Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram
(Redirected from Wikipedia:FRAMSUM)

Various summaries of the main events since the Fram affair, and locations and references of items relating to these events.

Shortcuts

List of main events

edit
  • Major contributor up to 28 June 2019, only two [1] [2] additions since then, and stepping away from this. Did not, and will not edit any event pertaining to myself. I am also personally restricted from adding any more off-wiki events, restriction does not apply to other people. Really happy that others are contributing. Thank you everyone! starship.paint (talk)

What has WMF effectively told us?

edit
Click [show] -->
  • Fram was banned by the Wikimedia Foundation from editing the English Wikipedia for a period of 1 year, consistent with the Terms of Use
  • The ban does not offer an opportunity to appeal.
  • WMF acted on complaints from the community to ban Fram.
  • WMF said regarding Fram, the issues reported to us fell under section 4 of the terms of use, as noted above, specifically under the first provision entitled "harassing and abusing others." (That provision lists the following harmful activities: Engaging in harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism; and Transmitting chain mail, junk mail, or spam to other users.)
  • WMF did send more than one of those warnings/reminders before the most recent step of banning Fram
  • Regarding the length of the ban, a one-year local ban was placed because there was reason to think time might change behavior, or where disruption is limited to a single project
  • WMF felt it would have been improper to ask the Arbcom to adjudicate a case in which it was one primary target of the person in question, Fram.
  • WMF feels criticism of ArbCom should also remain strictly respectful in tone towards others.
  • WMF will not release details about Trust & Safety investigations due to privacy concerns. They will not name or disclose the identities of the individuals involved in reporting incidents related to this Office Action, and cannot tell you what specific behaviors by Fram brought about this action, cannot publicly disclose details of this or any particular case
  • the community does not and cannot have all the facts of this case


What has Fram told us?[clarification needed]

edit
Click [show] -->

(1) In April 2018, WMF emailed him a "conduct warning".

I have taken a look at several conflicts you’ve had over the years with other community members as well as Foundation staff, and I have noticed increasing levels of hostility, aggressive expression—some of which, to the point of incivility—and counterproductive escalations [...] Indeed, I have not seen you literally threatening other contributors. But, I have observed the sum of your activity in certain areas of interest (like copyvios, for example, or automated editing) having a similar effect to that of a threat: causing contributors to be scared to continue to contribute in fear of being constantly monitored and later attacked through community process, and eventually driving them away. From what I've seen, you are very good at spotting problematic edits and editing patterns; the issue is with the way and the perseverance with which you appear to approach the editors responsible for them. In many cases, even if your concerns have been valid, their raising has been done with a degree of abruptness, repetition, scrutiny and persistence that feels like hounding to the person on the receiving end, and causes them to abandon the project or limit their contributions. Now, I don't think this is your intention, but this does seem to be the result in several cases, hence the warning. So, I'm not saying you should stop trying to improve En.WP., only that in doing so you also consider how your activity and approach impacts the users you address and other readers of your comments, and how it contributes to an unfriendly volunteering environment that discourages them from returning to it.


(2) In March 2019, WMF emailed him a "reminder" based on two October 2018 edits [3] [4]

We remain convinced that the activity on Laura’s articles listed above was not intended to intimidate or make her feel uncomfortable [...] However, in the hopes of avoiding any future issues and in the spirit of Laura’s own request on her talk page, we would like to ask that you refrain from making changes to content that she produces, in any way (directly or indirectly), from this point on. This includes but is not limited to direct editing of it, tagging, nominating for deletion, etc. If you happen to find issues with Laura’s content, we suggest that you instead leave it for others to review and handle as they see fit. This approach will allow you to continue to do good work while reducing the potential for conflict between you and Laura. We hope for your cooperation with the above request, so as to avoid any sanctions from our end in the future. To be clear, we are not placing an interaction ban between you and Laura at this time. We ask that her request to stay away from her and the content she creates be respected, so that there is no need for any form of intervention or punitive actions from our end."

(3) In June 2019, WMF banned Fram, citing this May 2019 edit [5].

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


What has ArbCom told us?

edit
Click [show] -->

Arb Com member Joe Roe: WMF told ArbCom there is additional, private and also information that is not currently publicly available on Wikipedia which is relevant to the ban of Fram, ArbCom doesn't have all of it, and WMF do not consider the ban, as an office action, to be overturnable by ArbCom.

ArbCom member Premeditated Chaos: I want to clearly state that the Arbitration Committee has no more information about the details behind Fram's ban than anyone else.

