Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Proposals about WMF Office

This subpage is limited to proposals, including archived proposals, that specifically concern the future privileges and editing status of the WMF Office, User:WMFOffice and/or other WMF accounts. Content that deals more broadly with Fram, the role of Arbcom or other issues has not been moved here.

Community TBAN on all WMF accounts

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

---

(Feel free to move if this is the incorrect venue) Yes, you read that right. In light of the WMF's nonsensical 1 year ban of Fram for this which would have gotten him blocked for a day at most, and how they apparently completely overstepped arbcom in doing so, I am proposing that All WMF accounts be topic banned from taking action on accounts without consultation from ARBCOM first. I don't care if this is wikicide, I think that this is the right thing to do in light of recent events. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 13:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Blocking WMFOffice as a violation of WP:ROLE would be a good start. If the WMF is going to be blocking / banning editors, they should at least be doing it with an account operated by an identified person. EdChem (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  WMF Legal is also violating WP:ROLE. Those seem to be the only two violating accounts with staff permissions ([1]). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  WP:ROLE has a clear-cut exception for WMF-approved accounts and Office and Legal are both on the list. – Teratix ₵ 13:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  That exception also clearly indicates that the accounts are for contact purposes and are not to be used to edit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Regarding the wish for identification, EdChem, directing aggression at a specific identified person when complaining about an action that was made by a group of people would probably be pretty unhelpful ("attacking the messenger"). This may be the reason for having an WMFOffice account in the first place. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support per everything. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this was a particularly bad decision, but WMF staff accounts, and in particular T&S play a vital role behind the scenes dealing with real issues. I’m personally shocked that they would ruin the goodwill they’ve created over an incident that did not need their intervention, but preventing them from doing their necessary work, even if only symbolically, is not the answer. To be blunt: we don’t want ArbCom dealing with pedophiles again. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this violates the office actions policy and therefore should be a last resort if it is clear all discussion has stalled; not all our options are exhausted yet (e.g. petitioning or waiting for the 14 June board meeting). – Teratix ₵ 13:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose There are times when WMF action is necessary to prevent legal issues or to safeguard someone's health or wellbeing. While outside of these very clear areas they should stay out of things completely, blocking the accounts would have no real benefits and could cause actual harm. Fish+Karate 13:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

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

Given the responces from the Office and the radio silence otherwise, I think we need to seriously discuss doing this. Now. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 05:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Petitioning

I propose the construction of a petition to the WMF, in a similar fashion to meta:Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer, that clearly outlines the community's concerns with the ban and requests it be overturned and any further sanctions pursued through the usual dispute resolution channels, which were left untried. This is a concrete next step that would display a united community front (as Rutebega noted, this is important) but is not as extreme as banning accounts or editor strikes.

This will be my last edit for the night; I hope the situation improves by the time I wake up. – Teratix ₵ 14:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm already in the process of drafting one, at User:Seraphimblade/Draft petition to WMF (may be red for a moment while I get the first draft written up; it'll be turning blue shortly). Everyone's input is very welcome on it; it's not "mine" just because it's in my userspace. In the meantime, could we please all hold off on concrete proposals and !votes until we've got something fully baked? I don't, for example, want to ban the WMF accounts altogether—they handle issues like child protection, threats of violence and suicide, and such issues. I know the details of some of those issues, and while I can't discuss specifics of any of them, I can say in general some would turn your hair white. I have no reason to believe that they do not competently handle cases like that. Where they do fail is at intervening in matters that should be handled by the community, and it is that, in particular, that I think we are seeing "no confidence" expressed in here. So whether it's our statement, or whether community sanctions turn out to be necessary, let's take a moment to avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Community sanctions can, after all, be bans on specific things rather than a full-on site ban, and I think we're perfectly capable of, if the need should arise, crafting a sanction that would allow T&S to do the work they should be doing, while restricting them from usurping areas where the community should be the final authority. Floq, maybe you could give me a hand writing that rather than getting yourself needlessly desysopped; your input would certainly be very valuable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Without commenting on the specifics of the situation, given the unknowns of the situation, I'll leave some thoughts here on the general response. I think that we need to avoid paranoia or blanket statements, given out lack of information. I think that we should draft a petition that would take a similar format to ArbCom decisions with findings of principles, findings of facts, remedies, and enforcement. I think that we should adopt a position that the WMF should refer to ArbCom any local community violations, unless they believe that the complainant would face imminent and real harm from the disclosure to ArbCom or if the WMF is subject to legal requirements. I think that we should request that the WMF disclose to ArbCom the specifics of this case, as a local matter, without an immediate revocation. Then, ArbCom should pass a motion either supporting the action; supporting the result, but rejecting the process; or rejecting the action wholly. StudiesWorld (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

