---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the most vague statement/response I have ever seen. WMF has mostly described the policies like when, and they can block/ban some individual (not one account by the way [by the way, that made me go: bwahaha]), but they still have not adequately explained why did they ban Fram. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

@WMFOffice:: However, on occasion community members submit evidence strongly indicating cases where local communities consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous rules but the Terms of Use, too. We will continue to consider these rare cases brought to our attention under the framework of the office actions policy. Is this such a case? Do you feel enwiki is currently "consistently struggling to uphold not just their own autonomous rules but the Terms of Use", and if so, how? We can and have drastically revised policy in the past to meet the requirements set by WP:OFFICE, but if you don't tell us what's wrong, we can't fix it; and I think it's clear at this point that parachuting in to ban a longtime user with no explanation isn't going to help that underlying situation at all. We need details about how you feel enwiki is falling short and what we would need to change to reach the point where disruptive action like this from outside the community is no longer needed. I think there's a lot of people who would be willing to tighten our rules on harassment and civility if you would make it clear how you want us to do so and set some baseline requirements we need to enforce; but trying to go it alone by stepping in to handle occasional high-profile cases is counterproductive, since it can't possibly scale up to the point where it protects the userbase as a whole and produces backlashes that make broad-based reform more difficult. What I assume you feel we need are changes to Wikipedia's culture and policies; this ban isn't going to help with that, especially given the frustrating lack of meaningful dialog afterwards in terms of what you feel we're doing wrong. --Aquillion (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Trust and Safety starts cases from the position that it is up to volunteers to decide for themselves how they spend their free time... — I'll tell ya how I'm not spending my free time: that's editing Wikipedia until resolution of this incursion by San Francisco on behalf of a well-connected power player over the head of the community's established discipline procedures. The lame semi-punt to ArbCom is not enough, the ban should be ended forthwith. Carrite (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• +clear right so content fills width: no content change. --Mirokado (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"empathically"? I suspect you meant "emphatically". Maproom (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The particular diff Fram refers to on Kavanaugh's Wikidata entry has been suppressed. However, you can look at the revision history for the past nine months and variations of "creep", "molest" and "rape", plus "white privilege" are evident and visible in numerous other revisions and edit summaries. In other words, Wikidata is no different than Wikipedia, where admins are mindlessly reactive instead of proactive. This helps to explain why, in the end, no one will really care, despite the hundreds of thousands of words expended on this so far. The graphic in another thread below containing the phrase "topics no one cares about" and the scattershot enforcement of policies, one example of which I refer to above, should alert anyone to the fact that this community is not NPOV no matter how hard some may attempt to assert otherwise. Perhaps some of you missed the coincidence of timing of Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you being taken to MFD and the parting shot of "Valid project space expression" reflecting consenus in that matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioKAOS (talk • contribs) 04:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 235#Admin Fram locally banned by T&S for one year.
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 235#Semi-humorous aside, not to be taken too seriously.
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 235#Request for action regarding the ban of Fram
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 235#Who put the WMF in charge?
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 235#What was the outcome of the board meeting? (no response)
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 235#Yet more WMF questions raised
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 235#There is no contact information for Trust & Safety
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 235#Where to write to tell the WMF that they have violated the ToU?
• User talk:Jimbo Wales#Ten daysTwo weeks
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive_235#Did you establish the current version of WP:OFFICE?
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive_235#Bungling incompetence
• User talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_235#Forthcoming FRAM-related case at ARBCOM
• Special:Contributions/Jimbo Wales

1. "I was entirely unaware of this before just now. I'm reviewing the situation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)"[3][reply]
2. "[…] Both Doc James and I are on the case, trying to understand what happened here, and the ArbCom is discussing it as well. Drama will not be necessary, but more importantly, drama will not be helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)"[4][reply]
3. "I can assure you that my commitment to, and support of, appropriate principles and our established constitutional order is far far more important than any personal conflict that I may have ever had with anyone. I'm not taking any position on this yet, because the reasonable thing to do is to listen to all sides calmly and come to an understanding of the issues.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)"[5][reply]
4. "I'd like to remind everyone that it is my long established view that all bans are appealable to me. I seldom intervene, even if I have some minor disagreement with a ban, because no major constitutional issues or errors are at stake. It is too early to know what is going on in this particular case, but please if anyone is planning to "fall on their sword" for principle, let it be me. But, I really don't think that will be necessary here. The WMF staff are diligent, thoughtful, and hard working. If an error has been made, I'm sure they will revert and work out procedures to make sure it didn't happen again. If the ban was justified, I'm sure they will find a way to make it clear to - at a minimum, if privacy issues play a role, to me, to the board, and to the Arbitration Committee. Therefore, dramatic action would not be helpful at the present time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)"[6][reply]
5. "I think you and I can both forecast that a wheel war will not serve as a useful introduction to a calm and reasonable discussion. Give it a little time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)"[7][reply]
6. "I'd like to remind you that it is not even 9am in California. I think it quite clear that unblocking before they've had a chance to even get into the office will simply serve to escalate matters. I suspect that Fram himself would agree that there is no emergency. Rather than cloud the waters and make it even harder (emotionally) for a backdown (if such is warranted - we don't know yet!), it will be best to take the high road and wait until a more appropriate time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)"[8][reply]
7. "Yes, I'm firmly recommending that we all relax a notch or two. It's not even 9am in California. There is no emergency here. I have raised the issue with the WMF, and so has Doc James. I am also talking to ArbCom. It is really important that we not take actions to escalate conflict - nor are such actions necessary. If there comes a need for a time for the community to firmly disagree with the WMF and take action, then that time is only after a proper reflection on the full situation, with everyone having a chance to weigh in.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)"[9][reply]
8. "I continue to advise calm and slow movement. Further wheel warring will not be productive and will only tend to escalate matters further. I am recommending the same to WMF, as is Doc James. We are discussing the situation with them in the hopes of finding the right way forward.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)"[10][reply]
9. "Doc James and I have been pursuing this with diligence. I continue to recommend the following to everyone here:
   • Don't wheel war - it isn't going to be helpful in achieving the goals you want, and could actually make it harder
   • Do express your opinions clearly and firmly and factually, with kindness - it's the best way to get your point across
   • Remember that there is no emergency here - the phrase "important but not urgent" fits very well - getting this right and fixing this situation is incredibly important, but it doesn't have to happen in 4 hours (and it also, of course, shouldn't take months)
   • I applaud those who have kept separate in their minds and words the separate issues here. The issue of Fram's behavior and whether desysopping and/or some form of block are appropriate is separate from the "constitutional issue" of process and procedure. Conflating the two would, I fear, only serve to raise emotions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)"[11][reply]
10. "To be clear, to the best of my knowledge, there haven't been any direct requests by board members to line workers through middle management here. Certainly, James and I are speaking to the board and CEO, not attempting to intervene at that level at all. The board should only operate at the level of broad principles and through the top management, not detailed management of specific issues.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)"[12][reply]
11. "[…] This is not about individual people, this is a question about our constitutional order. This is not about this specific situation, but a much more important and broader question about project governance.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)"[13][reply]
12. "[…] If we characterize this as a clash between ArbCom and the WMF, we are factually in error. It's not as easy as that.
    And of course, if I were to take a dramatic action, some would cheer, and some would scream. And if I go slow and deliberate, some will not like that, either. But it is my way, the only way that I know, and when I stick to slow and thoughtful deliberation I have learned in my life that the outcome is better than if I do something sudden.
    I suppose if I had to decide "whether the community or the foundation is my true heir" I'd go with community. But I actually don't think in that way. My true heir is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. That's what I think we all care the most about, or anyway it is what we should all care the most about. One of the reasons that Wikipedia has succeeded is that we don't take anything as absolutely permanent. WP:IAR and WP:5P5 spring to mind.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)"[14][reply]
13. "[…] I wasn't trying to contrast or compare the necessity/valuation of the WMF with the community at all. I agree with you that they aren't easily separable, and I also believe that when we fall into a too hasty 'WMF vs community' narrative - either in the community, or in the WMF, we are probably making it harder to see how to optimize and resolve problems.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)"[15][reply]
14. "We on the board are in active conversations. I think you will receive a comprehensive, cogent reply, but we are looking to be thoughtful, reflective, to examine every aspect of this, and neither allow invalid precedent to be set, nor to set invalid precedent. The best way to avoid a bad outcome is to look to first principles, look at what has gone wrong, and to propose a process for healing but also for building a process that works better in the future.
    In those board discussions, I am stating my own views directly and clearly, but it would be inappropriate to share them here and now, because as we all know, there are those who like to engage in "Jimbo said" argumentation, which doesn't clear the air but instead often only creates more heat.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)"[16][reply]
15. "This is pretty accurate as a too-brief summary of the history. This is an edited version of the key sentences as I would put it myself: "Jimbo's goals then were for the community to be self-sustaining and self-governing such that it would fulfill its mission with less of his involvement as time went on. It was never a goal for the WMF to have any sort of authority over or involvement in community or content decisions beyond the removal of libellous material and copyright violations and other limited actions for public safety of various kinds, which the WMF took on for reasons of compliance." And that isn't the whole of it really, I would also argue that the WMF can and should have a role of facilitating and guiding community consultations to help the community resolve sticky issues where there is a failing of process. Reading between the lines here, you can likely guess my view of the current situation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)"[17][reply]
16. "You have clearly misunderstood what I said. Nothing about "facilitating and guiding community consultations" even remotely implies that I think they should be "judge, jury, and executioner". I don't even know what chain of thought got you from one to the other. The point is that there are things we know to be true: there are very few admins created and while most people (the vast majority) think that's a problem, there is no consensus and no process towards consensus towards resolving that issue. It's a thankless task to take on and run a project to work through various options to find something that would get us to a better place - no one has stepped up to do that (a few have tried, and thank goodness for them). WMF community support people have done a great job on consultations around terms of service and so on - we do have some positive examples of how to do this right. It isn't about ramming things down people's throat - it's about taking on the hard job of listening and framing debate, convening real-life groups to work on issues, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)"[18][reply]
17. "Yes, the ED is aware. The board is still discussing with each other and with staff. I'm a participant in this but not in a position to say when it will come to a conclusion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)"[19][reply]
18. "Without commenting at this moment on any of the rest of it, I can say that I do not know, and don't personally consider it particularly relevant or interesting, whether legal was consulted beforehand. I don't think legal is the right avenue for any of us to be thinking about how to improve things in this or in related circumstances.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)"[20][reply]
19. "I will raise the issue. As you can imagine, I'm trying not to cause any additional problems by making any firm declarations of what I am and am not empowered to do in my traditional role in English Wikipedia, but I can indicate that I share the view that I could do that - or should be able to do that. One reason we have kept some vestiges of a "constitutional monarch" system is precisely to have pressure relief valves for highly unusual situations. One reason I haven't tried to be forceful with it is that I don't believe in it as anything other than a safety mechanism. So long as other avenues exist for me to try to help everyone reach reconciliation and find a solution in which almost everyone says "we are now in a better place than we were when this whole mess started" - I'm going to try.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)"[21][reply]
20. "I think of our constitutional arrangements as being very like those in the UK. A broad array of written and unwritten rules, policies, guidelines, and traditions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)"[22][reply]
21. "In the current situation, I think that the composition of the board is not a big part of the problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)"[23][reply]
22. "The Board met yesterday to work on a full statement about this. It's not easy getting to consensus with a large group, but overall I think people are going to be happy with the statement and with the things we are asking the WMF staff to do going forward. As one board member wasn't present, we decided to give a bit more time so that we can get to unanimity.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)" [24][reply]
23. "Indeed. We've made it abundantly clear. I ask everyone who sees fire to try to soothe people. This is going to go the right way. My own personal view is that drama never helps, but making it clear (through strikes/retirements) that something is unacceptable is a totally respectable and useful way to move the needle in an important way. "There's a giant flame war on the Internet" never really makes a dent. "Our best administrators are writing essays about why this is wrong, and many of them have indicated they will quit" makes a big dent. Also: "The good people protesting are not, for the most part, defending bad behavior. They are asking the WMF to consider how this action undermines our efforts to improve behavior" is helpful." Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC) [25][reply]
24. To be clear, ArbCom do have the discretion to overturn the ban. They are fully authorized to hear the appeal, and I will personally back ArbCom on whatever they decide.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC) [26][reply]
25. To be clear: ArbCom could overturn the ban. I will personally back ArbCom in whatever they decide. Any further action of this type from T&S will not happen without agreement from the community. There should be no fear here that T&S would defy the board, me, ArbCom, and the gathered best users in the community.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC) [27][reply]

