Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 5

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

RFC on WP:ARBPOL Forms of proceeding: Private Hearings

Please see here Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

They STILL haven't learned!

See m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Community Health/Recommendations/Rules and regulations, decision making processes and leadership (and several of the other proposals there), which, once again, propose that the WMF dictate to the communities. I would strongly encourage everyone from here to make their thoughts known on the respective talk pages of those proposals. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

People who write that unworkable and illiterate balderdash are not going to be responsive to any input. They have one thing, executive power, and the input requested is a condescending nod towards democracy by an elite (a small part of WMF) convinced that its modeling has nothing to do with ambitious social engineering. What they are asking for is for people outside their leaden tower to 'tweak' a set of theories and practices they appear to think obvious, so that the ideology can have its formal veneer of consensus and responsiveness to the 'community'. I'd like to see some exponent of this crap stand up before an examining panel of anthropologists, sociologists and psychologists and take responsibility for the thesis by being required to defend it. They'd be frogmarched out in derision within a half an hour. Pathetic, but even more so, profoundly sad in its obtusely confident cultural illiteracy and philosophical ineptness. Nishidani (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Nishidani, I bet you'd love this quote, from m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/2: The classic notion of an encyclopaedia and ‘universal knowledge’ needs to be discarded. Having top priority content about any group of people, nation,... is in this direction. The idea of encyclopedic knowledge feels problematic. What is a “universal knowledge”? Who gets to decide what is “universal”? We need to focus on moving from a single center to multiple ones. Just reading that makes my brain hurt. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
The classic notion of an encyclopaedia and ‘universal knowledge’ needs to be discarded.
Think, for fuck's sake, on the meaning of (if it has an unambiguous one) and intent of that statement. That is the most massive expression of intellectual presumption I've encountered in decades, and I'd like to know which nincompoop put their name to it. It's not the WMF that worries me: they have outstanding technicians in any number of areas. It's the witless, ideologically wired pseuds in their cultural safety bastion that are causing havoc. I know that refuse archaeology is a respectable discipline, but I can't wade through that rubbish (unlike the remarkable Wikipedians, such as Seraphimblade who have some inexhaustible patience and technical curiosity I am, alas, lacking(, other than note that the clever dicks who did it, organized it according to the hegemonic dictum of divide et impera. Make a formal ideological statement on one page, then split up the (un)expected feedback, dispersing it over numerous subpages on a website few visit, so there will be a minimum of comment, and none of it cross-indexed to allow a comprehensive overview of reactions. Doing that is a patent form of bureaucratic blindsiding of a community, and underwrites the bad faith (well, my personal view doesn't require that: all I see is blithering incompetence and overweening presumption among the pseuds in the ideology corner of T&S) of the proposal. If they want to state clearly what they mean, they should take an area of ostensible oppression and exclusion, and show how Wikipedians are discriminating against that community's right to express its knowledge. I looked at one example Kumeyaay, which came up for mention. No one is obstructing that from being quadrupled in coverage to FA standards. The problem is, no one is interested, few have read the ethnography, and laziness rests on the laurels of a scratchily sketched out stub. White imperialism has fuck all to do with the shortfall in adequate representation.Nishidani (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
If a strategy recommendation means "the WMF should do something", it will say that. If a recommendation says "The Wikimedia movement will develop a universal code of conduct underpinning its on- and offline spaces" then that is different to saying the WMF should develop the code of conduct and then inflict it on everyone else. There are other recommendations in different areas which suggest a radically different future role for the WMF , so reactions along the lines of 'zomg WMF powergrab' are really sort of missing the point. The Land (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
The Land, several recommendations most certainly are. The one I cited states very clearly: All Wikimedia project communities will be able to build upon the CoC to contextualize and enhance it in their project and local circumstances but cannot fall below it. That's directly indicating they intend to impose it, not suggest it. Also see here, which actually advocates WMF control of content and content policy, and also advocates forcing communities to accept nonfree licenses. (Betcha that goes over well on de.wikipedia and Commons...). There are several others like that. If these were instituted as written, they would absolutely constitute a power grab. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Seraphimblade - hmmm, sort of. That recommendation is certainly saying there should be some kind of Wikimedia-universal behavioural standards in a code of conduct, and that individual projects will not be able to just opt out of those standards. It is not saying that those standards will be created, drafted, owned, or maintained by the WMF. The Land (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
That does not matter. They would be drafted, created, owned, or maintained by anyone besides the local community. We decide our rules, and we enforce them. Not someone else, not some conversation on Meta. Period. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate the delusion. Obviously, they are not power-grabbing but social-engineering the community. ∯WBGconverse 19:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
They are eneither friends nor foes. They are incompetent due to the fact they don't appear to have read much in the real world of scholarship, about the things they drivel on about.Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Another one to note: "The admins, bureaucrats and project committee leaders, like ArbCom, should strive to adhere to the quota" for membership, of 40% female, 40% male, 20% "representatives of other diverse communities (... various age groups; with disabilities; of varying language groups; from indigenous communities, the LGBT community, various racial and ethnic communities; of different socio-economic levels, etc". I don't see how this could be implemented without having everyone declare that information somewhere. EddieHugh (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