My Proposal

The English Wikipedia Community, ACCEPTING the WMF is permitted to take office actions, in order to protect the safety of users of Wikipedia and enforce the Terms of Use and other legal obligations, or in order to enforce local and global policies, when local processes have failed or the disclosure of details to local processes could pose a real and imminent danger; and BELIEVING the WMF should refer to local processes any complaint it receives that they could effectively handle, share with Stewards and any relevant local privileged users, such as the Arbitration Committee and Check Users, as much information as legally and safely possible regarding any office actions, and publicly disclose, except when prohibited by law or precluded by safety concerns, which policy was being enforced by an office action; CALLS UPON the WMF to brief the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee and the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation regarding the office actions taken against Fram; ASKS that the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee pass a motion expressing their support or lack thereof for the office actions taken against Fram; REQUESTS that an independent panel, including one member of the Trust and Safety Team, one member of the Community Relations team, one member of the Legal team, one member of the Board, three members elected globally by the community, and one member of the Arbitration Committee from each project on which the targets are active (or a locally-active Check User or Steward if no arbitration committee exists), be called to review and approve each office action and prepare a statement to be released to the Community regarding the action; and ASKS that the WMF conduct an investigation into their communication practices and take steps to improve communication regarding office actions.

First draft: StudiesWorld (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I think WMF, as owners/operators of the websites, should retain all first cause actions available to them, for obvious reasons stated previously. However, I believe, as per ToU/Pillars/etc, WMF has a duty to respond to respective Project and Community guidelines/policies/requests. As such, I think it would be a good idea to have an official policy in place that the community can overturn an Office Action, provided that such Action was not instituted for clearly legal or safety reasons (e.g., stalking, pedophilia, copyright violations, etc); instances of general grumpiness ("hostility") could be overturned if the Community felt that the WMF had overstepped its authority. All this being said, however, we have to acknowledge that the ToU do state that they reserve the right to revoke anyone's account at any time, without or without cause. —Trumblej1986 (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Moved [2] 08:20, 13 June 2019 by starship.paint (talk)

Office RFC

We should discuss the role of the Office and whether or not this kind of episode is allowed to be repeated. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

TRM, for clarity, can you say what you'd want the outcome of such an RFC to be? Would you see it as merely feedback from the community to the office (like this page already is)? Or if you think the office has some obligation to take the advice on board, what is the nature of the obligation and what do you want us to do if they ignore it? 67.164.113.165 (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Rather than asking about the (specific) outcome—which is in cart before the horse territory—what are the boundaries of the RfC, or the points to be discussed. My personal opinion is, rather than this page, which is a blunderbuss of discomfort and anger at their actions, a proposed positive framework for future interaction between en.WP and the WMF. We need the WMF and T&S, and they need us too (probably more than we need them: we built the bloody place before they started getting paid big bucks for it!) Trust may have been fractured here, but if needs to be clear boundaries about where ArbCom ends and WMF begins - and that shouldn't be something foisted on us by faceless bureaucrats in the office, but after a discussion on where they should and should not act that leads to a mutual agreement. Consensus shouldn't just be about the content, it should be a major factor in the way we and the WMF interact. - SchroCat (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

That's what I'm getting at: now that they are receiving the big bucks, what do they need us for? Yes of course we built the place, but this story might illustrate the current situation. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree. We may only be tenants in their place, but we're the tenants that made it the place that their doners want to support. ——SerialNumber54129 20:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

We are not "only tenants", and let's not let them spread that bullshit. We built the building. Before the WMF even existed, community members were running the servers, handling issues that came up (at that time on a much more ad hoc basis), and doing pretty much everything the WMF does now. We built the building, and we continue to improve it. WMF's role is accounting and plumbing. They do not own this place and they do not own the content on it. We, the editors, do. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not formulating the RFC here and now, I just want to make sure we don't get another spontaneous 1-year ban applied completely covertly to any editor because some klutz in the Office decides to press a button. It's abundantly apparent that the levels of incompetence here rise to a new high, and we don't want to go through this pain again, on the whim of an incompetent WMF employee. Who wants to contribute to WMF while "under the gun", and an invisible one at that? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

A thought. Anyone can edit, therefor if a community wide decision is made, we can very much make this encyclopedia less encyclopedic quite easily in protest. In short, we can shut this motherf***er down. 2001:4898:80E8:2:A5F:2E62:10E4:D7D1 (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

One thing that is in agreement among most of the parties involved in this matter is that acts to intentionally disrupt the encyclopedia or its contents are not kosher here. Non-violent civil disobedience only.--WaltCip (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I was not meaning to indicate violence, so I am sorry for coming across that way. I was trying to think in the area of protesting with signs. 2001:4898:80E8:2:A5F:2E62:10E4:D7D1 (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

There are already proposals above regarding editor and admin "strikes", where folks refuse to edit until the situation is resolved. Perhaps place your efforts there? Waggie (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade and TRM, I admire your idealism but see here. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Ban WMF people from en.wp?

