussed elsewhere (outside this passing mention). This August 2018 page from the T&S team may cast some light on the conduct warning given to Fram in April 2018. This seems to me to be a creditable attempt to clarify the situation for recipients of conduct warnings, and tries to balance the competing interests of confidentiality/protection and helping the recipient do better in future. (It is unclear to me if Fram's attention was ever drawn to this page.) From the phrasing quoted by Fram, it sounds like they received a type 1 warning (People have been made to feel uncomfortable), although much of the recent discussion has focused on type 3 (People have been made to feel hounded). Bovlb (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Boy. Their definition of “uncomfortable” is really high. Most of that would be useable evidence in a workplace harassment suit, not merely a cause for discomfort. I really, really hope the intention of T&S is to hold to that definition rather than expand to everything that makes anyone uncomfortable. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate that link to the definitions at meta, because I hadn't seen that before. Yes, the levels of bad conduct that they describe, as written, are really highly objectionable behavior, and actually more objectionable than what I think most of us here at en-wiki would regard as being sufficient to be reported at ANI or the like. In other words, "That person is criticizing me for writing poorly sourced content, and I want them to stop" would not rise to the level of meta's Level 1. And that, in turn, leaves me very uncomfortable about the apparent subjectivity of how those definitions are actually applied. I think that the specific weakness resides in precisely how one defines what makes a user feel a certain way. If someone can assert that they feel mistreated simply because they are being asked to follow policies and guidelines, then we have a problem. And that is exactly why the editing community here needs to be able to play a major role in determining what is and what is not civil or incivil. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I think most of the "uncomfortable" examples are ridiculous:
    • During a Wikimania talk by a woman, a man repeatedly questions the presenter about how she got the role she is speaking about. Why this might be a problem: it sounds like the man is questioning/doubting the credentials of the female speaker because she is a woman. – No, it sounds like the questioner is questioning/doubting the credentials of the speaker, period. While this doesn't sound very nice, and one wonders why it's happening or what the questioner hopes to achieve by it, there's nothing to indicate that it has anything to do with who's a man and who's a woman.
    • A user hosts userboxes on their userpage that say “This person is sexually abstinent, but not by choice” and “This user is looking for a girlfriend”. Why this might be a problem: While many users display userboxes on Wikipedia to share facts about them and their interests, it is important to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social media space. Women on the internet often receive unwanted attention from men in spaces that are unrelated to dating, and displaying userboxes of this type can make them feel that this, too, is a space where men will be evaluating them in a sexualised way. – Just how is someone going to be evaluated in a sexualized way on a Wikipedia talk page? ("Great copyedits! You have a sexy brain!"? Or maybe "I love a woman with dangling participles!"?) Anyway, when there's some indication of such a thing actually happening, then would be the time to say something. And would it be too much to ask for one of these examples to have the gender roles reversed, so females aren't always the victims? Finally, where do people meet their future boyfriends, girlfriends, fuckbuddies, or spouses these days? They're not allowed to do it at work, in class or the dining hall, at Wiki meetups, or apparently anywhere else not explicitly posted as a meat rack (Notice: Sexualized-evaluation zone ahead) I guess; life sure has become regimented.
    • While two people are conversing at an event, one continually shifts forward, leaving an uncomfortably small amount of physical distance between themselves and the other person. Why this might be a problem: the “personal space zone” expected by people - the minimum physical distance that would allow the other person to remain comfortable - varies widely between cultures, and what feels natural to one person might make the other person feel that they are being physically intimidated or loomed over. – Yeah, exactly, this varies between cultures, so what's "uncomfortably small" is impossible to know in advance. If someone doesn't like what's happening, they can say, "Hey, let's move to this little table over here." Jesus, grow up. Also, someone at T&S needs to learn the difference between a hyphen and a dash.
EEng 23:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Gotta watch out for those dangling participles, especially with women editors, I find. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm I wish I hadn't looked at that! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
"In 2011, a 65-year-old South Carolina woman was ticketed by the town's police chief for obscenity displaying truck nuts on her pickup". Ah shucks, these women in red trucks, they just get everywhere!" Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree that "That person is criticizing me for writing poorly sourced content, and I want them to stop" would not rise to the level of a conduct warning. "He is hounding me as I seek to close the content gap with nontraditional information about members of marginalized and underrepresented groups; I seek an end to this incessant stalking by him that is making me feel unsafe on Wikipedia" might.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Wehwalt, the problem is, the second might in practice mean the first. Are you saying it's worth a warning or not based upon how the complaint is worded, rather than whether or not the complaint has merit? Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The second was intended to mean the first, dressed up in language. More than that I cannot say.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
It's a really good thought experiment. Thanks, Wehwalt, for coming up with it.
Either wording is based upon a basic disagreement about our policies. One user thinks that our rules on sourcing always apply, and when he/she sees someone introducing poorly sourced material in multiple articles, fixes the multiple articles. The other users thinks that our rules on sourcing don't always apply, and that [ nontraditional information/poor-quality sources -- take your pick ] should be allowed in the case of marginalized/underrepresented groups. That's a legitimate disagreement, and well worth an RfC to find out the consensus of the Wikipedia community. Until a consensus for making the edits is established, WP:HOUNDING specifically says that "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." Thus any complaint of hounding in this case should be rejected and the users encouraged to post an RfC and see whether the community is willing to make an exception to our rules on sourcing. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Guy Macon, Excellent point, thank you for making it. I borrowed language from documents on Meta like this. It seems to be the way things are going. (hat tip to the person who noticed this).--Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

As a note, I asked them to gender-neutralised the page where possible. Some asymmetrical gender-related situations can be warranted, but this depicts women as delicate flowery things that are afraid of their own shadows, and men-on-women awkwardness as being the only thing worth addressing. There's nothing in 'This user seeks a boyfriend that would be any less problematic than 'This user seeks a girlfriend'. Or women inviting men to their bedrooms. Or other women. Or men inviting men to their bedrooms. Or whatever spectrum inviting whatever spectrum. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it from the "Thriving Movement" portion of the medium-term plan I linked to above, a goal, which presumably binds T&S, is "By 2025, there is a significant decrease – proportionate to contributor growth – in reported threats to safety among online contributors and movement organizers with diverse sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression." This is under "metrics" so it is a numerical goal they hope to reach. WMF helpfully clarifies on the discussion page that "women are part of the larger group of 'people with diverse gender identity'". Therefore, I'm not certain that going to gender neutral examples would be consistent with the goal they've set out to do. The metric is limited to the groups stated; that is what they are focused on achieving, as I understand it. I will admit that the terminology used today leaves me somewhat baffled so it may be my own lack of understanding of the nuance of the situation causing my confusion.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with your gender-neutral request, and have commented there, where I believe any further discussion on that matter should continue. -- Colin°Talk 12:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The problem with metrics like "significant decrease – proportionate to contributor growth – in reported [anything]" is that no doubt part of the program is to reduce barriers to reporting. An increase in reports may be a sign of success, or it could be a sign of failure; same for a decrease. Unless there's a lot more thought put into such issues the whole effort is doomed to perpetual muddlement. EEng 15:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC) I just made that word up.
Reading that literally, it sounds easy to accomplish, if I understand it right. First, until 2022 or so, encourage as many people to report perceived threats as possible. Then disable the threat reporting form at least until 2025 is over, publicly hanging anyone who manages to find an alternative way to report a threat. Graph of threats over time shows a significant decrease between now and 2025, mission accomplished. I know that's ridiculous of course, and that noone in power would actually do anything like that. Κσυπ Cyp   21:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I just found about this today...

The WMF celebrates the reaction from the Wikipedia community with cake

How is this the "community" again? From what I have read and seen it looks like editors have lost their minds, this whole thing could have been handled differently. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe we all are in firm agreement on that point, Knowledgekid87. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
(Just for clarity, I mean that it should've been handled differently. I don't think anyone "lost their minds" per se, but well, when you stomp on someone's toes, you might expect a rather negative reaction). Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Probably, but the Foundation lost theirs first.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, as soon as Fram was banned their page should have been locked. The next step would be a community announcement sent out by the admins that they are working on finding a solution with transparency and asking for patience. Yes the community had their say the way it went, but at the cost of at least a dozen admins who resigned. I just don't see the justification in that as dialogue was needed more. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean by "sent out by the admins"? And what makes you think anyone was "working on finding a solution with transparency" before the angry community escalation started? We'd reached the stage where T&S had doubled down and had reiterated that they had no intention of listening to anyone but themselves, and they had no intention of budging until they were forced to budge by the escalating conflagration. I mean no offence, but you said yourself that you only just found out about this today. There's multiple megabytes of content that's flowed from it, and you're surely ignorant of most of it - and without that knowledge you simply don't know what you're talking about. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As soon as Fram was banned, he was also denied talk page access.[1] And we wanted a dialogue, but for quite some time there, we didn't seem to be getting it. It wasn't until the massive number of protest resignations started occurring that we got anything but boilerplate from the WMF. Even unblocking Fram in defiance of WP:OFFICE didn't get their attention enough to do anything but throw some say-nothing corporatese at us. So, it might indeed seem like extreme measures, but I think they had to be aware that if they're going to take a hamfisted approach like that, none of us have to volunteer our time here, and many are likely to quit doing so. Once that point was gotten across, the dialogue finally started. But you can't have a dialogue until the other side is willing to talk to you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your response, I just hope for the best then going forward. What is going to be in place so this doesn't happen again? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Nothing really. We cant technically prevent the WMF from doing anything they want. Pretty much every action the community takes is symbolic - with the exception of downing tools. We can only really make it so very unpleasant and a PR nightmare for them afterwards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Karen Brown from the WMF did state that they'll be holding consultations in the future about how they'll use these tools, and the outcome may well include "not at all on projects with established dispute resolution." However, they like to squirrel those "consultations" away on Meta where few of us will ever see them. (That apparently happened with a bunch of this stuff that they've done and referred to here; I'd never heard of it, neither had many of us, because it was all done on Meta.) So I think the most important thing to do is keep an eye out for it and make sure to put our input in at that discussion; I will be making very sure that gets well-publicized here and I doubt I'm the only one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, the incompetence is staggering. In addition to everything, they wrong-footed the Board and their boss, put the Board chair in a position of embarrassment, and made the media for reasons public relations would not approve of. Possibly not the best career move one could make.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Should we use Breitbart News as a source regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus for not including on the links list. As almost everyone writes, and WP:BREITBART underscores, Breitbart should not be used as a source for facts, as it is known for publishing falsehoods. It's true that this isn't an article, so this could be a special case in which WP:BREITBART might not apply, but the overwhelming majority of voices for not including is quite clear. --GRuban (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Summary for the RFC listing: Should we use Breitbart News as a source regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram?

