Knowledge:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 7

1896:

between the community and the Foundation. The more active shared working together we do the better. At the moment the Foundation communicates snippets of information to ArbCom, but rarely actually consults. This situation is rather frustrating. In the present circumstance where the Foundation informed ArbCom that it had concerns regarding Fram, and then blocked Fram, ArbCom get caught up in an impossible situation. The Committee were informed, but could do nothing with the information. And then when Fram is banned, the Committee are asked by the community about our involvement, and the Committee struggle to articulate clearly what is known. I suppose, by default, ArbCom agreed with and are complicit in the ban by not formally protesting the proposal. But the actual proposal came as part of a wider discussion of other matters during a phone call to one Arb, and it came at a time when the Committee were busy with other matters, and were understaffed. And we were arguing about being understaffed! Anyway. a fuller consultation about the situation, such as: "We have received complaints about harassment and incivility by Fram. We are considering banning him from en.wiki for a year. What are your thoughts on this?" would have been, for me, a much more useful and collegial approach. More consultation, and less diktats would be a good way forward. As I said to Jan: "Work with the community and the community will work with you. Work apart from the community, and there will always be a distance, a suspicion, and a certain degree of resentment resulting in push back against unpopular decisions." For the avoidance of doubt, any communications I make while inactive from the Committee are entirely my own. I am not sure yet if I will be returning to the Committee.

4592:. This has sometimes caused misunderstandings and friction when American business people have done business with Australian colleagues. Not because Americans are ruder than Australians, or vice versa, but because the same language is used differently, and because of differences in what is appropriate to say. b) In the United States and some other part of the Anglo world, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" is often cited as a useful, civil, and desirable way to interact with others. I have seen it said in discussions on Knowledge, as a matter of fact. However, in many cultures, that cultural script is completely inappropriate, since it encourages people not to mention other people's flaws - which is dishonest to the point of rudeness. This doesn't make one culture more rude than another, certainly not. It just shows that civility and rudeness are concepts that differ in fundamental ways. (I know that the WMF employs people who understand these issues very well indeed, but they won't be involved if this is a "T&S" thing.) Final point: a couple of editors who are often cited as shining examples of civil behaviour are people whose communication styles come across as very patronising to me. That's my own problem obviously, nobody else's, and it doesn't mean I can't communicate with them - but it illustrates the same thing. 5754:. If we should come up with one that is not in keeping with the cultural and/or personal values of some individual editors (which is inevitable), then I think it can be entirely reasonable for those individuals to be expected to moderate their civility approach to match the code. I've been in plenty of different cultural environments, and I've adjusted my approach to civility to fit - I certainly don't go to, say, another country and expect its natives to accept my way of doing things (unlike, sadly, a lot of my compatriots). Some of the civility problems to date have surely been due to different individuals approaching the same issue from different cultural and personal directions and finding each other's approaches lacking - and there's been no central reference to direct people in such cross-cultural situations. I confess I have my doubts about how well a universal code of civility can be developed, and I do get twitchy when I hear of such things. But at this stage, I'm withholding my judgment until I see what it looks like - anything else would be unfair. After all, nobody has yet come up with the faintest working idea of how to deal with incivility, and in many cases we're just getting worse at it. And we have to get better. 5069:. My kiddos are biracial. When I was younger and dating, I met my then-boyfriend's sister and boy did I put my foot in it. I thought I could talk about the black experience because I thought I had a "good enough" connection. I could have walked away from the experience thinking that black people didn't want to hear what I had to say and just gotten angry. Instead, I reflected on it. I realized that black people have heard what I, as a white woman, have been saying over and over again. I wasn't adding to the discussion. Now, I listen. That's most often the best thing an ally can do: listen. Minority groups will always tell you when they need your voice. Often, they do. Listening is one of the greatest gifts we can give to one another. I think that's often where minority groups and women are coming from. As to your question: I'd tell a person from a minority group that needs help that you're there for them if they have any questions. You can tell them they are wrong--to not correct mistakes is infantalizing a person, and is patronizing. There's nothing bad about helping others learn to be better editors. It's helpful. Just do it in the way that is respectful. We all want to be treated with respect. That's what I'm advocating. 5465:{ec} I think that there is a universal concept of civility. We all know when we've been treated poorly. We can communicate the issue to those who cause the harm. Many people at that point will say, "I didn't know this caused you harm. I will stop." But members of the community decide that the harm doesn't count because it wouldn't bother them or that the editor should just not feel the feelings they feel and continue to act in ways that hurt that person, that's not civil. What bothers a person will vary by culture, generation and even their emotional state on a particular day. That doesn't mean that I get to decide that what hurt someone is or is not valid. Only they can decide that. And the outcome should clearly be the offending party please back off. I think there are ways to codify this. We do it every day in the real world. On the job, as a manager I constantly hear complaints that would not personally bother me. However, I do find ways to empathize and respond in such a way that the issue is resolved without escalation. Not all issues are resolved the way a person wants, but I do resolve them fairly. We can do that here, too. 1685:

been allowed to occur. That T&S has explicitly stated that there is no appeal in this instance only adds fuel to the fire. Furthermore, operating a star chamber to institute and oversee such sanctions is not only reprehensible, but is exactly the wrong way to instill confidence in a volutneer organisation over which WMF has chosen for itself to exert some sort of supreme executive power. The tone deafness exhibited here is simply astonishing. At the very least, T&S need to give all the information relating to this action to a trusted, uninvolved and independent third party, I suggest ARBCOM. If that was done and the third party upon consideration of all the circumstances considered that the block and de-sysop of Fram be upheld, then so be it. Otherwise the block and de-sysop and any consequent actions taken against other here such as Floq and Bish, should be overturned and any related entries on their block logs be expunged. I'm not holding my breath, however. I have completely lost faith in WMF to be a reasonable actor with any kind of oversight of the project/ -

1852:

The two main ways forward that we are discussing is A) Having an interface on Knowledge for the community and the Foundation similar to the 'Crats noticeboard and the ArbCom noticeboard. A place here on this project where we can communicate directly, and where can discuss suggestions collectively. And B) A new system for dealing with civility and harassment issues. I have suggested to Jan that whatever system it is, it needs to come out of open discussions here between the Foundation and the community. It cannot be something imposed on the community by the Foundation. I have suggested a board with members from the community that are trusted by both the community and the Foundation, working alongside members of the Foundation to hear complaints of civility and harassment. Any sanctions are to be notified via the proposed WMF Noticeboard. Sanctions for harassment to appealed to the Foundation legal dept. Sanctions for civility to be appealed to ArbCom. Members of the Civility/Harassment Board should not also be members of ArbCom to ensure impartially in the appeals process.

3956:, it may not be fair to read too much into the timing. My take on things so far (though I may have missed bits here and there) is that there will be updates coming down the pipeline (from WMF staff and from Doc James who has said on his talk page that discussions are ongoing) that should make things clearer. Something that is concerning me is that I do think the WMF don't appear to trust the en-wiki ArbCom - might this be related to an earlier (this year or last year) resignation of an arbitrator and whether confidential material was being kept confidential (I may be misremembering)? Finally (apologies for putting it in here but I won't have time this weekend to follow things closely - maybe a really good summary will get written...), could some people keep an eye on Fram's Commons talk page, as that has the potential to blow up if more people start posting over there. I hope people don't lose sight of the fact that there are real people involved here (on all sides), and they need personal resolutions to all this, as well as the big picture, project-wide considerations. 1973:

editor feels harassed or bullied or victimised by another editor, especially one with a high profile in the community. Regardless of whether such feelings have any genuine basis, there exists the problem that an editor in that position will find it difficult to commence dispute resolution because of the fear of retribution in the context of our very transparent procedures. We do need some means of support for editors in that situation. However, I remain convinced that although T&S can offer real help (as is their remit) in supporting editors faced with those problems, I believe it is a mistake for T&S to take on the roles of investigator, judge, jury and executioner in those sort of cases. They will clearly be far more empathetic with the complainant, simply because he or she is the one they have worked most closely with. To then use Office action as the means of enforcing their decision in such cases is almost guaranteed to produce a strong reaction from the community, regardless of the propriety of the action. To

