Knowledge:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 5

1759:

in protecting people, in addressing rampant bullying, in controlling idiotic tendencies for mob rule (evident on this page). I and I think the majority of persons who have participated in Knowledge (most of whom have been driven away by bullying and other idiocy here) certainly do hope/believe that some control / strong actions / whatever will come down from above, by rights of the owners/managers of this site, to address the bullying and idiocy. Right, it is hard for people who have gotten their way to absorb this. Any which way it is communicated will be blasted with further idiocy (sorry to be blunt), such as the ridiculous dismissals of any validity to the Office's position due to some being dumbfounded about the one-year term of the action taken. With ridiculous assertions that because it is a one-year term it must be wrong, etc. The majority here has no willingness to recognize any circumstance under which bullying and gross behavior here can/will be tamped down. I certainly hope this Office action is the first of many in a increasing sequence that will be imposed upon continued inaction/idiocy on the part of the collective Knowledge community. Of which I am a part, I and you and everyone should recognize that the sum of our actions has been pathetic, and we are all to blame. Any outsider, any consultant about bullying/harrassment is indeed appalled at what goes on here. I am really glad some action is being taken, maybe enough to prompt this community to begin to consider what needs to be done to head off further escalating actions by the Office. There is little willingness shown on this page to begin that process, it is all raging protest which I personally think is pathetic. Sorry, that's just my opinion. --

2480:

its data, is irrelevant to GDPR as GDPR applies to all individuals and organisations handling data about EU citizens. Members of the board and quite a few employees are in the EU and so are reachable by the various data commissioners at an individual level. Should the WMF wish to redact/hide the identities of third parties mentioned in their material (but would still be required to provide the material) there are other options. The UK has Section 35 DPA requests - essentially an organisation has to disclose the identity of individuals for the purposes of legal actions - eg you want to sue someone in a civil court for, purely hypothetically here, making libellious statements about you to an organisation you are volunteering for, and the organisation wont tell you who it is or provide evidence so you can defend yourself. I make the comparison here between the two to point out - a SAR is not a legal action. Its a right guranteed to all EU Citizens (and residents of the EU) and an obligation for individuals and organisations who collect data in the EU or on EU residents to comply with. If is not complied with, the next step is reporting to the data commissioner. A section 35 DPA request IS a legal action, being a prior step required in many civil cases in order to make sure the correct individual (to be sued) has been identified. I really dont think Jimmy and the other EU board members want to start having to answer questions to ICO and its EU equivelents about why they are holding star chamber courts on EU citizens with private undisclosed evidence from other unnamed EU individuals.

454:, and they don't care how the community feels about this. How is any editor supposed to react now to the threat of being reported to a completely unaccountable group that will gladly hand out apparently arbitrary punishments for secret reasons? Even if the threat is never made explicitly, it could very well be on a lot of editors' minds now during any kind of dispute, especially when an established editor is on the other side, and even more so when that editor is perceived to have pull with the foundation. I don't trust T&S to exercise sound judgement, and I am not alone. If their goal is to discourage harassment, they have utterly failed by refusing to define it. If their goal is to protect the identity of the accuser(s) in order to shield them from further harassment, well, congratulations, because multiple people are getting harassed over mere suspicion anyway. If their goal is to appear anything but capricious, one wonders why they issued this first-of-it's-kind ban against someone against whom some in the foundation are perceived, accurately or not, to hold a grudge. If ArbCom loses the trust of the community, they can be replaced at the ballot by the very people over whom they wield power. But we seem to be stuck with these self-appointed super-admins, and unable to get more than patronizing waffle in response to our concerns. 6434:

forthcoming about why, the target of the punishment pointed to some minor infraction as the sole reason for the punishment, and everyone got upset at management overreacting to minor infractions. Every time, it eventually turned out that management was not forthcoming for good reasons but had not been overreacting — that the supposed minor infraction was part of a much bigger pattern of more serious problems. I don't want to suggest that this is what is happening here; I know nothing more than anyone else here does. But many here seem to have rushed to the judgement that Fram's side of the story is the only side and that he was set up for nefarious reasons as part of a power grab or personal vendetta, and while that is more plausible than WMF making an example of someone who said "Fuck" once as a way to ensure civility, it still doesn't make a lot of sense and I think it's premature to conclude anything. As for starship.paint's demands that people who do know more tell: I think the mob mood clearly on evidence here makes that a bad idea. starship.paint may want the names and stories of victims in order to become more empathetic, but others in the comments above seem to want the names of accusers in order to subject them to mob justice. —

1685:

Notably, I'm fairly sure that the WMF's view of the situation has competent legal advice behind it. From what I can tell, so far no one has provided legal advice supporting your or Seraphimblade's view on the WMF's lack of ultimate control. Also, even if you did receive legal advice supporting your position it could easily be a moot point. Like it or not the WMF has a lot of money behind them as well. Maybe you'll be able to convince enough people to act pro-bono but if not you're going to have to convince enough people here to put their money where their mouth is and fund the multimillion legal case you'll need to test the WMF's view of their control. To be clear, I won't be helping fund such an effort in any way because I think it's a long lost cause and a bad cause at that. I have no sought legal advice supporting my view of the situation is that the WMF is correct, it's simply a gut feeling based on the little I know of the law etc. Still to be clear I do believe whatever the history here, they now have ultimate authority to decide on what goes on in all their sites. The time to challenge that if anyone wanted to has long passed.

3694:: Stewards are specifically selected by the global community to carry out certain technical activities. They are specifically *not* selected for their understanding of or ability to carry out dispute resolution, content management, or individual user behaviour management. They do not have the knowledge, experience, or scope to deal with these situations. Nothing that occurred here, particularly as it is a local ban, required or even suggested there would be any useful input or action on the part of stewards. On enwiki, only users with super-advanced permissions (i.e., checkuser and oversight, Arbitration Committee, and those who run the Arbcom elections) have any reason to work with stewards, and the majority of stewards have no connection to the enwiki community. That they have "more information" than even the local dispute resolution body about this block is extremely disturbing. If the WMF wants to turn stewards into their "community authority", then the global community needs to be informed, and the global community needs to have the opportunity to select stewards on a completely different basis. 6807:, I am very sympathetic to the thought process that lead you to this request, because it's something that I'm wondering about myself. That said, I don't think it works as written. I'm not sure whether minor tweaks or more substantive changes are required. For my rationale, let me start with a hypothetical (which might not be all that hypothetical). Imagine an interaction between editor A and editor B. B feels harassed. Everything relevant about the situation relating to A is on wiki. Almost everything relevant involving B is on wiki except that B writes a private email to T & S expressing concern. We not only permit such a private email, we encourage it. Yet that technically means the second of the two statements would apply. The tweak might modify the statements to exclude such a private communication but it might be a slippery slope. Again, I'm sympathetic to the desire to figure out whether actions are based upon information that we all potentially could see or actions that might be unknown to us, but I don't think the simple phrasing works. 5528:, do you really think something “legal” happened here? You do know the history of the involved parties, correct? Some parties that were made involved by T&S providing the diffs to Fram that illustrated the issues they had with him? I have to assume you don’t because, I’d assume if you knew the history between these parties. Like Fram’s conflicts with the WMF’s broken software launches, a launch that the current head of T&S forced on de.wiki through a new privilege that was quickly removed. A conflict with an editor with obvious ties to a WMF board member. We have T&S’s warnings to Fram to leave certain people alone even though they produced policy violating crap and the apparent final straw was Fram’s criticism of the current ArbCom. I’m not going to argue that Fram can’t be an asshole. That would be a stupid argument. I am going to argue that your ridiculous faith in the WMF that Fram did something illegal because a COI strewn WMF said so is naive. Shit, the T&S didn’t even claim that much or else Fram would be globally banned. 2704:

legal and otherwise relationship between the WMF and WP. I agree with a lot of what BMK said above the section break. Yes, under US law, WMF "owns" all of the infrastructure of all of the WMF projects. And they have the legal right to require every project to adhere to Terms of Use. So WMF could decide at any time, without consultation with the rest of us, to shut down the servers and make the websites go dark, any time they want to, and I doubt that any court in the US would rule against their doing so. Likewise, any legal owner of a private business has the legal right to mismanage it to the point of running it into the ground (although a private charity has some legal obligations to their charitable contributors, just as a publicly-traded business has certain obligations to shareholders). But the fact that something is legally permissible is not the same thing as being sensible. The whole concept of everything-"WMF" is to crowdsource each project, including en-Wiki. Without an editing community, the WMF would have the

5096:

based on unreliable sources, misinformation, or disinformation". en-WP's mission is to collect and distribute free "information" based on peer-reviewed reliable sources to the best of our collaborative abilities. In this mission, cases of content disputes, behavioral issues and questions of best practices emerge. It is there we need admins and local bodies who are willing to examine and weigh the evidence – preferably in open, but sometimes in private – to reach an independent decision. They must then pass judgment – preferably with kind words in a respectful tone, but if necessary in harsher/firm language – that may feel bad or even hostile to one editor or a group of editors. In this mission, the WMF with extraordinary powers has a role, but only a very limited role, one that requires checks and balances. This role includes complying with United States court orders and our laws pro-actively, acting in cases of child protection, acting in cases of threats of harm to oneself and others, and other cases

1641:

not worth getting into dispute over especially not here and at this time. But I'm concerned that some people seem to genuinely believe that legally the WMF cannot override the community. Whether because of something to do with the history of how the site was formed and the WMF or some other reason. My belief, which as I said below is not based on much, is they are seriously mistaken and actually the WMF is right and if these people actually try to prove it via the only way possible i.e. a court case, they will lose spectacularly. And I think this is important since if I'm right, it seems to me they're in for a world of hurt when I'm proven right. And besides that, I do think that having some basic understanding of the actual legal situation is important here. I am particularly concerned that people may be contributing with some mistaken belief of the legal situation since I'm all for people making informed choices about how they spend their time and efforts which requires the 'informed' part.

692:

handling complaints like harassment, and we have every hope that that system will facilitate local, community handling of these issues. However, at the current time, no such system exists for victims to make reports privately without fear that their “case” will be forced to become public. Indeed, it is often true that a mere rumor that someone was the victim of harassment can lead to harassment of that person. Unfortunately, that has been proven the case here as some individuals have already made assumptions about the identities of the victims involved. Accordingly, the Foundation is currently the venue best equipped to handle these reports, as we are able, often required by laws or global policies, to investigate these situations in confidence and without revealing the identity of the victim. That is why we will not name or disclose the identities of the individuals involved in reporting incidents related to this Office Action.

708:

Foundation mission. In order to conduct informed and contextualized investigations, safeguard the community at events, and support community governance, Trust & Safety has focused on building a team with a combination of deep Wikimedia movement experience and team members who have experience with Trust & Safety processes with other online communities. To better assess incidents, the team has people from diverse geographic, linguistic and cultural backgrounds. We have former ArbCom members, administrators, and functionaries, from English Knowledge as well as other language communities, informing our decisions, and expertise from other organisations helping to build compassionate best practices. We have utilized all of this experience and expertise in determining how best to manage the reports of harassment and response from members of the community.

3688:

about the manner in which he has interacted with WMF staff. Fram also has a pretty good history of being right when pointing out problems with software or technical matters, and going against WMF Tech/Development (especially when they are creating major issues that have large-scale negative impacts) has historically been one of the most frustrating and thankless tasks that community members could take on, which has earned him the grudging respect of community members in some quarters. There is also a history here of concerns or complaints about Fram from people who have or are perceived to have a disproportionate influence on WMF staff compared to "average" contributors. Whether or not this history was involved in any way in the final decision to block, it is the one point that is clearly visible to the community when we look at Fram's contributions.

3678:: Until this past week, it was widely understood that OFFICE actions were permanent removals of a person from all projects. It was the "nuclear weapon" that both local and global communities recognized was needed in certain narrow circumstances, and that is why it has been respected for many years. This current usage is not in any way similar to that usage. While Trust & Safety may feel that they need to carry out these (potentially temporary) local actions, it is very inappropriate to be using the same tool for this as it is for those well-understood "nuke" situations. If a user is not so irredeemable that they are still allowed to contribute on other projects, then a different tool is called for. It is not reasonable to use the biggest weapon in the arsenal to deal with a localized issue; surgical precision is required, and OFFICE is not it. 6329:, what I know is that some editors in the last few years perceived that they were being harassed by Fram. Whether I actually know any of their names is irrelevant. I also know, from my career in Human Resources, that when someone perceives that they are being harassed, they feel like a victim. My tweet did not refer to any statements made by the WMF so please don't read into it something which isn't there, and, for the record, I have no "insider" information regarding the WMF's case. I stand behind my statement that we should be empathetic to those who have been hurt. I hope that ArbCom and/or the WMF seeks the opinions of those who have been harassed on how to improve our community health in such a way that incidents such as this Office Ban do not occur again, rather, problems are addressed more quickly and more efficiently. -- 6775:

to raise our standards to the expected minimum, as it would always be preferable for the community to impose the sanction so as to minimize drama, blowback, controversy, etc. Surely such a vague piece of minimal addtional information would not put any victims/accusers at risk, and if you don't act before multiple complaints have been filed then while we can find the issues upon digging into the editing and mail archives, we would never be able to identify one single incident or complaint as the one to "blame". For example, we might surmise that uncivil demeanor towards the Arbitration Committee was unacceptable and strengthen our civility policy to reflect that. On the other hand, if we are told that "other behavior" is a factor, it would be more difficult recognize where policy enhancements would help. Thank you.

3672:. This is pretty much the opposite of what everyone on this project (and in fact, just about everyone in the global community) understood OFFICE actions were all about. This change in use of the OFFICE power has been completely undiscussed with the Wikimedia community in any formal setting of which I am aware, at either a local enwiki level or a global level. This is a major failure of communication, because it leaves contributors uninformed of what kinds of behaviour may lead to OFFICE actions. It is clear from what we have learned from the Dewiki and Zhwiki communities that the practice of localized bans was put into place some months ago (although this appears to be the first non-permanent ban), so there is no justification for failing to inform the global community of the change in the use of OFFICE actions. 7347:". And, on the other side of the coin, there would also be sensitivities if it seemed WMF were taking sides, one user over another, in a public process. But the clear message needs to go out, that we expect T&S to normally encourage (and perhaps support) users to work through established community processes, unless there are reasons not to do so that are truly pressing and overwhelming. That does not appear to be the case here, so the community is entirely right to be up in arms. T&S has serious questions to answer, if it felt its involvement here was unavoidable - to the community, preferably; failing that, if necessary, to the board. Its role is not to supplant Arbcom and community processes except in the most extreme circumstances -- which these do not appear to have been. 6826:, I think we can assume that there will almost always be non-public communication from B to the WMF. Obviously all or most office actions will be based on a privately-filed complaint from B, about an A. I don't think we need to know whether an Office Action resulted from privately-filed complaint(s), nor how many privately-filed complaints, or if it's something that the Foundation's artificially-intelligent bots scanning for abuse discovered on their own. What is relevant is whether A was abusive in a private discussion or incident. If, at the time of the initial complaint, there was no off-wiki abuse then it would be a (1). If, in sending a private response to an inquiry made during a T&S investigation A was abusive, that would change the initial (1) case-type to a (2). Make sense? 3684:: This is the first OFFICE ban of its kind, a time-limited single-project ban affecting a user on the largest Wikimedia project. In order to develop community buy-in for this new process, it was important that the target of the ban be someone who was clearly behaving in a way that was (a) unacceptable to a significant part of the community and (b) whose inappropriate actions were focused on the ordinary editorship. Community buy-in should be a primary goal in taking such an unprecedented action, particularly when it disproves everything that the community understood about such actions. It is unreasonable to believe that Fram is the only "problem" user whose behaviour is being watched by the Trust & Safety staff. The WMF should have waited until they had a better target. 2395:

greater legal risk they generally raise for themselves since they may no longer seen as a simple service provider with safe harbour protections but instead a publisher or similar. How this relates to the situation here is complicated. Simplistically it may suggest it's a mistake for them to get involved, but that assumes you're only worried about minimising legal liability. If you're worried about doing the right thing however you define that, then it's far less clear the WMF should avoid involvement simply because it may create greater liability and requirement for them to be involved. Notably, I hope no one in this discussion wants the WMF to be involved in child protection cases only because of the possibility of legal risk.

676:

must be a certain minimum standard to those expectations. Sometimes, local communities find it difficult to meet that minimum standard despite their best efforts due to history, habit, dislike by some volunteers of the standard, or wider cultural resistance to these standards. However, it is important to keep in mind that even communities that are resistant to it or are making a good faith effort are expected to meet the minimum standards set in the Terms of Use. In cases where community influences or barriers interfere with the meeting of these minimum standards, the Foundation may step in to enforce the standards - even in situations where the local community dislikes or outright opposes those standards.

3700:: The overall impression given by the OFFICE action in this case is that the WMF has decided to implement a radical change in its manner of dealing with what it perceives to be unacceptable behaviour on the part of individual community members without formally discussing with either the global or local community, and has used a tool that was previously only used for very serious situations that were clearly outside of the ability of local communities to address. The WMF is treating this as a shot across the bow for communities to....well now, here's the hard part. It's completely unclear what their concern is here, what they want us to change, what they see as problematic. It comes across as a 4050:. But I'm much more pessimistic than Risker: unless Doc James comes away from this widely over-anticipated meeting tomorrow and has been shown proof (rather than just be assured that proof exists) that I'm 100% off base, my faith in WMF T&S - which until recently, until 3 goddamn days ago, was nearly unshakeable - is irretrievably broken. They were like the one portion of WMF I respected. Now I realize that WMF in general (and now I'm guessing T&S in particular) literally doesn't care whether my trust in them is broken; I'm an easily replaceable cog. Maybe a few of my peers here care, which is why I even bother to spend time typing this. -- 6914:

administrator have sent a complaint to him to their friends in the Fund. And these friends repressed the administrator against the will of the community and not providing a justification. As a result, Knowledge has been deprived of a useful participant for a year (and this is a long time!). And now it turns out that everyone who has detractors is at risk of being blocked by their complaint. This is unacceptable and violates all norms of the project. I hope that my concerns will be dispelled. But for this I need an adequate explanation from the Fund indicating specific violations the rules by Fram. ~

3369:, I appreciate your perspective. It's just that when legal or safety issues are involved, as seems to be the case here, I don't think that we get to know. In my example, the jury would be T&S. In a legal case (at least in the US), we don't get to know the reasons why the jury decided, we only get to know what the jury decided. I think this is similar. Of course, in the US, it's can be easier to allow the victim to remain anonymous. But there are parts of cases that are closed to the public. These things happen and I think that in the balance, it's OK. I think this situation is similar. 2253:'s option is a better way for the WMF to deal with such confidential complaints. WMF is responsible for running the servers, but the community is responsible for the content being held on those servers. Issues arising out of editors' behaviour on-Wiki need to be delt with by the community. If there are weaknesses in the way the community deals with those matters the solution is to modify those processees or institute new ones. In no way is it appropriate for the WMF to usurp the community, not least because of the denial of natural justice inherent in Star Chamber procedings. - 2765:

legal theory of giving very broad rights to leaders of non-governmental (private) organizations to do anything legal that they want to do. I assume (but could be wrong) that this also means that they have pretty wide discretion to make and internally enforce any (law-compliant) rules that they want to. So I'm pretty sure that I'm correct at least to the point that the WMF Board could enact any (law-compliant) rule or policy they want, and the editing community would have zero chance of success at getting a US court to intervene. But my point was that

3665:: Until this week, everyone on English Knowledge understood that an OFFICE action against a user was taken when there was no appropriate local process to address the issue, or the issue needed to be addressed globally. We knew this meant things like paedophile advocacy, realistic threats of harm against other users, deception in access to non-public personal information, or something to that effect. It was big, it was major, and it was quite literally unaddressable by the community, and it justified a permanent removal from all projects. 5177:. In case anyone may find it useful. I don't think a major share of 1233's comments on the zh community can be substantiated, however, I also do no have detailed information on the specific case. People who explained tend have different attitude, and my reaction to this post is similar to my response to Techyan's post: It's quite different and the office's over-reaching use of their power does not mean they shouldn't have any power at all. The problem is not if but how. Police brutality doesn't mean we should just abolish police, likewise. 7460:

have hijacked the project to turn it into Armenian-genocide-denial-pedia. The admin at the centre of the dispute more or less admitted it. That seems pretty bad, doesn't it? Like something the WMF would want to step in and urgently do something about, in defense of their brand and Knowledge's mission? Well, you'd be wrong. The Foundation seems plenty comfortable trying to let the global community (with participation from the allegedly corrupt azwiki admins) work this one out on its own. There has been a discussion going on over at meta (

2399:

some wikimedia site. I wonder if this involvement itself may create legal risks with the WMF being viewed as a simple service provider. Having clearly delineated accounts for staff and "volunteer" contributions may help, but unless there is some case law which has tested this I wonder how easy it will be to have confidence in how the courts will rule. This strikes me as the sort of thing where what you say publicly and what lawyers tell you privately may differ precisely because you don't want any courts using it against you.

3929:

said before, when this impacts just one project then notifying the appropriate local group makes sense too. But for us to have a big picture understanding of the WMF's involvement, we need to know about things like this ban, the removal of CUs from zhwiki, and other actions targetting specific projects that still fit within a bigger picture of WMF actions. And I'll throw my usual plug in about these being internet websites and the counter-productive nature of setting up more and more pretend jurisdictional boundaries. --

3192:

their own privacy policy. They should either say enough to be transparent, or say nothing. The WMF clearly were naive here, and have not been handling the fallout well. If they had any sense, they would undo their actions, back off and leave on-wiki civility/interpersonal interaction issues for ArbCom to deal with. There is still a sense that more went on here, some set of double standards. If the Board can demand full disclosure of what was discussed at each level of review of this decision, they should do that.

2144:- not that this is a carefully thought-out idea, but I was thinking elect them for something like a 1-2 year term with the option of being re-elected maybe once. Pay them for their time (so they're a WMF contractor), but don't make this a real "job". Have them report to the ED (since employees shouldn't be answerable to the Board). Mostly it's about having someone the community trusts who has the power to oversee and review things (again, in a way the Board can't, or shouldn't be able to). And yeah, maybe, as 3482:

the decision made by T&S, or perhaps, WMF Legal made the actual decision and T&S simply carried it out. The wiki community and Fram will probably never know all the facts, but as an HR professional, I am confident in assuming that there was legal justification for the T&S action. I am also assuming that the T&S action is meant to protect the identity of people involved in the investigation who need/want to remain anonymous for their protection... names that might surprise everyone. --

605:

manner that is both consistent with our Privacy Policy and any other commitments made to the person disclosing their information. When dealing with sensitive allegations of inappropriate behavior, we must ensure that we are upholding a relationship of trust and confidence with people who have entrusted us with personal information about their experiences. This means that even in cases where users have signed a community NDA, our legal obligations may not allow us to share information given to us.

31: 157:

WMF can see through this sort of thing, but seeing how certain parts of the organization are run, and some of the bizarre things that have come from those who aren't as familiar with the communities - maybe not. (Keep in mind that James Alexander and Philippe Beaudette, the past T&S managers (I think?) were both heavily involved in this Wikimedia community and still are admins here today - but they are no longer employed by WMF and can no longer intervene in matters like this).

1343:

place, the' we can't do anything about it, which is simply just not true. Unless the people at the WMF are soulless, immoral, unethical zombies who care nothing about the fate of their premier website, they are susceptible to being swayed by argumentation, protest, and just acts of "civil disobedience", which is precisely what is happening. If you believe that their legal ownership of the place means that they are willing to destroy it, I believe you are very sadly mistaken,

1512:

tenants pay rent and have rights. We arent tenants, we are guests. We can try to reason with them and hopefully they see that the value the WMF is able to offer anybody and why anybody would ever donate to them is the work of us guests, but this is in fact a privately owned website and the WMF is the owner of it. It is quite literally their property. Like any other non-profit it has certain responsibilities, but agreeing to this projects "independence" is not one of them.

273:

civility police (which is a pretty new development), but they did not really explained what level of civility they expect to see etc. Apparently, we should learn from the examples of people they are going to ban what is possible and what is not possible. (And they screwed up even this, I do not really know at the moment what I should learn from the Fram's case, except for a couple of minor details). This looks more like a minefield, or, indeed, random alien abductions.--

3296:

to litigate the situation themselves and decide for themselves if the issues were "bad enough" to warrant the ban. In the real world, we trust processes like juries to make these decisions without knowing the details of what the jury decided. What goes on in the jury room stays in the jury room. And even in the real world, some victims are kept anonymous for their own protection. Sometimes we have to understand that we don't always have to know the details. So I

1934:

contracted agents - and you can't write an NDA that gets around that. I think it could be shared with ArbCom members if those members signed agreements making them contracted agents of the WMF, but that obviously can not and should not happen, for many reasons. Whatever the Knowledge community wants ArbCom to be responsible for, it can not be responsible for confidential complaints sent directly to the WMF (at least, not without the consent of the complainant).