Proposer: Guy Macon (talk) 05:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Closing comments

Reserved for closing comments by uninvolved closer. Do not edit here.

Background

As of 04 July 2019 the following external sources mention the the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram:

(Some of the sources listed above are also listed at Template:Press at the top of Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram, at Wikipedia:Press coverage 2019 (June and July) and at Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Off-wiki coverage)

Sources from after 04 July 2019:

Ground Rules

Please keep threaded discussions in the threaded discussions section. Replying in the !voting section makes the section too long, makes the !votes hard to count, and gives more prominence to whoever is willing to make the most noise.

Any editor is free to move any threaded comment posted in the !voting section to the Threaded Discussion section.

Support / Oppose

Question: Should we use Breitbart News as a source regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram?

  • No As proposer. Besides the low quality of Breitbart as a source, the many examples of them publishing fake news and clickbait, this particular Breitbart article reposts material from Wikipediocracy that in my opinion violates a person's privacy and thus cannot be linked to per WP:OUTING and WP:BLP. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No Breitbart is a low quality source with a poor record for fact-checking and accuracy and should not be used for this purpose. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No lol no, disastrously poor source and a WP:RS disaster, per above - David Gerard (talk) 05:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) No Breitbart is a low quality source for reasons clearly established in the conversation to depreciate it. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Depreciation is an asset's loss of value due to the passage of time. In that sense a reliable source can depreciate, but Breitbart had no value as a source to begin with. I think you mean it was deprecated. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Misleading RFC There is no question of using Breitbart as a source in articles; Guy Macon did not want to include Breitbart (which he calls breitbart) on the page of media mentions which Framgate has gotten, so after getting feedback he did not like he's started a misleading RFC.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
TO the extent a !vote is needed, I favor inclusion in project space, not necessarily linking although why not make things convenient for the reader? There has been a previous RfC on whether to include BB in article space and I respect the outcome of that and don't see it at issue here.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • In articles, no. In metaspace, in a section that documents Framgate's coverage in the media, ... We can list things we don't endorse. If we don't link to it, mentioning it exits wouldn't be out of place. Breitbart is a shit source yes, but that doesn't stop Breitbart from being a widely read source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes in projectspace, and (of course) no in articlespace. Note to closer: All the arguments about RS and soforth (Peacemaker, David Gerard, Barkeep49) should be disregarded as clearly referring to articlespace usage, which isn't at issue in this RfC. This is a question of media coverage, and even opinion pieces count as media coverage. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
    I am saying because of the low quality source it is inappropriate for us to be linking to it anywhere. I could point out reasons why this is true of this piece, but am instead arguing, categorically, that should be unnecessary for Breitbart. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No We should not curate lists of glaringly inappropriate and unreliable sources, even if the garbage is "widely read". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes and no- obviously for facts surrounding the issue, Breitbart is a big fat no. It's a troll source that publishes lies for political purposes. But if you're making the point "FRAMgate has drawn comment from across the political spectrum" then just listing it is probably OK. Reyk YO! 07:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No and needs a warning as it makes no mention of the prior !vote which it appears intended to supersede, and is not of agreed wording with the prior !vote participants, which is to be frowned on and tutted about as a type of forum shopping. Reposting my prior opinion here, per The solution to online 'harassment' is simple: Women should log off and Gay rights have made us dumber, it's time to get back in the closet, if you are really arguing that Wikipedia project space needs entirely pointless Breitbart bigoted ranting as a source, then maybe you need to take a long hard look at WP:5P4. No, don't just glance at it, go back and actually think about it like your goal is to write an encyclopaedia in positive collaboration with everyone here. --Fæ (talk) 07:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Please provide evidence that TDA has ever written anything like what you assert above. Thank you.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 08:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not only recognized to be a generally unreliable source, but has a conflict of interest in relation to Wikipedia. —PaleoNeonate – 08:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • In mainspace/actual articles WP:BREITBART gives guidance (pretty much no but in theory). I see Fram-Breitbart has been removed from List of Wikipedia controversies, the only mainspace use of it I knew of. In discussions, pages like Wikipedia:Press coverage 2019 (current consensus on Breitbart in general at Wikipedia_talk:Press_coverage_2018#Breitbart) etc it's not by default wrong to include/mention. As true with any source, WP:BLP, WP:OUTING etc can be an issue anywhere in WP-space, but if so argue by policy. Fram-Buzzfeed states "Fram is also known within the community as an asshole.", does that disqualify it for BLP-reasons? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Weird RfC phrasing - yes in WP-space, no in Mainspace - it's actually a decently well-written article and fairly accurate. However, no-one not involved with wikipedia would be able to make a separate reliability judgement from the norm of Breitbart articles (so it doesn't belong in articles). But no-one can just dictate the removal of sources from our internal discussions. Individuals can make their own judgements as to its accuracy - and in this specific example, we are equipped to make in-depth judgements on accuracy. To prohibit such would be disturbing censorship. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No, not ever If Breitbart said it was raining outside, I'd look out a window before I'd trust them. Breitbart is perhaps the least reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Hell, no Not a RS, and we don't need them to stir our ... excrement for us. Miniapolis 13:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Doubly no I will point out the article at BBN is by banned editor TDA. That makes both a problem with the source and the bias of the author. --Masem (t) 13:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No. How is this even a question? Breitbart is notable as a universally unreliable source, and per Guy Macon, this particular article should not be linked from Wikipedia at all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Aww… using using wiki-processes to keep the link up while this is hot. Cute, such a good market, get in now while I'm selling! Do I get I get a dividend for being the hypocritical (and violent (responsipossilble for billions of Deaths)) naysayer that keeps this afloat? No crypto-currency or American dollars, thanks. cygnis insignis 15:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I would prefer SNOW close for the mischief this is causing in relinking the site, which others have pointed out is more than mischief. cygnis insignis 16:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No. As I say at RSN, it might be for their view of it (but I am not sure why that would be of interest), but no not for any factual reporting. This is without the outing, which mean I am not sure we should be linking anywhere or at any time.Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No AND sanction any bad-faith attempts to reintroduce links to the article.--WaltCip (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No, it is not a reliable source, for this or for anything else. On the other hand, it is entirely reasonable to note that Breitbart has published a comment on this topic, along with the various others who have commented. The fact that it has taken note of the Fram controversy is appropriate for inclusion, but what it says about the controversy is not reliable as a statement of fact. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No .... The Daily Mail is widely read and look where that's ended up - Being mostly read means nothing, Anyway it's not exactly known for it's great content. –Davey2010Talk 20:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment While I appreciate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS etc, I'm unsure from the above comments if there is a particular reason to exclude the specific article in Template:Press in this particle page especially as it isn't even an article talk page. AFAIK there currently no ban on including Breitbart in the template in general. In fact I found it in Talk:Gamergate controversy, Talk:Adland, Talk:Critical race theory, Talk:Neuroticism, Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks, Talk:Environmental impact of pig farming, Talk:Yuri Kochiyama. And I'm sure this list is my no means exhaustive. (For starters look for the other 'Seven Worst Moments' may find more.) The black list probably puts a dampener on inclusions, but I wonder if it would be better that we are clearer why we want to ban the Breitbart article from Template:Press here. And if our feeling is that it rarely or never belongs we should look more carefully on existing uses and perhaps have a general RfC to establish when it can and cannot be added to Template:Press. While I have not, and will not, read the specific Breitbart article, from what people have said, it's unclear to me if it's really much worse than most of their other crap. I mean many of the others look like they deal with BLP issues as well and in fact some of them seem to involve non wikipedians. Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No - and why on earth are you linking to forums and social media as "sources". There are also "sources" about the mimosa someone had with brunch yesterday by that definition. Furthermore, there look to be some awful content on those links relating to harassment of (or at least attacks on) Wikipedians involved in this matter. What purpose do they even serve here? (Also: a copyright violation/copy of Buzzfeed and a copy of a Wikipedia page (??????)). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Not this particular author, at least: Mr. T.D. Adler, the pseudononymous pseudonymous author of this piece and an editor banned on this very project, has a clear conflict (of interest, if nothing else) regarding our policies and procedures; and is clearly suspect simply as a source for an article, let alone as the author of one. As such, Mr. Adler cannot, should not, and ought not be used as a reliable source. As for usage of other Breitbart authors and articles, I note, without comment, our advice and policies on reliable sources (at least in article-space). Noting that the ban of Fram has elicited comment across the political spectrum, however, would not be an endorsement of the source or the author, and (quite frankly) ought to be done. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Struck spelling mistake. No change to rationale. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 18:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No and as has been said for this author in particular - a banned/blocked editor should not be able to use Wikipedia in any way. Doug Weller talk 16:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Snow close: consensus is clearly that we shouldn't and let's stop feeding the trolls at this fake news site with this drawn-out discussion. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not: hate speech and neo-Nazi's, completely dishonest, often fabricated stories. Should not be used for anything, ever. Total and utter trash, and that is putting it kindly. Bacondrum (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No Not a suitable source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No and snow close. MarnetteD|Talk 05:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by "source"? "Source" for what? And where? Softlavender (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • RFC is invalid, when Guy says 'source' he means 'make reference to it in project space'. Everyone else sees 'source' and thinks article space, and hence the majority of the "no"s here are based on opposition to Breitbart being used as a reference in article space (and quite right too), but that's not what is actually being asked. Fish+Karate 10:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    I read the "Background" section and found the question being posed perfectly clear. Your claim that the "majority" of !votes are based on thoughts about article space is not something that you can possibly know. Many of them reference Wikipedia space; some of them say "no but we can link it in project space" and the closer should know to treat that as a "yes". — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin: As Fish+Karate notes above, this RFC is invalid because it is misleadingly worded and despite the OP's repeated use of the word "source" he has failed to explain precisely or even generally what that means in terms of the RfC and in terms of "regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram" -- particularly since there is no currently existing Wikipedia article on Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram. -- Softlavender (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Note to closer: I reject Softlavender's argument above as being without merit, and I believe that the closer (RfCs don't have to be closed by an admin, just someone who in uninvolved) should reject it as well. I believe that everybody, including Softlavender, understood perfectly what this RfC is asking. I also reject the concept that if I choose to ignore overly aggressive and almost trollish questions this somehow gives them legitimacy. Actually, the opposite is true. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • You're really insistent on dying on this hill, huh? Usually when good faith concerns are raised by multiple established editors in good standing, we rectify them in good faith. You really think you're fooling everybody huh? You'll just deny, deny, deny, dismiss legitimate concerns as trolling, and a closer will be none-the-wiser. We're not idiots, Guy, and the only trolling here is the self-sabotage you're doing to your reputation. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not want to have any interactions with you, and again I ask you to leave me alone. Do I have to go to ANI and ask for a 2-way interaction ban? --Guy Macon (talk)
  • Guy, you started a request for comment (RFC). If you start a request for comment, you shouldn't be surprised when you get—comments. Please stop trying to chill the comments of those who disagree with you.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comments about the topic at hand are welcome. Personal attacks ("your attempt to word it in a manipulative way to get a desired result is an apparent bad-faith action", "If you weren't acting in good faith, you wouldn't be responding in bad faith", "Not only do I think you acted in bad faith, but you obviously acted in bad faith. Sorry to call you out on it, but if there's one thing I can't stand it's these disingenuous bullshit attempts to game discussions and fabricate consensuses", "You really think you're fooling everybody huh? You'll just deny, deny, deny, dismiss legitimate concerns as trolling, and a closer will be none-the-wiser. We're not idiots, Guy, and the only trolling here is the self-sabotage you're doing to your reputation") are not. Posting an RfC does not mean that a person must tolerate personal attacks. I have stopped responding to Swarm, and all I am asking of him is for him to stop engaging in direct personal attacks naming me. He can disagree with what I write without the personal attacks. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • You notice the box at the top of the page has been scrubbed of the Breitbart article listing, which was here as I recall at the start of the RFC? Guy Macon would be taking a risk for their tendentiousness, were it not a position the board chair's wifeWMF T&S is likely to smile upon.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Please feel free to report me for tendentiousness at ANI, which I remind you is not controlled by any WMF employee. If you are not willing to do that, please leave me alone. And no, I am NOT saying that you should not comment on the content of things that I write. Just stop writing about me. You could, just as a suggestion, spend the time you have been spending talking about me talking about the use of Breitbart News in regards to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • As you wish. I did not mean for you to feel hounded in any way and I withdraw any personal imputations.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No – No, no, no, no, no. Just... no. Not now, not ever. Kurtis (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No breitbart is hardly a reliable source on most topics to begin with and it is not that there isn't coverage in other sources, so i can't see any good reason to use Breitbart here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes For project space, not so much for article space. Being a reliable source for articles is not a criteria for media mentions in project space. Also as many have noted so far, this RFC appears fairly deceptive in it's wording. PackMecEng (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes - The source in cumulative is a shitpile and its readers, on the whole, fascist idiots — but this article is on the mark. The whole notion of inherently "reliable sources" or "unreliable sources" is specious. Carrite (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • This is pointless - congratulations on finding another forum for demonstrating your wokeness by demonstrating disdain for right-wing media. But nobody is writing an article and "I hate Breitbart" / "I love Breitbart" is not germane to anything on this project page. --B (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Personally, my disdain for the vast majority of right-wing (not conservative) media is only surpassed by my disdain for people who believe right-winig media, and think that the mainstream media is "left-wing". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No, of course not. Breitbart News is only reliable for things it says about Breitbart News, and even then I'd want to have independent collaboration from a real RS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Allow it to be used This option should have been included in the mal-formed RFC. Right now the only "Yes" choice is worded as mandating it's use here. The whole idea of a source being ove4rall reliable or unreliable is a defective idea. Inclusion should be an editorial decision like with any other source. North8000 (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