So one must presume, the T&S office, and the WMF have already achieved in their hiring policies that precise ideal proportion in their employment numbers?Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@EddieHugh - yes, that's an important point and a significant challenge to this recommendation ever actually happening.
@Nishandani If you look at the membership of the Diversity working group that has made this recommendation, you will see that among the 13 members there is 1 WMF board member and 1 WMF staff member and 11 people who are neither. What makes you think this recommendation is anything to do with WMF's existing practices, or anything to do with Trust and Safety? The Land (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
On the niceties of wiki structure you can trust that I will fuck up. I tend to rely on what a score or so of canny wikipedians who follow these corridor and back room developments, and I note that in the bizarre material on diversity churned out, there's always a core board member somewhere, and if they can't see the chaos these chatting circles groups are setting up, it means the appropriate WMF has no inbuilt litmus test for bullshit. No one has apparently told these groups supplying policy input that proposing to 'collect and use different forms of free, trusted knowledge,' guts Wikipedia of one of its core policies, verifiability and above all begs the simple question. Wanna fix discrimination? It takes just a few days to read up sufficiently on any minority ethnic group -say a book, a monograph and several sociological/anthropological articles- and draft a dozen pages of notes, so that one can write up a fair sketch of what is known from RS. The first priority always is: make a bibliography, preferably linked to online sources, of what all editors must read to add flesh to the stub. I've done this several hundred times, and apart from one problematical editor who complained I should go away because I was a whiteman and didn't understand 'his' people, I've found no obstacles. So it's the old story - open up a 'theoretical' discussion about oppression, and you get a huge waste of time over weeks and months, with nothing done.- Read a book or two, makes notes, and the raison d'etre of the complaint evaporates. I think the actual onwiki record of article creation of editors whingeing about discrimination should be examined. Unless one has a decent curriculum proving one has actually worked up numerous articles, this waffling is pointless, or its only point is to invent rules nthat other more practical people who actually write the encyclopedia must bend to. Nishidani (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Any statement of basic site-foundational change such as this should probably have to be ok'ed by both Wikipedians and the Foundation although things like Foundation sanction control of any action over Wikipedians should make it a non-starter. For example, the best and most qualified candidates should be made admins, bureaucrats, etc., and not selected or governed by quota, and certainly not a quota decided by an off-site parent entity. As for discarding the universal concept of an encyclopedia, I don't know what that means and hopefully nobody does. Reminds me of the site not including the logo of the incomplete globe on most skins, including the default skin, and by disrepectng that the project has already lost a major historical connection with its past. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Do they even understand that they are talking about a volunteer based project that has only ever offered the chance to participate in building and maintaining an encyclopedia - not a project to be made to conform to some socially desirable enterprise. The community decides who it gives the means to police the infrastructure. If the ratio's of the membership do not reflect the preferred percentages of the world or regional populations then it is a problem of the greater society outside of the encyclopedia. It is not the remit of encyclopedia building to be any sort of example of social engineering. This nonsense could kill Wikipedia faster than any army of trolls and vandals. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Does this mean that the "How do you prefer to be described?" option in our preferences menu be forced to chose m or f? Anonymity is a feature of editing but that will be reduced or even removed if these quotas are to be achieved. At this stage it feels like they want to take away what brought us here as a side not couldn't these people please go run Citizendium MarnetteD|Talk 02:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
thought: As socialism shattered Venezuela, the useful idiots applauded sounds a lot like "as WMF shattered Wikipedia, the useful idiots applauded". 2601:602:9200:3120:C5F0:1315:ECEC:6172 (talk) 07:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@2601:602:9200:3120:C5F0:1315:ECEC:6172: How does that pertain to this issue? Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 08:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Unblockables and user-blindness

There was a discussion here recently about "unblockables". I started work on a userscript which might help fix some issues related to that: see WP:VPM#UserBlind_mode. --Yair rand (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

(Now archived.) --Yair rand (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Evidence received from community posted and Workshop phase opened

