Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 7

External videos
External videos
	<img alt="video icon" src="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Nuvola_apps_kaboodle.svg/16px-Nuvola_apps_kaboodle.svg.png" decoding="async" width="16" height="16" class="mw-file-element" data-file-width="128" data-file-height="128"> Exploring the gender gap in Wikipedia editors, 3:09, June 11, 2019, University of Washington

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

RfC draft

I intend to open an RfC on the subject of the Trust&Safety resp. WMF justice on Meta, with the main issue of fair trial. I wrote a draft in English which is not my native language (as it's the main language of Meta). What do you think about it? I invite you to work on this, esp. concerning factual and language errors. See de:User:Mautpreller/Meta. Mautpreller (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Response to Statement from Jan Eissfeldt, Lead Manager of Trust & Safety

There are several aspects of this I find troubling, but I respect that you did come forward and put your name to it. It was well-written and it does add some information, considerably more than the statements made by the role account. Enigma^msg 20:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
To quote A. E. Housman, "And since, my soul, we cannot fly / To Saturn nor to Mercury, / Keep we must, if keep we can, / These foreign laws of God and man." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Really pathetic. Accusations of harassment are very serious. Please provide the diffs. This new type of star chamber judgment against editors is most unwelcome. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm unsure how you think the WMF is able to both provide diffs and protect the anonymity of those that were harassed. Regards So Why 07:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
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 – WHAT??? E Eng 21:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
EEng, I don't read that as a pardon by any means – "we will not be issuing sanctions" doesn't mean ArbCom won't be doing so. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Do you really think ARBCOM will do anything? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I was simply highlighting the difficulty these people have formulating a coherent sentence. E Eng 23:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for coming here and making the statement. The next step should be indeed a constructive discussion outlining the boundaries more clearly, sharing responsibilities, and clarifying how communication can be improved, because, indeed, in this case the communication was a total disaster.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
And, specifically, I can live with the idea that T&S will enforce civility even when the communities are not prepared to accept it, but in this case it must be very clear whic level of civility is expected. Otherwise it turns into a minefield. In this case, I believe, though Fram has been banned, it is still not clear to them which red line exactly have they crossed. They are of the opinion that the "Fuck ArbCom" comment played a role, in which case dozens of users could be banned anytime. --Ymblanter (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
It is regrettable and avoidable that Wikipedia users have taken to onwiki and offwiki harassment of WMF staff, and in this context it is understandable to use the role account. This most recent statement also acknowledges community concerns more clearly than the previous ones. Even so, I suspect other community members will still struggle to understand (1) the necessity of the action taken against Fram in the first place, and (2) by what process of decision WMF will decide to issue sanctions in potentially controversial cases. I suppose we will not get more clarity on the former, but surely in the latter? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
It is striking that Eissfeldt says that the unexpected blocking reflects "changes to the Trust & Safety team’s processes". Yet the link he gives by way of support/explanation of this presents a primary objective of mak[ing] more transparent to the team’s stakeholders - communities, affiliates, Foundation staff, and partners - what kinds of complaints the team refers to community processes under current practice and which types it does handle. This is plainly what has not been achieved, nor does there seem to have been any discussion with the community of the team's processes, its balances, or its outcomes. The community are stakeholders in this project too, and are right to insist on being treated as equal partners. Jheald (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for publishing this statement, and please do endeavour to keep the community informed as to how we can participate in improving the dialogue between ourselves and the Foundation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
This was a good statement, and it addressed a lot of my own personal concerns. I also thank you for the apology that this caused disruption to the community. As a newer editor, I sometimes feel that the power hierarchy built here is intentionally built to shut certain people out. It's almost as if there is a shield of protection that exists for the powerusers, admins, and even established users which simply does not exist for me because I both new and (oftentimes) impulsive. They are a known quality, whereas I am not (nor am I as particularly helpful as they are). Early on, I was told by the users who care about my wellbeing that if I used our pre-existing reporting mechanisms that retaliation would almost be guaranteed. That isn't the system anyone in the community intended to have, but it is the one that best prevents disruption. I really don't have all the answers, but I'm glad that WMF at least wants to have this kind of conversation. I can't say I agree with how this has been handled up by the foundation up to this point, but if at least some good comes out of this then we'll at least have that. ~~[placeholder]~~ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC) Replaced: 21:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

MJL, thanks for your thoughts on this. I think you expressed many of my main concerns better than I could have. I agree with everything in this comment. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@StudiesWorld: [Thank you for the ping] I'm pretty sure that is the first time someone has ever told me that on wiki. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

While I appreciate the effort to make some kind of statement, I find this tremendously inadequate. Yes, protecting privacy and the general rights of the accusers is very important. But due process for the accused, in any fair system of justice, whether in a court system or not, comes part and parcel with the very notion of a fair adjudication. There has been *zero* effort made to outline what due process the accused can expect in these ex parte hearings and what rights *Fram* has to defend himself against serious charges. Not even the slightest lip service is given to the notion. And anyone for whom the concept of due process is either foreign or merely inconvenient has *zero* business being involved in this project. WMF exists to be the servant of the Wikimedia movement, not its master. It's not supposed to be a jobs program for those who want to cosplay as tin-pot dictators. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

What if the accused disclose the evidence, as occurred here, potentially leading to further harassment of those named in the evidence, whether or not they were involved in or even aware of the complaint? StudiesWorld (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Then the ban should have been escalated immediately. They did not do that, which has ultimately led to a Streisand effect with regards to the likely complainant. The downside to this is that this would have likely have instantly confirmed the complainant's identity. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 22:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of things that can be done to escalate in a situation like that. Like in every other hearing in every single context everywhere, ever. It's WMF's stance that is the gross outlier. People will figure it out and the accused certainly will be able to make some pretty good guesses; if a crime is severe enough for this penalty, it wouldn't be a complete surprise and if the crime isn't, it hasn't any business being taken out of ArbCom's hands. "Sorry, Mr. Hinckley, we can't tell you what president you're accused of shooting, because then you'll know!"CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

My thanks too to Jan for posting what he has. I do have two questions (or points for discussion), though I appreciate Jan may not be able to engage in back-and-forth answering of the many questions people may have.
- My first question is this (if the ban does end up staying in place): how can Fram, who by virtue of being able to edit other Wikimedia projects is still a member of the Wikimedia movement, participate in discussions on en-Wikipedia relating to changes to the Wikimedia software and similar strategic proposals being made by the WMF? What I foresee, is that others will include his critiques even if they are made on different WMF projects. This is why project-limited bans can be difficult to enforce. For example, if Fram is participating in Meta and MediaWiki discussions on those topics and makes cogent points, will people be able to point to and quote his opinions in discussions here, without being accused of proxying for a banned user?
- The other question (a bit more difficult to address) is whether the Trust & Safety team can operate effectively if it loses, or has lost, the trust of a community it is policing? If enough people believe that you made the wrong decision here, they will not have trust in any of the decisions you make as a team until those trust issues are addressed.

I suspect others will want the issues of local autonomy and allowing en-Wikipedia to police their own addressed, so will not say anything on that. Carcharoth (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) The Wikimedia Foundation did not accuse Pudeo, SchroCat or 1989 of proxying for a banned user when they copied Fram's comments from Commons. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@JEissfeldt (WMF): - thank you for your well written message. But you still don't explain how someone is supposed to defend themselves against non-specific accusations under privacy conditions as strict as these - it end's up in a judge/jury situation, with the accuser getting to set their case, but not the accused. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- That's not a bug, Nosebagbear. It's a feature. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. We are not done, but that's a good start. S Philbrick (Talk) 21:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@JEissfeldt (WMF): You wrote: "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." There is a striking implication in that statement that Fram was banned for harassment, otherwise such a statement would be very out of place. Would you be so kind as to answer a couple of questions?
1. Was Fram banned for "hostilities like harassment", or harassment?
2. If so, was public evidence used in your findings (content that can be found on enwiki pages, or in enwiki logs or revision history).

I'm sure you realize that answering those questions cannot possibly reveal any other parties in the matter, nor would it disclose any private information. Thank you.- Mr X 🖋 21:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

That we've been dignified with a substantive statement, in contrast with the boilerplate copy to which we've hitherto been subjected, and that some concessions have been made in earnest make this a not-insignificant step in the right direction. Hopefully the community can match that step with some introspection of our own. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Statements like this are why I consider T&S to be one of the most competent teams at the WMF. Thank you for acknowledging the confusion here. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Something strikes me as extremely odd about this. The claim being made is that (1) this block is based on harassment and (2) regardless of what you have said, the basic gist of it remains "everything is privileged". That has led Fram to fill the void, and while he is a biased source and there are things missing in his reply on Commons, you have done nothing in responce to this. I understand this would be counterproductive in some way - Upgrade to a glock, and you essentially confirm what Fram says; confirm it and breach people's privacy - but the way this was handled was such that T&S hasn't done anything at all in responce to this. The only reason these conspiracy theories (of which one of them may eventually be right, and it's looking increasingly likely this was used to "win" a long-running editorial dispute between two users who, frankly, aren't very well liked) have been promulgating is because T&S maintains that literally everything is privileged, dowm to the word "the". This is not only an asinine position to take, but Raystorm's statement emphatically did not help given she accused everyone defending Fram of sexism, which only serves to help confirm those theories.
The end result does not reflect well at all on the WMF or its Trust & Safety team. "More communication" is impossible if T&S's starting position is "everything is privileged", when I can think of a few things in this situation that would not be (that it's specifically for harassment, that Fram had been warned twice before, and WHY the ban was limited). At a minimum ArbCom should be told the sort of actyion being taken and (in broad strokes) why it is being taken, and while an arb has said that they were told vaguely this and it was provided afterwards in the meeting minutes, that arb (and others) evidently did not expect a ban. The communication has just been grossly mismanaged by T&S from the word go, and because of that T&S as aa whole no longer has the community's trust, as Risker points out so succinctly below. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
simply thx -jkb- (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate any effort to clarify and communicate, so thank you for that. But I cannot make sense of it, if I simultaneously believe everything in this statement and also believe everything that Fram has posted about what he says he was told of the reasons for the ban. If I believe that the comment Fram made about ArbCom was the immediate reason for the office action, then it just does not seem like a valid reason for the office action. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It isn't; it's just the last straw. Fram has outright stated that they've gotten two warnings from T&S over the past year; the ArbCom comment was a third strike of sorts. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Then it isn't a valid last straw. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Jan E. was the man behind Superprotect. This has led to his de-sysop in the German Wikipedia. No, no, no trust in this man. A former german language Wikipedian admin... OMG --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for stepping up. For any future TS bans where you can't identify the accuser, it may make sense not to say it was for harassment.
Halfway transparent houses are dangerous for a couple of reasons. 1) Online sleuths on platforms WMF don't control are liable to guess who the accuser was, and then take action against that person(s). So they can cause folk to suffer harassment that might be worse than any excessive scrutiny experienced on wiki. 2) It can be unfair to the accused. I've gone up against Fram several times over the years to defend the outstanding inclusionists he used to attack, so I think I know them quite well. I can see why their actions might validly appear to be harassment, but it always seemned they were in fact just trying to protect the encyclopaedia from what in Fram's misguided but sincere opinion were excessive mistake makers. So it's annoying to see Fram (effectively) labelled a harasser by a star chamber.
It's great you're going to step up efforts to promote inclusionism. I hope it's appreciated this is a task that may need great tact if you are to avoid alienating the volunteer enforcement wing of the community, who in several ways do a better job than the very expensive and hard to manage paid moderators used by the other large platforms. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Just for information: Jan was the one who declared the open war of the WMF against the communities together with Eric Möller in the MV-disaster. He was the one who worked with extreme hostility against the deWP. I don't have the faintest idea ,how such a completely disgraced person in regard of community interaction could have become head of trust and safety, he is the very opposite of trustworthy from the community perspective. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 21:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@JEissfeldt (WMF): Thank you for your statement, Jan. Despite what I'm about to write, I do appreciate you taking the time to make it. First I want to welcome this:
"We will improve our coordination with community-elected bodies like ArbCom across the movement when carrying out our duties."
However, I have grave concerns about a couple of the statements you make, namely:
"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) ... 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." This is the part that's unacceptable to the community. It is a mistake to think that your staff are going to be any more capable of preserving privacy than the elected representatives of our community who are bound to the same level of confidentiality. If you have evidence of ArbCom failing to meet their obligations on that front, then say so. There's no need for chapter and verse, but we deserve to be informed if T&S no longer has faith in ArbCom's ability to perform its mandate.
Secondly, "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. You need to tell us plainly exactly what minimum standards the English Wikipedia community fell short of in this case. You are wrong to suggest that the English Wikipedia community dislikes or opposes any of the standards expressed in TOU, and I hope you'll either justify it or retract that slur. In fact we not only have policies that make clear our support for the standards you're so keen on, but also policies and precedents that show how we deal with breaches of those standards.
In conclusion, I for one, am not willing to stand by and see T&S arbitrarily impose a parallel, yet unaccountable, scheme of dispute resolution on the English Wikipedia. If you want to meet your remit and supply support for editors who don't feel able to use our dispute resolution procedures themselves, then bring a case on their behalf and allow the community's elected ArbCom to decide the case. Otherwise you need to consider why the English Wikipedia should not simply abandon its present procedures, disband ArbCom and refer all of the disputes to T&S. --RexxS (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

RexxS. My reading of the statement regarding not communicating with NDA users was that it meant that the WMF was under the impression that they had legal obligations to keep some complaints internal. If that is the case, then there would be no way for them to effectively handle these complaints without allowing some internal proceedings. I think that this could be a result of an interpretation of GDPR, based off of discussion higher on this page. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

ARBCOM doesn't decide on cases unless DR or ANI fails first and I for one would never go to ANI on a conduct or bullying issue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