1801:: "As a part of the Foundation’s commitment to respect community autonomy, the Trust & Safety team does not handle general community or community-member disputes that may be addressed through community processes, nor does it serve as an appeal venue for community-made policies and decisions". As I see, you have gone beyond your jurisdiction. You not only intervened in ordinary internal conflict, you went against the will of the community on it. But a few people cannot replace the whole community. English Knowledge has the most powerful community, ways to resolve conflicts and privacy practices. You must cancel your decision immediately. We must to stop work and reform the Wikimedia Foundation Trust & Safety team. At least, we need to publicly discuss how it works, limits of its competence, discuss how to interact with local communities, introduce direct elections to this team from each language (cultural) community. Yea, Wikimedia is a multicultural movement and it is movement, not a private organization. --sasha ( 6395:" followed by the "fuck Arbcom" diff, but later this has been retrospectively reframed (firstly anonymously by "WMF Office" on this page, then by statements from Jan Eissfeldt) as all being about harassment complaints sent to WMF T&S. Nobody can find any smoking gun that demonstrates harassment and folks have jumped to the conclusion that there must be some terrible off-wiki harassment going on. If that was the case, then why would not the WMF email state clearly and honestly that you are banned because of complaints received of serious harassment, rather than lie about it? Not only do the responses from WMF T&S make no sense, they appear to be deliberately designed to be misleading and misinformation. Consequently the unelected WMF T&S employees with access to the WMF Office account are reserving the authority to ban without appeal, without a fair right to see and respond to evidence, in cases which appear entirely suitable to leave it to Arbcom or Stewards to make proper decisions about sanctions, 5370:. I think that others perceive that gender bias is used flippantly or an a bandwagonesque way. However, I think that false accusations are rare. Instead, it's the fact that we live in a society that's full of gender bias that not everyone gets to see. It reminds me of when I first had a discussion with a black friend in college who told me that he was afraid to run in the city. I was flabbergasted. Why on earth would that be a problem? I'm a white woman, so for me, of course it would never be a problem. But a black, young man would have a different experience. In the same way, many women, nb and even men have experienced gender bias and we call it out. There's a lot of it and it's being reported more and more. So I don't think it's flippant. I just think others don't recognize what we are seeing. I'm really glad you brought up the discussion on my talk page and I do think we need to keep it going. I appreciate your perspective, whether or not I agree fully with your assessment. 2051:

drawn where if crossed the Foundation should step in. That should be decided in an open discussion with the community. The community have evolved good rules and procedures through open discussion which gains consensus. And the community upholds very strongly the principle of consensus. If the community is involved in discussions, the community buys into any procedures and rules that are agreed. And the community would then back those rules and help enforce them. If the Foundation creates rules in private discussions, and then informs the community of these rules, there is resentment and a certain degree of push back. Work with the community and the community will work with you. Work apart from the community, and there will always be a distance, a suspicion, and a certain degree of resentment resulting in push back against unpopular decisions." I do not wish to speak for the community - my ideal is that the community and the Foundation speak for each other and do so together.

5199:

Unsurprisingly, personal attacks and strawmen were directed at those who did not fall in line with this mindset. Like many, if not most, Wikipedians, I believe we need more articles about women. Yet I don't think we should accomplish this goal by ignoring or downplaying our notability standards in favor of articles on women, nor do I consider it acceptable to assume sexism on the part of editors who are simply trying to enforce GNG. There was a serious lack of AGF in that AfD, yet the editors who needed to assume good faith were unmovable in their unwillingness to do so. At a certain point, one becomes weary of trying to have a reasoned conversation with those who will only resort to ad hominems and strawmen. And Raystorm's own attempt to make this a gender issue helps me to have a much clearer understanding of the reason why Fram was banned. I completely understand Softlavender's attitude.

4279:, I think the issue is not in adding, but in interpretation. "Be civil" means different things in different places and different contexts. It may, for example, be perfectly civil and acceptable for me to swear while out for a beer with my friends, but would be unacceptable to do in a job interview. It may be perfectly okay for me to tell someone who I know well that they're a dumbass if they make a mistake, but would not be civil if I saw a stranger make that same error. I do not want those decisions to be made by some faceless, unaccountable, and probably ultimately outsourced "moderation team" like happens on so many websites. Our means may not be perfect, but at the very least, if you get in trouble for something, you know what you did wrong, you know why the community disapproves of it, and you know what you need to do differently going forward. And perhaps most importantly, you can 3014:– "the Wikimedia community highly prizes transparency. For reporting systems, this is interpreted as publicly-viewable processes, outcomes, and the identities of the involved users. Transparency in this case is not just a design consideration put into place to achieve a certain kind of efficiency or mode of operation, but a value to be strived for in the way the entire system operates. Because the current reporting system aligns with a certain dominant interpretation of transparency, the system engenders a feeling of trust from its users. However, we know that the same commitment to transparency can be harmful and serves to chill the participation of other users who are not properly served by the system as it stands. Our current conundrum is the fact that, whatever changes we recommend, it must adhere to these values even as we change key features, otherwise it will not be trustworthy." 5313:

it. I do wish that you would AGF in those who are more used to dealing with gender bias, such as WIR members and the at least one admin you speak of. No one is going to wrongfully or flippantly accuse anyone or any situation of gender bias or sexism: that would weaken our position. It's important, however, to call it out where it exists. It's also one of the hardest and scariest things to do: you know that people aren't going to believe you because they don't want to believe there is bias. We want to believe the world is fair and that everything is a meritocracy. It isn't. Bias affects us all. That's why I told you that even I have bias. For example, if someone tells me to imagine a doctor or a scientist, I first think of a man automatically. That's an example of slight, rather benign gender bias. We all have it in our society. Things only become a problem when we can't talk about it.

5617:

to be a problem, as long as it is openly acknowledged and accepted that notions of civility vary a lot - isn't that a more likely way to make communications work smoothly, than setting up a set of rules and telling people from dozens of countries, speaking hundreds of languages, that they have to adjust their thinking about what is "civil"? After the 2011 survey, the WMF talked about the need to hire more staff based in different parts of the world to increase diversity, and the need to attract a more globally diverse set of editors to get more voices heard. A universal code of civility could directly counteract that work, unless it is phrased in such general terms so as to be useless - I'd love to be proven wrong here, but unless the point of departure is that there is no universal law of what is and isn't civil, I don't see how it could be helpful rather than harmful.

4588:

trends among groups of pople. That being said, "civility" is not merely about appropriate word choice, about not swearing when that would cause offence, using politeness phrases, making sure to pick the appropriate gender pronouns, etc. Those are important things but they are only part of civility/politeness/whatever you want to call it. I'll give two examples, which are perhaps not directly relevant to Knowledge, but still serve to illustrate the issue. a) In the US, it is acceptable to speak well of onself. (Incidentally, one reason I would never go for a RfA is the mandatory question about what contribution one is most proud of - a typical and fairly neutral kind of question in an American context, perfectly fine for many non-Americans as well, but impossible to address for me.) However, in e.g. Australia, people who do that risk being perceived as

4711:'s contribution to feminism came in good part from her feminist appropriation of the comic, sledging richness of Australian vernacular culture associated till her time with men. The point essentially is, is wiki policy designed to attract people willing to sacrifice their professional time and knowledge to write articles, or is it to prioritize simply recruitment on the basis of sensitivities. In short, are we to mimic the most etiquette-conscious social media so everyone will feel comfortable, whatever they are doing here, or are we to continue in our messy intense passionate individual ways to actually construct something, at some considerable personal cost. Social media may make people 'have a nice day'. They are not known, at the end of the day, for donating to global readers superb articles like 5643:- which is unambiguously a good thing to do. But how would you address the fact that women have expressed on this very page that what the WMF are proposing make them less safe and less likely to want to participate and make their unique voices (unique because they are individuals, not because they are women) part of the conversation? Who has the first right of interpretation of the collective experience of women, when we don't even know which editors are male, female, nb, genderqueer, or something else? Is it unreasonable for me to assume that again, it is going to be a US-American view of what women want, a view that is often deeply offensive to other people (regardless of gender), and directly excludes a large number of people who identify as women? -- 923:

fact we not only have policies that make clear our support for the standards you're so keen on, but also policies and precedents that show how we deal with breaches of those standards. In conclusion, I for one, am not willing to stand by and see T&S arbitrarily impose a parallel, yet unaccountable, scheme of dispute resolution on the English Knowledge. If you want to meet your remit and supply support for editors who don't feel able to use our dispute resolution procedures themselves, then bring a case on their behalf and allow the community's elected ArbCom to decide the case. Otherwise you need to consider why the English Knowledge should not simply abandon its present procedures, disband ArbCom and refer all of the disputes to T&S. --

2201:. Tagging new articles for improvement is not harassment. 2) You have not demonstrated that the English Knowledge was unable to deal with this issue, so this is an unprecedented power-grab. That is the main question, not poor communication. 3) Mimicking private report functions from sites like Twitter or Facebook sounds questionable. They are considered to be pretty arbitrary and are affected by things like coordinated mass-reporting. This way there is no public scrutiny of the evidence. You are not real detectives or better than the community/ArbCom in this. There is a massive difference between enforcing the TOS when it comes to acting against child pornography and interpersonal disputes on-wiki. You are biting more than you can chew. -- 2065:"I am not making back door deals ... I do not wish to speak for the community", that's a relief to hear, though given your elected role, it's unfortunate that you are in a position where you have to make these statements. Hopefully that means you have not and will not be having any undocumented quasi-official discussions or secret emails, but Arbcom will be properly and officially represented in recorded discussions that not just the current elected Arbcom members will be able to review, but future elected Arbcom members will be able to reference, including all emails with the WMF. If you mean something else, then now would be a jolly good time to spell out what exactly what you are doing and who you represent. -- 3140:

topics. However, there are going to be times when this conservatism is going to harm the project in the long-run. Figuring out how to thread that needle of respecting our norms, traditions, and culture, while opening the door to continued viability as a project is the needle the foundation should be trying to thread. And because it's a challenge they're going to get it wrong a bunch. And when they do we should rightly criticize them for it and they should learn from it. But that doesn't mean they should just stop trying to do the bigger kinds of changes that promote longterm health. In this case they've gotten something very wrong and I worry what, if anything, they're going to take away from all this. Best,

1036:

it because of that understanding that the tool would only be used for such extremely serious activities (child protection and such things). I am still at a loss as to how a user can have a time-limited ban for behavior and not be informed as to exactly what behavior is at issue. The Foundation is seemingly deciding to both impose on this community a standard on civility that it has repeatedly rejected and also failing to actually define that standard. You are effectively saying to any user dealt in this way that their conduct is lacking, but you cannot tell them what that conduct was, but be sure not to repeat that conduct when they are allowed back despite not knowing what the actual conduct in question is.