I find the WMF actions agains Fram completely unacceptable.

Ok, so we cannot undo WP:OFFICE...but we can community ban people from en.wp. Eg editors who are on WMF, say User:Raystorm. Any thoughts? Huldra (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This was suggested above. I don't think it's a good way of clarifying things to the WMF. Incidentally, the community is completely capable of undoing illegitimate office actions. Fram was already unblocked. The WMF has virtually no power except what the community gives it, regardless of whether all individual WMF employees are aware of it. --Yair rand (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a recalcitrant idea that cannot be considered feasible. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I think a discussion on what part WMF (or "Office" or whatever) should be allowed to play here is due and warranted, but isn't this proposal premature and perhaps going too far? ---Sluzzelin talk 23:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This would not have prevented the ban currently in question, nor will it have any bearing on future WMF bans. The community cannot revoke the authority that the WMF has over the project. It can only work with the WMF to encourage that future bans are communicated more clearly. Mz7 (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not think we should ban people from WMF from editing in their volunteer role. I do, however, see merit in considering community sanctions specifying that the WMF may not take Office actions on the English Wikipedia outside the areas where they have traditionally done so (child protection, threats of violence or suicide, or legal matters). WMF employees who hold volunteer admin accounts may continue to act as admins, but their actions will be regular admin actions subject to review or reversal by other administrators or community consensus. That may or may not stop them from doing so, but it would be rather hypocritical of them to impose a ban when in doing so they would themselves be defying a ban. The farther this goes, the more disgusted I'm getting, and the more this seems like a flat-out power grab rather than a misguided but good faith action. Let's not let that pass without taking every measure we've got at our disposal. At the very least, imposition of such sanctions would act as a strong shot across the bow to show that we will not accept San Fran Bans for regular on-wiki editing disputes. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

This seems revengeful and vindictive to me. I don't think that this sends the right message. --Rschen7754 01:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like it will help anything, and will just give the WMF stronger evidence that the English Wikipedia can't solve its own problems. They shouldn't have blocked Fram like they did, but this is not how we should respond. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

We won't improve our autonomy by degrading our processes. Either someone did something blockable/bannable or not. If we ban somebody out of spite, politics, as a favor, out of clannishness, we've sunk to the level we accuse the WMF of being at. And then where's our case? Of course, if you have good reason to take any of those people to ANI, you're always free to do so. Wnt (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

There have been requests that the WMF staff respond on-wiki to concerns raised. It would be inconsistent to ban them, which would prevent them from responding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• This would be a terrible, monumentally hypocritical, idea. We complain about community processes being bypassed, actions taken with conflicts of interest and general injustice. Even if we knew the individuals were involved it should not be taken. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• I'd see it as a valid form of protest. I could see myself supporting a blanket ban/block of all official WMF accounts on enwiki. However, we're not there yet. At the very least, we need to see what happens from that board meeting, and if we get actual answers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Revert WMF actions related to this conflict

I propose, as a temporary measure, that certain classes of office actions taken by WMFOffice be undone. Specifically, blocks, bans, and userrights changes that relate to the current issue. These include the block, ban, and desysop of User:Fram, the retaliatory temporary desysop of User:Floquenbeam, and any further such actions taken in response to implementing any unblocks or user rights changes supported by consensus here.

This would not be a long-term policy, but a temporary stance until everything gets more under control. There's a lot going on right now. The Board is looking into the issue, the higher-ups at the WMF presumably know how inappropriate T&S's actions have been and are likely trying to fix whatever went wrong in their internal processes, and right now what we need is a calm assertion of authority before the WMF gets completely out of hand.