That is simply not true, not in cases involving privacy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Right, but not everyone who may be the victim of harassment is the victim of private harassment. I think that if anything is going to come of this, I hope that, at the very least, ArbCom changes their procedures to allow private hearings of on-wiki evidence. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing as Rexx about the "minimum standards", but he did it better than I would have. We have no idea how the community is 'falling short' of Terms of Service, so we are all literally in the same boat as Fram! I also take umbrage at SuSa will create a complaint processing map of its and related community workflows to make more transparent to the team’s stakeholders - communities, affiliates, Foundation staff, and partners - what kinds of complaints the team refers to community processes under current practice and which types it does handle. The program will reduce the risk of double work on the same issues from staff and volunteer functionaries... To me this is confirming what I suspected - the Trust and Safety goal is to supplant administrators on anything it cares about - and any powers they retain is merely current practice, a historical accident. T&S will super-protect, super-delete, super-ban, super-bias anything it wants any way it wants, and then the community is free to ban anybody else because who really cares. And I expect that like any other social media company, no one will really know why or what they will go after. Wnt (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand that there are going to be times that a final authority will need to exercise some drastic action. However, until now, that has been limited to things that are so serious as to require an indefinite global ban, and I am unaware of any global ban that has seen a wider community challenge it because of that understanding that the tool would only be used for such extremely serious activities (child protection and such things). I am still at a loss as to how a user can have a time-limited ban for behavior and not be informed as to exactly what behavior is at issue. The Foundation is seemingly deciding to both impose on this community a standard on civility that it has repeatedly rejected and also failing to actually define that standard. You are effectively saying to any user dealt in this way that their conduct is lacking, but you cannot tell them what that conduct was, but be sure not to repeat that conduct when they are allowed back despite not knowing what the actual conduct in question is. The Trial is not supposed to be an instruction manual. At the end of the day, this is private property, and you may do whatever you wish to do with that property. You can deny access and ban someone, you can impose access and require us to allow somebody to edit. But if you want us to know what is expected of us then you need to explicitly say what that is. nableezy - 21:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@JEissfeldt (WMF): when you say "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", is that an acknowledgement that it was a bad idea to desysop User:Floquenbeam? Do you regret not re-sysopping him before User:WJBscribe stepped in and did it, less than 24 hours ago? Bishonen | talk 21:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC).
The key element to me is "not to be considered reversible by a local, or even the global, community, no matter the circumstances or community sentiment" - or, in other words, the community be buggered, T&S are the editorial controllers of Wikipedia and nothing you say or do can change that. Fucking disgusting. DuncanHill (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I like the polite fuck off statement but it solves nothing. There is no escalating blocks or indeed any sort of system to appeal or otherwise moderate it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
This bothers me: 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. You have a contentious claim asserted as a fact. You have a link that looks like it might be a supporting source, but doesn't actually support the rebuttal. In an article I'd tag that with a {{cn}}. Guettarda (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Fire Jan Eissfeldt and his whole T&S-Team. --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Nah. Firing people for their failures only breeds fear, not competence, and not improvement. We need a better response to crises, especially when they're entirely self-created. Guettarda (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Jan, assuming you're taking the time to read all of these comments: if the current NDA does not facilitate communication of matters like this between its signatories and the WMF, is Trust & Safety interested in working with WMF Legal to replace it with an agreement which is compatible with such communication? Or is it your position that this is either impossible, or not worth the time? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate the statement, Jan, but I continue to have significant and severe questions and concern about both the conduct of the Office, of which you are a member; and the Trust and Safety team, of which you head as Lead Manager. I'm going to be frank: I join the sentiments of DuncanHill and Nableezy completely and fully. Now, I originally wanted to discuss how WP:IRL is a fact; but that has been supplanted by another matter: the nature of the ban itself. You note, Jan, in your statement, that these time- and project-limited bans are for "serious concerns that are considered temporary or project-specific in nature". I'm afraid I don't understand how the actions, statements, and behaviors of Fram in any way qualify or otherwise comport with the statement, more or less, of when such bans are to be used; how, exactly, is this situation time-limited? Clarification, both in general and regarding the specifics of this case, would be appreciated. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 23:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@JEissfeldt (WMF): Thank you for your statement, however, I would dispute "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..." If the manner in which the sanctions were levied against Fram is an example of how they are intended to work, then what has happened is not merely an "change to the processes", it is a usurpation of community rights which is indeed an expansion of T&S's scope, and an extremely unwarranted one at that. That you cannot see this is a significant part of the problem here, and the actual core of the controversy, not whether the sanctions were justified, but that T&S took upon itself a right which is the community's.
Further, you have said nothing about whether the sanctions were influenced by pressure from the WMF chair, who is, apparently, a personal friend of the complainant. This, if true, is a matter of institutional corruption, and must be dealt with as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

If it was, they wouldn't dare confirm it so as to protect the complainant. But Raystorm's accusing everybody defending Fram of sexism strongly hints that it is, and I don't think Raystorm realised that was how such an accusation would be received. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 23:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, Raystorm's playing of the gender/harrasment card simply made it much more probable that she brought implicit or explicit pressure to bear, otherwise there would be no reason to respond in the manner she did. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@JEissfeldt (WMF): I am concerned about the basis for the ban and suspicion of lack of impartiality behind it. I would only be satisified if the uncensored reasons were shared with another independent body (presumably the arbitration committee or ombudsperson) to review and conclude the basis of the ban was justified or otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I find the statement from Jan Eissfeldt completely unsatisfactory. Fram has said all he was banned for is on wiki (ie, no email, no personal contacts, etc). Many of us have looked hard at Fram's contributions, and while I have found some which could, say, merit sanctions over language etc, nothing merit the draconian punishment from WMF. My conclusion is that WMF has punished its possible most ardent critic. If you think that will bring WMF any credit: you are wrong. I suspect most Wikipedians find the action of WMF totally despicable, Huldra (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

First, thanks to Mr. Eissfeldt for stepping up and communicating. I can appreciate the need for discretion, but considering this office action has the community deeply concerned about the WMF's commitment to transparency, the previous statements from WMFOffice were anything but helpful. When a significant number of volunteers have serious concerns, it was disappointing (if not entirely surprising) to see the Foundation answer with responses that were impersonal, opaque, and bureaucratic. As I stated previously, this attitude goes against Wikipedia's spirit of free participation and mutual respect. It's my sincere hope this will serve as an opportunity for growth, both for WMF and its staff, and our community at large.

I expect after the board meets tomorrow, there will be further dialogue, and hopefully a little more openness where warranted. For now, in the interest of drawing the right conclusions and focusing our energy toward productive ends, we can reasonably infer a few things from Mr. Eissfeldt's statement:

Specifics regarding the case against Fram cannot be made public (or shared with anyone outside WMF) as a requirement of the Privacy Policy, and/or other contractual or legal obligations to the complainant
Fram was banned for violating the harassment clause of the Wikimedia Terms of Use, but not necessarily our harassment policy
WMF considers WP:HARASS inadequate in covering violations of the ToU, or else it views ArbCom as incapable of adequately enforcing WP:HARASS (or both)

We are not going to get details about who accused Fram of what, ever. Nor would we if this had gone to ArbCom, nor should we in a serious case of harassment. All we can hope is that the board will review it, and if they uphold it, give us a sense of why it was justified. IMHO, a year ban seems like a lot, even for one as prickly as Fram, but I don't know what happened.

I think we can all agree this was needlessly disruptive for a variety of reasons. The core of the issue though, is that the ToU (as interpreted by WMF) don't align with WP:HARASS (as interpreted by ArbCom/the community). We can do very little to change the ToU or the WMF (not that it's stopped us trying), but this would be an opportune time to review our harassment policy and how it's enforced. We may not think there's any problem, but as long as the WMF disagrees, this sort of thing is bound to keep happening. With any luck, we will receive some clarification on how exactly harassment is defined, vis-a-vis the ToU, and what ArbCom would need to do to better enforce it, thus avoiding the need for office action in the first place. —Rutebega (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

That is a conversation I am more than happy to share, but WMF thus far have not told us where it is deficient and are not likely to absent dropping their stance here (and this is the sort of thing that should not be subject to privilege; we can't fix it if we don't know where the flaws in the policy are in the first place). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 00:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Jan, it was more informative than what we've received before. But I still do not believe that trust between the community and T&S can be restored until more transparency is provided into the process. In particular:
1. Will specific details of the case be made known to WMF board members?
2. Is any portion of the information being withheld for the sole purpose of protecting the Fram's privacy (i.e. as opposed to protecting the privacy of all parties involved)? If so, and if Fram were to waive their right to privacy in that regard, would you be willing to publish it? (I ask this because he has made the claim that all the evidence of his alleged misconduct exists on-wiki, and additionally that he is happy for the contents of the emails to be shared.)
3. Fram indicates that the WMF office told him that complaints were lodged against him leading up to the April 2018 warning. Were there further complaints between April 2018 and March 2019? between March 2019 and the ban? Or has his case basically always been open since April 2018, with T&S staff proactively monitoring his actions to see if he has made any further violations? Basically I want to know in general terms what instigated the series of internal WMF actions that led to this ban. If you believe that answering this would violate Fram's privacy, see #2. If you believe that answering this would violate the privacy of anyone else or you cannot answer this question for any other reason, please give us an explanation which is not buried in legalese, because I honestly don't see how disclosing the existence of a complaint can violate anyone's privacy (especially given that such disclosure was given to Fram in the April 2018 email).
4. If the community's processes (including ArbCom) are insufficient at the present moment to deal with harassment/incivility issues, do you envision a future in which every such case, with the exception of anything with legal/child protection/etc. implications, can be referred back to the community or ArbCom? If so, what needs to change in the community procedures to allow that to transpire? Or do you believe that there will always be cases (excluding the obvious exceptions) where the T&S will take action without consulting the community, no matter how scrupulously it self-regulates? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