6002:

affected by this all, there is no way in hell they will ever agree to their identity being revealed. Frankly I suspect probably not even to Fram even if Fram signs an NDA. Heck given the history, probably not even to arbcom. No matter what the situation was and even if in the end it means nothing happens to Fram. The WMF needs to consider whether this is an acceptable outcome based on what they know. If they do not, I really have no idea how they should proceed from here, that's one of the reasons why I'd probably never work in any role remotely like that. (To be clear, as I've said in previous discussions, I do think they handled this poorly especially early on which hasn't helped the situation any.)

5774:, rather then attempting to codify "civility", which is not only much more difficult, but is also a much less important issue? It would also be in line with any legal concerns the WMF might have. After all, it seems unlikely that the Foundation would have any reasonable legal exposure for not blocking or banning an editor who was merely impolite, as opposed to one who was actually harassing another editor in the legal sense. Let the WMF define "harassment" as precisely as possible, so that the community and ArbCom have a standard to apply, then T&S can step in if it's not properly enforced at the community level -- but only when it opens the Foundation up to potential legal action. 2236:(Some advice from a long-time Wikipedian, who has witnessed more than a few conflicts here: many of these conflicts are about the content of Knowledge articles, & to handle these conflicts one needs great familiarity with the subject of the article. Since Knowledge's articles cover a wide variety of subjects, if I were you I'd get to becoming experts on a lot of different subjects. But don't try to save time by reading Knowledge articles, since it has been known that some have mistakes, some omit material, & some give undue emphasis to certain points of view -- matters you can only detect by reading reliable sources, not Knowledge articles.) -- 1469:

proactively monitoring his actions to see if he has made any further violations? Basically I want to know in general terms what instigated the series of internal WMF actions that led to this ban. If you believe that answering this would violate Fram's privacy, see #2. If you believe that answering this would violate the privacy of anyone else or you cannot answer this question for any other reason, please give us an explanation which is not buried in legalese, because I honestly don't see how disclosing the existence of a complaint can violate anyone's privacy (especially given that such disclosure was given to Fram in the April 2018 email).

5486:, I think that works to a degree. If someone told me "I'd really prefer if you didn't use the word ________ when you talk to me", sure, I'll try to accommodate that. On the other hand, if it's "It really hurts my feelings when you nominate an article I wrote for deletion", but I believe the articles in question do in fact fail inclusion criteria and need to be deleted, the response is going to be on the order of "I'm sorry you feel that way, but I will continue to do that if the need continues to arise." So, to a degree, such personal requests can be honored, but there will come many occasions when they cannot be. 1254:

to work, then what has happened is not merely an "change to the processes", it is a usurpation of community rights which is indeed an expansion of T&S's scope, and an extremely unwarranted one at that. That you cannot see this is a significant part of the problem here, and the actual core of the controversy, not whether the sanctions were justified, but that T&S took upon itself a right which is the community's.Further, you have said nothing about whether the sanctions were influenced by pressure from the WMF chair, who is, apparently, a personal friend of the complainant. This, if true, is a matter of

467:

with the very notion of a fair adjudication. There has been *zero* effort made to outline what due process the accused can expect in these ex parte hearings and what rights *Fram* has to defend himself against serious charges. Not even the slightest lip service is given to the notion. And anyone for whom the concept of due process is either foreign or merely inconvenient has *zero* business being involved in this project. WMF exists to be the servant of the Wikimedia movement, not its master. It's not supposed to be a jobs program for those who want to cosplay as tin-pot dictators.

2169:

would be done, or if ArbCom would be consulted before it was done. My comment was regarding ArbCom's difficulty in responding to questions about how much ArbCom knew because, clearly, the very fact that the WMF is concerned about a particular user is confidential information. ArbCom can not reveal which users the WMF are concerned about. So ArbCom were put in an awkward position of not being able to deny the Committee knew that WMF were considering a ban, but not able to fully confirm it either as the Committee were unsure of what they could or should reveal. That is what I meant.

2288:

frivolous claims and leaving the rest of us wondering whether we're next. To be blunt, the lack of transparency here is astounding and WMF should be clear. From what I've seen thus far, Fram's ban stems from abusing sysop authority in some manner to harass another user. If that assessment is true, in order to prevent such behavior in the future, just say that. As it stands now, Fram's saying he hasn't and no evidence has been provided to prove otherwise. People are currently left wondering what was said/done and without the means to ensure we don't step into such a situation.

4967:

spent a good amount of text here being an apologist for an organisation that thinks its acceptable to disappear people without given them the courtesy of seeing the evidence against them or the right to defend themselves perhaps you should be less condescending about arguing from a heated position. You should be heated when they come for you in the night. So less of the 'I can see your angry' passive agressive tactics please. If I wanted to be talked to as if I was a woman being told to calm down there are plenty of other misogynistic locations on the internet.

3595:. I want to address some questions and concerns people have about a comment I made in the University of Washington video that came out last week. In the video I mentioned the plans for a User reporting system and a Universal Code of Conduct to be developed the next fiscal year. My primary work since I came on staff is to is engage with the Wikimedia communities about initiatives to address harassment, most through tech solutions. On occasion I speak with the media, too. In this instance I responded to a media request for a video interview about this study. 1642:

copyvio stuff is one thing, the denial of the Armenian genocide is quite another. It's a very serious matter that urgently needs to be dealt with but at the same time if you're going to ban people for denying the Armenian genocide, even if you're not going to say it's the reason you need to take great care in your evidence and how you go about it. The fact that almost no one will notice, probably receiving not even 1/100 of the attention of the outside world as this case which as far as I know has still largely passed the world by, not withstanding.

1772:

threats of harm, stalking, anything that like that. That should be a salaried team of outside hires, professionals in their fields, not contractors from within the editing community. Distance from the community and rock solid impartiality are required for such posts. Familiarity with community norms is not required to detect cases of child grooming or to deal with threats of harm or off-wiki stalking. If the WMF wants some kind of civility enforcement team hired from within the community then fine, do that. I think it's an awful idea, but whatever.

6403:

behaviour that has contributed to "abusing communications", or that complaints about targeted harassment have been received, then point to the process for handing T&S harassment complaints. In the struggle to have their cake and eat it, the WMF appears to both want to pretend to be well governed and transparent, while behaving like self appointed sheriffs in the Wild West of San Fran, who are taking pot shots at perps using international modern drone strikes, because they can, rather than bothering with the flimflam of justice and juries. --

5589:

a house of cards. One meter shall be applied to one person, another on another one due to subjective nature of such hearing. The rules will not be set up as guideline of what not to do, and what penalty to be had once the line is crossed, but will try to muddle the waters into basically "the judge, jury and prosecution in one will make a decision". Especially if core principle is that offended party gets to decide which action consist of an offence. I mean, is that not what the discussion about Fran v Laura edits has been about?

5666:

corporate entity might want to impose a given set of values on its staff (after all whilst you may not employ child labour in your base nation, the publicity of you doing so in wheerevaistan will still affect your market image in your base nation). Moreover it also would make it easier for those who are not from WASP nations to come here and not fall foul of our standards (such as rules on notability or OR, let alone civility). If we have one set of standards no one can plead "but not from where I come from" as a justification.

3971:

of conduct" seems very challenging in this environment. A statement that might be perceived as direct and outspoken, but not offensive in culture A might be seen as a frontal attack in culture B. Of course there are some things that would be universally inacceptable (such as direct threats, something like "I will come to your house and beat you up"), but that doesn't necessarily include things such as swearwords (some of which are, for example, much less taboo in German-speaking countries than in America, I think).

874:

experienced on wiki. 2) It can be unfair to the accused. I've gone up against Fram several times over the years to defend the outstanding inclusionists he used to attack, so I think I know them quite well. I can see why their actions might validly appear to be harassment, but it always seemned they were in fact just trying to protect the encyclopaedia from what in Fram's misguided but sincere opinion were excessive mistake makers. So it's annoying to see Fram (effectively) labelled a harasser by a star chamber.

2029:, it's nice that Jan's working on this, but if he wants to work with the community, he needs to work with it, not backdoor with you. Don't get me wrong, I've had my differences with you, but I do trust you in general. But ultimately, if there's to be a community solution, the community must be involved. That must start with WMF backing off from its position that it holds the authority to enforce bans over the consensus of the editor community, and it must start with discussion of this issue by him 1646:

of the beast that the fall out from this means it's likely diverting most of their attention and they can't just ignore it telling us 'sorry we'll deal with how much you hate us once we're done with Az, in the mean time Fram stays banned'. And for so many reasons, they also can't say 'well we still think we made the right decision here but it blew up and it's taking too much time from dealing with az so we'll overturn the ban for now and re-implement it later when we have time to deal with you'.