Example comment (sign with ~~~~)

  • I don't get it. "Use it as a source?" This isn't an article, so I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, and it's not clear what you mean. If you're attempting to censor any mention of it, you should say so, and not play games with wording. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Guy, you've framed the RFC in a misleading way because you don't want to include Breitbart. No one is proposing using it as a source for an article. All we wanted to know is if it is to be included on the page you started of media mentions of Framgate.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Swarm: I certainly do not want to "censor any mention of it". I am asking if it should be listed as a (Dnighth? Ngfipht?) on the multiple pages that link to it. Give me a better term than "Source" "Dnighth" or "Ngfipht" and I will use the term you like better.
Wehwalt: It is linked to on multiple pages, all of which contain a list of dnighths that refer to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram. I want to know whether it should be used as a ngfipht on any of those pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) An uninvolved closer will evaluate your objection and determine whether the RfC is illegitimate. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
He started it in the middle of the night US time too. Stay classy Guy.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
You have both accused me of acting in bad faith. I am done responding to either of you.
    Responding just 
    encourages them! 
           \ 
            >') 
            ( \ 
             ^^`
--Guy Macon (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: I withdraw any suggestion of impropriety and apologize to the extent I suggested such. You did leave your actions open to misconstruction, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: Oh, please. Your implication that you have to use the word "source" is comical. "Source" obviously has a specific meaning here, and suggesting that you can't tell the difference between "including it" or "listing it" vs "using it as a source" is wholly unconvincing. You chose the wording for a reason, and if you weren't acting in good faith, you wouldn't be responding in bad faith. You'd simply clarify the question. If you wanted to not include Breitbart because Breitbart is shit and deserves no platform here, that actually be a perfectly reasonable view and I'd support it. But just own it. Don't try to post an obviously disingenuous and manipulative RfC question just because the first discussion doesn't go the way you want it to. Not only do I think you acted in bad faith, but you obviously acted in bad faith. Sorry to call you out on it, but if there's one thing I can't stand it's these disingenuous bullshit attempts to game discussions and fabricate consensuses. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I stopped reading the above as soon as I read the part where you accused me of bad faith (again) and in the future I intend to skip over any message with your signature on it and read the next message instead. (This works really well; I highly recommend this technique to others who are dealing with trolls on Wikipedia.) I have also added your username to the "Muted users / Do not display notifications from these users" and "Prohibit these users from emailing me" entries in my preferences, so any pings or links to my username you post will not reach me. I do not want to have any interactions with you and I am requesting that you leave me alone. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
This is silly. You can't respond to criticism, so you unilaterally banish it in all forms. This is incompatible with Wikipedia's ideals, but I suppose you can get away with it in an isolated dispute here. Just note that people are witnessing this, and it is going down on the record. ~Swarm~ {sting} 08:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Given no one has called them on this, the record doesn't seem to mean very much. Witness the future Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The source is contemptible, giving them traffic is feeding an organisation profiting from weaponised trolling. cygnis insignis 06:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I removed it from the header, pending consensus for inclusion, it is not a news source. cygnis insignis 06:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I have reverted you, pending consensus for removal of what was already there. Given your edit summary, "f==k Breitbart" you should not be deciding such things. Keep the page stable please.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
[ec What I said is reserved for the very worst aspects of such things, it does not disqualify an opinion]. Which was reverted, leaving it there for what, a month? Difficult to fathom how anyone claim the status quo on a poisonous advertisement for Breibart. cygnis insignis 06:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't like BB very much myself. It was never much and it's gone down hill since then. But WP has enough of a reputation for left-slanting without giving more ammunition. You wanted comments, you're getting comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
It is not right-wing, it is simply wrong, fuelling the collapse of American civilisation is not providing balance. Opinion is not news, neither is the toxic and sociopathic lying they issue news, none of this is news to those familiar with the journalistic landscape. cygnis insignis 06:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Guy Macon: I believe this RfC's mandate is to be applied to all mainnamespaces but it's not exactly clear from your opening statement. You should clarify it. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • If we ever have a mainspace article about Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram we will have to revisit this (probably by applying the existing ban on Breitbart as a sopurce anywhere in mainspace) The title of the RfC makes it clear that it only applies to pages about the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
The word "source" is what is unnecessary and which is throwing off the debate.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Not an article but mainspace: List_of_Wikipedia_controversies#2019. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
It's also (the ban, not the Breitbart article) is also mentioned at User revolt#Wikimedia Foundation ban of Fram. That is the target of Wikimedia Foundation ban of Fram although Fram controversy redirects to what you linked. There is also a link from Fram (disambiguation). Nil Einne (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Guy Macon: But what do you mean when you are saying "pages about...", projectspace/mainspace/both? You really have to state it specifically. --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a non-question and I suggest it be withdrawn. This page is project space, not article space, and people can discuss anything they want, Breitbart or otherwise, as long as it doesn't break the usual policies or terms of use. RS is a main space rule. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The community has the mandate to decide virtually anything, including making rules for projectspace. Problem is that the summary is sending mixed signals about its intent. --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Comment Cullen328 writes above "We should not curate lists of glaringly inappropriate and unreliable sources, even if the garbage is "widely read"." Here our philosophies differ. In the case of "This X page has been mentioned by" templates and "Wikipedia:Press coverage" pages I think we should, to an extent (Breitbart, Daily Mail, etc). Leaving them out is bowdlerization. Of course, one can see me as a useful idiot. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment While I appreciate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS etc, I'm unsure from the above comments if there is a particular reason to exclude the specific article in Template:Press in this particle page especially as it isn't even an article talk page. AFAIK there currently no ban on including Breitbart in the template in general. In fact I found it in Talk:Gamergate controversy, Talk:Adland, Talk:Critical race theory, Talk:Neuroticism, Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks, Talk:Environmental impact of pig farming, Talk:Yuri Kochiyama. And I'm sure this list is my no means exhaustive. (For starters look for the other 'Seven Worst Moments' may find more.) The black list probably puts a dampener on inclusions, but I wonder if it would be better that we are clearer why we want to ban the Breitbart article from Template:Press here. And if our feeling is that it rarely or never belongs we should look more carefully on existing uses and perhaps have a general RfC to establish when it can and cannot be added to Template:Press. While I have not, and will not, read the specific Breitbart article, from what people have said, it's unclear to me if it's really much worse than most of their other crap. I mean many of the others look like they deal with BLP issues as well and in fact some of them seem to involve non wikipedians. Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • This particular Breitbart article also has WP:BLP issues. It reposts anonymous accusations from Wikipediocracy that in my opinion violates a particular person's privacy and thus should not be be linked to per WP:OUTING. I can't say who is being outed or what exactly Wikipediocracy/Breitbart says about them lest I commit an outing violation, but anyone who really needs to know can email me. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Now, here I do indeed see what I would consider "personal information" reposted from Wikipediocracy. So, a WP:OVERSIGHT of this RFC etc? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I would have no objection if an oversighter removed this RfC and all other places on Wikipedia that link to the Breitbart/Wikipedia articles where I found the outing, but I am not going to request that because I would have a conflict of interest regarding an oversighter giving me what I asked for in this RfC. Someone who isn't as involved as I am would have to make the request. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Well based on this mystery I finally checked out the article. For clarity, the specific concern is the specifics of an alleged relationship between 2 people? Allegations of some sort of personal relationship have been extensively mentioned in this very page e.g. Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 1#Elephant in the room '07:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)', '09:15, 12 June 2019', '09:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)'. Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 3#Need for a shorter Resume '10:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)'. I also see some real names, but all of these real names seem to be documented somewhere on wikipedia one of them including on the current version of that signpost article as well as Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation, although to our credit, no one has mentioned it here that I saw. Personally I think if you've read this page only, especially for example the elephant in the room thread where it's clear from those who did name the editors that people are referring to said editors you would know what is being referred to in the Breitbart article. Still I have some minor sympathy that explicitly spelling it out is worse, but I simply want us to be clear on what we're expecting from external sites we link to in the template. It's IMO unreasonable to say they are not allowed because they must hold higher standards then we ourselves hold. Note that I'm not saying I agree with the standard we've held here. I've strongly criticised it several times in the past and continue to do so here. But as long as that's our standard, then sources in the press template should be looked at in the same vein. Nil Einne (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC) P.S. I don't actually like having to mention these details, but I see no choice if we want to have an honest conversation about what we accept as a community. 03:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I have copied my comment back above. It is not a reply to any !vote and it is likely my only contribution to the !vote. Nil Einne (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Question for those who would include every source regardless of quality: As documented at Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#Background, there are a bunch of low quality sources that mention this (but few as low quality as Breitbart News). For those who argue that we should include every website that talks about this in all three places where such sites are listed, are you really saying that we should include Slate, Buzzfeed News, Breitbart News, Wikipediocracy, Wiki Review, Hacker News, Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, Reclaim the Net, Gender Desk, RT (Russian international television network funded by the Russian government), Know Your Meme, Quora, Penzington, Wikipedia Sucks!, and Infinite Bits? If not, what is your criteria for inclusion? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
    • In principle, the criteria for me would be nothing self-published. Which would take out Wikipediocracy, Wiki Review, Facebook, Reddit, Gender Desk, Hacker News, Twitter, Know Your Meme, Quora, Wikipedia Sucks! and possibly others. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. The obvious counterarguments are:
        • Breitbart News took an accusation that violates our WP:OUTING policy, sourced to a self-published anonymous source in Wikipediocracy, and republished it. I would argue that this means we should exclude Breitbart News for the same reasons we exclude Wikipediocracy.
        • As explained here,[2] inclusion of the Breitbart News article we are talking about has been opposed by at least one arbitrator and by T&S on the grounds that the author of the Breitbart News article is someone who was indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. Getting Breitbart to publish your words and getting Wikipedia to link to them is a rather innovative form of block evasion. It is possible that the person who posted the accusations to Wikipediocracy is the same banned user.
        • Think about why we exclude self-published sources. It isn't because they are automatically bad. It is because we simply have no way to know whether what is in the SPS is a lie. I would argue that certain sources (The Daily Mail, Breitbart News. Infowars) have been proven to publish so many outright lies that when they publish something new we simply have no way to know whether what they publish is a lie. Sort of the opposite of having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
          • Except this isn't article writing, this is chronicling the response of the media. That Breitbart is trash does not mean is it not influential or widely read. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
            • What is used as a source in this high-level open discussion of important Community-wide issues (with Administrators around every corner) will come back to haunt us. In the future, some well-intentioned new editor will rightfully claim, "You guys used it (SPS) there! Why can't I use it (SPS) here?" Quality Sourcing is vital to the reputation of WP. ―Buster7 ☎ 21:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I have to say, not only should a banned/blocked user be unable to use Wikipedia in violation of those blocks/bans, but no user should be allowed to enable it (nor should that be tolerated).Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of banned/blocked users... [3][4][5][6]   :(   --Guy Macon (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Similar to my general comment, if we want to ban any article written by a ban/blocked editor about wikipedia, again I think we should establish this clearly rather than going at it in an ad hoc fashion. Currently, Talk:Neuroticism also uses an article written by them although it does seem to be the only one assuming they used the same name. (I assume we aren't including articles they are quoted in since if we are, it would likely affect many of Breitbart's recent articles that are linked in the template.) I would note that if this policy applied to all blocked/banned editors, it would mean any article written by User:Clockback about wikipedia would be banned from the template such as at Talk:Peter Hitchens. (Not outing, see the user page.) If we only want certain circumstances (e.g. editors who are cbanned or banned by arbcom, excluding articles written by people primarily known as journalists, links on the talk pages of articles about the subjects of the ban) then IMO it would be better if we decide this rather than doing things in a haphazard fashion. Nil Einne (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Reasons to reject use of this particular Breitbart article whether or not we reject all Breitbart articles

The author of the two Breitbart articles about the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram is banned user The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

In my opinion, The Devil’s Advocate is banned and thus we should not link to anything he writes, but I can see how a reasonable editor could come to the opposite conclusion.

In particular, the statement at the bottom of both Breitbart articles containing the phrase "He was banned after..." is completely at odds with the stated reasons that ANI then Arbcom blocked him and took away his talk page access, as well as contradicting the evidence presented in that case. He was banned from Wikipedia by the Arbitration Committee "for continuing harassment of other editors" and then ended up being banned from Wikipediocracy for pretty much the same thing.

In my opinion, both Breitbart articles contain harassment of a WMF employee.

From the first Breitbart article: "Members of Wikipedia criticism site Wikipediocracy dug into [name redacted]’s background and found she had a close personal relationship with [name redacted], [WMF job description redacted], and alleged they were romantic partners. After editors raised the potential conflict of interest, [name redacted] denied any role in the ban and compared those suggesting it to GamerGate, the anti-corruption movement in gaming falsely branded as a harassment campaign by the left-wing press. This inflamed several editors and members of Wikipediocracy..."

From the second Breitbart article: "[WMF job description redacted][name redacted], who was accused of personal ties to someone alleged to have complained to the Foundation about Fram..."

I strongly contend that these accusations, which originated with an anonymous comment on Wikipediocracy (possibly created by a sock of The Devil’s Advocate, who is banned from Wikipediocracy) are harassment, and I strongly Oppose linking to them. As an aside, if anyone has actual evidence that the accusation is true, I encourage them to contact Arbcom privately and let them see the evidence.

I have no problem with mentioning the two Breitbart articles, noting the ban of the author, noting the size of Breitbart's readership, and giving a synopsis of what the articles contain minus the harassment. I see no compelling reason to add the exact article title or the URL. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Can I just ask...

Is anyone monitoring admin activity in the aftermath of the Fram situation? Are we seeing fewer admin actions, longer backlogs, less activity at AN, ANI etc.? If so, are these explainable by the resignations alone or have other admins also become less enthusiastic as a result? What about the edit rate in general? Depending on initial results, I think this could be someone's Masters project. Samsara 21:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

RFC:Should any FRAM-related resignation where the resigning editor performed controversial actions relating to WP:FRAM be considered under a cloud?