List of significant events

edit
  1. ACTION (10 June) [6] Fram banned by the Wikimedia Foundation from editing the English Wikipedia for a period of 1 year, consistent with the Terms of Use
  2. STATEMENT (10 June) WMF 1st statement - notes that Fram was temporarily de-sysoped along with the ban. The ban arose from complaints from the community. No disclosure of who made the complaints, or what the complaints are. The ban does not offer an opportunity to appeal.
  3. STATEMENT (11 June) Fram responds on Commons - claims ban was due to one diff [7], that diff being an escalation to the Foundation’s past efforts to encourage course correction, including a conduct warning issued to you on April 2018 and a conduct warning reminder issued to you on March 2019. Fram further says that the March 2019 warning was based on these two October 2018 diffs: [8] [9]
  4. STATEMENT (11 June) ArbCom member Opabinia regalis says that during a conference call with WMF where OR was the only available ArbCom representative, WMF informed OR that an action to do with Fram was under consideration ... That information was not final and did not get into the specifics of their investigation ... The rest of the arbs did have the minutes from the meeting available shortly after. (OR's words)
  5. ACTION (11 June) WMF Board member Doc James requests a briefing from the WMF; while WMF Chair Emeritus Jimbo Wales is also on the case.
  6. STATEMENT (11 June) WMF 2nd statement - it would have been improper to ask the Arbcom to adjudicate a case in which it was one primary target of the person in question ... we do not release details about Trust & Safety investigations due to privacy concerns ... What we can say in this case is that the issues reported to us fell under section 4 of the terms of use, as noted above, specifically under the first provision entitled “harassing and abusing others.” That provision lists the following harmful activities: Engaging in harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism; and Transmitting chain mail, junk mail, or spam to other users. WMF wrote that why a one-year local ban was placed ... there was reason to think time might change behavior, or where disruption is limited to a single project.
  7. DISCUSSIONS (11 June and 14 June) - editors from German Wikipedia one, and Chinese Wikipedia two and three discuss bans by WMF on our sister sites.
  8. ACTION (11 June) Floquenbeam unblocks Fram citing community consensus. There was a prior discussion here.
  9. ACTION + STATEMENT (12 June) WMF 3rd statement, reblocks Fram and desysops Floquenbeam for a month.
  10. STATEMENT (12 June) WMF 4th statement is a further clarification of 2nd statement. One of the quotes: Neither the Foundation nor community institutions, like ArbCom, are above criticism. Such criticism naturally can be direct and hard on the facts, but in a community it should also remain strictly respectful in tone towards others.
  11. ACTION (12 June) Bishonen unblocks Fram, citing WP:WHEEL.
  12. STATEMENT (12 June) WMF Chair of the Board, Raystorm makes a personal statement (not on behalf of the WMF Board) that they were uninvolved.
  13. STATEMENT (12 June) Fram 2nd statement.
  14. STATEMENT (12 June) Fram's 3rd statement begins with a response to another editor, and ends with a request that the WMF to provide their evidence to a number of trusted enwiki people to judge the evidence in private.
  15. ACTION (12 June to 14 June) Floquenbeam requests resysop. In the same thread, bureaucrat WJBscribe grants it, then WJBscribe requests ArbCom review their actions. BU Rob13 later adds Floquenbeam and Bishonen as parties to the ArbCom case request by WJBscribe. Jan Eissfeldt, lead manager of WMF T&S, adds a statement (his 2nd overall).
  16. STATEMENT (12 June) ArbCom member GorillaWarfare says ArbCom's meeting notes from last week's meeting mentioned that the Trust & Safety team had made the recommendation in favor of the one-year ban of Fram.
  17. STATEMENT (13 June) Jan Eissfeldt, lead manager of WMF T&S, gives a 1st statement, saying that the new sanctions are not an expansion of the team’s scope, and that they will not name or disclose the identities of the individuals involved in reporting incidents related to this Office Action. T&S will not sanction Floquenbeam, Bishonen, WJBscribe. If Fram edits en.wiki, Fram will be banned globally.
  18. OFF-WIKI STATEMENTS (13 June to 15 June) @WikiWomenInRed, the Twitter account operated by WP:WPWIR, posts several criticisms of Fram [10] [11][12][13], including a since-deleted tweet [14] that there were real crimes. The deletion was done by Rosiestep, who [15] apologized on-wiki on behalf of WP:WPWIR for that tweet as the wording lacked precision.
  19. STATEMENT (14 June) WMF's Jan offers further comments in his 3rd statement.
  20. DISCUSSION + STATEMENT (15 June to 18 June) - it is noted that a video [16] released around the time WP:FRAM started saw a WMF member declare: "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." Wikimedia is conducting a consultation [17] on a new reporting system for harassment. Sydney Poore of WMF responds.
  21. STATEMENTS (17 June) WMF's Jan offers an update in his 4th statement, that we cannot tell you what specific behaviors by Fram brought about this action, cannot publicly disclose details of this or any particular case and states that in Fram's case, WMF did send more than one of those conduct warnings to Fram prior to the one-year ban. Fram responds asking Jan to confirm if the alleged misconduct was only on-wiki.
  22. STATEMENT (17 June) Fram publishes part of the email for his first conduct warning in April 2018, stating that it is from Kalliope of WMF. It is reposted here. I have not seen you literally threatening other contributors. But ... the sum of your activity ... having a similar effect to that of a threat ... From what I've seen, you are very good at spotting problematic edits and editing patterns; the issue is with the way and the perseverance with which you appear to approach the editors responsible for them. In many cases, even if your concerns have been valid, their raising has been done with a degree of abruptness, repetition, scrutiny and persistence that feels like hounding to the person on the receiving end, and causes them to abandon the project or limit their contributions.
  23. STATEMENT (17 June to 19 June) - Fram responds to a suggested resolution by Newyorkbrad, which having over 100 votes so far, is the most voted proposal on WP:FRAM thus far. The ratio for support versus oppose was around 3:1 considering the first 100 such votes.
  24. DISCUSSION (19 June) Carcharoth and Someguy1221 highlight concerns with how the WMF handled an incident [18] [19] with Wikimedia Belgium. Geertivp, chair of Wikimedia Belgium, gives a statement [20] requesting that this specific conflict not be discussed because lot of important details are missing, are single-sided interpretations, or even completely wrong.