31: 5221:

the time I hope!). We all have them. If someone thinks gender bias is involved, we all owe it to ourselves to look inside and make sure that we aren't acting on the biases that society has given us. Based on the fact that WIR is working to fight bias, I'm not surprised editors are mistrustful: it goes against society's narrative. Whether we want to believe it or not, that's the world we live in. Pretending sexism isn't involved in many situations is just putting our heads in the sand.

5084:

getting what they want on the person making the changes being part of the patriarchy / white hegemony / whatever. I have no real solution for that, and I don't really know anyone that has. But if someone had at least part of a solution that would be great, both for allies and for the people of minority groups. Because reality being what it is, as an ally, when you get accused of being sexist / anti-trans / anti-whatever, or get dismissed simply for being a white man, it is one of the

5505:. Actions that are part of the process that help us build and edit the encyclopedia can't and shouldn't be circumvented just because someone says their feelings are hurt. I think a code of conduct would focus on the interactions we have while doing the editing. If someone says their feelings are hurt because an article is nominated for deletion, we can still be sympathetic (if you wish) to their feelings, but it's not going to stop the rightful process of editing the encyclopedia. 5990:

suppression of criminal defendants and especially convicts is often a big deal, I can say that while plenty of people feel that it creates problems for others who aren't the defendant or convict given the risk people may think it is them (as some details are still revealed like 'prominent entertainer'), there are also plenty of people who feel it's not a compelling reason to end the practice. (Which doesn't mean they must agree with the practice or feel that it should continue.)

3607: 5334:"No one is going to wrongfully or flippantly accuse anyone or any situation of gender bias or sexism: that would weaken our position." Having been on the ass end of such accusations, I can tell you this does indeed happen, and that his does indeed weaken WIR's reputation. I wouldn't necessarily say it's widespread or anywhere near a majority, or anywhere close to the gender bias against women in general, but it's also not non-existent and than there was significant 5037:, especially when members of that minority group may not be as versed/skilled in the art of encyclopedia writing due to a difference in background, or want to promote/rectify a situation, when we are required to be neutral. We need to find a way on how to do that, but sadly my question was dismissed as too silly to be worth addressing, and a lot of people in the audience reacted in a sadly predictable 'look at the white man thinking he's better than us' way. 2408:

Admin. Given exigent circumstances, we've pre-emptively removed them from such a role and suspended their account indefinitely. In the meantime, the necessary information has been sent to ArbCom for review." It doesn't matter at that point WHO reported it. Instead, they've been unnecessarily vague to the point that no one really knows what is going on. This puts the entire community in the position that an individual has been suspended for unknown reasons.

5845: 5630:), and to deny people the right to have their reports heard and taken seriously is fatal. Of course. But unfortunately, what we very often see is people feeling harassed or insulted by editors who scrupulously stick to the "comment on edits, not on editors" policy, as discussed above. A lot of the flak that en.wiki gets comes from us adhering to notability and verifiability policies, and as long as we are an encyclopedia, that's not going to change. 944:. My reading of the statement regarding not communicating with NDA users was that it meant that the WMF was under the impression that they had legal obligations to keep some complaints internal. If that is the case, then there would be no way for them to effectively handle these complaints without allowing some internal proceedings. I think that this could be a result of an interpretation of GDPR, based off of discussion higher on this page. 546:

proposals being made by the WMF? What I foresee, is that others will include his critiques even if they are made on different WMF projects. This is why project-limited bans can be difficult to enforce. For example, if Fram is participating in Meta and MediaWiki discussions on those topics and makes cogent points, will people be able to point to and quote his opinions in discussions here, without being accused of proxying for a banned user?

4662:. I have relatives from downunder who, studying in the US, have endless anecdotes about the misunderstandings arising from using a 'matey' Australian vernacular with Americans who often give the appearance of being much more guarded and socially cautious, at least in public social discourse, as opposed to their government's foreign policy shenanigans. The proposal strikes me as extremely Americanocentric. Has no one ever read 1369:

significant number of volunteers have serious concerns, it was disappointing (if not entirely surprising) to see the Foundation answer with responses that were impersonal, opaque, and bureaucratic. As I stated previously, this attitude goes against Knowledge's spirit of free participation and mutual respect. It's my sincere hope this will serve as an opportunity for growth, both for WMF and its staff, and our community at large.

5708:

cannot tell me to"), quite the opposite. What I said was that any corporate entity has to take into account publicity, and how that impacts on its operations. So ultimately any code of conduct has to be informed by where the company has its biggest operations (or its base). It does not matter if Barry come from foregnistan, it does not give him a right to ignore rules on (for example) personal space, culture be damed.

2233:

members in good standing get a bit unruly, & our conflict resolution process is busy. Moreover, people are not always happy with the results of our conflict resolution process, sometimes for valid reasons. So where the members of the WMF could watch from some distance our chronic unruliness, & laugh at the ensuing foibles, you are now in this mess with us, & must needs sort out these conflicts for us.

6435:

to come up with retroactive justifications. This happens more easily than one might think, and sometimes for the best of reasons (a manager sticking up for an employee on his or her team, then getting ego-bound to that initial reaction is quite normal). I hope they have the institutional integrity to extract themselves from this mess. Errors are unavoidable, but they should be corrected, not extended. --

2983:– "This survey is intended to understand community sentiments around AN/I, and will not lead to immediate or imposed changes to AN/I from the Foundation. Rather the purpose of the survey is to fill in gaps in data that could lead to on wiki discussions about possible improvements to how AN/I cases are managed. Any changes would need to be backed by the volunteer community on the English Knowledge." 4055:

impression to english readers who notice this). As to the multi-culture background of the english wikipedia, everyone who learns english as a second language gets warnings of using the four or seven letter words, especially from the very countries of the native speakers. So I simply don´t buy any reassurement of some of the editors here that this is nowadays considered a small thing.--

4317:

based on past WMF communications, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they end up expecting everyone to talk in exactly the same sort of language they use--the sort of content-free legalese we've been getting in this case that is clearly written by an on-retainer lawyer to ensure that there's no way for it to be held against them from a legal standpoint. Given that most of us are

1630:

about the other wikipedias and it does mean there's always going to be a divide between dealing with stuff which affects their major by far service, and the more minor ones especially the very minor ones. As I said before, that doesn't mean they should ignore problems in the minor ones but everything else being equal the problems in the more minor ones will get far less attention.

1638:

English, a language I think everyone who works for the WMF speaks. The az stuff seems to be fairly complicated and while some stuff may seem clear cut on the outside, in the interest of fairness as well as ensuring they take all the necessary action, even if it were all in English it will likely take months to deal with. It being in Azerbaijani greatly compounds the problems.

2992:− "The Anti-Harassment Tools Team is interested in measuring how admins feel about different kinds of conflict specific activities (wikihounding, vandalism, harassment, sockpuppetry), how confident they feel spotting, mitigating, and intervening in these case types, and if they feel supported with tools and other resources from the Wikimedia Foundation." See especially 4322:

clearly has never spent any time in an American corporate environment, dealing with the levels of office politics that make enwiki's problems look like a drop in the bucket. (Not to mention how political correctness results in continuous change of what constitutes such civility standards, meaning that what's acceptable today may get you fired six weeks from now...)

4218:. There is no reason that a universal code of conduct can't be compatible with local codes of conduct. In the US Army, there is a general code that everyone follows as a soldier. Each individual unit, however, was free to add to this, just not allowed to subtract. We can, as a community decide how much (if anything) we want to add to a universal code of conduct. 4554:

be the causative conduct does not look like something that would be understood as requiring office action, and the administered remedy does not look like something that is appropriate for the kind of really bad conduct that office actions were intended for. In that sense, nobody reverted an office action, but rather, they reverted something that was

2096:

was only writing in a private capacity, I cannot say anything about what was said or agreed, even for other Arbcom members to review." What we lack here is leaderships on transparency and good governance, you don't fix that by starting yet more secret "unofficial" conversations. There are never good reasons to choose to avoid good practices. --

5388:. I (along other editors) were told point blank that we couldn't possibly have a legitimate interest in a topic because it dealt with feminism , that we didn't know anything about the topic, and that our goals were to willfully 'keep women down', solely based on us not being in agreement with a group of women while happening to be men. 915:"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) ... 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." 2136:

comment on the grounds of T&S's ban of Fram. (In other words agree, disagree, or abstain from stating if Fram did something wrong.) And should a case be presented in the future where for whatever reason none of the facts can be made public, the ArbCom should be given the opportunity to make a statement to the same effect. --

3518:

community to being outright hostile and telling the community what they expect, but none of those I would call useful. Whereas the institute of liasons could work in some situations, I do not thin k we are currently at the stage any self-appointed or WMF-appointed person can really have a distinctly positive contribution here.--

3210:

has been enforcing stuff on us for a long time becuase they think we need it, With VE, in its buggy status, it was not 'hey guys, we have this new gadget, for those interested please try it and tell us what you think. And if you think it is good enough and there is community consensus, you can turn it on <here: -->

2357:

we've decided an outright ban in perpetuity is appropriate" (example only). This would clarify what happened and discourage further misbehavior. As it is, we have no idea what happened. I'm not even supporting him or opposing the ban in general. My problem is that the process here is woefully lacking in transparency.