With respect to 3, knowing that X complaint was received at Y time can lead to exposing the person who filed it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 00:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Not for such a broad period of time, when Fram probably butted heads with dozens of people. Anyways, regarding #3 I mostly care about the general procedure: does T&S only investigate on a new complaint, or does it follow up and keep tabs on the people it has warned indefinitely? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@JEissfeldt (WMF): are Office bans which are not required for legal compliance reasons, such as bans with blocks for harassment and incivility, appealable to Jimbo Wales?[1] EllenCT (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@JEissfeldt (WMF): Can you please do something about azwiki? (or some of the other broken Wikipedias like Georgian, Croatian)? 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. I don't understand why there is so much focus here and not on other wikis that are promoting genocide denial or other POV editing and copyvios. --Rs chen 7754 00:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Is there much focus here? I thought one of the key reasons this blew up is because it's literally the first time they've really intervened in this way on en. Okay there is some private stuff that happened before, but I'm not seeing much evidence of a lot of focus here. All I'm seeing is evidence they intervened in one specific instance against one individual. Since then it blew up, and understandably for good reason the WMF feels they have to see this through and therefore there is a lot of focus on it at the moment, but that doesn't demonstrate a lot of focus on en.
Of course for better or worse en is the largest wikipedia by far, and the one with the most focus of the world by far. I don't think it's a good thing, and maybe the WMF haven't helped as much as they can, but I do think there's also not much they can do about the general lack of care anyone else has about the other wikipedias and it does mean there's always going to be a divide between dealing with stuff which affects their major by far service, and the more minor ones especially the very minor ones. As I said before, that doesn't mean they should ignore problems in the minor ones but everything else being equal the problems in the more minor ones will get far less attention.
From what I've read, the problems at az are very serious, way more serious than whatever Fram did although that also doesn't mean that they should have ignored the Fram situation. More importantly, I've seen no real evidence they have been ignoring the az.wikipedia problems. From what I read, it was only about 22 May that people began to really bug them about it. (Although it is possible they were told in private before.)
We know from their previous statements it often takes about 4 weeks to deal with stuff which from what I've seen of large organisations isn't exactly surprising. And that's with simple cases involving a small number of individuals and concerns over one of them in particular, based on stuff in English, a language I think everyone who works for the WMF speaks. The az stuff seems to be fairly complicated and while some stuff may seem clear cut on the outside, in the interest of fairness as well as ensuring they take all the necessary action, even if it were all in English it will likely take months to deal with. It being in Azerbaijani greatly compounds the problems.
Of course you don't have to resolve it all in one go, and I'm hoping that the WMF will start to issue bans sometime soon and also ensure that extremely offensive article names are not allowed. But even in the best case, 2 months from when they were notified (22 May) seems reasonable. While the copyvio stuff is one thing, the denial of the Armenian genocide is quite another. It's a very serious matter that urgently needs to be dealt with but at the same time if you're going to ban people for denying the Armenian genocide, even if you're not going to say it's the reason you need to take great care in your evidence and how you go about it. The fact that almost no one will notice, probably receiving not even 1/100 of the attention of the outside world as this case which as far as I know has still largely passed the world by, not withstanding.
And considering this fallout, and the size of the WMF means this is likely to be diverting significant resources, I would imagine a further delay of 2-3 weeks. To be clear, I'm not saying this is anyone's fault (although I stick with my belief the WMF made mistakes here), simply that it's the nature of the beast that the fall out from this means it's likely diverting most of their attention and they can't just ignore it telling us 'sorry we'll deal with how much you hate us once we're done with Az, in the mean time Fram stays banned'. And for so many reasons, they also can't say 'well we still think we made the right decision here but it blew up and it's taking too much time from dealing with az so we'll overturn the ban for now and re-implement it later when we have time to deal with you'.
Nil Einne (talk) 03:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- I know for Croatian we stewards point-blank asked T&S if they would do anything about it and they said no. --Rs chen 7754 04:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea whather Fram's actions were sancionable or not, and that is in large part beside the point. What is at issue here is a basic principle of natural justice, the accused should be given the right to face their accuser(s) and to defend themselves. This by T&S's own admission has not been allowed to occur. That T&S has explicitly stated that there is no appeal in this instance only adds fuel to the fire. Furthermore, operating a star chamber to institute and oversee such sanctions is not only reprehensible, but is exactly the wrong way to instill confidence in a volutneer organisation over which WMF has chosen for itself to exert some sort of supreme executive power. The tone deafness exhibited here is simply astonishing. At the very least, T&S need to give all the information relating to this action to a trusted, uninvolved and independent third party, I suggest ARBCOM. If that was done and the third party upon consideration of all the circumstances considered that the block and de-sysop of Fram be upheld, then so be it. Otherwise the block and de-sysop and any consequent actions taken against other here such as Floq and Bish, should be overturned and any related entries on their block logs be expunged. I'm not holding my breath, however. I have completely lost faith in WMF to be a reasonable actor with any kind of oversight of the project/ - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The head of T&S is a former admin desysoped on his home wiki? Unreal. Capeo (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- To be fair, dewiki did a lot of things after superprotect that I am not sure were the "right" things to do. --Rs chen 7754 04:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  - It does, however, still raise some eyebrows and result in some questions as to how it came to be. In particular, what the process that resulted in it happening ended up being and if anyone thought to ask how this might look if it came up in the future--regardless of whether or not dewiki did the right thing, it's still a pretty questionable optic for the WMF to have. rdfox 76 (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    - To give some clarification: The process of desysop in de.wp is quite different than in en.wp. Every sysop in de.wp is open to recall. Whoever was responsible for the development of Superprotect, Jan was the one who used it first (with his WMF-account) and the reaction were immediately the 25 votes necessary for a re-election of his private sysop-account, that surely would have no chance in the heated situation, so the desysop was automatically issued after 30 days and does not speak for any wrong-doing in the de.wp besides what he was ordered from the WMF. But maybe the experience is in the back of his mind, when he now wants to protect the T&S-team members from being hold personal accountable for WMF actions. --Magiers (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
      - My comment wasn't in regards to how that all went down or who was in the right or in the wrong. It doesn't matter. It was in the regards to the fact that no competent organization would even risk the impression of bias or COI on the part of employees handling sensitive issues like child protection, threats of harm, stalking, anything that like that. That should be a salaried team of outside hires, professionals in their fields, not contractors from within the editing community. Distance from the community and rock solid impartiality are required for such posts. Familiarity with community norms is not required to detect cases of child grooming or to deal with threats of harm or off-wiki stalking. If the WMF wants some kind of civility enforcement team hired from within the community then fine, do that. I think it's an awful idea, but whatever. Capeo (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Jan: Thank you for your comments. m:Trust and Safety: "As a part of the Foundation’s commitment to respect community autonomy, the Trust & Safety team does not handle general community or community-member disputes that may be addressed through community processes, nor does it serve as an appeal venue for community-made policies and decisions". As I see, you have gone beyond your jurisdiction. You not only intervened in ordinary internal conflict, you went against the will of the community on it. But a few people cannot replace the whole community. English Wikipedia has the most powerful community, ways to resolve conflicts and privacy practices. You must cancel your decision immediately. We must to stop work and reform the Wikimedia Foundation Trust & Safety team. At least, we need to publicly discuss how it works, limits of its competence, discuss how to interact with local communities, introduce direct elections to this team from each language (cultural) community. Yea, Wikimedia is a multicultural movement and it is movement, not a private organization. --sasha (krassotkin) 07:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- FYI: Schiste, Pundit, Doc James, Jimbo Wales, Raystorm, NTymkiv (WMF) (antanana). --sasha (krassotkin) 07:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I am in ongoing discussions with Jan, and I am finding him open to looking for ways forward. There are aspects of this communication that I find troubling, and it's related to concerns I have already raised with Jan regarding the Foundation speaking to the community rather than with the community. The two main ways forward that we are discussing is A) Having an interface on Wikipedia for the community and the Foundation similar to the 'Crats noticeboard and the ArbCom noticeboard. A place here on this project where we can communicate directly, and where can discuss suggestions collectively. And B) A new system for dealing with civility and harassment issues. I have suggested to Jan that whatever system it is, it needs to come out of open discussions here between the Foundation and the community. It cannot be something imposed on the community by the Foundation. I have suggested a board with members from the community that are trusted by both the community and the Foundation, working alongside members of the Foundation to hear complaints of civility and harassment. Any sanctions are to be notified via the proposed WMF Noticeboard. Sanctions for harassment to appealed to the Foundation legal dept. Sanctions for civility to be appealed to ArbCom. Members of the Civility/Harassment Board should not also be members of ArbCom to ensure impartially in the appeals process. SilkTork (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
A) seems like an excellent idea, and would save a great deal of headaches. I'm still chewing on B), but I'm not at all happy with it, and I'd refer you to SeraphimBlade's excellent commentary below for why a large section of the community will feel that way. In particular, the WMF has no business in garden-variety harassment or civility enforcement, and sticking their nose in it will not be popular. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The suggestion of a Civility/Harassment Board is one idea. A starting point for discussion if you like. My main point is that we need to find a solution to civility/harassment issues together not - as at the moment - separately. I also think it very important that we start to break down the barriers between the community and the Foundation. The more active shared working together we do the better. At the moment the Foundation communicates snippets of information to ArbCom, but rarely actually consults. This situation is rather frustrating. In the present circumstance where the Foundation informed ArbCom that it had concerns regarding Fram, and then blocked Fram, ArbCom get caught up in an impossible situation. The Committee were informed, but could do nothing with the information. And then when Fram is banned, the Committee are asked by the community about our involvement, and the Committee struggle to articulate clearly what is known. I suppose, by default, ArbCom agreed with and are complicit in the ban by not formally protesting the proposal. But the actual proposal came as part of a wider discussion of other matters during a phone call to one Arb, and it came at a time when the Committee were busy with other matters, and were understaffed. And we were arguing about being understaffed! Anyway. a fuller consultation about the situation, such as: "We have received complaints about harassment and incivility by Fram. We are considering banning him from en.wiki for a year. What are your thoughts on this?" would have been, for me, a much more useful and collegial approach. More consultation, and less diktats would be a good way forward. As I said to Jan: "Work with the community and the community will work with you. Work apart from the community, and there will always be a distance, a suspicion, and a certain degree of resentment resulting in push back against unpopular decisions." For the avoidance of doubt, any communications I make while inactive from the Committee are entirely my own. I am not sure yet if I will be returning to the Committee. I may join the list of those willing to unblock Fram. Not because I support Fram or wish to defend his hostile manner of engaging those he disagrees with, but because I feel that the Foundation have got this wrong, and bad things happen when good people do nothing. But it wouldn't be appropriate for me to do that as a member of the Committee, so if I did that I would resign from the Committee and resign CU and OS as well. _{(Sorry, just re-read Jan's post. No need for this as it appears the Foundation will not be reapplying the block).} SilkTork (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks SilkTork both for your steps and for updating the proles. One of the most egregious problems with the currently imposed situation is that this cannot be appealed (even in camera). I understand why a full SanFranBan (Foundation wide, all encompassing, for paedos, etc) does not have one, but for the temporary blocks like this must be able to be discussed and appealed against by those blocked - it goes against all forms of justice I can think of for someone to be punished without a full explanation, in which they are not allowed to put forward arguments in defence and then are forbidden to appeal against overly harsh treatment. - SchroCat (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @SilkTork: I'm really pleased to hear that a member of ArbCom is talking directly with Jan and exploring ways of better cooperation in future. That has to be the best outcome we can hope for. It seems to me that the current issues have exposed a genuine gap in our dispute resolution procedures: that of where an editor feels harassed or bullied or victimised by another editor, especially one with a high profile in the community. Regardless of whether such feelings have any genuine basis, there exists the problem that an editor in that position will find it difficult to commence dispute resolution because of the fear of retribution in the context of our very transparent procedures. We do need some means of support for editors in that situation. However, I remain convinced that although T&S can offer real help (as is their remit) in supporting editors faced with those problems, I believe it is a mistake for T&S to take on the roles of investigator, judge, jury and executioner in those sort of cases. They will clearly be far more empathetic with the complainant, simply because he or she is the one they have worked most closely with. To then use Office action as the means of enforcing their decision in such cases is almost guaranteed to produce a strong reaction from the community, regardless of the propriety of the action. To Tazerdadog, I'd say that T&S actually has the opportunity to help bridge a gap in our systems as a partner with the community (or its representatives), rather than trying to be a replacement for them. --RexxS (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe that working together, the community and the Foundation can come up with a solution. At the very least, as long as there is consensus in whatever solution is agreed, the community will back and support it. SilkTork (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork, it's nice that Jan's working on this, but if he wants to work with the community, he needs to work with it, not backdoor with you. Don't get me wrong, I've had my differences with you, but I do trust you in general. But ultimately, if there's to be a community solution, the community must be involved. That must start with WMF backing off from its position that it holds the authority to enforce bans over the consensus of the editor community, and it must start with discussion of this issue by him on the wiki, not via a back channel. Opaque back channeling caused this blowup to start with, and it certainly won't fix it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear. I am not making back door deals. In our email exchange Jan felt that we had different points of agreement on the moment the Foundation could get involved in harassment complaints, and asked me where I felt that moment should be. My response was: "As for where a line should be drawn where if crossed the Foundation should step in. That should be decided in an open discussion with the community. The community have evolved good rules and procedures through open discussion which gains consensus. And the community upholds very strongly the principle of consensus. If the community is involved in discussions, the community buys into any procedures and rules that are agreed. And the community would then back those rules and help enforce them. If the Foundation creates rules in private discussions, and then informs the community of these rules, there is resentment and a certain degree of push back. Work with the community and the community will work with you. Work apart from the community, and there will always be a distance, a suspicion, and a certain degree of resentment resulting in push back against unpopular decisions." I do not wish to speak for the community - my ideal is that the community and the Foundation speak for each other and do so together. SilkTork (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

"I am not making back door deals ... I do not wish to speak for the community", that's a relief to hear, though given your elected role, it's unfortunate that you are in a position where you have to make these statements. Hopefully that means you have not and will not be having any undocumented quasi-official discussions or secret emails, but Arbcom will be properly and officially represented in recorded discussions that not just the current elected Arbcom members will be able to review, but future elected Arbcom members will be able to reference, including all emails with the WMF. If you mean something else, then now would be a jolly good time to spell out what exactly what you are doing and who you represent. --Fæ (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Fae, I do not think there is a reason to believe SilkTork does not have the community's interests at heart, and I think the message he describes sending to Jan is absolutely correct. I know it's hard to presume good faith in instances like this, but I believe we should here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Plenty of good faith, but I have lots of experience with different Arbcom members, both very good and very bad experiences. Arbcom members are elected officials carrying the trust of our community. It is not adequate to have secret conversations while still wearing those hats and later on say "oh, I was only writing in a private capacity, I cannot say anything about what was said or agreed, even for other Arbcom members to review." What we lack here is leaderships on transparency and good governance, you don't fix that by starting yet more secret "unofficial" conversations. There are never good reasons to choose to avoid good practices. --Fæ (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

We've had good and bad people and good and bad editors serve as arbitrators and we've had effective and ineffective arbitrators. However, it strikes me as absurd that any Wikipedian, including the ones who've most explicitly been entrusted by the widest number of people in the community, cannot speak with any (willing) WMF staffer in an individual capacity about Wikipedia matters. SilkTork seems to have shown that they're trustworthy by reporting back what they've said. So far so good in my book. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

If I understand SilkTork correctly, members of the ArbCom have more information about this banning than will ever be released to the rest of our community, hopefully enough to form an opinion on it. If so, I'd find helpful if the ArbCom make a simple statement if they concur, dissent, or decline to comment on the grounds of T&S's ban of Fram. (In other words agree, disagree, or abstain from stating if Fram did something wrong.) And should a case be presented in the future where for whatever reason none of the facts can be made public, the ArbCom should be given the opportunity to make a statement to the same effect. -- llywrch (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Stewards did have a similar conversation with WMF during superprotect, formally and informally. While I understand the concerns about backroom deals, I think it can be helpful for WMF to have a conversation with someone without having to deal with the walls of text on this page and who they know won't personally attack them. --Rs chen 7754 18:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

For clarity, the information ArbCom had was minimal, along the lines of "concerns raised regarding Fram, looking into it" and "considering ban, looking into it", but no details (not who raised the concerns or what they were concerned about), and no timescale for when a ban might be applied or how it would be done, or if ArbCom would be consulted before it was done. My comment was regarding ArbCom's difficulty in responding to questions about how much ArbCom knew because, clearly, the very fact that the WMF is concerned about a particular user is confidential information. ArbCom can not reveal which users the WMF are concerned about. So ArbCom were put in an awkward position of not being able to deny the Committee knew that WMF were considering a ban, but not able to fully confirm it either as the Committee were unsure of what they could or should reveal. That is what I meant. SilkTork (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@JEissfeldt (WMF): Your statement is flawed. 1) There is no "non-public information" (other than private complaints to the WMF), unless Fram is lying. We can see all of Fram's contributions and whether they have been rev-deleted. Please show diffs of the harassment, if not, you are casting baseless WP:ASPERSIONS. Tagging new articles for improvement is not harassment. 2) You have not demonstrated that the English Wikipedia was unable to deal with this issue, so this is an unprecedented power-grab. That is the main question, not poor communication. 3) Mimicking private report functions from sites like Twitter or Facebook sounds questionable. They are considered to be pretty arbitrary and are affected by things like coordinated mass-reporting. This way there is no public scrutiny of the evidence. You are not real detectives or better than the community/ArbCom in this. There is a massive difference between enforcing the TOS when it comes to acting against child pornography and interpersonal disputes on-wiki. You are biting more than you can chew. --Pudeo (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@JEissfeldt (WMF): You have sanctioned Fram on grounds of harassment of another user -- so it seems from all of the evidence others have provided, & your own refusal to clearly provide an alternative interpretation. Congratulations: you have now just taken on legal responsibility for all cases of harassment on Wikipedia: the serious ones, the ones that could be settled through a simple process, & (especially) all of the irresponsible wild accusations that the usual troublemakers who infest online fora make. Failure to handle these in a prompt & reasonable manner means the Foundation legal department will need to handle lawsuits & the threat of lawsuits over this.
You could have easily avoided this result had you first consulted the en.wikipedia community -- either as a whole or a proper representative body such as the ArbCom -- & stepped in only when the process arguably failed to arrive at a just & reasonable result. If you haven't noticed, even our members in good standing get a bit unruly, & our conflict resolution process is busy. Moreover, people are not always happy with the results of our conflict resolution process, sometimes for valid reasons. So where the members of the WMF could watch from some distance our chronic unruliness, & laugh at the ensuing foibles, you are now in this mess with us, & must needs sort out these conflicts for us.
(Some advice from a long-time Wikipedian, who has witnessed more than a few conflicts here: many of these conflicts are about the content of Wikipedia articles, & to handle these conflicts one needs great familiarity with the subject of the article. Since Wikipedia's articles cover a wide variety of subjects, if I were you I'd get to becoming experts on a lot of different subjects. But don't try to save time by reading Wikipedia articles, since it has been known that some have mistakes, some omit material, & some give undue emphasis to certain points of view -- matters you can only detect by reading reliable sources, not Wikipedia articles.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
no ... system exists for victims to make reports privately without fear that their “case” will be forced to become public. Does the Arbitration Committee not qualify? – Teratix ₵ 13:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@JEissfeldt (WMF): 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. Why? What you're enabling is anonymous reporting and sweeping punishments without anyone knowing what happened. Either Fram is lying (in which case, he SHOULD be desysop'd) or the accuser is. By masking the details in every way, you're not only masking the justice process, you're encouraging frivolous claims and leaving the rest of us wondering whether we're next. To be blunt, the lack of transparency here is astounding and WMF should be clear. From what I've seen thus far, Fram's ban stems from abusing sysop authority in some manner to harass another user. If that assessment is true, in order to prevent such behavior in the future, just say that. As it stands now, Fram's saying he hasn't and no evidence has been provided to prove otherwise. People are currently left wondering what was said/done and without the means to ensure we don't step into such a situation. Buffs (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Buffs: Jan is right here. It is important for people to have a safe way to report abuses without exposing themselves to harassment. That's not the issue. The issue is wether or not Fram's conduct was actually harassment, or if Fram got banned for making someone feel like they were being harassed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  - @Headbomb: The problem is the whole thing. People who feel they are victims of harassment should NOT be allowed to anonymously report a situation and expect a punishment of the accused without having to present their evidence publicly (which is exactly what's happened here). I'm sorry, but the #MeToo movement has infiltrated our collective logic to the point that accusations are considered proof. What we have here is private accusation -> private investigation -> private deliberation -> public punishment. Fram had ZERO chance to defend himself. Now, if Fram threatened to kill another editor (or other heinous acts), that's something completely different, but why hide it?! It should be simple enough to say "Oversighted evidence has been submitted that Fram has threatened others and we've decided an outright ban in perpetuity is appropriate" (example only). This would clarify what happened and discourage further misbehavior. As it is, we have no idea what happened. I'm not even supporting him or opposing the ban in general. My problem is that the process here is woefully lacking in transparency. Buffs (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
    - "People who feel they are victims of harassment should NOT be allowed to anonymously report a situation and expect a punishment of the accused without having to present their evidence publicly (which is exactly what's happened here)." They most definitely should be. Let's say you live in Bahrain, and you edit primarily on gay topics. I call you at your home at 3AM every day, posts your personal information elsewhere, defame you on troll forums, and generally engage in fucking creepy behaviour. You have clear evidence of this. This is general reprehensible behaviour, but going with a 'public trial' jeopardizes your life, because it outs you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
      - No, what you're describing is criminal behavior. In such a case, where he was calling this person at 3AM and posting their personal information, then the reaction should have been: "It's been brought to our attention that User:X has engaged in behavior grossly incompatible with their role as an Admin. Given exigent circumstances, we've pre-emptively removed them from such a role and suspended their account indefinitely. In the meantime, the necessary information has been sent to ArbCom for review." It doesn't matter at that point WHO reported it. Instead, they've been unnecessarily vague to the point that no one really knows what is going on. This puts the entire community in the position that an individual has been suspended for unknown reasons. Buffs (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
SilkTork A while back I had this idea, and it seems it taps well into your intentions. Sadly, it never got off the ground... Pundit|utter 05:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Plan F - Technical Feasibility of Black Out