  25. UPDATE (20 June) WMF Board member Doc James says that the board is still working on this. No, there is no timeline for the statement by the Board on this matter.
  26. STATEMENT (21 June) WMF's Jan offers an update: the community does not and cannot have all the facts of this case.
  27. UPDATE (22 June) ArbCom member Opabinia says [21] some ArbCom members did have a dialogue with T&S, and that ArbCom is still digesting and considering followup.
  28. STATISTIC - as of 03:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC), over 400 editors have posted at WP:FRAM, which has racked up over 110,000 views (for current statistics, click here. Over 100 editors have made a statement on the request for arbitration on the reversal of office actions and related matters.
  29. STATEMENTS (24 June and 25 June) ArbCom member Joe Roe says [22] [23] WMF told ArbCom there is additional, private and off-wiki information which is relevant to the ban of Fram, ArbCom doesn't have all of it, and WMF do not consider the ban, as an office action, to be overturnable by ArbCom. ArbCom member Premeditated Chaos says [24]: I want to clearly state that the Arbitration Committee has no more information about the details behind Fram's ban than anyone else.
  30. ACTION (24 June) Bureaucrat Xeno changes Wikipedia:Office actions from a community policy page to an information page, citing that the changes of February 2019 are not community-endorsed in its entirety. Then, an RfC was started on this decision.
  31. ACTIONS (25 June to 26 June) Bureaucrat WJBscribe restores Fram's adminship, but does not oppose a reversal as wheel warring. Bureaucrat Primefac closes the discussion, declaring that the action should be reversed. Bureaucrat Maxim endorses Primefac's close and removes Fram's adminship. [25] Moe Epsilon requests the recall of WJBScribe for his recent action. [26] With the overturning of their actions, WJBScribe resigns.
  32. ACTIONS (27 June) Admin Jehochman lodges a case request with ArbCom against Fram, after announcing on 25 June that evidence of Fram having committed harassment was found. Jehochman provided public evidence on 27 June. ArbCom declined to take up the case, with 7 Arbs opposing.
  33. MEDIA COVERAGE (27 June) The first known media article on this issue is published by Joseph Bernstein in Buzzfeed News under The Culture War Has Finally Come For Wikipedia. Within that article, Bernstein quotes that WMF made a statement to him in which it said Fram's ban was meant to maintain "respect and civility" on the platform. "Uncivil behavior, including harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism, is against our Terms of Use, which are applicable to anyone who edits on our projects," On his Twitter account, Bernstein hypes his article on Wikipedia once, then posts links to the published article three times [27]. (according to WP:RSP, there is consensus that BuzzFeed News is generally reliable as a source on en.WP)
  34. OFF-WIKI STATEMENTS (27 June) Katherine Maher, WMF CEO and executive director, tweets [28]: When you have to retweet your shitty pseudo-thinkpiece three times because no one cares. Some Twitter accounts who like the post are: (1) Joe Sutherland @jrbsu Trust & Safety @Wikimedia/@Wikipedia., (2) jdforrester @jdforrester Coder @Wikimedia and (3) Gregory Varnum @GregVarnum Advocate / policy wonk / tech geek / @Wikimedia Foundation employee. Meanwhile, a fourth liker (4) Joseph Seddon @JosephSeddon is a Free Knowledge advocate Seddon has since reversed the like with this comment.
  35. OFF-WIKI STATEMENTS (27 June to 28 June) Katherine Maher tweets responses: (1) This wasn’t even meant to be something that rose to the level of Wikidrama [29] (2) This tweet was not a comment on the gravity of concerns of English Wikipedians. [30] (3) it wasn’t about a specific author or article. [31] (4) This was not a directed comment. The world is full of bad takes, and bad take pushers. It is a good thing when people start tuning them out in favor of critical information, challenging opinions, and informed debate. [32][33].
  36. ACTIONS (28 June) starship.paint is indef-blocked by TonyBallioni for "Cross-wiki harassment of WMF staffers after being warned on the inappropriateness of similar actions", here. (The referenced activity was directly related to Fram's ban.) Later that day, they are unblocked by User:Geni, here. Ongoing discussion here. TonyBallioni requests Geni's resignation here. Govindaharihari iniatiates an arbitration request over the confusion created by the apparent admin warring. Starship.paint decides to step away from the project.
  37. STATEMENTS (28 June): User:Doc_James, one of the Community Selected Members on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, posted an update stating that The board is working on a statement. and With respect to a timeline we should have a statement within a week.
  38. MEDIA COVERAGE (28 June) Another piece about the affair is published by Breitbart News, by an anonymous former banned Wikipedian writing as T.D. Adler. The piece covers material already reported on earlier by Buzzfeed News.
  39. STATEMENTS (28 June): User:Katherine (WMF) posts a response on-wiki for the first time, on her talk page. The tweet wasn't really meant to be about the BuzzFeed article. The article accurately covers the situation in the community and the anger or frustration but the way it handled reporting on the alleged targets of harassment was objectionable. The Foundation communications team has been in touch with the Buzzfeed editors .... Maher has been closely monitoring what’s been going on here on en-wiki. Her goal is to find a path to de-escalate the current situation and build better, lasting solutions to the issues of harassment which means consulting with the enWP community to address your articulated concerns about our respective roles and community processes, identifying some clear next steps to resolve some of the current concerns, and consulting on how we can work together to strengthen community self-governance while also cultivating a respectful editing environment that safeguards everyone in the community. Maher made many responses to follow up comments by editors on her talk page, and in one response she noted that there is likely a role for ArbCom in the immediate case but refrained from making any promises as she can't speak for other parties involved (it was Friday night).
  40. ACTION (28 June): The mainspace-article Fram controversy is created, later merged to List of Wikipedia controversies.
  41. ACTION and STATEMENT (30 June): The Arbitration Committee sends an open letter to the WMF BoT. The letter is currently located here and the ArbCom invited discussion on it, currently located here. The ArbCom finds that it must conclude that T&S’ action is an attempt to extend the use of office actions into enforcing behavioural norms in local communities, an area conventionally left to community self-governance. It asks that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local processes. It also cautions -- If we are unable to find a satisfactory resolution, at least four members of the committee have expressed the intention to resign. Jan Eissfeldt acknowledges receipt of the letter [34]. Doc James acknowledges that all board members have received the letter [35].