740:

to stand whether it is being technically enforced by a block or not. Should Fram edit English Knowledge during the one-year period of their ban, the temporary partial ban of User:Fram will be enforced with a global ban (and accordingly a global lock). We must stress again that Office Actions, whether “technically” reversible or not, are not to be considered reversible by a local, or even the global, community, no matter the circumstances or community sentiment.

3387:(ec) I wish you wouldn't paint critics of WMF's action here with such a wide brush. I, for one, barely knew Fram. I am objecting because of the process, because this is the most serious challenge to our self-governance in three years. Some secrecy and sensitivity is good, WMF's stonewalling and holier-than-thou attitude is not. You think the hundreds of thousands of people marching in Hong Kong don't care about the victim of the horrific murder in Taiwan? -- 1662:- A massive amount of this debate is based on the morality of an organisation formed to serve the community taking unrequested additional control. You're certainly right on the legal side - but this discussion (both generally and this very section) has never just been about that. Nor should it. Both morality and pragmatically (in the sense of damaging the Community) are vital areas to consider. The idea of putting them off is inappropriate and unwise. 4323:

plaintiffs. The latter is a no-holds-barred multi-perspective survey of implications, precedents, source and claims evaluations etc. There is no dialogic prospect in sight, given the diversity of presuppositions at work. I prefer not to contribute to the discussions because I think we should, having an extensive coverage of opinions at least on these boards, try to synthesize the gravamens of the dispute (in good part excellently marshaled by both

2624:, please don't get me wrong, I don't condone doing such a thing. I consider threatening violence against another editor to be grounds for an immediate, no-questions-asked indef. But at the same time, "I might get a threat on the Internet" isn't the end of the world either. I've been getting them since before the World Wide Web existed (if I might date myself a bit), when it was still Usenet and BBS setups, and I'm still quite alive and healthy. 2797:

as part of holding the CEO to account, in turn the CEO may delegate that work to her senior managers or expert contractors. With regard to deviating from the annual plan, that is the CEO's job to make those operational calls, but any well managed board will have pre-agreed limits to both organizational or budget changes and if the CEO breaks those limits they are at risk of being replaced by someone who the board will find more reliable. --

2709:

actions were going to be. And it seems very unlikely that what was done with Fram falls within that understood scope. (Maybe there's something I don't know, I admit.) The fact that WMF has the US-legal right to do what they did to Fram does not entitle them to expect a happy or placid response from the crowd that crowdsources en-Wiki. There is nothing sensible, in terms of fostering a wiki-based editing community, in what WMF did here. --

3914:, I could see your point about a global ban, although I'm not entirely persuaded that stewards are the right group to handle that, and might actually suggest Ombuds would be more appropriate; however, we are not talking about a global ban in this case. We are talking about a local ban. There was no need for steward involvement or for informing stewards, since there is no element of it that falls into that group's jurisdiction. 1063:- it would obviously be impossible to gain the consent of all 750 local communities. It would also be damaging to the global community just to require en-wiki's permission. However it would be well within the abilities to put together a global discussion, advertising that changes are being mooted on all 750. I cite as an example...the current advertising we have, the brand change, etc etc. An excellent piece of work 3716:

as a community. Let's stop the "fork" conversations; it's not going to happen. There are issues, yes. Some of these need to be addressed at a global level, not just here on enwiki, and we will need to consider exactly what message we want to send, how we can encourage other projects to understand and join in our message, and what outcome we really want to see. Let's take some time to think about that.

1593:

representative of the community in some way (House and Senate, if you will). And the board governs the corporate entity of WMF. So there do exist checks and balances to keep them in line - at the very least they cannot afford to alienate the entire global community. This is of course far removed from everyday WMF affairs, but we own the WMF just as much as the American people own the United States. --

7158:

that the community overwhelmingly backed. It doesn’t add up. How can one, or two, or even a handful of users lobby the Office for a unilateral ban of a MOSTACTIVE admin? Since when can we circumvent the process by lobbying the office? Or was a staff member on Fram’s case the whole time? In either case, why wasn’t this referred to the relevant on-wiki authority? Laura, do you have any insight on this?

4542: 4777: 4767: 5511:. If there was discussion, it wasn't terribly prominent. Presumably there's a similar page on Meta. Personally, I'm assuming, until someone tells me something else or that I'm wrong, this is a new type of ban, will circumvent local governance and dispute resolution and we can expect to see more of these. Hence, we're all confused and jumping to conclusions that most likely aren't correct. 4025:

all costs" school of argument many editors belong to, its fundamental incivility, and how it makes me feel far less safe than f-bombs, and has led to my withdrawing from improving articles on important topics, and more and more into trivial little articles. But this isn't helping. This is making editing less safe. Who will they target next, without even explaining it to their target?

4148:- enwiki functionaries were directly invited to comment. My comment centered around the fact that there was a major conflation between disruptive editing and harassment in a lot of what was there. That "consultation" is still ongoing, so I doubt it had any significant bearing on this specific case, which seems to have been initiated about 14 months ago, based on what Fram has said. 4006:

advantages like a much better UI and a deeply inclusionist ethos. I was surprised to read someone as perceptive as yourself seems to have such low trust for WMF. Maybe you could meet a few WMF staffers at the various RL events they often attend - they're not so bad once you get to know them. Though I agree this Fram affair could have been handled better, to put it mildly.

956:

but it's simply infeasible to ask every community to approve changes to WMF operations prior to them taking effect on their wiki. In regard to your opposition to leaving messages with the role account, it's useful for leaving messages on behalf of the entire WMF Office. From what I understand, there is rarely, if ever, only one person behind decisions like these. Thank you,

164:

2015-2016). Or, is it going to put me into an untenable position and an unjustifiable risk to keep serving as an admin here and on Wikidata? For someone who has edited for almost 15 years, these aren't easy questions. Or maybe I will get married and start a family and have to resign anyway and this is all moot. All I have to say is that this is incredibly disappointing. --

542:, not rule, the community, and absolutely may not step into any situation without being invited to do so. And the WMF may never, under any circumstances, overrule the community. The following is a direct response to Jan's statement and its numerous inadequacies, including its failure to concede editorial independence of the English Knowledge to our editor community. We 4585:

stewards being informed directly instead of a post to the Stewards mailing list - but I'm finding the difference in information to be perplexing. I'll leave it to the stewards as a group to sort out what does and doesn't happen. I was writing based on information I received from people whom I believe to be reliable sources, but perhaps that information was incorrect.

353:

some required notification, like posting about someone on the Administrator's Noticeboard), but the part about not examining Laura's articles would normally be imposed only after community discussion. I was quite surprised to see that Laura had imposed those conditions unilaterally; when I first saw that editnotice, I assumed it had followed a formal sanctions process.

2123:

remember, demographics change, you may be in charge now, but will you hold the power 10 years form now, in fact maybe that is the whole point here, a cable of edds who used to have it all their own way who no longer control the vertical). Sorry but any oversight body must be wholly independent of who they oversee, not beholden to a popularity contest to hold office.

3207:

project bans was discussed. For a sense of the actual conversation, it's basically as GW says - information only. The discussion was not a request for new input and I certainly did not have the sense that they were thinking they were getting arbcom's blessing or insulating themselves from community response by informing us in advance. I certainly

2603:) dismissive attitude towards violent threats. You may be able to laugh them off, but others don't and shouldn't have to, and they have the right to take measures in order to protect themselves. You have chosen to edit without anonymity and the paid staff has chosen to work for the WMF, but neither should have to tolerate threats of violence. - 2760:

final decisions on their by-laws, so at least in theory, they could change those by-laws, albeit with the probable need for following a specific procedure for doing so, and they are certainly free to decide to revise annual plans mid-year. From my personal experience (having successfully sued a university in the US, as an employee thereof),

1972:" does not allow WMF to get around the law if the law is more restrictive than that. Again, this is all as far as I know - you'd need to ask a legal person to be sure. But my main point is that it's pointless trying to make up clauses that would enable what you want unless you fully know the applicable law and/or have legal advice. 3858:, I don't feel any safer because of Jan's statement. It is good that at least some of the communication issues have been recognized, but it is only one small part of this. And no, when we still have no idea what kinds of interactions are triggering T&S warnings to users, let alone bans, there's more that has to be done here. 3176:. The statements made by arbitrators about this situation have been far more clear, and do not have the patronizing tone of the corporate many-words-to-say-nothing "statements" the WMF has been issuing, to say nothing of them barking orders in the same breath. So, paid or unpaid, WMF could take a few lessons from that. 4698:, he and the T&S team have acknowledged these concerns and have said they will make actionable progress on many of them. Indeed, I think the timing may have been ideal, as it suggests a cogent but independent agreement by two parties on the underlying concerns while simultaneously deescalating. Progress! ~ 4944:

authorities in blocking access to all language variants of Knowledge in China. There were requests to reveal the whole editorial board like the Signpost, but there were no revealment of the whole board, except Techyan, WQL, and Alexander Misel, a Chinese Knowledge tech-oriented b'crat who is also a WMCUG member.

3095:

what we could have told them that would have changed their approach: that the ban would be controversial? They knew this. That people would want to know why it was placed? I'm sure they anticipated that as well, but they stated from the getgo that they would not be providing details, and are remaining firm there.

7480:- if I am officebanned in the same way as Fram has been, that's most likely why). Using that as a pretext to pick off one of the Foundation's most vocal critics reads like somewhere between a bad day in the Comms department and outright tyranny. I'm for doing something right up to and including "going bonkers". 4957:

secret process helps. In this case, conflict of interest has been alleged against the T&S people, because they're not really external to us. We would do better with a jury mechanism to ensure that truly external voices - random Knowledge contributors far from the centers of power - get to decide cases.

5410:

the word "crime" be used? Maybe not, but it's pretty clear that something legal or very serious was involved in this case. This is a non issue. Let us talk. All you are showing is that some wikipedians work hard to silence and police others not only on, but also off Wiki... And it's not us doing that.

7099:

statement, speaking out against a highly controversial Arbcom action? Sentiments which were so overwhelmingly backed by the community, that Arbcom actually backpedaled and issued a correction? That was it? Are you fucking kidding me? The office is banning people for incivility towards Arbcom? In that

6727:, I can make that commitment and can say that the conversation has occurred. I will also commit that in the days to come, Women in Red will work on developing a social media "guideline" or "essay" or some such, and we welcome suggestions from Women in Red enthusiasts on our talkpage in that regard. -- 6603:

it is extremely standard for corporations, non-profit organizations, or similar entities to say nothing public in cases like this, even when it hurts them in the court of public opinion. In this affair, that is how WMF are acting. We may not like it that they are acting this way, but from their point

6454:

Now imagine this is you. You are getting disciplined for unknown "inappropriate" remarks you said, accused by people you don't know about, have been lumped with the likes of Harvey Weistein, and cannot defend yourself because you don't even know what the hell you're accused of, nor can you even adapt

5474:

dont know what the limits are here. I have been accused of all sorts of things in my idk 12 years or so editing here. Ive been point blank called a terrorist, multiple times even. But Ive always felt that I would at least be told of the charges against me and also have the ability to defend myself to

5409:

This is exactly what I've been talking about on this page: anything a person says about someone who allegedly did some serious-level harassment anywhere is suddenly "attacking." Plus, if anyone isn't careful with their language, ironically those who advise us to have "thick skin" are outraged. Should

5276:

So the answer is no? Fram himself still has no idea what caused this superban? And so does that mean that each and every contributor to Wikimedia projects is now under the gun as and when the T&S group decide to just pull the trigger? They need provide no evidence at all, even to the accused?

5119:

Just replying this: what I mean is that local last-stand bodies losing trust from local editors is a major issue. It is of course not a mission, and yes I mean enwp last stand bodies, the ArbCom. About the release of information, I would say that reporter’s privacy must be taken into consideration. I

5095:

1233: Your zh-WP case seems very different than this en-WP Fram case. en-WP's mission isn't to ensure "local last-stand bodies do not lose trust from members within the community". en-WP's mission isn't to make everyone feel good, cozy and welcome to create and distribute free "nonsensical propaganda

4931:

During this time, Techyan continued his actions, and once I requested again about this problem, he ceased his online activity (and, sarcastically, got a full scholarship to participate Wikimania 2018) so as to avoid questioning of his actions, and de-facto abused the "half-year no continuous de-sysop

4907:

methods to attack Wikimedians not supporting them. There were even rumors about them threatening WUGC members (i.e. Death threats, threatening to report them to the China Communist Party that they do not support the government). In one case, the leak of CheckUser data (with no idea who did it, but it

4024:

What I looked at this page again to find a place to say before work is to underline one point Risker made: that this makes her feel less safe. It should. Asserting the right to disappear one of us makes us all less safe. I've recently spilled pixels in Knowledge space and in e-mails about the "win at

3687:

Fram's reputation on this project revolves mainly around two things: he is very active, productive and generally appropriate in his content and administrator work, and he has been a thorn in the side of the WMF technology/developer teams for a very long time. There have been some justified complaints

3094:

us when they are likely to place an office ban, but it is as an FYI, not to request our approval. We don't typically advise them on how to go about it—after all, we are volunteers and they are the professional community managers. We are perhaps more familiar with this community, but I'm also not sure

2764:

does apply to non-governmental non-profits in the US. That means that a non-profit such as a private university (and I assume a charitable organization) have rather broad legal rights to treat their employees however they want, so long as they don't violate any law, basically on the (very capitalist)

2459:

Along those lines, I think we are in danger of missing an important ethical issue. If someone believes they are victims of harassment, in my view they absolutely should be able to make a confidential complaint to the WMF without having it handed off to a non-WMF body. That the WMF handled the current

2386:

To be clear, I'm no way suggesting that what happened here is similar in any way, or even that there was a legal requirement (I don't know enough to say for sure although I suspect the legal requirements here were very limited or non existent). I'm simply giving an obvious example of where US law has

2164:

And as I said, this might not be a good idea as the make up of the community is already changing "What's happening to this project? is a cry we often here, in part because of situation like this "do you know how long I have been here?". I am reminded of Brexit and Donnie in the US, Do not assume that

1469:

I'm not sure about that. Referring to Headbomb's post above, if this is his case 1, then we can treat it as a learning experience and move on with the same people in their current roles. If this falls into his case 3 or 4, this is not possible, and heads will have to figuratively roll at the WMF to

1342:

they, not whether they have the means to abrogate our rights, but whether they should do so from a moral and ethical standpoint, and, if they do, what our response should be. The "legalistic" POV is self-defeating and nihilistic; it says that since they can do whatever they want because they own the

1282:

If I can nudge my way in between everyone patting each-other on the back here, obviously the WMF is the legal owner of the site regardless of whether this domain was registered before the WMF was founded. The WMF is the legal entity that is responsible to governments for what goes on here. I disagree

1232:

to this because their failure to do so is simply going to exacerbate the situation. They need to reign themselves in and disabuse themselves of the notion that they can operate in the manner it appears they wish to. I think it abundantly clear that the editing community is not going to stand for the

955:

In regard to T&S not notifying the English Knowledge about changes to their procedures, do you expect them to ask all 750 or so communities prior to changing the way T&S operates? Of course, they could have done more than simply editing the page, like leaving a message on the Wikimedia Forum,

802:

For these reasons, this statement, while at least from a named individual, is still inadequate. It tries to reassert that the WMF has the right to step in and overrule the English Knowledge's community. It does not, and anything less than a full acknowledgement of community control is not acceptable,

691:

It is important that victims of hostilities like harassment have a safe place to make reports and that we uphold and respect their privacy when they do so. The Foundation is currently working with the community on a User Reporting System that would allow communities and the Foundation to cooperate in

537:

English Knowledge content may be, the WMF may not decide who may or may not write it. We have asked the WMF to step in for a few areas, such as child protection, threats of harm, or legal issues. However, it should be noted that the English Knowledge community handled these issues before the WMF even

7426:

Ajr mentioned it as in we haven't discussed it as a "Stewards" group (I can also vouch that that there was no discussions about this), and what Tony said is (IMO) some stewards has said they (personally) believe the actions were justified outside our "Stewards" group talks. (I'm just clarifying this

7234:

I actually agree with that. I think this is a real conflict, or at least was a real conflict, and it should have been probably gone to ArbCom. It is absolutely inappropriate by WMF to take offica action here rather than referring the case to ArbCom, using the established community dispute resolution

6859:

Sure, suggest tweaks to the wording. The word "secret" is littering this page (30+ times). The idea there was a conviction based on "secret evidence" is toxic. If this is a (1) case, then all the evidence is hiding in plain sight (with possible exception of revision-deleted or oversighted material).

6774:

Can you make, when you announce such Office Actions, one of these two statements? It would be helpful to the community, if it knew there was no "other behavior" of any sort (in-person, private email, etc.), to surmise where its standards fall short of the Foundation's standards. Then we may endeavor

6543:

us as opposed to to us. Under such a situation, it's no wonder the community has lost trust in the people running T&S enough to consider a CBAN of WMFOffice. The only hope I have is that Jimbo and Doc manage to figure out a way to resolve this as amicably as possible, because right now, the only

6507:

because T&S won't even elaborate on the things that couldn't possibly risk exposing the complainant. I'll say it yet again: I understand that there are things that cannot be said without exposing or risking exposing the complainant, but things like the existence of the prior warnings and a brief

4750:

Make things short, the community health of the Chinese Community on-site is far worse than that at the English Knowledge, which is this case possibly due to the geographic distribution of contributors of the Chinese Knowledge to be mainly within the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong (and Macao),

3838:

I'm referring more to the "we banned someone and we're not saying why" aspect of that section. Jan was a little more clear on that than the previous WMFOffice statements. Not as clear as they could have been, probably, and certainly not as clear as some of the loudest voices would like, but if those

3704:

campaign: we'll temporarily ban people who did something wrong according to rules we haven't shared, but we won't tell you what they did, what can be done to prevent similar actions, or whether we'll change the rules again without telling you. This is why even people who don't like Fram, and even

3517:

a legal issue. That said, and recognizing the complications that the office may be unable to fully clarify, I can imagine a situation that was not precipitated by a legal action, but has legal ramifications. My guess is that you are exactly right but based upon their initial statement my mindset has

3254:

In another comment, Tony also vouches for the work of the T&S people, and since I have great respect for Tony, I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve him, but, surely, even given that T&S is usually sensible and does good work, this entire community discussion must be seen as a indication

2398:

An interesting additional point here and the main reason I even bring the "irony" point up. It's clear from these discussions that plenty of people don't like it when WMF staff who in some way interact with the community have little experience or involvement with the community i.e. are not active on

1640:

But that's IMO the key point. We do have some influence but it's limited. And the more important point is that our own real legal control comes about via how we affect the board's composition. If people feel that morally the WMF cannot override the community that's up to them and ultimately probably

733:

This is a very troubling assertion. If previous globally banned editors were banned for similar reasons to Fram, that calls into question every global lock or ban the WMF has ever placed. Did you just accidentally leave Fram a way to defend himself? WMF should be intervening only in the most serious

653:

Some of you may remember that Trust & Safety staff used to sign with their individual accounts when discussing Office Actions. Unfortunately, this is no longer possible due to safety concerns for Foundation employees, as in the past staff have been personally targeted for threats of violence due

619:

Additionally, I want to explain the reason for using a role account when performing office actions and during follow up communication. Decisions, statements, and actions regarding things such as Office Actions are not individually-taken; rather, they are a product of collaboration of multiple people

352:

Neolexx, that's very unusual in en.Wiki; I might go so far as to say "unprecedented" for its invocation of T&S. It's generally custom that if one editor asks another to stop posting to their talk page, non-compliance is considered disruptive behavior on the part of the latter (with exception for

144:

Talking to all the admins (of any large WMF wiki) for a second: How many of you have made difficult criticisms about an editor's content work, or have sanctioned a user at AE, or have blocked/banned a difficult user? How many of them have resulted in users accusing you of harassment and all sorts of

134:

The patronizing statements made above, coupled with the harsh actions do not show consideration and respect. While WMF has the technical and legal right to do whatever they want with the site, they have overstepped here and that is not a healthy way to run an organization; just because you can do it

5887:

The main problem now is that editors and admins are going to avoid taking the editor to task for their crap for fear of secret accusations against them and being spirited away in the night. So the messes will just hang around, stinking up the place. The T&S team has directly through its actions

5465:

Thats the problem I think a lot of us are having. The only reaction the WMF has ever had to anything "extreme" has been an indefinite global ban. That they do not think the problem severe enough to ban Fram from any other WMF site, such as commons, or to make it indefinite makes it, to me at least,

5100:

consented upon after discussions within the community and BoT. Even then, the WMTOffice should record and submit its proceedings to the BoT and ArbCom/the community nominee(s) if and when necessary to ensure that the WMTOffice is not being abused and had no conflicts of interest in the decisions it

4471:

2) As steward I have -and I think many of us- do not have any interest in being any kind of "community authority" for the WMF Office or any staff member. They do not need us either. WMF staff have local and global user groups which grant them enough user permissions to work autonomously, as I think

4462:

1) If we ever get notified about any OFFICE action all we get is a courtesy notification that said office action has happened, as those usually happen on Meta logs and we patrol them, but we ain't informed about why, the backgrounds, etc. I think it is safe to say that we as a group know as much as

4227:

To be fair, the work over there by Sydney Poore (FloNight) has been going on for a long time. I don't think it would be fair to read too much into the timing. More likely those working on that are (privately) very annoyed at how difficult this heavy-handed use of a project-specific WMF ban has made

3715:

exists, those of you who have overpersonalized this situation have illustrated the point quite well, while also not helping to bring impartial eyes to the situation. Admins and 'crats, please don't unblock/resysop again until more of the dust has settled and we have had the chance to talk this out

3481:

My professional background is in "Human Resources". In that environment, there are times that information cannot be shared outside of HR, the organization's Legal Department, etc. In the case of this ban, I would assume that T&S shared their findings with WMF Legal, and that WMF Legal supported

3466:

I was using a metaphor. I think that T&S as a group can be seen as a jury. Is this an exact or perfect metaphor? No. And as far as I can tell Arbcom was not involved because it would allow too much transparency and therefore become a problem for the person reporting the issue. Sometimes privacy

3295:

this discussion is full of a lot of people who are angry because they aren't getting what they want: the lurid details. Some issues can't be handled publicly. From what I casually knew about Fram, they had many issues and a lot of supporters. Of course the supporters are angry. They want to be able

3261:

of them by the community. I believe that any investigation by Wales and the WMF board should look into not only the way this incident was handled, and whether T&S inappropriately usurped powers usually wielded here by ArbCom, but also they must take a very close look at whether changes need to

2796:

have the final say on who to appoint to the CEO role, and the board holds them to account for their annual performance against the agreed strategy. In this case where serious questions are arising from policies and staff actions, the WMF Board can ask the CEO to report back and make recommendations

2703:

I thank Seraphimblade for an excellent analysis. (And I take some pleasure in seeing multiple community members providing clear-headed and insightful examinations of what happened.) Although it's already been discussed at some length in the replies to the statement, I want to comment further on the

2479:

Hypothetically under the GDPR a European editor could just do a subject access request for all communications and information regarding him held by the WMF. Since the T&S team insist they perform full investigations etc etc, all this material would be covered. Where the WMF is located, or keeps

2122:

But (unless of course they have to make it all public, which defeats the object of the exercise) would this still not be "in secret" and therefore not transparent? All this means is that those who can muster the most votes can run the secret tribunals, and I am not sure that is any better (and also

2002:

Certainly the WMF is in the US, but it would be foolhardy to ignore European legislation - as a number of US companies have found out. Also, I'm just saying you need to be sure of your laws regarding personal information, conduct and complaints before you can tell us what WMF can and should do. And

1758:

Absolutely the above is completely wrong. Nonsense to imply that the Office is intervening on editorial matters, it is intervening on gross behavior matters and about systematic allowance/celebration of bullying/harassment which is intolerable. The current Knowledge community has absolutely failed

1684:

You response provided zero real information to demonstrate what you are saying is true. Not for that matter did Seraphimblade's responses. Nor does mine or Nableezy's of course. I strongly suspect however that Nableezy's response which is fairly similar to my view, is far more likely to be correct.

