Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

[Smiley]

If I were the T&S Section I would be pretty pissed right now because the BoT just stabbed them in the back.

If I were part of the Trust & Safety team, I'd hang my head in shame. From a fucking lampost.

[Auggie]

It looks like a concession to me. Letting ArbCom review the unreviewable ban. Jan must be pissed.

The part about the Chair having formally delegated this matter is not enough. At a minimum, the board needs to direct Maher to investigate whatever her involvement was in Fram's ban. They cannot just give her a pass knowing something shady happened, unless she wants to resign and make the point moot.

[Tarc]

I hope arb.com will block Fram for a week or two (=suitable for first block) for his intemperate "Fuck arb.com" remark.

I hope they decline to take the case, which would essentially be a "go unfuck this pig yourselves" to the WMF.

[Disgruntled haddock]

Parts of this are worded weirdly. What is meant by this:

This could include funding for training of community members involved in dealing with harassment or helping long term contributors correct behaviors that are inappropriate. We support the provision of the necessary resources to allow the community and its representatives to discuss these issues with the board and staff members.

I suppose not all the BoT members are native English speakers?

[DHeyward]

Everyone,

While the aforementioned conversations between T&S and our communities take place, we recommend T&S focus on the most severe cases, for instance: the handling of legal issues, threats of violence, cross-wiki abuse, and child protection issues until consultation and agreement between T&S and the community are achieved.

We do not consider any of the admin resignations related to the current events to be “under a cloud” (under suspicion) though we also realize that the final decision with respect to this lies with the community.

The chair has formally delegated this matter to the vice chair and was not involved in the issuing of this statement or in any of the deliberations that led to our response.

On behalf of the board, Schiste (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Pretty much told T&S to stay in their lane, begged admins to come back and tacitly admitted the chair was involved in the case.

[10920]

The statement was better than the previous ones but still doesn't say much.

[Klahn]

The Board views this as part of a much-needed community debate on toxic behavior.

It's been a great debate about toxic behavior. But are they really going to give us permission to ban T&S for it?

[Vigilant]

So, Fram remains banned until ARBCOM comes to the conclusion to ban him again.

Kangaroo court.

What happens if ARBCOM takes the case and then says, "No reason to ban or sanction here. Laura Hale needed to be reined in." ?

[DanMurphy]

Parts of this are worded weirdly. What is meant by this:

This could include funding for training of community members involved in dealing with harassment or helping long term contributors correct behaviors that are inappropriate. We support the provision of the necessary resources to allow the community and its representatives to discuss these issues with the board and staff members.

I suppose not all the BoT members are native English speakers?

[Randy from Boise]

This is a complete nothingburger for the community.

t

[eagle]

While we remain fully committed to this position, we also recognize the critical importance of allowing communities to be self-governing and for the movement, as a whole, to make high-level decisions. While we realize that the Wikimedia Foundation staff did not take this decision lightly, we also believe that we need the right processes to reach the right results.

The statement seems to focus on just the community and WMF Staff levels and skips over the fact that the WMF Board created all of the elements that lead to the crisis. If Laura Hale did not feel "unblockable" and entitled to special treatment, the T&S staff would not have reached this point. A key element to any successful resolution would be a stronger WMF Board Code of Ethics. María Sefidari needs to resign from the Board. Just stepping aside on this issue is not enough.

This could include funding for training of community members involved in dealing with harassment or helping long term contributors correct behaviors that are inappropriate. We support the provision of the necessary resources to allow the community and its representatives to discuss these issues with the board and staff members.

It sounds as if the WMF is back into buying friends and allies, again. To prove that we love our long-term contributors, we will pay for a junket to a political reeducation camp in Laos. You will have first-rate accommodations, but you will set next to a green pod which will keep you civil when confronted by aggressive POV-pushers.

Moderate editors who have supported things like the gender gap initiative have assumed that it meant coverage of more women under the existing standards of WP. Similarly, as other identity groups have formed within the community, there was no suggestion that the standards change or be lowered. The Wikimedia DC statement is an early warning that some policymakers are viewing this as a battle of white "Librarian" privilege vs the Social Justice Warriors. We need a polite and effective on-wiki police force to enforce the rules equally without regard to the race, religion, gender or nationality of the editor. That means that rules against POV-pushing, COPYVIOs, bad grammar, and anything else that stands in the way of building a first-rate encyclopedia will be enforced even if greeted with shouts of harassment or "you have to do it my way because I am a woman" or "I want to write my article in African-American English" or "notability standards do not apply to minority topics."