  42. THE SIGNPOST (30 June): A special report by the The Signpost, titled Did Fram harass other editors?, says at least nine editors claim to have experienced/witnessed harrassment by Fram. Five of them complained to T&S or to ArbCom. The report also covered two past declined arbitration requests regarding Fram's behaviour in February 2018, and in October 2016. Fram responds to the article here. User Haukur creates a new post at ANI over the use of anonymous sources in the report, and then launches a full arbitration request following the discussion there. Jehochman speedily deletes the page and urges colleagues not to restore it before the ArbCom issues a ruling. Statement.
  43. STATEMENT (1 July): Jimbo Wales says on his talkpage that the board met the previous day and will release a statement after achieving unanimity, adding-- ...overall I think people are going to be happy with the statement and with the things we are asking the WMF staff to do going forward. Full Statement.
  44. ACTIONS (1 July) Fram requests on Meta [36] that he be blocked on en.wiki so that he does not accidentally edit or post on en.wiki. Administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise blocks Fram until 10 June 2020.
  45. MEDIA COVERAGE (2 July): Slate publishes an article titled "Wikipedia’s 'Constitutional Crisis' Pits Community Against Foundation"
  46. STATEMENT (2 July): Speaking on behalf of the board, User:Schiste and User:Doc James posted a statement stating that ...a safe and respectful environment is not only one of our five pillars, it will also allow for more diverse voices to join our communities, bringing new knowledge with them but 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, and calling for further discussion and collaboration between the community and the WMF before moving forwards, particularly to improve our enforcement processes to deal with so-called "unblockables". Regarding the precipitating ban itself: We support ArbCom reviewing this ban. We have asked T&S to work with the English Wikipedia ArbCom to review this case. We encourage Arbcom to assess the length and scope of Fram’s ban, based on the case materials that can be released to the committee. While the review is ongoing, Fram’s ban will remain in effect, although Arbcom and T&S may need ways to allow Fram to participate in the proceedings. It is also noted that none of the resignations from positions of power, such as adminship, are considered to be under a cloud, meaning that all resigned powers in relation to actions and sanctions involving the Fram incident (unless otherwise stated via community consensus) can be regained simply by a Bureaucrats' Noticeboard query rather than the full RFA procedure.
  47. STATEMENT (3 July): Jimbo Wales iterates and reiterates multiple times in no uncertain words on this section of WP:FRAM that ArbCom have the authority to challenge and override T&S actions on Fram following their own processes. He gives his personal guarantee that T&S will not act against the board, ArbCom and the community decision on the matter. He stands by the community and fully backs ArbCom whatever they may decide. 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.
  48. STATEMENT (3 July): Katherine Maher releases a statement on behalf of the Foundation on her talk page. She regrets a lot of things. She apologises and acknowledges that there are things that the Foundation could have handled better. ... the first application of a temporary ban on a contributor might have come as a shock, but it should never have been a surprise. ... I am responsible for approving the ban. ... I should have been better prepared to step forward and be accountable. ... certainly, I would sit on my hands and not tweet. ... the Foundation has completed its preparation of the case materials it can release to the committee. ... Foundation staff have begun preparing for a dedicated community consultation on: four bullet points follow on things WMF are going to work together with community on.
  49. STATEMENT (5 July): In an Update from the Arbitration Committee, ArbCom confirm they now have the information from T&S, and that it is sufficiently detailed and minimally redacted such that we can open a case on Fram. ArbCom seek input from the community on the balance of privacy vs. transparency, and that they will accept any additional evidence about Fram from the community.
  50. ACTION (5 July): WJBscribe's arbitration request is accepted under the title Reversion of office actions and resolved by motion. ArbCom advises the community that in recognition of the WMF's decision to not implement further sanctions against the admins involved, and of the exceptional nature of the circumstances, the committee notes without comment this series of events ... Lack of sanctions under these exceptional circumstances should not set expectations around similar future actions.
  51. ACTION (5 July): The Arbitration Committee declines the User:TonyBallioni's block of User:Starship.paint and User:Geni's unblock arbitration request, with 5 Arbs opposing and 2 recusing.
  52. ACTION (6 July): Gadfium becomes the first editor to request a resysop on 6 July and is granted the request on 7 July after the standard 24-hour hold for commentary. With the statement from the board of trustees, Katherine talking to the community, and Arbcom confirming that they have sufficient information from T&S to open a case, I believe the situation has significantly changed.
  53. ACTION (6 July): The Arbitration Committee declines a second Fram arbitration request, with 6 Arbs opposing, saying that it is still premature.
  54. STATEMENT (8 July): Jimbo Wales says he's reasonably sure there are no legal issues involved in the Fram case. ... I don't necessarily hear about every little thing that happens, but to the best of my knowledge, this isn't a thing. diff
  55. ACTION (13 July): The Arbitration Committee declines the Disputed Signpost article arbitration request, with 4 Arbs opposing and 2 recusing.
  56. STATEMENT (15 July): User:Kbrown (WMF) posts an announcement of the forthcoming partial ban tool consultation at the village pump. WMF will release a draft before Wikimania and gather feedback both online and at Wikimania, which they will incorporate into the draft, then, launch the actual consultation on 1 September. {Read full announcement and participate in the discussion}