There is clear and overwhelming community consensus that none of the FRAM-related resignations happened under a cloud. Some participants opined that WJBScribe and Floquenbeam should have been singled out, but they failed to convince the vast majority of respondents. In the meantime, Floquenbeam regained his tools by passing a voluntary RfA, so that any perceived cloud has now been decidedly lifted. WJBScribe has declared his retirement. (non-admin closure) — JFG talk 19:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Summary for the RFC listing: Should any FRAM-related resignation where the resigning editor performed controversial actions relating to WP:FRAM be considered under a cloud? I am asking because of the following quotation from the July 2 WMF Board statement: We do not consider any of the admin resignations related to the current events to be “under a cloud” (under suspicion) though we also realize that the final decision with respect to this lies with the community. I am asking in the hypothetical event that users who resigned under controversial circumstances relating to WP:FRAM such as Floquenbeam, BU Rob 13, WJBScribe, and any other past or possible future resigner resigning under controversial circumstances relating to WP:FRAM would ask for their tools back. If they're not considered to be under a cloud, they can simply request them back at the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard, but if they are considered to be under a cloud, then they'll have to go through the standard RFA procedure. According to the board, while they don't consider these under a cloud, it's up to us as a community to decide whether or not they're under a cloud, and I felt it would be smart to have that consensus ready in advance, even if these requests are unlikely to occur from those I just mentioned. A "no-consensus" result would leave the Board's view as precedent, leaving the effects of a "no consensus" the same as a "no" !vote consensus in response to the question, should the result be "no consensus".