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

Dear members of the English Wikipedia community,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello all,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear members of the English Wikipedia community,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• User:X decides to run for a seat on the Arbitration Committee. Just as with most other roles requiring identification, it is possible to run for ArbCom and not identify until after election (steward elections are the only exception I can think of). The WMF T&S team is responsible for updating the noticeboard. Unbeknownst to the community, X has already received two conduct warnings for WMF. How will WMF respond to this? --Rschen7754 03:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Interesting, thanks Jan. I was trying to think of what would be comparable numbers for arbcom, but it's hard to compare apples to apples. Looks like case request acceptance has been in the 10-20% range for the last few years, but we don't keep outcomes data like that for private complaints/requests/etc. I see in that chart a lot of stuff about who approves what in which order, but I wonder if the box where the actual investigation happens can be opened up a little more. What does an "investigation" consist of? What would the investigator look at? Assuming we're talking about a harassment case, would it include things like contacting other possible victims if you discover them, or asking the opinion of others who were affected by the problem behavior but who did not get in touch with T&S? Or is the decision about whether a particular behavior is harassing made by the person doing the investigation? Under what circumstances would a particular report be referred back to arbcom (or to community processes) rather than pursued internally? The chart tells us how WMF staff communicate internally about these things, but not about communication with or information-gathering from anyone other than the directly affected parties. (The table has a bit more, but to be honest I can't understand the "Dissemination of information relevant to the office action to specific groups" row at all. That's quite a mouthful, but since it's separate from the reporter and the affected user, I assume that means other interested parties, but "conduct warning" gets a checkmark for that one and "interaction ban" doesn't? Is that right?) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• That's definitely not enough. I am rather disappointed because I saw a certain hope in Jan's last posting. He only gives a diagram of the internal process but nothing, literally nothing, about communication to others and also nothing about the reasonings for any decision at any point. So they seem to simply want to continue as before. Everything relevant remains a secret, regardless whether this is necessary or not. No one, literally no one is able to get insight, not even ArbCom or a trustworthy representative. Even the "accused" remains uninformed. Appeal is impossible. This is unfair trial par excellence. As to fairness, this is a word-by-word repetition of the last statement. What I first saw as an offer for discussion seems to be hollow phrase. I intend to open an RfC at Meta but wanted to wait in the hope that something relevant comes up from the side of T&S. This is not so. Mautpreller (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC) (from German Wikipedia).[reply]
• This is grossly insufficient. I'd like to call attention to the following statement: Generally, we will reach out to the accused party for information if doing so is possible without violating the privacy of the accusing - or other involved - parties This means that T&S is willing to, in some cases, rule against someone completely in absentia. This is not an acceptable system, and T&S needs to make major modifications to it before accepting new cases. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too find this problematic. Being unable to defend yourself effectively puts someone in a kangaroo court with no means of defense. Buffs (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks Jan. The questions I have regarding the harassment investigation process are:
  1. Is there a provision for asking the notifier if they wish ArbCom to be involved, or is it assumed that they do not? If it is assumed they do not, what was the data and rationale behind making that decision?
  2. What is the legal distinction for privacy in these investigations between those who can see the report and those who cannot? ArbCom members have signed the Confidentially Agreement [28] in which it is agreed that "The Wikimedia Foundation may pursue available legal remedies, including injunctive relief or, in the case of willful intent, monetary damages." What extra legal powers do the Foundation have over those individuals who are permitted to see the report that they do not have over ArbCom members who have signed that they agree to being legally pursued? If the distinction is a paid contract, then would paying ArbCom members a token amount per year, overcome the legal hurdles to allowing ArbCom to view such material? Or is the reluctance to share harassment complaints with ArbCom more to do with procedural qualms rather than legal ones?
  3. Several members of the T&S Team are experienced and trusted Wikipedians, including two admins from Wikipedia who have been functionaries, one of whom has served on ArbCom, so I have no doubt that investigations were done with some insight and understanding of both sides of the issue (as there are always two sides). However, as with others who have commented, the lack of consultation with the accused person seems odd. How have the legal and moral rights of the accused been balanced against the legal and moral rights of the accuser? We have heard it stressed that the accuser is to be protected, but what consideration has been given to protecting the accused?

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

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

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

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

Kudpung Sorry, but what does "ED" stand for here? Executive Director? If so I take it you're referring to Sue Gardner's keynote? [29] IntoThinAir (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IntoThinAir, 'ED' in this context means Executive Director. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• We have a long-established principle on WP that blocks and bans are intended to be preventative, not punitive. How is a ban like Fram's supposed to prevent future misconduct after it has expired, if it is not made expressly clear to the banned editor in what areas their actions went over the line? Jheald (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I can identify a few things that give me significant concerns, and I urge that these receive attention as WMF continues to work on the procedure.
  1. As already noted by others, there needs to be a clearer and more substantive part of the workflow for responses from the accused editor.
  2. Although it's good to have multiple layers of review, it's not clear from the information here whether all of the layers involve serious and independent evaluation of the complaint. There is a serious risk that some of the later, higher-level review steps may just be something like "Well, it's looks like [name] did a good job of checking all the boxes, so we'll just sign off on it and move on."
  3. It's not spelled out, but there really ought to be a sort of "minutes" or other written record of decisions at each step. I do not mean that this should be public, but it can be important to keep internally in the event of subsequent scrutiny from the WMF Board or others, as is happening here. I think it should memorialize any off-the-cuff discussions, to have a record if someone not officially involved in a particular step of the review has nonetheless commented to an involved staff person about it.
  4. As noted by others, there needs to be evaluation of whether the problem could be referred to the local project (ArbCom etc.).
     And more broadly, it is important that office actions be used only for the kinds of purposes for which they have historically been intended. Office actions, especially those involving the larger projects, should never be an alternative forum for a dispute that could instead have been handled locally. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks Jan. I have a few questions:
  1. m:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019, tells us,

     There are some rare instances when Wikimedia Foundation Trust and Safety will take actions to protect the safety of the community and the public. This happens where actions on local community governance level are either insufficient or not possible. There may be some rare cases where the Wikimedia Foundation must override local policy, such as to protect the safety of the Wikimedia communities or the public. See Trust & Safety Office actions for more details. [30]

     Furthermore, WP:OFFICE tells us,

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

     If it's within your purview can you tell us whether the OFFICE action and override of local governance was necessary to protect the community? A simple yes of no is fine, or simply indicate if you're unwilling or unable to answer.
  2. In the findings of the report written by Harvard Negotiation and Mediation Clinical Program (HNMCP) on page 23, the failures in our noticeboard practices are noted (findings, which, generally seem spot on). [Reporting systems on English Wikipedia (pdf) explains the function of specialized noticeboards (page 9). In the initial "warnings" to Fram (not sure whether I'm using the correct term), I'm wondering whether anyone on your team considered suggesting s/he report issues with users to relevant noticeboards (i.e, WP:AN/I; WP:RSN; WP:CCI? Regardless of the (HNMCP)'s recommendations and that the community should absolute see to strengthening those boards in-house, noticeboards are generally a good first stop, help to get more eyes on a situation and prevent a single editor who is working unilaterally from becoming overly frustrated and from being subjected to "anecdotal" stories. Again, if the question is not something you're able to answer, I'll understand fully.

Finally, I've spent quite a few hours finding documents, reading, checking sourcing, but had RexxS not posted a series of links here there wouldn't have been a starting point. Would it be feasible to have more information available here on en.wp? Links are easy to post and easy to find, and it is, after all, a wiki. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 00:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Jan, you have provided some background about the position you hold in the WMF. Basically admitting that you are in charge of T&S but are not aware of what goes on there. Perhaps you could let Arbcom and the community know who your immediate superior is. It might help towards establishing lines of responsibility and communication for the future. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Eissfeldt said[31]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