I guess it is too much to expect the WMF Board to say that explicitly, but by taking T&S out of the "civility enforcement" role for now, they are giving the community one more try to hash things out.

[Vigilant]

Parts of this are worded weirdly. What is meant by this:

This could include funding for training of community members involved in dealing with harassment or helping long term contributors correct behaviors that are inappropriate. We support the provision of the necessary resources to allow the community and its representatives to discuss these issues with the board and staff members.

I suppose not all the BoT members are native English speakers?

At this point, I would assume that the conversations were a series of confusing grunts and clicks poorly translated by a pre-alpha WMF software 'product' into whistles and hoots.

[Auggie]

Pretty much told T&S to stay in their lane, begged admins to come back and tacitly admitted the chair was involved in the case.

yeah nice summary. That was my takeaway too.

This is a complete nothingburger for the community.

Read it again.

Telling T&S to focus on serious shit = leave future Frams to ArbCom.

Stating the chair was not involved = we acknowledge at least a perception of conflict of interest

[Kumioko]

So, Fram remains banned until ARBCOM comes to the conclusion to ban him again.

Kangaroo court.

What happens if ARBCOM takes the case and then says, "No reason to ban or sanction here. Laura Hale needed to be reined in." ?

Yeah I completely agree. Really there is no chance the Arbcom is going to torch the olive branch but they might come up with some way to weasel it a little bit.

[Midsize Jake]

Parts of this are worded weirdly. What is meant by this:

This could include funding for training of community members involved in dealing with harassment or helping long term contributors correct behaviors that are inappropriate. We support the provision of the necessary resources to allow the community and its representatives to discuss these issues with the board and staff members.

I suppose not all the BoT members are native English speakers?

They're not all native English speakers, far from it - but I think it's probably safe to assume that the training they're referring to does not include courses that "long term contributors" are expected to take as a means of correcting their own (i.e., the contributors') inappropriate behavior. It would be the height of arrogance to ask volunteers to take behavioral-modification courses just to work on their website... Oh shit, what am I saying? This is the WMF, so of course that's what they mean.

Still, to be fair, it's not like there aren't plenty of long-term WP contributors who behave inappropriately, so at least the potential subscriber numbers for such courses would be fairly high.

[Kumioko]

In fairness I think if you offered the courses in some places for free to at least certain people you would likely get a decent showing
Certainly, DC, NYC, SanFran, some of the other major places.

[Auggie]

I am amused by the board.

They say that three years ago they knew Wikipedia was toxic and asked teams to work on it. Now they're directing Maher to "work closely with staff".

That's bureaucratic for "Shit's out of control on your watch."

[10920]

Oh my word.

We recognize that T&S has established a track record for managing highly complex situations.

Yeah, why did they leave out the word "badly" at the end there? These are supposed to be experienced writer/editors.

They also left out "incompetently" and "ignorantly".

All good points.

[mendaliv]

TonyBallioni has no idea what he’s talking about.

[10920]

Pretty much told T&S to stay in their lane, begged admins to come back and tacitly admitted the chair was involved in the case.

yeah nice summary. That was my takeaway too.

This is a complete nothingburger for the community.

Read it again.

Telling T&S to focus on serious shit = leave future Frams to ArbCom.

Stating the chair was not involved = we acknowledge at least a perception of conflict of interest

I acknowledge that you're likely correct, but it does take some reading between the lines to get there.

TonyBallioni has no idea what he’s talking about.

I believe you have the wrong individual. Tony merely asked that it be posted at AN, although I don't understand why he didn't simply post it there himself. You meant to reply to someone else.

[Smiley]

We recognize that T&S has established a track record for managing highly complex situations.

Why did they leave out the word "badly" at the end there? These are supposed to be experienced writer/editors.

They also left out "incompetently" and "ignorantly".