Proposer: DrewieStewie (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

  • No, for both policy and pragmatic reasons. For policy reasons, the administrators were not resigning under "controversial circumstances". The consensus at the discussion on the matter was clearly in support of what those administrators did. ArbCom had the opportunity to hear a case that could have resulted in sanctions or desysopping, but declined to do so, citing the extraordinary circumstances. For pragmatic reasons, if we actually need to run RfAs based on this mess, it'll just dump gasoline on the embers, and that is about the last damn thing we need. So, I agree with ArbCom. The circumstances were extraordinary and unprecedented, and so we ought to recognize that those involved did what they thought needed to be done to resolve it and leave it at that. This is still a policy, and in novel and unprecedented situations, it's sometimes the only policy. No one acted in bad faith or against a clear consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No, exactly per Seraphimblade. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No per WP:IAR. Sometimes it is best to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass regardless of whether you liked what they did or not, and I don't see how sanctioning them would benefit Wikipedia. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No: I join Seraphimblade and Kudpung, but I'll elucidate a bit (and just a bit, I promise): it is the express sentiment of the WMF, Doc James, the Arbitration Committee, and various members of the community, myself included, that the resignations noted above were not done under a cloud, at least in this case. Given that we're all in agreement (for once), I can see no real reason to disagree with such a consensus. I commend you, DrewieStewie, for having the foresight and courage to bring this up now. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No, as proposer and per the above !votes. DrewieStewie (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No, because according to the final "can we play through?" they seem to have all been in the right, and did their bit to move the issue along. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No per Seraphimblade. Thank goodness! 73.222.1.26 (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Nein, nyet, iie, non, and most emphatically NO. About the only one who could be seen as resigning under a cloud is WJBScribe, and even then only their bureaucrat bit for restoring Fram's sysop access. There was wide consensus for Floq's and Bishonen's unblocks, but not for the reopping of Fram. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 03:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No. The relevant users are all exceptional assets to the community and their only offense was having a sense of courage and morality. General amnesty for all involved. And, as Randy Kryn points out, the WMF has all but admitted that this "rebellion" was not in error to begin with. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Per WP:IAR and the overwhelming consensus above, etc., etc. Shearonink (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No and also I don't like making rules after the fact. --Rschen7754 04:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Absolutely Not. And I’m a bit confused as to why this RfC was proposed, as I’ve seen no one suggest anything to the contrary. I have seen BU Rob 13 state his desire that various admins and WJBScribe have their tools removed and/or be banned over this, but I’ve seen no one categorically suggest that they were “under a cloud”, including him. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Symmachus Auxiliarus: I proposed this since I saw a comment on I believe Floquenbeam's talk page saying that his resignation was under a cloud and I also felt formal consensus was necessary to clear the air that there wouldn't be opposition to them not being under a cloud. DrewieStewie (talk) 06:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No per above arguments. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No These administrators and functionaries took a stand based on what each individually thought to be in the best interests of the encylopedia. These were exceptional circumstances. As a general principle, all of these people should be welcomed back to advanced permissions when each is individually ready to return. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No The towering walls of discussion re WP:FRAM show that the only cloud hangs over the WMF's procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 07:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No, per the rapidly archived previous discussion. I would clarify that this endorsement includes all retirements and requests for bit removal by admins and non-admins (unless already under some unrelated cloud). I hope that these valued editors will soon feel able to return. Certes (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No, WP:IAR . Not saying there might be rules that need ignoring, just that there's no need to even look, to unnecessarily complicate the issue. Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 08:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No extraordinary times require extraordinary measures, etc. The question should not even be need to be asked, but of course it does :) I assume a positive closure of this RfC is intended to allow crats to return various bits in the knowledge that they do so backed by a firm community consensus and not having to risk their collective necks via IAR. ——SerialNumber54129 08:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Well, as a wording nitpick, we can't really make a judgment about "future resigners". But the people who used their respective tools in the Fram situation were reacting to an exceptional circumstance, and IMO should be more than welcome to return to the status quo ante if they want. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No but not because WMF says so. It's none of their business in the first place. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Of course not. From our point of view they are the wiki equivalent of freedom fighters, not of terrorists. (This doesn't mean their actions had unanimous support.) Some people in the Wikimedia Foundation may see things differently, but then they were sufficiently on the defensive to shut up. (And I agree with Opabinia regalis. I was close to expressing the same caveat independently but then nearly decided not to bother.) Hans Adler 08:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Plenty of reasons already stated. It's not up to the WMF board to decide this, but we should take their statement at an attempt of good will, adopting and reinforcing the community opinion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Absolutely not. Reyk YO! 10:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No per WP:IAR and should this be closed per WP:SNOW? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abote2 (talk • contribs)
  • No but keep it open a little linger for most valid result. Trying to fix something that’s broken is allowed. Jehochman Talk 11:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No per others. I'd suggest holding off on SNOW until maybe 24 hours after opening, because this sort of decision benefits from a very strong consensus to which to point. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
    I would suggest at-least a week. ∯WBGconverse 14:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No per the consensus above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • NO, but don't SNOW - for everything above - they didn't violate consensus, they didn't wheelwar (at least how we've accepted it since 2007) and they showed the bravery we have no right to demand from our admins and functionaries. I say don't SNOW, because if it's ever pointed too, having 100 people saying "No" is all the precedent that should ever be needed. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No I wasn't going to bother commenting, since it is already clear where the consensus lies; however, Nosebagbear convinces me that it's worth adding a little more weight to the pile on. GirthSummit (blether) 15:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • As much as I believe that admins and especially crats should avoid being cowboys in these sort of situations, it is clear that the community supported their actions, and that support is the critical ingredient to whether a user maintains that advanced access. No need for further drama by putting them through the RfA/B process again. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. Obviously this is an unpopular opinion, but resigning your tools after violating global Wikimedia policy seems like a clear example of "under a cloud" to me. Reinstating their tools without an RFA or RFB sets a the dangerous precedent that admins can wheel war with the WMF with impunity. Clearly these editors have the support of the community, so I don't understand the reluctance to go through with another RFA. Anne drew 15:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Anne drew Andrew and Drew: These editors for the most part used community consensus that these WMF actions were wrong as reasons for using their tools, and consensus agrees that it was the foundation that wheel warred. But these are exceptional circumstances where people are using their morality, so the community is being more lenient with their actions and are supportive of their actions. And we dont want to put them through the whole RFA/RFB process again because it's redundant and a waste of everybodys time. DrewieStewie (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment to everybody suggesting SNOW: Does SNOW really count here? Since this proposal seeks to gain consensus for the above named admins/crats easy reinstatements, not against them, so it doesn't fall under "snowball's chance in hell". Additionally, more and more points are continually stated, and even a "yes" answer has occurred, so let this continue and come to a natural rather than snow-based close. Everybody's opinion is welcome, and if there are anymore "Yes" comments or any more points that need to be brought up through a RFC, let them be said! That's the whole point of the RFC. Cheers :) DrewieStewie (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No as per Seraphimblade - They didn't resign to avoid imminent exposure, scrutiny or sanction over possible inappropriate conduct or activity of theirs - They resigned simply because they were fed up with the way the WMF handled things - These were certainly exceptional circumstances but yeah they shouldn't be considered under a cloud. –Davey2010Talk 16:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. I don't have any strong opinion about the others, but based on WP:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 41#Recall request (WJBscribe), it's clear to me the community was not behind WJBscribe's actions (I certainly wasn't), and he was forced to resign. If my reading of that is wrong, then they should win re-election easily, but I don't think I'm reading it wrong. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The objections to WJBScribe's actions were more due to him re-opping Fram (who is still banned and as such shouldn't have admin tools, even if there is consensus the ban is not appropriate), not Floq. People were more on board with him re-opping Floq. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 20:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Per Seraphimblade,Johnuniq, Cullen and others. Don't snow it either. p.s.DrewieStewie. You did the right thing in raising this here. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Perhaps close as ECHO? It sure makes the "strike" a lot less meaningful if in fact it was a foregone conclusion that people would be re-sysopped as soon as they asked for their toys back. I'd venture to guess one or two may have even assumed that before they threw them out of the pram. In a real strike incidentally, you forego your pay, you don't just stop working playing the Wiki-game. If it is decided, sensibly, that everyone who resigned should have to go through their RfA again, there are some former admins I would certainly vote for. I suspect though, that some of them are probably the type who are more likely not to ask for resysopping, because they were serious about pointing out how messed up the mob-rule on en.wp currently is (definitely the minority). IMO, though, anyone who used their resignation to ponitificate (or violate policy) should be required to redo their RfA, which, given the mood of the mob, will be a simple formality. Alternatively, Bishzilla could just knight them into a special order of undefrockables. :) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 16:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not - Whether Fram is or is not guilty is not the crux of the matter here. What matters is that an external body made a decision in secret that it said was unappealable and then blocked an admin and removed their tools. Any actions taken subsquent to that, were firmly in accordance with a policy - WP:IAR. No admin or 'crat should be sanctioned for upholding a policy. I would encourage all those that handed in the mop to ask for it back. Mjroots (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes for Floquenbeam and WJBScribe (who, I believe, were the only admin who resigned while parties to an Arbcom case request for alleged tool misuse) because amnesty cheapens the sacrifice, and because amnesty will encourage others in the future to take similar actions. Let the normal process play out, I think it will come to the right result in the end, and a better result than amnesty. Thanks to DrewieStewie for opening this RfC and I agree it should stay open for the normal amount of time and be closed with a clear, conclusive consensus on this issue (and not SNOW closed). – Levivich 18:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Though I appreciate Levivich's point, we make a different point here by showing that we support their principled actions and recognise that they were done in the spirit of improving the encyclopedia, or at least in the spirit of trying to prevent damage to it, which is probably more important in the long run. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 19:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The only ones I'd consider "under a cloud" are those involving the reversal/wheel-warring over WMFOffice actions and ended up at ARBCOM over it. Which I believe consists of Floquenbeam and WJBScribe, but there might be others. Those can run RFA again. Everyone that resigned 'in protest' are not under a cloud. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No, too much time and energy have already been spent unproductively, because of the Fram−ban. Lets not make rules which will force us to spend even more time unnecessary on this, Huldra (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No, and that's as strong a "no" as I can possibly give. And I am explicitly including the admin and crat who took the most controversial actions, when I say "no". This is such a unique situation that we really cannot regard what T&S did as a "normal" kind of "office action", so I reject the idea that anyone really undid an office action. We need to move on, as a community. And please keep this RfC open for as long as possible, in order to have the largest possible number of editors represented. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
