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

Start

Moved from Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Summary

 – hat of the page has been cleaned up. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

As a response to the 0.5+ GB MB page, some of our community members have created a brief summary of the events. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 10:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The page is now over 1 GB MB. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 23:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Oshawott 12: - you mean MB, not GB. starship.paint (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 02:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Summary

A much more detailed summary would be nice. Benjamin (talk) 08:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Table of relevant locations

User_talk:Iridescent should be included. Also, the "mailing lists" section should include a summary and links to messages. Benjamin (talk) 10:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Katherine (WMF)#A question for you

Just a pointer to the Executive Director's talk page, where many Arbcom members are asking pointed questions. Btw, I just saw a tweet from the ED saying that she's going to be tied up in meetings today but she'll respond as soon as she can. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

User:WJBscribe

User:WJBscribe not only "resigned adminship and bureaucrat", but he also retired: "Everyone whatever they are accused of, and whoever their accuser, deserves fair process. If the WMF fails to respect local projects' autonomy, this is no longer the Wikipedia I knew. Farewell, Will".--SirEdimon (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

EllenCT on strike

User:EllenCT joined the strike after posting their concerns on Jimbo's and Maher's talk pages. I don't understand what what's said on editors on strike subsection means, so I don't know if it's appropriate to add this to the list. Anyone who is qualified to, please consider this info. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 07:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

User:andrybak, User:Aquillion, User:Mr Ernie, User:Promethean, User:Ad Orientem mentioned for your contributor status to the summary; hope you don't mind it.Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 07:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Two other incidents

Since the WMBE incident was included in the timeline of significant incidents, I believe there are two other T&S actions deserving mention:

• At some point, T&S intervened in a dispute on de.wikipedia & banned a user; this was discussed on WP:FRAM. I have not been able to find the mention of this incident, but will continue to look for it amongst the sea of comments & concern.
• More recently, DarwIn reported a T&S intervention on the Portuguese Wikipedia, which went sideways: the person reporting a case of harassment had the matter backfire on him, with a funding ban placed on him at the insistence of the T&S.[1]

I'll update this when I can find where the first instance is mentioned. -- llywrch (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Llywrch - it's mentioned on User talk:Katherine (WMF), just search for "German". Cabayi (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Enigmaman status?

In the list of Resignations followed by retirements and editors on strike, I don't see User:Enigmaman Listed, is this an oversight, or am I missing something?S Philbrick(Talk) 13:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I now see it's a little more complicated than I originally realized but let's discuss whether the this editor should be on the list. Certainly not a resignation due to this incident.S Philbrick(Talk) 13:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I have added them based on the diff provided by the signpost, have to plead ignorance on the complications you speak of. Won't revert updates regard that case. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 07:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I received a ping regarding this. I was not aware I was referenced in the Signpost. It is true that I am on strike, but I did not publicize it (I didn't think anyone read my userpage), so I'm surprised anyone noticed. Enigma^msg 18:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Split resignations into - out of protest to WMF handling, and out of protest of Community response, or something similiar ?

Hey, I read part of the discussion, and when Number of Admin registrations are mentioned, it wasn't clear to me that some Admins (even if they're in the serious minority) resigned in view of what I guess they see as the community letting bad behaviour (by Fram) off the hook (even if they might disagree with the manner it was imposed by the Trust and Security team as well). Just a thought ....Sean Heron (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• I don't feel that Fram is really the issue here anymore, not by a long shot. I think splitting the resignations into subgroups dilutes the message that this crisis is enormous. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  As regards the resignations, I don't think Fram was the issue for any of them. The dispute is between those who feel that the community has failed to tackle harassment and consequently the WMF need to intervene directly, and those who feel that decisions affecting only English Wikipedia should be made on English Wikipedia. Bear in mind that if T&S does back down and pass the specific case of Fram to Arbcom to handle, many—possibly most—of those who resigned will likely support sanctions against Fram; the issue is that the sanctions were imposed arbitrarily, not that they were necessarily incorrect. ‑ Iridescent 15:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• I have bolded resignation declarations which contain disagreement with the community rather than the WMF. It's a small minority, not really worth the split, IMO. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 07:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Fair point but I would avoid additional complication/refinement; it is already a complicated summary. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Retirements or strike

This is nuanced but is an admin protesting by downscaling their activities in direct connection to the WMF move

Miniapolis it doesn't take into account the walking wounded who—like me—are editing at a much-reduced level and probably easing into retirement

This user is currently feeling discouraged about Wikipedia and is taking an off-and-on wikibreak due to loss of motivation.Nishidani (talk) 07:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that would include everyone who knows about what's happening. Let's focus on who've declared retirement, resignations, strike in explicit terms. Just my opinion. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 07:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Usedtobecool; best to keep the list simple and clear on the main actions (of which there are already lots). Britishfinance (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, since I'm still doing some copyediting and ArbCom clerking. Time will tell whether I stay or go. All the best, Miniapolis 14:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I wonder how soon it will be before WP loses collectively over 1000 years of accumulated administrator experience. Blackmane (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Timeline point #38