All good points.

I'm surprised they posted it on the correct page.

TonyBallioni has no idea what he’s talking about.

Welcome to Wikipedia - the encyclopedia ANYONE can edit!

[Auggie]

I acknowledge that you're likely correct, but it does take some reading between the lines to get there.

Agreed. But I think anything more direct would have sounded like they were throwing their employees under the bus.

[eagle]

This could include current and upcoming initiatives, as well as re-evaluating or adding community input to the two new office action policy tools (temporary and partial Foundation bans).

I fear that "upcoming initiatives" means the universal code of conduct. "Current initiatives" means discussing T&S's expanded role with just the list of disadvantaged interest groups. Given the FRAMBAN, does the Community really trust and feel comfortable with codes of conduct being with the scope of WMF Staff and the WMF Board?

Who will collect "community indput to the two new office action policy tools"? Will it be the WMF Staff using Meta Wiki? Another "office hours" online chat, or a full blown RFC on en:wikipedia? While FRAMBAN ignited the fire, the "initiatives" call for focused attention on multiple fronts.

[No Ledge]

Auggie's got a good take on the Board's statement. If most everyone seems unhappy they probably have it about right. I suspect the vanished users think it's a nothing too, but since they've vanished we'll probably never know. They've paid a pretty high price for this, from the blowback.

So if ArbCom has a hearing that'll take another month... even if they only take a week to review the T&S evidence, then by the time they reverse the ban a month will have passed. I think a one-month block is reasonable for a very belated first-time incivility violation. Or 2 or 3 months. Maybe 6 if there is somehow evidence that hasn't come to light by now.

Fram will be on notice now. A second violation should result in a desysopping, if the first doesn't.

They should put more emphasis on training at their conferences. The two "hackathon" days should be rebranded as "hackathon and training" days. There should probably be two days for this, not just one.

[mendaliv]

I believe you have the wrong individual. Tony merely asked that it be posted at AN, although I don't understand why he didn't simply post it there himself. You meant to reply to someone else.

Yeah you’re right, it was BMK.

[Capeo]

This isn’t going to go over well.

[Vigilant]

TL;DR - We realize we got everyone riled up. We're going to do some things to calm y'all down. In the end, we do what we want.

en.wp, welcome to digital serfdom.

[mendaliv]

I'm so mad I could breathe fire. ArbCom has a moment to draw a line in the sand here and it's one that WMF ought to readily accede to. They need to say that, no, they won't "review" Fram's case. They will take it up as a case of the first instance, under its original jurisdiction, and will do so only if WMF expressly disclaims any conditions on this. This is a case where they need to follow the Jay Court's approach and reply with something mirroring the following:

We have considered the previous question stated in a letter written by your direction to us by the Secretary of State on the 18th of last month, [regarding] the lines of separation drawn by the Constitution between the three departments of the government. These being in certain respects checks upon each other, and our being judges of a court in the last resort, are considerations which afford strong arguments against the propriety of our extra-judicially deciding the questions alluded to, especially as the power given by the Constitution to the President, of calling on the heads of departments for opinions, seems to have been purposely as well as expressly united to the executive departments.

We exceedingly regret every event that may cause embarrassment to your administration, but we derive consolation from the reflection that your judgment will discern what is right, and that your usual prudence, decision, and firmness will surmount every obstacle to the preservation of the rights, peace, and dignity of the United States.

4 The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay Correspondence 3:488–89 (Henry P. Johnston ed. 1890–93). In short, the Committee must not accept this advisory opinion role: It must be given the power to act fully, or it should refuse to act at all.

[Smiley]

I'm so mad I could breathe fire.
<snip>

Dude, thou shouldst chill thy beans.

From the elevated position of the WO gallery, this is the funniest shitshow in ages.

And we've been hoarding peanuts for years. We've got sacks upon sacks of 'em.

[mendaliv]

I'm so mad I could breathe fire.
<snip>

Dude, thou shouldst chill thy beans.

From the elevated position of the WO gallery, this is the funniest shitshow in ages.

And we've been hoarding peanuts for years. We've got sacks upon sacks of 'em.