    I feel like expanding on my reasoning here. The underlying concept of "under a cloud" is that the resignation was designed to avoid further scrutiny. That is not what happened here. In fact, the situation was quite the opposite. I think that it's a mistake, logically, to say that because an admin action was the equivalent of civil disobedience, the community is obligated to define that as "under a cloud". If an editor feels that they would "support" on a reconfirmation RfX, then that editor has the option of saying that the reconfirmation is not something that they would require. If the reason for a reconfirmation would be to find out the views of the community, then this RfC does that too. And if one of the admins who engaged in civil disobedience did not resign (as is the case here) and was not desysopped, then there is a double standard if we say that those who did choose to resign are "under a cloud". Is resigning, in itself, the thing that creates the cloud? Of course not. The only logical reason to say "yes" in this RfC is if you believe that what Floq and WJBS did was actually a reason for you to have lost trust in them. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes I find all the references to IAR to be rather disturbing. At this point in the pedia's life that should basically never be cited. There are rules and procedures setup for everything that happened and they choose not to follow them to make a personal point. Which was a disruptive misuse of their tools and a shame in general. This was not some great life changing event that happened, and they should not of been fanning the flames as they did. We should expect better from our admins and crats. It is something noted by just about any article from the outside about this event. It does not make the community look good. PackMecEng (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
    I wouldn't agree that IAR should never be cited, there are still good and valid uses for it. You're right in the sense that IAR can never apply to office actions though. They come with an authority above the pay-grade of anyone in the English Wikipedia community, and unlike most WP rules are actually backed up with the force of real-life law. You can protest them all you like, and maybe the WMF will listen (as they eventually did in this case) but you can't ignore them.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
    They come with an authority above the pay-grade of anyone in the English Wikipedia community is an argument that the community pretty thoroughly rejected, so while anyone is certainly entitled to vote "yes," saying that WMF holds authority over the community expressly ignores the overwhelming rejection of that argument which largely resulted in the capitulation of WMF. So...kinda weird to still advance it. Grandpallama (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Grandpallama: Well no, WMF certainly holds authority over the community. I mean if they wanted to they could kick everyone off and shut down. The communities only recourse would be to complain. Seems like holding authority to me. They are also free to ignore community consensus if they wish, not a great idea but nothing stops them from doing it. But hey you are free to believe what you wish. PackMecEng (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    But hey you are free to believe what you wish. Agreed. Grandpallama (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes Historically, the best way to resolve this is for the relevant authorities to refuse the resignations of the people who resigned in protest: See Resignation#When_criticised. This is how your prevent a lingering appearance of a cloud. Random website users don't have the status needed to remove the cloud of lingering suspicion, and declining to require RfAs, etc. will not remove this cloud. Rather, it is ArbCom, Jimbo, WMF, etc. people who need to remove the cloud of suspicion that they will be suspicious of the resigners in the future. Otherwise, next time there is a new restrictive-type policy, people might wonder if it is intended to crack down on those who were previously unruly. Another thought is that following Seminex incident in the 70s, most of the students who participated in the mass-exile media spectacle (sometimes called the "walkout") in front of the journalists wanted back in the larger denomination; they were admitted if they were willing to sign a paper with some commitments on it, this was a relatively low-cost step on their part. In return the organized denomination was loyal to those students who returned--they pursued what generally were successful careers in their denomination. Yet if this had not occured, and the students just said, "Well, I'm coming back unilaterally"--the attitude of denominational leaders towards the ex-walkout students would have suffered from a cloud of suspicion.
Another issue is here is that 'crats aren't one of the aggrieved parties here. Just because they do not see a cloud doesn't mean that one doesn't exist for real, no matter what the status of the resigners becomes.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, under the common interpretation of WP:IAR it seems we can "ignore all clouds". And since all clouds can be ignored, it seems rather pointless to debate whether we should consider an editor was under one. So, opinions may vary as to whether Fram has been an EF0 cloud, EF5 cloud, or something in between, but, even if Fram wasn't personally preventing most of us from improving the encyclopedia, I think we should more seriously consider how risky it is to go on blissfully improving the encyclopedia when potentially threatening clouds can be seen on the horizon. wbm1058 (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No A few hours before this RfC was started I made a suggestion that Arbcom take over the proclamation by the WMF that admin resignations should not be considered under a cloud. This process may be a better avenue of determining the communities opinion on the matter, which Arbcom may then codify by Motion. For the record, I think that the return of tools should be applicable to all functionaries in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No The least divisive the processes can be made and the least escalation, the better. We can also consider their actions as fighting for the encyclopedia in exceptional circumstances, even if not everyone would agree or do the same. If they decide that they want to serve the encyclopedia again in the same way they did, their help is most welcome. Prior to the event, community trust was assessed to grant any special tools. If there are other good reasons for the community trust in an admin or bureaucrat to be questioned, individual arbcom cases can determine as usual... —PaleoNeonate – 22:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No Least divisive option. Keep open full 30 days, it is worth getting wide feedback on this. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 23:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
    +1 Let's send a clear and unequivocal message on this: We choose our admins. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Best to move on from all this. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No! Arbcom is perfectly capable of converting a resignation -- which is clearly a protest and not an attempt to avoid sanctions -- to sanctions if they find that there is sanctionable behavior. What we do NOT want is to send the message that an admin cannot resign in protest of a WMF action and later be resysoped without drama if the WMF takes the action back and apologizes. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes for WJBScribe and Floquenbeam: the whole point of needing a new RfA/RfB after resigning under a cloud is to determine if the community still trusts you after a controversial action. Reverting an office action is obviously a controversial action and resigning whilst an Arbcom case to which they were both a named party is obviously a cloud. If the community supports the actions of WJBScribe and Floquenbeam, which they obviously do, then they would pass an RfA/RfB with flying colours. The only thing I would support out of the ordinary is a simultaneous RfA&RfB request from WJBScribe, rather than making them jump through the same hurdle twice. No, in general, as most admins resigning under Framgate were obviously not resigning under a cloud, but the discretion should lie (as it usually does) with crats at the time an ex-admin requests their bits back. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • NEIN! Remagoxer (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No , and without exception. (Floq in particular did much to bring things along, IMO. Scribes's actions were maybe a little uncratly, but he's been such a good crat overall we should make it easy for him to come back, should he ever change his mind.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
    I doubt uncratly is a word, but if it's not it should be. EEng 15:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No. And I have to say, it strikes me as a fairly easy question. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes per Anne drew Andrew and Drew. As a side note, if these users were determined to have resigned under a cloud, they would probably pass an RfA again anyway due to the level of support for their actions. --Deskana (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No. This is an extraordinary situation for Wikipedia with things escalating beyond 'normal' resignations/actions. This is what IAR is meant for. I don't think that the cloud should apply to Floq and WJBScribe, either. Human responses to an unfortunate situations. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Mu - the 'crats (or maybe it was the arbs?) said somewhere else while this was all unfolding that determinations of WP:CLOUD are made at the time that an editor requests their rights back, not in advance in a discussion such as this. We're not comparing apples to apples here: clearly there are some in this group whose technically-against-policy actions were largely supported by the community, and others whose actions were widely condemned. Each one of these should be considered on a case-by-case basis, without reference to the others, should they happen to ask for their bits back. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No. The events of the last month have been extraordinary. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. The rift in this community needs to be healed as quickly as possible, and to the greatest extent possible. Recognizing that the situation was unusual, that these people did what they did because they honestly believed it was the best course of action in a bad situation, and that their actions were taken in an effort to communicate the seriousness of the situation and get the attention of the faceless bureaucracy that had overstepped its mandate, no, they should not be perceived as being under a cloud. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Status quo. Ivanvector has it right here. We should be clear about what standard practice is: contrary to what DrewieStewie mentioned in the RfC opening statement, the status quo ante, should this RfC end in no consensus, is to defer the decision to bureaucrats—at the time each former admin requests resysopping, the bureaucrats will discuss amongst themselves whether the resignation was performed under controversial circumstances. By its nature, this process is done on a case-by-case basis and is irrespective of what the WMF says, and in general, I feel it is not the community's place to overrule the bureaucrats' usual discretion in these matters. As a community, we can certainly advise the 'crats on what the decision should be, but the final decision should be theirs because that is what we elected them to do. Mz7 (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (Summoned by bot)No per above. SemiHypercube 19:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No per IAR if nothing else. This is an extraordinary situation and it isn't sensible to apply the usual rules to it. In particular it isn't a good idea to use community policies and procedures to get rid of functionaries who were objecting to the community being overruled. Hut 8.5 20:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes for WJBScribe and Floquenbeam: Exactly what Bilorv said. Julia\talk 21:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No, per above. --Yair rand (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Bit of a time sink (albeit with best of intentions). This only actually applies to WJBscribe and me. No one else did anything against The Rules and also resigned. We've both made it very clear we won't request the permissions back without a new RFA/RFB, regardless of what happens with the ArbCom case. WJBscribe has a reputation for being a straight shooter, so I'm confident we can take him at his word. I have a less sterling reputation, but I didn't make that decision lightly, and can assure you that I don't plan on asking for the bit back without a new RFA. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