Self SNOW-closed, clear community unhappiness with the concept Nosebagbear (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Striking has the risk of doing damage that we will literally never be able to undo, while risking actually giving more authority to the WMF.

Thus: Does the en-wiki community have the technical capability to lock and black-out the entirety of en-wiki?

I know it's normally handled by the Devs, but I imagine they might balk at getting involved. Thus, even if not done by the same means I was wondering if we could do something similar (even if "blunter" and less easily done)?

I think the WMF would be on more dubious grounds to overrule it (as it has been done before to advocate for actions to protect wikipedia), and it would let us present a case...which would give us both better moral and public grounds then a strike would. Finally it would be a dramatic step without ongoing damage to the project we fight to protect. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Technical Feasibility

The community has the technical ability to do almost anything ... * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on the proposal if feasible

Do we have to black-out all of en-wiki? We could just black out the frontpage. Rockstonetalk to me! 22:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

That would certainly be an alternate option, I mapped the SOPA angle, but a less extreme response would also make sense. Nosebagbear (talk)

Absolutely not - The only reason a Wikipedia should be blacking out is to protest laws and ordinances that pose an existential threat to it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 22:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I proposed this as lots of editors have been thinking that the change of control does pose an existential threat to (depending on viewpoint) - wikipedia, en-wiki, the community etc. Thus far that's always been against laws - but I would dispute that those are the only potential variant. Nosebagbear (talk)

This is internal politics that, at worst, drastically changes the makeup of the editor corps and guts what few active administrators we have. A blackout is intended to draw readers' minds to an issue, and it goes without saying most readers are (1) unregistered and (2) don't care about the backstage areas or the politicking that goes on between the WMF and the projects. They will care after the fact, which is too late. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 22:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

No thanks, as per my reasons given in multiple sections above. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I opposed the SOPA blackout, I oppose this too. Black out the fundraising banner if you like, but spare the content.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per Bori. This is an internal political matter and is the last thing we should be airing to the general public. This dirty laundry will eventually get out into the mainstream media, let's not help it along. Blackmane (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per Wehwalt. Jimbo blacked out the site years ago over some political grandstanding, - I opposed it then - I oppose it now. — Ched : ? — 23:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I'd only support a blackout for something of much greater global importance than this. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Compared to the readers of Wikipedia and even its users, this is relatively minor—it's not nearly 'major' enough to warrant a blackout. Abequinn14 (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose doing anything directly destructive to the encyclopedia. While I supported that during SOPA, that was an existential threat to the project. This matter, while serious, is hopefully something that can still be worked out. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Strong oppose. I feel cold... —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Strong oppose: This is neither the time nor the proper situation for use of the nuclear option. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I would say "strong oppose" but I do not need to use "strong" to indicate the depth of my opposition. There have been many bad ideas floated in the last 10 days in response to this failure to communicate, and this is among the worst. This is a problem that needs serious ongoing work by level-headed people on both sides. This proposal is comparable to throwing a hand grenade into your rich landlord's house in a dispute over unresolved maintenance problems at your apartment and a rent increase that you do not like. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - keep our problems to ourselves and resolve them internally. No need to annoy millions of readers. Anarchyte (talk | work) 05:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - We need an open, full and proper explanation from the WMF, and then a discussion with them as to what is going wrong and what the future relationship should be. This is more like firebombing Parliament because you don't like a small change in the way taxes are collected. - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I doubt I could be convinced to support anything that would cause collateral damage to our readers. People use our articles for potentially life-altering reasons. Once everything else has already been tried, then I might support Wehwalt's suggestion of blocking the fundraising banner. Directly affecting the WMF's bottom line is probably a much more effective form of protest anyways. Sunrise (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

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

New "User reporting system"

For those of us with too much time on our hands, I've put together some links to what I've been able to find out about the background to the initiative to create a new User reporting system. I've added a few quotes to give a flavour of each document.

Start here: m:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 – "The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken."
Volunteer liaisons: m:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation/Volunteer sign up page – Twelve volunteers signed up to be liaison for wikis or affiliates.
Overview of research about English Wikipedia dispute resolution and harassment: Wikipedia:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/Research on dispute resolution and harassment – "quantitative data analysis of posts to AN/I ... 533 total ANI cases, 315 of which were resolved ... 40 cases included the keyword '3RR', 26 'COI', 18 'harassing', 14 'hounding' and 22 'boomerang'".
Research about ANI: Wikipedia:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/Research about Administrators' Noticeboard Incidents – "This survey is intended to understand community sentiments around AN/I, and will not lead to immediate or imposed changes to AN/I from the Foundation. Rather the purpose of the survey is to fill in gaps in data that could lead to on wiki discussions about possible improvements to how AN/I cases are managed. Any changes would need to be backed by the volunteer community on the English Wikipedia."
Admin confidence: Wikipedia:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/Administrator confidence survey/Results − "The Anti-Harassment Tools Team is interested in measuring how admins feel about different kinds of conflict specific activities (wikihounding, vandalism, harassment, sockpuppetry), how confident they feel spotting, mitigating, and intervening in these case types, and if they feel supported with tools and other resources from the Wikimedia Foundation." See especially Comments about policy, reporting, harassment, community culture.
Harvard Negotiation and Mediation Clinical Program: Recommendations on the Development of Anti-Harassment Tools and Behavioural Dispute Resolution Systems for Wikimedia (pdf) — "Findings ... Current systems for reporting, managing, and evaluating user incidents do not appear to be effective at preventing harassment. "
Reporting systems summary: Reporting systems on English Wikipedia (pdf) – "the Wikimedia community highly prizes transparency. For reporting systems, this is interpreted as publicly-viewable processes, outcomes, and the identities of the involved users. Transparency in this case is not just a design consideration put into place to achieve a certain kind of efficiency or mode of operation, but a value to be strived for in the way the entire system operates. Because the current reporting system aligns with a certain dominant interpretation of transparency, the system engenders a feeling of trust from its users. However, we know that the same commitment to transparency can be harmful and serves to chill the participation of other users who are not properly served by the system as it stands. Our current conundrum is the fact that, whatever changes we recommend, it must adhere to these values even as we change key features, otherwise it will not be trustworthy."

Hands up everybody who wasn't even aware that we had an"Anti-Harassment Tools Team" [raises hand]. But that last one is the real kicker, isn't it? I hope somebody will ask Jan if he read the report commissioned for his team, and if he did, what he made of "whatever changes we recommend, it must adhere to these values even as we change key features, otherwise it will not be trustworthy." Given that clear warning dated November 2018, you have to wonder why he didn't see the current shitstorm coming. --RexxS (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I'm quite sure he saw it coming. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

[raises hand]. I hope you're wrong Boing!, because if the WMF knew full-well what the reaction would be, and then did it anyway, that's gross neglect for the relationship between the WMF and the community, and we need to respond with some form of direct protest (Freeze the Main Page?) Tazerdadog (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

However the new power structure was introduced, what do you reckon are the chances there wouldn't be a shitstorm reaction? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The introduction process should have been "Ask first, get a consensus for what editors want to see, and then do that." You'll notice when they followed that process with Visual Editor and MediaViewer, their deployments went very smoothly, whereas when they failed to, it blew up in everyone's face. So, basically, ask us what we want done, don't tell us what will be done. And given those earlier instances, they should already know that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

They wouldn't have got a consensus for what they want, and they were going to do it anyway, so asking us first and then overriding the objections would have probably made it worse. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Simple enough solution, then: Don't do it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

As I say, there were going to do it anyway. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I write better content today and am a more efficient editor because Visual Editor exists. A consensus based community, like we are, is going to be (notice the lowercase letter here) conservative by its nature. Overall this is good - it's why we get praised for the quality of our coverage of difficult topics. However, there are going to be times when this conservatism is going to harm the project in the long-run. Figuring out how to thread that needle of respecting our norms, traditions, and culture, while opening the door to continued viability as a project is the needle the foundation should be trying to thread. And because it's a challenge they're going to get it wrong a bunch. And when they do we should rightly criticize them for it and they should learn from it. But that doesn't mean they should just stop trying to do the bigger kinds of changes that promote longterm health. In this case they've gotten something very wrong and I worry what, if anything, they're going to take away from all this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, IIRC, the core of the problem was not VE itself, but introducing a highly buggy VE, that caused more issues than it solved. There are major differences between today's VE and the one, that was first launched.

A software product must be stable to minimum extents, before throwing it to the masses -- that (apparently) evaded the WMF developers. ∯WBG^converse 04:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric I was indeed not active at that point so I don't know if it was a minimally viable product or not - I am guessing it wasn't just from the animosity that so many feel and you're right it shouldn't have been introduced. But my point was the foundation wasn't wrong to develop it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Besides the initial bugs, they tried to enforce it us. VE was at some point plainly enabled for all users and I had to turn it off. Mediaviewer was just enabled. Standard setting for beta-features is, IIRC, to standard enable any beta feature UNLESS you chose not to. Remember SuperPutsch. WMF has been enforcing stuff on us for a long time becuase they think we need it, With VE, in its buggy status, it was not 'hey guys, we have this new gadget, for those interested please try it and tell us what you think. And if you think it is good enough and there is community consensus, you can turn it on <here>.' (personal complaint, they refuse to work on material that is easily 10 years outdated, source of regular complaints, and would not even do it if it would get enough suppert in the annual Community Wishlist).

Seen its history, I would NOT be surprised that a meta-RfC would gain sufficient traction to throw out WMF or to seriously restrict its powers (though I doubt we are int time for that - they might just block everyone who is against them). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

For reference for those wondering what the controversy the thread above is discussing was: WP:VisualEditor/RFC. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 07:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess I just don't see how we go from superprotect to this (and I don't like bringing up names here but Jan used superprotect). --Rs chen 7754 18:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hands down; read about it in the usual places. isaacl (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Isaacl, have you read of the User-reporting-system consultation? Please point me to the relevant thread. Reagrds, ∯WBG^converse 19:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I recall seeing this announcement of the community health initiative but never watchlisted the corresponding page (and its talk page), so I've not kept abreast of the progress in this area. isaacl (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hands up everybody who wasn't even aware that we had an"Anti-Harassment Tools Team" [raises hand]. As a shameless plug, for things like this I recommend subscribing to Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter. The efforts of the anti-harassment tools team to improve the blocking interface have been publicized there on several occasions last year: e.g. Jan 2018, Aug 2018, Oct 2018. Mz7 (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: - were you aware of this (or the team in general) WMore importantly, what do you think of the discussion above: Should the WMF have sought (and obeyed) cross-project consensus first, or should they implement changes they feel are necessary even if the community disagrees? Nosebagbear (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- Was aware of the team. They have been working on tools such as partial blocks for EN WP. Am hoping they would also look at improving the CU interface (but as I am not a CU not sure if they are). User:Nosebagbear been busy at work today and need a bit of time to catch up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no worries - I'm sure you came out of the board meeting to an avalanche of pings - plus everything else that draws your time Nosebagbear (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

[Just a small aside...] Gee, all I want to do is edit/create Wikipedia articles. Wasn't aware of the AHT Team or the Community health Initiative either... Shearonink (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Does enwiki have/want a "Volunteer to be a liaison to your wiki community or Wikimedia affiliate"?