It's just the combination of so many goddamn pet peeves about people on WP. Ignore evidence right in front of your face that this is bullshit because you can torture some favorable wording out of it, cite WP:NOTLAW for the proposition that whatever we say goes, and then fawn over anyone powerful that makes a public statement. What happened to speaking truth to power?

But you're right, I should chill. I just completed 30 hours of continuing education videos last week and those tend to get me fired the fuck up to litigate something, when I hear the old salts telling war stories.

[Randy from Boise]

TL;DR - We realize we got everyone riled up. We're going to do some things to calm y'all down. In the end, we do what we want.

en.wp, welcome to digital serfdom.

Correct.

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

I'm so mad I could breathe fire.
<snip>

Dude, thou shouldst chill thy beans.

From the elevated position of the WO gallery, this is the funniest shitshow in ages.

And we've been hoarding peanuts for years. We've got sacks upon sacks of 'em.

Well, you're gonna get plenty of chance to eat them between now and fundraising season followed by the next ArbCom election.

I for one will not be doing another "maintenance" task of any sort until this shit is fixed, which includes for me New Page Patrol, Articles for Deletion, AN/I commentary, and the odd vandal reversion. And, frankly, I've got exactly one article on tap to write between now and the end of the year. That will be about the extent of my efforts not directly connected with this situation.

RfB

[mendaliv]

Jehochman just started a RFAR on the basis of the Board statement. I've already made a statement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... F_and_Fram

[Smiley]

From the elevated position of the WO gallery, this is the funniest shitshow in ages.

And we've been hoarding peanuts for years. We've got sacks upon sacks of 'em.

Well, you're gonna get plenty of chance to eat them between now and fundraising season followed by the next ArbCom election.

I was thinking more of throwing them.

Look it at like a cross between the circus, panto, and vaudeville-era slapstick. One just sits back and watches the players goof around and mess it up in increasingly elaborate ways. It's an interactive experience, so peanuts can and should be thrown at times. The odd banana-skin, doesn't hurt, neither.

To wander off topic, it's all a matter of perspective. The trouble many legal and sciency types have is that contradictions are typically seen as problematic, or regarded as proof of error. (I believe this stems back to Aristotle, who was not to know of the Jains' earlier and superior systems of logic.) For artists, however, contradictions are the fertile soil that may nurture a thousand new flowers. And of course, a picture paints a thousand words...

[Guido den Broeder]

Jehochman just started a RFAR on the basis of the Board statement. I've already made a statement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... F_and_Fram

Why are Fram's victims not listed as involved parties?

[mendaliv]

Jehochman just started a RFAR on the basis of the Board statement. I've already made a statement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... F_and_Fram

Why are Fram's victims not listed as involved parties?

Would be kind of lulzy to name "John Doe 1-10" and "Jane Doe 1-10" as parties.

[Smiley]

I hope they decline to take the case, which would essentially be a "go unfuck this pig yourselves" to the WMF.

With or without lipstick?

WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-10-16/Arbitration_report (T-H-L)

During the course of the dispute, Tarc intentionally engaged in inflammatory and offensive speech ("Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make a heifer become Marilyn Monroe", "Bradley Manning simply doesn't become a woman just because he says so") in a self-admitted attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.

[mendaliv]

In tangentially related news, Sandstein is about to give Eric Corbett a one-month block after closing the AE. I don't really get where anybody else relevant agreed that one month was the right block length (well, except Eric).

[Smiley]

something, something ... Eric Corbett ...

Eric Corbett? Now I'm sure that name rings a bell...

Nope, can't place it...

[mendaliv]

Apparently I just made BMK cry uncle on RFAR.

[mendaliv]

HE SPEAKS

To be clear: ArbCom could overturn the ban. I will personally back ArbCom in whatever they decide. Any further action of this type from T&S will not happen without agreement from the community. There should be no fear here that T&S would defy the board, me, ArbCom, and the gathered best users in the community.

Yep I don't know what else to do here.

[Midsize Jake]

Why are Fram's victims not listed as involved parties?

I'm sure they just forgot.

[Jans Hammer]

I'm so mad I could breathe fire.
<snip>

Dude, thou shouldst chill thy beans.