22. Endorse with an additional request: if and when an editor with an instance of problematic editing such as WP:CopyVio is identified, en-WP admins and editors – including Fram – may scrutinize other edits of that editor. WMFOffice accepts that this is neither stalking nor evidence of hostility or harassment, rather such efforts are in good faith and necessary to maintain or improve the "Quality and Reliability" of the en-WP. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
23. Endorse as a first step. In my opinion, this focusses too much on the individual case, not on the general relationship between the foundation and the communities. But it might rebuild some bridges and de-escalate the situation to allow for a constructive dialogue. Thanks for a useful contribution, Brad! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
24. Endorse. This seems reasonable. Neutral on ArbCom case. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
25. Endorse as a way forward, not perfect, but hopefully acceptable by all parties. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
26. +1. Also support the ArbCom case. --GRuban (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
27. Endorse - sensible compromise. PhilKnight (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
28. Endorse as a positive way forward. However, bullet 4 sticks in my craw. The only insight we have into whether Trust and Safety's actions were taken with good intentions are the actual results of their actions, and their written response. The results are what they are, but the written response and inability to engage in meaningful dialog falls short. Trust and Safety is a very serious role for an organization to undertake. A company with $100+ million in annual revenue has no business staffing such a department with amateurs. Thank you NYB for trying to turn this in a positive direction.- MrX 🖋 21:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
29. Endorse noting that Fram suggested a less lenient compromise the better part of a week ago, now. EllenCT (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
30. Endorse too many hours have already been spent on this. If WMF wants to destroy Wikipedia, I guess no one can stop them; but we can at least try, Huldra (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
31. Endorse, with the disclaimer that I haven't been able to keep up with all the relevant pages. - Dank (push to talk) 22:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Clarification: all I'm supporting here is the effort to work out a temporary truce. It's hard to keep up with everything. I'll come back to this after we hear from the Board. - Dank (push to talk) 16:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
32. Endorse. In the end, regardless of what Fram has or hasn't done, this has been appallingly badly handled by T&S. Absolutely no-one disagrees with global bans for those editors who have violated certain community norms, especially where that concerns such things child protection or serious off-wiki harassment. And there are plenty of those. But here, we have the WMF granting themselves a new "partial ban" ability, where such issues are not as serious as those I've just mentioned. Who is the first target on enwiki? Someone who has been a serious (and usually accurate) critic of the WMF. Whether or not that is bad, it looks terrible. And especially when the diff given as a main reason for their ban is telling ArbCom to "fuck off". A lot of editors have said that, many times, in many different ways. We don't ban them for it. And we never should. Black Kite (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
33. Endorse, per Huldra. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
34. Endorse A sensible path. I'll resist the temptation to suggest any tweaks but will note that the proposal does not address the issue of Fram's admin-bit and whether the de-sysop should be endorsed, overturned, or decided through a fresh RFA. Abecedare (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
35. Endorse The base line from which we have to operate is good will and good faith on both sides - because without that, this project is already systemically screwed and will crumble (and it doesn't matter whether that ultimately happens via bottom-up or top-down processes). This suggested bundle provides room for everyone to demonstrate that; roll back the drama; undo a few bad decisions; and allow the community to have a calm go at improving some things. Good effort by Newyorkbrad, and thanks for thinking it through. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
36. Endorse It's a good way to bring all of this chaos to an end. I don't think telling Fram to be more careful will fix their civility issues, but at least it's progress. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
37. Endorse as a sensible way forward. T. Canens (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
38. Endorse in general, and especially the last point. While it will be good if this particular issue gets resolved and we can stop seeing if we can set a page size record, we have to resolve things going forward so that this will not happen again (or, if we decide it should, it happens in a way that will not cause a blowup like this). I don't think anyone, WMF included, wants a repeat here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
39. Endorse A sensible compromise. An de facto IBAN against any complainants who felt they've been harassed (the mere existence of which remains unconfirmed), paired with a general civility mandate, which would presumably address the root of the ban. If the Foundation is to take a no-compromise approach even in the most contentious situation, they should be able and willing to justify that decision, which they have refused to do, in spite of the fact that basic transparency and privacy protection are not and have never been mutually exclusive. Either the ban is outright unjust, or it is arguably just but the community disagrees with it. In that case, the Foundation should have no problem accepting a reasonable alternative offered by the community, and that is exactly what this is. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
40. Endorse per Swarm and so many above. Miniapolis 00:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
41. Endorse At this point, WMF has to make a good faith step forward if they're ever going to start regaining our trust. Platitudes and corporate double-speak aren't it. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
42. Endorse Also, can we make two subheadings for those who "endorse" vs "oppose"? It's harder to gauge consensus this way. (I'd move all of them but I think that would be too disruptive.) Rockstonetalk to me! 01:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
43. Endorse Although I'm not overly optimistic.©Geni (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
44. (edit conflict) Endorse I had little hope any productive change would come out of the discussion, but this is a good start. – Teratix ₵ 02:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
45. Reluctant endorse per Black Kite. I considered opposing because I'm not persuaded that Fram has done anything to warrant even an unofficial IBAN, but an oppose would seemingly put me in the same camp as the Fram-bashers, and I'm not interested in that. I'm also amused that some keep bringing up the Terms of Use as if that's some kind of magic bullet. Yeah, we know about the Terms of Use, and we still aren't going to let ham-handed actions from the WMF go unchallenged. That should be obvious by now. Lepricavark (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
46. Endorse - Whether Fram's activity on the English Wikipedia warrants action is something that needs to be address by the appropriate channels. WMF overstepped in attempting to circumvent that. - Aoidh (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
47. Endorse dot points 4 & 5. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
48. Endorse - a possible way forward for the community. starship.paint (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
49. Endorse. On the point of "these people", I would also request the WMF explain what training/education is given to members of the team. Having former editors among them is a great idea, but what steps have been added to get them to the point from being an ordinary editor to such a crucial and sensitive role. (And globally it's an increasingly high-profile and important one, given the same type of departments popping up in Facebook, Twitter, etc). - SchroCat (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
50. Endorse I'd also like to see an assurance from the WMF that they have cleaned their act up to at least our standards, and that the WMF will no longer stand by staff who make personal attacks, on IRC or elsewhere. It would be nice if they also assured us that they had forgotten it was Fram who threatened to block a WMFer for personal attacks and assured us that their block of him was not revenge. As for the interaction ban, yes T&S may not be able to tell Fram who the complainant was, so that bit may not be possible. But if they deemed that the incident only merited a 12 month single project restriction on Fram, T&S presumably did not consider that any harassment merited a longer term interaction ban such as the global, permanent bans that they give harassers. ϢereSpielChequers 04:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
51. Endorse - Not as rough-and-tough an outcome as I would prefer, which would involve a unilateral retreat of WMF from matters that are not within their purview followed by some sort of internal penalty against those WMF employees who threw gasoline on the fire in the first place; but, all things considered, probably the best outcome we can hope for at this juncture, given the incredibly weak performance of the WMF Board and Arbcom. Carrite (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
52. Endorse. Let me be clear. I am NOT happy if this is the outcome. This leaves unresolved major questions involving COI, the communities trust in the WMF, and how we prevent similar scenarios from re-occuring. I will note that point 5 is insufficient, and also the most important one here. The foundation exists to serve the community, and that relationship must be respected, or we're wasting each others time. That said, this is a compromise negotiation and a good compromise makes everyone unhappy, so even though I'd have liked to see the result include a more major wakeup call to the WMF, I can hold my nose and accept this. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
53. Endorse - This seems sensible. Killiondude (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
54. Endorse AGF --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
55. Endorse. I am not happy with the communication or action from Trust & Safety so far, and this would restore my willingness to continue to perform administrative work on en Wikipedia.-gadfium 05:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
56. Endorse Absconded Northerner (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
57. Endorse a sensible compromise if all parties agree. Hut 8.5 06:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
58. Endorse Seems sensible. talk to !dave 07:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
59. Endorse- A reasonable compromise that will allow everyone to walk away having made their point and learned something: The WMF needs to understand that enforcing smiles and sunshine with an iron fist is not going to work here. We've adopted a culture of communication- and it's served us well- that forthright language, for the sake of the actual article contents, is welcome and expected. Handing out arbitrary and capricious bans to alter that culture ultimately will not work. All you'll accomplish is to lose a lot of good editors and make everyone hate you. At the same time, fixating on certain editors and their (admittedly dubious) edits can border on cruelty even if that's not the intent. Admins and rank-and-file editors can definitely work on our approach there. Reyk _YO! 07:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
60. Endorse. I guess this is a sensible compromise. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 08:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
61. Endorse By no means a fan of thoughtless "fuck you" comments, but this bolt-from-the-blue action leaves us needing reassurance that the staff concerned didn't accept jobs at the Foundation for the purpose of perpetrating a hostile takeover. Without a substantive response from the WMF, they'll be getting no more work out of me: Bhunacat10 (talk), 08:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
62. Endorse – A good way to cool down. — JFG ^talk 09:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
63. Endorse - a sensible way forward. GiantSnowman 09:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
64. Endorse - Not perfect, but good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
65. (edit conflict) Conditional support iff the matter is examined by ArbCom. Otherwise, I agree with those in opposition that this basically ignores the real problems that were apparently raised to lead to this action. My problem with the T&S action was never the ban itself but that established community processes were not followed. If ArbCom can independently and impartially review the case against Fram, I think the WMF should allow it to do so. If that fails, T&S can still step in again. Regards SoWhy 10:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
66. Endorse - an ArbCom case is probably a good idea but is not a condition on my part (I don't think it's likely that one would not be filed). Encouraging actual communication and actual respect for the people involved on all sides seems like the only way forward. Thank you, Newyorkbrad. --bonadea contributions talk 12:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
67. Endorse - per WereSpielChequers whose institutional memory will recall at least one instance when the community desysoped a foul-mouthed contractor who all but killed off the efforts to improve NPP and introduce ACTRIAL (plenty of diffs available). That said, let's not lose sight of the fact that this this entire debacle is not so much about Fram or other admins who fell on their swords in support, but more about the sleazy hegemony and exploitation by the WMF of the volunteers who provide their raison d'être, salaries, and junkets. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
68. Endorse as a start. And presuming that arbcom is privy to the basis of T&S's actions and supports this route. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
69. Endorse as a good-faith start to re-building the bridges summarily destroyed by WMF in their actions. However, what bothers me the most is that the WMF could take this kind of bizarre unilateral action again, at any point, for any reason. The clear questions over some members of WMF and various COI still exist. But given the utter recalcitrance from WMF to show any kind of openness to actually discussing this (no more boilerplate, perhaps they're not aware of {{DTTR}}), that might be an ask too far. So let's at least undo the damage the WMF have done, and then we can move on, but with a much more cautious eye on WMF, their behaviour and the various inter-relations in an attempt to avoid more such community devastation. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
70. Endorse, not as a satisfactory solution, but as a start. As for the perceived problem of #2, regarding identifying those allegedly aggrieved editors: we can be pretty certain at this point that there aren't any. We know of exactly one case of somebody who complained to the foundation about harassment (no secrecy, because she said so herself); we know that the foundation took that complaint at face value; we know they were wrong in doing so because in fact there was no harassment. Per Occam's razor, there is no reason whatsoever to assume there are any more genuine complainants, at least none whose complaint would be seriously enough to warrant a demand for privacy, or if there are, their complaints are just as wrong as the first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
71. Endorse as a way forward from this debacle. Jonathunder (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
72. I am not perfectly happy with item 1, but maybe I missed something in the last few days and the WMF has been in contact with ArbCom to let them handle the ban ("take over" if there really is meat on that unidentified bone), and we have to start somewhere. Thank you NYB. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
73. Endorse - It's a way forward, beyond the "fork off or fuck off" mentality that some other people seem to have.--WaltCip (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
74. Endorse - a reasonable suggestion to de-escalate this crisis. GermanJoe (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
75. Endorse. Seems a perfectly reasonable compromise. If the WMF had just said "it's a private matter, we can't talk about it" and issued an indefinite ban, then I would assume something Really Bad happened, but since that isn't what WMF did, their explanation has been highly lacking. WMF should admit that it was an overreach and move on. SnowFire (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
76. Endorse. It's refreshing to hear such a calm, reasonable, respectful, and compromising proposal. Benjamin (talk) 06:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
77. Endorse. Get a fresh "re-start". Kante4 (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
78. Endorse – seems like a sensible course of action to me. Graham87 09:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
79. Endorse as a possible move forward to a more constructive relationship between the projects and WMF. I've some reservations, though. Firstly, this is not just about Fram, it is about our relationship with WMF in regard to the enforcements of the ToU. Most global WMF bans in regard to cases I was familiar with appeared to be justified. Cases like continued harassment of users outside of our projects, huge zoos of sockpuppets across multiple wikis, upload of very problematic material etc. are indeed best handled by T&S. However, usual on-wiki misbehaviour should be still handled through community processes where those responsible to handle it are elected (admins, checkusers, oversighters, and arbcoms). WMF staff should go forward and communicate their concerns if they see shortcomings in our processes. Such an outside view can be helpful and would allow us to develop our processes into a better direction where needed. Secondly, I've some concerns in regard to Jan Eissfeldt, lead manager of T&S. In 2014, he participated in a wheel war including the application of super-protect at de:wp for which his regular account was desysoped: [32], [33]. At that time he was nearly entirely unable to communicate, this was his only comment where he pointed to a statement by someone else. This pattern of a wheel war just re-appeared now again. Like before, this was not an emergency, this could have been resolved through communication. I've absolutely no trust in anyone who resorts to wheel-warring without even attempting to communicate. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
80. Endorse Maybe it's not perfect, but it's a reasonable start. One aphorism I used to use when teaching Master's degree students about government policy making was "the best is the enemy of the good". I think that applies here. This is a good start. It may have to be tweaked along the way, there may be stumbling blocks, but it's a hell of a lot better than doing nothing and the best proposal we've got. Doug Weller talk 14:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
81. Endorse A fair compromise.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
82. Endorse per Doug Weller and many others. We can't force WMF to do anything, but should they decide it's a good idea to start mending some fences, we need to offer them some sort of consensus-based way to move forward. There are some issues with this proposal, but if we assume a assume a modicum of good faith on all sides then I can't see why any of them would be insurmountable. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
83. Endorse as a place to start -- but the T&S committee's unilateral action remains unacceptable, & the WMF needs to acknowledge this. AFBrochert raises the important point that Jan Eissenfeldt was involved in 2 Foundation actions that offended the en.wikipedia community; if he was critically involved in these offensive acts then his dismissal from the Foundation should be added to this resolution. We must be able to reasonably trust all of the employees of the Foundation. -- llywrch (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
84. Endorse per proposal. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 02:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
85. Endorse This is the reasonable action. There is a Wikipedia Justice System and it operates according to a defined process. The WMF actions are the cause of a cascade of transgressions against this process. I am only able to imagine two possibilities: either the WMF power who issued the ban is competent and understanding, and they correctly anticipated this community response; or the WMF power who issued the ban is incompetent, and failed to recognize the great likelihood of the community raising these objections. So far as I know, the wiki community observers who are withholding judgement are waiting in faith for the WMF to explain the extraordinary circumstances which necessitated such an extraordinary action. I have no opinion whatsoever about Fram, their actions, or anything specific to these circumstances. I only endorse this remedy because I want to see due process and rule of law in opposition to opaque authoritarianism. The problem is not that the WMF took an action, but that the WMF took an obviously extraordinary action seemingly unaware of how bizarre it was. At this point my fear is that the people at the WMF who are operating the levers of power are ignorant of what they are doing and outsiders to community values. I could be wrong - the WMF could have had a unique and dramatic reason for extrajudicial action. I hope that as a result of this the WMF increases its collaborative infrastructure. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
86. Endorse This way forward opens the option of something good coming out of this: a shared view of goals between wikipedia editors and the foundation, a shared array of methods of achieving those goals, and clarity on who fulfils which roles. It also brings back the sense that there are people behind the role-accounts (it's always easier to rant against "WMF" than against the person actually communicating behind the account.). Wikipedia editors (as a group) are right to intervene here, as some of the fundamental principles of wikipedia (I know, we are not a legal system, but we have established principles like to "due process"): possibility of appeal, sufficient clear and to the point warnings and right to a clear explanation, were not applied here. This way forward is creating an ad hoc appeals option, and it shows something more definite needs to be implemented. L.tak (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
87. Endorse. With respect to Bluerasberry's two possibilities, I'd guess somewhere in the middle: they cannot have been quite so unaware as to think there would be no response, but obviously they didn't anticipate anything like the extent of it. Myself, I think the extent of it is not just because of the action itself or T&S in general, but the skepticism of all WMF actions focussed on the enWP, such as superprotect, or VE, or Flow--all of which derived from other elements of the Foundation than T&S. This may not have been obvious to T&S, who are devoted to a particular set of problems, not to problems generally. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
88. Probably symbolic anyway, but per Doug Weller. --Rschen7754 03:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
89. Endorse Obviously that ship has sailed, but I'll add my name to the roll call.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
90. Partial Endorse: NYB’s proposal sounds perfectly reasonable and shows the level of good faith that will be required to move things forward. However, the information provided by WMBE has left me concerned that there are broader issues with how the T&S team conducts itself that may go unaddressed under the above action plan – Especially if the intended scope of #5 relates solely to the incident that had occurred on en-wiki. The WMBE situation amounts to a plausible accusation that a WMF grants-committee member had weaponised the T&S team to unfairly target the WMBE treasurer with vexatious allegations, that were not adequately investigated, resulting in the treasurer feeling obligated to leave the project. Hence, I can't help but think that these incidents (Whether found to be true or otherwise) must be considered as a whole, and need to be a catalyst for a broader discussion about the T&S team, that encompasses the en-wiki concerns with the concerns relating to how it conducts its business with foundation projects more generally-speaking. Perhaps someone could help me understand how this proposal achieves that discussion?   «l|Promethean|l»  (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
91. Endorse. Punching up is different from punching down.Jehochman ^Talk 08:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
92. Endorse per user Pppery, although less reluctantly (for the moment…). ——Chalk19 (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
93. Endorse as a necessary first step towards possibly regaining community confidence that is very badly damaged. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
94. Endorse as a sensible way forward. –Davey2010^Talk 00:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
95. Endorse I'm late to the party, but it seems obvious to me. Deb (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
96. Endorse. — Racconish ^💬 18:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support points 1 and 5. The rest is unnecessary: any opinion or action by WMF on Fram should be discounted just like that of an involved admin, given past history of sections of WMF having disagreements with Fram on perfectly legitimate opinions. WMF should also conduct a thorough investigation of any conflict of interest or other unproper procedure which led to this failure (I hope that a number of WMF employees who had a history with Fram recused themselves from the decision and asked some neutral employees without a COI to take their place). I came here after reading some quotes which show a surreal level of straw men and evidence fabrication against Fram: a post where he said writing the n-word is unacceptable was labeled a racial slur! (I hope I dreamed that.) By this token, soon whoever says "Wiki Loves Pride" on the wiki will be instantly banned for homophobia. Nemo 09:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nemo bis: that racial slur thing was probably Jehochman at the Arb Com case request, not WMF. starship.paint (talk) 10:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Still, it gives a sense of the scale of misinformation in the anti-Fram campaign. WMF has a history of taking such biased information at face value when it comes from people personally connected to some employee (there's even a past post by Sue Gardner where she says she learnt to only listen to Wikipedia editors who were liked by Jimbo), and the ban decisions are completely non-transparent. So we can only assume that bad information was used, until proven otherwise by a transparent report on how the decision was taken. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Nemo 10:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