Item #38 (Breitbart media coverage) identifies the writer as "an anonymous former banned Wikipedian writing as T.D. Adler". Was whoever wrote that item aware that it is well-known that T. D. Adler is The Devil's Advocate, or that a simple Google search of the name could have revealed that? Or can I update the entry accordingly? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Unless The Devil's Advocate has made an edit that confirms this connection and T.D. Adler has confirmed it, I would strongly suggest you avoid making such a connection, per WP:OUTING. For my part, I would never make such an edit. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Per this comment left to me by The Devil's Advocate on my meta talk page, and per the italicized paragraph just above "Read More Stories About" at the Breitbart article, I think it's safe to say this is confirmed. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Split BU Rob 13 and TheDJ

Right now BU Rob 13 and TheDJ are under "resignations", but they're clearly unusual because they're resigning for reasons that are very different from the others. Suggest splitting them to their own section, possibly a separate section entirely to list those who approve of the WMF action. Banedon (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The header is not "resignations in protest of wmf" but simply "resignations". Each resignation has a reason cited, and those that resigned in opposition to community behaviour have their reasons bolded to show the contrast. As of now, they are too much of a minority to split. The aim of the summary is to highlight significant events. The aim of the "resignations" section is to show the losses to wikipedia as a whole, not to count heads on either side. As such, I see no reason to split them at this time. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 06:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

This discussion already exists above. Here it is. Merge if deemed more useful. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 06:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, apologies. Banedon (talk) 06:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

LauraHale - redlink

Hi, I've updated the "Notice to Fram" link (Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation's_ban_of_Fram/Summary#Table_of_relevant_locations) - Hope this is okay but if not please revert, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Summary of the summaries

I think it's too far from any reasonable NPOV to merit a stay as is. Proposals:

1. Delete
2. Edit for neutrality but keep as is
3. Collapse
4. Move
5. Edit to improve unless deleted
6. Collapse unless deleted

and so on. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 19:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete. We are using one live summary here, with a table of attached information (the rest are hatted); sorry but I don't find this new summary helpful. Britishfinance (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. But, I do sincerely hope that you meant "hatted". LOL! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 20:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Delete in favour of the ones below, We don't need 3-4 condensed versions of the same thing, 1-2 will do. –Davey2010^Talk 20:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Red Slash: I've removed the section. If we want to include such a section, I think it needs to be hashed out here as to what it would say. The section, as added, was hardly neutral. Not that Wikipedia space needs to be neutral; it doesn't. But, this is a very sensitive issue, and being neutral in this case presents the best way of maintaining appropriate focus on the issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• I was hoping someone would help it out. I am still pretty hopelessly lost and the summaries are insanely long. The summary is horrible as it stands and some form of condensed summary is necessary. Red Slash 15:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Personally, given the stress this whole affair has caused, I wouldn't even attempt or dare to try and summarise it into a lede. However, I do find the first two lists very useful in terms of knowing what actually has actually happened (first chronological list), and where is the information (second data list). WP:FRAM is too big to follow for me, I just check the first list to see where things are at, and if there are any new developments. Britishfinance (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Same. The last time I checked, all of WP:FRAM and its archives were over 700 pages. This page does an excellent job of summarizing what has happened, and as with you, it allows me to see if there are any new developments. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I think Hammersoft is right that, given the high visibility, and importance of getting this right, we ought to hash this out on the talk page first. Like others, I also think the bulleted list, while helpful for many users, is probably now too long to introduce new readers to the matter. Here's my stab at a 200-word prose summary that could be used as a lede:

On June 10, 2019, longtime editor and administrator Fram was de-admined and banned by an office action. Unlike previous bans issued by the Wikimedia Foundation, this ban was temporary (for 1 year), and limited to the English Wikipedia. Many users were surprised at this, since most disruptive behavior is handled by local community institutions (like the Arbitration Committee), rather than the WMF office, and the WMF generally has not intervened unless a user's conduct has been severe enough to require a lifetime block from all WMF sites, and the information was too sensitive to share with ArbCom. Early responses by the WMF contained little information on the cause of the block, and some administrators attempted to unblock Fram. As more information came to light, from both Fram and the WMF, some users became upset at the slow communication, lack of due process, and circumvention of community institutions, while others thought the WMF had a right/responsibility to take action against user reports of harassment, the ultimate charge brought against Fram. After a few weeks of continued frustration by the English Wikipedia community, including resignations of some users and administrators, on July 2 the WMF agreed to send the matter to ArbCom for a final decision.