From the elevated position of the WO gallery, this is the funniest shitshow in ages.

And we've been hoarding peanuts for years. We've got sacks upon sacks of 'em.

It's just the combination of so many goddamn pet peeves about people on WP. Ignore evidence right in front of your face that this is bullshit because you can torture some favorable wording out of it, cite WP:NOTLAW for the proposition that whatever we say goes, and then fawn over anyone powerful that makes a public statement. What happened to speaking truth to power?

But you're right, I should chill. I just completed 30 hours of continuing education videos last week and those tend to get me fired the fuck up to litigate something, when I hear the old salts telling war stories.

You need to reign in your legal expertise. This, for example, "This sui generis" means nothing to most who cannot be arsed to translate it and comes across as showboating. Whatever AC is, it is technically not a court of law and it pisses of quite a few people when legally qualified types like Newyorkbrad, Jechoman and you try to impose their knowledge of the law. Just saying...

[mendaliv]

Hahahaha Wales-senpai just noticed me:

To be fully clear (I'm saying this multiple times in the thread) this is not asking ArbCOm for an advisory opinion. It is a recognition that the traditional rights of the ArbCom remain valid. ArbCom has the authority to review this ban.

diff

[MrErnie]

Nick makes probably the best comment about this entire mess:

It's a particularly poor statement - we still have no indication what T&S are treating as harassment, we still have no idea whether tough but necessary enforcement of copyright or BLP policies which can necessitate an administrator going through every upload or every edit to a BLP that a user makes can now be considered harassment. It's like, I dunno, someone complaining about police harassment, but every time they're stopped and searched, they're found to be carrying a knife and a bag of heroin. And then the police officers being sacked. I know, sadly, that many of the employees now working for WMF have precious little knowledge and understanding about what actually goes on here, they're not experienced editors, they're not experts in copyright policy, they're not writers with a deft touch for accurate prose that can't be misinterpreted. They're people I can sadly believe can mistake essential administration for harassment. In short, I've absolutely no fucking confidence AT ALL that Jan and his group would know proper harassment if it fell out of the sky and hit them square between the eyes. And that's a massive problem, given there's very definitely proper harassment going on. And it's a massive problem given WMF Office acts as judge, jury and jailer. [[User:Nick|Nick]] ([[User talk:Nick|talk]]) 07:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

This is exactly the bottom line here.

[eagle]

HE SPEAKS

To be clear: ArbCom could overturn the ban. I will personally back ArbCom in whatever they decide. Any further action of this type from T&S will not happen without agreement from the community. There should be no fear here that T&S would defy the board, me, ArbCom, and the gathered best users in the community.

Yep I don't know what else to do here.

First, good lawyering on tonight's Arbitration request.

Second, "There should be no fear here..." just underscores our suspicion that the T&S Staff is political and conducted the investigation of Laura Hale's complaint against Fram with full awareness of her standing with the WMF Board Chair.

Third, an undisputed feature of en:WP dispute resolution is boomerang. People are deterred from going to ANI or ArbCom because they might get sanctioned for their own misconduct. Lawyers call this rule "You can't get equitable relief if you have unclean hands." So, T&S's venture into civility enforcement was specifically designed to have anonymous complaints, which seems to promise "no boomerangs." If ArbCom does take up the merits of Fram's case, will the underlying, repeated policy violations of the now vanished user also be addressed?

Fourth, the fact that the T&S "civility" option was rolled out to just the minority interest groups (as well as the Wikimedia DC statement) points out some serious policy contradictions. Rules enforcement at en:WP has always been viewed as individual conduct. We don't have "class action" lawsuits such as "pro-Gamergate" vs. "anti-Gamergate" or "Scientologists" vs. "anti-Scientologists". Everybody who edits WP gets angry at times with the rules and rules enforcement. Some people are convinced that they are being "harrassed." Even though we really don't know the identity groups of the other editors, people suspect that they may be targeted because they are "women" or "horse lovers" or "Scientologists" or "experts." There is no good solution to prevent these feelings, although a certain amount of charm can be used to smooth editors' ruffled feathers. The WMF Statement assumes that more "training" and "resources" will solve this problem.