98. Endorse fully. I have been skimming over the arguments presented, and I feel that the Office should back down a bit in the interest of rebuilding community confidence. You know, the "Trust" part of "T&S". Anyway, I get the impression that this was blow up out of proportion, and the the resolution (aka the ban) was achieved by filling in check boxes in a very bureaucratic manner (as in Kafka's Bureaucratic Nightmares...) GastelEtzwane (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
99. Endorse. Fram is in general factually correct, even when his attitude gets in the way on occasion. I highly dislike the Foundation meddling in the community. We must have communication, it would have been better for the person who was feeling harrassed to find a third party to approach Fram and ask if this is the case. Corrections can hurt and feel like harrassment, even if they are not. That's why it is so important to keep a respectful tone, and to assume no bad intentions. --WiseWoman (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
100. Endorse. Following Dweller's reasoning. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 16:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
101. Endorse' Makes sense to me.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 08:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
102. Endorse as a compromise way forward. Widefox; talk 12:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
103. Endorse. Both sides need to relax, clear the air, and come up with a consensus solution. This is a good first step. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
104. Endorse' That's the obvious way forward. --RaphaelQS (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
105. Endorse Here to build an encyclopedia—not a bureaucracy—if the editing community is trusted to edit and maintain the content, it must be responsible to maintain conduct. Any paid organizational maintenance of TOU should be as narrow and as transparent as possible. The methods and interpretations T&S has taken upon itself is harmful to the editing environment and should be developed further within the editing community, not the serving bureaucracy. The source of oversight is important' — Neonorange (Phil) 15:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
106. Endorse. Thank you Newyorkbrad. I'm not totally happy with #1 but at least it would be a path forward without further deteriorating the community and administrators' faith in the Office.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
107. Endorse, for most of the English speaking world a presumption of innocence, a right to a fair trial and a right to face your accuser are fundamental legal principles, not exile by a despotic administration for an arbitrary term for unknown crimes against unknown parties. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
108. Endorse, a sensible way to de-escalate the situation. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 16:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
109. Endorse, this whole situation seems to have been mishandled phenominally, and this is the only way that I can see forwrd without continuing to drive a wedge between the WMF and the community. 114.110.34.162 (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
110. Endorse. This proposal is the most sensible contribution I have read anywhere in this whole extensive mess. Maproom (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
111. Endorse we need to move on and this seems to be a very sensible way of doing so. --Dom from Paris (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
112. Endorse this. I can see why the office would get involved in level 1 desysops and the like, but there are ways of handling this privately between office and arbcom that at least allow some kind of independent review of what is otherwise a single person's view of the situation. Fram is a valued contributor of many years' standing and it seems to me that we owe at least that much, especially in an area which is very much a hot-button issue for some people. I disagree that the office has no right to do this (they clearly do), but having the right to do something doesn't make it sensible or appropriate when the case is ambiguous and there are trusted processes available. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

3. Oppose "Fram’s incivility has been longstanding and has affected multiple people" - Fram will be nicer is not really cutting it, they also have not agreed to be nicer anyways Govindaharihari (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose "quasi-volunteering to improve decorum" is insufficient. Thank you Montanabw. There seems to be mass amnesia where Fram is concerned, as the focus of their attentions were not simply at newbies, as is clearly shown.[34] While clarification is needed on the roles of enforcing civility, the fact of the matter is that behavior is addressed in the Terms of Use and within the purview of the foundation to step in if the community has failed to address repeated problems. One would hope that clearly defined roles and reporting policies will come of this. SusunW (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose. "Undo everything you've done, abdicate your duty/ability to enforce the Terms of Use, and don't do anything we don't like in the future, despite owning the site." This is not a compromise. It is a takeover. Fork the site if you disagree with the WMF enforcing the Terms of Use. That is your recourse. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
   • That doesn't really sound like a compromise either.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
     • @BU Rob13: - that is a ridculous all or nothing argument. Firstly, we're not saying revoke the standard areas of WMF ban-control. Secondly, the WMF is free to amend their ToS however they wish, once legal requirements are met. We argue that they have no other ownership than legal - which is not the be all and end all. We have various methods to act against them, and it makes no sense not to at least consider their usage. It's like telling employees at a company who don't like management's actions that their only option is to create a startup. This suggested solution may well be wrong - but it doesn't lead to (all of) your statement's logical conclusions. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
     • @Floquenbeam: The compromise, as I see it, is that you and Bishonen haven't lost your sysop flags, and WJBscribe hasn't lost their bureaucrat flag. And that compromise is quite generous, given your collective actions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
       • You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
         • I think that it misses the real point to say that the community should either: (1) say "please sir, can I have some more?" or (2) go fork ourselves. If there's anything that WMF should care about, it's the crowdsourcing framework of all WMF projects. As such, it's entirely appropriate that the "crowd" should speak out about problems that concern us. And then, WMF can, I suppose, tell us that they have laid down the law, and we should go fork ourselves. And how would that affect WMF's projects? Is it really in their best interests to encourage their most productive contributors to go and form a competing website? (Hint: no.) The fact that WMF has the legal right to assert their rights of ownership does not mean that it is sensible, practical, or ethical for them to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
     • @BU Rob13: You're suggesting the community is trying to takeover? The community existed before the WMF ever did. There is only one possible direction a takeover could go. Benjamin (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose these suggestions are attempting to address two separate issues, the general and the specific, as if the resolution to the former was dependent on the other. That's not a tenable negotiating position and we need to consider the problem of the imposition of a parallel unaccountable dispute resolution procedure on enwiki separately from the appropriateness or otherwise of the punishment meted out on Fram.
   Let me be clear, I've butted heads with Fram probably as many times as anybody in the past, but I still respect and appreciate their work in defending Wikipedia, and acknowledge that they have make efforts to respond to civility criticisms over the last year or so. I'm opposed to seeing punishment imposed by a body that is not accountable to the community in other than the most egregious and exceptional cases, so I won't feel comfortable with any result for Fram that does not involve ArbCom taking over the sanctions, enforcement and appeal in the specific case.
   Secondly, there exists the general problem of the perception among T&S that enwiki has not dealt adequately with civility and harassment issues because complainants fear the transparency of our systems will further disadvantage them. I believe that the only long-term solution to that must lie in using T&S as an alternative means of raising and investigating those issues in a confidential way, but that the final decision on sanctions, enforcement and appeal should remain with ArbCom, apart from those cases which are genuinely exceptional. If that means we have to make ArbCom proceedings somewhat less transparent to preserve the privacy of complainants in some cases, so be it. I'd find that a far less bitter pill to swallow than the present situation, and I'm damned sure that both Fram and the complainant in this specific case would agree, particularly since T&S have failed abjectly to preserve the complainant's anonymity in this test case. --RexxS (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose. I really expected a smarter solution from you than "ask people to be nicer". Gamaliel (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

30. Oppose: The new information shown by Carcharoth below, about the concerns WM Belgium has had with T&S, is enough that I'd say that anything short of a full audit of the WMF, and T&S in particular, is going to be insufficient. rdfox 76 (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
31. Oppose: the proposal is premature, and for the record, it is not about being a FramBasher as some have alleged to be the only motivation to oppose. I am also undecided if it is proper protocol for so many in the community to be WMFBashers. WP isn't the UAW or Teamsters - it's a Foundation with enormous responsibility, and we are simply volunteers doing whatever it is that motivates us to be here. There is nothing I'd like to see more than a harmonious community, but I am simply not convinced that the way we're going about it is the right way, much less the best way. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
32. Oppose because as written this would require disclosing the people who filed complaints against Fram, which is a nonstarter on several levels. First, there's valid reasons for an anonymous reporting system to exist; second, it would put them at risk; third, even aside from the risk to them, and even if you disagree with the idea of an anonymous reporting system, it's unlikely the WMF even can disclose them in this case without putting itself in legal jeopardy. Finally, the first few points of this resolution all assume that whatever private evidence exists fails to justify Fram's ban, which we don't know. What we need is a system to evaluate (and, yes, accept appeals for) such privileged evidence without disclosing it publically and without keeping the entire process inside the silo of T&S, ensuring at least some degree of community involvement by allowing us to appoint trusted representitives ala ArbCom - I doubt everyone will be completely happy without knowing all the facts, but it could be far better than things are now. --Aquillion (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
33. Oppose So Fram is unblocked gets (in effect though oddly not in wording) more IBAns (does he not have one already) yet retains admin status, despite having IBANS?. Maybe if Fram had been told (not asked nicely, told) to treat others with the same courtesy ans respect (and tolerance) we are being asked to treat him with we would not have been the in the first place. As far as I can see Fram has been told nicely not to do any of this, and has up till now not taken heed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Fram is not currently blocked, and actually Fram being blocked or not has very little to do with this. If what what is meant above is that Fram being unbanned is "oddly not in wording", the first bullet point of the proposal is The Office terminates Fram's ban. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Not is not, its that it odd that we have (in effect) weak IBANS in all but name, but only if we tell him who did it to him. Nothing that prevents him acting playing silly buggers. Given the fact he has been told more then once to tone it down I have no reason to believe it will work this time either. Giving him the names of those who got him banned, without giving them any kind of meaningful protection is not (to my mind ) a solution to this.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    To be clear, I was referring specifically to So Fram is unblocked gets (in effect though oddly not in wording), and not to anything the above "response" addresses. I thought that was obvious. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    That is not the full sentence. As such I am not going to try to explain anymore what I meant, I will let others decide.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Stop breaking the !vote count. 2. I have no earthly idea what That is not the full sentence. means; I guess it's just more evasive trolling like at that recent ANI thread (or that other, current, ANI thread) or on your talk page. So I guess it probably be better to just not feed into it any more. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