    No one can force you to not have an RfA, and no one can force you to take the tools back. But I think that it is very valuable, and not at all a waste of time, to find out what the community thinks about whether the two of you did or did not do anything that the community regards as under a cloud. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
    With all due (that is, enormous) respect, this is not about you, Fram or WJB but about those pesky principle thingies - I suggest that the responses here indicate that the majority of interested EN:WP were extremely relaxed about whether the issue of WP:CLOUD was involved, to the point of not considering the issue. It was only because WP:EMF raised the issue in their Less than Majestic statement are we even here - the fact that both resignations occurred before they had deigned to make a response other than NOT doing anything to Bish for pretty much the same actions that you and WJB did (indicating that the actions had consensus and were thus not "illegal") and could not have been to avoid scrutiny as they are continuing to do, in detail ! - to ensure the primacy of WP:EN in deciding how its own members should be judged by the community. How you choose to proceed is very much up to you - and a new RfA would be a very worthy timesink. ';~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I find what Floq did to be brave at every step. Part of the reason I find it to be brave is because they did so knowing that there would be consequences (I think of some favorite quotes from this). I hope I have the chance to vote for Floq at their RfA and that I have this chance sooner rather than later. But also yes WJB and Floq resigned under a cloud (WJB especially for reasons that TonyBallioni laid out here). For everyone else, no of course there's no cloud. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not - The actions of Floq and Bishonen and WJBscribe were very much in the best interests of the English Wikipedia community, and any resignations related to those actions (I don't think Bish has resigned) should not be considered to be "under a cloud", something that the WMF obviously agrees with. This should also go for any other functionary whose resignations were related to the Fram issue. Trytofish has it right, above, and I believe further that considering the high levels of concern shown by the community in general, there should be a general amnesty for any related sanctions.
    To those !voting "yes", please consider the effect that such actions will have on the community, which has already been fractured by the fallout from the actions of T&S, the Board chair's comments, and the inordinate amount of time it took to get a statement from the Board. Once the Arbcom review is over, we will need to put the whole issue to bed, work to repair our relationship with the WMF (and hope that they will do the same with us), and let our cranky and contentious community come together as best it can. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No ... and yes. By the definition from WP:CLOUD it's obvious that the resignations aren't under a cloud. The resignations aren't to avoid scrutiny, blowback, etc. However two things need to be mentioned. First, this RfC explicitly says "the resigning editor performed controversial actions". If the actions were indeed controversial, then we should consider the resignation to be controversial as well and therefore a fresh RfA should be done. Second, RfAs aren't a big deal. If one believes the editor to be acting properly, then one can just support in the new RfA. It is a bit of administrative hassle, but not a big one. I'm in favor of having a special kind of RfA - where the requester doesn't have to deal with all the questions for example - and just offer an explanation for what they did and why they want the tools back, and everything else can be left to a vote. Banedon (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • This discussion can only be advisory as it is the 'crats who determine whether a cloud exists for returning tools on request. To the extent that they might consider the community's view, I agree with the majority in that answering no would not upset me. The extraordinary circumstances here are sufficient for a relaxed attitude to re-tooling to be desirable for community harmony after a period of disruption. On a literal reading, only two editors really have a question over them – Floq and WJB – and both plan any new tool requests to be through RfA / RfB rather than BN. Resysopping Fram is the only action that would give me pause in supporting those requests, and I am sympathetic to WJB's position that Fram's tools should not have been taken. I was also pleased to see that Board's comments on this area recognised it was a decision for enWP. We need to be keeping good people, not losing them. EdChem (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Undecided, but leaning yes - However overwhelming the consensus has been in supporting the actions of Floq, Bishonen, and WJBScribe, a cloud is a cloud. The actions taken were remarkably out-of-process and so have raised legitimate questions about the role of policy and administrators, and the scope to which WP:IAR applies. It's an ongoing question being faced by the community, one where established and trusted voices have weighed in with differing opinions. A common argument I'm hearing is that this situation was so wildly irregular that policy shouldn't apply here. But we don't know if a similar situation won't happen two years from now, or two months from now, or tomorrow. I think for the sake of returning to normality, we need to at least get back onto policy footing and require RFAs given these controversial circumstances, so that it's clear the community is operating by its own established rules and guidelines rather than making exceptions for its own established contributors. No one seriously believes that the RFAs won't pass with flying colors anyway.--WaltCip (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No For many of the reasons outline above. Plus there is no rule book for this messed up situation. North8000 (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No I agree with those who say that all involved acted in the best interests of the encyclopedia. And as several editors I respect I've said, their resignations were not done to avoid scrutiny or sanction and the WMF, ArbCom, and our representative on the Board do not believe they resigned under a cloud. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Absolutely Not. The WMF T&S was way out of line in how they acted. I no longer have any trust at all in any of them. There were many points where they could have done things to handle things properly and according to established procedures. Instead, they gave themselves new powers, told everyone to piss off, and continue to act in ways that do nothing beneficial for the community. I think they should all resign immediately for how horribly they handled this situation. I also think the current CEO should resign immediately as her actions did absolutely nothing to help the situation, instead only further fanning the flames of concern and outrage over the idiocy exhibited by T&S. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No due to everyone above and that it simply isn't under a cloud. Vermont (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No for everyone except Floq and WJBScribe, because protest actions aren't against policy. No on Floq and WJBScribe in the principle of amnesty - after all, they didn't start the fight, and we can't expect to punish them for standing up to bullying if we're expected to find a way to move forward in a working relationship with those who chose to bully the community. Guettarda (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Not in any way shape or form not only should these people not be considered to ba under a cloud, but once this issue is finally resolved, they whould be offered the opportunity to be given the bit back upon request. It would be entirely unreasonable to expect these editors to undergo the RFA process when their actions were in defence of all Wikipedia editors. - Nick Thorne talk 01:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No due to the unprecedented circumstances. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No per above. -FASTILY 03:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No per above. MarnetteD|Talk 04:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No There's no allegation that these editors engaged in any sort of bad behavior prior to their resignations, and their resignations can't reasonably be viewed as some sort of endorsement of TOS-violating behavior, since they were very clearly (as far as I've seen) in protest of the process by which Fram was sanctioned, not the idea that TOS-violating behavior shouldn't be punished. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No Exceptional circumstances, and their actions at the time reflected the community consensus expressed in the discussions. Grandpallama (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Leave it to the Crats -- I don't see any reason to make an exemption to the general rule of leaving it to the crat corp in making the decision one way or the other. -- Dolotta (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No Per all the "No" arguments above and to paraphrase Junius: "The admin (or editor) who is truly loyal to Wikipedia will neither advise nor submit to heavy-handed measures." Dr. K. 02:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No The cloud is a lie. Obviously if any of them want an RFA/RFB they are welcome to do so, but I do not feel as though the community should require one. CThomas3 (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No because the unusual circumstances of the Arb case make it clear that they were not under a cloud for the actions they took. And despite their statements, I hope they will simply request their tools back without an RfA because we really don't need to rehash this drama-fest further. Rlendog (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No – I acknowledge that both Floquenbeam and WJBscribe are opting against regaining their permissions without new RfXs, and I can respect that. But I do not feel that they should be mandated to do as such, nor do I think Bishonen's resignation should be seen as under a cloud. They exemplified integrity when confronted with injustice. I will enthusiastically support each of those three editors for any and every RfX they submit, without a moment's hesitation – and I know I speak for an overwhelming majority of my fellow Wikipedians in saying so. Kurtis (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No Kurtis is right. Integrity was on display and should not lead to punishment. ―Buster7 ☎ 23:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes Otherwise these quitting admins will simply just waltz back into adminship at a future date. You get the feeling that there is a cosy sub-set of editors reacting in horror to the idea that one of them could be removed for bad behaviour, quitting in protest over it, but wanting to keep a back-door to come back in through. FOARP (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No, Nein, Nej, Niet, Non, undoing controversial actions should be considered over a cloud, not under it. Κσυπ Cyp   17:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes The whole point of civil disobedience is that you do what you think is right and you're willing to accept the consequences. The consequence here was accepting the risk you wouldn't get reconfirmed at RfA. The likelihood of any of them not being reconfirmed is almost zero, so this is all extremely likely to be moot, but the high road is to go that route anyway. You'll never regret showing you're ready to walk the walk. --valereee (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
    I actually generally agree with this sentiment; when you break the rules in protest you do it expecting to be punished. That's what makes such rulebreaking powerful, in that it creates a sort of mini-martyr. But I don't think we need to be the ones nailing our heroes to the cross. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It's not punishment. It's consequences. An RfA isn't intended to punish. It's intended to confirm/reaffirm community trust, and I think it's very likely to do that, and I think it's an important step. Also we're comparing what's likely to be a record-breaking support RfA to crucifixion? At worst it's a bit of a time waster. No actual blood or slow asphyxiation. --valereee (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