See the link mentioned above: m:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation/Volunteer sign up page- I don't see anyone representing us and I'm not sure how they would do it in any case. The job seems immense and pretty important. m:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 Thanks to User:RexxS for drawing attention to it. I'll admit I knew about it but wasn't about to volunteer! Doug Weller talk 16:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I know nothing about this particular task, but I dealt with community liasons on other WMF projects who were trying to facilitate the strategy exercise and get the community input - their activity ranged from trying to be useful and getting desperate because they did not manage to engage the community to being outright hostile and telling the community what they expect, but none of those I would call useful. Whereas the institute of liasons could work in some situations, I do not thin k we are currently at the stage any self-appointed or WMF-appointed person can really have a distinctly positive contribution here.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

"Writing a universal code of conduct, and making a new user reporting system"

In a few places, eg here, here, people have started wondering about a video "Exploring the gender gap in Wikipedia editors" (YouTube, 3 mins), posted by User:Rosiestep on June 11.

At 02:32 User:SPoore (WMF) (FloNight) talks of

"Two of the big initiatives that are going to be happening this next year - one of them is writing a universal code of conduct, and the second one is us making a new reporting system."

Not clear what the community's role in this will be. Jheald (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Response by Sydney Poore

(Apologizes for top posting) My name Sydney Poore and I work at Wikimedia Foundation. Some of you may know me as FloNight. I want to address some questions and concerns people have about a comment I made in the University of Washington video that came out last week. In the video I mentioned the plans for a User reporting system and a Universal Code of Conduct to be developed the next fiscal year. My primary work since I came on staff is to is engage with the Wikimedia communities about initiatives to address harassment, most through tech solutions. On occasion I speak with the media, too. In this instance I responded to a media request for a video interview about this study.

Among other things, I spoke of the upcoming plans for the development of a User Reporting System and a Universal Code of Conduct because I believe that it is important to share information publicly about the Wikimedia movement's work to address issues. I never intended to blindside anyone or give the impression that the opinion of the community is not important. I want to take this opportunity to invite everyone to participate in the consultations. I'm available to answer questions about the User Reporting System and the Universal Code of Conduct. SPoore (WMF), Strategist, Community health initiative (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

References

^ "Video: The Wikipedia gender gap". UW News. University of Washington. June 12, 2019. Retrieved June 12, 2019.

Discussion

If they intend to ram this through without meaningful input from the community, then this is very scary. Unfortunately, I do not currently doubt that they intend to do exactly that. This has the potential to explain a good deal about the WMF's actions so far in this case - and their initial target. @Doc James:, could you include anything that you know about this in your report to the community? Tazerdadog (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Not aware of any specifics User:Tazerdadog. We at Wiki Project Med Foundation and the Wiki Journal of Medicine are working on codes of conduct. IMO such codes need to be developed by the communities (with potentially some support from the foundation) not by the foundation independently. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

So that the link is on record, the draft CoC that the WikiJournal User Group is working on is here. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Last I checked, the community was still trying to flesh out a broad-brush "strategy for 2030"... wbm1058 (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

A universal code of conduct? That is very scary. Raise a hand everybody who believes that will be based on anything other than US corporate English notions of good conduct, narrowly interpreted and with no room for culturally conditioned variation. I doubt there will be any place for people like me here if that happens. And who would enforce it? T&S, who somebody somewhere described as "having our backs", but who will never in a million years "have the back" of most of us? --bonadea contributions talk 13:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Even worse, "universal" means it is going to involve all WMF projects, I bet. Oh this is so bad. --bonadea contributions talk 13:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Bonadea, be pleased to know that the consultation phase of User-reporting-System is already over and per their timeline, they are either preparing the workflow or designing the final software. I did see no notice over en-wiki, awaring the community of the phase and only 4 admins from en-wiki seem to have participated. ∯WBG^converse 13:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I have seen a notice several times. I believe it was on AN for both consultation rounds, though I might have a memory aberration.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter, possilikely, certainly.

I, for one, searched for the contributions of the relevant stuff and did not come across any (might have used MMS, though) post for the consultation of User-report-system. A string-search over AN led to a sole hit:- a Tech News report mentioning it ;-)

I am not doubting any conspiracy or invoking an ulterior motive in the Community Health plans but running non-advertised consultations or learning of the pending development of an universal CoC from an offsite video, is pretty against our values of transparency. ∯WBG^converse 14:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

A very controversial new initiative, coming to light the day after the disappearing of one of the community's most vocal critics of controversial new initiatives. There appears to have been very little notification of this on enwiki, as far as I can see. Black Kite (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Black Kite, Fram's not banned on meta, where he's free to criticize controversial new initiatives, at least at this time. MLauba ^(Talk) 18:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

As I say above, it may not be fair to read too much into the timing. My take on things so far (though I may have missed bits here and there) is that there will be updates coming down the pipeline (from WMF staff and from Doc James who has said on his talk page that discussions are ongoing) that should make things clearer. Something that is concerning me is that I do think the WMF don't appear to trust the en-wiki ArbCom - might this be related to an earlier (this year or last year) resignation of an arbitrator and whether confidential material was being kept confidential (I may be misremembering)? Finally (apologies for putting it in here but I won't have time this weekend to follow things closely - maybe a really good summary will get written...), could some people keep an eye on Fram's Commons talk page, as that has the potential to blow up if more people start posting over there. I hope people don't lose sight of the fact that there are real people involved here (on all sides), and they need personal resolutions to all this, as well as the big picture, project-wide considerations. Carcharoth (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
English-language Wikipedia is a worldwide project with people coming from extremely different cultures and with varying backgrounds, and very often English is not their first language (myself included - I'm from Switzerland, my first language is Swiss German). Introducing some kind of "universal code of conduct" seems very challenging in this environment. A statement that might be perceived as direct and outspoken, but not offensive in culture A might be seen as a frontal attack in culture B. Of course there are some things that would be universally inacceptable (such as direct threats, something like "I will come to your house and beat you up"), but that doesn't necessarily include things such as swearwords (some of which are, for example, much less taboo in German-speaking countries than in America, I think). Gestumblindi (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm certainly hoping that either Doc James or SPoore (WMF) can shed some light on this subject, but it is...concerning, to put it mildly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I had been saying the methods suggested by others were OTT...but this would be catastrophic. Hell, it'd be terrible even if they did have user participation because a universal code of conduct can't work for 750 different projects! ...And we don't see any sign of significant community involvement. Along with the reporting system it is functionally a disenfranchisement of every community and the enforcement mechanisms that exist in many of them. We don't have the details yet, but if more comes out in this vein, then we're going to have to change from the "keep it in-house" discussion. If it comes - it's a lock-out the site level. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
By the way, apparently this is being done here on Meta. There's a breathtaking example of doublespeak there: The Wikimedia Foundation’s general approach, as described, in the Terms of Use, section 10, is to respect local self-governance of the volunteer communities it supports where possible....While the Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative will make the final decisions.... Riiiiight. In the same breath, talk about how much you respect local projects' self-governance, and state that you plan not to respect it at all. But, for all the good it'll do, maybe some objections ought to get registered. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Swearwords are considered vulgar and offending language in the same way in german speaking countries than in englisch speaking, but you must compare the right swearwords (not the direct translations or usage of english loan words which some use to sound less offensive, giving perhaps a wrong impression to english readers who notice this). As to the multi-culture background of the english wikipedia, everyone who learns english as a second language gets warnings of using the four or seven letter words, especially from the very countries of the native speakers. So I simply don´t buy any reassurement of some of the editors here that this is nowadays considered a small thing.--Claude J (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Claude J: I think you are oversimplifying. For instance, you are throwing all English-speaking countries together, but there are huge differences when it comes to swearwords e.g. between the UK and the USA. Also, what would be "the right swearwords" to compare? I think that the usual scatological swearwords, for example, such as German "Scheisse", are usually taken very lightly. Also, for example, German television has absolutely no tradition of "bleeping" out swearwords of any kind, English or German (it's only encountered in imported TV shows and sometimes to make fun of this "American thing"). Gestumblindi (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: English-language Wikipedia is not an American, but an international environment. The English language here is only a veneer, not really that unifying as one could believe on the surface. Often, all people involved in an English-language conversation are not native speakers, and native speakers might come from countries so different as Ghana and Scotland. Gestumblindi (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anyone arguing that en.wiki is American. I don't have statistics for this but I'd say the majority of en.wiki users are not American, so it could hardly be referred to as an "American" wiki. The USA's significance is only that I think of any single country, it would have the most editors on en.wiki. Enigma^msg 17:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that there is room for a universal code of conduct - just so we don't get things like azwiki. But it needs to come about a different way. Ideally, it would be decided on Meta and focus on the universal Wikimedia principles - universal enough so that the largest 10 WMF wikis should be able to implement it on Day 1 with little to no changes to local policies. --Rs chen 7754 15:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- Also, those pages linked to above on Meta are hard to navigate and make me want to cry. --Rs chen 7754 16:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Rschen7754, how does one exactly avoid an az-wiki or Croatian-Wiki rerun with a CoC? ∯WBG^converse 16:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The code of conduct has to encompass more than civility - don't upload copyvios and don't write POV content, for one. --Rs chen 7754 16:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Rschen7754. There is no reason that a universal code of conduct can't be compatible with local codes of conduct. In the US Army, there is a general code that everyone follows as a soldier. Each individual unit, however, was free to add to this, just not allowed to subtract. We can, as a community decide how much (if anything) we want to add to a universal code of conduct. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Megalibrarygirl: - it can only be compatible if every local code of conduct either already met it or changed. The WMF, as considered above, is likely to pick "corporate US civility" as the base level, which would require dramatic changes from multiple communities. The fact that local communities could add is somewhat irrelevant to the concerns. If the WMF picks a "bare, required minimum", which would be good, then they could probably go with it. If and only if they demonstrated they could be trusted and that both harassed and accused could be treated fairly. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm rather annoyed that this didn't get banners but the talk page did. We've only 2 weeks left to comment - I've added it to Cent and VPP (though it might belong in VPR). The timing isn't iffy, but the heavy lack of spreading the word is Nosebagbear (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl, I think the issue is not in adding, but in interpretation. "Be civil" means different things in different places and different contexts. It may, for example, be perfectly civil and acceptable for me to swear while out for a beer with my friends, but would be unacceptable to do in a job interview. It may be perfectly okay for me to tell someone who I know well that they're a dumbass if they make a mistake, but would not be civil if I saw a stranger make that same error. I do not want those decisions to be made by some faceless, unaccountable, and probably ultimately outsourced "moderation team" like happens on so many websites. Our means may not be perfect, but at the very least, if you get in trouble for something, you know what you did wrong, you know why the community disapproves of it, and you know what you need to do differently going forward. And perhaps most importantly, you can argue in your defense, which is an absolutely indispensable part of any fair process. The Army might court-martial you if you break their rules, but they will not do it in secret with you not allowed to present a defense or even know what you're accused of. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Beyond them being faceless and unaccountable - their interpretation is based in a completely different community. To continue the analogy - courts martial are tried by individuals in the same communities - understanding expectations and ethoses. T&S (or whoever) have functionally no involvement so they run off their own viewpoints alone. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl I agree with Seraphim's comments, plus I don't trust the WMF, as it currently stands, to write a simple bare-minimum code of conduct that individual projects can add to as needed. As with Nosebagbear, I suspect that "corporate US civility" will be the minimum they will consider putting through; based on past WMF communications, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they end up expecting everyone to talk in exactly the same sort of language they use--the sort of content-free legalese we've been getting in this case that is clearly written by an on-retainer lawyer to ensure that there's no way for it to be held against them from a legal standpoint. Given that most of us are not lawyers and can't afford to keep one on retainer to help us draw up every single statement we make on Wikipedia, I'd say the potential chilling effect is clear--and anyone who believes that "corporate US civility" language requirements would do anything to stop harassment or other abusive acts clearly has never spent any time in an American corporate environment, dealing with the levels of office politics that make enwiki's problems look like a drop in the bucket. (Not to mention how political correctness results in continuous change of what constitutes such civility standards, meaning that what's acceptable today may get you fired six weeks from now...) rdfox 76 (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl I think the proposed mechanism is understood, what worries at least me is that the defined minimum standard will be, and I have great doubts that it will be in line with current standards onto which community can decide to add some rules, or reverse them in future. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The military analogy is inapt. WMF is not the commanding officer of English Wikipedia nor is it the WMF's role to instill discipline in their alleged subordinates. The WMF is the *servant* of the Wikipedia movement, not its master. This is more comparable to a military coup, a powerful group that is supposed to be serving the Wikimedia movement that aggressively takes control based on the argument that they have the guns and we do not. All hail Despotpedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't take the analogy too literally, CoffeeCrumbs. I used it because it was an example that I'd experienced when I was in the military. I agree that the WMF is not a commanding officer. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Just to point out that there is an ongoing Movement Strategy Process which are looking at questions like:
How and to whom should movement roles and structures be accountable? What structures, processes, and behaviours will enable us to include all voices (including e.g. current contributors and emerging audiences) in our decision-making?

How can the ability of communities to govern themselves within the broad framework of the Foundation’s Terms of Use be improved while also respecting the dignity of everyone involved and their contributions towards our shared goals? How can cultural shift in communities be initiated to make contributing a more positive experience for everyone participating in good faith?
How can cultural shift in communities be initiated to make contributing a more positive experience for everyone participating in good faith? Trying to initiate a cultural shift will cause a lot of shitstorms, and not a lot of cultural shift. This is a scary question for them to be asking in the first place.Tazerdadog (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
That's exactly what happened with the ban of Fram (according to Risker on the talk page). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

That they are even asking that kind of question shows that they have no clue what they are talking about. And yes, scary. --bonadea contributions talk 20:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, it's a question that invites answers. I would observe that culture does in fact change, so presumably it's possible to change it. And the objective of a more positive experience for everyone participating in good faith does not strike me as unreasonable either. It may of course be that some people feel that either the current experience of contributing is so good that it cannot be improved; or that the only way to improve it is by removing/restricting the role of the WMF; or that any cultural change can't start from outside a project... if you hold those views (or, indeed, something else) then please do feed it in to the Working Group page on Meta! The Land (talk) 11:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The working groups will create some recommendations designed to address these questions in the next few months, and have been inviting community input since roughly April. It's important to note that this is not a WMF-only process, indeed, most of the groups have only a couple of WMF staff on them. If you have views then I'd suggest adding them on Meta... The Land (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Also
What kind of regulatory framework do we need to prevent harassment and increase accessibility? ("current situation")

What privileges and power structures are hindering our progress towards our strategic direction and vision?