1083:

Excellent response Seraphimblade, in every respect. Not to overdramatize, but this is a line in the sand that badly needs to be drawn. If anyone thinks that Jan's statement was the beginning of a dialog between equals, they are deluded. There have been more than 40 comments and several very serious

815:

It also verges on useless for other reasons. Once again, the statement takes a default position of "everything about this matter is privileged", which is both facially false (they haven't sanctioned Fram for what they have said on Commons and even if they had the three strikes and an explanation as

776:

The occurrence of Office Actions at times is unavoidable, but it is not our intention to disrupt local communities any further than necessary. Here we failed on that score, caused disruption to your community, and we welcome feedback about how such disruption could be avoided in the future when the

739:

In acknowledgement of the confusion caused by the application of this newer type of ban, we will not be issuing sanctions against or desysopping those who edited the block or the sysop rights of those who edited the block to date. However, despite the ambiguity in its application, the ban continues

573:

Responding to community concerns about the office action requires deliberation and takes some time. We have been in active dialogue with staff and others - including the Board - to work on resolutions, but we understand that the time this takes opens the door for speculation and allowed concerns to

561:

I want to apologize for the disruption caused by the introduction of new type of sanctions without better communication with this community beforehand. While these changes were the result of the changes to the Trust & Safety team’s processes, and are not an expansion of the team’s scope, I know

232:

Absolutely. Until recently, our interaction with WMF looked like - aliens came and have taken omeone with them. Now, this time they might have taken a bad guy, but since it is unclear how they operate thay can take anybody - possibly me - tomorrow. That is not really like the organization which was

185:

I agree entirely - not only have the WMF, but also individual position holders are culpable in that. For the chair of the WMF board to try and compare this to Gamergate is horseshit of the first order. To lie so baldly on that point alone is unforgivable, and one I think they should consider their

5226:

I may have missed it in the GB of chatter, but is it now clear that Fram fully understands the explicit reason for his year-long ban? By that I mean has he been presented with the various diffs? Or are WMF sticking by the idea that they can just ban people without comprehensive and forensically

5195:

Replying this, it involves the February edition of QiuWen against me (without revealing the true name though), the same edition attacking WUGC members, and more, including this month's edition. The magazine got it's out of wiki domain registered by WQL. Note: Report emails contains on and off-wiki

4956:

Thanks - this is really helpful. You came forward, and did not leave us to guess what was wrong, even though we write in another language. If Fram's accuser(s) (if any) had done the same, this might be a much smaller page. I'll believe you that an external team helps, but I don't believe that a

4943:

at early 2019, where the relationship was not revealed until requests by other community members at March due to the contents ("news") implicitly and continually attacking WUGC, myself, other community members, and even disrespect the WMF statement when the foundation protested against the Chinese

4923:

At mid-March, 2018, I requested a comment on this issue of Techyan unreasonably unblock a user who is pro-WMCUG and brought the issue to the Village Pump, and instantly saw attacks from Galaxyharrylion (at that time not banned) and other WMCUG members. Local de-sysop actions failed due to the fact

4599:

To be clear, before any action is taken by T&S against a user we get an email telling us what the action is, who it is directed against, when the action will be executed, and a very vague reason for the action. We also are given access to a certain type of private information that allows us to

4284:

Solecistic texts of bureaucratese only confirm the impression that the thinking and judgment behind the 'User reporting system' are going to bring about another fuckup. Compare any wiki policy page: they are, unlike many articles, lucid, grammatical and unstraightjacketed by legalese. We do things

3448:

What a weird statement, which unfortunately leads me to think you don't understand what's going on at all. In this case there was no jury, simply a judge who made a decision without the input of the accused's peers. Most people are upset that a jury, ie the community designated body to handle such

3415:

if you don't feel you fall into that category, then I'm probably not talking about you. I understand that a lot of people are objecting to the process. That's what I'm trying to address: sometimes the process needs to be opaque. And that sucks, but I'm OK with some amount of opaqueness and privacy

3333:

I don't think that. I don't think this really about Fram at all. I see that people don't want WMF involved. What I'm saying is that since they got involved at all this must be a serious case. It also shows some failure to fix things on our end. I don't have a solution for that sort of thing at all

3135:

Well, they're hired and paid for it at least; the ArbCom is just a random group of folks who know a lot about the English Knowledge but generally not a whole lot about "community management". We've certainly bungled our fair share of communications in the past, so I don't know if we have much of a

2769:

in the topic of our discussion here, because it would be practically and ethically disastrous to make rules that alienate the crowd that crowdsources the reason for WMF's very existence. Now, if it happens that the restrictions for charitable organizations are stricter than what I think, then that

2730:

don't you think that as a non-profit WMF has to adhere to a very different standard than a for-profit company? A non-profit has a mission and a defined set of by-laws: I'm not sure that shutting down the website would be consistent with its mission. Sure, the board could probably vote to dissolve,

1901:

Several people above are saying (to paraphrase) "WMF owns the site, they can do what they want". This isn't quite true. WMF isn't a private owner like, say, Facebook. They're a non-profit, and they're bound by a variety of rules and laws. They're custodians of the site, and they're required to act

1488:

Situation 4, obviously (but I agreed that's like crackpot). Situation 3 would be awful, but it'd be hard to target the blame (not because they've merged, but because even with a boss, I think we'd be targeting one member unfairly). I also think it would be counterproductive to actually solving the

1329:

as the builders of this encyclopedia, and as the force that was the impetus for the WMF to come into being. Everyone knows that if the WMF wanted to, they could shut down the servers, or blank the website, or block all the editors, or desysop all the admins, or whatever authoritarian actions they

1322:

You know, I'm pretty sick of hearing this point being trotted out as if it has some relevance, when it has absolutely none at all. I've read the vast majority of this page, and I don't recall anyone denying that, legally, the WMF owns the website and the servers etc, but that's hardly the point.

1101:

In my view, this is unfair. Many of those comments and questions are indeed cogent and serious, and deserve response, but expecting a thoughtful, and complete response within a few hours is unreasonable. In addition to contemplating how to respond, he also has to prepare for a board meeting today,

675:

Part of the Trust & Safety Team’s responsibility is upholding movement-wide standards based on the Terms of Use. We recognize that each of the hundreds of global communities under the Wikimedia umbrella have their own styles and their own behavioral expectations, but we also believe that there

584:

I realize that this situation has been difficult for the English Knowledge’s Arbitration Committee (ArbCom). The Trust & Safety team apologizes for not working more closely with them in the lead-up to this point. We will improve our coordination with community-elected bodies like ArbCom across

567:

This is not acceptable. You do not "communicate changes" to the English Knowledge community. You ask if you may make them. If the community says "no", you do not make them, or at least you do not implement them here. WMF is not a "higher authority", and you may not push through changes without the

360:

Since Fram seems to have basically respected Laura's conditions, except for those two edits in April (whereas it's usually clear when Fram is subjecting someone's edits to scrutiny), it may be that whoever else knew about the situation at the time didn't want to take it to AN/I for fear of further

156:

I don't know what those of you who actually edit contentious areas will do. I don't know what former arbitrators will do - I've definitely seen quite a few requests from enwiki-banned users to WMF T&S staff members on Meta accusing arbitrators of all sorts of things. I would like to think that

118:

If you are familiar with my admin/steward work here/on Wikidata/elsewhere, you know that I come down pretty hard on uncivil behavior. I have said that in my personal opinion, Fram should have been desysopped and likely banned a while back (not by WMF of course), and I have had various run-ins with

7459:

project, but something is foul over at Azerbaijani Knowledge. A cabal of admins has formed there publishing clearly politically biased material with an agenda, much of it blatant copyright violations, and also defending each other and blocking any editor who expresses disagreement. In short, they

7311:

On "who is LauraHale" question, in my fuzzy memory banks I recall a period of interactoin on GA reviews maybe 7 years ago. My recollection was they they had a WMF role or connection. The just-noted message at their talk page also mentioned WMF members. Back then they opened an Arbcom case which

7219:

Ymblanter, if you are saying what I think you are saying, this whole thing could have been easily and equitably resolved at ANI, and if not fully resolved there, definitely at ArbCom. Such run-of-the-mill interactions and disagreements are exactly what our noticeboards are designed to handle. The

7157:

and what is her role in this? So far we have allegations that you warned Fram for unspecified and anonymous complaints, then you unilaterally IBANNED Fram for good faith edits that happened to “make feel uncomfortable”, and the next piece of evidence is a legitimate critique of an Arbcom blunder

5974:

Well, if that was the project's narrative (free clue: it is not) then such action certainly would play into it, because you'd be damning the project because of the action of one person, which most project members are proably still not even aware of. Hell, I support the proejct's aims, and without

4935:

It also became more hostile day after day against the core members of the Hong Kong and Taiwan offline Community once they notice their stance about disregarding the actions of WMCUG members attacking Wikimedians of WUGC. (Note, affcom's resolution to de-recognize WMHK is unrelated to this issue)

4322:

there is a yawning gap stylistically between the prose written by the Office and that generally written by Engwiki editors, arbcoms or peons as the case may be. The former is characterized by brevity, carefully calibrated with an eye to legal issues and a nodding formal gesture of courtesy to the

3928:

The Ombuds have a very specific scope and are not accountable to the global community. Stewards and T&S are both global groups, so I think it makes sense that if we are going to have a quasi-oversight role, we be informed of all WMF actions as they pertain to members of the community. As I've

3230:

Going back to the original question, when global bans started stewards were given maybe a sentence of why there was a global ban. I thought I read somewhere that they were more extensively consulted on some of the global bans that came after I stepped down from the team. As for why, I have my own

3010:

going to be taken with respect to Fram until the ban was placed, though only he can confirm what he meant to say. We did know that the WMF had been considering it, and the meeting notes from last week's meeting mentioned that the Trust & Safety team had made the recommendation in favor of the

2845:

One aspect of this controversy has been somewhat overlooked. TonyBallioni notes above that Stewards were notified in advance about the desysopping, block and ban of Fram, but ArbCom was not. Since the action involved English Knowledge only, and since Stewards have -- relatively speaking -- much

2430:

GDPR (the most aggressive data protection, afaik), would generally accept bound volunteers of an organisation as suitable to see data, otherwise smaller charities would be unable to function. However this might be contingent on whether we'd count as volunteers under the WMF banner or just helpful

1948:

Actually, providing data to someone under an NDA is generally considered a good-faith effort in keeping that data confidential. And the WMF could easily enough post a prominent notice saying "By contacting us, you agree that information you send us may be shared privately with volunteers who have

1511:

I really dont understand how people are saying the WMF can or cannot do anything. They can do whatever the fuck they want to with this website. They can turn off the lights if they want. Early on somebody said we arent just the tenants here. I think thats right, but not for the reason they meant;

697:

If the community decides the case should be public, it should be. The WMF does not exist to overrule community decisions it considers wrong. If a case involves private, off-wiki evidence, the ArbCom can already handle that in private. If it does not, it must be handled publicly. If you don't like

625:

Do you really think your volunteer administrators have never gotten harassed or threatened as a result of on-wiki actions they took? I really wish I had the thirteen page death threat I once received for deleting an article, telling me in exquisite detail how the individual planned to torture and

604:

I also want to elaborate on the reasons that Trust & Safety cases will not be discussed in public and often not even privately with members of the Wikimedia movement who sign Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs). When we receive non-public information, the Wikimedia Foundation must handle it in a

356:

It's perilous to speculate about counterfactuals, but I think it's likely that Laura could have obtained some sort of interaction ban, perhaps on similar terms, had she brought it to dispute resolution, especially given Fram's general conduct at that time. On the other hand, that would have drawn

7475:

It is a completely outrageously disproportionate response for the WMF to have interfered here. We're the biggest 'pedia and the most active, with the longest-standing and most mature community processes to deal with this kind of benign incivility, had anyone participating in that discussion felt

6913:

The basic rules of Knowledge: 1) Writing an encyclopedia 2) Openness and logability of each action 3) Possibility of anonymity. It's all. Therefore, every management action must be justified. They must explain the reasons. In the meantime, it seems that now some participants in conflict with the

4924:

that they have used sea tactics to recruit and train WMCUG members and supporters. Knowing that the local community is unable to handle the arguement (including opposing the establishment of the Chinese ArbCom), I was forced to seek help from the Trust and Safety Team, and filed complaints about

4618:

Risker's comments are an excellent description of people's concerns about this action and why they exist. What concerns me most is how the way this action was taken is that it has undercut those members of the community who trust the WMF and have been trying to improve WMF-community relations. I

4020:

A quick answer because I have to prepare for work. I spoke above of the real names requirement the WMF imposes for offline interactions, and the way it potentially endangers vulnerable editors. I am a woman, in case that isn't obvious. No, I will not reveal my identity to the WMF. In addition, I

3878:

Note on the involvement of stewards: Indeed we are not selected for dispute resolution, but that isn't our role vis a vis global bans. Our role there is oversight of a Foundation process, specifically regarding use of advanced access by Foundation staff on-wiki and application of the appropriate

3559:

appoint a proper jury. I recall there was some suggestion on this page, of having esteemed members of the community (who can be trusted on privacy matters) to review the evidence to judge if there were really privacy concerns. What do you think? P.S. - for the record, I'm not a Fram supporter, I

3350:

Sorry MLG, I know you are coming from a good place, but this case is not about wanting to know "lurid details", if any of that actually exists it can and should stay confidential, and it certainly is not a case of Fram's 'supporters' being a pitchfork wielding mob; especially as I was accused by

3191:

Thanks, GW. The bizarre thing is that they did talk to Fram, and gave him enough information that the details (at least in part) of what he was being banned for did not remain confidential (as he disclosed them). Arguably, by providing Fram with the information (and diffs), the WMF have breached

3061:

I am astounded that ArbCom did not think there would be some form of backlash and didn't say anything to the WMF. Did the WMF assume there would be no backlash because they had run it past you? I get that there will have been discussion about this behind the scenes since the news broke, and that

2759:

Those are good questions, and I better begin by saying that I'm not a lawyer. When I referred to "WMF", I was lumping WMF staff together with the Board, but it's true that the Board is really who is in charge with respect to the staff that they employ. I would think that the Board also makes the

2708:

right to soldier on with the websites, but they would be in a practical and ethical bad place (and their charitable contributions might very well dry up). When the en-Wiki community agreed to comply with the ToU about office actions, that was based on the community's understanding of what office

1933:

I'm not a legal expert, but I've come across similar cases in my own employment, and I think that misunderstands the legal issues surrounding confidentiality. As I understand it, if the WMF receives a confidential complaint, it can not share it with anyone outside of its own legally employed and

727:

One of the recent changes to the Trust & Safety policy is the introduction of new options that include time-limited and partial (project-specific) bans to address serious concerns that are considered temporary or project-specific in nature. This change to policy is not a change of the team’s

5940:

There is a solution, but unfortunatly it plays in to WIR's "We're persucated" narritive: By community consensus we disband the WikiProject Women in Red for collective failure to adhere to CIVIL/AGF/5P4/CONSENSUS. I'm not advocating for that, but I am suggesting that an official warning that the

4584:

wrote above in this specific section that they agree that stewards are at minimum informed about global OFFICE actions, and implying that there was information exchange about this specific OFFICE action in advance. Now, perhaps there's something happening in the middle here - e.g., one or more

3206:

I started to respond to this thread, had to step away for a bit, and came back to find GW has pretty much covered it :) I don't think anyone was naive enough to think there wouldn't be a strong reaction to this. I had a somewhat strong reaction myself in past meetings where the general topic of

2021:

Well, those companies have assets and offices in Europe, so they're subject to European jurisdiction. WMF, to the best of my knowledge, does not. The best advice for any tech company for who it is not too late is to stay far, far away from Europe. But I certainly don't want to see WMF trying to

707:

There have been some concerns raised about the level of community experience and knowledge involved in Trust & Safety’s work. The Wikimedia Foundation’s Community Engagement Department, of which Trust & Safety is a part, supports contributors and organizations aligned with the Wikimedia

272:

Not really, this is a different situation. Niemöller understood (well, to some extent) what is going to happen. The Nazis were pretty clear about their plans, the question was just about when they were going to be implemented and in which order. Here, WMF finally said they are going to act as a

6701:

that should have never been aired outside of enWP? Squabbling outside the perview of enWP regarding enWP makes any meaningful discussion difficult (or impossible) and only stokes the schadenfreude fires of detractors (WikipediaReview in particular). Can you please commit to reminding all the

6649:

We wouldn't even be speculating has T&S given us more information from the word go than they did. Explaining it was for harassment, that there were prior warnings, and justifying the limited ban would have been enough for all but the ones who prefer to die on Transparency Hill. But the way

6618:

The thing is, we already largely have. Two of Fram's diffs (that have not yet been revdelled) involve his dealings with a particular Wikipedian-in-Residence - the same one who has a polemic screed about him on her user talk page (also not removed/revdelled). The accusations of sexism levied by

6450:

Your experience with HR/Management is certainly different than mine. I know a person who was disciplined at work for "making inapropriate sexual remarks", based on anonymous complaints. HR said they couldn't tell them what the inappropriate remarks were because they didn't want to identify the

3150:

They're paid, certainly, but "professionalism" means a lot more in my book. Would the current ArbCom, with far greater knowledge of en.wiki policies and culture and with a wide range of options for actions at your disposal have done a better job than a "professional" group with a single-minded

2394:

There is an interesting point in the Backpage case, AFAIK common in a lot of US case law surrounding similar issues and which I know has come up primarily in relation to copyright before in relation to the WMF. Namely the some would say ironic situation that the more someone gets involved, the

1571:

that we in fact do not run shit here. That if the actual owners, not what you think are the ethical owners, want to do something to this or any other website they own that they will in fact do it. We can try to convince them it is a bad idea, that it will result in attrition of the people that

1421:

Bravo to all of this. Detailed and when necessarily, biting. I see nothing to disagree with here. The best result here would be Fram's desysop reversed, all evidence forwarded to ArbCom for ruling, and every person at WMF who had a part in this mockery of justice needing to check the want ads.

788:

In addition to asking for feedback about the trust and safety office actions in this incident, over the next year, the Foundation will be asking members of the Wikimedia movement to work with us on several initiatives that are designed to promote inclusivity by ensuring a healthier culture of

416:

I think that Rschen7754's analysis is excellent, thank you for providing it. "If you want someone banned, all you have to do is convince WMF." That one sentence really crystallizes why what WMF attempted to do here is such a major problem. And I want to emphasize that in no way am I defending

163:

In my mind I go back to the thoughts I had during superprotect (and I was a steward during superprotect) - is the WMF going to run this site into the ground through incidents like this, and is it worth editing anymore if that is what is going to happen? (That was one reason my activity tanked

6433:

I have no opinion on Fram (if we've interacted, somehow it never stuck in my mind). But I have previously seen multiple cases where someone was punished for not-publicly-explained misbehavior (often by loss of a job rather than suspension of editing activity on a website), management was not

5856:

Well, the other substantial diffs we were shown involve the Wikipedian-in-Residence that Fram's been in a longrunning dispute with (and they were basically challenging her sources, IIRC). And I feel it bears repeating: Neither Fram or the Wikipedian-in-Residence like each other, nor are they

5450:

Why else would WMF get involved? I was told they didn't do anything on Knowledge that involves editing or editors. I have to believe this is an extreme case because of the extreme reaction. I don't think that the WMF or T&S are full of vindictive people who block admins on a whim. Others

3893:

Yes. I know that stewards have said things like "what the hell, why did this WMF person OS this page on Meta, it does not meet the policy and there is absolutely nothing sensitive" many times before. Many stewards are/have been obsessive and paranoid (and yes, I put myself in that category).

3658:

on this project only. Now let's be clear. There are plenty of people on this project who would not have been the least bit distressed if Fram had been blocked and/or desysopped using our own community processes, and I respect that opinion, whether or not I share it. I've also had a long and

2317:

Are there no legal obligations to do so? Are you sure of that? And even if there are no legal obligations, are there no ethical obligations? I think there are, and that there must always be an appeal-to-the-top avenue open for people dissatisfied with standard procedures. And as I ask below,

782:

Very well, here's the feedback: Don't ever again take an action of this nature. Take office actions only where the community has agreed you may: United States legal requirements, child protection, or threats of harm to oneself or others. Otherwise, leave control entirely local, and refer any

7363:

Earlier in this discussion we were told that stewards has agreed this action was justified. Would any steward care to comment on whether Fram's summary is accurate to the best of their knowledge, and whether they agree that the action is justified? As far as I can see the action was totally

4213:

I suspect the concern is more that the community is finding out about things that may affect them deeply not from the WMF, but from third-party sources. This lack of transparency has been an ongoing failure of the WMF over the years (Flow, Visual Editor) and doesn't appear to be improving.

4005:

No one ever tries to start from zero articles (Well they do, but when that happens it's not a fork by definition.) The fork attempts useually start with a full copy of the Knowledge database. But so far they never take off, even when they have millions of dollars of seed funding along with

1592:

Technically, the community has 3 seats on the board and affiliates have 2, out of 10 total. The community vote will inevitably be tilted towards the more populous projects due to one user, one vote, while the affiliate vote has a much more diverse composition, but both can be thought of as

2517:

Of course, or there could be another reason, but no one should be forced to reveal personal data about a third party just to prove they are innocent. No one should resort to (what is in effect) blackmail. But it might be nice to have a link to this "tussle" so we can all judge who was at

2499:

Here's one theory that all of the pieces match. Fram was in an ongoing tussle with someone (who they already named) who has connections at WMF. They used those connections (plus the poor system over there) to get Fram smacked. The silence could be to both protect the reporter and to avoid

555:

My name is Jan Eissfeldt and I’m commenting in my role as Lead Manager of the Wikimedia Foundation Trust & Safety team about the team’s recent investigation and office actions. In addition to this comment, the Trust & Safety team will be making a statement at Arbitration Committee

5173: 4467:

is, all due respect, not true. I cannot speak for the ArbCom of course, and I don't know if they know anything about it or if they know something. We ain't consulted, asked for our advice or asked to give our sign-off about anything the office does; and we shouldn't either. It is not our

4195:

before I added it to my "About me" userpage. The video was created by the University of Washington in 2019 to document a study it conducted a few years ago. While harassment has long been an issue in the wiki movement, there is no connection between UW's debut of the video and "Framban".

1829:

Huh. It'd be great to see the substantiation of your version of events regarding this particular incident with even a single shred of evidence of bullying and/or harassment. Unfortunately, WMF hasn't provided any of those, so I'm not sure why you're filled with such conviction about it.

1986:

WMF is in the United States, and under US law, that is quite sufficient. (I do know that, while I'm not a lawyer, I've had to look at that extensively in regards to data privacy.) WMF is not subject to any other jurisdiction—and if it somehow is, especially European jurisdiction, well,

669:

There continue to be questions from some people about the Foundation’s Trust & Safety team doing investigations about incidents occurring on English Knowledge. I want to clarify the rationale for Trust & Safety doing investigations when requested and they meet the criteria for

5196:

content which one could confirm it's username. All materials are examined by the trust and safety team, so it would be highly genuine reports instead of make ups and fake comments. The user himself is also a Community Liaison and Educator at Wikimedia Community User Group Hong Kong.--

3968:

Very wise words. Yeah the Fork idea does seem a non starter. There's been dozens of attempts over the years to create a successful Fork. No one serious wants to fund another elitist Citizendium, but in the case of inclusionist Forks, they sometimes attract millions in Funding. ( E.g.

149:

for crying out loud). Now, imagine that all they had to do was convince WMF that you were harassing them and needed to be sitebanned, and boom, you're banned without the possibility of appeal. That is essentially what WMF is allowing to happen here, if there are no safeguards put up.

5588:

So, apparently, "REAL CRIMES" (no legal threats mind you, just "REAL CRIMES" accusations) from a Knowledge project. How helpful. And no, that's not "oil on the fire", it's transparency. If Wikipedians are accusing Fram of "REAL CRIME" on the internet, we should know about it.

3705:

those who think Fram was behaving unacceptably, are having a hard time with this ban. Bluntly put, I feel much less safe working on a Wikimedia project today than I did a week ago, because one of the most fundamental understandings I had about working here has now been proven wrong.

1037:, very literally, not the other way around. The English Knowledge is not a WMF project. WMF is an English Knowledge project. They are not a "higher authority" over our community, and they may not intervene except where they are explicitly given consensus that they are welcome. WMF 7407:

That's a fair reading but I think it can also be read as multiple stewards. I should probably have separated my hypothetical from the question more clearly too. At the moment I don't see any problem with the stewards individually or as a group. I apologise for my lack of clarity.