Fifth, there is no indication that WMF has dropped the "universal code of conduct" project. At the very least, the project should be re-cast as a "model code of conduct" that can be voluntarily adopted or modified by each community. If WMF is backing off T&S civility enforcement, it should also back off civilty rule-writing.

[mendaliv]

Hi everyone.

A pre-note: Thank you for your patience awaiting the statement from the Board and now this message from me on behalf of the Foundation. In the intervening time between the Board's statement, my writing and re-writing this below, and now posting it, there have been many comments and question here and elsewhere. This message will not respond directly to those points, but is meant to offer a broader perspective on recent events. In coming days and weeks, the Foundation (myself, T&S staff, and others) will be able to respond more directly to these more direct comments. Some will be easily resolved and clarified, some less so. Some may need to wait for further conversations at the upcoming Board meeting at Wikimania Stockholm. Hopefully not all will be answered at 01:00 local time. Thanks again.

The events of the past few weeks, following the Foundation’s decision to implement a partial ban of User:Fram on English Wikipedia, have evoked concerns, surprise, anger and frustration, and led to an important debate on the difficult task of managing disruptive behaviors and ensuring a healthy and civil community for all. The leadership of the Foundation, as well as the Trust & Safety team, have been closely following the conversations and constructive criticism and suggestions here on wiki.

First, I’d like to apologize. I am genuinely sorry that so many people have felt such distress, frustration, and disillusionment in recent days. Each person who has participated here in these conversations, and as Wikipedians in general, has done so out of a passion for this project. Whether we agree or disagree, we’re here because we care deeply about its stewardship and future. Whatever one’s perspective on the merits of the issues at hand, I regret that this has been such a difficult period for so many people.

I also would like to acknowledge that there are things that the Foundation could have handled better. The conversation about the limitations and challenges of addressing the most difficult behavioral cases, and what this means in the context of the principle of community self-governance, should have been held in fora in which people here would have had a chance to participate, weigh various considerations, raise issues, and collaboratively develop constructive solutions.

The introduction of the tools themselves could have also been improved. Paraphrasing an expression about unpopular decisions, the first application of a temporary ban on a contributor might have come as a shock, but it should never have been a surprise. That is to say, it is the Foundation’s responsibility to ensure people across our communities had been consulted on, and were familiar with, the reasoning and process behind the creation of new T&S tools, the conditions under which they might be applied, their relationship to the role and authority of existing community processes and bodies (e.g., ArbCom), and the relative weight and flexibility of the sanctions.

Finally, I would do certain things differently if there were a way to rewind and retry the last few weeks. As I’ve noted on my talkpage, I am responsible for approving the ban. Regardless of the merits of the case, I should have been better prepared to step forward and be accountable. There was some early confusion about the role of the Board in office actions, and some well-intentioned efforts by both Foundation and Board that both delayed response and added to uncertainty. During that period of delay, there was an opportunity to be more engaged in community conversation, rather than adding to the perception that the Foundation was aloof or insensitive to both people’s concerns and constructive proposals. And while this paragraph is not intended as a comprehensive retrospective, certainly, I would sit on my hands and not tweet.

As of a few hours ago, the Board of Trustees has posted their response. Building on the guidance from the Board, and in response to ArbCom’s open letter to the Board which set out its preparedness to review the User:Fram ban, the Foundation has completed its preparation of the case materials it can release to the committee. The release of these materials is intended to facilitate the committee’s review of the length and scope of the ban in place. T&S and Legal staff have a standing meeting with the members of the committee on 3 July 2019, in which the case and materials will be further discussed.

Additionally, Foundation staff have begun preparing for a dedicated community consultation on:

The two new office action policy tools introduced during the last change (temporary and partial Foundation bans). Under the approach noted on June 17th, we will seek further community feedback on those changes. These new tools will not be used again until community consultations to clarify their purpose and mechanisms are completed;
Alternative approaches to supporting communities dealing with onwiki harassment;
Working closely with the community to identify the shortcomings of current processes and enforcement mechanisms, and to support the development of appropriate solutions;
Offering training opportunities for community leaders (including ArbCom) involved in dealing with harassment to strengthen their ability to meet these challenges.
I believe strongly in the commitment to community self-governance, as do Foundation staff that work closely with our editing communities, including those in T&S. We also believe strongly in the principle that no one participating on the Wikimedia projects should be subject to harassment, abuse, or intimidation. We believe there is a way to respect and support both of these as foundational and equally important principles, to do so judiciously and with integrity, and without compromising on the safety and wellbeing of Wikimedia participants. As many have pointed out over the past weeks, Wikipedia is a grand and ongoing experiment, and we do not always get it right.