The Arbitration Committee has posted an anonymized summary of the evidence received by them, in the course of the ongoing arbitration-case, over the Evidence sub-page. Fram's rebut has also been posted over the same venue. The Workshop phase has been (accordingly) declared open. ∯WBGconverse 16:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

A similar case on fr.wiktionary

This happened on fr.wiktionary too where an admin got banned by WMF Global Ban in 2018 probably for old facts that occured during conflicts in 2015-2016 on other projects (commons and fr.wikipedia). I won't argue this facts, they were serious and it was shitstorm back then. The guy couldn't keep a cool head while his opponents, far from being all white, remained polite and courteous without preventing them from behaving like idiots and fueling also the conflict. In the end only one got ban, the vulgar's one.
But anyway, on fr.wiktionary we have a reputation to be kind of hippie community that collect all rubbish and lame ducks from Wikipedia and turn them into regular competent content filling contributors; and to be honest I'm pretty proud of that trait of our project. So we accept all those contributors that no one wants anymore, and we judge them by the collaborative work they do and their behavior on our project only. Sometimes they reintegrate and sometimes they are simply unrecoverable and get thrown away (even from us). But at least they have this second chance and I think it's a good thing that our project be a land of exile for wikipedia's outcasts.
So when this thing occure he didn't did anything that desserve a permaban. There was sometimes few complain about little bitter shits he posted here and there but nothing serious that deserved more than a revert. A block must remain an exceptional resource, the guys at fr.wikipedia (and the WMF) may have forgotten that but not us.
Especially when the said victims — who had never set foot on our project before — come to tickle the beast and wipe its ass, peeling off its history in search of a turd to dig up ; which is a bit of masochistic behavior imho, but more importantly, reveal a lack of willingness to overcome the conflict and leave all this behind. I mean, having the sisterproject's userpages of someone you're in conflict with on your watchlist, is that really the right behaviour to have in order to contribute in peace ? I doubt it.
Well aware of the elements and also knowing the background of the story we didn't overreact. Obviously they didn't find much on the wiktionary, so they try to argue that the guy was banned on commons and wikipedia project and that we (the fr.wiktionary admins) should line up stupidly to other projects decisions (it was bad knowing us); and we courteously made them understand that these facts didn't occures here and so didn't have to be treat here (in other words, don't bring the wikidrama from another project in ours when there's no reason to be ; especially if you don't plan to get more than that involved in our community, it's not productive). So it isn't about defending "a harasser", it's simply being impartial and dealing only with the facts that concern us because it occured in our project.
Few months later Classiccardinal acquire the admin tools in our project because he behave well and did consistent contributions. And that this thing that's probably butthurted some peoples (whose still weren't involved in our project in any manner) and complain discreetly to the WMF you-know-what. Probably filling out a file full of the old cases from commons and wikipedia and without the other party being able to defend himself and without the only community in which he was still active being able to testify as to whether or not his behaviour had changed since then. I keep saying probably because, like you experimented aswell, we absolutely don't know nothing about the process, the charges, and what was specifically used to justify this extreme and irrevocable decision of them. All that under the very vague (and easy) pretext of defending the victims. So we can only speculate, and that a very bad thing for the trust.
Of course with all the past things Classiccardinal did on commons and wikipedia he was probably categorize as toxic even if the alleged facts used to judge the case were outdated. I think also his past behaviour might simply resulted from poor arbitration by these communities, since, as I said, many outcasts have come to us and, strangely enough, have not made a noise in our community (for most of them).
Anyway, when this global ban occured it was irrelevant by its timing, it came way too late, in the middle of a lull. It brought a lot of confusions and frustrations among the fr.wiktionary team which decision to keep this contributor free to contribute was neither a whim nor a laxity only based on what we saw on our project.
But the measure was counterproductive because, in doing, you changed a contributor who focused again on the content and calmed down, to a careless martyr who no longer has anything to lose and takes a malicious pleasure in trolling. So GG the WMF, it was a perfect decision, a beautiful crisis management, all done with clear explanations.
Well since that case I think that the WMF's right to inflict a global ban for other things than plain and flat obvious cross vandalism without having to justify is simply an aberration (at least the way it's applied, the complete confidentiality of the process without community witnesses). It's just a big fucking joke. And the Fram story I just read on this page confirms it to me. To me this thing is like exactly why the European Union is more and more hated in my country. Some great thinkers outside of the realities of the field allow themselves to act inconsistently beyond national sovereignties and impose choices that go against local ways of doing on the pretext of wanting to harmonize everything (according to their one and only point of view which is the fairest of course). Du grand foutage de gueule. #riotpedia V!v£ l@ Rosière /Whisper…/ 14:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I've moved this from the main page as per the edit notice. Praxidicae (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