681:

The "Trust and Safety Team" may not overrule community processes or consensus. The WMF needs to very, very swiftly disabuse itself of the notion that it is a "higher authority" than the English Knowledge community. Knowledge created the WMF, not the other way around. You exist to

4869:

So, in this case, geographically based separation will form smaller, more "connected" community bodies versus the large, single language Chinese Community. However, due to political reality, there were internal split of the Mainland China community and thus the establishment of

2846:

less involvement in en.wiki's affairs than they do on other, smaller wikis, and considering the remit ArbCom is covered by Stewards for wikis that don't have their own, why was this the case? What possible justification can there be for giving Stewards notice, and not ArbCom?

647:

made it, and I will take responsibility for it. But if those of us who don't get paid a nickel put our names on what we do, and sometimes suffer negative consequences for it, you damn well can too when you're getting a paycheck to do it. If occasionally the reaction to that is

5784:

For all I know, there could have been other stuff that happened off-wiki, and it could have been pretty much anything. But it could and should have been handled via email to ArbCom. The fact that it ended up, instead, at T&S, has at least the appearance of forum-shopping.

4172:. In it Sydney Poore (aka FloNight on EN-wiki), who is a member of T&S, states that both a "Universal code of conduct" and a "New reporting system" would be implemented next year. The timing of the video (uploaded to YouTube June 11) seems eerily connected to the Framban. 2576:

Consider yourself forficed ;-) Fram did not make the allegation, but it has been suggested by others in various locations. I don't know where now, and I would not expose it further if I did, as it is entirely without evidence and only serves to throw more shit at more people.

1566:

Im sorry, and Im not trying to be rude, but your historical, moral and ethical rights dont mean shit. In the real world the owner of private property retains the right to determine who may access that property. I dont know how what has happened so far has not reinforced the

6538:

Every reasonable request for information is met with the institutional equivalent of an upraised middle finger and canned messages with a general undertone of disrespect at best and petulence at worst. Any communication has been one-sided, with T&S pretty much talking

7335:: they should be making Arbcom directly aware of their concerns, and having a full and frank discussion with the community. This is the very least we should expect. But there has been no such discussion. Otherwise, and given that there appears to be no issue of urgent 1927:

If you require an updated NDA, have Legal develop a better one. You must be allowed to share information with the community organizations, such as ArbCom, involved. If your current NDA and policies don't allow that, ask for Legal's assistance to fix them so they do allow

6249:

I am surprised + angry😠 that onwiki, there is little 2 be said about support 4 the victims. We only know some of them (others may have confidentially reported their case 2 @Wikimedia). But 4 the ones we do know, we need 2 express empathy + seek their opinions re a way

3977:(which raised over 5 million.) There's a reason why even hyper inclusionist search giants like Google don't provide them the support they need. Given that nothings ever perfect in this wicked world, they've concluded that Knowledge is already about as good as it gets. 4971:

I write in both English and Chinese (to be exact, Cantonese), so it is not a big deal for me (and I hold quite a few rights here in enwp and is helping out at a local outreach activity from a local university in Hong Kong). For this case about Fram, it seems that the

1118:

I think it's very fair. When you have assumed the role of spokesperson, you don't dump and run. You stick around to answer questions honestly and openly. A 1400+ word statement is not a substitute for the dialog that we should expect from our infrastructure partner.-

5752:

Ironically I'm note seeing Fram attacking anyone anywhere, yet the WiR project's Twitter account is going out guns blazing about "CRIMES" which (legal threats?) is really inappropriate. Whoever runs that shitshow should be binned out and ashamed of themselves.

828:

his name, but the fact remains the responce is still woefully deficient in key areas, and isn't going to help de-escalate things because it does not address some of the concerns with overreach and governance a sizeable chunk of the regulars are starting to have.

417:

harassment (if that's what it was). If we are to have a truly crowdsourced project, then we cannot have any sort of private club that gets to vanish editors without accountability to the larger community. In particular, there is a serious danger of favoritism. --

4123: 5475:

an accountable group of people. None of that is true anymore. There is a group that has the authority to make secret judgments based on secret evidence and most importantly seemingly on secret rules. I have no idea what may set them off. And that concerns me.

4865:

The complicated geographic distribution would mean a more stalemate community, with one vs another (this case, Mainland vs Taiwan, and whatsoever like that). The English Knowledge Community is more diverse, and is more multi-headed than the Chinese Community.

3659:

generally positive experience working with what is now the Trust & Safety team, going back more than 10 years. Most of my problems center around the processes that have led to this action. My critique of recent events is focused primarily on the process.

7330:

This is a major vote of no confidence by T&S in Arbcom and this community's ability to maintain appropriate norms and standards. If T&S do indeed believe that the "local community is consistently struggling to uphold the Terms of Use", then that is

4815:

The reporter would know the final decision though, and as stated by Jan, the reason to keep this private is due to the fact to protect the privacy of the reporter and to avoid retaliation. It works kinda like how an external team handles bullying at school.

3839:

voices think we're ever going to have full public hearings of sensitive harassment cases on Knowledge, they're delusional. But no, I feel no more (nor less) "safe" from Office actions now than I did yesterday, nor on April 16th nor in 2014, for that matter.

2457:," and I doubt that volunteer flexibility would be applicable to confidential complaints sent directly to the WMF outside of the OTRS system. But even then, should people be able to send an OTRS request and ask for it to be kept confidentially from ArbCom? 6296:

There is a huge debate on line over the banning of an admin who was so toxic that the foundation made an exception and banned them for a year. There is now a debate over whether they overstepped the mark ... and the debate is so toxic that it offends the

4475:

So to sum up: we don't have any information about this and we ain't, nor we have any interest in becoming any sort of WMF Office enforcers. I of course assume good faith on your part but I felt I couldn't those innacuracies without a reply. Best regards,

4725: 138:

I also think that WMF has severely damaged the legitimacy of any further ban that they do make, as any ban from now on will be looked at with much more scrutiny, even if legitimate (and for the cases I do know about, the global bans generally have been

4600:

identify which WMF actions on-wiki are taken as part of which investigation. This information is for our information only and we don't have a say in the process, at least not formally. Sorry if I have been unclear or misrepresented something above. --

3271: 3249: 3074:

and ask them to alert the others (and will post at WT:AC/N). If this is purely a failure to read meeting notes where only one arb was at the call, then by all means say that, but sooner rather than later. Or was there internal discussion of this?

4126:. And looking even closer, I see you (Risker) and other former and current arbs are already aware of that page. So if the WMF were consulting on all this, why were changes made and implemented in this fashion, or am I conflating separate issues? 7427:

and won't look back on this page (even for popcorns for Wikidrama) for next few weeks. If you have questions about this, I'll try to answer you on my talk page except I am not going to name Tony's some stewards, or my opinion on this matter.) —

7108:

is the office civility policing, this user, after so many years? Is this a joke? Honestly, if no one complained, then that's even worse. Who's responsible for this? Please, have some integrity and come forward. At least own it, like Arbcom did.

4021:

personally happen to be unusually well placed to meet WMF staffers (I may well bump into some at the grocery store every weekend) but in general "Spend money and time coming to visit us so we can reassure you that we are human" is condescending.

1856:. When you don't know you have any rights, and are dependent on the whim of someone else, that gives them license to bully you, and to demand that you bully others on their behalf, and to make you afraid to act to defend those who are bullied. 1454:

Of course nobody should be fired over any of this. It's a learning experience for all involved, and in the long run will be good for WMF and the rest of the community and bring everyone closer to the ideals of civility and assuming good faith.

7464:) for a month now, which WMF was notified about on May 21, and responded that they " evaluate the situation". A proposal to the effect of desysopping and banning all of the admins at Azerbaijani Knowledge is stalled because stewards insist it 7343:. Our systems are not perfect. Bringing and taking an issue through Arbcom can involve a huge amount of process: intimidating, overwhelming, exhausting; and too often a drama-fest. There is the question of whether some users are so-called " 809: 4391:

Excellent statement. Between you and Seraphimblade (below), plus a few other comments here and there (EllenCT, I believe), the description of the situation has been very clearly laid out and analyzed. Now, if the folks at WMF would only

594:

it to ArbCom. So, it is not "We will ban a user based on private evidence, heads up ArbCom", it is "We have concerning evidence about a user, here it is ArbCom." Except in cases of child protection, threats of harm to self or another, or

500:

I am not sure I like the idea of punitive punishment, but I think much of the above has been about how WMF is not Knowledge, and so is not subject to the same rules. The question of should it be is another issue.12:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

4841: 3098:

If you're wondering how many of us saw the meeting notes, I can only speak for myself. I had not read the meeting notes (nor have I been keeping up with other email largely since the beginning of the month)—I went inactive on June 7 and

2003:

it's not just data protection - my own experience has covered data protection (for a US company that also operates in Europe, as it happens) and also the handling of personal issues and complaints. It's easy for armchair lawyers to say "

6462:

I later overheard people complain that this person "kept talking about 'his condoms'". And because I knew this person, it dawned on me that what caused this is that they were a fan of the Montreal Canadiens, and they kept talking about

4966: 2671:

screwed up in this instance. Their actions didn't even follow their own rules, so they had to make up new ones that were never communicated to the community they were allegedly "protecting" from the "extreme threat" of Fram. </sarc:

7385:, AFAIS, Tony claimed that some particular steward had asserted of the justifiability/seriousness of the action. Ajratadzz, a steward has said that Fram's ban was not discussed among them. I don't see as how all stewards are to blame. 1949:

signed our non-disclosure agreement. We will not share your complaint with anyone who is not under NDA." There you go, complainants are put on notice that such data could go to the appropriate ArbCom or other functionaries if needed.

637:

I've gotten a whole load of death threats, "You're a __________!", "You're corrupt!", whatever else, from decisions I've made as a volunteer on the English Knowledge over this past decade. Now WMF wants to tell me that people who get

6915: 4317:

I clicked on all the links given on this page, and read them, finding that first. I've been thinking about the various cultures in conflict in these discussions and, at a discursive level, noting that while the two sides agree that

3211:

think they genuinely thought they were doing a good thing for the project, and that it was not a convenient way to get rid of a critic or some kind of personal corruption or whatever other weird conspiracy theories are cropping up.

5841:

that the comment about ArbCom was the triggering reason for the ban. Common sense (in my opinion) indicates that there had to be something more that led up to that. And I think no one knows why ArbCom could not have dealt with it.

713:

If they were familiar with the community, they should've known the fallout this would cause. The English Knowledge jealously guards its editorial independence. If the Foundation staff is not explicitly invited to enter in an area,

620:

at the Foundation, oftentimes up to and including the Executive Director. As a result, we use the WMFOffice account as a “role” account, representing the fact that these are Foundation actions and statements, not a single person’s.

4811:

Things will go more complicated right after that, as it is the internal review period by the Trust and Safety Team, and I have received email requests explaining why this particular thing is against that particular terms of use.

7220:

fact that an editor or editors did an end-run and went straight to WMF is truly tragic, and has resulted in massive overkill and a reprehensible unilateral "unappealable" secretive longterm action by WMF. A bad deal all around.

6604:

of view they may have no choice. As for starship's "the names of the victims are less important than their stories": it is very likely that from the stories and Fram's edit history we could (and some would) work out the names. —

4580:, thank you for your comments. I reached that conclusion based on statements in more than one forum by more than one steward that they had advance information about this local ban before it was executed, and it seems from what 7500:

I was also thinking of the Azeri festering pustule, which is allowed to continue even today without anybody at WMF apparently caring. At least their page "So-called Armenian genocide" was moved to a less offensive title today.

3807:

Well said as usual, Risker. I do believe Jan's simultaneous statement has somewhat addressed some of your concerns, particularly the "illusion of safety" bit, but there's still a lot of "finding common ground" to be done here.

1225:

An excellent analysis and statement, bravo! I agree totally and completely with everything you wrote. I dearly hope that Jan, the other folks at T&S, the rest of the WMF office and Jimbo and the rest of the WMF Board pay

777:

Foundation takes Office Actions, and ask that we all engage in a good faith discussion bearing in mind the legal and ethical restrictions placed on anyone within or outside of the Foundation engaging in reports of this nature.

7059:

OK, that's that then. You can be unappealably unilaterally banned (and effectively gagged) and desysopped, without discussion or recourse, by WMF on the strength of two or three edits and the use of the F-word. Good to know.

5767:

We can deal with why the Wikiproject feels it's appropriate to use Twitter to further/encourage harassment at a later time; right now the focus should be on T&S' overreach and how to avoid situations like this in future.

4045:

I agree with most of that, and thank Risker for a good distillation of my own hard-to-put-into-words concerns. A more general, but (sorry Risker) even better written distillation coming from a slightly different direction is

6921:

Yes, this one-year ban is based entirely on repeated misconduct within the English Knowledge. No, up to date one has no proven facts that that it happened within some friendship relations or some other conflict of interest.

6518:

error. We all agree on this. The off-wiki actions of other parties are helping to throw fuel onto a bonfire that's already threatening to burn down the house. We all agree on this. The only thing we don't really agree on is

3879:

global policies. Those are areas that we have always been involved in, and are not a change from the status quo. That said, I agree that for local Foundation actions they should be looping in the appropriate local group. --

5917:

Fram has been accused of "real crimes" on Twitter by the official Women in Red Twitter account. More on this talkpage, but apparently we can't link to the the actual accusations, according to some censoring by an admin.

626:

murder me. I just got a laugh out of it. If someone actually means to hurt you, they won't threaten you, they'll just do it. (Much of what they described was probably physically impossible, too.) If you take an action, you

330:, then to ArbCom (if no consensus). You let one regular editor to use administrative rights on their will - you should not be surprised if someone else goes over your heads. I don't know how casual are such self-proclaimed 6975: 7417: 7398: 5432:. How is that clear? Something of that nature would result in a, one would assume, indefinite global ban. It is because it is not clear that such a thing was involved here that we have megabytes of text written about it. 524: 7544: 2431:

individuals who have no link. However, I'm inclined to think that the WMF must already accept the involvement of certain editors as sufficient, otherwise OTRS agents (who get hoards of private information going to a wiki

7373: 2858: 5313:

I think Fram knows. I think we know too. I think it's because Fram said 'Fuck ARBCOM' and was pissed at them for making a poor decision, and that someone at the WMF felt they had to shield ARBCOM from such criticism.

2378:

Generally any statement which claims "the only thing" in reference to a legal obligation is probably wrong, especially when it's not coming from someone who has extensively studied the law on the matter. The owners of

291:

was not made public. The regime never announced they were doing it and misled virtually everyone involved. I sympathize with Germans from that era to a degree because they only saw/knew a small piece of Hitler's plan.

7280: 4739:

I am here not to explain or support (or whatever you call) this particular action from the foundation about the ban of Fram, but to explain the current reporting system, as I have previously used, mainly dealing with

6789:...I see that the term "legal" has been mentioned on this page over a hundred times... ruling out "other behavior" would squelch the bad rumors and innuendo developing here that he may have done something "illegal". 3084: 6989: 3041: 3020: 2997: 2969: 97: 4460:: I'd like to deny the claims that stewards have or have had any kind of involvement about this or any other OFFICE actions, or that we have or have had --or will have FWIW-- any more information about this matter. 2905: 2891: 1745: 2211:

I did not say it would change it (in fact I am implying the exact opposite, it will reflect it, the whole community). I said that it will reflect any problems the community has regarding attitudes and enforcement.

89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 5927: 5714:

Wait, which is it? A person is getting arrested and you say "the real crime is that outfit". That's just common sarcasm. That doesn't mean you can just casually say "X is guilty of real crimes". What did it say?

5236: 3343: 3323: 7566: 7069: 3160: 3145: 3130: 798:. If you're going to participate in a project like it, you need something of a thick skin. It's the real world, not a safe room. But regardless, how it is run is ultimately decided by the community, not the WMF. 6270: 5598: 4899:

It looks okay if WMCUG promotes the project and respects project participants. However, in reality, became the heaven for pro-communist users, and have lodged attacks directly against the "establishment" WUGC.

2955: 2652: 2489: 2372: 2354: 2047: 2028: 2016: 1997: 1981: 1955: 7491: 5419: 2586: 659:

Again, not acceptable. If you were the final or highest-level person to sign off, put your name to it. That's who is ultimately responsible. It is, at that point, not the "Wikimedia Foundation's" doing, it is

642:

to do this get to use some anonymous account, while I put my name on everything I did and still do? (For the record, I wouldn't have used some anonymous account even if I had the option. If I make a decision,

7323: 5779: 5762: 5747: 2473: 2335: 2308: 2287: 2261: 1801: 1768: 7096: 7020: 6523:

Trust & Safety seems dead-set on horribly mismanaging the responce to this by trotting out canned orders over loudspeaker, double-talk, "everything is privileged", and overall refusing to elaborate just

6502:

Indeed. Knowing who the victims were helps nobody, in any circumstance. And it's not that Fram's side of the story is chiptruth - it's incomplete and (very likely) biased - but that Fram's side of the story

6317: 6280: 5056:

Ideally, yes. In practice, humans are humans. Someone going "Hey, I know that person/this group of people, I like them, I'm sad to hear they've been mistreated... let's help them!" is always a possibility.

3578: 3425: 3407: 3309: 7134: 7006: 6669: 6644: 6630: 6613: 6591: 6561: 2557: 2541: 2071: 2033:

I agree that GPDR and Article 13 are, as you say, botches. But does the WMF want Knowledge to be closed down in Europe? Anyway, that aside, European law is something of a distraction. We need to be sure of

1283:

with most of the other stuff that Seraphimblade is saying but don't really care enough to argue it point-by-point, just want to note that this is not a unanimously-shared sentiment within the community. --

872: 7356: 6860:

If the evidence is hiding in plain sight, then either the community hasn't properly reviewed it, or the community consensus on the interpretation of it is in conflict with the Foundation's interpretation.

5897: 5882: 4119: 3626: 3596: 3286: 3182: 2921: 1356: 840: 7166: 7117: 6206: 5851: 5308: 3221: 2220: 2204: 2132: 1260: 1172: 7437: 7258: 1431: 7034: 6229: 5868: 5832: 5794: 5698: 5684: 5644: 5626: 5581: 5355: 5290: 5271: 5162: 4878:(WUGC). Argues sparked between the two Mainland-based community, and this in fact have completely paralyzed the normal community operation of the Chinese Knowledge, and have led to quite some problems. 3491: 3439: 3201: 3112: 1199: 1072: 912: 896: 614:

be allowed to share information with the community organizations, such as ArbCom, involved. If your current NDA and policies don't allow that, ask for Legal's assistance to fix them so they do allow it.

6719: 6368: 6338: 6093: 5954: 5485: 5460: 5442: 5400: 5383: 5369: 4034: 4015: 4000: 3476: 3458: 3351:

several people of being Fram's most likely accuser so hardly fit that profile. Your parallel of a jury is a good one, as it is this element of accountability and credible governance that is missing. --

2101: 1650: 1315: 1213: 1161: 1147: 282: 267: 6495: 6443: 5346:

seems to now demonstrate an off-wiki attack on Fram (and other people prepared to stand up for him) with unfounded accusations by our own Women in Red project. What do they know that we don't?

4514: 4451: 4254: 2937: 2630: 2410: 1694: 1634: 1613: 1404: 1390: 1370: 1292: 1277: 7524: 7244: 7229: 5723: 5520: 4205: 3360: 2571: 2527: 2174: 2157: 1824: 1582: 1557: 1538: 1498: 463: 7510: 7052: 5995: 3243: 1889: 1671: 1483: 1445: 1047: 965: 932: 426: 17: 6107: 6075: 6048: 4407: 4340: 4312: 4294: 4218: 3955: 3906: 3850: 3833: 3529: 2783: 2740: 2718: 1839: 242: 7296: 7212: 7198: 6736: 6175: 6161: 6143: 5537: 5337: 5142:

To put things in context, WMF did remove all CU rights from zhwiki, but it was definitely cast in a different light than this scenario on enwiki. I had a conversation on Meta with James Alexander

5137: 4719: 4632: 4594: 4485: 4181: 3986: 2754: 2612: 948: 410: 298: 195: 7146: 6869: 6854: 6835: 6818: 6697:(of 00:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC): "Deleted the inflamitory comments") I thank you for stepping in to rein in the "contributor" who used the WIR Twitter to express their thoughts, can you understand 6428: 6033: 5969: 5110: 4377: 4059: 3378: 2829: 2698: 1464: 1016: 347: 227: 209: 7088: 4437: 4157: 4135: 3867: 3819: 3788: 1186: 1092: 1084:

questions in response to Jan's statement, and not a single response back from him. That tells you everything you need to know about what the foundation thinks of the community that created it.-

6010: 4609: 4558: 4533: 4097: 4075: 3938: 3923: 3888: 3802: 3772: 1865: 47: 7184: 6931: 5661:'s parents were literally guilty of a criminal code violation here. Let's not wilfully misinterpret things for sake of of fueling the shitstorm. And by 'reply', I meant replying to the tweet. 4681: 4666: 2387:

seemed to suggest (the case resulted in guilty pleas so wasn't tested to the limit on the constitutional issues) there is some requirement other than DMCA compliance. Remember also that while

981: 388: 6057: 3759: 3742: 1127: 1113: 370: 317: 7263:

Were even the preliminary conduct-dispute-resolution boards (ANI/AN) which typically hands out IBans et al, invoked? It does not seem so ..... We ought to mention T&S, in our page about

5080: 5051: 5029: 2840: 2806: 5873:

A dispute implies disagreement, which there was some of. What there was a lot, lot more of was 'cleaning up the messes they repeatdly left in their wake' which is not quite the same thing.

1943: 992: 450:. What unsettles me about this situation is not that Fram was banned - it's the attitude from T&S that they fully intend to operate a form of justice that seems to be modeled after the 7287:

Not that I think it matters in this case, but they were alerted that WMF is considering a sanction against Fram which would be solely on en.wp, see OR's responde on the ArbCom talk page.--

5736:

It's not, and if anything they're proving T&S' point for them - by attacking Fram from off-wiki, which we can do little and less about absent a sustained campaign and an ArbCom case. —

5213: 3551:- there was no jury, there was a judge, and I'll go further in saying that by all appearances, the judge was also the executioner. With the available information, it appears that it was a 728:

scope of cases taken. However, it does alter the way that sanctions are enforced and unintentionally introduced ambiguity about the ability of local communities to overrule office actions.

5186: 2344:

If the WMF thinks it has some legal obligation to do this, explaining what law requires them to might be rather a wise idea. But generally speaking, the only thing an interactive website

3430:

Yeah, any reasonable process for dealing with harassment (in online communities especially) would have to include victim privacy, which means the process will be by definition "opaque".

6389:

hurt doesn't that someone was out to hurt them. And given the interaction ban Fram received for insisting BLPs have quality sourcing, even when the WMF recognized that those edits were

4997: 6385:

of people that claim to be harassed when really all that happened is that they didn't get their way on an issue they cared about. It doesn't mean that they're aren't feeling hurt, but

3646:*Noting that I see Jan Eissfeldt has written something while I was drafting and reviewing the text below, so some of the concerns I have identified may have been (partially) addressed. 7172: 6890:

Repeated misconduct within a single Foundation-supported project, with considerable impact either on that project overall or on individual contributors who are active in that project.

4619:

agree with all off the statement, including the call for local admins not to escalate further and for everyone to be less personal, more kind and avoid conspiracy theories. Thank you

176: 4235:

A quick update to note that there are adjustments being made to the timeline for designing and developing the User reporting system. The plans will be updated in the next few weeks.

494: 5942: 2444: 6907: 6798: 6784: 6152:

a reflection of what the discussants regarded as a problem. If there is anything about that, that doesn't involve private information, it would be very helpful to know about it. --

3506:...we investigate the need for an office action either upon receipt of complaints from the community, or as required by law. In this case we acted on complaints from the community. 3231:

ideas (global bans came right after superprotect, and stewards tend to be the incredibly paranoid type that go through Meta logs on a regular basis)... but I can't say for sure. --

7476:

offended enough to engage in them. Frankly Arbcom deserved being sworn at for that ridiculous notice, and Fram was hardly the only one expressing outrage in that thread (related:

3727: 2511: 1911: 1895: 1233:

abrogation of its rights, and that what they're seeing in the response to their actions isn't a mere blip on the radar, it's a full-scale defense of what is by history and right

568:

consensus of our community. The problem is not (only) poor communication, it is entirely inappropriate action. The WMF may not overrule the English Knowledge editorial community.

6710:

and it would be unfortunate if the community or ArbCom had to close the WikiProject because some members repeatedly fell on the wrong side of the principles of the ArbCom case.

6451:

complainers, but were taking a zero-tolerance approach because it's the age of #metoo and they wanted to 'make sure' the message that 'this was inappropriate behaviour' sank in.