303:

other community members will still struggle to understand (1) the necessity of the action taken against Fram in the first place, and (2) by what process of decision WMF will decide to issue sanctions in potentially controversial cases. I suppose we will not get more clarity on the former, but surely in the latter? --

1015:, a historical accident. T&S will super-protect, super-delete, super-ban, super-bias anything it wants any way it wants, and then the community is free to ban anybody else because who really cares. And I expect that like any other social media company, no one will really know why or what they will go after. 2993: 5881:

behaviour (sic)? Was his behaviour damaging to Knowledge, in a sense that needed a ban, on this Knowledge only? I'm tired out by the MB of blather, but is WMF looking at this as a precedent now, that any editor can be summarily banned for a year without appeal without any definition of their wrongdoing?

5693:

time. For other situations, as you rightly point out, we will have to handle differently somehow. I'm not sure I'm the right person to do that: I'm a librarian and it's not my area of expertise. But I want to start the discussion and not give up on the idea just because it's going to be hard to figure out.

2375:. I call you at your home at 3AM every day, posts your personal information elsewhere, defame you on troll forums, and generally engage in fucking creepy behaviour. You have clear evidence of this. This is general reprehensible behaviour, but going with a 'public trial' jeopardizes your life, because it 6894:

That's way too obsequious for my liking. Are the ToU community-approved? No. Is the very existence of T&S (or WMF for that matter) community-approved? No. Is there anything about English Knowledge that is beyond the remit of its contributors? No. I think it is about time to draw a line of what is

6226:

demonstrates clearly why it's good that WMF won't reveal the names of the offended parties. I am also somewhat confused that Fram was given only a year-long suspension, as I do fully support throwing the book at harassers, but frankly the complaint from the community has not generally been, "Fram was

5985:

Harassment of whom? AFAIK, there are only two parties who've been named in this whole mess as possible victims. Arbcom and an editor who's wikipedia name begins L. While some here have gone to the extent of looking in to the personal life of the latter editor, we have no real evidence that any of the

5896:

Yes, that is exactly my concern. I have no idea whether Frsm's behaviour warranted sanction and I'm not inclined to go and look through mountains of edits on en.wiki to find out. However, taking precipitate action based on secret allegations presented in secret by a secret accuser to a secret panel

5692:

I think you bring up some very good points. I'm trying to think of a way that we can all have a universal system of civility, but clearly there will always be situations where we fall short. I don't think that a universal civility process has to be perfect: it just has to work well enough most of the

5588:

I cannot recall an event when this approach ended in anything but a fiasco. It sounds good - lets have a system that has looks at each and every case individually and in the end enforces decision based on the observation of behaviour. But without codified and unified set of rules, it falls apart like

4706:

I didn't apply the idea of 'mateship' to wikipedia. I corrected a suggestion about Australian language use. It is not about grey zones either. The assumption in the WMF proposal is that there is a 'universal' code for etiquette, to which they are privy and which they will impose on users from several

3970:

English-language Knowledge is a worldwide project with people coming from extremely different cultures and with varying backgrounds, and very often English is not their first language (myself included - I'm from Switzerland, my first language is Swiss German). Introducing some kind of "universal code

3623:

Among other things, I spoke of the upcoming plans for the development of a User Reporting System and a Universal Code of Conduct because I believe that it is important to share information publicly about the Wikimedia movement's work to address issues. I never intended to blindside anyone or give the

3139:

I write better content today and am a more efficient editor because Visual Editor exists. A consensus based community, like we are, is going to be (notice the lowercase letter here) conservative by its nature. Overall this is good - it's why we get praised for the quality of our coverage of difficult

2110:

We've had good and bad people and good and bad editors serve as arbitrators and we've had effective and ineffective arbitrators. However, it strikes me as absurd that any Wikipedian, including the ones who've most explicitly been entrusted by the widest number of people in the community, cannot speak

1972:

I'm really pleased to hear that a member of ArbCom is talking directly with Jan and exploring ways of better cooperation in future. That has to be the best outcome we can hope for. It seems to me that the current issues have exposed a genuine gap in our dispute resolution procedures: that of where an

1943:

be able to be discussed and appealed against by those blocked - it goes against all forms of justice I can think of for someone to be punished without a full explanation, in which they are not allowed to put forward arguments in defence and then are forbidden to appeal against overly harsh treatment.

1629:

Of course for better or worse en is the largest wikipedia by far, and the one with the most focus of the world by far. I don't think it's a good thing, and maybe the WMF haven't helped as much as they can, but I do think there's also not much they can do about the general lack of care anyone else has

1625:

Is there much focus here? I thought one of the key reasons this blew up is because it's literally the first time they've really intervened in this way on en. Okay there is some private stuff that happened before, but I'm not seeing much evidence of a lot of focus here. All I'm seeing is evidence they

1374:

I expect after the board meets tomorrow, there will be further dialogue, and hopefully a little more openness where warranted. For now, in the interest of drawing the right conclusions and focusing our energy toward productive ends, we can reasonably infer a few things from Mr. Eissfeldt's statement:

1190:

overrule it, any more than we could walk into the San Francisco offices, point to an employee, say "You're fired", and expect that to have any effect. WMF is a separate body, but it is not "higher" than the English Knowledge community. We don't can your employees, you don't can our editors or admins.

285:

And, specifically, I can live with the idea that T&S will enforce civility even when the communities are not prepared to accept it, but in this case it must be very clear whic level of civility is expected. Otherwise it turns into a minefield. In this case, I believe, though Fram has been banned,

6909:

I agree with both of your normative arguments: we should work with the WMF to create a system that is as transparent and accountable as possible. But we aren't going to accomplish that through pointing out potential loopholes in the WMF's policies, because their stated policy intent is that the bans

6872:

Where do you draw the line? If you don't take it to mean what it says about local control, what's to stop the Foundation from re-imposing superprotect? What's to stop them from sanctioning contributors who criticize fundraising operations? In your view, if the T&S team decides that homeopathy is

6718:

This discussion is largely moot. Wiki(m|p)edia has no legal system, no case law. We have a set of community and Foundation policies and governance structures. Jimbo has exactly as much authority as the community and Foundation say he has: at the Foundation, he has no authority beyond his board seat,

5993:

Likewise, I can perfectly understand that the WMF may feel it is inappropriate for them to comment on the identity in any way, even simply saying it it is not the person a lot of people are assuming it is. How they handle the problems this creates for the person who may have been unfairly affected I

5665:

I am kind of reminded of another incident (this time on a course) where an immigrant engaged in behavior that was sexual harassment, but not where he came from. Now I do get that we cannot (and should not) impose our values on other countries (the white mans burden all all that). BUt I can see how a

5312:

I don't think you understand what I'm saying here at all. Sorry for not responding right away. I had other issues to deal with. However, I think you are assuming automatically that there is no sexism in situations, when really, quite often there is -- even if you are not aware of it or don't believe

5242:

I never said that gender bias was okay. My objection is that some WIR members (including at least one admin) have the capacity to see gender bias in places where it doesn't even exist and also to project gender bias (or outright sexism) onto those who reject their interpretation. That is a backwards

5164:

happen, however, is that the editor concerned wrote a huge amount of seriously sub-par content, and when called out on it (by no means only by Fram - one of the relevant ArbCom cases didn't even mention him) somehow the narrative shifted to some sort of gender issue because many of her articles were

5109:

types of damage, even if unintentionally, rather than maliciously. Very few people have the moral backbone to still support a movement that has maligned them, sometimes grossly (I have received harassing calls at work, got stalked at Wikimania 2017, and had my personal appearance mocked as result of

5083:

Well that's the tricky bit. You can listen all you want, at the end of the day, if the minority group is wrong, you still need to click edit and make changes that don't align with what the minority group wants, and they'll go "there they go again, not listening" or similar. Then they blame their not

4929:

You seem to be under the misapprehension the WMF wants or seeks consensus for its actions. Knowledge seeks consensus amongst its community. The various WMF teams (tech, T&S etc) have shown, over a number of years and situations, no interest in doing anything other than imposing their own will on

4553:

meaning of office action is one that we support. Normally, the community would consider a true office action to be something that no admin should revert. But what is happening here is that a rather strange time-delimited and single-project sanction was made as an "office action", but what appears to

4361:

The military analogy is inapt. WMF is not the commanding officer of English Knowledge nor is it the WMF's role to instill discipline in their alleged subordinates. The WMF is the *servant* of the Knowledge movement, not its master. This is more comparable to a military coup, a powerful group that is

4135:

I think that there is room for a universal code of conduct - just so we don't get things like azwiki. But it needs to come about a different way. Ideally, it would be decided on Meta and focus on the universal Wikimedia principles - universal enough so that the largest 10 WMF wikis should be able to

2232:

You could have easily avoided this result had you first consulted the en.wikipedia community -- either as a whole or a proper representative body such as the ArbCom -- & stepped in only when the process arguably failed to arrive at a just & reasonable result. If you haven't noticed, even our

2168:

For clarity, the information ArbCom had was minimal, along the lines of "concerns raised regarding Fram, looking into it" and "considering ban, looking into it", but no details (not who raised the concerns or what they were concerned about), and no timescale for when a ban might be applied or how it

2095:

Plenty of good faith, but I have lots of experience with different Arbcom members, both very good and very bad experiences. Arbcom members are elected officials carrying the trust of our community. It is not adequate to have secret conversations while still wearing those hats and later on say "oh, I