More diversity Qs -- Jheald (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

A lot of the problems we are having throughout this dispute have to do with the execution of policies, by fallible human beings, as opposed to what the words on the page are. I think editors who have been around for a while understand what is envisioned in the idea of the kind of harassment that requires an office action. And I think the community has a consensus that the intended meaning of office action is one that we support. Normally, the community would consider a true office action to be something that no admin should revert. But what is happening here is that a rather strange time-delimited and single-project sanction was made as an "office action", but what appears to be the causative conduct does not look like something that would be understood as requiring office action, and the administered remedy does not look like something that is appropriate for the kind of really bad conduct that office actions were intended for. In that sense, nobody reverted an office action, but rather, they reverted something that was mislabeled as an office action. I say that in this talk section because, in principle, the idea of a better WMF structure for dealing with serious bullying, and helping to repair the barriers that women and some other editing populations experience, is actually something with which I agree. In principle. But I think many of us see danger in these new plans about a CoC and reporting system because it looks like they will be subject to the same serious problems in execution that happened with Fram and the subsequent communications. Should there be a safe way for a bullied editor to get help? Yes, I support that concept. But should we have something that looks like a gameable way to disappear someone you don't like? Of course not. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what has been said here (not everything, certainly) and would just like to add a couple of points. Caveat: we can never extrapolate from a population to an individual (this applies equally much to individuals who through birth have been randomly assigned to a gender group, as to individuals who have been randomly assigned to a cultural/language group) and so I'm not making claims about any individuals, just general trends among groups of pople. That being said, "civility" is not merely about appropriate word choice, about not swearing when that would cause offence, using politeness phrases, making sure to pick the appropriate gender pronouns, etc. Those are important things but they are only part of civility/politeness/whatever you want to call it. I'll give two examples, which are perhaps not directly relevant to Wikipedia, but still serve to illustrate the issue. a) In the US, it is acceptable to speak well of onself. (Incidentally, one reason I would never go for a RfA is the mandatory question about what contribution one is most proud of - a typical and fairly neutral kind of question in an American context, perfectly fine for many non-Americans as well, but impossible to address for me.) However, in e.g. Australia, people who do that risk being perceived as tall poppies. This has sometimes caused misunderstandings and friction when American business people have done business with Australian colleagues. Not because Americans are ruder than Australians, or vice versa, but because the same language is used differently, and because of differences in what is appropriate to say. b) In the United States and some other part of the Anglo world, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" is often cited as a useful, civil, and desirable way to interact with others. I have seen it said in discussions on Wikipedia, as a matter of fact. However, in many cultures, that cultural script is completely inappropriate, since it encourages people not to mention other people's flaws - which is dishonest to the point of rudeness. This doesn't make one culture more rude than another, certainly not. It just shows that civility and rudeness are concepts that differ in fundamental ways. (I know that the WMF employs people who understand these issues very well indeed, but they won't be involved if this is a "T&S" thing.) Final point: a couple of editors who are often cited as shining examples of civil behaviour are people whose communication styles come across as very patronising to me. That's my own problem obviously, nobody else's, and it doesn't mean I can't communicate with them - but it illustrates the same thing.

TLDR: There is no universal concept of civility. Not even in English. And trying to impose such a code will only erect new barriers. --bonadea contributions talk 20:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure this is considered uncivil, even in Australia. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

No. You're dead wrong. the Prime Minister Bob Hawke joshing with Ron Barassi is proverbial in Melbourne at least for illustrating the language governing mateship codes. Gough Whitlam, the most aristocratic yet comradely politician the post-war world ever heard, loved Ciceronian speech-making, but it didn't exclude him from using the word fuck.Paul Keating in the presence of newspaper reporters. I have relatives from downunder who, studying in the US, have endless anecdotes about the misunderstandings arising from using a 'matey' Australian vernacular with Americans who often give the appearance of being much more guarded and socially cautious, at least in public social discourse, as opposed to their government's foreign policy shenanigans. The proposal strikes me as extremely Americanocentric. Has no one ever read Thomas Szasz on the medicalization of social problems, or Michel Foucault on the problems of the carceral mentality behind the medicalization of life itself in modernization. I guess not. Some culturally thin bureaucrats are legislating 'health care' for editors. Jeezus! What a world of wimps. Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Applying the idea of "mateship" to Wikipedia is treating Wikipedia like a men's space. Some references explaining how "mateship" is a male/masculine concept: [2][3][4] (there are plenty more). Even if one accepts that language that would be considered civil in some contexts might be normal in others, it doesn't follow that we should permit everything in the gray zone here, where we are trying to attract diverse contributors who might be repelled by it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't apply the idea of 'mateship' to wikipedia. I corrected a suggestion about Australian language use. It is not about grey zones either. The assumption in the WMF proposal is that there is a 'universal' code for etiquette, to which they are privy and which they will impose on users from several hundred different cultures. It turns out to be exquisitely americanocentric. A benchmark of honesty in some countries is to look straight into the eyes of the person you're speaking with. In others (Japan) that is taken to be intrusively aggressive. Germaine Greer's contribution to feminism came in good part from her feminist appropriation of the comic, sledging richness of Australian vernacular culture associated till her time with men. The point essentially is, is wiki policy designed to attract people willing to sacrifice their professional time and knowledge to write articles, or is it to prioritize simply recruitment on the basis of sensitivities. In short, are we to mimic the most etiquette-conscious social media so everyone will feel comfortable, whatever they are doing here, or are we to continue in our messy intense passionate individual ways to actually construct something, at some considerable personal cost. Social media may make people 'have a nice day'. They are not known, at the end of the day, for donating to global readers superb articles like Female genital mutilation.Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That... has no bearing at all on anything I wrote above. But even so, how would that be usefully dealt with by a new code of conduct? If that is universally uncivil (I am not saying I disagree about that), what use would a "universal" code have that WP:CIVIL doesn't cover? And then there is the question of shades of grey. I would never consider that post a banning offence. A cause for a request to back off and cool down, certainly, but not for blocking or banning, given the full context. You may disagree, perhaps, but the important thing is that it can be a point of contention, it cannot be absolutely codified. (It is past midnight and I hope I make some sense.) --bonadea contributions talk 22:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

"it can be a point of contention, it cannot be absolutely codified" and it is not for the WMF various activist-filled teams to codify it in the first place. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, as an Australian I would interpret that comment as a sign of frustration with the target of the comment, whether warranted or otherwise. Although it may be somewhat abrupt it is not offensive. Anyone taking offense at such a comment in this country is likely to be laughed at. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Nick Throne has clarified the Australian perspective. Same goes for India. ∯WBG^converse 04:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

That would be regarded as uncivil in Australia and anywhere else. cygnis insignis 11:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Except it would not be. The Fair Work Commission looks very poorly on employers who sack employees for swearing at their bosses: consider this 2012 case where a worker sacked for telling his boss to "get fucked" was found to be unfairly dismissed and ordered to be reinstated. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That ruing is this case in miniature Swearing might have been a grounds for dismissal if the company didn't give "mixed messages" about its use. The company also gave no due process nor time to respond to the charges leveled. So uncivil behavior doesn't have to be tolerated, but the response should be proportional, and a fair process followed which considers someone's whole record. Which part(s) of the preceding sentence people latch onto has great bearing, I think, in how they view this incident. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The fact that the new "Universal code of conduct" and the "New user reporting system" are explicitly mentioned directly in relation to, and only in relation to, gender issues points up the recurring theme that there is a secretive and non-transparent gender-war going on behind the scenes at WMF, T&S, and elsewhere, that has not been either transparent or clear on EN-wiki. Fram appears to have been the first target/victim, via a new power that T&S/WMFOffice gave itself. Fram was given no plausible explanation for the sudden ban/desysop, and the only warning he got was concerning two posts he made in 2018 on the talkpage of someone with serious conflicts of interests with WMF and WMF's Board of Trustees, and who is a gender-warrior. So Fram is the first victim of the secret, non-transparent gender war. Who is next? Softlavender (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Softlavender your framing of the situation is very perplexing. First of all, what is a "gender-war" and a "gender-warrior?" Why do you consider efforts to make Wikipedia a better place for women and non-binary people to edit safely and in comfort a problem? Surely framing it this way, and the way that Only in death frames the WMF as "activist-filled teams" does not help to discuss the situation in a calm way. If you assume that the "other side" is full of awful, terrible people out to get you, how can you reach consensus? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be under the misapprehension the WMF wants or seeks consensus for its actions. Wikipedia seeks consensus amongst its community. The various WMF teams (tech, T&S etc) have shown, over a number of years and situations, no interest in doing anything other than imposing their own will on the community. I mean, you can continue to be a Neville Chamberlain if you want to, but there are only so many times editors can AGF before they look like fools. And that point was past ages ago. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If WMF didn't want consensus, they wouldn't seek input--which you can see clearly on the meta front page. And there is no need to call me a "Neville Chamberlain" and practically invoke Godwin's law because I don't agree with you. It just shows that you are arguing from a heated position. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The WMF has repeatedly sought input then generally ignored it and done what it wants regardless. Tipping the hat at consultation is a standard corporate tactic for doing something you want to do and give the impression you actually care about what other people want. Given that you have basically spent a good amount of text here being an apologist for an organisation that thinks its acceptable to disappear people without given them the courtesy of seeing the evidence against them or the right to defend themselves perhaps you should be less condescending about arguing from a heated position. You should be heated when they come for you in the night. So less of the 'I can see your angry' passive agressive tactics please. If I wanted to be talked to as if I was a woman being told to calm down there are plenty of other misogynistic locations on the internet. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I never said or implied or assumed anyone or any group is/are "awful, terrible people out to get me", and you failed to address any of my points. Softlavender (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

No, you said what I quoted above. What on earth are you talking about with those terms? One of the biggest issues on Wikipedia is the gender gap and the fact that women and nb folks face a good deal of discrimination. Then when they report it, they face additional harassment. This is a pattern I've heard about over and over from people I trust and edit with. So I see good reason to address gender. I've just never met a gender-warrior and if they have a recruiting office, maybe I'll go find out what it's all about. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: Both things are/can be true here. Women and NB do face additional hurdles and more harassment. At the same time, those additional hurdles and harassment causes a hardening, and a propensity for activism. This activism, is by far, a good thing in most cases. But it also often cause to apply broad generalization that apply in the aggregate to individual cases where nuance is lost.

I have asked a similar question at Wikimania 2017 in Montreal, about how you could go around telling someone from a minority group you are wrong about something, without causing them to hear I know better because I'm member of the social majority, especially when members of that minority group may not be as versed/skilled in the art of encyclopedia writing due to a difference in background, or want to promote/rectify a situation, when we are required to be neutral. We need to find a way on how to do that, but sadly my question was dismissed as too silly to be worth addressing, and a lot of people in the audience reacted in a sadly predictable 'look at the white man thinking he's better than us' way. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I totally understand how you felt in that case, Headbomb. My kiddos are biracial. When I was younger and dating, I met my then-boyfriend's sister and boy did I put my foot in it. I thought I could talk about the black experience because I thought I had a "good enough" connection. I could have walked away from the experience thinking that black people didn't want to hear what I had to say and just gotten angry. Instead, I reflected on it. I realized that black people have heard what I, as a white woman, have been saying over and over again. I wasn't adding to the discussion. Now, I listen. That's most often the best thing an ally can do: listen. Minority groups will always tell you when they need your voice. Often, they do. Listening is one of the greatest gifts we can give to one another. I think that's often where minority groups and women are coming from. As to your question: I'd tell a person from a minority group that needs help that you're there for them if they have any questions. You can tell them they are wrong--to not correct mistakes is infantalizing a person, and is patronizing. There's nothing bad about helping others learn to be better editors. It's helpful. Just do it in the way that is respectful. We all want to be treated with respect. That's what I'm advocating. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Well that's the tricky bit. You can listen all you want, at the end of the day, if the minority group is wrong, you still need to click edit and make changes that don't align with what the minority group wants, and they'll go "there they go again, not listening" or similar. Then they blame their not getting what they want on the person making the changes being part of the patriarchy / white hegemony / whatever. I have no real solution for that, and I don't really know anyone that has. But if someone had at least part of a solution that would be great, both for allies and for the people of minority groups. Because reality being what it is, as an ally, when you get accused of being sexist / anti-trans / anti-whatever, or get dismissed simply for being a white man, it is one of the most infuriating things to happen to you, and a lot of goodwill gets burned. It also sadly (and usually disproportionally) turns people against that minority group, providing the anti-whatever with examples of "SEE THEY'RE ALL NUTS! This guy was perfectly reasonable and they accused him of being an anti-whateverist!" allowing them to dismiss all subsequent claims that someone has some anti-whatever bias as invalid, based on the one claim that was invalid. Causing Jussie Smollett types of damage, even if unintentionally, rather than maliciously. Very few people have the moral backbone to still support a movement that has maligned them, sometimes grossly (I have received harassing calls at work, got stalked at Wikimania 2017, and had my personal appearance mocked as result of it), and overlook the transgression because they know a movement can still be right in the aggregate even if the aren't right 100% of the time, or that some of its members are so deep in the echo chamber that they now resort to the same tactics they claim to oppose, out of a sick sense that any men are "fair targets" because some men behave in less-than-exemplary ways.