Obviously, as a summary of summaries, this omits a few things, including a lot of the desysopping, rebanning, etc. as well as the details of most WMF communication. It also may mention the harassment charge a little late. But I think it is reasonably serviceable as an introduction to the matter for new readers (including future historical readers). The real goal is to set the context for starting to read the rest of the page. I invite others to add/edit/critique the above, but I do think we ought to have some introduction before the current 3,000 words across 50 bullet points. At 250wpm, that'd be a 12min read. MarginalCost (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Tone and POV

I have boldly changed the heading for the most recent developments in the summary back from "HEALING BEGINS" to "ACTION". I believe that the change that Usedtobecool made, while entirely in good faith, is probably not the best in tone; it could be seen as a non-neutral POV, and, more importantly, since this isn't completely over yet (as we don't know what the results of the ArbCom proceeding and WMF/community discussion will be), it pretty much implies that their crystal ball is clearer than mine. Yes, I know, those don't necessarily apply to project space, but I don't think it's going to be too controversial to suggest that we wait and see before we start making such pronouncements. rdfox 76 (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

It's all good. I knew it wasn't the best thing to do; nevertheless, I wanted to convey my enthusiasm over the recent developments. It doesn't have to stay. I am fine knowing that it's on record. LOL! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 14:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Counting editors on strike

I'd always assumed one of the principal purposes of listing them in this page was to maintain a count. Why have we chose not to do that anymore? Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 20:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I am going through the list, correcting errors, and making them all be formatted the same. I am doing this during down time waiting for someone else to finish at a remote job site, so it may take a couple of days to finish. I made it bullets when I found that I couldn't find any evidence that one of the names listed ever actually said he was going on strike. Once I have an accurate count, I will put the numbers back in. I don't want anyone to quoute that last number until I know that it is real.

I am going through the list, correcting errors, and making them all be formatted the same. I am doing this during down time waiting for someone else to finish at a remote job site, so it may take a couple of days to finish. I made it bullets when I found that I couldn't find any evidence that one of the names listed ever actually said he was going on strike. Once I have an accurate count, I will put the numbers back in. I don't want anyone to quoute that last number until I know that it is real.

I was going to ask this after I went through every entry and fixed the obvious errors, but now is as good a time as any to ask what we want this to be a list of.

Do we list editors who are no longer on strike? Is this a list of people currently on strike or a list of people who went on strike and later resumed doing the edits they said they weren't going to do?

Those who announced that they were resuming editing are easy -- I just write "ended strike [date]." But what about an editor who announces that he won't be editing any articles and goes back to editing articles less than three hours later? Or is this a list of people who said they were going on strike whether or not they ever actually did so.?

What about an editor who posts that he/she is very unhappy with the WMF, retires a few hours later, and hasn't edited since? Do I count that editor despite them never explicitly linking the retirement to being unhappy with the WMF?

Should I be bold, email some of the users who resumed editing, and ask whether it was because they are now satisfied with how the WMF is handling this? I am very reluctant to bother people like that.

"In the clearing stands a boxer, and a fighter by his trade;

And he carries the reminders, of every glove that laid him down,

or cut him till he cried out, in his anger and his shame;

'I am leaving, I am leaving', But the fighter still remains..."

--The Boxer by Simon & Garfunkel

--Guy Macon (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I was operating under the assumption that we already had an unspoken consensus regarding who belongs where, what counts as strike, and on how the page is formatted, since everybody was updating the page that was. Since you didn't think it necessary to ask what said consensus might have been that led to the development of the page into one with "obvious errors", and issues that needed immediate fixing without discussion, I am pretty sure you already know what you are doing and have your own criteria in mind for everything, principally on strikes. Since it overhauls established formatting, and since you say you are "going through the list, correcting errors, ..." trying to get "... an accurate count ...", despite it being obvious from history that I had only just update the whole list, it's clear you fundamentally disagree with my judgement and approach (as it seems to be about more than just one inaccurate entry), as such, I won't be updating the retirements and strike sections of the page from now on. I have no intention of relearning criteria that you've unilaterally come up with. Regards! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 12:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

For those that declared to be on strike, I would consider to ask them before removing them (I am still very low key, even if I 'accidentally' made some edits to mainspace, but I am still not convinced that this will end well). It is sometimes difficult to stay out of mainspace, and a self-requested block would also disable me to discuss the situation with e.g. ArbCom or WMF.

Bigger problem is the ones who went on strike or walked away but did not announce that (those that just put down the chisel and hammer and left). One will therefore never get an accurate count. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Criteria: to be listed as going on strike they have to say that they are going on strike, that they will no longer be editing, or something similar. To be listed as ending the strike, they have to say they are ending the strike, that they are satisfied with the WMF response, or something similar. To be listed as resuming editing, they have to do what they said they would no longer do, whether it be not editing, not editing articles, not editing mainspace, not editing things not directly related to Fram and the WMF, or whatever. If the above criteria are unacceptable to anyone, I will be happy to post an RfC to determine the consensus of the community. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to save other editors' time by clarifying my strike, when I wrote that I would not 'add content', I meant, as an exopedian, that I would not add content to articles, the area I specialize in. I have suggested in the meantime detailed fixes to some articles that are a disaster (Noongar), but only on the talk page, other than commenting on this other disaster, the attempt to re-engineer wikipedian manners by a few 'cultural' ideocrats in the pseuds' corner of T&S. That august body undoubtedly does indispensable work on legal issues: the knowledge profile of the ideocrats, on the other hand, - they haven't got the faintest idea of the operative implications of their 'theory'- looks distinctly abecedarian. I won't be editing articles for a period of time commensurate with Fram's ban, if ever.Nishidani (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)