34. I didn't realise this had turned into a !vote. Seems fairly pointless, as the plan proposes things we have no power to enact. On #1 I am neutral, given that we don't specifically know what prompted the ban. Letting Fram back early in return for better behaviour would be a useful olive branch, but Fram will be back in June 2020 anyway, and a year isn't such a long time in Wikitime. #2 I Oppose. Aside from the fact that WMF will never in a million years give Fram the names of his accusers, it would be a bad plan anyway. Even assuming good faith on all sides, it would represent a betrayal of those who thought they were communicating with the WMF in confidence. And we've seen what would happen if the community got wind of who the complainants were. We don't need more vengeance seeking, and it's far better to draw a line under the matter. #3, 4 and 5 are reasonable and I hope they will happen anyway. So, taken as a whole, and with thanks to NYB for making the proposal, but I don't see this as a viable plan.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
35. Procedural oppose We can't actually force an ultimatum on the Foundation. Clearly the vast majority of the community would like something like this as a solution, but it's been clear for weeks that we are not going to get it by !voting on it here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
36. Oppose WP:CIVIL is one of the five pillar policies of Wikipedia. Only asking Fram to "improve his decorum a little bit" doesn't square with that policy. Incivility drives new editors away. Admins should be exemplars of civility. Maybe the Foundation over-reached here, but I cannot support asking them to reduce their ban without a strong commitment to change by the banned editor.--agr (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
37. Oppose Very premature and everyone just needs to take a big breath. I think the foundation should lay out what it is aiming to do more explicitly to stop abuse. Chill pill in the interim. I think this won't be noticed by most editors. Just accept it, don't take a sledgehammer to the project, IMHO. Teacup storm. --E.3 (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
38. Oppose The dispute resolution process is absolutely broken and biased. The community has failed to implement a fair and impartial system. Who has not read Wikipedia:Unblockables and found themselves nodding in agreement with every word. There is one rule for some and one rule for others. e.g. user:Jytdog see [35], which for some reason is in a hidden archive?? I say it is high time the foundation stepped in and did something. If people want to strike or leave over this I say, that is your right and I'll wave as you leave.Morgan Leigh | Talk 23:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
39. Oppose WMF clearly handled this poorly (the idea that ArbCom couldn't handle the case because Fram insulted ArbCom is silly) but not something to escalate over. --The Cunctator (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
40. Oppose we have a way forward via ArbCom, which has accepted the case. We will get a result from them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
41. Oppose WMF's actions are a healthy intervention against an overly-cosy clique of senior editors, interested only in pursuing personal projects and who now barely engage in editing of the encyclopedia, and who chase away new editors by vindictive application of the rules against them whilst essentially exempting themselves from those same rules. I think the Daily Mail ban was a classic example of this kind of behaviour and brought a lot of bad publicity down on the Wikipedia project. FOARP (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    FOARP, that's a highly bold and contentious statement from someone who has only made 3,400 edits in 12 years. You're going to need to come up with some very hard and compelling evidence if you want your vote and claims to be taken seriously. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The approximate equivalent of an edit a day for twelve years being thought insufficient to even comment on this matter is very demonstrative evidence of what I'm talking about. I did, also, cite an example of the kind of behaviour I criticised as well. Whether you want to take it seriously or not is up to you. FOARP (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kudpung: I really don't think that's being fair. --Yair rand (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    FOARP, don't take my words out of context - that's not being fair, it's got nothing to do with with your 'evidence'. As I said, you'd have to come up with some hard evidence for your overly-cosy clique of senior editors - before they became 'cosy' many of them were making as many edits a month as you have done in 12 years and they probably deserve a rest. Now that's something I can back up with hard evidence and name names without being uncivil. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Yair rand. The statement "that's a highly bold and contentious statement from someone who has only made 3,400 edits in 12 years" is not being fair. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

42. Oppose. This is a better community without Fram in it. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I appreciate the thought that went into this proposal, but it goes a touch too far for me. Obviously, a large number of people here believe Fram to be completely innocent, but the fact is that the community does not have the ability to make that judgement, and given the presence of private information, is never going to have that ability. I don't see a way out of this that does not involve a community-appointed body (ideally, ARBCOM; but it could be someone else) investigating the situation in full, including the private evidence, and determining whether the ban is necessary. Also, Fram should be unbanned while such a determination is made. Obviously, the nature of the complaint process means that the identity of the complainant cannot be revealed to Fram; but anything claiming that it cannot be revealed to ARBCOM is legalistic nonsense. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• We don't know what is behind the ban, so I'm neutral on this one. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 12:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this resolution (as several people have pointed out) is that - irrespective of whether it is endorsed or not - it cannot be accepted in full by T&S. They make a very clear statement that when you report harassment to them "[y]our contact to Trust and Safety is kept confidential, so no details about your experience will be shared publicly or with the person you are reporting".[36] They cannot change this after the fact, as they can't promise to maintain confidentially in an existing case and then change their mind to pass their names to the person accused of harassing them just because a few dozen people on Wikipedia tell them to. Whoever raised concerns with T&S has every right to expect T&S to maintain their promise of condifentially, and therefore cannot both unblock Fram and then tell Fram who complained in order to ask Fram to stay away. In the end, it doesn't matter whether we oppose or endorse this, as it is doomed to failure. Therefore, how would it look if it was rewitten in a way that could be accepted by T&S if it was endorsed? - Bilby (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And like it or not, T&S is going to be that outlet - but the way they handled this is completely counterproductive to this, in that they banned them without giving any real notice beforehand (it was mentioned in minutes in a conference call OR took), nor giving a justification as to why the ban is project- and time-limited as opposed to a global ban. It should come as no surprise that the extremely unusual circumstances caused a Streisand effect that they should have seen coming. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 04:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You assume they care. They plainly believe that imposing this on the community is worth whatever heat it generates. I doubt the metrics we saw cited in the Board minutes have shifted much if at all. The rest is words.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alarm bells go off in my head whenever I hear "without giving any real notice beforehand". Whenever any admin (or someone from T&S) tells me to stop doing something, I stop immediately. Even if I am 100% convinced that they are wrong, I stop immediately. If the warning was way out of line, I would talk to them on their talk page and if that didn't work bring it up at AN, but while discussing it I would stop immediately. This is the main reason why I have gone 13 years with zero blocks. Any block would have to be without warning, or me doing something that is grounds for an immediate block like doxing someone. (I have never done that sort of thing anywhere on the net. See South Park (season 20) for some reasons why (smile).)

I would hope that T&S would make the same commitment that our administrators have made to give me warning and allow me to stop doing what I am doing. My clean block record is very important to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elements of this proposal have been partly adopted by various involved parties. I suggest that this proposal be archived. --Pine (✉) 18:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. If you like playing Whac-A-Mole, close down the central place where people still want to talk about this and watch as dozens of discussions on dozens of pages are started. We still don't know how this will play out. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Has Been A Safe Haven From The Online Culture Wars. That Time May Be Over. by Joe Bernstein. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a good summary. Hopefully this will start to impact on WMF's pockets when they realise they can't treat the community like this and donations start to dry up. In short, if all the evidence is available on-wiki, it's Arbcom's turf. If not, then WMF will be contradicting Fram, effectively calling him a liar. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So much for the earlier perception that we'd be viewed as a bunch of entitled self-interested volunteers by the popular press. Keep talking to them everyone! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nice, unbiased article. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's positive in the way you think. The only off-wiki discussion of the article I've seen so far from outside the MediaWiki community seemed to be fairly on the side of the WMF, because people outside the community look at Fram's behavior and think "Yeah, we wouldn't want that around either". ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? Well MY personal echo chamber says the article is unabashedly anti-WMF and they’re all clamoring for Xavier Beccera to launch an investigation. /s —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Being the pedant that I am I counted about a dozen errors of fact, but the main thrust of the piece is solid. 28bytes (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1. That is a decent article imho which captures the many sides of this affair without coming down heavily in any direction. I note from the just declined Jehochman ArbCom Fram case, that Joe Roe said that the information that ArbCom would need to get to be able to make an independent judgment on the WMF action is not likely to be forthcoming; in that case, it clarifies GorillaWarfare's comment at the Fram case, that there is nothing further to be done by ArbCom on the affair; therefore, wrongly or rightly, WMF will reserve the right to conduct their own civility actions in the future. Silk Tork also clarified at the Fram case that there has been no contact between ArbCom and WMF since the 19 June, but that there was a call set up for the 3 July. Britishfinance (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was a well-written and reasonable summary. That's quite a pleasant surprise; journalism about Wikipedia is not always the greatest. Of course, if the media attention keeps up, just imagine how things will get when we find ourselves actually writing an article about FRAMBAN. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JANFRAMBAN? JANBANFRAM? EEng 02:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, Black Betty GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised no Australian editors have proposed this one Blackmane (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good one. SANFRANFRAMBAN? SANFRANJANBANSFRAM? EEng 14:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't give me ideas ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it too early to call this FRAMGATE?Mojo Hand (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mojo Hand, WP:FRAMGATE exists, but I think we need a few more reliable sources until it gets mainspace. However, User revolt could do with updating. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)You know it’s not a bad idea. Unflattering material about T&S in articlespace as a result of media coverage might force their hand by making T&S less-able to achieve its mission—if you can’t trust them, why report to them? That may or may not bode well for us but I think that’s better than stagnation and status quo. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could do that, or read a book :| cygnis insignis 21:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not do both?! Genius! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article-writing would be a nightmare - almost every editor who's participated in this discussion would have a COI! It might have to be an article written by the newcomers to Wikipedia. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The user claims to be a pedant, but says, "… I counted about a dozen errors". Standards have really slipped around this joint. cygnis insignis 22:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well played, sir. 28bytes (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the article. A few factual errors but pretty accurate on both sides. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much what I was going to say.S Philbrick(Talk) 22:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mhmm. Appreciate you bringing it to our attention, Floq. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me too, for bringing the article. Facetiously: The article refers to Fram at one point as being an "asshole". I think someone should alert T&S about this harassing of Fram. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, if the press are making individuals in the community feel less safe to contribute, I would think that falls within T&S's bailiwick, and merit some office action. Perhaps a press release explaining the situation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff, thanks. I had put off reading it thinking it would be crap and was surprised.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The news article talks about Wikipediocracy, an almost moribund site (though it links to some others), as if it were a major forum. But if the WMF keeps this up, these sites will not remain moribund -- and they are not prone to paralytic moralizing over victim privacy. Wnt (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did everyone miss WMF’s statement to BuzzFeed News in the article? In a statement to BuzzFeed News, the organization said it had leveled the ban to maintain "respect and civility" on the platform. "Uncivil behavior, including harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism, is against our Terms of Use, which are applicable to anyone who edits on our projects," it said. starship.paint (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There is so much wrong with that statement, I don't know where to start. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I wasn't aware that civility fit any of those TOS labels. I hope the relevant parties have contacted WMF to request litigation holds of all relevant records. This is incoherent enough that I can see this situation becoming very ugly very quickly. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I think when this article was first posted WMF hadn't made a statement. I distinctly remember it saying that WMF hadn't responded to requests for comment. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm almost certain it was there when I read it, between Floq's and TRM's comments at the start of this section. The Wayback Machine's 19:22:34 archive agrees. Fram declined comment; are you misremembering that? —Cryptic 02:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I may have just missed it. Doesn't matter either way. This statement is dynamite. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:Katherine (WMF) the terms of use do not list incivility as bannable. It lists harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism as bannable. Not mere incivility. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The Buzzfeed article is a pretty good summary until "Much of that blame fell, perhaps predictably, on a woman and a transgender editor. In 2017, a fledgling Wikipedian accused Fram of monitoring her activity on the site to such an extent that felt like harassment." The "woman" was no "fledgling", having started her account in 2010 and created hundred of articles (about which very many people have had complaints) by 2017. I think her period as wikipedian-in-residence predated 2017 too. The so-called "transgender editor" (for it is xe) makes a point about not identifying in any direction online, but I know xim quite well & have never thought of xim as anything but a gay male, although of course xe often addresses transgender issues. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• To set the record straight, the Buzzfeed article contains a glaring error when referring to my "sarcastic references to a forthcoming Nobel Peace Prize". The certain fact that Wikipedians will eventually be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize is the furthest thing from sarcasm. This grand experiment, born jumping off the deep end, has surprisingly tapped into an unprecedented marriage of societal wisdom, advancing technology, and an almost unfathomable basic trust in the potential of collective unselfishness in the human race. Wikipedia's creation was soon joined by millions of inquisitive sharing minds, and is constantly being recreated, polished, and improved by a literal second-by-second outpouring of intellectual strength. Wikipedia, now a recognizable treasure of civilization, changes the world for the better at an accelerating rate. In 2024, give or take a year or three, when the members of the Nobel Peace Prize committee fully analyze the effect our project has had, and will continue to have, on every person, household, and the historical advancement of knowledge and ethics it provides to every corner of the Earth, the recognition of Wikipedia and Wikipedians will be an obvious and easy choice. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (e/c) It's more likely that this marks this end of Wikipedia as we know it than for anyone involved to be getting a Nobel Prize. Enigma^msg 16:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fram's partial ban wasn't the first (something Buzzfeed claimed to be). Someone pointed out above in one of the collapsed section that 2 users in Germany Wikipedia received partial ban back in February, shortly after partial ban was introduced. The parital ban is probably not something WMF created specifically to address Fram's behaviour, but something they used in their toolkit. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think they were just misusing "Wikipedia" to mean "English Wikipedia", which is fairly common even on here, especially when talking about policies or precedent that is actually only applicable to enwiki. --Aquillion (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It gives a different perception though. The current story reads like WMF created a tool to specifically target Fram but in fact it wasn't. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good article. I note it has been put to use in mainspace: User_revolt#Framban Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There's another article about all this kerfuffle, but I can't post a link because of the spam filter (it's on breitbart.com). Adam9007 (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Breitbart is "journalism" in the same sense that Taco Bell is "Mexican food". They try to make it look vaguely like it, but it's nothing actually like it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly unimpressed with Katherine Maher's subtweet about the article:" When you have to retweet your shitty pseudo-thinkpiece three times because no one cares."[37] (referring to https://twitter.com/Bernstein?s=03) Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbs, you need to see this above. @GorillaWarfare, Worm That Turned, and Callanecc: @Mkdw, Premeditated Chaos, and Joe Roe: @AGK, KrakatoaKatie, SilkTork, and Opabinia regalis:. Extremely likely reference to a media piece [38] by Bernstein. starship.paint (talk) 03:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Wow. That's pretty stunning, actually. 28bytes (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we'd all been waiting for a statement. —Cryptic 01:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In comparison with the rest of her tweets it's pretty good. But only in that comparison. And it's a low bar. I'd be interested to know if this was anything to do with our current woes. DuncanHill (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it, she clarified later that she was editing something that had been prepared by a vendor. (And apparently the turnaround here is not 24 hours, and we might be lucky to hit 24 days). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, I rescind my earlier endorsement of the idea that writing her personally will be helpful. It clearly will not. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something else just struck me: If "no one" cares about this Buzzfeed News article... what does that make all of us here in her eyes? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable, but it explains a good part of why the WMF culture is what it is.- MrX 🖋 02:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mendaliv See, the Maher tweet is not telling us anything new. I thought it was already clear from the previous statements that the WMF has considerable disdain for Wikipedia editors and views us as subhuman (I wanted to use the proper German term but that would lead to Godwin being invoked). Enigma^msg 11:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about pouring flaming napalm on troubled waters... This was a communications director before being promoted? Tarl N. (discuss) 02:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to avoid throwing any sort of fuel on any fires here, but it is difficult to view Ms. Maher's tweet as a model of the civility the WMF says it's trying to promote. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I support what Newyorkbrad wrote and am deeply disappointed by this tweet, which I see as completely dismissive of the legitimate concerns expressed by many highly respected editors. I am shocked. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, out of idle curiosity, what does T&S do when they receive anonymous reports about a WP editor harassing another WP editor offline about a Wikipedia-related issue? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prediction: Not a fucking thing. Not. A. Fucking. Thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: - this is a serious issue, I think we should go straight to the WMF CEO on this. starship.paint (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or, we could be good little sheep, like the WMF wants, and block User:Katherine (WMF) for harassment ourselves. Knowing what we do about the kind of environment they would like us to be. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It just occurred to me. Is our WMF CEO arguing that no one cares about Wikipedia? Because if I cared about Wikipedia, I would read the article. starship.paint (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we're "no one". 😢 —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm deficient in Twitter comprehension - how do you know that the pseudo-thinkpiece she was referring to was the Bernstein article? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think because Bernstein tweeted it out three times, which is what Ms. Maher is making light of. There's no direct link as far as I know. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, there are a lot of articles that someone might have tweeted about three times today. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Her tweet was in direct response to one of the journalist's tweets promoting that particular article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it was a subtweet, we may never know for sure. Perhaps one (or more) of the WMF staff members who "liked" it could share what they believed it was in reference to. Killiondude (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we know well enough. Someone tweeted three times to promote an article that was rather critical of the WMF. Not but a couple hours later, the ED of the WMF is complaining that a "shitty" article got three tweets to promote it. I don't think we have to draw the line very damn far from that point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I totally get that, but because of the logical consequences, I am reluctant to draw any conclusions without more confirmation. --Rschen7754 04:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... and someone who liked her tweet has a profile called "Trust & Safety @Wikimedia/@Wikipedia.". and (Redacted) by myself starship.paint (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I wonder if that makes it an official statement. Please remember to archive official statements of the WMF just in case anything happens. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect if a WMF staff member was going to make an official statement, they would not do it on their Twitter account and not link to it from anywhere onwiki... GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It seems, well, Presidential. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