  57. ACTION (22 July): User:Floquenbeam launches a Request for Adminship (RFA) via a self-nom. About WMF statement, while I'm not thrilled with how far it went, I'm grudgingly accepting about how far it went. Continues, I resigned until Fram could appeal their ban to ArbCom... and I firmly believe I was one part of a chain of events that improved the WMF's response. AddsI didn’t take reverting an office action lightly... On the contrary, This was a well-considered action... -- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam 2. Ends on 29 July with 325 supports, 116 opposes, and 15 neutrals (74% support), and is sysoped on 2 August after a Bureaucrat chat.
  58. ACTION (24 July): The ArbCom opens the anticipated case on Fram. The 70-page document is partially redacted, so the committee is not able to see the names of the complainants, nor their correspondence with T&S. The committee accepts that it should open a full case to investigate the interactions of Fram with other editors over this time period. The case will be held in camera, with a public decision posted at the end. The case proceedings is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram.
  59. STATEMENT (9 August) Arbitrator Worm That Turned answers a longstanding question about this case: “The T&S document does include off-wiki information, but I have not seen any allegations of off-wiki abuse.” diff
  60. ACTION and STATEMENT (19 August): Fram posts the public summary of evidence passed to him by ArbCom and his replies to it, on his user talkpage at meta.diff ArbCom member Worm That Turned informs the community that he is about to do the same.diff
  61. ACTION (5-18 September): The ArbCom began voting on the proposed final decision on the case, on 5 September. The following principles/facts/decisions of interest had been endorsed as of 18 September; however the committee was still debating on Fram's adminship status.
    PP: Proposed principle; FOF: Proposed Finding of Fact; PR: Proposed remedies (last updated per this version)
    General
    1. The ArbCom rejects, on principle, the WMFOffice's attempt/right to take broader supervisory role regarding on-wiki day-to-day user or administrator conduct. (PP2) The fact that an editor has "attacked" ArbCom or its members, isn't enough reason for WMFOffice to step in.(FOF13)
    2. The views and feelings of editors who believe in good faith that they are being or have been harassed are to be respected and fully considered, whether or not it is ultimately concluded that harassment actually occurred. Because the word "harassment" spans a wide variety of types of behavior, and because this word as used off-wiki can carry serious legal and human-resources overtones, at times it may be better to describe allegedly problematic on-wiki behavior such as "wikihounding" with more specific terminology. (PP4)
    3. If an administrator finds themself in repeated disagreement with another good-faith but allegedly problematic editor, or if other editors disagree with the administrator's actions regarding that editor, it may be better practice for the administrator to request input or review from others, such as by posting on the appropriate noticeboard, rather than continue to address the issue unilaterally. (PP6)
    4. [A] lengthy site-ban will usually not be the appropriate sanction for on-wiki conduct by an experienced, good-faith contributor who has never previously been blocked at all. (PP7)
    5. An RfC will be initiated within the Arbitration space to discuss ways to improve the handling of on-wiki-harassment-related issues. (PR6)
    Specific
    1. The Committee was not authorized to post, and therefore did not post to Fram or the community at large, the case materials provided by the Office or a summary of that evidence. (FOF7)
    2. The evidence provided by the community isn't enough to warrant siteban, nor does it amount to a misuse of administrative tools. (FOF8)
    3. The evidence (unredacted materials) provided by T&S shows a pattern of borderline harassment against multiple individuals, through hounding the individuals and excessively highlighting their failures. (FOF10) The voter comments show a general consensus that the behaviour was uncivil, describable as wikihounding, but not cut-and-dried "harrassment", rather lying in the grey area that the community has historically found difficult to handle appropriately and effectively.
    4. There is no evidence of off-wiki misconduct in the evidence provided by T&S, the fact that surprised at least some in the committee. (FOF12)
    5. Fram's ban has been vacated. (PR1a:Unanimous) (Rationale: Ban wouldn't have been the result if the case had been brought to ArbCom in the first place.)
    6. Fram can go through an RfA upon their return, if they so choose. (PR2d:6-3-0 as of 18 Sept.) [T]he committee takes over the decision to remove Fram's administrator tools. They may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.
  62. ACTION (18 September): Fram is unblocked by the ArbCom member Worm That Turned "(Per temporary injunction)" log
  63. ACTION (21 September):The ArbCom case is closed without a noteworthy change from the summary listed above. Clerk notice with a summary of enacted remedies
  64. ACTION (26 September): Fram initiates an RFA, co-nominated by Iridescent, Xeno, Chowbok, Lourdes, and Fastily.
  65. ACTION (27 September): Fram withdraws after a little over a day, and the RFA is closed as unsuccessful (final count:108/122/14). Bureacrat Xeno, the co-nominator and closer of the RFA resigns their adminship (subsequent conversation at their talk page), is later resysoped on 26 December by self-request at BN following their election to ArbCom.
  66. ACTION and STATEMENT (21 November): The temporary and partial ban tool community consultation, launched as Office actions/Community consultation on partial and temporary office actions/09 2019 is closed. According to the closing notice:
    1. WMFOffice will no longer use the partial or temporary office action bans.
    2. The staff will later work on making more transparent how well each project's self-governance is working with regard to upholding the ToU. The Office will retain a role in addressing individual problem users or specific content.
    3. The Foundation office action permanent and global bans will remain unappealable, as they are enacted after review from multiple people from T&S and legal, for reasons so serious that appeal wouldn't change the outcome nor would the issues resulting in such a ban resolve themselves with the passage of time.
    4. Details about reasons for individual office actions will never be disclosed. However, steps will be taken to make more transparent, office action policies, and behavioural standards against which such cases are evaluated.
    5. The office reserves complete power to deny the accused, the right to confront the accuser or see the evidence of wrongdoing that they are being charged with.
    6. The office will work on a framework to make it possible to work with the community self-governance bodies on reports that the office feels the local projects could handle themselves, provided there are no other constraints (such as legal) against doing so.