2038:(if that's all that's applicable) regarding these issues before we can propose what the WMF can and should do regarding confidential personal issues like harassment complaints. 3090:

I don't think anyone, either on the Arbitration Committee or at the WMF, was naive enough to think that blocking Fram would be uncontroversial. Again, the Wikimedia Foundation

5299:

right, at least in what happened to Fram, unless Fram knows something that he hasn't made public. It's up to the rest of us to continue to insist that this is unacceptable. --

6024:

I am an admin on the Women in Red Twitter account and I have deleted the post in question as the wording lacked precision. On behalf of Women in Red, I apologize for that. --

4695: 2022:

comply with utter botches like GPDR or Article 13. Just stay out of Europe, and let European courts rule against you all day long—you've got no assets to find against there.

7535:

After reading many paragraphs of text, this all boils down to Fram used some vulgar language and so the WMF banned him for a year. This is a mind-boggling turn of events.

5496: 7011:

Pathetic behavior by the WMF. The community needs to send a strong message that this type of side stepping of the community policies and guidelines will not be tolerated.

3943:

After seeing how badly they bungled the Alex Shih case (and basically the entire second half of 2018), I don't even trust OC to do what they are currently scoped to do. --

6654:

because they have done nothing to help tamp down the speculation, nor have they punished Fram for their comments on Commons (once again, if privacy was a major concern,

4498:

During early 2015, we were given a very brief explanation about some of the earliest bans (in the stewards-l archives). I specifically remember because well, I'd rather

3062:

Jimmy has said he is communicating with you, and that you are probably (like us) waiting for something from the board meeting, but it is looking like you (as a group)

4229: 6619:

Raystorm only helps support such a theory, as Fram's and the WiRs sexes weren't mentioned until her statement and are still considered to be a red herring at best. —

5150:

zhwiki has no local ArbCom (and did not have local CU/OS until the last half of this decade, I don't remember the exact year). I can't comment on the global bans. --

5143: 6937: 1776:, thanks for your opinion. I appreciate that but has no intention of providing any response other than noting that an erstwhile Arbcom heldd an unanimous view that 357:

attention to Fram's criticisms of her articles and brought further scrutiny. This would be an unpleasant process, regardless of whether the criticism was justified.

111: 4303:? I don't think it appears anywhere else. I don't think focusing on that will help. It would help more if more people participated in the discussions over there. 1922:

says above, but I have to say a good bit of it is ideological rather than practical. I won't say much in response, but I just want to pick up on the one point...

7039:

Who and where and how do we send the strong message that this is a community and deserves community discussion. - I am not biased, no particular friend of Fram.

7171:

I will provide for you two pieces of the puzzle. First one is on the top of Laura's talk page and has been there for longer than I can remember. Another one is

5245: 4118:(FloNight). I can understand that she may not want to comment here in any official role, so I'll go and ask over there. There is some interesting discussion at 2673:

If they (WMFOffice) take anything away from this, I hope that it's a willingness to work within the existing framework rather than throwing firebombs at it. ···

6998:

to desyop an admin on here, with plenty of discussion, but this sort of thing can happen behind closed doors? Great way for WMF to help with editor retention.

6514:

The entire way T&S did this is suboptimal. We all agree on this. The fact that they've left Fram to tell his side of the story is a massive strategic and

2449:

Interesting. But GDPR is, as you say, specifically data protection, and I doubt that is the only applicable law when it comes to harassment complaints. Also,

2960:

I can confirm that the meeting minutes were available to those of us who were not on the call, and included a section about the likely action against Fram.

2984:

which painted a picture of ignorance. It honestly seems to me that after seeing the community backlash, you were just trying to turn WMF into a scapegoat.

4690:, this is a good structure for what needs to be covered by a consensus resolution. Clearly Jan hasn't immediately solved every concern, but (and I think 630:. If it is Katherine who approves these bans, she should provide notice of them from her account. If you know what you did was right, stand behind it and 6751:

Everything I did is visible on enwiki, no privacy issues are involved, and all necessary complaint, investigations, actions, could have been made onwiki.

5470:. Honestly this whole thing to me is Kafkaesque. And decidedly unclear. As far as I know Fram does not know the limits here. And more importantly to me, 5221: 2296:

Except there is no obligation for the WMF to accept confidential complaints at all. Existing processes to handle sensitive issues already exist, such as

6770:

This action is based on the Foundation's findings relating to behavior on Wikimedia Foundation websites and/or mailing lists, and/or other behavior. (2)

7477: 6744: 5959:

I don't think the tweet is in particularly good taste (as I would say for anyone gravedancing over any banned member), and I'm disappointed to see it.

4472:

it should be. The only exception is granting and removing global user rights for staff members on staff request, which is in the hands of the stewards.

3004:

Arbcom found out this was implemented at the same time everyone else did. We did hear in advance that an action to do with Fram was under consideration

718:, and you must stay out of it. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with past Foundation interactions should know that. And the English Knowledge is 6573:- the names of the victims are less important than their stories. You wrote that we have only Fram's side of the story. That is indeed a big problem. 2062:

If it has to be an employee/contractor, let the community elect an ombudsman, and let WMF hire them as a contractor. It's about oversight and trust.

1572:

actually provide it with value, that it is morally and ethically wrong. But pretending we have some power here is not the same as having power here.

7154: 4939:

To make things worse, due to the fact that the Chinese Community does not have a Signpost-like magazine, the WMCUG instituted the establishment of

327: 6120:'s parents were literally guilty of a criminal code violation here. Let's not wilfully misinterpret things for sake of of fueling the shitstorm. 562:

that these changes to the processes came as a surprise to many people within the community, and that many of you have questions about the changes.

476:"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 5491:

Yes, that's the disconnect the WMF Trust and Safety group have created. Most of us are aware that only the most egregious behavior results in an

824:

things even more. We've had it with the stonewalling, and this is basically more of the same. I will give Jan credit for putting the responce in

4915:

WMCUG admins (in this case, User:Techyan) and other members even engage in wheelwaring of blocking and unblocking WMCUG members and supporters.

1361:

I would prefer that you don't call me deluded, thanks. I should be able to argue an opposite point of view from you without being attacked. --

482:

from the Trust and Safety team emails the that fram posted. Punitive actions are in direct conflict with Knowledge's core values and policies.

6397:

intended to hurt the person complaining about them, it is hard to have faith in the T&S team here, given they have sided with an editor's

5508: 5819:

And I don't understand why "fuck Arbcom" isn't simply an admin/Arbcom issue (if, indeed, an issue at all). Perhaps this has been discussed

2186:- 1 year terms (with no consecutive terms allowed) shouldn't have too much of community-changing. There should be elections for such posts. 763:

knew they weren't supposed to do what they did. They didn't care and they were very deliberately acting in defiance of your overreach. You

214:

I'm tempted to make the sardonic point that WMF is exempt from following the policies of Knowledge, and so the argument that they violated

7123: 6767:

This action is based entirely on the Foundation's findings relating to behavior on Wikimedia Foundation websites and/or mailing lists. (1)

4047: 1777: 988:

I think that sidesteps the point in what is, overall, a rather poignant response. Thanks for taking the time to draft it, Seraphimblade.

7551:

Note to self, if I ever have any problem with another editor's conduct, especially a longstanding admin, I'll be sure to go straight to

4192: 3100: 1381:(adj.) believing something that is not true" -- so it's not by any stretch of the imagination an attack. Nevertheless, I've rephrased. 323: 3991:

The WMF is endangering it. The idea of a fork would be to take it away from them to save it, not to start all over from zero articles.

2731:

and distribute their assets in a manner that's almost certainly pre-defined. But they can't say "I'm bored, let's do something else".

434:

has truly managed to cogently express what I've been feeling in my gut since the the first response from T&S. I would also credit

6252:. It seems that you know who some of the victims are. I don't recall WMF ever mentioning any victims. Do you know something I don't? 4926:

Users harassing me on-site and off-site because I requested Techyan to explain why he unblocked a particular user without any reasons

4928:, and had since then calling me with bad names, such as "anti-China" , "anti-CCP", "anti-Chinese Community", "dumbass", "retarded". 654:

to their Office Action edits. I am taking the step of making this statement personally in this case due to extraordinary necessity.

4903:

They (WMCUG and its supporters, including both OFFICE banned users) even tried evading the normal use of CheckUser Tool and used

2876:

made aware by T&S in their monthly phone call, that Fram was (very likely) going to be sanctioned in some manner over en-wiki

7104:? Was it an Arbcom member? Was it an established editor? Who? Was it the one Arb who resigned? This is beyond insanity. Why the 4736:

Point to note for all first: the Chinese community is way more complicated, and less self-governing than the English community.

4502:

know some of those specific details. Are you saying that this is no longer the case/was not the case for this particular ban? --

3103:

on my userpage that I've been quite busy in real life and so have had to take some time away from both the wiki and the ArbCom.

2083:- excellent idea. Did you mean only using one ombudsman? How about multiple of them? I was thinking maybe three? With reserves. 6898:

on repeated misconduct within the English Knowledge, and rule out the innuendo that there also was some bad off-wiki behavior?

1962:

Actually, providing data to someone under an NDA is generally considered a good-faith effort in keeping that data confidential.

287:

Obviously this is off topic but I don't think that is accurate. Most Germans were not aware of the ultimate plan. For example,

7203:

She is mentioned above by Fram and, as far as I see, nowhere else on this page. I stopped short of mentioning her yesterday.--

7139: 1297:

Not unanimous, but I think the opposers are in the minority. I don't even know Fram, and I support Seraphimblade's statement.

1520:

Yes they can. I struggle to think of anything involving this website that is actually outside of the foundation's authority.

7025:

Well someone, or some people at WMF should be removed from their position really. This is a disgraceful abuse of position.

4820:

Office Actions are last stand actions. They are done only when all local actions fail to address a particular genuine issue.

3518:

been that this is not a legal issue. I'm guessing that assumption is incorrect, even though it is based on their statement.

1177:

If anyone is looking for a more popular piece of text to be written on this issue, it had better be written on a pink slip.

6580: 6357: 6306: 6259: 6218: 3615: 3567: 3401: 3278: 2193: 2090: 1607: 1304: 866: 256: 3711:: Please, stop being cruel to individuals whose names have come up in the course of this issue; if ever you wondered why 794:

That's nice. But Knowledge ain't a "safe space", it's a website. People of a lot of different temperaments are there, and

6194: 5991: 2667:, though I find some of the suggested courses of action to be a bit extreme. Still, I think this shows just how much the 1152:

This is the best and cleanest distillation of my own views on the subject that I've read in this entire thread. Bravo.

4463:

many people know, that is: nothing. And I personally know nothing about this whole lot affair. As such, your claim that

7515:

Have we considered de-crosslinking articles from that wiki until such time as that situation is brought under control?

6098:

Can you or anyone else help shed light on the "crime"-related wording, without, of course, breaking any confidences? --

4747:

It consists of quite some history (about internal matters, blocks, ongoing issues of the Chinese Knowledge, and more).

4713: 3066:

have some explaining to do. In the interest of not pinging all ArbCom members (many of whom are inactive), I will ping

516: 110:

This page is already long enough, and many of my opinions have been covered already by myself and others (including my

4442:

Well said indeed. Civility is important, but it is not going to be improved by random lightning strikes from up high.

1474:

do not know what it is because the current communications from the WMF have been light on the details and specifics.

7396: 7278: 7249:

Well it's worse than that. Not only did it not go to Arbcom, but apparently Arbcom weren't even informed about it.

6973: 5374:

How ironic that they took such an opportunity to deal out more shit here and yet you felt the need to protect them.

5034:

Nein. Personally knowing someone at the Safety Team does not grant any precedence when these reports are submitted.--

4373: 3255:

of a complete lost of trust by the English Knowledge community of T&S's actions in this instance, as, in fact, a

3039: 2995: 2953: 2889: 2388: 1799: 1743: 4871: 4088:. I'll point out, though, that we really don't know what constitutes "cruel" in the minds of the WMF at this point. 529:

This statement addresses the above one from the WMF. Simply put: The English Knowledge editor community is entirely

7540: 7486: 6046: 5967: 5158: 4554: 4510: 4465:"they have "more information" than even the local dispute resolution body about this block is extremely disturbing" 4111: 3951: 3902: 3845: 3814: 3239: 2977:, this is plainly weird stuff. You were aware of everything yet STork resorted to lying in saying over WT:ACN that 2849:

This is yet another part of these office actions which needs to be explained to the satisfaction of the community.

1012: 172: 6148:

I know how to read, and I already saw what you said earlier. I get it, that it wasn't a legal accusation. But it

4947:

The colleague that User:Techyan wrote received no warning prior to the firm conduct warning is in fact User:WQL.

4893: 4875: 2942:

These two points contradict to some extent, though it's perfectly plausible that STork did not read the minutes.

2322:" I think they should. I suspect a lot of people calling for blood here would be among the same people shouting " 1489:

issue (if they thought their jobs would be part of any resolution, obviously they'd be motivated not to agree!).

1273: 4978:

This is a much serious issue, as it means local last-stand bodies losing trust from members within the community

686:, not to rule, this community. If we say you may not step in for some particular thing, then you keep out of it. 7413: 7369: 6482: 6415: 6130: 5671: 5613: 5568: 5324: 5258: 5067: 5016: 4885: 4649: 2681: 2348:

be set up to handle is DMCA complaints. A site owner doesn't otherwise have to moderate their site whatsoever.

5148:

This should not be taken as a negative reflection on any of the checkusers in the role at the time of removal.

6664: 6625: 6556: 6088: 5863: 5774: 5742: 5002:

It could be that ARBCOM is losing trust. But it could also be that the complainer is doing the equivalent of

4084:

Thanks for your kind words, and for picking up an important point (even if it's something of a buried lede),

3319: 3314:

If you think this is just an angry reaction by Fram's supporters, you have very badly misread the situation.

3156: 3126: 2916: 2648: 2582: 2537: 2469: 2368: 2331: 2283: 2043: 2012: 1977: 1939: 1819: 907: 835: 7339:

here, T&S's untransparent and unchallengeable actions appear to be an over-reach, beyond their charter,

1265:

At first, I saw this and thought "TL;DR". I read it, anyway. I'm glad that I did. Well said, Seraphimblade.

634:. Not some poor WMF staffer tasked to do it; the person who ultimately made the final signoff on the matter. 7386: 7268: 6963: 6763:

with regard to any Office Action, one, ond only one, of the two following statements would always be true:

3701: 3668:

Then came the ban on Fram. It is localized, it is of comparatively short duration, it is unappealable, and

3640: 3029: 2985: 2943: 2879: 2562:

Forfice me but this is a huge thread and I cannot find their post, not is one listed in their edit history.

1789: 1733: 326:. It should not be sitting at the talk page since February 2018. It should be gently yet promptly moved to 105: 6635:

Your speculation in search of someone other than Fram to blame for this fiasco is only proving my point. —

6544:

thing trying to engage with T&S has given us is a resounding, and not to put too fine a point on it, "

5504: 4726:

Explaining the block process (by 1233 from the Hong Kong Community)(and the Chinese Knowledge's Situation)

2546:

Boing, sorry I mostly missed that or I wouldn't have repeated. Slatersteven, Fram gave it in their post.

7536: 469: 7364:

unjustified, and if the stewards think otherwise, it's not only WMF that needs a vote of no confidence.

4279:

risk as well as manage the overall safety of our online and offline communities when incidents happen.'

2532:

North8000, you're only about the 350th person to make that suggestion (and I only exaggerate a little).

590:

Actually, you used to do this when I was on ArbCom. In the instances you had concerns about a user, you

334:

in enWki. If they are accepted - then enWiki may have a dispute resolution problem. Teasle from "Rambo"

7254: 7030: 6985: 6117: 5923: 5828: 5758: 5694: 5658: 5640: 5635:

project going online externally to accuse Fram of REAL CRIMES. Is this an acceptable turn of events?

5594: 5396: 5379: 5351: 5286: 5232: 5208: 5132: 5046: 4992: 4836: 4447: 3217: 38: 7189:

I assume Swarm already read that thing on the talk page since they mentioned said editor's name here.

5244:

this ban has been triggered following your recent abusive communications on the project, as seen here

4069:

Bottom line. The problem begins and ends with that issue. Thank you Risker for laying out that issue.

3151:

civility agenda and no tool more subtle than a 1-year no-appeal ban hammer? I'm quite sure you would.

7409: 7382: 7365: 6528:, exactly, the systems they disparage are deficient and how they could be improved (and this, again, 6512:, because neither of these things, if done even halfway competently, should carry a risk of exposure. 6277: 6071: 5456: 5415: 4285:

better here. I guess that noting things like this, in context, can be taken as a form of harassment?

3472: 3421: 3374: 3339: 3305: 1844:

Bullying and harassment are a problem. Fram is not the one doing them. And Star Chamber trials are

6082:

Danke, Rosie. Let's all keep from elevating the temperature any more than it already has been, hm? —

3028:, many thanks. This is a succinct and well-written disclosure which should have come hours earlier. 6659: 6640: 6620: 6609: 6598: 6586: 6551: 6465: 6439: 6363: 6312: 6265: 6224: 6083: 5858: 5769: 5737: 5106: 3621: 3573: 3396: 3330: 3315: 3282: 3152: 3141: 3122: 3108: 3016: 2965: 2911: 2835: 2644: 2578: 2533: 2465: 2364: 2327: 2320:

should people be able to send an OTRS request and ask for it to be kept confidentially from ArbCom?

2279: 2246: 2199: 2096: 2039: 2008: 1973: 1935: 1814: 1602: 1310: 1191:

What Seraphimblade said, a thousand times yes, or in my best Australian vernacular, piss off WMF.-

902: 861: 847: 830: 512: 335: 331: 262: 4884:

After the former is formed, some long-term supporters of the former (and closely connected users,

1968:

information are quite strict (and are different in different jurisdictions). Adding clauses like "

1041:

horn in on our community. Whether any other communities come to that same decision is up to them.

6292: 5987: 5893: 5878: 5516: 5507:

tells us about Partial Foundation Bans, presumably that's what Fram's ban is. The text was added

5003: 4403: 4169:: On June 13, Rosiestep posted this 3-minute video on the gender gap on her "About me" userpage: 3267: 3136:

leg to stand on when it comes to saying we could have advised them on how to handle this better.

2901: 2867:, stewards are generally made aware of all Office actions related to bans and are even consulted. 2854: 2745:

Could they deviate substantially from their annual plan without getting approval from the Board?

2485: 2391:

has created greater mostly untested legal requirements, the Backpage stuff predated FOSTA-SESTA.

1553: 1386: 1352: 1256: 1167: 483: 5388: 2326:" when people are treated badly by companies and other organizations through official channels. 1395:

Thanks, I appreciate it. For what it's worth I agree with the general point of your comment. --

599:

law or court order, the WMF does not have the authority to ban editors on the English Knowledge.

7561: 7225: 7100:

case, there are no privacy considerations, and it isn't confidential. So who complained to the

7065: 7048: 4709: 4628: 4481: 4300: 4240: 4177: 4011: 3982: 3262:

be made in the T&S staff due to what appears to be gross negligence or hamfisted behavior.

2875: 2567: 2523: 2216: 2170: 2128: 1835: 1548:

Per my response above, you are completely and totally mistaken about the real-world situation.

1427: 1033:, I would certainly expect them to ask prior to implementing it on the English Knowledge, yes. 783:

complaints to local English Knowledge authorities, even if you grit your teeth while you do it.

767:

for simple incivility, whether or not you like the way the English Knowledge handles it. It is

530: 2792:

does not interfere in staffing decisions, this is entirely the CEO's authority. The WMF Board

7520: 7461: 7344: 7319: 7250: 7026: 6981: 6758: 5919: 5824: 5754: 5709: 5690: 5636: 5590: 5392: 5375: 5347: 5282: 5228: 4881:

It looks like the Brazil situation, but the stage is a virtual zone, i.e. zh.wikipedia.org .

4527:

I don't know what happened in 2015, but in 2018 and 2019 we don't get such thing. — regards,

4443: 4369: 4055: 4030: 3996: 3973:(which raised over 30 million, and includes a blockchain implementation) & more recently 3555:- there was no opportunity for Fram to defend themselves for the recent ban. So, perhaps, we 3213: 3071: 2871: 2553: 2507: 2440: 2306: 2259: 1667: 1494: 1197: 1068: 944: 459: 6650:

T&S handled this just completely caused it to not only spiral out of control, but has a

4412:

I understand the various issues and their possible ramifications much better now. Thank you

1705:

From a moral and ethical purview, this is a very good response to Jan's statement and (+1).

7506: 6849: 6813: 6287: 6245: 6202: 6171: 6157: 6103: 6067: 6044: 5965: 5847: 5790: 5525: 5452: 5411: 5304: 5155: 4904: 4889: 4804:(including comments on-site, etc.) and submit it directly to the aforementioned email, and 4551: 4507: 4433: 4308: 4250: 4215: 4131: 3948: 3899: 3784: 3542: 3524: 3468: 3417: 3370: 3335: 3301: 3236: 3197: 3080: 2779: 2714: 1964:" There might be conditions under which that would be acceptable, but laws on confidential 1479: 1460: 1209: 1157: 1143: 1108: 1009: 892: 789:

discourse, and the safety of Wikimedia spaces. --Jan (WMF) (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

504: 490: 422: 169: 2878:; why she did not choose to pursue it, any further, can be answered by her and her alone. 2455:

a group of volunteers who answer most email sent to Knowledge and the Wikimedia Foundation

8: 7292: 7240: 7208: 7194: 7180: 6980:

Yeah, always a good idea to silence people who criticise you. Reminiscent of the Nazis.

6732: 6636: 6605: 6575: 6568: 6435: 6352: 6334: 6326: 6301: 6254: 6213: 6029: 5102: 4605: 4336: 4290: 4201: 3934: 3884: 3829: 3798: 3610: 3583: 3562: 3487: 3435: 3412: 3391: 3388: 3137: 3104: 3067: 3025: 3012: 2974: 2961: 2933: 2750: 2736: 2608: 2406: 2188: 2153: 2145: 2085: 2067: 1907: 1690: 1646: 1597: 1594: 1400: 1366: 1299: 1288: 885: 856: 853: 278: 251: 247: 238: 6702:

authorized posters to the WIR twitter that on wiki conflicts are supposed to be resolve

6536:

T&S to assume responsibility for it, which is a big chunk of why everyone is angry).

119:

him in the past. I also do wish to condemn what has happened to Raystorm and LauraHale.

7016: 6478: 6411: 6126: 6003: 5978: 5935: 5889: 5874: 5667: 5609: 5564: 5512: 5478: 5435: 5320: 5254: 5063: 5012: 4678: 4655: 4399: 4324: 3603: 3591: 3454: 3292: 3263: 3177: 3167: 2897: 2864: 2850: 2826: 2761: 2687: 2664: 2625: 2600: 2481: 2349: 2250: 2023: 1992: 1950: 1919: 1627: 1575: 1549: 1531: 1382: 1348: 1252: 1251:, and it's not about Fram, something they clearly have not shown that they understand. 1220: 1058: 1042: 879: 804: 443: 403: 384: 191: 6962:

any minimal transparency. Nothing mentioned over here, needs any privileged dealings.

4910:

removal of all CheckUsers and suspending the access tool for local Chinese Wikimedians

4908:

seems to be connected to the OFFICE banned user User:守望者爱孟) have directly lead to the

579:

You have, however, not been in active dialogue with the English Knowledge's community.

7556: 7221: 7061: 7044: 6927: 6903: 6865: 6831: 6794: 6780: 6715: 5950: 5365: 4705: 4624: 4575: 4493: 4477: 4359:

I realiza a lot of people have thanked you already, but these comments are spot on. —

4236: 4188: 4173: 4115: 4007: 3978: 3738: 3552: 2640: 2563: 2519: 2383:

found out the hard way that the DMCA was not the only thing they had to worry about.

2212: 2181: 2166: 2139: 2124: 1885: 1831: 1764: 1441: 1423: 977: 961: 928: 508: 376: 343: 223: 205: 132:

Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect.

6994:"This action is effective immediately and it is non-appealable" - Huh?! It can take 3676:

Failing to differentiate between previous OFFICE actions and this new type of action

3006:. I believe SilkTork was referring to the fact that we did not know that action was 1528:

Yes they can. It would be, and is, incredibly stupid, but they certainly can do it.

7552: 7516: 7352: 6515: 6490: 6423: 6138: 5679: 5621: 5576: 5500: 5492: 5332: 5266: 5182: 5075: 5024: 4590: 4423: 4360: 4153: 4093: 4051: 4026: 3992: 3919: 3863: 3755: 3723: 3651: 3587: 2927:

The rest of the arbs did have the minutes from the meeting available shortly after.