@Mendaliv: Now done: File:Krmaher tweet 27 Jun 2019.png I think it is tagged properly so Commons won't delete it. I can't guarantee it. --Rschen7754 07:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Jimbo, who I know tweets from time to time, to confirm this. I don't do Twitter so I can't see who liked it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: One of the likes is from "Joe Sutherland@jrbsu Trust & Safety @Wikimedia/@Wikipedia." Espresso Addict (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I assume that's User:JSutherland (WMF), egging on our model of wikipedia etiquette. I'm not outing anyone, right? --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have four three likers claiming to be part of Wikimedia, plus one Free Knowledge advocate starship.paint (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Joe Sutherland @jrbsu Trust & Safety @Wikimedia/@Wikipedia.
2. jdforrester @jdforrester Coder @Wikimedia
3. Gregory Varnum @GregVarnum Advocate / policy wonk / tech geek / @Wikimedia Foundation employee.
4. Joseph Seddon @JosephSeddon Free Knowledge advocate (UPDATE: Seddon reversed the like) starship.paint (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that. Personally, while this does not look good, I would prefer to ask what she meant before making an assumption. --Rschen7754 04:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The account jrbsu appears to be either Joe Sutherland or someone impersonating him. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: - I think now is the time for us to start a statement of no confidence in the WMF. starship.paint (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• [Re Maher's tweet] That's an incredibly disappointing piece of double standards. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone to Meta Wikimedia to ask Katherine to explain her tweet. [39] If you are also curious, you may wish to ask too. starship.paint (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Appreciate the ping, Starship.paint. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @GorillaWarfare: - do whatever you want. I merely wanted you to be informed. Maybe I should have pinged you after I found the list of people who publicly liked the tweet (this is public info on Twitter) including James Alexander, Joseph Seddon, Joe Sutherland, jdforrester and Gregory Varnum. These 4 3 stated on Twitter that they are part of Wikimedia (Liker Joseph Seddon didn't say they were part of Wikimedia, but apparently is a Free Knowledge advocate. EDIT: Joseph Seddon unliked the tweet). I don't want to ping every Arb again, so could you help me inform the rest of the Arbs on this. starship.paint (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep, the link to this section has been shared on our email list. For what it's worth, James Alexander has not worked at the Wikimedia Foundation for some time now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh... Trust and Safety at Twitter and Periscope. I got confused. I'm sorry, James! starship.paint (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Starship.paint: Since I've spent 12 years of my life contributing in some way shape or form to Wikipedia and Wikimedia, I would hope I can in some way lay claim to that fact I am an advocate for free knowledge. I've not publicly commented on this whole Fram issue and another voice is not going help on either side of the argument. Given that a single like is going to severely misrepresent my views on this matter and arbitrarily and somewhat incorrectly place me on "a side", I've reversed that action. Seddon ^talk 05:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Seddon: - my wording was too vague. I've never questioned that you are an advocate for free knowledge. What I meant is, you didn't say you were part of Wikimedia on your Twitter profile. starship.paint (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• wow.... just... wow. Have those at WMF gone on a "How to piss off your volunteers" course? Between that, the Gamergate accusation and the heavy-handed power grab, they seem to be making such a ham-fisted mess of absolutely everything here. - SchroCat (talk) 04:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Ha. This just gets more and more bizarre. She won't even try to justify the office action that shattered the project's stability far more than Fram ever could, but when the press inevitably runs the story, she will stoop to respond—not to make her case, but to personally attack the journalist with childish insults? WTF? This is the Executive Director? And other WMF officials are endorsing her? What kind of sad joke is this? I mean, that Tweet is not even as respectable as Trump Tweeting "fake news!" at an unfavorable story. The self-awareness is nonexistent. The professional competence is nonexistent. This is who we're trying to reason with? This is who's at the helm? Honestly, what's the point? This kind of shameful public conduct isn't tolerated in any professional field, at any level. I mean, seriously, a fast food chain wouldn't even tolerate this from an acne-faced shift manager. It really is stunning that the WMF Executive Director is not held and does not hold herself to even a basic standard of civility, maturity or professionalism in the public eye, particularly as the staff purports to hold Wikipedia to a higher standard. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh Maher's former PR so responding to the press is kinda expected. As a response it does seem rather odd although given the conditions under which she took over the foundation I can understand it would be important to be seen as having her employee's backs. Still if the tweet is about what we think it is about it is kinda unfortunate.©Geni (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This a joke? Ignoring a community controversy over your own actions, to the point where it gets so out of control that the press picks it up, and then only breaking your silence to call the article a "shitty pseudo-thinkpiece" that "nobody cares" about is about the farthest thing from competent PR that I can even imagine. Like I said, this behavior is not tolerated in any professional setting, with or without PR professionals. So the fact that you'd actually go so far as to point out that "she's PR", as if that makes it more understandable, is hilarious. All that means is that she knows better, and yet she literally can not give two shits anyways! Lol!! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Assume good faith. K. Maher has worked for Wikipedia's benefit for years, and giving her the business because of a quickly worded probably off-the-cuff tweet does throw more unneeded fuel on this campfire. She'll answer at some point, and Jimbo is probably going to have to step in to take command of this entire situation soon, but we should all be reminded that this is all inside-baseball. Here is the real Wikipedia. Please everyone, take a minute, or even 20 seconds, to take it in and remember what we are here for. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A public tweet in response to a journalist by the Executive Director of the organization is no longer "inside baseball". What it is, is unprofessional and a fine example of "Do as I say, not as I do" that will not, shall we say, serve to help the situation. She could have expressed disagreement with what was written without doing it like that. (Not to mention she's apparently got time to be tweeting about all manner of things, but none to respond to the concerns raised here.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• All true, but at some point we all have to calm down and stop jumping on each other. I have a felling that "The Tweet" may be the twig that moves this mudslide back up the hill. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If we consider WMF execs and the like to be part of "each other" we're really doomed. There's a damn good reason execs and management aren't given a vote when a workplace unionizes. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That seems the only way that this drama will have to shake out, as the concept of putting the encyclopedia first guides well. I think today's events have moved the dial towards unification of purpose and the probable solutions to this energized crisis, no matter how it looks right now. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is stunningly tonedeaf and entirely inappropriate. Entirely separate from the WMF's original action, this comment should not be coming from any WMF employee, let alone the person at the top. Doc James, I hope this will be a topic of conversation at a future Board meeting... ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I've been contributing to Wikipedia for over 16 years, & there have been times when I've drifted away & seriously considered finding another hobby, but I come back because I basically believed in Wikipedia's mission -- making information free for everyone -- despite that writing useful articles at this point is hard & often tedious work. But when I read such a casually & flippantly nasty response from one of the people who are supposed to set an example for the rest of us ... well, it sucks to discover I've been a sucker. I hope she enjoys that job with a 6-figure salary I helped to create for her. -- llywrch (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, that's basically how I feel. I had even been mostly on the WMF's side, but now I want to burn it all down. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A further reply: [40] --Rschen7754 05:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I perceive it as declining any connection with Bernstein's piece but the original coincidence was too well, to be an accident. ∯WBG^converse 05:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess I don't know. I mean, I have a Twitter account (with an easily guessable handle) but I rarely post anymore. I don't really get all the nuances of this subtweeting thing. It doesn't read to me like an explicit denial. --Rschen7754 05:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Maher is no idiot. If she wanted to say we were completely wrong, she'd outright say it. She wouldn't muse at how we squirmed at the knife in our collective backs. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a point. ∯WBG^converse 06:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I don't see her coming out and saying "You got me, it was referring to the Buzzfeed article". But if she doesn't come out with an explicit denial within 24 hours, or deletes the tweet, I think we can draw our own conclusions. --Rschen7754 06:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Well that's kind of my point. Yeah, fair enough, we can't take anything she says as a confirmation because she's not gonna outright do that. But if we were completely incorrect and she was just cursing the darkness a little bit, or complaining about someone else, it would cost her nothing to say "You have it wrong," or even in that exchange say, "The crazy thing is that they're going crazy about something I'm not even talking about." —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I absolutely do not buy that explanation in the follow-up tweet. If she wants me to believe her, she needs to post a link to the actual article she was criticizing. starship.paint (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the ping above, starship.paint. I've asked a question about this here. (Here is an archive of both relevant tweets, for reference.) Otherwise - there's a lot of interest in this thread about likes and replies and such; let's please all continue to be careful about off-wiki identities. (Also, I have no idea how the WMF works, but there are workplaces where liking, sharing, and otherwise signal-boosting your boss's or organization's social media is part of the expectations of the job, so please don't be tempted to draw undue conclusions about other editors.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Opabinia regalis: - you're welcome. So, you asked on en.wiki, I asked on meta.wiki. Let's just see what replies she have for us. starship.paint (talk) 07:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Some comments from Jimmy Wales himself, and some more from Katharine down further on the thread [41]. --Rschen7754 06:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, they're gonna keep posting on Twitter to keep their donors believing that they're trying to do something, rather than actually putting out this fire. I'm this close to just saying "Let it burn." This project may need to end tonight. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I read that that as tacit acknowledgement that it does indeed relate to the article. This wasn’t even meant to be something that rose to the level of Wikidrama. seems to imply that it was indeed related to Wikipedia (after all, why else would anything rise to the level of Wikidrama...) ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 06:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Bellezzasolo - thank you for that astute observation. starship.paint (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So the T&S people liked it by mistake?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The backpedaling is pathetic. I wholeheartedly echo Dan's call for her resignation. It is, on multiple levels, necessary at this point. A Twitter cyberbully with the regrettable title of "WMF Executive Director" is an embarrassment to the WMF and to the enwiki community alike, and will do nothing to heal the deep wounds that have been created in the community and in the public eye. His call for the board's resignation would be a plus as well. Though Jimbo can stay. He retweeted the article, rather than attacking the author. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go so far as to call for a resignation for this tweet. This is her livelihood, after all, and I don't think this was egregious enough to warrant a resignation. But we do need a full explanation, and an apology if a mistake was made. starship.paint (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That looks like the sort of thing Trump would tweet. Reyk _YO! 06:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • They have the same taste in corporate law firms, after all. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with getting up a collection to send Jimmy and the three board members who supposedly represent the community a matched set of second-hand fiddles with a request for their resignation burned into the wood.