Resignations

edit
  1. BU Rob13 (90K edits, was semi-retired before WP:FRAM, then resigned adminship and retired: I do not feel safe here (diff) due to actions by the community)
    User has requested courtesy vanishing and is no longer active.
  2. Ansh666 (resigned adminship: the whole WMF ban mess was the straw that broke the camel's back)
    Account no longer in use, now using ansh.666
  3. Nick (resigned adminship: I'll re-collect it when the Wikimedia Foundation comes to its senses) Requested resysop, granted on 16 July.[37]
  4. TheDJ (resigned adminship and Interface Adminship: I cannot support a community that undermines T&S.) (protest against community undermining T&S)
  5. Jc86035 (resigned template editorship: in protest of the Wikimedia Foundation's inconsistent, opaque, oblivious and inadequate handling of user conduct issues) Requested restoration, granted on 27 July.[38]
  6. Gadfium (resigned adminship, dispirited by the recent action of T&S, and even more so by their refusal to explain their action in any meaningful way, to provide any mechanism for an appeal, or to negotiate on a compromise) Requested resysop, granted on 7 July.[39]
  7. Boing! said Zebedee (resigned adminship and global renamer: I am not willing to serve Jan and the T&S team … under undisclosed new rules and under threat of unappealable sanctions should I (or those I interact with) violate those undisclosed rules, rather than serving the Wikipedia Community under its imperfect but transparent and accountable rules.) Requested resysop on a temporary basis, granted on 24 March 2020.[40]
  8. Kusma (resigned adminship, citing Gadfium and Boing) Requested resysop and granted on 8 September.
  9. Dennis Brown (resigned adminship: We are not subjects of the WMF ... you have to give us the same respect you demand for yourselves.) Subsequently retired from Wikipedia; I'm done... [41] Returned in December 2019.[42] Requested resysop, granted on 27 January 2020.[43]
  10. Lectonar (resigned adminship: Yeah....I handed in my bit too; somehow I can feel a change in the wind....community seems to matter less and less.) Requested resysop, granted on 30 July.[44]
  11. GB fan (resigned adminship: no reason stated, but said it is related to the events) Resysoped on 18 October 2019.
  12. WJBscribe (resigned adminship and bureaucrat: I note that my action has been overturned by other bureaucrats. In light of that action in the context of recent WMF actions (and failure to engage regarding them), and irrespective of the "recall" discussion started above, I neither wish to continue as an administrator or bureaucrat of this project, nor is it tenable for me to do so.)
  13. 28bytes (resigned as bureaucrat, adminship, and global renamer: There's not much to say that hasn't already been said better by others, so I'll spare everyone my own manifesto except to say there are a lot of good people who edit here, and I will miss working with you all very much)
  14. MSGJ (resigned adminship and interface adminship: I have thought long and hard about this, but do not feel able to continue to contribute in the current environment. I had hoped it would be resolved satisfactorily by now, but this is looking increasingly unlikely. Please accept my resignation and remove the admin tools. Thank you and best wishes) Requested resysop, granted on 1 October.[45]
  15. Floquenbeam (resigned adminship: I am resigning my adminship to protest the contempt the WMF organization and CEO have for WP's volunteers) Requested resysop through an RFA self-nomination on 22 July stating it's important to me (and, I think, to the community) that this be via RFA instead of just asking at WP:BN. RFA successful on 2 August following a bureaucrat chat.
  16. Ad Orientem (resigned adminship: The bottom line is that I have lost confidence in the WMF and the manner in which it interacts with the community here) Requested resysop, granted on 16 July.[46]
  17. MikeLynch (resigned Sanskrit Wikipedia adminship and bureaucrat - now Sanskrit Wikipedia has no bureaucrats) I would like to express my disappointment at the way the WMF has handled this matter so far
  18. Beeblebrox (resigned adminship, checkuser, oversight: I'm out unless and until the foundation repairs it's relationship with this community.) Requested resysop, granted on 28 July.[47]
  19. Jonathunder (resigned adminship: Please remove my admin bit. I've said why on my user page. I think it's best I just go away for a while lest I say or do something rash.) Requested resysop, granted on 9 July.[48]
  20. DoRD (resigned adminship, checkuser, oversight:...the enwiki community is like the world's largest dysfunctional family, and I no longer wish to hold a position of responsibility here). Before that, (requests removal of oversight and check user rights.)
  21. Deor (resigned adminship: Citing Boing! said Zebedee's resignation statement) Resysoped on 10 December 2019 by self-request at BN.
  22. Spartaz (resigned adminship:... it's no big deal to give it up at a time when the WMF are sticking two fingers up To the community here. I simply don't want to use my free time helping to run a website so they can gather more donations for "stuff".) Resysoped on 21 December by self-request at BN.
    After Statement by the Board on July 2
  23. Beetstra (resigned adminship): Full statement ...an utterly empty shell statement. ... When (if?) this resolves I will consider to ask it back, but currently it is of no use for me. WMF can do it by themselves in the meantime. Requested resysop and granted on 8 September.
    Previously, Beetstra (13+ years, 162K+ edits, edit filter manager, administrator) and their anti-spam bot XLinkBot (as noted here) were on strike Until the WMF has rescinded all their actions towards Fram and have handed over the material to be handled locally, I will not perform any volunteer actions in order to protect the content on en.wikipedia (if anythong needs to be done --> ask T&S by email))
  24. Voice of Clam (resigned adminship and 3 month selfblock): full statement I found the Board's response to the Fram affair disappointing to put it mildly... Requested resysop and granted on 25 October.
  25. Xeno, bureaucrat, resigned adminship (after Fram's RFA was closed as unsuccessful).[49] Requested resysop, granted on 26 December.[50].

Retirements

edit
  1. Bradv (25K edits, ArbCom clerk) (retired: enough. Email me when the WMF takes steps to actually fix this place instead of destroy it.) (returned to active editing July 3, 2019)
  2. The Rambling Man (200K edits, retired: retiring until WMF provide suitable explanation for their behaviour) (Appears to have returned to active editing as of July 16, 2019.)
  3. David J Wilson (8K edits, retired One of the great things about volunteering is that when an organisation supposedly devoted to supporting you shows itself incapable of providing a level of support that you consider adequate, there are no adverse consequence from simply withdrawing your labour, which is what I am now doing. diff)
  4. Yintan (68K edits, retired: Wikipedia is now run by a Foundation that needs three weeks to come up with a kind of apology for their mistakes and a CEO who attacks impartial journalists on Twitter diff)

Editors on strike

edit

Subsequent to the WMF Board of Trustees statement:

Table of relevant locations

edit
On wiki
Location Type Link Comments Size (24 June)[1]
Community response
En WP Community response... (WP:Fram) Main page (see also numbered archives

and named archives listed below)

687k
En WP Archive 1 ... There are a lot of archives, the link is to the first 152k, ...
En Talk CR...Talk Talk page 77k
En Talk Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3 Archives 144k,152k, 25k
En WP CR.../Summary (WP:FRAMSUM) Useful timelines 14k
En WP CR.../Proposals about WMF Proposals about WMF Office 34k
En WP CR.../General Proposals General Proposals 175k
En WP CR.../Fram's response Originally on Commons and copied over 22k
En WP CR...Jan Eissfeldt 10k
En WP CR.../Community Conduct An essay on civility[2] 11k
Location Type Link Comments Size
Administrator noticeboard
En WP:AN AN Several proposals, all closed without action
En WP:AN AN "Appropriate responses to FRAMBAN"
En WP:ANI ANI twitter Brief kerfuffle related to Twitter issue
Village pump
En WP:VP Proposed 'crat power Proposed, but quickly closed without action
Bureaucrat noticeboard
En WP:BN Fram Banned Original notice, subsequently moved to WP:Fram
En WP:BN Desysop BU Rob13, Desysop Nick, Desysop The DJ and more User request–granted[3], User request–granted... too many to list, see the BN generally
En WP:BN Desysop Floquenbeam Notice of action
En WP:BN Resysop Floquenbeam User request–granted by WJBscribe