2050:

To be absolutely clear. I am not making back door deals. In our email exchange Jan felt that we had different points of agreement on the moment the Foundation could get involved in harassment complaints, and asked me where I felt that moment should be. My response was: "As for where a line should be

1898:

I may join the list of those willing to unblock Fram. Not because I support Fram or wish to defend his hostile manner of engaging those he disagrees with, but because I feel that the Foundation have got this wrong, and bad things happen when good people do nothing. But it wouldn't be appropriate for

1895:

The suggestion of a Civility/Harassment Board is one idea. A starting point for discussion if you like. My main point is that we need to find a solution to civility/harassment issues together not - as at the moment - separately. I also think it very important that we start to break down the barriers

1756:

for a re-election of his private sysop-account, that surely would have no chance in the heated situation, so the desysop was automatically issued after 30 days and does not speak for any wrong-doing in the de.wp besides what he was ordered from the WMF. But maybe the experience is in the back of his

1684:

I have no idea whather Fram's actions were sancionable or not, and that is in large part beside the point. What is at issue here is a basic principle of natural justice, the accused should be given the right to face their accuser(s) and to defend themselves. This by T&S's own admission has not

1645:

And considering this fallout, and the size of the WMF means this is likely to be diverting significant resources, I would imagine a further delay of 2-3 weeks. To be clear, I'm not saying this is anyone's fault (although I stick with my belief the WMF made mistakes here), simply that it's the nature

1633:

From what I've read, the problems at az are very serious, way more serious than whatever Fram did although that also doesn't mean that they should have ignored the Fram situation. More importantly, I've seen no real evidence they have been ignoring the az.wikipedia problems. From what I read, it was

1253:

Thank you for your statement, however, I would dispute "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..." If the manner in which the sanctions were levied against Fram is an example of how they are intended

1042:

is not supposed to be an instruction manual. At the end of the day, this is private property, and you may do whatever you wish to do with that property. You can deny access and ban someone, you can impose access and require us to allow somebody to edit. But if you want us to know what is expected of

1035:

I understand that there are going to be times that a final authority will need to exercise some drastic action. However, until now, that has been limited to things that are so serious as to require an indefinite global ban, and I am unaware of any global ban that has seen a wider community challenge

1004:

SuSa will create a complaint processing map of its and related community workflows to make more transparent to the team’s stakeholders - communities, affiliates, Foundation staff, and partners - what kinds of complaints the team refers to community processes under current practice and which types it

922:

You need to tell us plainly exactly what minimum standards the English Knowledge community fell short of in this case. You are wrong to suggest that the English Knowledge community dislikes or opposes any of the standards expressed in TOU, and I hope you'll either justify it or retract that slur. In

793:

I appreciate any effort to clarify and communicate, so thank you for that. But I cannot make sense of it, if I simultaneously believe everything in this statement and also believe everything that Fram has posted about what he says he was told of the reasons for the ban. If I believe that the comment

742:

in responce to this. The only reason these conspiracy theories (of which one of them may eventually be right, and it's looking increasingly likely this was used to "win" a long-running editorial dispute between two users who, frankly, aren't very well liked) have been promulgating is because T&S

517:

There are plenty of things that can be done to escalate in a situation like that. Like in every other hearing in every single context everywhere, ever. It's WMF's stance that is the gross outlier. People will figure it out and the accused certainly will be able to make some pretty good guesses; if a

466:

While I appreciate the effort to make some kind of statement, I find this tremendously inadequate. Yes, protecting privacy and the general rights of the accusers is very important. But due process for the accused, in any fair system of justice, whether in a court system or not, comes part and parcel

6638:

I'd like to remind everyone that it is my long established view that all bans are appealable to me. I seldom intervene, even if I have some minor disagreement with a ban, because no major constitutional issues or errors are at stake.... If an error has been made, I'm sure they will revert and work

6434:

My hypothesis that someone originally issued the ban for less than adequate reasons. It might be simple inexperience or error of judgement, but there are speculations that it might be due to a personal request or as a favour. Now that the issue has exploded, the WMF has circled the wagons and tries

6418:

explains the reason for doing so at time of blocking (none was forthcoming until after Fram's Commons post). Not only did they not provide a reason until much later, after everything blew up in their face, but they have not provided a satisfactory explanation as to why the ban is limited as it is. —

5616:

I often agree with your position, but please believe me when I say - speaking from a position of actual linguistic expertise - that there isn't "a universal concept of civility". I'm not going to post another wall of text to try to prove that, because I already tried to do so above. It doesn't have

4999:

No, you said what I quoted above. What on earth are you talking about with those terms? One of the biggest issues on Knowledge is the gender gap and the fact that women and nb folks face a good deal of discrimination. Then when they report it, they face additional harassment. This is a pattern I've

4851:

That ruing is this case in miniature Swearing might have been a grounds for dismissal if the company didn't give "mixed messages" about its use. The company also gave no due process nor time to respond to the charges leveled. So uncivil behavior doesn't have to be tolerated, but the response should

4746:

doesn't cover? And then there is the question of shades of grey. I would never consider that post a banning offence. A cause for a request to back off and cool down, certainly, but not for blocking or banning, given the full context. You may disagree, perhaps, but the important thing is that it can

4494:

The working groups will create some recommendations designed to address these questions in the next few months, and have been inviting community input since roughly April. It's important to note that this is not a WMF-only process, indeed, most of the groups have only a couple of WMF staff on them.

4296:

Beyond them being faceless and unaccountable - their interpretation is based in a completely different community. To continue the analogy - courts martial are tried by individuals in the same communities - understanding expectations and ethoses. T&S (or whoever) have functionally no involvement

4080:

I think you are oversimplifying. For instance, you are throwing all English-speaking countries together, but there are huge differences when it comes to swearwords e.g. between the UK and the USA. Also, what would be "the right swearwords" to compare? I think that the usual scatological swearwords,

2838:

I would say "strong oppose" but I do not need to use "strong" to indicate the depth of my opposition. There have been many bad ideas floated in the last 10 days in response to this failure to communicate, and this is among the worst. This is a problem that needs serious ongoing work by level-headed

2352:

The problem is the whole thing. People who feel they are victims of harassment should NOT be allowed to anonymously report a situation and expect a punishment of the accused without having to present their evidence publicly (which is exactly what's happened here). I'm sorry, but the #MeToo movement

2135:

If I understand SilkTork correctly, members of the ArbCom have more information about this banning than will ever be released to the rest of our community, hopefully enough to form an opinion on it. If so, I'd find helpful if the ArbCom make a simple statement if they concur, dissent, or decline to

1866:

A) seems like an excellent idea, and would save a great deal of headaches. I'm still chewing on B), but I'm not at all happy with it, and I'd refer you to SeraphimBlade's excellent commentary below for why a large section of the community will feel that way. In particular, the WMF has no business

1771:

My comment wasn't in regards to how that all went down or who was in the right or in the wrong. It doesn't matter. It was in the regards to the fact that no competent organization would even risk the impression of bias or COI on the part of employees handling sensitive issues like child protection,

1472:

If the community's processes (including ArbCom) are insufficient at the present moment to deal with harassment/incivility issues, do you envision a future in which every such case, with the exception of anything with legal/child protection/etc. implications, can be referred back to the community or

1464:

Is any portion of the information being withheld for the sole purpose of protecting the Fram's privacy (i.e. as opposed to protecting the privacy of all parties involved)? If so, and if Fram were to waive their right to privacy in that regard, would you be willing to publish it? (I ask this because

1330:

I am concerned about the basis for the ban and suspicion of lack of impartiality behind it. I would only be satisified if the uncensored reasons were shared with another independent body (presumably the arbitration committee or ombudsperson) to review and conclude the basis of the ban was justified

1224:

is a fact; but that has been supplanted by another matter: the nature of the ban itself. You note, Jan, in your statement, that these time- and project-limited bans are for "serious concerns that are considered temporary or project-specific in nature". I'm afraid I don't understand how the actions,

1202:

Jan, assuming you're taking the time to read all of these comments: if the current NDA does not facilitate communication of matters like this between its signatories and the WMF, is Trust & Safety interested in working with WMF Legal to replace it with an agreement which is compatible with such

917:

This is the part that's unacceptable to the community. It is a mistake to think that your staff are going to be any more capable of preserving privacy than the elected representatives of our community who are bound to the same level of confidentiality. If you have evidence of ArbCom failing to meet

762:

ArbCom should be told the sort of actyion being taken and (in broad strokes) why it is being taken, and while an arb has said that they were told vaguely this and it was provided afterwards in the meeting minutes, that arb (and others) evidently did not expect a ban. The communication has just been

549:

The other question (a bit more difficult to address) is whether the Trust & Safety team can operate effectively if it loses, or has lost, the trust of a community it is policing? If enough people believe that you made the wrong decision here, they will not have trust in any of the decisions you

545:

My first question is this (if the ban does end up staying in place): how can Fram, who by virtue of being able to edit other Wikimedia projects is still a member of the Wikimedia movement, participate in discussions on en-Knowledge relating to changes to the Wikimedia software and similar strategic

6857:

The scope of the WMF to sanction users is not limited in section 10 of the ToU. T&S bans are unappealable regardless of what local policies may exist. And even if ambiguous wording in the ToU might imply that T&S is bound by local policies in this regard, it would be an issue of clarifying