WMF Community Engagement abolished

Apparently, the WMF Community Engagement department was disbanded and will be integrated with other departments. The head, Valerie D’Costa, will leave WMF soon. This was reported today by Katherine Maher (in a wall of puffery words such as how the department performed excellently etc).--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Link? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I'll be direct -- we are making changes to the CE department structure. We will not be starting a search for a new Chief of Community Engagement. Instead, over the course of the next few weeks, the seven teams currently within the Community Engagement (CE) department will be integrated into the Foundation’s other departments. By January, all of the teams will have joined their new departments, and “Community Engagement” will no longer be a standalone department. The teams currently in CE will be integrated with other Foundation departments aligned with executive leadership goals and based on their scope and focus, as well as how they might grow in the future. Some of these alignments are intuitive, such as Trust & Safety returning to the Legal department; others might not be immediately apparent. ‑ Iridescent 08:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @Ymblanter: and @Iridescent: for the updates. Par for the course that the announcement would be on yet another WMF website that none of us use, and fewer have heard of. Not quite "the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard"" but not far off. DuncanHill (talk) 11:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I have seen it on the mailing list (wikimedia-l) that some of us are still subscribed to, but yes, I understand the sentiment.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps we should create List of online locations known to be used by the Wikimedia Foundation? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
"But the plans were on display..."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a torch."
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice, didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard."[1]
--Guy Macon (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

According to meta:Special:Contributions/VDcosta_(WMF) Valerie D’Costa had already left on the 8th November. Anyone fancy a sweepstake on how long it'll take WMF to update meta:Community Engagement? DuncanHill (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