(review by ArbCom requested)

User talk pages
Location Type Link Comments Size
En U Talk User talk:WMFOffice Several messages intended for WMFOffice 21k
En U Talk Fram Banned, Board meeting?

more WMF questions, Who put the WMF in charge?
no contact information for T&S,Ten days

Six threads on Jimbos talk page
En U Talk Notice to Fram Only the notice at the top of the page is relevant
En U Talk Questions for Katherine A few editors request some response about a tweet
En U Talk Katherine Mayer responds Comments about the tweet and other issues[4]
Arbitration
Location Type Link Comments Size
En WP:Arb Arbcom WJBscribe Self report regarding the resysop of Floquenbeam 218k
En WP [57] [58] Edits leading to second warning [5]
En WT:Arb Precipitating edit? Claimed to be the edit which led to the ban
En WT:Arb Request for a comment Request that Arbcom comment on the ban issue
En WT:Arb Can we handle harassment? Discussion of Arbcom role vis-a-vis T&S Whole page is 243k
En WP:Arb Case request regarding Signpost article[6] Case request invo;ing Signpost article about Fram
En WT:Arb Update from the Arbitration Committee The initial notification that ArbCom is to take on the case
En WP:Arb Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram Arbitration case regarding Fram's behavior
Meta & Commons
Location Type Link Comments Size
Meta Meta Office Actions[7] Office actions Policy (on Meta) 51k
Meta Meta User reporting system consultation 2019[8] User reporting system consultation 2019 21K since 13 June 2019
Meta Talk m:Talk:Trust and Safety#FYI Standards for a fair process [9]
Commons U Talk Fram's Talk page Most, but not all the material is relevant. Note: Commons asked that the discussion is taken somewhere more fitting. See below. 65k
Meta U Talk Fram's Talk page Communication with Fram continues here, as Meta is the better Wiki for talking about this issue. 19k
Miscellaneous post-incident pages
En WP Office actions[7] (WP:OA) Office actions Policy 46k
En WP:Afd Fram controversy Discussion of draft article, leaning toward merge
En WP June Signpost Several relevant articles
Location Type Link Comments Size
Off wiki
Location Type Link Comments Size
Email lists Wikipedia Mailing lists
Twitter Social media Pseudo thinkpiece (K Mayer), Monolith misnomer (K Mayer) Tweets from the Executive Director[10]
BuzzFeed Media coverage The Culture War Has Finally Come For Wikipedia Buzzfeed article by Joseph Bernstein
Breitbart Media coverage Wikipedia Editors Revolt over Site’s Ban of Veteran Administrator Breitbart article by T.D. Adler
Slate Media coverage Wikipedia’s “Constitutional Crisis” Pits Community Against Foundation Slate article by Stephen Harrison
Historical Links (on wiki)
Location Type Link Comments Size
En WP:Arb Fram Arbcom 2018 Case Declined
En WP:Arb Fram Arbcom 2016 Case Declined
En WP:Arb Crosswiki issues A case initiated by Fram, but declined
En WP:Arb Dr. Blofeld A case initiated by Fram, but declined
En WP:ANI Request for desysop of Fram Did not happen
En WP:ANI ANI Complaint about Fram 2016 Ended up as boomerang
En WP:AN AN complaint about insults 2013 See subsection Administrator Fram
En WP:ANI Request for TBAN 2017 Didn't happen
En WP:ANI Block review 2019 Block issued by Fram reviewed and accepted
  1. ^ I'm going to stop updating these numbers - you get the picture
  2. ^ Specifically mentions FramBan as motivation for this essay
  3. ^ Not caused by the WMF's actions here, but by the community's.
  4. ^ Note that some other threads on this talk page are also related to Fram issues
  5. ^ These were linked in Fram's response, but deserve separate mention
  6. ^ Link probably needs updating if case accepted
  7. ^ a b Although this page does not directly reference Fram, it the basis for the ban
  8. ^ No reference to Fram, but many editors have discussed how we ought to move forward and this page is very relevant to that discussion
  9. ^ No direct reference to Fram but arising out of this incident
  10. ^ See also followup tweets; notably, one where she explains why she did not delete the tweet