However, I know I don't want HR types to adjudicate these sorts of content disputes as if they were harassment. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl "Gender warrior" is indeed the wrong term here, and as you say is not the best way to be constructive. What did happen, however, is that the editor concerned wrote a huge amount of seriously sub-par content, and when called out on it (by no means only by Fram - one of the relevant ArbCom cases didn't even mention him) somehow the narrative shifted to some sort of gender issue because many of her articles were about women. The problem with the articles wasn't that they were about women - it was that they were riddled with errors. Black Kite (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Black Kite Errors need to be corrected always. I agree with that completely. I don't know about the case you're referencing, so I can't speak to it. :( Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Tuttle might also provide context for why some editors are mistrustful of WIR. From my vantage point, the ability to discuss that article on its merits was taken away when numerous WIR editors adopted the mindset that the deletion discussion itself was a moral wrong and an example of gender bias. Unsurprisingly, personal attacks and strawmen were directed at those who did not fall in line with this mindset. Like many, if not most, Wikipedians, I believe we need more articles about women. Yet I don't think we should accomplish this goal by ignoring or downplaying our notability standards in favor of articles on women, nor do I consider it acceptable to assume sexism on the part of editors who are simply trying to enforce GNG. There was a serious lack of AGF in that AfD, yet the editors who needed to assume good faith were unmovable in their unwillingness to do so. At a certain point, one becomes weary of trying to have a reasoned conversation with those who will only resort to ad hominems and strawmen. And Raystorm's own attempt to make this a gender issue helps me to have a much clearer understanding of the reason why Fram was banned. I completely understand Softlavender's attitude. Lepricavark (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: Gender bias is a moral wrong--just as any form of prejudice is. Was everyone on that discussion !voting 'Keep' a member of WIR? I don't think so. One important thing about sexism is that it's part of our culture. I, too, have sexist attitudes. I've learned to recognize them and fight them (most of the time I hope!). We all have them. If someone thinks gender bias is involved, we all owe it to ourselves to look inside and make sure that we aren't acting on the biases that society has given us. Based on the fact that WIR is working to fight bias, I'm not surprised editors are mistrustful: it goes against society's narrative. Whether we want to believe it or not, that's the world we live in. Pretending sexism isn't involved in many situations is just putting our heads in the sand. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: I never said that gender bias was okay. My objection is that some WIR members (including at least one admin) have the capacity to see gender bias in places where it doesn't even exist and also to project gender bias (or outright sexism) onto those who reject their interpretation. That is a backwards way of thinking. And I'm afraid that the WMF, in the name of pursing gender balance, would and does endorse that backwards way of thinking. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if that type of thinking had something to do with Fram's ban. At this point, I'd be surprised if it didn't. Lepricavark (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: I don't think you understand what I'm saying here at all. Sorry for not responding right away. I had other issues to deal with. However, I think you are assuming automatically that there is no sexism in situations, when really, quite often there is -- even if you are not aware of it or don't believe it. I do wish that you would AGF in those who are more used to dealing with gender bias, such as WIR members and the at least one admin you speak of. No one is going to wrongfully or flippantly accuse anyone or any situation of gender bias or sexism: that would weaken our position. It's important, however, to call it out where it exists. It's also one of the hardest and scariest things to do: you know that people aren't going to believe you because they don't want to believe there is bias. We want to believe the world is fair and that everything is a meritocracy. It isn't. Bias affects us all. That's why I told you that even I have bias. For example, if someone tells me to imagine a doctor or a scientist, I first think of a man automatically. That's an example of slight, rather benign gender bias. We all have it in our society. Things only become a problem when we can't talk about it. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: "No one is going to wrongfully or flippantly accuse anyone or any situation of gender bias or sexism: that would weaken our position." Having been on the ass end of such accusations, I can tell you this does indeed happen, and that his does indeed weaken WIR's reputation. I wouldn't necessarily say it's widespread or anywhere near a majority, or anywhere close to the gender bias against women in general, but it's also not non-existent and than there was significant bandwagoning happening. Hence the roundtable idea I brought up on your talk page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, Headbomb. I think that others perceive that gender bias is used flippantly or an a bandwagonesque way. However, I think that false accusations are rare. Instead, it's the fact that we live in a society that's full of gender bias that not everyone gets to see. It reminds me of when I first had a discussion with a black friend in college who told me that he was afraid to run in the city. I was flabbergasted. Why on earth would that be a problem? I'm a white woman, so for me, of course it would never be a problem. But a black, young man would have a different experience. In the same way, many women, nb and even men have experienced gender bias and we call it out. There's a lot of it and it's being reported more and more. So I don't think it's flippant. I just think others don't recognize what we are seeing. I'm really glad you brought up the discussion on my talk page and I do think we need to keep it going. I appreciate your perspective, whether or not I agree fully with your assessment. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You can disagree, but you would be materially wrong. I (along other editors) were told point blank that we couldn't possibly have a legitimate interest in a topic because it dealt with feminism , that we didn't know anything about the topic, and that our goals were to willfully 'keep women down', solely based on us not being in agreement with a group of women while happening to be men. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Although this is going off at something of a tangent, I no longer write on feminist issues after I was told I was in a "privileged position" of being male and therefore "part of the problem". That this was from an Administrator makes it even worse. Perhaps I should have complained to the WMF about such outrageous sexism. - SchroCat (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

{ec} I think that there is a universal concept of civility. We all know when we've been treated poorly. We can communicate the issue to those who cause the harm. Many people at that point will say, "I didn't know this caused you harm. I will stop." But members of the community decide that the harm doesn't count because it wouldn't bother them or that the editor should just not feel the feelings they feel and continue to act in ways that hurt that person, that's not civil. What bothers a person will vary by culture, generation and even their emotional state on a particular day. That doesn't mean that I get to decide that what hurt someone is or is not valid. Only they can decide that. And the outcome should clearly be the offending party please back off. I think there are ways to codify this. We do it every day in the real world. On the job, as a manager I constantly hear complaints that would not personally bother me. However, I do find ways to empathize and respond in such a way that the issue is resolved without escalation. Not all issues are resolved the way a person wants, but I do resolve them fairly. We can do that here, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl, I think that works to a degree. If someone told me "I'd really prefer if you didn't use the word ________ when you talk to me", sure, I'll try to accommodate that. On the other hand, if it's "It really hurts my feelings when you nominate an article I wrote for deletion", but I believe the articles in question do in fact fail inclusion criteria and need to be deleted, the response is going to be on the order of "I'm sorry you feel that way, but I will continue to do that if the need continues to arise." So, to a degree, such personal requests can be honored, but there will come many occasions when they cannot be. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you bring up a good distinction, Seraphimblade. Actions that are part of the process that help us build and edit the encyclopedia can't and shouldn't be circumvented just because someone says their feelings are hurt. I think a code of conduct would focus on the interactions we have while doing the editing. If someone says their feelings are hurt because an article is nominated for deletion, we can still be sympathetic (if you wish) to their feelings, but it's not going to stop the rightful process of editing the encyclopedia. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

"And the outcome should clearly be the offending party please back off." that is ... very very dangerous to codify, especially when it comes down to tone policing. Should this not have been written because it offended some people? Should its author have been sanctioned? A lot of activism and progress is caused by people who disturb the status quo, and who aren't afraid to speak up with words that would cause Victorian society to implode. Different cultures have different standards, and I'm not ready to have the American HR Culture become the only acceptable culture allowed. This is why Silver Linings Playbook is rated R (under 17 must be accompanied by adults) in the US and Tous public (everyone) in France, instead of having a United Nations rating that has force of law everywhere on the globe. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I cannot recall an event when this approach ended in anything but a fiasco. It sounds good - lets have a system that has looks at each and every case individually and in the end enforces decision based on the observation of behaviour. But without codified and unified set of rules, it falls apart like a house of cards. One meter shall be applied to one person, another on another one due to subjective nature of such hearing. The rules will not be set up as guideline of what not to do, and what penalty to be had once the line is crossed, but will try to muddle the waters into basically "the judge, jury and prosecution in one will make a decision". Especially if core principle is that offended party gets to decide which action consist of an offence. I mean, is that not what the discussion about Fran v Laura edits has been about?

Perhaps there indeed is an universal understanding of civility. In that case, you will be able to barely fill up a stub with it. Everything outside of it differs depending on a time, place, culture and many other variable factors. And I very much doubt that what WMF is cooking is unified subset of rules that are already in force. Rather, as is often the case with new CoCs, it will decide to up the ante over the heads of community, quoting imaginery concept of safe spaces or whatnot, thus already appropriating position of moral superiority. Lovely. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: I often agree with your position, but please believe me when I say - speaking from a position of actual linguistic expertise - that there isn't "a universal concept of civility". I'm not going to post another wall of text to try to prove that, because I already tried to do so above. It doesn't have to be a problem, as long as it is openly acknowledged and accepted that notions of civility vary a lot - isn't that a more likely way to make communications work smoothly, than setting up a set of rules and telling people from dozens of countries, speaking hundreds of languages, that they have to adjust their thinking about what is "civil"? After the 2011 survey, the WMF talked about the need to hire more staff based in different parts of the world to increase diversity, and the need to attract a more globally diverse set of editors to get more voices heard. A universal code of civility could directly counteract that work, unless it is phrased in such general terms so as to be useless - I'd love to be proven wrong here, but unless the point of departure is that there is no universal law of what is and isn't civil, I don't see how it could be helpful rather than harmful.

As for harassment, it is indeed the person who is being harassed who has the first right of interpretation (the silly English language has no word for that, but there is one in Swedish - tolkningsföreträde), and to deny people the right to have their reports heard and taken seriously is fatal. Of course. But unfortunately, what we very often see is people feeling harassed or insulted by editors who scrupulously stick to the "comment on edits, not on editors" policy, as discussed above. A lot of the flak that en.wiki gets comes from us adhering to notability and verifiability policies, and as long as we are an encyclopedia, that's not going to change.

Another question: above you talk about efforts to make Wikipedia a better place for women and non-binary people to edit safely and in comfort - which is unambiguously a good thing to do. But how would you address the fact that women have expressed on this very page that what the WMF are proposing make them less safe and less likely to want to participate and make their unique voices (unique because they are individuals, not because they are women) part of the conversation? Who has the first right of interpretation of the collective experience of women, when we don't even know which editors are male, female, nb, genderqueer, or something else? Is it unreasonable for me to assume that again, it is going to be a US-American view of what women want, a view that is often deeply offensive to other people (regardless of gender), and directly excludes a large number of people who identify as women? --bonadea contributions talk 09:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I am kind of reminded of another incident (this time on a course) where an immigrant engaged in behavior that was sexual harassment, but not where he came from. Now I do get that we cannot (and should not) impose our values on other countries (the white mans burden all all that). BUt I can see how a corporate entity might want to impose a given set of values on its staff (after all whilst you may not employ child labour in your base nation, the publicity of you doing so in wheerevaistan will still affect your market image in your base nation). Moreover it also would make it easier for those who are not from WASP nations to come here and not fall foul of our standards (such as rules on notability or OR, let alone civility). If we have one set of standards no one can plead "but not from where I come from" as a justification.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I think you bring up some very good points. I'm trying to think of a way that we can all have a universal system of civility, but clearly there will always be situations where we fall short. I don't think that a universal civility process has to be perfect: it just has to work well enough most of the time. For other situations, as you rightly point out, we will have to handle differently somehow. I'm not sure I'm the right person to do that: I'm a librarian and it's not my area of expertise. But I want to start the discussion and not give up on the idea just because it's going to be hard to figure out. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said rules only work (and are only fair) if they are inflexible. Else you get "well he is my mate I will protect him" mentality. So no I did not say (and do not agree with the idea of) we have to take into account "context", cultural; or otherwise, ("well I can tell him to fuck off, but he cannot tell me to"), quite the opposite. What I said was that any corporate entity has to take into account publicity, and how that impacts on its operations. So ultimately any code of conduct has to be informed by where the company has its biggest operations (or its base). It does not matter if Barry come from foregnistan, it does not give him a right to ignore rules on (for example) personal space, culture be damed.Slatersteven (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the candour in the above comments clarifies one view, a sort of undercurrent in the outrage that has been less frankly stated because of its ugliness. cygnis insignis 12:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

There are certainly hurdles to trying to produce some kind of universal code of civility, and if we're pedantic about it then a truly universal one can't exist - because civility means different things to different cultures, backgrounds, and even individuals. But we should not be pedantic and should not throw our hands up and say "We can't have any code then, and have accept everything". Similar to the way a lot of this dispute has led to polarizing of positions, this is another issue where the answer is simply not black or white. The choice we face is not between a perfect code and no code at all. If we should come up with one that is not in keeping with the cultural and/or personal values of some individual editors (which is inevitable), then I think it can be entirely reasonable for those individuals to be expected to moderate their civility approach to match the code. I've been in plenty of different cultural environments, and I've adjusted my approach to civility to fit - I certainly don't go to, say, another country and expect its natives to accept my way of doing things (unlike, sadly, a lot of my compatriots). Some of the civility problems to date have surely been due to different individuals approaching the same issue from different cultural and personal directions and finding each other's approaches lacking - and there's been no central reference to direct people in such cross-cultural situations. I confess I have my doubts about how well a universal code of civility can be developed, and I do get twitchy when I hear of such things. But at this stage, I'm withholding my judgment until I see what it looks like - anything else would be unfair. After all, nobody has yet come up with the faintest working idea of how to deal with incivility, and in many cases we're just getting worse at it. And we have to get better. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be simpler, more effective, and certainly more pertinent to the present case, to develop a code of what is and isn't harassment, rather then attempting to codify "civility", which is not only much more difficult, but is also a much less important issue? It would also be in line with any legal concerns the WMF might have. After all, it seems unlikely that the Foundation would have any reasonable legal exposure for not blocking or banning an editor who was merely impolite, as opposed to one who was actually harassing another editor in the legal sense. Let the WMF define "harassment" as precisely as possible, so that the community and ArbCom have a standard to apply, then T&S can step in if it's not properly enforced at the community level -- but only when it opens the Foundation up to potential legal action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

the Issue is not rules, but uneven enforcement I think.Slatersteven (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

"A universal code of conduct? That is very scary." Almost as scary as a universal policy on paid editing. Oh, wait, we managed to handle that - including WMF-recognised local exceptions - with zero drama. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Table of relevant locations

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram § Table of relevant locations

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

From admin to one-year block, in a blink of an eye

Can I just clarify, and I know we've had 100KB of chatter, so forgive me once again... Fram went from being an admin, to being banned with no right to appeal, on en.wiki only, in one instant? Was he issued with on-wiki warnings? Was he subject to a series of increasing blocks as a result of bad behaviour (sic)? Was his behaviour damaging to Wikipedia, in a sense that needed a ban, on this Wikipedia only? I'm tired out by the MB of blather, but is WMF looking at this as a precedent now, that any editor can be summarily banned for a year without appeal without any definition of their wrongdoing? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly my concern. I have no idea whether Frsm's behaviour warranted sanction and I'm not inclined to go and look through mountains of edits on en.wiki to find out. However, taking precipitate action based on secret allegations presented in secret by a secret accuser to a secret panel is simply a total abrogation of natural justice. As far as I am concerned the WMF should refuse to accept secret accusations and expecially should refuse to act on them. This stinks to high heaven. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems like the answer is yes, it was in one instant, with no on-wiki warnings. Several off-wiki messages were sent, snippets of which can be seen at #An interesting paragraph and #Fram's response on Commons. --Yair rand (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, any of us could be banned out of the blue if we were to write "f*** the WMF." Jonathunder (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it, the basis of the block and desysop was harassment and the evidence is private so as not to subject the accuser to further harassment. If this is indeed the truth, I can understand shielding him/her because it often feels like a mob here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

If it was harassment, then why did they not escalate Fram's block to global in responce to his Commons reply? Anyone with any sense can make a very compelling argument that they're technically furthering the harassment. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 01:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Harassment of whom? AFAIK, there are only two parties who've been named in this whole mess as possible victims. Arbcom and an editor who's wikipedia name begins L. While some here have gone to the extent of looking in to the personal life of the latter editor, we have no real evidence that any of the recent stuff has anything to do with this editor. I'm doubtful it's just the arbcom stuff either which suggests it could very well be some other party.