Someone on my talkpage asked me the other day if the culture and priorities of the English Wikipedia community are compatible with the Wikimedia movement’s broader vision and the Foundation’s own strategic plan, and whether the Foundation would care if they were not compatible. It was a thoughtful question, which seemed to get to the heart of some of the concerns and skepticism I was reading and hearing from some community members over the past few weeks.

English Wikipedia is a marvel. It is imperfect, it is a work in progress, it is a remarkable achievement of collaboration and cooperation in building the encyclopedia -- a rendering of humanity’s knowledge. Members of this community have spent thousands of hours writing and building this collective resource, as well as developing the processes, roles, and governance structures that are critical to sustaining English Wikipedia. In doing so, you have not only made English Wikipedia possible, but shaped the principles of the broader Wikimedia movement.

The Foundation views its responsibility as being to the long-term health of all Wikimedia projects, including English Wikipedia. This responsibility must be guided by both the needs of the projects as they exist currently, and the broader Wikimedia vision of a world in which every single human can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. This means supporting essential technical and social resources that enable the projects to thrive today, while also keeping an eye on what to anticipate for the future. This means supporting Wikipedias that are open to newcomers, in terms of policies, experiences, and culture, in order to best position the projects and communities to remain self-sustaining, self-governing, and resilient -- and better yet, grow in size, commitment, and capacity, enriched by diverse global perspectives.

The community that has built this remarkable project has more collective wisdom and experience than any one of us alone, and the richness of that perspective must inform the long-term flourishing of this remarkable project. I look forward to working with you all on how we support this, together.

Katherine (WMF) (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm treating myself to a brandy and getting some sleep. Been a productive night. I'm actually mildly pleased with what I've read of this so far. I'm sure I'll find something to dislike, but the promise to discontinue the star chamber until further notice reads like a big victory to me.

[CoffeeCrumbs]

Jehochman just started a RFAR on the basis of the Board statement. I've already made a statement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... F_and_Fram

Why are Fram's victims not listed as involved parties?

They're all in federal witness protection to protect them from being sarcastically disagreed with or god forbid, mildly annoyed. The Hague has jurisdiction over Fram now.

[Jans Hammer]

Fifth, there is no indication that WMF has dropped the "universal code of conduct" project. At the very least, the project should be re-cast as a "model code of conduct" that can be voluntarily adopted or modified by each community. If WMF is backing off T&S civility enforcement, it should also back off civilty rule-writing.

If the community seriously thinks that it will win this "battle" long term, or even medium term, they are absolutely barking mad. Social Media organisations globally, the biggest, are being hauled before parliaments to account for and explain their remedy for toxic behavior by users. The behaviour by unblockables in en_WP has led to this shambles due to inaction - indeed acquiescence - for years. I am not suggesting that WMF has handled this particular case well - that is self-evidently not the case. They have made a hash of implementing a policy which should generally be welcomed. Fact is, they have no choice. Big donors will not contribute to an organisation who's flagship project allows keyboard warriors to damage it's reputation.

[Moral Hazard]

Third, an undisputed feature of en:WP dispute-resolution is boomerang.
People are deterred from going to ANI or ArbCom because they might get sanctioned for their own misconduct.
Lawyers call this rule "You can't get equitable relief if you have unclean hands." So, T&S's venture into civility enforcement was specifically designed to have anonymous complaints, which seems to promise "no boomerangs." If ArbCom does take up the merits of Fram's case, will the underlying, repeated policy violations of the now vanished user also be addressed?

ArbCom suspended WP:Boomerang (T-H-L), forbidding discussion of the behavior of Demiurge1000 (T-C-L) or Arbitrator WormThatTurned (T-C-L), before ArbCom banned me.