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• For a community who claims they can handle their own disputes on harassment, you sure did a good job of following someone onto Twitter, following their followers likes, and inflaming the situation by tying a vague tweet to the block of Fram, even after denial it had to do with anything on-wiki. Good job! — Moe Epsilon 07:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Moe Epsilon: - writing This wasn’t even meant to be something that rose to the level of Wikidrama. isn't a very strong denial. I agree with Bellezzasolo that it instead seems to imply that it was indeed related to Wikipedia (after all, why else would anything rise to the level of Wikidrama...) starship.paint (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You can say that, but she's explicitly denied it being related to any one piece or author in further tweets. If you don't believe her then that's your problem. — Moe Epsilon 07:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Moe Epsilon: - if you actually believe that this quote retweet your shitty pseudo-thinkpiece three times is not related to any one author, that's your problem. starship.paint (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's funny because you think being a public figure gives you any more right to go after other people. At any rate, she can say what she wants on her own social media account any more than you can. If we're holding people accountable for what they say on Twitter now, I suggest we talk to those launching personal attacks at her on Twitter. — Moe Epsilon 10:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If we're holding people accountable for what they say on Twitter now is thoroughly, deliberately disingenuous. We are holding the head of the WMF for what she says on her Twitter account, where she posts as WMF head, for statements she makes about Wikipedia. Your counter here is intellectually dishonest dissembling. Grandpallama (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Grandpallama:: No, I am being entirely serious. Quick question, before the incident with Fram, did you ever check her Twitter for updates about the Foundation? Because if you look at her timeline, I would think you'd stop going there for updates since she doesn't frequently post updates on it but rather her every day life. — Moe Epsilon 17:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• So? Someone usually uses their gun for target practice; one day they accidentally shoot someone in the face. The fact that they generally don't shoot at people means they didn't really shoot someone in the face? Come on...there is absolutely no realistic interpretation that this tweet wasn't about the current situation. Grandpallama (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That was a very tone deaf tweet from Katherine Maher; does she not realise that the article is from Buzzfeed News [42], one of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, as designated in 2019. Why does this crisis keep self-perputating at very opportunity? Britishfinance (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Britishfinance: - just because a source is perennial doesn't mean it is reliable (there are unreliable perennial sources), though There is consensus that BuzzFeed News is generally reliable. starship.paint (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Starship.paint: We are all aware of that; however, many editors (incl. Katherine I am guessing), may not be aware of its status as an WP:RSP. Britishfinance (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Twitter is a fucking wasteland of Minimum Prosecutable Units without details or context being sprayed back and forth in conversations you can't follow or figure out. Wikipedia has Talk Pages, it has a mailing list, it has Bugzilla -- why the hell are we finding out that all the BIG STUFF is being said by various hotshots I never heard of like Women in Red and Executive Directors, out on this wasteland blogosphere medium? Exalted glitterati of Wikimedia, get back on the bus before you get run over! Wnt (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I find it rather rude to say that very few people had asked her directly when she failed to respond to any of those that did (including myself). For that matter, none of the WMF staff I emailed did, except 1 who I asked about an interpretation of a WMF ToS explanation and redirected me to the general email (no reply from them either). Nosebagbear (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  To be honest, I am not sure that writing directly to all WMF employees is in any way a good idea. All of them have certain job descriptions, and most job descriptions do not include communication with volunteers. One can argue that they should include this, and any request, onwiki, on a mailing list, by e-mail, whatever, to any WMF employee must be immediately answered, but then they will be all the time answering the requests and not doing their job. I think by this time we have enough evidence that Katherine Maher is aware of WP:FRAM, and I do not see how another 357 e-mails, tweets and pings would do any better.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  AFAIK, a board meeting can't be held w/o her. And, since the BoT discussed this on the 14th, she ought to have been aware of the circumstances, from that point of time onwards. ∯WBG^converse 12:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I so wanted to reply to that tweet, but decided against it as I'd probably end up banned from Twitter. All those on Twitter, tweet the Bernsten article, and let's get the hashtag #FRAMGATE #Wikigate trending. Mjroots (talk) 07:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: - no no no! You will be accused of supporting a harasser and maybe even sexism. You will lose the optics war. It should be WMFGATE or maybe WIKIGATE (the most relatable). No FRAM, please, no one out there knows who Fram is. starship.paint (talk) 07:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've deleted my tweet. #Wikigate is a good suggestion, let's go with that. Mjroots (talk) 07:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter is a very different beast from Wikipedia, and one whose community has long been toxic to each other. I don't see the benefit of publicizing this within the Twitterverse. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss. starship.paint (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• At least she hasn't actually said "Fake news" yet. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  More tweets I didn't notice. Hold on guys! I'm still updating! starship.paint (talk) 08:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Or WMFEFE? Reyk _YO! 08:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. @SilkTork, Slatersteven, Haukurth, and Rschen7754: - you may be interested in this quote: I know this will sound odd, but until today, very few folks have asked me directly. starship.paint (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I find that interesting?Slatersteven (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: - I thought you personally emailed her. Did I get that wrong? starship.paint (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still not seeing why I should find this interesting.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just read that. It's probably true. There were only a handful of us who wrote to her directly, and she appears not to have noticed the emails, only that which was in public view. While I am disappointed that she still hasn't acknowledged (except via Twitter) that we contacted her, I am even more disappointed that so few in our community did write to her, especially in view of how many people have been involved in this page, either to propose ideas or support or comment on those ideas, or just to read. We can't blame the CEO for not getting the message if people didn't send her the message. Please, folks, do it now. Contact her in whichever manner you prefer or feel is appropriate - email, twitter, or her account here on enwiki or on Media. But whichever means you do, please, please, please, be civil. You can indicate you are angry, emotional, disappointed, frustrated, whatever. But don't be hostile, don't be insulting, don't be rude. She has said that our community is a "monolith misnomer" because 10 Wikipedians come up with 20 different opinions. Can we show her that we are a unified community, and what we want is improved communications and a better ongoing relationship between WMF and enwiki. We don't wish to be ignored, insulted, and treated as fractious and toxic. We want to be treated with respect and equality, and for enwiki and WMF to work together to continue our existing work on building this project. SilkTork (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When we've had ArbCom in telephone meeting with the WMF, and we've had Jimmy Wales and Doc James working on this as board members (and having had a meeting covering it), it's hardly our fault if the ED isn't getting the message. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may be relative, if we all wrote to her (who are participating here) what percentage of Wikipedians would that be? If it is over 100,000 this would be less the 1% (of 1%), by any stretch of the imagination that is "very few" people who actually care or have noticed.Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So no-one should do anything, Slatersteven? Not sure what your point is but the issue of an alleged silent majority has been raised here before and one outcome of that was an influx of previously silent people acknowledging that they have concerns. - Sitush (talk) 09:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When did I say no one should say anything? I never once said no one should comment, and really fail, to see how my Post could in any read be seen in that way. I am not saying there is a silent majority who holds an opinion, I have said most users have no commented, and so only a few have really shown any interest in this issue (you will note, I did fact include the possibility they just have not heard of this case).Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you a question as to the point of your post. I didn't say you believe no-one should do anything. You're writing quite a lot of irrelevant and/or repetitive stuff here and, as is common, obfuscating matters. - Sitush (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me if I said something that there was no possible way you could have read into my comment. Someone asked why she said X, I ...no because you will just strawman whatever I say. This is my last response to you on this subject, if you cannot debate honestly then I cannot be arsed to debate with you.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Break it up guys, let's not fight over this, alright? starship.paint (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To echo Boing’s point, if the ED isn’t aware of this conflict between the community and the WMF because the community hasn’t told her, it reflects poorly on the internal communication at the WMF, or strengthens the point that the WMF sees this as so inconsequential that they don’t need to inform the management. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: - it's true that the 460 editors who have weighed in here are only small subset of the community. But, how many singular issues in the community can even generate a response from 460 editors? According to Newyorkbrad, we have now [53] achieved a record number of statements for an Arbitration case request at over 120. This is momentous in Wikipedia history. starship.paint (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point is why she said "so few people". Now it may well be true this has generated more controversy then any other single issue here. But that does not mean that it is still a lot of people commenting (or contacting her), just a lot more then usual. So it does not make her statement false or misleading.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point isn't that 460 editors have responded. It's the proportion of the top 10% or even 5% of active editors who have responded. Mjroots (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• My tweet to Ms Maher [54] DuncanHill (talk) 09:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And her reply to me [55]. DuncanHill (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I may note what follows, I'd rather the conversation be here on-wiki, too. I have significant concerns regarding the usage of off-wiki sources to handle on-wiki matters in this case. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 18:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think I've ever gone off-wiki to ask something that should be asked on-wiki before. I disliked having to do it, but it was clear that the only way of attracting her attention was to go to Twitter. I really shouldn't say any more. But I will, I am appalled at her behaviour. I don't think she gives a flying fuck about editors. And I'm sure she'll come out with a load of "we're listening, we want to bring you with us" bullshit when she does eventually manage to remember how to log in to Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I couldn't sleep so I also responded to her tweet [56]. -- llywrch (talk) 10:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "Very few people have asked her directly" -- well of course not. We're not on her site. If you want to have a say in Wikipedia, obviously you should spend your time on Twitter! The WMF Office has tried its best to make plots to redesign Wikipedia to look a little more like Twitter so we can get used to it so we can stop talking here and move over to where All The Big Stuff Happens. There, under the watchful eye of Twitter censors, the competent posters who have networks of PR bots behind them can get the upvotes they need to be accepted as Serious Players worthy of the WMF's respect! Someday we can replace all of Wikipedia with Twitter and if you think something is a good source on ghost imaging or seventeenth-century iron smelting you can just retweet the citation -- ought to work so much better than our system of article writing! Wnt (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is an odd response, inasmuch as at least three people emailed her about this issue three days ago. She might claim that in the crush of emails she (presumably) receives she had missed seeing them, but (presumably) her subordinates did update her that there was some serious pushback on en.wikipedia about this matter. -- llywrch (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Just saw the thread above. I plead lack of sleep week nights for way too long in defense of repeating information clearly visible. -- llywrch (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Starship.paint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was just blocked, I assume for this post. His talk page access was also revoked. MrX 🖋 14:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Clarifcation: I was definitely blocked for inappropriate questions asked on en.wiki of two WMF staffers, definitely considering a warning for inappropriate questions I asked of a former Arb. A question to a WMF staffer on meta.wiki may have also contributed to the block. Obviously, I am unblocked now. However, my contributions to this page will be cut down. starship.paint (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Not just that post.--MONGO (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Odd that he was blocked longer than Fram, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well if the block notice is correct he had already been warned about this sort of thing before. But it does seem to be an overreaction, is there a history of outing here?Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poor blighter was indeffed for lèse-majesté. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, Maher has now admitted that the initial tweet was directed at the Buzzfeed article. ‑ Iridescent 16:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that she does. In the tweet that this one replies to, she says: This was not a directed comment. Guettarda (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • She's still using Twitter instead of answering editors on wiki. I think her priorities are clear, and they're not here. DuncanHill (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • She hasn't replied to mine, but I didn't expect she would. For that matter, she should be too busy dealing with this onwiki to check Twitter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Katherine has replied to me to say that she is in meetings this afternoon (Pacific Time) but will take a look at her talk page after. I want a response as well, but it's not unreasonable to give her some time to attend to her meeting schedule. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Swell.- MrX 🖋 19:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah. The feeling I get is that this all came as a great surprise to her and she is just now trying to get back onto a good footing. Even if she comes around on it, this is breathtakingly unsatisfactory. How on earth could anyone with her job have been so oblivious to what has been going on, for all this time? It's not our fault for failing to do a good enough job of reaching out to her. It's her job to be aware of these things. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Katherine Maher's tweet is unacceptable and reminds me of something Katie Hopkins or Ann Coulter would write. I would be thoroughly unimpressed if an admin said it, much less the editing director of the WMF. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since Katherine Maher seems to have poured petrol on the fire by tweeting about the Buzzfeed article, I guess I should say something. The Tom Fish mentioned in the article is myself. I was connected with the author on twitter by a friend who saw that Joe was asking for a Wikipedia admin to talk to. I was worried that the piece could turn out poorly and I knew that commenting here wasn't going to move the needle with the WMF. (It seems to have made impact by broadening the conversation beyond just us.) I tried my hardest to be a guide to our community and provide background information. None of the information in the section about harassment came from me. I am unimpressed by her statement below and I am planning on resigning my tools/positions in the community if the board doesn't say something in a week. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping make that article good. I for one commend you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero, the article turned out well, so apparently your information was helpful and well-received. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your candour and for helping with the article. It turned out surprisingly well. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 04:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero, Great job. Thanks for taking that on. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copying Katherine's reply here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks. I'm not very active here mostly because it's not a very active page in general. It's usually vandalism, which is quickly reverted by folks who watch the page (thank you!). But when I'm pinged there's a lot of activity here, like today, you have my attention, and here I am.