One must wonder if this has anything to do with the overwhelmingly negative reception of many parts of the "2030" strategy. I know that, due to legal realities, it is not possible to say anything bad about an employee who is departing, but that also means that in some cases, the "We thank them for their contributions and wish them the best..." doesn't match the reality. And that "strategy discussion" in itself was in the locked basement in the disused lavatory, I only stumbled across it on reading and following up a mailing list post, and on bringing it to people's attention, most of them were completely unaware of it too. It seems a lot of this stuff gets placed on Meta, a very anodyne and low-key "announcement" gets made about it, and then we later hear a disingenuous "Well, none of you objected to it, and it was right there all along...". Beware of the leopard, indeed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
With the usual "I have no secret inside knowledge and am just guessing" disclaimer, probably more likely that she was unhappy at the very concept of "negative reception". Assuming her official biography is accurate, prior to coming to WMF her previous experience has been with the World Bank and the government of Singapore, both of which are bodies with a culture of the bosses issuing orders and the minions obeying them without question; it must be a frustrating culture shock to be transplanted into a culture where even the most strongly-worded order is just treated as a suggestion which those being bossed around will subsequently discuss and decide whether they feel it's an order worth obeying. Even long-term Wikipedians sometimes struggle with working in a culture where the only "authority" anyone has derives from whether others respect that person enough to take their opinions seriously. ‑ Iridescent 10:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Concerning the 2030 strategy, I am afraid, they are still convinced at this point that this is an excellent process cleverly organized and smoothly running, and whoever objects to it are just jerks who do not in any way express the community sentiment. They recently screwed up the deadlines for publishing the preliminary recommendations, so that the ball now is not even with us. It looks to me like the whole Community Engagement business is directly related to FRAM.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
At least we didn't have to hear about it from something hurriedly tweeted from a departure gate. It might have been related to Framgate. The WMF recently screwed up. Big time. Again. Period. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I'll have you know that disused lavatories can be very desirable. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Relevant link, from the WMF's Community Engagement Tuning session.
@DuncanHill:, re updating the Meta page: The part of the WMF responsible for keeping things transparent by updating pages on Meta seems to be the On-wiki documentation working group, a group with a secret/undocumented membership that has monthly secret meetings. Or used to. The regular meetings stopped a while back, but nobody documented this on-wiki. They might have started them up again, but I can't tell, because none of them seem to document anything on-wiki. --Yair rand (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
@Yair rand: Thanks, there's also a m:Movement_communications_group "to support communications efforts and collaborations across the Wikimedia movement" which does so by talking to itself on a private mailing list. I suspect too much effort is being put into the "space" thing to spare any time for old-fashioned things like on-wiki communication. My experience of trying to get Meta pages updated, or to find out why they haven't been updated, has been rather unhappy. DuncanHill (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
@Yair rand, DuncanHill, Guy Macon, Kudpung, and Ymblanter: If you're really into obscure WMF venues for hiding announcements, be sure to occasionally check this, which by all appearances looks to be an attempt to recreate the look, feel and general customer experience of Wikipedia Review c. 2007, appears to have almost no readers, and seems to have become one of the locations of choice for hiding announcements. ‑ Iridescent 18:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
It is funny that it was actually me who suggested the name "space station"--Ymblanter (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
And this might give (or might not give) some insight on what is expected here there.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I would recommend against going there. The WMF's "Space" is run by the WMF (moderators are WMF staff, conduct policy was written by the WMF, etc), and it seems to be some kind of hostile takeover attempt, with intention to eventually push its threads (WMF control and all) onto the projects directly. The best hope for its disbanding is if it gets no views. --Yair rand (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: I'm not allowed to know if the page you linked exists. DuncanHill (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
It accepts unified login similarly to Mediawiki and Phabricator, but they record visits (or, to be exact, number of days the user visited).--Ymblanter (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
So there is a cabal, and we finally found it! (I'm not serious.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last Cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that There Is No Cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that There Is No Cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the 42-story International Cabal Headquarters, and an announcement that There Is No Cabal is shown at the start of every program on The Cabal Network. If that doesn't convince people that There Is No Cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't accept unified login. At least if your name is Kudpung it doesn't. It just rejects the login and puts a cookie in your computer to prevent you from logging in again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
This is very strange Can you login to Phabricator? Or Copypatrol?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Unless they asked your permission, they're also in breach of GDPR for doing that. As I've pointed out to (and been ignored by) Legal numerous times, our "cookie block" feature on en-wiki is also illegal, and if an EU-based admin blocked an EU-based editor they'd have a decent chance of losing a case if anyone bothered to prosecute. #JustSaying. ‑ Iridescent 21:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I can log in - click log in, then the OAuth thingy opens, accept that, then a box to create a new account opens, agree to that, then you're logged in. As a new user "For safety reasons, we temporarily limit what new users can do. You’ll gain new abilities (and badges) as we get to know you." - you have to [jump through various hoops] before you become a "member". I'm beginning to regret logging in to it now, will see if it's possible to leave! DuncanHill (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Fortunately you can delete your account. I have. DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, that's rather interesting. I'm somewhat surprised they don't do the same to me if that function is available, but I seem to be able to log in alright. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I can log in to Phab. I always get that "we need to access your account' thing, but otherwise it's OK. Maybe it's just a bug. Maybe it's not a coolkie. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
And now indeed it was announced that the Space will be closed, apparently as an unsuccessful pilot.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
"Next steps on Wikimedia Space" as a headline doesn't quite convey the intended meaning "Closure of Wikimedia Space". We'd better watch out if anyone from WMF starts talking about "next steps" here. DuncanHill (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 13#Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Did User:Fram serve his ban?

Just curiousBashereyre (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Bashereyre, see for yourself Vexations (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Shop talk: 'Iban,' for example.

The article is replete with Wikipedia jargon, or shoptalk. Makes it difficult to read. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:BeenAroundAWhile; whenever you encounter "Wikipedia jargon", just put WP: in front, and the shoptalk in capial; eg: Iban -> WP:IBAN, cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Good point! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

What on earth was this?

While searching up random garbage page names to see if they were deleted or not, I came across a deletion by a now-vanished admin. I checked their contribs and they seemed to have left after getting embroiled in this controversy. I had my account when this happened, but I never bothered to use it. So what did this Fram person do to get banned by ArbCom and rile up so many people? Capsulecap (talk • contribs) 02:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Fram was banned as an office action, not by ArbCom. Several Arbs and admins resigned in protest, in fact. The Foundation never released the specifics of the allegations against Fram, but you can find any number of conspiracy theories on external Wikipedia criticism sites. People were riled up because it was the closest we've ever come to a constitutional crisis. I quit editing for like a year and a half. It was infuriating and shameful to have a high profile admin office banned over super secrets with no due process and entirely inadequate communication. The Foundation have improved their communication since then, but a lot of the pushback against the UCoC on enwiki has its roots in a fear of this type of incident repeating. Folly Mox (talk) 03:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
For what it’s worth, Fram is neither vanished nor banned. Was desysopped, but still active - edited ANI in the last few hours.Tarl N. (discuss) 03:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
The admin who vanished during the imbroglio was not Fram, but an Arb. Folly Mox (talk) 04:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram/Archive_5&oldid=1170634514"