At some point in the future, we need to clarify exactly how much authority is delegated toward the major off-wiki/corporate arm of Wikimedia, and the WMF's Trust and Safety in particular, but for right now, I think we just need to get everything back to normal as smoothly as possible. --Yair rand (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Given the unknowns, we should assume good faith in the WMF and wait until we have more information to take any action. StudiesWorld (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Support and with respect to Studies, we're not going to assume good faith towards someone who's not going to respect it. If the WMF was serious about addressing this they wouldn't have given us content-free responces, nor would they have shit on the consensus of the community and deopped Floq or wheel-warred the unblock. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 01:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano, I hear where you are coming from, but I think that there may be situations where they couldn't disclose more information than they have, why it's local only I'm not sure. I think that the process could have been different, but until we have information to the contrary, I have to be convinced that the action is wholly without merit.StudiesWorld (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

If that were the case then they would have immediately expanded Fram's ban for divulging details on Commons. That they have not done that to my knowledge thus far tells me that this is an excuse, and while I won't contest that there may be some private information involved it's asinine to think that all of it is privileged given what we know from Fram. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 01:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to hear from the WMF whether they contest Fram's account. It's also possible, and likely from my interpretation of current policy, that they may not have fully disclosed to Fram the exact diffs for the ban. StudiesWorld (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

If they were going to contest Fram's account they would have done so by now. They've made two statements since Fram replied. Both have been more or less boilerplate and content-free. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 02:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not confident in that, given the potential privacy issues. Sometimes prosecutors, or in this case, WMF, have to let the defendant make false or uninformed statements to avoid breaching their obligations. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You say that right now what we need is a calm assertion of authority... What you propose is neither calm nor assertive. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Support as per Jéské, they are now resorting to wheel-warring with no explanation and against clear consensus. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Support - This is gross overreach by the WMF, and the proposal is a reasonably measured response to that overreach. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. The Land (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Mu Even if we wanted to (and I'll admit I'd like to), its literally not possible. Office actions cannot be overruled by the community. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose for the same reason as in all of the other places where this same thing is being !voted on. ST47 (talk) 10:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose AGF of WMF. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Support and very glad to see the admins and crats who've done so. EllenCT (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:WMFOffice - Ban Proposal

Hi all, I've proposed a indef ban & block on WMFOffice. Comments/!votes are welcomed. -FASTILY 08:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Will the posters behind the role account User:WMFOffice posts of Statement A, Statement B, Statement C, and Statement D identify themselves and who they represent? For transparency and accountability to the community. Also requesting future identifications while using the account. starship.paint (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Will User:WMFOffice posters identify themselves?

I understand that you act in official capacity when you edit with this account; however, it would help set a positive tone if it would be clear who the person speaking is? Generalisations like "we" or "the WMF Office" sound official, but they also add a distance between you and "the community".--Schreibvieh (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Schreibvieh: - you okay with merging your topic into mine? It seems that we both had similar ideas at the same time...? starship.paint (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Assuming they won't do that, I wonder if they would tell us whether they intend to limit access to the account and control over the "Trust and Safety" bans to personnel within the actual office, or whether they are using or will use subcontractors like Cognizant to review postings? Do they have to provide expedited access to official or covert government agencies to make these decisions? Are they subject to a coordinated program of censorship with other social media that requires a uniform business model, terms and conditions, and procedures for enforcement, as well as a gag on their motivations and procedures? Yeah, they're not going to answer those either. But my paranoia can, and my paranoia is more reliable than most other sources of information I have here. Wnt (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

So the enwiki community can harass them like they are Laura and Raystorm? No. I applaud the WMF for taking reasonable measures, such as the use of the WMFOffice account, in an attempt to shield their employees from the toxicity of the enwiki community at this current time. It is a credit to the Foundation that they are respecting the duty of care they owe their employees by preventing a single individual employee from facing widespread harassment for merely publishing a statement that is coming from the WMF as a whole. Perhaps reflect upon why a WMF employee would want/need a degree of separation from the atrocious behavior of the community at the moment. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Rob, I agree with everything you say about harassment and I also agree that the level of aggression and foulmouthed abuse being hurled around is too high here at enWP. BUT: A secret trial, with secret and unaccountable judges, no opportunity for the accused to defend themselves, secret accusers, secret accusations, secret evidence, and to top it off, no appeal possible? Sorry, but for me that's a bridge too far and I will not stand for this kind of Stalinist practices. At a minimum, ArbCom should have been informed, with Fram being allowed to defend themselves, again at a minimum, by email to the Arbs. It's not so much the action that I object to (for all I know, it was completely justified), it's the method that is completely, utterly, and totally unacceptable. --Randykitty (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• It seems that ArbCom was informed that action was being investigated against Fram. StudiesWorld (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• There is no need for whoever T&S employee pushed the button to reveal who they are. We'll gain no useful information, and expose that person to harassment, doxxing, and worse. The criticism is directed at the T&S team collectively, and ultimately, the WMF. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• As a person who have sought help, I would say, no. Pushing that one single blue button is not what anyone single staff can instantly do, but is a collective decision of members of the Trust and Safety Team (and also other teams that may be possibly involved).--1233 ( T / C） 09:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)