2436: 2301: 2254: 1810: 1663: 1490: 1192: 1064: 1004:

To be pragmatic, 99% of those wikis will never be the subject of office actions. --

938: 821: 455: 366: 6656:

they should have IMMEDIATELY escalated the ban to a global one after that comment.

3824:

I am afraid the statement actually confirmed the worries of the safety illusion.--

3250:

This discussion is essentially an indictment by the community of the T&S staff

7502: 7481: 7143: 7095:

Wait. Seriously? It was for incivility? Incivility that supposedly culminated in

6844: 6823: 6808: 6706:? I would observe again that this entire distraction is very reminiscent of the 6198: 6167: 6153: 6099: 6039: 5960: 5843: 5786: 5533: 5499:

or some permutation of that and couldn't find anything. But I did stumble across

5300: 5152: 4548: 4504: 4429: 4304: 4246: 4166: 4145: 4127: 3945: 3896: 3855: 3840: 3809: 3780: 3519: 3233: 3193: 3076: 2775: 2725: 2710: 1475: 1470:

restore the trust. If its a case 2, then it is context and detail specific. We

1456: 1205: 1153: 1139: 1103: 1006: 888: 486: 431: 418: 166: 6276:

I read it as a general statement, but maybe you know something I don't. Do you?

5430:

it's pretty clear that something legal or very serious was involved in this case

3356: 2802: 538:

existed. Knowledge founded the WMF, not the other way around. The WMF exists to

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

7288: 7236: 7204: 7190: 7176: 7082: 6728: 6707: 6692: 6486: 6419: 6345: 6330: 6239: 6134: 6063: 6025: 5675: 5617: 5572: 5328: 5262: 5202: 5126: 5071: 5040: 5020: 4986: 4830: 4601: 4581: 4332: 4286: 4210: 4197: 4085: 4070: 3930: 3911: 3880: 3825: 3794: 3767: 3712: 3496: 3483: 3431: 3416:

for those involved if it means a safer community for editors to edit in peace.

2929: 2746: 2732: 2668: 2621: 2604: 2450: 2402: 2297: 2149: 2078: 2063: 1903: 1686: 1657: 1642: 1396: 1362: 1284: 1267: 293: 274: 234: 145:

other evils? I know I have, even got the death threats (and my editing area is

4756:

foundation would never actively start an investigation against any individuals

4319: 4170: 7012: 6474: 6407: 6294:- that tweet is the culmination of an entire thread discussing this incident 6122: 5705: 5663: 5632: 5605: 5560: 5316: 5250: 5059: 5008: 4962: 4674: 4642: 4120:

meta:Talk:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019

3548: 3463: 3450: 2822: 2674: 1861: 1182: 1123: 1088: 525:

Editorial independence of the English Knowledge community and response to Jan

439: 380: 313: 215: 187: 127: 6894:

So, based on that, can you definitively say that this one-year ban is based

1880:

I absolutely agree with everything in Seraphimblade's response. Well said!

1436:

Jan Eissfeldt needs to be terminated from employment by WMF. No confidence.

702:. The WMF does not exist to overrule community decisions it considers wrong. 533:

from the Wikimedia Foundation. That means that, in addition to not deciding

7336: 7264: 7128: 7000: 6923: 6899: 6861: 6840: 6827: 6804: 6790: 6776: 6724: 6711: 5946: 5941:

behavior is very near (if not over the line) of several points made in the

5361: 5343: 4659: 4263:'The Trust and Safety Department identifies, builds and - as appropriate - 3734: 3670:

it is for reasons that are deliberately not being shared with the community

2691: 1881: 1806: 1773: 1760: 1437: 1054: 1030: 999: 973: 972:

That was easy enough for the Foundation when moving from GFDL to CC-BY-SA.

957: 924: 722:"other online communities", so experience outside it is totally irrelevant. 451: 339: 219: 201: 18:

Knowledge:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram

6350:- how am I to be empathetic when I don't know the stories of the victims? 5172:

Techyan's earlier response to Fram situation pertaining the above case is

4114:. Not sure, but I saw something there which I can't now find. Possibly by 3747: 398:

I don't know what those of you who actually edit contentious areas will do

375:

I really, really want to know how that editnotice hasn't gotten nuked per

200:

This is a very accurate, rational, and well-composed response. Thank you,

7428: 7348: 7340: 6113: 6112:

As stated above, "real crime" here is idiomatic, not a legal accusation.

5654: 5178: 4742:

harassment in the Chinese Knowledge against me, both on-site and off-site

4691: 4638: 4620: 4586: 4457: 4415: 4386: 4328: 4162: 4149: 4089: 3915: 3859: 3751: 3719: 1728:

has always been a favorite phrasing of the pro-WMF clique but it has not

435: 362: 7468:

WMF intervention. They haven't. But Fram says "fuck" to an arbitrator?

7159: 7110: 5716: 5603:

I'd reply, but I don't feel like being harassed by the twitter crowd.

5529: 4528: 3970: 6211:

It's been discussed by Softlavender, myself, and BullRangifer so far.

5631:

I'm not sure you're in a position to reply really, this is about the

4896:, and forcing the latter to cease normal offline community operation. 4800:(at that case, me when dealing with on-site harassment) would need to 4793:

or not, and whether the content reported is against the terms of use.

4694:

you'll disagree a bit here) between the recent statements here and at

4275:(used as a noun), product, research, and learning & evaluation to 3366: 3352: 2798: 1848:

the solution. H.L. Mencken defined a free society as one where it is

7076: 6054: 5975:

looking I can't even remember whether or not I'm a signed up member.

5227:

tangible information being provided to those whom they "disappear"?

5197: 5121: 5035: 4981: 4825: 3663:

Complete lack of communication in the change of use of OFFICE actions

3655: 3650:

Like many English Wikipedians, I have felt very conflicted about the

2982:

received the news regarding the ban at the same time as the community

1788:. Obviously, you were being harassed and they failed to recognise;-) 989: 288: 7455:

Folks here probably don't know because it's not technically part of

4976:, and thus reported through the foundation's trust and safety team. 4420:, THANK YOU. I also appreciate the "Trust is..." essay mentioned by 610:

If you require an updated NDA, have Legal develop a better one. You

7450:

Absent a coherent response from Trust & Safety, I believe Fram.

4958: 4940: 4110:

have been somewhere in the large number of pages (and subpages) at

3733:

Was there any involvement of stewards in this? I don't recall any.

2380: 2274:

way to handle confidential complaints is always constrained by the

1857: 1518:

The WMF may not overrule the English Knowledge editorial community.

1178: 1120: 1085: 310: 6193:

The Twitter account is now being discussed by some editors at the

4806:

explaining the reasons why it is directly against the terms of use

361:

aggravating the situation. But again, this is wholly speculative.

2007:", but in reality it's usually a lot more complicated than that. 1970:

We will not share your complaint with anyone who is not under NDA

3121:" - LOL, thanks for injecting some humour into this sad affair. 2774:

for WMF to do something that undermines their stated mission. --

447: 114:) but I believe there are some things that need to be explored: 6532:

because an inability for us to figure out a solution basically

4892:

included, both OFFICE Banned.) have continued their attacks on

4331:) and conceptualize the problem in formal terms, at this point. 4106:

As far as I can tell, earlier discussion of this sort of thing

1809:, what sort of improvements do you think could be made to make 152:

If you want someone banned, all you have to do is convince WMF.

6843:, Yes, although I still have concerns about precise wording. 5006:, possibly on purpose because they have friends in the WMF. 4733:

This is 1233 from the Hong Kong (and the Chinese) Community.

7041:

Silencing criticism in such an obscure way is not acceptable

6472:

So let's not dismiss the possibility that HR can be wrong.

5391:

is how the WiR project are dealing with the current crisis.

3608:- missed the ping. Well okay, I'd support these candidates. 2821:

I generally agree with what Seraphimblade has written here.

474:

I was rereading Fram's statement on commons, and found this

5360:

Deleted because I don't want anyone griefing Women In Red.

2500:

embarrassment and backlash from what actually happened.

884:

Yep, I'm also pretty sure 'her' is a 'his'. Trust me. See

747: 664:

doing. If you would be ashamed to do it, then don't do it.

2464:

a very ham-fisted approach should not detract from that.

7175:. Note that none of them answers your question though.-- 6166:

Particularly if it gives another "side" of the story. --

5653:"Real crime" here is idiomatic, not a legal accusation. 5451:(obviously) disagree with me. But this is how I see it. 759: 379:

yet. There are rumblings that might explain it, but...

112:

concerns of unfairly singling out enwiki among the wikis

6885:

Partial Foundation bans may be implemented in cases of:

6066:! I know that wasn't the intention to muddy the water! 753: 7472:

what the Foundation thinks needs urgent office action.

4974:

accuser(s) do not trust how ArbCom handles this matter

3974: 3748:#Why were Stewards notified in advance and not ArbCom? 1786:

that you were hardly much competent at editing, either

1245:

theirs to do away with whenever they want. In short:

1204:

If accurate then this pretty much is the bottom line.

886:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/profile/jan-eissfeldt/

6000:

Speaking of thin-skinned, who cares who tweets what.

5823:, but I don't have the life force to determine that. 2841:

Why were Stewards notified in advance and not ArbCom?

7433: 6373:

I also hope that ARBCOM/WMF can distinguish between

4237:

SPoore (WMF) Strategist, Community health initiative

1102:

and I want him preparing carefully for that meeting.

5120:

do agree submitting the documents to BoT though. --

3172:I certainly don't think anyone could have done any 7478:User:Ivanvector/2019 Arbitration Committee protest 5888:affected content and editorial practices on ENWP. 4538:You have access to the archives, you can find out 2896:Do you know if OR told the rest of the Committee? 2663:I generally agree with the sentiment expressed by 1514:the WMF may not decide who may or may not write it 2148:suggested, have three, so it's less of a burden. 1138:Strongly support Seraphimblade's response above. 7267:, seems to be an impressively effective method! 4267:which keep our users safe; design, develop, and 550:Dear members of the English Knowledge community, 5242:From their post on Commons, they were told ... 2910:Based on what SilkTork has said, she did not. — 1778:you accused others of harassment w/o any merit 1623:As an American, that made me smile and then cry 734:issues, not garden-variety "harassment" claims. 6938:Reaction to Fram's initial response on Commons 6508:explanation as to why the ban is time-limited 4641:. Thank you for stating things so clearly. ··· 233:create to support the project must operate. -- 6299:, in which Rosiestep makes multiple replies. 4228:their work. See also the note left by Sydney 4124:"Formal private reporting systems" and ArbCom 2788:(tangent warning!) As a technical point, the 1347:especially about the realities in play here. 745:Let's neither of us be disingenuous, please. 180:Minor edits made at 01:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 5558:sigh* talk about throwing oil on the fire. 4851:What happened to me at the Chinese Community 4687: 2324:Go straight for the top and don't be put off 1708:Obviously, no merits from a legal viewpoint 448:#Does even Fram know what he was banned for? 5837:I think Fram has made it clear that he was 5222:Does even Fram know what he was banned for? 1712:that would mean that the WMF can choose to 6652:very real risk of exposing the complainant 6381:harassment. In my experience, there are a 3654:action that has imposed a one-year ban on 3499:, As a complication, the office statement: 1330:might want to do, but the question is not 585:the movement when carrying out our duties. 6708:Eastern European Mailing List Arbcom case 4874:(WMCUG) versus the foundation-recognized 4191:, the video in question was posted on my 3560:don't even know anything but their name. 2363:And the ethical obligations I suggested? 803:no matter how nicely it might be worded. 6459:in your behaviour caused the complaints. 4760:reports from other bodies through emails 4758:, and the process would only start with 2453:does clearly say that it is handled by " 1326:our historical, moral and ethical rights 1323:The arguments being made here are about 4673:I agree with much of what Risker says. 14: 6954:and WMF T&S have been effectively 6469:, which sounds a lot like "my condom". 5857:particularly liked in the community. — 4144:Thanks for reminding me of that page, 3779:That's a very good summary, thanks. -- 3300:This is a discussion as it should be. 2435:email) would appear to be unsuitable. 338::-) - where he talks about the law. -- 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 7312:resulted in an editor getting banned. 5342:But the previous (deleted) edit from 4932:rules" to try cool the problem down. 2460:issue with what many of us think was 1166:Very well laid out, Seraphimblade. -- 6950:problem with the last diff? This is 5277:They're literally being judge, jury 4539: 3298:disagree that this is an indictment. 2870:On a sidenote, (among arbitrators), 25: 6510:cannot and should not be privileged 3449:things (ArbCom), was not involved. 1813:and the like actually have teeth? — 309:Good points as always Rschen7754.- 23: 4067:"stop being cruel to individuals." 3766:Well said, Risker, and thank you. 3277:Don't forget COI--see further up. 852:FYI Jan is a male German name. -- 438:'s post, and recent comments from 24: 7578: 3002:As Opabinia said in her comment, 2389:Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act 7124:Jimbo is reviewing the situation 5505:WP:OFFICE#Primary office actions 4775: 4765: 4546:But hmm. That is interesting. -- 4540: 4112:meta:Community health initiative 1852:. And safety depends on having 1035:Knowledge founded the Foundation 124:WMF itself has been uncivil here 122:That all being said: in my mind 29: 7122:Incase anyone has missed this, 5468:something legal or very serious 4894:meta:Wikimedia User Group China 4876:meta:Wikimedia User Group China 4872:m:Wikimedians of Mainland China 4320:we have a communication problem 3119:professional community managers 1918:I empathise with a lot of what 923:Bravo Seraphimblade, well said! 5495:ban. Today I went looking for 5281:executioner? Is that right? 2005:It's easy, just do X, Y, and Z 13: 1: 4785:The related teams would then 4772:wikimedia.org) trustandsafety 4686:Similar to what I said about 6455:because you don't even know 4637:I agree with your comments, 2165:you are on the winning side. 556:Requests/WJBscribe tomorrow. 7: 7462:"Do something about azwiki" 5890:Only in death does duty end 5875:Only in death does duty end 5466:not clear that it involved 4271:a strategy that integrates 4243:) 18:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 2482:Only in death does duty end 816:to why the ban was limited 10: 7583: 3750:higher up on this page. -- 3709:A message to the community 1782:seeking proper resolution 7567:20:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 7545:14:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 7525:15:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 7511:14:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 7492:13:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 7438:07:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 7418:11:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 7399:11:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 7374:11:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 7357:11:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 7324:21:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 7297:11:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 7281:11:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 7259:11:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 7245:11:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 7230:11:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 7213:10:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 7199:10:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 7185:10:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 7167:10:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 7147:10:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 7135:10:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 7118:08:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 7089:08:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 7070:08:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 7053:08:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 7035:08:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 7021:08:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 7007:08:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 6990:08:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 6976:08:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 6932:10:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6918:08:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6908:02:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6870:16:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6855:16:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6836:14:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6819:14:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6799:02:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6785:01:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6737:20:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6720:19:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6670:18:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6645:16:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6631:10:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6614:06:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6592:05:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6562:05:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6496:16:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6444:03:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6429:02:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6369:02:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6339:02:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6318:02:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6281:01:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6271:01:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6230:06:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6207:00:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6176:00:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6162:00:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6144:00:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6108:00:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6094:00:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6076:00:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6058:00:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6049:00:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6034:00:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 6011:00:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 5996:23:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5970:23:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5955:23:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5928:22:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5898:22:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5883:22:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5869:22:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5852:22:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5833:22:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5795:22:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5780:22:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5763:22:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5748:22:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5724:01:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 5699:22:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5685:22:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5645:22:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5627:22:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5599:22:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5582:22:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5538:02:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 5521:01:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 5486:00:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 5461:00:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 5443:23:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5420:23:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5401:22:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5384:22:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5370:22:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5356:22:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5338:22:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5309:22:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5291:21:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5272:21:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5237:21:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5214:21:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5187:18:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5163:18:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5146:, and to quote from that 5138:21:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5111:17:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 5081:20:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 5052:03:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 5030:17:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 4998:15:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 4967:15:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 4912:at end of March at 2018. 4842:15:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 4802:collect related materials 4789:on whether the report is 4776: 4766: 4720:10:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4682:20:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 4667:18:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 4633:12:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 4610:19:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 4595:18:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 4559:18:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 4534:16:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 4515:13:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 4486:10:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 4452:04:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 4438:02:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 4408:02:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 4378:23:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 4341:15:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4313:14:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4295:14:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4255:13:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4219:15:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4206:15:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4182:07:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4158:23:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 4136:22:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 4098:23:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 4076:22:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 4060:22:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 4035:05:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 4016:22:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 4001:22:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 3987:21:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 3956:04:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 3939:01:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 3924:00:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 3907:00:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 3889:21:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 3868:23:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 3851:23:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 3834:22:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 3820:21:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 3803:21:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 3789:21:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 3773:21:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 3760:21:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 3743:21:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 3728:21:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 3627:12:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 3597:17:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 3579:00:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 3530:16:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 3492:00:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 3477:20:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 3459:17:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 3440:20:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 3426:20:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 3408:17:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 3379:20:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 3361:17:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 3344:20:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 3324:17:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 3310:17:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 3287:08:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 3272:07:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 3244:18:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 3222:17:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 3202:15:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 3183:16:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 3161:15:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 3146:15:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 3131:15:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 3113:15:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 3085:14:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 3042:13:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 3021:13:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 2998:13:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 2970:13:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 2956:08:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 2938:08:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 2922:08:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 2906:08:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 2892:07:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 2859:07:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC) 2830:20:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2807:12:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 2784:21:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2755:21:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2741:21:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2719:19:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2699:18:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2653:18:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2631:18:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2613:18:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2599:I don't agree with your ( 2587:17:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2572:17:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2558:16:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2542:16:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2528:15:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2512:15:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2490:19:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2474:17:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2445:12:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2411:19:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2373:18:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2355:17:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2336:14:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2309:13:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2288:11:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2262:11:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2221:08:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 2205:00:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 2175:16:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2158:16:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2133:14:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2102:14:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2072:11:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2048:12:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2029:12:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2017:12:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1998:12:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1989:get the hell out of there 1982:11:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1956:11:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1944:11:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1912:10:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1890:17:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1866:05:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1840:14:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1825:03:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1802:03:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1769:03:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1746:03:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1720:heed to our concerns, at 1695:02:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1672:10:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1651:04:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1635:03:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1614:03:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1583:02:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1558:02:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1539:02:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1499:08:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1484:04:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1465:02:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1446:02:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1432:02:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1405:19:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1391:03:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1371:02:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1357:02:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1316:02:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1293:02:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1278:02:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1261:02:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1214:02:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1200:02:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1187:02:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1173:01:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1162:01:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1148:01:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1128:12:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 1114:13:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1093:01:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1073:08:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1048:01:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1017:01:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 993:01:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 982:01:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 966:01:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 949:01:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 933:00:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 913:00:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 897:00:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 873:00:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 841:23:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 810:22:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 495:11:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 464:01:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 427:18:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 411:17:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 389:17:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 371:17:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 348:16:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 318:12:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 299:20:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 283:16:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 268:14:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 243:11:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 228:11:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 210:10:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 196:07:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 177:06:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 7555:! Yeehaw, chaos reigns! 6530:should not be privileged 4751:Taiwan, and South Asia. 3513:seems clear that it was 3101:somewhat belatedly noted 937:+1, brilliant response. 820:) and only continues to 818:should not be privileged 632:put your damn name on it 324:this as a enWiki mistake 135:doesn't mean you should. 6505:is the only one we have 6195:request for arbitration 6116:wasn't suggesting that 5657:wasn't suggesting that 3692:Involvement of stewards 901:Apologies, corrected. — 546:accept less than that. 531:editorially independent 4301:meta:User:SPoore (WMF) 4281: 4245: 3793:Thanks also from me.-- 3698:The illusion of safety 3508: 769:outside your authority 480:actions from our end." 400:- be banned probably. 7537:Useight's Public Sock 5497:WP:Trust & safety 4261: 4233: 3504: 1902:for the public good. 1526:for simple incivility 42:of past discussions. 7410:Absconded Northerner 7383:Absconded Northerner 7366:Absconded Northerner 6946:Did the ArbCom have 6745:On-wiki only or not? 5509:on February 19, 2019 4905:Unrestricted Warfare 4890:User:Galaxyharrylion 4277:proactively mitigate 3641:Comments from Risker 3588:We already have them 3547:- I must agree with 1850:safe to be unpopular 1726:Fork off or fuck off 1229:very close attention 1169:SarekOfVulcan (talk) 106:Siteban as a service 6958:the role of ArbCom 4919:What happened to me 3331:Boing! said Zebedee 3316:Boing! said Zebedee 3153:Boing! said Zebedee 3123:Boing! said Zebedee 2645:Boing! said Zebedee 2579:Boing! said Zebedee 2534:Boing! said Zebedee 2466:Boing! said Zebedee 2462:woeful incompetence 2365:Boing! said Zebedee 2328:Boing! said Zebedee 2280:Boing! said Zebedee 2276:legally permissible 2247:Boing! said Zebedee 2040:Boing! said Zebedee 2009:Boing! said Zebedee 1974:Boing! said Zebedee 1936:Boing! said Zebedee 1524:may not ban editors 796:we like it that way 765:may not ban editors 716:you are not welcome 628:put your name on it 470:Punitive Punishment 248:First they came ... 147:United States roads 7265:dispute resolution 7140:Yeah, that'll help 6749:Fram has stated: " 6661:A little blue Bori 6622:A little blue Bori 6553:A little blue Bori 6085:A little blue Bori 5860:A little blue Bori 5771:A little blue Bori 5739:A little blue Bori 4859:Some history first 4299:You got that from 2913:A little blue Bori 2762:at-will employment 1816:A little blue Bori 1248:this is a big deal 904:A little blue Bori 832:A little blue Bori 7565: 6247:- you wrote that 6013: 5939: 5503:and this section 5488: 5445: 5212: 5205: 5136: 5129: 5050: 5043: 4996: 4989: 4952: 4951: 4840: 4833: 4762:to (previously ca 4718: 4665: 4216:Black Kite (talk) 4116:User:SPoore (WMF) 3595: 3553:trial in absentia 3181: 3171: 3144: 3111: 3019: 2968: 2697: 2641:survivorship bias 2629: 2353: 2027: 1996: 1954: 1896:Sub-section break 1637: 1624: 1585: 1541: 1046: 883: 808: 520: 507:comment added by 413: 186:position over. - 181: 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current main page 7574: 7559: 7436: 7394: 7389: 7276: 7271: 7251:The Rambling Man 7164: 7131: 7115: 7074:Fuck that. : --> 7027:The Rambling Man 7003: 6982:The Rambling Man 6971: 6966: 6852: 6847: 6816: 6811: 6762: 6759:JEissfeldt (WMF) 6696: 6667: 6628: 6602: 6583: 6578: 6572: 6559: 6494: 6427: 6403:actual behaviour 6377:harassment, and 6360: 6355: 6349: 6309: 6304: 6291: 6262: 6257: 6243: 6221: 6216: 6142: 6091: 6053:Yes, thank you. 6006: 6001: 5994: 5985: 5981: 5943:EEML ArbCom case 5933: 5920:The Rambling Man 5866: 5825:The Rambling Man 5777: 5755:The Rambling Man 5745: 5721: 5713: 5710:The Rambling Man 5691:The Rambling Man 5683: 5637:The Rambling Man 5625: 5591:The Rambling Man 5580: 5481: 5476: 5438: 5433: 5393:The Rambling Man 5376:The Rambling Man 5348:The Rambling Man 5336: 5283:The Rambling Man 5270: 5247: 5229:The Rambling Man 5207: 5200: 5149: 5131: 5124: 5079: 5045: 5038: 5028: 5004:WP:FORUMSHOPPING 4991: 4984: 4847: 4846: 4835: 4828: 4808:(of Knowledge). 4782:wikimedia.org . 4781: 4780: 4779: 4778: 4771: 4770: 4769: 4768: 4702: 4701: 4662: 4656:Talk to Nihonjoe 4652: 4648: 4645: 4579: 4545: 4544: 4543: 4531: 4497: 4427: 4419: 4390: 4366: 4363: 4265:staffs processes 4073: 3682:Target selection 3618: 3613: 3607: 3594: 3570: 3565: 3546: 3527: 3522: 3404: 3399: 3394: 3334:and wish I did. 3214:Opabinia regalis 3180: 3165: 3140: 3107: 3072:Opabinia regalis 3037: 3032: 3015: 2993: 2988: 2964: 2951: 2946: 2919: 2887: 2882: 2872:Opabinia regalis 2836:Two other issues 2729: 2694: 2688:Talk to Nihonjoe 2684: 2680: 2677: 2628: 2352: 2196: 2191: 2185: 2143: 2093: 2088: 2082: 2026: 1995: 1953: 1822: 1797: 1792: 1741: 1736: 1661: 1630: 1625: 1622: 1610: 1605: 1600: 1578: 1573: 1534: 1529: 1516:: Yes they can. 1307: 1302: 1224: 1170: 1111: 1106: 1062: 1045: 1003: 941: 910: 877: 869: 864: 859: 851: 838: 807: 762: 756: 750: 648:negative—tough.) 502: 484:WP:NOTPUNISHMENT 406: 401: 332:banning policies 259: 254: 218:does not apply. 179: 133: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 7582: 7581: 7577: 7576: 7575: 7573: 7572: 7571: 7489: 7432: 7390: 7387: 7272: 7269: 7160: 7129: 7111: 7087: 7001: 6967: 6964: 6945: 6940: 6850: 6845: 6814: 6809: 6756: 6747: 6690: 6665: 6626: 6596: 6581: 6576: 6566: 6557: 6473: 6406: 6358: 6353: 6343: 6307: 6302: 6288:Cygnis insignis 6285: 6278:cygnis insignis 6260: 6255: 6237: 6219: 6214: 6121: 6089: 6068:Megalibrarygirl 6038:Thanks, Rosie. 