WMF have explained why they feel they cannot reveal any details which may lead to the identity of who is being harassed or other details over this while mess, whether or not people agree with these views I see no reason to think they aren't sincerely held. As someone who lives in NZ where name suppression of criminal defendants and especially convicts is often a big deal, I can say that while plenty of people feel that it creates problems for others who aren't the defendant or convict given the risk people may think it is them (as some details are still revealed like 'prominent entertainer'), there are also plenty of people who feel it's not a compelling reason to end the practice. (Which doesn't mean they must agree with the practice or feel that it should continue.)

Likewise, I can perfectly understand that the WMF may feel it is inappropriate for them to comment on the identity in any way, even simply saying it it is not the person a lot of people are assuming it is. How they handle the problems this creates for the person who may have been unfairly affected I don't know, but there are no easy solutions.

And getting back to the earlier point, assuming that what Fram has told us is mostly or completely correct, I'm not sure they can really be blamed for the fact that people here are continually assuming it involves someone who who it may not be because they've made assumptions with very little evidence to the extent these people are analysing said person's private life. If anything it's the people here who are guilty of harassment, not Fram or what they said on Commons. But of course, with the way this blew up, banning more people for harassment was may not be a good idea.

Oh and of course what has happened here has pretty much ensured that if it is someone else who was affected (who let's remember may or may not even be the complainant, here they may not even be aware of the complaint), as much sympathy as the person may have for the editor L and how they've been affected by this all, there is no way in hell they will ever agree to their identity being revealed. Frankly I suspect probably not even to Fram even if Fram signs an NDA. Heck given the history, probably not even to arbcom. No matter what the situation was and even if in the end it means nothing happens to Fram. The WMF needs to consider whether this is an acceptable outcome based on what they know. If they do not, I really have no idea how they should proceed from here, that's one of the reasons why I'd probably never work in any role remotely like that. (To be clear, as I've said in previous discussions, I do think they handled this poorly especially early on which hasn't helped the situation any.)

Nil Einne (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, let's try it. Fuck the WMF! Nope, not banned yet. Gamaliel (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Not so soon. Remember it takes about a month of internal meetings and quite a lot of expensive staff time to then issue a punishment so long after the event that it only serves to confuse the situation and increase the nameless dread aspect of editing. Of course this may actually be the WMF's intention. The occasional random block of an established editor for unspecified but slightly creepy sounding reasons could be just the thing to boost their metrics for site activity and bond the community against the common enemy. By contrast if they wanted to change behaviour on the site they would have made sure that the first few times they applied a 12 month ban it was very clear what sort of behaviour they wanted to stop happening. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

If an IP editor attempted to insert this kind of conspiracy theory in an article they'd get blocked. But we have dozens of long-time veteran editors indulging in them in this matter. It makes me fear for the quality of the content that they have been producing here over the years. Gamaliel (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

From what I've seen, much better than an admonished administrator who seems to have a general proficiency at casting aspersions. ∯WBG^converse 13:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be developing quite an obsession with me. Want to come edit my userpage again? Gamaliel (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Nah; these days folks retire to participate in more dramas -- give them an edge. I ought to have known that. And most certainly, less than your obsession of using the wrong tools at the wrong place. ∯WBG^converse 15:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see a parallel between an unknown IP posting conspiracy theories in mainspace and numerous respected, well-established members of the community sharing their concerns on a Wikipedia-space page. Lepricavark (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

When the "concerns" stray into manufacturing motives and actions out of pure conjecture, that's conspiracy theory territory. Gamaliel (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

See appeal to the stone.--WaltCip (talk) 12:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, the reaction on this page, with theories proposed about the potential harassed parties and quite a bit of scrutiny placed upon them and their edit histories demonstrates clearly why it's good that WMF won't reveal the names of the offended parties. I am also somewhat confused that Fram was given only a year-long suspension, as I do fully support throwing the book at harassers, but frankly the complaint from the community has not generally been, "Fram was not penalized severely enough for what they were accused of," but rather, "how dare the WMF suspend one of the WP:UNBLOCKABLES!" Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I mean, come on, people have been digging into the personal lives, up to, and including living arrangements, of hypothesized accusers on the basis of Fram's account. That's kind of disturbing to say the least. Far more disturbing, tbh, than what may constitute minor overreach from WMF. Simonm223 (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Simonm223 One thing we know about this case is that T&S do permanently site ban people for harassment, but whatever they consider that Fram has done, they don't consider he merited the punishment that they give out to harassers. Whatever else has been said, I'm not seeing people say that T&S should stop "throwing the book at harassers". As for unblockables, yes there are people suggesting that WP:UNBLOCKABLES be redefined to include Fram. But there are also people reminding us that Fram has in the past been the brave admin threatening to block an unblockable if that person continued to make personal attacks. As for "people have been digging into the personal lives, up to, and including living arrangements, of hypothesized accusers on the basis of Fram's account" that does sound like the sort of doxxing that does get people banned. I'd hope if people have evidence of that they would take it to ArbCom who have banned and desysopped people for that sort of thing. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Well it's all over this page, which I'm sure Arbcom is watching, so... Simonm223 (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man:

in one instant?

Yes

Was he issued with on-wiki warnings?

No

Was he subject to a series of increasing blocks as a result of bad behaviour (sic)?

No

Was his behaviour damaging to Wikipedia, in a sense that needed a ban

No

on this Wikipedia only?

Yes

is WMF looking at this as a precedent now, that any editor can be summarily banned for a year without appeal without any definition of their wrongdoing?

Ostensibly yes.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

More troubling is the explicit lying from WMF employees.

The (uncontested) WMF email sent to Fram states "With those actions in mind, this ban has been triggered following your recent abusive communications on the project..." followed by the "fuck Arbcom" diff, but later this has been retrospectively reframed (firstly anonymously by "WMF Office" on this page, then by statements from Jan Eissfeldt) as all being about harassment complaints sent to WMF T&S. Nobody can find any smoking gun that demonstrates harassment and folks have jumped to the conclusion that there must be some terrible off-wiki harassment going on. If that was the case, then why would not the WMF email state clearly and honestly that you are banned because of complaints received of serious harassment, rather than lie about it? Not only do the responses from WMF T&S make no sense, they appear to be deliberately designed to be misleading and misinformation. Consequently the unelected WMF T&S employees with access to the WMF Office account are reserving the authority to ban without appeal, without a fair right to see and respond to evidence, in cases which appear entirely suitable to leave it to Arbcom or Stewards to make proper decisions about sanctions, but also to explicitly lie to everyone before and after about why they are blocking editors, even well established Wikipedians.

Separately others are acting as creative apologists, explaining that the WMF cannot say anything about harassment because of the legal exposure. Fine, that still does not explain the lying. There is zero legal exposure from honestly stating to Fram that there is both on-wiki behaviour and off-wiki behaviour that has contributed to "abusing communications", or that complaints about targeted harassment have been received, then point to the process for handing T&S harassment complaints. In the struggle to have their cake and eat it, the WMF appears to both want to pretend to be well governed and transparent, while behaving like self appointed sheriffs in the Wild West of San Fran, who are taking pot shots at perps using international modern drone strikes, because they can, rather than bothering with the flimflam of justice and juries. --Fæ (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

This. The only thing they have bothered to claim when pressed is the nonsensical "everything about this mmatter is privileged", a claim which is belied by T&S' own actions in not sanctioning Fram for their Commons edit and by longstanding precedent with regard to Office bans, which at least explains the reason for doing so at time of blocking (none was forthcoming until after Fram's Commons post). Not only did they not provide a reason until much later, after everything blew up in their face, but they have not provided a satisfactory explanation as to why the ban is limited as it is. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 05:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

My hypothesis that someone originally issued the ban for less than adequate reasons. It might be simple inexperience or error of judgement, but there are speculations that it might be due to a personal request or as a favour. Now that the issue has exploded, the WMF has circled the wagons and tries to come up with retroactive justifications. This happens more easily than one might think, and sometimes for the best of reasons (a manager sticking up for an employee on his or her team, then getting ego-bound to that initial reaction is quite normal). I hope they have the institutional integrity to extract themselves from this mess. Errors are unavoidable, but they should be corrected, not extended. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Jimbo's authority

At the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/History

Until the beginning of 2004, Jimbo Wales dealt with all serious disputes other than simple vandalism (straightforward vandals could be blocked by any administrator). He was also the only person with the authority to ban users. In December 2003 he delegated^[1] that role in dispute handling to an Arbitration Committee, with initial membership of volunteer experienced users. Wales wrote in January 2004:^[2]

The Arbitration Committee [...] can impose a solution that I'll consider to be binding, with of course the exception that I reserve the right of executive clemency and indeed even to dissolve the whole thing if it turns out to be a disaster. But I regard that as unlikely, and I plan to do it about as often as the Queen of England dissolves Parliament against their wishes, i.e., basically never, but it is one last safety valve for our values.

In April 2007,^[3] Wales confirmed that the Committee could overturn any decision he makes in his traditional capacity within Wikipedia.

Maybe the above will help. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources
^ "[WikiEN-l] Wikiquette committee appointments". Lists.wikimedia.org. Retrieved 2014-06-14. ^ "[WikiEN-l] Mediation, arbitration". Mail.wikimedia.org. Retrieved 2014-06-14. ^ "[WikiEN-l] Brandt unblocked by Jimbo – community support?". Lists.wikimedia.org. Retrieved 2014-06-14.

Rather interesting. Thank you for this reminder. I gather that the community was meant to have the final say if there was a dissent between the community and Jimbo, or the Foundation. This makes case law.--Aschmidt (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

And a week ago:

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.... 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.... --Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I asked the WMFOffice account whether they agree with Jimbo here, and asked the same of Jan here and on his staff talk page without any reply. I also asked Arbcom and on Meta, at the User Reporting System Consultation and the Roles & Responsibilities and Community Health strategy working groups. There has been no answer to the question anywhere yet. EllenCT (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, we speak about a binding pledge upon myself, so it is an irrevocable move. I remember this period in the founding of Wikipedia because when I was a member of the German ArbCom I researched the history of the ArbComs, how they came into being and how they developed up to then. Jimbo was quite keen to get rid of his role as a benevolent dictator at the time. This was not just for fun, and it cannot later be undone.--Aschmidt (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is largely moot. Wiki(m|p)edia has no legal system, no case law. We have a set of community and Foundation policies and governance structures. Jimbo has exactly as much authority as the community and Foundation say he has: at the Foundation, he has no authority beyond his board seat, and within the community, he only has the technical ability to perform actions on the English Wikipedia. Functions previously held by him are now held by elected and accountable members of the community. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

As I recall, when Jimbo has a COI, no appeal is possible. Given the conflict between them, Jimbo likely does. Possibly explains the offer.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: - did Fram also stridently criticize WMF? Then WMF has a possible COI also? (WMF noted that ArbCom was one primary target of Fram's harrassment and/or abuse, which could create the appearance of a conflict of interest) starship .paint (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The owner doesn't get disqualified for COI.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I know we're arguing for the sake of argument, but that just means all this time we've been enforcing our COI policies over those innocent article subjects, alas! --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:BAN#Appeal to Jimbo Wales (along with WP:ARBPOL#Appeal of decisions) recognizes Jimbo as the final avenue of appeal for the banned. If the Foundation thinks an unnanounced edit to WP:OFFICE can contravene Section 10 of the Terms of Use ("In contrast to ... these Terms of Use, policies established by the community ... may cover a single Project") then how can they claim that their bans are unappealable? EllenCT (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The scope of the WMF to sanction users is not limited in section 10 of the ToU. T&S bans are unappealable regardless of what local policies may exist. And even if ambiguous wording in the ToU might imply that T&S is bound by local policies in this regard, it would be an issue of clarifying the wording rather than T&S acting outside of their scope. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Where do you draw the line? If you don't take it to mean what it says about local control, what's to stop the Foundation from re-imposing superprotect? What's to stop them from sanctioning contributors who criticize fundraising operations? In your view, if the T&S team decides that homeopathy is reasonable, could they sanction editors who prevent homeopathy advocates from adding their material to medical articles? EllenCT (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: That's way too obsequious for my liking. Are the ToU community-approved? No. Is the very existence of T&S (or WMF for that matter) community-approved? No. Is there anything about English Wikipedia that is beyond the remit of its contributors? No. I think it is about time to draw a line of what is out of scope for WMF. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with both of your normative arguments: we should work with the WMF to create a system that is as transparent and accountable as possible. But we aren't going to accomplish that through pointing out potential loopholes in the WMF's policies, because their stated policy intent is that the bans be unappealable. And a side note about the Jimbo of it all: I'd prefer that any sort of community oversight of the process or results come from the community or ArbCom, not him. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The owner doesn't get disqualified for COI. In all our discussions, we need to (a) distinguish between WMF, the entity, Katherine Maher, the ED, the line employees (e.g., T&S) and, ultimately, the Board. Only (a) is the "owner" here, and everyone else has roles and responsibilities that are contractually or legally specified.

Policies can be changed. Guettarda (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

[UW-1] "Video: The Wikipedia gender gap". UW News. University of Washington. June 12, 2019. Retrieved June 12, 2019.

[2] "[WikiEN-l] Wikiquette committee appointments". Lists.wikimedia.org. Retrieved 2014-06-14.

[3] "[WikiEN-l] Mediation, arbitration". Mail.wikimedia.org. Retrieved 2014-06-14.

[4] "[WikiEN-l] Brandt unblocked by Jimbo – community support?". Lists.wikimedia.org. Retrieved 2014-06-14.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]