    Valereee, while RfA is intended to evaluate community trust, some would argue it encourages petty criticism and toxic behavior. I'm not sure I agree with that entirely, but it does seem that most people do not greatly enjoy the experience of an RfA, and would not relish the opportunity to relive it. If they have broad community support (it seems they do), they might pass by a wide margin, but they'd still have to go through a process that has long been criticized as deeply flawed. What we're asking here is whether that's really necessary. —Rutebega (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Rutebega, totally. No one wants to go through RfA; it's why we've had so few recently. It's crappy. But these are editors who've survived one already. If anyone does, they know they can get through it. A bit like childbirth, maybe. :) But I think RfA is necessary to show WMF and ourselves that this is indeed our consensus. I believe it will be a net positive for these editors and for the community. --valereee (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No Very clear the community supports these editors. There is no need for a week-long dramafest to prove it. Suggest those who feel otherwise consider scrolling up to see the expression of that support.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • What makes you think it would be a weeklong dramafest? I think it's more likely to be a weeklong lovefest, if anything. Still moot, but again, high road. --valereee (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I would suggest you speak to them directly then and urge them to take the high road, as you deem it. For me, it seems like dictating other people's principles for them, but that's just my opinion.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Floq's already said he'd take that road, and I think WJB has said the same. I admire and respect them both for it. --valereee (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, if they change your minds, I am sure you will be there to remind them of it. In the meantime, we can each support them in our own way.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
That wouldn't be very good-faithy of me. I'd !vote support in an RfA for either of them, either way, but I admire and respect them for voluntarily offering. I note that your original post was indented to look like a direct reply to me, which is why I responded to you, and that you've since changed the indent. I didn't realize you hadn't meant your post as a response to mine. --valereee (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see. I'm afraid I'm careless with indentation. No, it was not meant to be a reply to yours. Thank you for pointing that out.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No, obviously. They did the right thing. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No and while I welcome the majority of the Board's comments, with due respect they don't get to decide if these resignations are under a cloud or not. That's a community role, either directly or through community-established policy. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Benjamin (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • STOP - Complete and Full Stop - We just spent more than a month screaming about an out of process ban (at least as many understood it, but wp:office is a conversation for another time and place.). Now you want to have a process completely out left field to decide tool-sets for 5, 10, 20 people all in one fell swoop? OH HELL NO!. You take it case by case, person by person, and circumstance by circumstance. You don't make blanket decisions like this for the project - or has the almighty Office already changed the place that much? You can couch "Got pissed off and fed up with the BS here" with pretty little words like "civil disobedience" - but it doesn't change the reality of it. Everyone laid down their tools one by one. Made statements as to why one by one. Now you want to just blanket say "here ya go - we know how you felt". If someone can step up and lay down tools - then they can damn well be man (or woman) enough to stand up and ask for them back. One by one .... but hey, I'm not active anymore so ya'all do what you want. — Ched :  ?  — 06:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
And while I'm at it - is there a notice of this RfA listed at WP:PERM, WP:CLOUD (even though that is still an essay), WP:CENT, WP:RFA, WP:Policy? — Ched :  ?  — 06:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I mean, holding an RFC to determine what to do in an unusual situation is our process. Big sweeping RFCs like this are rare and unusual, certainly, but not so much so that I'd call them out-of-process, and this one does seem to be attracting the level of participation I'd think would be necessary for even a fairly broad, sweeping, unusual outcome. --Aquillion (talk) 07:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey there @Ched:, breathe for a second. This RFC doesn't apply to everybody who resigned positions. It's specifically for the cases of Floq, WJBScribe, and, should he resign, Bishonen. Everybody else doesn't fit the definition of "controversial". Those i just mentioned above do, but I support them not being under a cloud since they did their actions in the name of the community, and given the exceptional circumstances, support exercising IAR on them. DrewieStewie (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I. Repeat. "One by one". I also wonder about the term "controversial actions", but whatever. And since I'm here responding anyway .... While I HATE to have "gender" discussions on wiki - I'm not sure Bish would go along with the pronoun "he" - just a heads up for the future. I won't get into the "breathe" thing for personal reasons. — Ched :  ?  — 06:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes for WJBScribe and Floquenbeam. For reasons fully set out by others. I also think that their actions made matters worse by adding to the already febrile atmosphere. Self-referring to Arbcom (WJBScribe) and insisting to be joined (Floquenbeam) - a lack of judgement all round. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
    You know ~~ I had a bad pancake one time ~~ Oh sorry wrong article ~` ~mitch~ (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No Floq, at least, has said they don't plan to ask for resysopping without an RfA anyway, but I think the principle here is important enough anyway, so I'll opine. The essence of a resignation "under a cloud" is the appearance that the resign-er is hoping that by leaping through the trapdoor scrutiny of their actions will end. This situation was overflowing with scrutiny, for sure. EEng 05:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No They were not under a cloud. They did what they thought best for the project but are unlikely to repeat. Hopefully, this was a unique and unusual circumstance unlikely to be repeated. Also, sentiment is high that they did in fact do the right thing. At the very most they did the wrong thing for the right reason, and should receive their bits back w/o further drama or disruption.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • How namely “related”? If merely induced by the scandal without any kind of involvement, then no of course. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Of course not. And shame on the BoT for even suggesting the idea. -- llywrch (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes for Floq and WJBScribe, no for everyone else. They both indicated they want an RfA/RfB. And frankly they did undertake controversial actions. The rest I don't see a point to putting through an RfA/RfB (and would actually prefer if they were told not to try to have one as it would just clog up the system). Hobit (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes While I think many who resigned thought they were doing something good, these actions taken during the controversy were hasty actions, done to make a point and I think that we want to encourage more level-headed behavior on Wikipedia. Actions have consequences. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, God forbid WP admins and editors take stands on principle. Let's do our best to ensure that never happens again. —Chowbok ☠ 00:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl:@Chowbok: Incorrect. Most people resigned out of protest, not to avoid punishment for behavior. Most resignees did nothing wrong or took any admin/crat actions relating to the case other than resign, which isn't a "controversial action". This RFC is for those few who did actions that would normally be objectionable but to many aren't in this case due to the exceptional corcumstances. It asks the community if those few (whose names have been mentioned countless times already) should be considered under a cloud. Just to clarify the RFC for you. Pointing out the flaw in your logic considering EVERYBODY under a cloud when that is nowhere near true at all. Plus a few of those who have resigned have requested and been granted resysop, just so you know. DrewieStewie (talk) 07:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I was actually being sarcastic, sorry if that wasn't clear.—Chowbok ☠ 10:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes for Floq and WJBScribe, no for everyone else. Floq and WJBScribe took a principled position and stuck something on the line. Courageous and worthy of respect, and the re-RfX is the litmus test of their decisions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No, absolutely not. The discussion is becoming moot as a couple of the admins in question have been getting their bits back, but this should certainly apply to all the admins who resigned over the Fram issue. If they prefer to go through an RFA/B it is their prerogative, but there it would be all the more important to have a solid consensus that there is not a shred of cloud in the sky of their resignation. --bonadea contributions talk 06:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No for everyone involved. I get what some people are saying about precident and the significence of Floq and WJBScribe's actions, and with the general long-term unworkability of encouraging people to openly flout the WMF like that, but it was an unusual situation caused by extreme circumstances that will hopefully be avoided in the future; we should all try to resolve it and then put it behind us as much as possible. And, in a practical sense, one thing this reminds us is that Wikipedia's protection from careless WMF micromanagement depends heavily on us not making it too easy for Wikipedia to just be treated like a generic social network or something of that nature; the fact that extreme situations like this cause us to fall apart is a feature and not a bug, since it enourages the WMF to show at least some respect for our existing culture and conflict-resolution mechanisms. Conversely, when the WMF is willing to work with us (as they seem to be now), we should reciprocate and shouldn't protract the damage caused by earlier protests. --Aquillion (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No, because the "office action" against a longterm administrator in good standing was unexplained (even to the victim), unappealable, extrajudicial, out-of-process, and unwarranted -- any one of which (not to mention all of which combined) merited overturning. Softlavender (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Determinations of whether administrators resigned under controversial circumstances should be made if and when they reapply for the tools, on an individual basis, as always; I see no convincing case being made that all of these resignations are somehow different from ordinary desysop requests. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Extra-ordinary actions by T&S drove extra-ordinary re-actions. I'd be more disappointed if we expect our admins to be unthinking knee-jerk drones, rather than having the common sense and decency to do what they think is right. Even the WMF don't consider the resignations to be under a cloud (not that the point is anything to do with them). - SchroCat (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No per SchroCat. Harold the Sheep (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No for the many reasons above. Sidebar, I suspect this RFC was phrased in the positive so that we could have the affirmative rejection of the proposal. Hasteur (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Confirming the comment above by @Hasteur: I was against any of these people being considered under a cloud, so I drafted this RFC knowing that community consensus would agree (even ArbCom and the Crats), and did it as a procedural community formality since Wikipedia runs by consensus. DrewieStewie (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes for Floquenbeam and WJBScribe. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No— the resignees' actions have nothing to do with civil disobedience. WMF is neither a government nor an occupying power. Usurpation by T&S of powers that rightly reside in the en.wikipedia community seems on track to resolution by the community through its elected organs and functionaries. — Neonorange (Phil) 16:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Motion to close It appears nobody has commented in a week and the bot archived it wothout it being closed. I will make a request for closure. DrewieStewie (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 30 day notice The 30 days are up. Closer: Please mark your intention to close before drafting. DrewieStewie (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram/Archive_4&oldid=1137406237"