Timeline transcluded from User:Seraphimblade/Draft petition to WMF

edit
another timeline of events
  • On 19 February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation changed its Trust & Safety policy to allow itself to issue bans of less than indefinite duration and on specific wikis.[1][2] This change was made without community consultation to determine if such a change was helpful or desired.
  • On 10 June 2019 at 17:41, WMFOffice blocked and desysopped editor and administrator Fram.[3]
  • On 10 June 2019 at 17:56, a thread was started at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.[4] The proposal was discussed by the community there and later moved to a separate page at Wikipedia:Community response to Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram due to the volume of discussion.
  • On 10 June 2019 at 20:58, the WMFOffice account, an official Wikimedia Foundation role account, posted a statement on behalf of the Trust & Safety Team to the bureaucrats' noticeboard discussion confirming the ban and desysopping but declining to provide further detail.[5]
  • On 11 June 2019 at 08:03, Fram posted a statement to Wikimedia Commons with his understanding of the reasons behind the ban, and giving the WMF permission to post his email communication with them regarding the subject.[6] As of this writing, the WMF has not disputed any portion of this statement.
  • On 11 June 2019 at 11:50, administrator Floquenbeam announced that they planned to unblock Fram in defiance of the office ban[7] and at 12:23 decided to wait until 19:00, noon San Francisco time.[8]
  • On 11 June 2019 at 13:28, administrator Bishonen announced that they plan to support Floquenbeam and unblock Fram if Floquembeam is desysopped.[9]
  • On 11 June 2019 at 18:58, the WMF announced that it would release a second statement, and at 19:11, Floquenbeam wrote that they would wait to see the WMF's statement.[10]
  • On 11 June 2019 at 19:27, the WMF posted a second statement to the community discussion.[11]
  • On 11 June 2019 at 19:39, Floquenbeam unblocked Fram.[12]
  • On 12 June 2019 at 00:32, the WMF desysopped Floquenbeam,[13] allowing resysopping after 30 days in a third statement,[14] and reblocked Fram.[15] No community policy existed at that time to govern resysopping after temporary office desysoppings. At 00:33, the WMF posted a fourth statement.[16]
  • On 12 June 2019 at 07:20, Bishonen unblocked Fram.[17]
  • On 12 June 2019 at 07:31, Nick asked to be desysopped in protest of the Foundation's actions.[18] At 10:54, bureaucrat Primefac desysopped them.[19]
  • On 12 June 2019 at 10:23, Fram made a second statement,[20] and at 19:59, they made a third statement,[21] asking the WMF to send details to mutually trusted editors.
  • On 12 June 2019 at 13:33, in apparent defiance of their office desysopping, Floquenbeam requested a resysop at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.[22]
  • On 12 June 2019 at 23:35, bureaucrat WJBScribe resysopped Floquenbeam[23] and made a statement in response to Floquenbeam's request.[24] At 00:03 on 13 June, they requested arbitration about their own action.[25]
  • On 13 June 2019 at 11:07, administrator TheDJ asked to be desysopped in protest of WJBScribe's resysopping of Floquenbeam.[26] At 11:15, Primefac desysopped them.[27]
  • On 21 June 2019 at 22:53, administrator Gadfium asked to be desysopped in protest of the Foundation's actions.[28] At 23:04, bureaucrat 28bytes desysopped them.[29]
  • On 22 June 2019 at 17:38, administrator Boing! said Zebedee asked to be desysopped in protest on the Foundation's actions.[30][31] At 17:40, 28bytes desysopped them.[32]
  • On 23 June 2019 at 10:52, administrator Kusma asked to be desysopped in protest of the Foundation's actions.[33] At 11:05, bureaucrat Xeno desysopped them.[34]
  • On 23 June 2019 at 17:07, administrator Dennis Brown asked to be desysopped in protest of the Foundation's actions.[35][36] At 17:11, 28bytes desysopped them.[37]
  • On 25 June 2019 at 05:25, editor Beetstra deactivated their bot XLinkBot in protest.[38]

References

  1. ^ Wikipedia office policy extension
  2. ^ Meta-wiki office policy extension
  3. ^ Log entry Fram's first block
  4. ^ Initial bureaucrats' noticeboard post
  5. ^ First statement by the Wikimedia Foundation
  6. ^ Fram's statement on Wikimedia Commons
  7. ^ Floquenbeam's "Statement of Intent"
  8. ^ Floquenbeam's delay until noon
  9. ^ Bishonen's statement
  10. ^ Floquenbeam's last-minute delay
  11. ^ Second statement by the Wikimedia Foundation
  12. ^ Log entry for Floquenbeam's unblock
  13. ^ Floquenbeam's desysop log entry
  14. ^ Third statement by the Wikimedia Foundation
  15. ^ Log entry for Fram's second block
  16. ^ Fourth statement by the Wikimedia Foundation
  17. ^ Bishonen's unblock log entry
  18. ^ Nick's request on the bureaucrats' noticeboard
  19. ^ Log entry for Nick's desysop
  20. ^ Fram's second statement
  21. ^ Fram's third statement
  22. ^ Floquenbeam's resysop request
  23. ^ Floquenbeam's resysop log entry
  24. ^ WJBScribe's statement on the bureaucrats' noticeboard
  25. ^ WJBScribe's request for arbitration
  26. ^ TheDJ's request on the bureaucrats' noticeboard
  27. ^ Log entry for TheDJ's desysop
  28. ^ Gadfium's request on the bureaucrats' noticeboard
  29. ^ Log entry for Gadfium's desysop
  30. ^ Boing! said Zebedee's request on the bureaucrats' noticeboard
  31. ^ Boing! said Zebedee's resignation statement
  32. ^ Log entry for Boing! said Zebedee's desysop
  33. ^ Kusma's request on the bureaucrats' noticeboard
  34. ^ Log entry for Kusma's desysop
  35. ^ Dennis Brown's request on the bureaucrats' noticeboard
  36. ^ Dennis Brown's resignation statement
  37. ^ Log entry for Dennis Brown's desysop
  38. ^ Beetstra's edit to XLinkBot's settings page

Swarm's summary

edit
no longer being updated
  • WMF bans and desysops Fram, a WP:MOSTACTIVE user and admin who retains the enwiki community mandate, without warning or explanation.
  • Community begs for an explantion, WMF refuses to provide one.
  • The community gets pissed, starts speculating about corruption being behind it.
  • WMF responds from a faceless role account with meaningless legalese that doesn't say anything.
  • Fram reveals that it's a civility block following intervention on behalf of User:LauraHale, a user with ties to the WMF Chair.
  • Community is so united in its rebuke of the WMF that an admin unblocks Fram in recognition of the community consensus.
  • WMF reblocks Fram and desysops Floquenbeam (the unblocking admin), still without any good explanation.
  • A second admin unblocks Fram. Consequences to be seen, but apparently will be fairly obvious.
  • We start speculating about just how corrupt the WMF is, what behind the scenes biases and conflicts of interests led to this, and what little we can do against it. ~Swarm~ {sting} 09:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WMF Chair, accused of a direct conflict of interest against Fram, responds, declaring "... this is not my community ...", and blaming the entire incident on sexism, referencing Gamergate. A user speculates that her sensationalist narrative will be run by the media above the community's concerns of corruption. ~Swarm~ {sting} 10:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram/Summary&oldid=1237068490"