6402:

Separately others are acting as creative apologists, explaining that the WMF cannot say anything about harassment because of the legal exposure. Fine, that still does not explain the lying. There is zero legal exposure from honestly stating to Fram that there is both on-wiki behaviour and off-wiki

5745:

one can't exist - because civility means different things to different cultures, backgrounds, and even individuals. But we should not be pedantic and should not throw our hands up and say "We can't have any code then, and have accept everything". Similar to the way a lot of this dispute has led to

5592:

Perhaps there indeed is an universal understanding of civility. In that case, you will be able to barely fill up a stub with it. Everything outside of it differs depending on a time, place, culture and many other variable factors. And I very much doubt that what WMF is cooking is unified subset of

5416:

Although this is going off at something of a tangent, I no longer write on feminist issues after I was told I was in a "privileged position" of being male and therefore "part of the problem". That this was from an Administrator makes it even worse. Perhaps I should have complained to the WMF about

5220:

Gender bias is a moral wrong--just as any form of prejudice is. Was everyone on that discussion !voting 'Keep' a member of WIR? I don't think so. One important thing about sexism is that it's part of our culture. I, too, have sexist attitudes. I've learned to recognize them and fight them (most of

4587:

extrapolate from a population to an individual (this applies equally much to individuals who through birth have been randomly assigned to a gender group, as to individuals who have been randomly assigned to a cultural/language group) and so I'm not making claims about any individuals, just general

4008:

I had been saying the methods suggested by others were OTT...but this would be catastrophic. Hell, it'd be terrible even if they did have user participation because a universal code of conduct can't work for 750 different projects! ...And we don't see any sign of significant community involvement.

3209:

Besides the initial bugs, they tried to enforce it us. VE was at some point plainly enabled for all users and I had to turn it off. Mediaviewer was just enabled. Standard setting for beta-features is, IIRC, to standard enable any beta feature UNLESS you chose not to. Remember SuperPutsch. WMF

3080:

The introduction process should have been "Ask first, get a consensus for what editors want to see, and then do that." You'll notice when they followed that process with Visual Editor and MediaViewer, their deployments went very smoothly, whereas when they failed to, it blew up in everyone's face.

2356:

public punishment. Fram had ZERO chance to defend himself. Now, if Fram threatened to kill another editor (or other heinous acts), that's something completely different, but why hide it?! It should be simple enough to say "Oversighted evidence has been submitted that Fram has threatened others and

1851:

I am in ongoing discussions with Jan, and I am finding him open to looking for ways forward. There are aspects of this communication that I find troubling, and it's related to concerns I have already raised with Jan regarding the Foundation speaking to the community rather than with the community.

1468:

Fram indicates that the WMF office told him that complaints were lodged against him leading up to the April 2018 warning. Were there further complaints between April 2018 and March 2019? between March 2019 and the ban? Or has his case basically always been open since April 2018, with T&S staff

1351:

I find the statement from Jan Eissfeldt completely unsatisfactory. Fram has said all he was banned for is on wiki (ie, no email, no personal contacts, etc). Many of us have looked hard at Fram's contributions, and while I have found some which could, say, merit sanctions over language etc, nothing

702:

That we've been dignified with a substantive statement, in contrast with the boilerplate copy to which we've hitherto been subjected, and that some concessions have been made in earnest make this a not-insignificant step in the right direction. Hopefully the community can match that step with some

617:- thank you for your well written message. But you still don't explain how someone is supposed to defend themselves against non-specific accusations under privacy conditions as strict as these - it end's up in a judge/jury situation, with the accuser getting to set their case, but not the accused. 362:

This was a good statement, and it addressed a lot of my own personal concerns. I also thank you for the apology that this caused disruption to the community. As a newer editor, I sometimes feel that the power hierarchy built here is intentionally built to shut certain people out. It's almost as if

6264:

One thing we know about this case is that T&S do permanently site ban people for harassment, but whatever they consider that Fram has done, they don't consider he merited the punishment that they give out to harassers. Whatever else has been said, I'm not seeing people say that T&S should

5880:

Can I just clarify, and I know we've had 100KB of chatter, so forgive me once again... Fram went from being an admin, to being banned with no right to appeal, on en.wiki only, in one instant? Was he issued with on-wiki warnings? Was he subject to a series of increasing blocks as a result of bad

4881:

explanation for the sudden ban/desysop, and the only warning he got was concerning two posts he made in 2018 on the talkpage of someone with serious conflicts of interests with WMF and WMF's Board of Trustees, and who is a gender-warrior. So Fram is the first victim of the secret, non-transparent

4471:

does not strike me as unreasonable either. It may of course be that some people feel that either the current experience of contributing is so good that it cannot be improved; or that the only way to improve it is by removing/restricting the role of the WMF; or that any cultural change can't start

3485: 2510:

I think the WMF would be on more dubious grounds to overrule it (as it has been done before to advocate for actions to protect wikipedia), and it would let us present a case...which would give us both better moral and public grounds then a strike would. Finally it would be a dramatic step without

2229:

cases of harassment on Knowledge: the serious ones, the ones that could be settled through a simple process, & (especially) all of the irresponsible wild accusations that the usual troublemakers who infest online fora make. Failure to handle these in a prompt & reasonable manner means the

1729:

It does, however, still raise some eyebrows and result in some questions as to how it came to be. In particular, what the process that resulted in it happening ended up being and if anyone thought to ask how this might look if it came up in the future--regardless of whether or not dewiki did the

1404:

I think we can all agree this was needlessly disruptive for a variety of reasons. The core of the issue though, is that the ToU (as interpreted by WMF) don't align with WP:HARASS (as interpreted by ArbCom/the community). We can do very little to change the ToU or the WMF (not that it's stopped us

733:

Something strikes me as extremely odd about this. The claim being made is that (1) this block is based on harassment and (2) regardless of what you have said, the basic gist of it remains "everything is privileged". That has led Fram to fill the void, and while he is a biased source and there are

6001:

Oh and of course what has happened here has pretty much ensured that if it is someone else who was affected (who let's remember may or may not even be the complainant, here they may not even be aware of the complaint), as much sympathy as the person may have for the editor L and how they've been

5707:

As I said rules only work (and are only fair) if they are inflexible. Else you get "well he is my mate I will protect him" mentality. So no I did not say (and do not agree with the idea of) we have to take into account "context", cultural; or otherwise, ("well I can tell him to fuck off, but he

5025:

Both things are/can be true here. Women and NB do face additional hurdles and more harassment. At the same time, those additional hurdles and harassment causes a hardening, and a propensity for activism. This activism, is by far, a good thing in most cases. But it also often cause to apply broad

4966:

The WMF has repeatedly sought input then generally ignored it and done what it wants regardless. Tipping the hat at consultation is a standard corporate tactic for doing something you want to do and give the impression you actually care about what other people want. Given that you have basically

4876:

The fact that the new "Universal code of conduct" and the "New user reporting system" are explicitly mentioned directly in relation to, and only in relation to, gender issues points up the recurring theme that there is a secretive and non-transparent gender-war going on behind the scenes at WMF,

4548:

A lot of the problems we are having throughout this dispute have to do with the execution of policies, by fallible human beings, as opposed to what the words on the page are. I think editors who have been around for a while understand what is envisioned in the idea of the kind of harassment that

4316:

I agree with Seraphim's comments, plus I don't trust the WMF, as it currently stands, to write a simple bare-minimum code of conduct that individual projects can add to as needed. As with Nosebagbear, I suspect that "corporate US civility" will be the minimum they will consider putting through;

2150:

Stewards did have a similar conversation with WMF during superprotect, formally and informally. While I understand the concerns about backroom deals, I think it can be helpful for WMF to have a conversation with someone without having to deal with the walls of text on this page and who they know

757:

does not reflect well at all on the WMF or its Trust & Safety team. "More communication" is impossible if T&S's starting position is "everything is privileged", when I can think of a few things in this situation that would not be (that it's specifically for harassment, that Fram had been

302:

It is regrettable and avoidable that Knowledge users have taken to onwiki and offwiki harassment of WMF staff, and in this context it is understandable to use the role account. This most recent statement also acknowledges community concerns more clearly than the previous ones. Even so, I suspect

6417:

This. The only thing they have bothered to claim when pressed is the nonsensical "everything about this mmatter is privileged", a claim which is belied by T&S' own actions in not sanctioning Fram for their Commons edit and by longstanding precedent with regard to Office bans, which at least

2407:

No, what you're describing is criminal behavior. In such a case, where he was calling this person at 3AM and posting their personal information, then the reaction should have been: "It's been brought to our attention that User:X has engaged in behavior grossly incompatible with their role as an

1092:

The key element to me is "not to be considered reversible by a local, or even the global, community, no matter the circumstances or community sentiment" - or, in other words, the community be buggered, T&S are the editorial controllers of Knowledge and nothing you say or do can change that.