6004: 5983: 5977: 5976: 5864: 5775: 5743: 5717: 5703: 5662: 5604: 5559: 5526:Megalibrarygirl 5479: 5453:Megalibrarygirl 5436: 5412:Megalibrarygirl 5315: 5249: 5243: 5224: 5147: 5058: 5007: 4953: 4852: 4774: 4773: 4764: 4763: 4728: 4699: 4660: 4650: 4643: 4573: 4541: 4529: 4491: 4421: 4413: 4384: 4364: 4361: 4071: 3848: 3817: 3643: 3616: 3611: 3601: 3568: 3563: 3543:Megalibrarygirl 3540: 3525: 3520: 3469:Megalibrarygirl 3418:Megalibrarygirl 3402: 3397: 3392: 3371:Megalibrarygirl 3336:Megalibrarygirl 3302:Megalibrarygirl 3252: 3033: 3030: 2989: 2986: 2947: 2944: 2917: 2883: 2880: 2843: 2838: 2723: 2692: 2682: 2675: 2194: 2189: 2179: 2137: 2091: 2086: 2076: 1898: 1820: 1793: 1790: 1737: 1734: 1655: 1628: 1608: 1603: 1598: 1576: 1532: 1305: 1300: 1276: 1218: 1168: 1109: 1104: 1052: 997: 939: 908: 867: 862: 857: 845: 836: 758: 752: 746: 698:that—in short, 527: 472: 446:in the section 404: 257: 252: 131: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 7580: 7570: 7569: 7548: 7547: 7532: 7531: 7530: 7529: 7528: 7527: 7495: 7494: 7485: 7473: 7452: 7451: 7447: 7446: 7445: 7444: 7443: 7442: 7441: 7440: 7421: 7420: 7402: 7401: 7377: 7376: 7360: 7359: 7327: 7326: 7308: 7307: 7306: 7305: 7304: 7303: 7302: 7301: 7300: 7299: 7285: 7284: 7283: 7217: 7216: 7215: 7151: 7150: 7149: 7120: 7102:fucking office 7093: 7092: 7091: 7081: 7057: 7056: 7055: 7037: 7009: 6992: 6978: 6943: 6939: 6936: 6935: 6934: 6919: 6892: 6891: 6879: 6878: 6877: 6876: 6875: 6874: 6873: 6872: 6772: 6771: 6768: 6746: 6743: 6742: 6741: 6740: 6739: 6688: 6687: 6686: 6685: 6684: 6683: 6682: 6681: 6680: 6679: 6678: 6677: 6676: 6675: 6674: 6673: 6672: 6637:David Eppstein 6606:David Eppstein 6599:Jéské Couriano 6569:David Eppstein 6537: 6513: 6500: 6499: 6498: 6470: 6460: 6452: 6436:David Eppstein 6371: 6327:Starship.paint 6323: 6322: 6321: 6320: 6235: 6234: 6233: 6232: 6188: 6187: 6186: 6185: 6184: 6183: 6182: 6181: 6180: 6179: 6178: 6164: 6096: 6080: 6079: 6078: 6051: 6017: 6016: 6015: 6014: 5998: 5972: 5915: 5914: 5913: 5912: 5911: 5910: 5909: 5908: 5907: 5906: 5905: 5904: 5903: 5902: 5901: 5900: 5885: 5817: 5816: 5815: 5814: 5813: 5812: 5811: 5810: 5809: 5808: 5807: 5806: 5805: 5804: 5803: 5802: 5801: 5800: 5799: 5798: 5797: 5734: 5733: 5732: 5731: 5730: 5729: 5728: 5727: 5726: 5689:Oh, good one! 5585: 5584: 5555: 5554: 5553: 5552: 5551: 5550: 5549: 5548: 5547: 5546: 5545: 5544: 5543: 5542: 5541: 5540: 5423: 5422: 5386: 5223: 5220: 5219: 5218: 5217: 5216: 5190: 5189: 5168: 5167: 5166: 5165: 5140: 5114: 5113: 5103:Ms Sarah Welch 5092: 5091: 5090: 5089: 5088: 5087: 5086: 5085: 5084: 5083: 4950: 4949: 4921: 4920: 4863: 4862: 4860: 4854: 4853: 4850: 4845: 4727: 4724: 4723: 4722: 4688:NYB's comments 4684: 4670: 4669: 4635: 4616: 4615: 4614: 4613: 4612: 4568: 4567: 4566: 4565: 4564: 4563: 4562: 4561: 4520: 4519: 4518: 4517: 4454: 4440: 4410: 4381: 4380: 4357: 4356: 4355: 4354: 4353: 4352: 4351: 4350: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4346: 4345: 4344: 4343: 4282: 4225: 4224: 4223: 4222: 4221: 4139: 4138: 4103: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4079: 4078: 4063: 4062: 4043: 4042: 4041: 4040: 4039: 4038: 4037: 4022: 3965: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3909: 3876: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3871: 3870: 3844: 3813: 3805: 3791: 3776: 3775: 3764: 3763: 3762: 3713:User:WMFOffice 3642: 3639: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3584:Starship.paint 3538: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3511: 3509: 3502: 3500: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3413:King of Hearts 3385: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3279:67.164.113.165 3251: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3163: 3138:GorillaWarfare 3105:GorillaWarfare 3096: 3068:GorillaWarfare 3059: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3026:GorillaWarfare 3013:GorillaWarfare 3011:one-year ban. 2975:GorillaWarfare 2962:GorillaWarfare 2924: 2868: 2842: 2839: 2837: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2770:would make it 2767:doesn't matter 2701: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2639:Ever heard of 2634: 2633: 2616: 2615: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2530: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2375: 2358: 2357: 2339: 2338: 2312: 2311: 2291: 2290: 2270:Sure, but the 2265: 2264: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2146:Starship.paint 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 1931: 1915: 1914: 1897: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1827: 1804: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1638: 1617: 1616: 1587: 1586: 1561: 1560: 1543: 1542: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1449: 1448: 1434: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1280: 1272: 1263: 1216: 1202: 1189: 1175: 1164: 1150: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1096: 1095: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1024: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 995: 986: 985: 984: 953: 952: 951: 921: 920: 919: 918: 917: 916: 915: 848:Jéské Couriano 800: 799: 785: 784: 773: 772: 736: 735: 724: 723: 704: 703: 688: 687: 666: 665: 650: 649: 635: 616: 615: 601: 600: 581: 580: 570: 569: 526: 523: 522: 521: 471: 468: 467: 466: 429: 414: 395: 394: 393: 392: 391: 358: 354: 320: 307: 306: 305: 304: 303: 302: 301: 230: 212: 198: 161: 160: 159: 158: 142: 141: 140: 136: 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 7579: 7568: 7563: 7558: 7554: 7550: 7549: 7546: 7542: 7538: 7534: 7533: 7526: 7522: 7518: 7514: 7513: 7512: 7508: 7504: 7499: 7498: 7497: 7496: 7493: 7488: 7483: 7479: 7474: 7471: 7467: 7463: 7458: 7454: 7453: 7449: 7448: 7439: 7435: 7430: 7425: 7424: 7423: 7422: 7419: 7415: 7411: 7406: 7405: 7404: 7403: 7400: 7397: 7395: 7393: 7384: 7381: 7380: 7379: 7378: 7375: 7371: 7367: 7362: 7361: 7358: 7354: 7350: 7346: 7342: 7338: 7334: 7329: 7328: 7325: 7321: 7317: 7316: 7310: 7309: 7298: 7294: 7290: 7286: 7282: 7279: 7277: 7275: 7266: 7262: 7261: 7260: 7256: 7252: 7248: 7247: 7246: 7242: 7238: 7235:procedures.-- 7233: 7232: 7231: 7227: 7223: 7218: 7214: 7210: 7206: 7202: 7201: 7200: 7196: 7192: 7188: 7187: 7186: 7182: 7178: 7174: 7170: 7169: 7168: 7165: 7163: 7156: 7152: 7148: 7145: 7141: 7138: 7137: 7136: 7133: 7132: 7125: 7121: 7119: 7116: 7114: 7107: 7103: 7098: 7094: 7090: 7086: 7085: 7080: 7079: 7073: 7072: 7071: 7067: 7063: 7058: 7054: 7050: 7046: 7042: 7038: 7036: 7032: 7028: 7024: 7023: 7022: 7018: 7014: 7010: 7008: 7005: 7004: 6997: 6993: 6991: 6987: 6983: 6979: 6977: 6974: 6972: 6970: 6961: 6957: 6956:appropriating 6953: 6949: 6942: 6941: 6933: 6929: 6925: 6920: 6917: 6912: 6911: 6910: 6909: 6905: 6901: 6897: 6889: 6888: 6887: 6886: 6882: 6871: 6867: 6863: 6858: 6857: 6856: 6853: 6848: 6842: 6839: 6838: 6837: 6833: 6829: 6825: 6822: 6821: 6820: 6817: 6812: 6806: 6803: 6802: 6801: 6800: 6796: 6792: 6787: 6786: 6782: 6778: 6769: 6766: 6765: 6764: 6760: 6754: 6752: 6738: 6734: 6730: 6726: 6723: 6722: 6721: 6717: 6713: 6709: 6705: 6700: 6694: 6689: 6671: 6668: 6663: 6662: 6657: 6653: 6648: 6647: 6646: 6642: 6638: 6634: 6633: 6632: 6629: 6624: 6623: 6617: 6616: 6615: 6611: 6607: 6600: 6595: 6594: 6593: 6590: 6588: 6584: 6579: 6570: 6565: 6564: 6563: 6560: 6555: 6554: 6549: 6548: 6542: 6535: 6531: 6527: 6522: 6517: 6511: 6506: 6501: 6497: 6492: 6488: 6484: 6480: 6476: 6471: 6468: 6467: 6461: 6458: 6453: 6449: 6448: 6447: 6446: 6445: 6441: 6437: 6432: 6431: 6430: 6425: 6421: 6417: 6413: 6409: 6404: 6400: 6396: 6393:problematic, 6392: 6388: 6384: 6380: 6376: 6372: 6370: 6367: 6365: 6361: 6356: 6347: 6342: 6341: 6340: 6336: 6332: 6328: 6325: 6324: 6319: 6316: 6314: 6310: 6305: 6298: 6293: 6289: 6284: 6283: 6282: 6279: 6275: 6274: 6273: 6272: 6269: 6267: 6263: 6258: 6251: 6246: 6241: 6231: 6228: 6226: 6222: 6217: 6210: 6209: 6208: 6204: 6200: 6196: 6192: 6189: 6177: 6173: 6169: 6165: 6163: 6159: 6155: 6151: 6147: 6146: 6145: 6140: 6136: 6132: 6128: 6124: 6119: 6115: 6111: 6110: 6109: 6105: 6101: 6097: 6095: 6092: 6087: 6086: 6081: 6077: 6073: 6069: 6065: 6061: 6060: 6059: 6056: 6052: 6050: 6047: 6045: 6043: 6042: 6037: 6036: 6035: 6031: 6027: 6023: 6022: 6021: 6020: 6019: 6018: 6012: 6008: 6007: 5999: 5997: 5993: 5989: 5984:Pigsonthewing 5980: 5973: 5971: 5968: 5966: 5964: 5963: 5958: 5957: 5956: 5952: 5948: 5944: 5937: 5936:edit conflict 5932: 5931: 5930: 5929: 5925: 5921: 5899: 5895: 5891: 5886: 5884: 5880: 5876: 5872: 5871: 5870: 5867: 5862: 5861: 5855: 5854: 5853: 5849: 5845: 5840: 5836: 5835: 5834: 5830: 5826: 5822: 5818: 5796: 5792: 5788: 5783: 5782: 5781: 5778: 5773: 5772: 5766: 5765: 5764: 5760: 5756: 5751: 5750: 5749: 5746: 5741: 5740: 5735: 5725: 5722: 5720: 5711: 5707: 5702: 5701: 5700: 5696: 5692: 5688: 5687: 5686: 5681: 5677: 5673: 5669: 5665: 5660: 5656: 5652: 5651: 5650: 5649: 5648: 5647: 5646: 5642: 5638: 5634: 5630: 5629: 5628: 5623: 5619: 5615: 5611: 5607: 5602: 5601: 5600: 5596: 5592: 5587: 5586: 5583: 5578: 5574: 5570: 5566: 5562: 5557: 5556: 5539: 5535: 5531: 5527: 5524: 5523: 5522: 5518: 5514: 5510: 5506: 5502: 5498: 5494: 5490: 5489: 5487: 5483: 5482: 5473: 5469: 5464: 5463: 5462: 5458: 5454: 5449: 5448: 5447: 5446: 5444: 5440: 5439: 5431: 5427: 5426: 5425: 5424: 5421: 5417: 5413: 5408: 5407: 5406: 5405: 5404: 5403: 5402: 5398: 5394: 5390: 5387: 5385: 5381: 5377: 5373: 5372: 5371: 5367: 5363: 5359: 5358: 5357: 5353: 5349: 5345: 5341: 5340: 5339: 5334: 5330: 5326: 5322: 5318: 5312: 5311: 5310: 5306: 5302: 5298: 5294: 5293: 5292: 5288: 5284: 5280: 5275: 5274: 5273: 5268: 5264: 5260: 5256: 5252: 5246: 5241: 5240: 5239: 5238: 5234: 5230: 5215: 5210: 5204: 5199: 5194: 5193: 5192: 5191: 5188: 5184: 5180: 5176: 5175: 5174:archived here 5170: 5169: 5164: 5161: 5160: 5157: 5154: 5145: 5141: 5139: 5134: 5128: 5123: 5118: 5117: 5116: 5115: 5112: 5108: 5104: 5099: 5094: 5093: 5082: 5077: 5073: 5069: 5065: 5061: 5055: 5054: 5053: 5048: 5042: 5037: 5033: 5032: 5031: 5026: 5022: 5018: 5014: 5010: 5005: 5001: 5000: 4999: 4994: 4988: 4983: 4979: 4975: 4970: 4969: 4968: 4964: 4960: 4955: 4954: 4948: 4945: 4942: 4937: 4933: 4929: 4927: 4918: 4917: 4916: 4913: 4911: 4906: 4901: 4897: 4895: 4891: 4887: 4882: 4879: 4877: 4873: 4867: 4861: 4858: 4857: 4856: 4855: 4849: 4848: 4844: 4843: 4838: 4832: 4827: 4822: 4821: 4817: 4813: 4809: 4807: 4803: 4799: 4794: 4792: 4788: 4783: 4761: 4757: 4752: 4748: 4745: 4743: 4737: 4734: 4731: 4721: 4717: 4715: 4711: 4707: 4697: 4693: 4689: 4685: 4683: 4680: 4676: 4672: 4671: 4668: 4663: 4661:Join WP Japan 4657: 4653: 4646: 4640: 4636: 4634: 4630: 4626: 4622: 4617: 4611: 4607: 4603: 4598: 4597: 4596: 4592: 4588: 4583: 4577: 4572: 4571: 4570: 4569: 4560: 4557: 4556: 4553: 4550: 4537: 4536: 4535: 4532: 4526: 4525: 4524: 4523: 4522: 4521: 4516: 4513: 4512: 4509: 4506: 4501: 4495: 4490: 4489: 4488: 4487: 4483: 4479: 4473: 4469: 4466: 4459: 4455: 4453: 4449: 4445: 4441: 4439: 4435: 4431: 4425: 4417: 4411: 4409: 4405: 4401: 4400:Beyond My Ken 4397: 4396: 4395:pay attention 4388: 4383: 4382: 4379: 4375: 4371: 4367: 4358: 4342: 4338: 4334: 4330: 4326: 4325:Seraphimblade 4321: 4316: 4315: 4314: 4310: 4306: 4302: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4292: 4288: 4283: 4280: 4278: 4274: 4270: 4266: 4260: 4259: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4252: 4248: 4244: 4242: 4238: 4231: 4226: 4220: 4217: 4212: 4209: 4208: 4207: 4203: 4199: 4194: 4190: 4187: 4186: 4185: 4184: 4183: 4179: 4175: 4171: 4168: 4164: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4155: 4151: 4147: 4143: 4142: 4141: 4140: 4137: 4133: 4129: 4125: 4121: 4117: 4113: 4109: 4105: 4104: 4099: 4095: 4091: 4087: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4080: 4077: 4074: 4068: 4065: 4064: 4061: 4057: 4053: 4049: 4044: 4036: 4032: 4028: 4023: 4019: 4018: 4017: 4013: 4009: 4004: 4003: 4002: 3998: 3994: 3990: 3989: 3988: 3984: 3980: 3976: 3972: 3967: 3966: 3957: 3954: 3953: 3950: 3947: 3942: 3941: 3940: 3936: 3932: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3921: 3917: 3913: 3910: 3908: 3905: 3904: 3901: 3898: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3886: 3882: 3877: 3869: 3865: 3861: 3857: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3847: 3842: 3837: 3836: 3835: 3831: 3827: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3816: 3811: 3806: 3804: 3800: 3796: 3792: 3790: 3786: 3782: 3778: 3777: 3774: 3771: 3770: 3765: 3761: 3757: 3753: 3749: 3746: 3745: 3744: 3740: 3736: 3732: 3731: 3730: 3729: 3725: 3721: 3717: 3714: 3710: 3706: 3703: 3699: 3695: 3693: 3689: 3685: 3683: 3679: 3677: 3673: 3671: 3666: 3664: 3660: 3657: 3653: 3648: 3647: 3628: 3625: 3623: 3619: 3614: 3605: 3604:Seraphimblade 3600: 3599: 3598: 3593: 3592:Seraphimblade 3589: 3585: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3577: 3575: 3571: 3566: 3558: 3554: 3550: 3544: 3539: 3531: 3528: 3523: 3516: 3512: 3510: 3507: 3503: 3501: 3498: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3489: 3485: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3474: 3470: 3465: 3462: 3461: 3460: 3456: 3452: 3447: 3441: 3437: 3433: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3423: 3419: 3414: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3405: 3400: 3395: 3390: 3386: 3380: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3358: 3354: 3349: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3332: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3321: 3317: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3307: 3303: 3299: 3294: 3293:Beyond My Ken 3290: 3289: 3288: 3284: 3280: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3269: 3265: 3264:Beyond My Ken 3260: 3259: 3245: 3242: 3241: 3238: 3235: 3229: 3223: 3219: 3215: 3210: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3199: 3195: 3190: 3184: 3179: 3178:Seraphimblade 3175: 3169: 3168:edit conflict 3164: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3128: 3124: 3120: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3110: 3106: 3102: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3082: 3078: 3073: 3069: 3065: 3043: 3040: 3038: 3036: 3027: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3018: 3014: 3009: 3005: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2996: 2994: 2992: 2983: 2981: 2980:the Committee 2976: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2967: 2963: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2954: 2952: 2950: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2935: 2931: 2928: 2925: 2923: 2920: 2915: 2914: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2903: 2899: 2898:Beyond My Ken 2895: 2894: 2893: 2890: 2888: 2886: 2877: 2873: 2869: 2866: 2865:Beyond My Ken 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2851:Beyond My Ken 2847: 2831: 2828: 2824: 2820: 2819: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2795: 2791: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2781: 2777: 2773: 2768: 2763: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2727: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2716: 2712: 2707: 2702: 2700: 2695: 2693:Join WP Japan 2689: 2685: 2678: 2670: 2666: 2665:Seraphimblade 2662: 2661: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2632: 2627: 2626:Seraphimblade 2623: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2601:Seraphimblade 2598: 2597: 2588: 2584: 2580: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2550: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2539: 2535: 2531: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2509: 2505: 2504: 2491: 2487: 2483: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2429: 2428: 2413: 2412: 2408: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2390: 2384: 2382: 2376: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2356: 2351: 2350:Seraphimblade 2347: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2325: 2321: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2310: 2307: 2305: 2304: 2299: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2263: 2260: 2258: 2257: 2252: 2251:Seraphimblade 2248: 2245:A fair point 2244: 2243: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2203: 2201: 2197: 2192: 2183: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2141: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2103: 2100: 2098: 2094: 2089: 2080: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2049: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2025: 2024:Seraphimblade 2020: 2019: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1994: 1993:Seraphimblade 1991:, as of now. 1990: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1952: 1951:Seraphimblade 1947: 1946: 1945: 1941: 1937: 1932: 1929: 1924: 1923: 1921: 1920:Seraphimblade 1917: 1916: 1913: 1909: 1905: 1900: 1899: 1891: 1887: 1883: 1879: 1878: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1837: 1833: 1828: 1826: 1823: 1818: 1817: 1812: 1808: 1805: 1803: 1800: 1798: 1796: 1787: 1785: 1781: 1775: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1747: 1744: 1742: 1740: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1706: 1704: 1703: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1683: 1682: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1659: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1639: 1636: 1632: 1631: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1615: 1611: 1606: 1601: 1596: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1579: 1570: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1550:Beyond My Ken 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1535: 1527: 1525: 1519: 1515: 1510: 1509: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1420: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1383:Beyond My Ken 1380: 1379: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1349:Beyond My Ken 1346: 1341: 1340: 1335: 1334: 1328: 1327: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1314: 1312: 1308: 1303: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1281: 1279: 1275: 1270: 1269: 1264: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1253:Beyond My Ken 1250: 1249: 1244: 1243: 1238: 1237: 1231: 1230: 1222: 1221:Seraphimblade 1217: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1203: 1201: 1198: 1196: 1195: 1190: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1174: 1171: 1165: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1136: 1129: 1125: 1122: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1112: 1107: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1094: 1090: 1087: 1082: 1081: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1060: 1059:Seraphimblade 1056: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1044: 1043:Seraphimblade 1040: 1036: 1032: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1018: 1015: 1014: 1011: 1008: 1001: 996: 994: 991: 987: 983: 979: 975: 971: 970: 969: 968: 967: 963: 959: 954: 950: 946: 942: 936: 935: 934: 930: 926: 922: 914: 911: 906: 905: 900: 899: 898: 894: 890: 887: 881: 880:edit conflict 876: 875: 874: 870: 865: 860: 855: 849: 844: 843: 842: 839: 834: 833: 827: 823: 819: 814: 813: 812: 811: 806: 805:Seraphimblade 797: 793: 792: 791: 790: 781: 780: 779: 778: 770: 766: 761: 755: 749: 744: 743: 742: 741: 732: 731: 730: 729: 721: 717: 712: 711: 710: 709: 701: 696: 695: 694: 693: 685: 680: 679: 678: 677: 672: 671: 663: 658: 657: 656: 655: 646: 641: 636: 633: 629: 624: 623: 622: 621: 613: 609: 608: 607: 606: 598: 597:United States 593: 589: 588: 587: 586: 578: 577: 576: 575: 566: 565: 564: 563: 558: 557: 552: 551: 547: 545: 541: 536: 532: 518: 514: 510: 506: 499: 498: 497: 496: 492: 488: 485: 481: 479: 465: 461: 457: 453: 449: 445: 444:Only in death 441: 437: 433: 430: 428: 424: 420: 415: 412: 408: 407: 399: 396: 390: 386: 382: 378: 374: 373: 372: 368: 364: 359: 355: 351: 350: 349: 345: 341: 337: 336:is on my side 333: 329: 325: 321: 319: 315: 312: 308: 300: 297: 296: 290: 286: 285: 284: 280: 276: 271: 270: 269: 266: 264: 260: 255: 249: 246: 245: 244: 240: 236: 231: 229: 225: 221: 217: 213: 211: 207: 203: 199: 197: 193: 189: 184: 183: 182: 178: 175: 174: 171: 168: 155: 154: 153: 148: 143: 137: 129: 125: 121: 120: 117: 116: 115: 113: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 7469: 7465: 7456: 7391: 7345:unblockables 7337:safeguarding 7332: 7314: 7313: 7273: 7222:Softlavender 7161: 7153:Also who is 7127: 7112: 7105: 7101: 7083: 7077: 7062:Softlavender 7045:Gerda Arendt 7040: 6999: 6995: 6968: 6959: 6955: 6951: 6947: 6895: 6893: 6884: 6883: 6880: 6788: 6773: 6755: 6750: 6748: 6703: 6698: 6660: 6655: 6651: 6621: 6574: 6552: 6546: 6545: 6540: 6533: 6529: 6525: 6520: 6509: 6504: 6464: 6456: 6402: 6398: 6394: 6390: 6386: 6382: 6378: 6374: 6351: 6300: 6295: 6253: 6248: 6236: 6212: 6190: 6149: 6084: 6040: 6002: 5992:Andy's edits 5988:Talk to Andy 5979:Andy Mabbett 5961: 5916: 5859: 5838: 5821:ad infinitum 5820: 5770: 5738: 5718: 5477: 5471: 5467: 5434: 5429: 5296: 5295:I fear that 5278: 5225: 5171: 5151: 5097: 4977: 4973: 4946: 4938: 4934: 4930: 4925: 4922: 4914: 4909: 4902: 4898: 4883: 4880: 4868: 4864: 4823: 4819: 4818: 4814: 4810: 4805: 4801: 4797: 4795: 4790: 4786: 4784: 4759: 4755: 4753: 4749: 4746: 4741: 4738: 4735: 4732: 4729: 4703: 4625:GreyGreenWhy 4576:MarcoAurelio 4547: 4503: 4499: 4494:MarcoAurelio 4478:MarcoAurelio 4474: 4470: 4464: 4461: 4394: 4393: 4276: 4272: 4268: 4264: 4262: 4234: 4189:Softlavender 4174:Softlavender 4107: 4066: 4008:FeydHuxtable 3979:FeydHuxtable 3944: 3895: 3768: 3718: 3708: 3707: 3697: 3696: 3691: 3690: 3686: 3681: 3680: 3675: 3674: 3669: 3667: 3662: 3661: 3649: 3645: 3644: 3609: 3561: 3556: 3514: 3505: 3297: 3257: 3256: 3253: 3232: 3208: 3173: 3118: 3091: 3063: 3060: 3034: 3008:definitively 3007: 3003: 2990: 2979: 2978: 2948: 2926: 2912: 2884: 2848: 2844: 2793: 2789: 2771: 2766: 2705: 2564:Slatersteven 2548: 2547: 2520:Slatersteven 2502: 2501: 2498: 2461: 2458: 2454: 2432: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2385: 2377: 2345: 2323: 2319: 2302: 2275: 2271: 2255: 2213:Slatersteven 2187: 2182:Slatersteven 2167:Slatersteven 2140:Slatersteven 2125:Slatersteven 2084: 2035: 2004: 1988: 1969: 1965: 1961: 1926: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1832:Grandpallama 1815: 1794: 1783: 1779: 1738: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1709: 1626: 1574: 1568: 1530: 1523: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1471: 1424:CoffeeCrumbs 1377: 1376: 1344: 1338: 1337: 1332: 1331: 1325: 1324: 1298: 1266: 1247: 1246: 1241: 1240: 1235: 1234: 1228: 1227: 1193: 1038: 1034: 1023: 1005: 903: 831: 825: 817: 801: 795: 787: 786: 775: 774: 768: 764: 738: 737: 726: 725: 719: 715: 706: 705: 699: 690: 689: 683: 674: 673: 668: 667: 661: 652: 651: 644: 639: 631: 627: 618: 617: 611: 603: 602: 596: 591: 583: 582: 572: 571: 560: 559: 554: 553: 549: 548: 543: 539: 534: 528: 509:Slatersteven 503:— Preceding 477: 475: 473: 452:star chamber 402: 397: 294: 250: 165: 162: 151: 146: 139:legitimate). 123: 109: 78: 43: 37: 7517:Lepricavark 7341:ultra vires 6881:Oh, I see: 6846:S Philbrick 6810:S Philbrick 6466:Mike Condon 6114:Mark Hamill 5655:Mark Hamill 4787:investigate 4621:User:Risker 4424:Floquenbeam 4329:User:Risker 4052:Floquenbeam 4027:Yngvadottir 3993:Yngvadottir 3521:S Philbrick 3467:is needed. 2437:Nosebagbear 2303:Nick Thorne 2256:Nick Thorne 2249:. However, 1664:Nosebagbear 1491:Nosebagbear 1345:and deluded 1194:Nick Thorne 1105:S Philbrick 1065:Nosebagbear 940:CoolSkittle 748:Floquenbeam 456:Someguy1221 36:This is an 7503:Randykitty 7482:Ivanvector 7144:Iridescent 6952:ridiculous 6824:Sphilbrick 6199:Tryptofish 6168:Tryptofish 6154:Tryptofish 6100:Tryptofish 6041:Ritchie333 5962:Ritchie333 5844:Tryptofish 5787:Tryptofish 5428:You wrote 5301:Tryptofish 5098:explicitly 4886:User:守望者爱孟 4430:Shearonink 4305:Carcharoth 4269:execute on 4247:Carcharoth 4167:Carcharoth 4146:Carcharoth 4128:Carcharoth 3971:Everipedia 3856:Ivanvector 3841:Ivanvector 3810:Ivanvector 3781:Tryptofish 3258:indictment 3194:Carcharoth 3077:Carcharoth 2776:Tryptofish 2772:even worse 2726:Tryptofish 2711:Tryptofish 1476:Tazerdadog 1457:Randy Kryn 1336:they, but 1206:Randy Kryn 1154:Tazerdadog 1140:DuncanHill 889:Nick Moyes 487:Afootpluto 432:Rschen7754 419:Tryptofish 377:WP:POLEMIC 98:Archive 10 7553:WP:OFFICE 7315:North8000 7289:Ymblanter 7237:Ymblanter 7205:Ymblanter 7191:Nil Einne 7177:Ymblanter 7155:LauraHale 6729:Rosiestep 6693:Rosiestep 6547:FUCK YOU. 6516:practical 6375:perceived 6346:Rosiestep 6331:Rosiestep 6240:Rosiestep 6064:Rosiestep 6026:Rosiestep 5501:WP:Office 5493:WP:Office 4602:Ajraddatz 4582:Ajraddatz 4444:T. Canens 4333:Nishidani 4287:Nishidani 4211:Rosiestep 4198:Rosiestep 4086:Montanabw 4072:Montanabw 3931:Ajraddatz 3912:Ajraddatz 3881:Ajraddatz 3826:Ymblanter 3795:Ymblanter 3497:Rosiestep 3484:Rosiestep 3436:pingó mió 3432:Galobtter 2934:pingó mió 2930:Galobtter 2790:WMF Board 2747:Guettarda 2733:Guettarda 2669:WMFOffice 2622:Kyykaarme 2605:kyykaarme 2549:North8000 2503:North8000 2403:Nil Einne 2150:Guettarda 2079:Guettarda 2064:Guettarda 1904:Guettarda 1811:WP:HARASS 1687:Nil Einne 1658:Nil Einne 1643:Nil Einne 1397:Ajraddatz 1363:Ajraddatz 1285:Ajraddatz 1268:Jauerback 822:Streisand 760:WJBScribe 592:forwarded 289:Aktion T4 275:Ymblanter 235:Ymblanter 90:Archive 7 85:Archive 6 79:Archive 5 73:Archive 4 68:Archive 3 60:Archive 1 7466:requires 7173:this one 7013:Mr Ernie 6896:entirely 6577:starship 6475:Headbomb 6408:Headbomb 6399:feelings 6354:starship 6303:starship 6256:starship 6250:forward. 6215:starship 6123:Headbomb 6118:this guy 6062:Thanks, 6005:nableezy 5706:Headbomb 5664:Headbomb 5659:this guy 5606:Headbomb 5561:Headbomb 5513:Victoria 5480:nableezy 5437:nableezy 5317:Headbomb 5251:Headbomb 5060:Headbomb 5009:Headbomb 4798:reporter 4796:So, the 4730:Hi all, 4675:Ealdgyth 4374:contribs 4193:talkpage 3612:starship 3564:starship 3549:Mr Ernie 3464:Mr Ernie 3451:Mr Ernie 3365:Thanks, 2823:Ealdgyth 2381:Backpage 2190:starship 2087:starship 1966:personal 1732:worked. 1629:nableezy 1577:nableezy 1533:nableezy 1301:starship 754:Bishonen 544:will not 517:contribs 505:unsigned 478:punitive 440:nableezy 405:nableezy 381:rdfox 76 253:starship 188:SchroCat 7333:serious 7162:~Swarm~ 7130:Lugnuts 7113:~Swarm~ 7002:Lugnuts 6960:without 6924:Neolexx 6900:wbm1058 6862:wbm1058 6841:Wbm1058 6828:wbm1058 6805:Wbm1058 6791:wbm1058 6777:wbm1058 6725:Hasteur 6712:Hasteur 6704:on wiki 6401:, over 6387:feeling 5947:Hasteur 5719:~Swarm~ 5362:28bytes 5344:28bytes 4791:genuine 4428:above. 4122:. e.g. 3735:Vermont 3389:King of 3092:informs 2451:WP:OTRS 2298:WP:OTRS 1882:Sperril 1807:Doncram 1774:Doncram 1761:Doncram 1595:King of 1438:Carrite 1378:deluded 1055:Vermont 1039:may not 1031:Vermont 1000:Vermont 974:EllenCT 958:Vermont 925:Smeat75 854:King of 670:review. 574:expand. 340:Neolexx 220:WaltCip 202:Vermont 126:. From 39:archive 7470:That's 7429:Gisado 7349:Jheald 6996:months 6916:V. Ch. 6851:(Talk) 6815:(Talk) 6582:.paint 6534:forces 6379:actual 6359:.paint 6308:.paint 6261:.paint 6220:.paint 5633:WP:WIR 5179:Viztor 5101:took. 4941:QiuWen 4696:WP:ARC 4692:Risker 4639:Risker 4587:Risker 4458:Risker 4416:Risker 4387:Risker 4362:python 4163:Risker 4150:Risker 4090:Risker 3975:Golden 3916:Risker 3860:Risker 3769:Enigma 3752:GRuban 3720:Risker 3652:OFFICE 3617:.paint 3569:.paint 3526:(Talk) 3142:(talk) 3109:(talk) 3017:(talk) 2966:(talk) 2518:fault. 2278:ways. 2195:.paint 2092:.paint 2036:US law 1854:rights 1724:time. 1339:should 1306:.paint 1239:, and 1110:(Talk) 757:, and 436:Risker 363:Choess 322:I see 295:Enigma 258:.paint 216:WP:CIV 128:WP:CIV 7562:bleep 7487:Edits 7434:-revi 6666:v^_^v 6627:v^_^v 6558:v^_^v 6191:Note. 6090:v^_^v 5865:v^_^v 5776:v^_^v 5744:v^_^v 5530:Capeo 4700:Amory 4468:role. 4365:coder 4273:legal 4108:might 3846:Edits 3815:Edits 3557:could 3174:worse 2918:v^_^v 2706:legal 2433:media 1821:v^_^v 1472:still 1274:dude. 909:v^_^v 837:v^_^v 700:tough 684:serve 540:serve 16:< 7541:talk 7521:talk 7507:talk 7457:this 7431:aka 7414:talk 7370:talk 7353:talk 7320:talk 7293:talk 7255:talk 7241:talk 7226:talk 7209:talk 7195:talk 7181:talk 7142:. ‑ 7106:fuck 7097:this 7078:Reyk 7066:talk 7049:talk 7043:. -- 7031:talk 7017:talk 6986:talk 6944:WTF? 6928:talk 6904:talk 6866:talk 6832:talk 6795:talk 6781:talk 6733:talk 6716:talk 6641:talk 6610:talk 6587:talk 6457:what 6440:talk 6364:talk 6335:talk 6313:talk 6297:eye. 6266:talk 6225:talk 6203:talk 6197:. -- 6172:talk 6158:talk 6104:talk 6072:talk 6055:El_C 6030:talk 5951:talk 5924:talk 5894:talk 5879:talk 5848:talk 5839:told 5829:talk 5791:talk 5759:talk 5708:and 5695:talk 5641:talk 5595:talk 5534:talk 5457:talk 5416:talk 5397:talk 5389:THIS 5380:talk 5366:talk 5352:talk 5305:talk 5287:talk 5233:talk 5198:1233 5183:talk 5159:7754 5156:chen 5144:here 5122:1233 5107:talk 5036:1233 4982:1233 4963:talk 4888:and 4826:1233 4754:The 4679:Talk 4629:talk 4606:talk 4591:talk 4555:7754 4552:chen 4530:Revi 4511:7754 4508:chen 4482:talk 4448:talk 4434:talk 4404:talk 4398:... 4370:talk 4337:talk 4327:and 4309:talk 4291:talk 4251:talk 4241:talk 4230:here 4202:talk 4178:talk 4154:talk 4132:talk 4094:talk 4056:talk 4048:here 4031:talk 4012:talk 3997:talk 3983:talk 3952:7754 3949:chen 3935:talk 3920:talk 3903:7754 3900:chen 3885:talk 3864:talk 3830:talk 3799:talk 3785:talk 3756:talk 3739:talk 3724:talk 3656:Fram 3622:talk 3574:talk 3488:talk 3473:talk 3455:talk 3422:talk 3375:talk 3357:talk 3340:talk 3320:talk 3306:talk 3291:Or, 3283:talk 3268:talk 3240:7754 3237:chen 3218:talk 3198:talk 3157:talk 3127:talk 3081:talk 3070:and 3064:will 2902:talk 2874:was 2855:talk 2827:Talk 2803:talk 2794:does 2780:talk 2751:talk 2737:talk 2715:talk 2649:talk 2609:talk 2583:talk 2568:talk 2554:talk 2538:talk 2524:talk 2508:talk 2486:talk 2470:talk 2441:talk 2407:talk 2369:talk 2346:must 2332:talk 2300:. - 2284:talk 2272:best 2217:talk 2200:talk 2171:talk 2154:talk 2129:talk 2097:talk 2068:talk 2044:talk 2013:talk 1978:talk 1960:Re " 1940:talk 1908:talk 1886:talk 1862:talk 1836:talk 1765:talk 1716:pay 1691:talk 1668:talk 1647:talk 1569:fact 1554:talk 1522:You 1495:talk 1480:talk 1461:talk 1442:talk 1428:talk 1401:talk 1387:talk 1367:talk 1353:talk 1311:talk 1289:talk 1257:talk 1236:ours 1210:talk 1183:talk 1158:talk 1144:talk 1069:talk 1057:and 1013:7754 1010:chen 990:El_C 978:talk 962:talk 945:talk 929:talk 893:talk 662:your 640:paid 612:must 535:what 513:talk 491:talk 460:talk 442:and 423:talk 385:talk 367:talk 344:talk 279:talk 263:talk 239:talk 224:talk 206:talk 192:talk 173:7754 170:chen 7392:WBG 7274:WBG 7084:YO! 7075::( 6969:WBG 6948:any 6699:why 6658:) — 6550:" — 6526:how 6521:why 6405:. 6395:nor 6391:not 6383:lot 6150:was 5986:); 5279:and 5248:. 4980:.-- 4959:Wnt 4644:日本穣 4500:not 3702:FUD 3515:not 3035:WBG 2991:WBG 2949:WBG 2885:WBG 2676:日本穣 2672:--> 1928:it. 1858:Wnt 1846:not 1795:WBG 1784:and 1739:WBG 1730:yet 1722:any 1718:any 1714:not 1710:but 1333:can 1242:not 1179:Wnt 1126:🖋 1091:🖋 826:her 720:not 328:ANI 316:🖋 7557:R2 7543:) 7523:) 7509:) 7501:-- 7490:) 7484:(/ 7416:) 7372:) 7355:) 7322:) 7295:) 7257:) 7243:) 7228:) 7211:) 7197:) 7183:) 7126:. 7068:) 7051:) 7033:) 7019:) 6988:) 6930:) 6922:-- 6906:) 6868:) 6834:) 6797:) 6783:) 6753:" 6735:) 6718:) 6643:) 6612:) 6541:at 6489:· 6485:· 6481:· 6442:) 6422:· 6418:· 6414:· 6337:) 6244:- 6205:) 6174:) 6160:) 6137:· 6133:· 6129:· 6106:) 6074:) 6032:) 6009:- 5990:; 5953:) 5945:. 5926:) 5896:) 5881:) 5850:) 5842:-- 5831:) 5793:) 5785:-- 5761:) 5697:) 5678:· 5674:· 5670:· 5643:) 5620:· 5616:· 5612:· 5597:) 5575:· 5571:· 5567:· 5536:) 5519:) 5517:tk 5484:- 5459:) 5441:- 5418:) 5399:) 5382:) 5368:) 5354:) 5331:· 5327:· 5323:· 5307:) 5297:is 5289:) 5265:· 5261:· 5257:· 5235:) 5206:/ 5201:( 5185:) 5153:Rs 5130:/ 5125:( 5109:) 5074:· 5070:· 5066:· 5044:/ 5039:( 5023:· 5019:· 5015:· 4990:/ 4985:( 4965:) 4834:/ 4829:( 4824:-- 4744:. 4712:• 4708:• 4677:- 4658:· 4654:· 4651:投稿 4647:· 4631:) 4623:, 4608:) 4593:) 4549:Rs 4505:Rs 4484:) 4450:) 4436:) 4406:) 4376:) 4372:| 4339:) 4311:) 4293:) 4253:) 4232:: 4204:) 4196:-- 4180:) 4165:, 4156:) 4134:) 4096:) 4058:) 4033:) 4014:) 3999:) 3985:) 3946:Rs 3937:) 3922:) 3897:Rs 3894:-- 3887:) 3866:) 3849:) 3843:(/ 3832:) 3818:) 3812:(/ 3801:) 3787:) 3758:) 3741:) 3726:) 3590:. 3586:, 3490:) 3475:) 3457:) 3438:) 3424:) 3406:♠ 3377:) 3367:Fæ 3359:) 3353:Fæ 3342:) 3322:) 3308:) 3285:) 3270:) 3234:Rs 3220:) 3209:do 3200:) 3159:) 3129:) 3083:) 2936:) 2904:) 2857:) 2825:- 2805:) 2799:Fæ 2782:) 2753:) 2739:) 2717:) 2690:· 2686:· 2683:投稿 2679:· 2651:) 2643:? 2611:) 2585:) 2570:) 2556:) 2540:) 2526:) 2510:) 2488:) 2472:) 2443:) 2409:) 2371:) 2334:) 2286:) 2219:) 2173:) 2156:) 2131:) 2070:) 2046:) 2015:) 1980:) 1942:) 1910:) 1888:) 1864:) 1838:) 1780:or 1767:) 1693:) 1670:) 1649:) 1633:- 1612:♠ 1581:- 1556:) 1537:- 1497:) 1482:) 1463:) 1444:) 1430:) 1403:) 1389:) 1369:) 1355:) 1291:) 1259:) 1212:) 1185:) 1160:) 1146:) 1121:Mr 1086:Mr 1071:) 1007:Rs 980:) 964:) 947:) 931:) 895:) 871:♠ 751:, 519:) 515:• 493:) 462:) 425:) 409:- 387:) 369:) 346:) 311:Mr 281:) 241:) 226:) 208:) 194:) 167:Rs 130:: 94:→ 64:← 7564:) 7560:( 7539:( 7519:( 7505:( 7412:( 7388:∯ 7368:( 7351:( 7318:( 7291:( 7270:∯ 7253:( 7239:( 7224:( 7207:( 7193:( 7179:( 7064:( 7047:( 7029:( 7015:( 6984:( 6965:∯ 6926:( 6902:( 6864:( 6830:( 6793:( 6779:( 6761:: 6757:@ 6731:( 6714:( 6695:: 6691:@ 6639:( 6608:( 6601:: 6597:@ 6589:) 6585:( 6571:: 6567:@ 6493:} 6491:b 6487:p 6483:c 6479:t 6477:{ 6438:( 6426:} 6424:b 6420:p 6416:c 6412:t 6410:{ 6366:) 6362:( 6348:: 6344:@ 6333:( 6315:) 6311:( 6290:: 6286:@ 6268:) 6264:( 6242:: 6238:@ 6227:) 6223:( 6201:( 6170:( 6156:( 6141:} 6139:b 6135:p 6131:c 6127:t 6125:{ 6102:( 6070:( 6028:( 5982:( 5949:( 5938:) 5934:( 5922:( 5892:( 5877:( 5846:( 5827:( 5789:( 5768:— 5757:( 5712:: 5704:@ 5693:( 5682:} 5680:b 5676:p 5672:c 5668:t 5666:{ 5639:( 5624:} 5622:b 5618:p 5614:c 5610:t 5608:{ 5593:( 5579:} 5577:b 5573:p 5569:c 5565:t 5563:{ 5532:( 5515:( 5472:I 5455:( 5414:( 5395:( 5378:( 5364:( 5350:( 5335:} 5333:b 5329:p 5325:c 5321:t 5319:{ 5303:( 5285:( 5269:} 5267:b 5263:p 5259:c 5255:t 5253:{ 5231:( 5211:） 5209:C 5203:T 5181:( 5135:） 5133:C 5127:T 5105:( 5078:} 5076:b 5072:p 5068:c 5064:t 5062:{ 5049:） 5047:C 5041:T 5027:} 5025:b 5021:p 5017:c 5013:t 5011:{ 4995:） 4993:C 4987:T 4961:( 4839:） 4837:C 4831:T 4716:) 4714:c 4710:t 4706:u 4704:( 4664:! 4627:( 4604:( 4589:( 4578:: 4574:@ 4496:: 4492:@ 4480:( 4476:— 4456:@ 4446:( 4432:( 4426:: 4422:@ 4418:: 4414:@ 4402:( 4389:: 4385:@ 4368:( 4335:( 4307:( 4289:( 4249:( 4239:( 4200:( 4176:( 4152:( 4130:( 4092:( 4054:( 4029:( 4010:( 3995:( 3981:( 3933:( 3918:( 3883:( 3862:( 3828:( 3797:( 3783:( 3754:( 3737:( 3722:( 3624:) 3620:( 3606:: 3602:@ 3576:) 3572:( 3545:: 3541:@ 3486:( 3471:( 3453:( 3434:( 3420:( 3403:♣ 3398:♦ 3393:♥ 3373:( 3355:( 3338:( 3318:( 3304:( 3281:( 3266:( 3216:( 3196:( 3170:) 3166:( 3155:( 3125:( 3117:" 3079:( 3031:∯ 2987:∯ 2945:∯ 2932:( 2900:( 2881:∯ 2853:( 2801:( 2778:( 2749:( 2735:( 2728:: 2724:@ 2713:( 2696:! 2647:( 2607:( 2581:( 2566:( 2552:( 2536:( 2522:( 2506:( 2484:( 2468:( 2439:( 2405:( 2367:( 2330:( 2318:" 2282:( 2215:( 2202:) 2198:( 2184:: 2180:@ 2169:( 2152:( 2142:: 2138:@ 2127:( 2099:) 2095:( 2081:: 2077:@ 2066:( 2042:( 2011:( 1976:( 1938:( 1930:" 1925:" 1906:( 1884:( 1860:( 1834:( 1791:∯ 1763:( 1735:∯ 1689:( 1666:( 1660:: 1656:@ 1645:( 1609:♣ 1604:♦ 1599:♥ 1552:( 1493:( 1478:( 1459:( 1440:( 1426:( 1399:( 1385:( 1375:" 1365:( 1351:( 1313:) 1309:( 1287:( 1271:/ 1255:( 1223:: 1219:@ 1208:( 1181:( 1156:( 1142:( 1124:X 1089:X 1067:( 1061:: 1053:@ 1002:: 998:@ 976:( 960:( 943:( 927:( 891:( 882:) 878:( 868:♣ 863:♦ 858:♥ 850:: 846:@ 829:— 771:. 645:I 511:( 489:( 458:( 421:( 383:( 365:( 342:( 314:X 277:( 265:) 261:( 237:( 222:( 204:( 190:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 5 - Knowledge

Index