I understand people are very upset about my tweet yesterday. My tweet wasn't really meant to be about the BuzzFeed article about the situation here on enWP, it was meant more a comment about Twitter and media culture in general. (If I’d wanted to comment on the article, I would have linked to it directly.) But I understand why it was upsetting, and why it could be seen as dismissing or dismissive of perspectives and people here in the en-wiki community. That truly wasn't my intention, and I apologize. (It was also a somewhat ill-conceived and hasty throwaway, which is Twitter in a nutshell, versus what I hope will be a more thoughtful and well-written reflection here, more in line with the nature of this community.) Thank you for reaching out and inviting me to clarify my intention here.

My actual feeling on the BuzzFeed article, which I also clarified on Twitter, is that it accurately covers the situation in the community and the anger or frustration people have expressed about the ban and the Foundation's action. In general, I don't have issues with negative press coverage of criticisms about the Foundation or my own judgment and actions. That’s part of my role, and often I find it very useful to help me learn and improve. To that end, the coverage of the conversations was a fair characterization of many perspectives here. Very often the press doesn't really understand the workings of Wikimedia, however, the journalist clearly did his homework to understand community conversations and processes. He put in the effort, so kudos - that's not easy and it often takes people a long time. (I personally found the “culture war” framing to be strange, because seemed like it was trying to make a Wikipedia issue into a comment on society as a whole, using a very American perspective for what is a fairly international community.)

However, while I don't have any issues with the things I described above, I did felt the way it handled reporting on the alleged targets of harassment was objectionable. For people who know how the communities work, it would be very easy from the article to identify those individuals. That is not okay, and it would have been possible to write the article on the issue and the controversy without needing to take that approach. The Foundation communications team has been in touch with the Buzzfeed editors with our concerns around that. I take very seriously the matter of protecting members of our community, especially ones being harmed by harassment. Criticism is fine, but you shouldn't make it harder for people who already are in a hard place in order to make a point. Or, as I've been taught, don't 'punch down.'

Even if I’ve not been vocal here on my talk page or on other discussions, I’ve been closely monitoring what’s been going on here on en-wiki, and will continue to do so. I believe there are things that could have been handled better on the Foundation side, including my own communications. My goal, which I’ve shared with the Board and am happy to share with you all here, is to find a path to de-escalate the current situation and build better, lasting solutions to the issues of harassment. To me, this means consulting with the enWP community to address your articulated concerns about our respective roles and community processes, identifying some clear next steps to resolve some of the current concerns, and consulting on how we can work together to strengthen community self-governance while also cultivating a respectful editing environment that safeguards everyone in the community.

As always, I appreciate people's passion and the community's efforts toward holding the Foundation accountable, even when these conversations are difficult. I recognize I've also not answered every question or responded to every comment on my page today -- there's a lot, and I wanted to focus on the things that seemed most important and to have the most energy around them.

I know it doesn’t seem like it to many people at the moment, but I wholeheartedly support and am committed to the principle of partnership with members of this and other project communities. It’s been a part of my commitment as a Foundation employee for five years, and consultation is something I’ve made an effort to embed in every aspect of our work, from the movement strategy conversations to the product development process. We don’t always get it right, and even if we do, we don’t and won’t always agree on everything. But I know that collaboration and discourse is essential, and something we all -- Foundation and staff alike -- should always be working toward. Thank you. Katherine (WMF) (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It's unclear to me who she's apologizing to, or for what, and if she's told the members of T&S who hastened to associate themselves with her tweet that her present stance is that she was not criticizing the BuzzFeed article. Aside from that, to stay on the Shakespeare meme, it would have been helpful to have more matter, with less art.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say thanks to the arbs, former arbs, admins and veteran editors who have engaged with Maher on her talk page over this crisis. I am proud of you and although I am not nearly as active or committed to this project as you are, your frankness with her makes me feel represented and that I am part of a community that it is a privilege to belong to. Smeat75 (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, she was not intending to criticize the article. She just so happened to be using it as an example to make a general criticism about media and Twitter culture. Nothing even to do with Wikipedia. Pay no attention to the fact that the article's about her, or to the fact that she called it a "shitty pseudo-thinkpiece" that "no one cares" about. That has nothing to do with Wikipedia or the article. It was just a philosophical meta-commentary on Twitter culture. She knows she directly attacked it, but that has nothing to do with her intent. If she wanted to criticize the article, she obviously would have directly referenced it. Perhaps it wasn't the wisest tweet, but that's Twitter, you guys get that, right? Anyway, I'm glad we're all forgiven for the misunderstanding. I really feel like this has been a come together moment. On that note, she really appreciates us holding the WMF accountable. They've been stonewalling and ignoring us, but rest assured, that doesn't mean anything. They're taking accountability and transparency seriously. Just like her tweet, the obvious evidence to the contrary is completely meaningless. Just ignore it. They're on our side. Oh, by the way, "harassment". That's right, "harassment". Oh, and "victims". Don't forget about the "victims". WMF is getting serious about it, that's what this is all about. No, they still haven't confirmed that this incident has anything to do with harassment as opposed to incivility, but don't question that. They're gonna drop the buzzword in a generic, nonspecific way instead—draw your own conclusions! I have to give Katherine credit for the most human-sounding response to date, but this still boils down to empty rhetoric, which is more than likely necessary to save her job and/or reputation at this point. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reply makes no sense to me: lots of being "kind" and corporate twaddle but little substance that gels with any logical reading of the tweets. It seems to be an attempt to square a circle, and perhaps even a little bit reverse ferret-ish. When I make a mistake I own it but there is precious little owning here and if indeed we have misinterpreted the intent then perhaps that indicates the ED as being someone who is not fit to hold a post for which communication skills surely are a prequisite. - Sitush (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is why WMF needs to be careful. I recalled Frams name, but could not recall form what dispute, now I know. A dispute that involved (as I recall) one of the proles getting warned for (what in effect) Fram was also doing.Slatersteven (talk) 08:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like Swarm and Sitush, I find this message somewhat underwhelming. "My tweet wasn't really meant to be about the BuzzFeed article". Either it was about it or it wasn't - wasn't really meant is linguistically slippery; it implies that the result didn't match the intention, and thus shifts the focus from observable fact (the tweet) to something with more wriggle room (the intention). And "I’ve been closely monitoring what’s been going on here on en-wiki, and will continue to do so" - closely monitoring, but saying nothing. Er, thanks for watching? And then there's the transferral of some responsibility from one's own words to the medium that carries them (Ms Maher doesn't go quite so far as to say 'Twitter made me do it', but it's not far off). Still, there is an apology in there, and an acknowledgement that the WMF has handled this badly, which is something. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's an apology that really isn't, as it is not directed at anyone and it doesn't say what it is for. It's actually worse than the WIR apology, which apologized to the empty air, rather than to Fram, for implying "crimes" on the grounds that it was imprecise. I must say I am impressed by the competence of WMF and in particular Katherine, and possibly Legal. When I, in the course of my legal practice, have written a blow-off letter, I was never successful in making it half as long as this one. It takes talent to say nothing in so many words.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Katherine has replied to a couple of my tweets (the less pointed ones, @dennislbrown). When I told her we should be having this conversation onwiki and not on twitter, she replied "You’re right, that is where we should be having that conversation, and that’s what tried to start this afternoon. I plan to continue." (~1am EST 5/29) I have no idea where she tried, or what she has planned this afternoon (or what time zone she is in for "afternoon"). I haven't seen anything, but will reserve judgement for 24 hours. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Over the course of these discussions, some editors have expressed dissatisfaction with the slowness of getting a clear statement from ArbCom. I think it's important to take note of the comments that multiple Arbs put on Maher's talk page. Those comments show unambiguously that they understand what the rest of us have been so upset about, and that they really are trying to get that message across to WMF. So I want to say that it's not ArbCom's fault that we have gotten so little in the way of adequate responses from WMF. The fault rests squarely with WMF themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish: For clarity you're referring to comments starting about the 27th? Looking at both meta and en talk pages those look to be when people started commenting, I mean not just arbcom members. I'm not complaining, just trying to understand the timeline here because a lot of people are surprised she has indicated she didn't know that well what was going on here or the level of reaction but it also looks to me like a lot of the direct approaches to her are fairly recent. Of course emailing or similar was likely a better bet anyway, and I see some discussion about that above but it sort of looks like that also only took off on the 25th i.e. very recent, although it's difficult to know how many did before then. It does seem things have really taken off now with the Tweet and the controversy surrounding it. For clarity, I make no comment whether she should have known from the BoT meetings or other means. It's more that I'm surprised given how strongly some here feel about the WMF's actions that approaching the ED directly seems to potentially be a fairly recent thing. Nil Einne (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have any particular comments about ArbCom in mind. Indeed, at this point I can hardly even keep track of who has said what. So I wasn't so much criticizing any particular comments, as praising the work done by ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that, in her statement above, Maher says the following: "Even if I’ve not been vocal here on my talk page or on other discussions, I’ve been closely monitoring what’s been going on here on en-wiki, and will continue to do so" - dated 28 June. Though she didn't state when she started "closely monitoring" it. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A breitbart news article (can't directly link), titled Wikipedia Editors Revolt over Site’s Ban of Veteran Administrator has now been made. To be fair, it's less biased and significantly better than most of the publication's usual articles. It doesn't consider the other side as much, and has more errors, but is still not miles off. Not the 2nd news source I'd have liked to have cover it. It's also starting to twig up more elsewhere (Quora, reddit etc) from non-participants Nosebagbear (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: - I see that the bottom of that article states: T. D. Adler edited Wikipedia as The Devil’s Advocate. He was banned after privately reporting conflict of interest editing by one of the site’s administrators. Due to previous witch-hunts led by mainstream Wikipedians against their critics, Adler writes under an alias. starship.paint (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Nosebagbear, actually the Breitbart piece contains a very interesting clue to all of this. It appears Fram violated their WMF imposed IBAN on May 8, which leads me to assume the WMF saw it and banned for that violation (or someone brought it up to them), not any of the other possible complaints. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  May 8 had some ugly diffs. [57][58] but I don't see a violation of the IBAN. This one [59] is close but probably not a violation. Jehochman ^Talk 03:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Jehochman, It may not be an IBAN violation by the traditional definition. The WMF told Fram "we would like to ask that you refrain from making changes to content that she produces, in any way (directly or indirectly), from this point on. This includes but is not limited to direct editing of it, tagging, nominating for deletion, etc." This is a special sanction the WMF cooked up. I wonder if we could ask T&S if they used this diff in justification of the 1 year ban. I guess there's no chance they would ever answer that though. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]