892:

Just for information: Jan was the one who declared the open war of the WMF against the communities together with Eric Möller in the MV-disaster. He was the one who worked with extreme hostility against the deWP. I don't have the faintest idea ,how such a completely disgraced person in regard of

877:

It's great you're going to step up efforts to promote inclusionism. I hope it's appreciated this is a task that may need great tact if you are to avoid alienating the volunteer enforcement wing of the community, who in several ways do a better job than the very expensive and hard to manage paid

6672: 6048:

aspect of editing. Of course this may actually be the WMF's intention. The occasional random block of an established editor for unspecified but slightly creepy sounding reasons could be just the thing to boost their metrics for site activity and bond the community against the common enemy. By

5989:

WMF have explained why they feel they cannot reveal any details which may lead to the identity of who is being harassed or other details over this while mess, whether or not people agree with these views I see no reason to think they aren't sincerely held. As someone who lives in NZ where name

4321:

lawyers and can't afford to keep one on retainer to help us draw up every single statement we make on Knowledge, I'd say the potential chilling effect is clear--and anyone who believes that "corporate US civility" language requirements would do anything to stop harassment or other abusive acts

3783:

scary. Raise a hand everybody who believes that will be based on anything other than US corporate English notions of good conduct, narrowly interpreted and with no room for culturally conditioned variation. I doubt there will be any place for people like me here if that happens. And who would

3686:

If they intend to ram this through without meaningful input from the community, then this is very scary. Unfortunately, I do not currently doubt that they intend to do exactly that. This has the potential to explain a good deal about the WMF's actions so far in this case - and their initial

2907:

I doubt I could be convinced to support anything that would cause collateral damage to our readers. People use our articles for potentially life-altering reasons. Once everything else has already been tried, then I might support Wehwalt's suggestion of blocking the fundraising banner. Directly

1641:

Of course you don't have to resolve it all in one go, and I'm hoping that the WMF will start to issue bans sometime soon and also ensure that extremely offensive article names are not allowed. But even in the best case, 2 months from when they were notified (22 May) seems reasonable. While the

1473:

ArbCom? If so, what needs to change in the community procedures to allow that to transpire? Or do you believe that there will always be cases (excluding the obvious exceptions) where the T&S will take action without consulting the community, no matter how scrupulously it self-regulates? --

1368:

First, thanks to Mr. Eissfeldt for stepping up and communicating. I can appreciate the need for discretion, but considering this office action has the community deeply concerned about the WMF's commitment to transparency, the previous statements from WMFOffice were anything but helpful. When a

1219:

I appreciate the statement, Jan, but I continue to have significant and severe questions and concern about both the conduct of the Office, of which you are a member; and the Trust and Safety team, of which you head as Lead Manager. I'm going to be frank: I join the sentiments of DuncanHill and

107:

I intend to open an RfC on the subject of the Trust&Safety resp. WMF justice on Meta, with the main issue of fair trial. I wrote a draft in English which is not my native language (as it's the main language of Meta). What do you think about it? I invite you to work on this, esp. concerning

5997:

And getting back to the earlier point, assuming that what Fram has told us is mostly or completely correct, I'm not sure they can really be blamed for the fact that people here are continually assuming it involves someone who who it may not be because they've made assumptions with very little

4081:

for example, such as German "Scheisse", are usually taken very lightly. Also, for example, German television has absolutely no tradition of "bleeping" out swearwords of any kind, English or German (it's only encountered in imported TV shows and sometimes to make fun of this "American thing").

1637:

We know from their previous statements it often takes about 4 weeks to deal with stuff which from what I've seen of large organisations isn't exactly surprising. And that's with simple cases involving a small number of individuals and concerns over one of them in particular, based on stuff in

4412:

How can the ability of communities to govern themselves within the broad framework of the Foundation’s Terms of Use be improved while also respecting the dignity of everyone involved and their contributions towards our shared goals? How can cultural shift in communities be initiated to make

4054:

Swearwords are considered vulgar and offending language in the same way in german speaking countries than in englisch speaking, but you must compare the right swearwords (not the direct translations or usage of english loan words which some use to sound less offensive, giving perhaps a wrong

3517:

I know nothing about this particular task, but I dealt with community liasons on other WMF projects who were trying to facilitate the strategy exercise and get the community input - their activity ranged from trying to be useful and getting desperate because they did not manage to engage the

2287:

Why? What you're enabling is anonymous reporting and sweeping punishments without anyone knowing what happened. Either Fram is lying (in which case, he SHOULD be desysop'd) or the accuser is. By masking the details in every way, you're not only masking the justice process, you're encouraging

873:

Halfway transparent houses are dangerous for a couple of reasons. 1) Online sleuths on platforms WMF don't control are liable to guess who the accuser was, and then take action against that person(s). So they can cause folk to suffer harassment that might be worse than any excessive scrutiny

371:

which simply does not exist for me because I both new and (oftentimes) impulsive. They are a known quality, whereas I am not (nor am I as particularly helpful as they are). Early on, I was told by the users who care about my wellbeing that if I used our pre-existing reporting mechanisms that

5110:

it), and overlook the transgression because they know a movement can still be right in the aggregate even if the aren't right 100% of the time, or that some of its members are so deep in the echo chamber that they now resort to the same tactics they claim to oppose, out of a sick sense that

5092:

of goodwill gets burned. It also sadly (and usually disproportionally) turns people against that minority group, providing the anti-whatever with examples of "SEE THEY'RE ALL NUTS! This guy was perfectly reasonable and they accused him of being an anti-whateverist!" allowing them to dismiss

4009:

Along with the reporting system it is functionally a disenfranchisement of every community and the enforcement mechanisms that exist in many of them. We don't have the details yet, but if more comes out in this vein, then we're going to have to change from the "keep it in-house" discussion.

5198:

might also provide context for why some editors are mistrustful of WIR. From my vantage point, the ability to discuss that article on its merits was taken away when numerous WIR editors adopted the mindset that the deletion discussion itself was a moral wrong and an example of gender bias.

4784:

Actually, as an Australian I would interpret that comment as a sign of frustration with the target of the comment, whether warranted or otherwise. Although it may be somewhat abrupt it is not offensive. Anyone taking offense at such a comment in this country is likely to be laughed at. -

4909:

your framing of the situation is very perplexing. First of all, what is a "gender-war" and a "gender-warrior?" Why do you consider efforts to make Knowledge a better place for women and non-binary people to edit safely and in comfort a problem? Surely framing it this way, and the way that

6937:. In all our discussions, we need to (a) distinguish between WMF, the entity, Katherine Maher, the ED, the line employees (e.g., T&S) and, ultimately, the Board. Only (a) is the "owner" here, and everyone else has roles and responsibilities that are contractually or legally specified. 6269:

be redefined to include Fram. But there are also people reminding us that Fram has in the past been the brave admin threatening to block an unblockable if that person continued to make personal attacks. As for "people have been digging into the personal lives, up to, and including living

4951:

If WMF didn't want consensus, they wouldn't seek input--which you can see clearly on the meta front page. And there is no need to call me a "Neville Chamberlain" and practically invoke Godwin's law because I don't agree with you. It just shows that you are arguing from a heated position.

4692:(there are plenty more). Even if one accepts that language that would be considered civil in some contexts might be normal in others, it doesn't follow that we should permit everything in the gray zone here, where we are trying to attract diverse contributors who might be repelled by it. 2371:"People who feel they are victims of harassment should NOT be allowed to anonymously report a situation and expect a punishment of the accused without having to present their evidence publicly (which is exactly what's happened here)." They most definitely should be. Let's say you live in 6245:

I mean, come on, people have been digging into the personal lives, up to, and including living arrangements, of hypothesized accusers on the basis of Fram's account. That's kind of disturbing to say the least. Far more disturbing, tbh, than what may constitute minor overreach from WMF.

1526:

Not for such a broad period of time, when Fram probably butted heads with dozens of people. Anyways, regarding #3 I mostly care about the general procedure: does T&S only investigate on a new complaint, or does it follow up and keep tabs on the people it has warned indefinitely? --

1186:, while I appreciate you at least being willing to put your name on this statement, it is still more of the same. I will be posting a response as to why shortly, point by point to what you said, but in short: The WMF is not a "higher authority" than the English Knowledge community, and 4239:- it can only be compatible if every local code of conduct either already met it or changed. The WMF, as considered above, is likely to pick "corporate US civility" as the base level, which would require dramatic changes from multiple communities. The fact that local communities could 6070:

If an IP editor attempted to insert this kind of conspiracy theory in an article they'd get blocked. But we have dozens of long-time veteran editors indulging in them in this matter. It makes me fear for the quality of the content that they have been producing here over the years.

5998:

evidence to the extent these people are analysing said person's private life. If anything it's the people here who are guilty of harassment, not Fram or what they said on Commons. But of course, with the way this blew up, banning more people for harassment was may not be a good idea.

3187:

I was indeed not active at that point so I don't know if it was a minimally viable product or not - I am guessing it wasn't just from the animosity that so many feel and you're right it shouldn't have been introduced. But my point was the foundation wasn't wrong to develop it. Best,

5243:

way of thinking. And I'm afraid that the WMF, in the name of pursing gender balance, would and does endorse that backwards way of thinking. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if that type of thinking had something to do with Fram's ban. At this point, I'd be surprised if it didn't.

1225:

statements, and behaviors of Fram in any way qualify or otherwise comport with the statement, more or less, of when such bans are to be used; how, exactly, is this situation time-limited? Clarification, both in general and regarding the specifics of this case, would be appreciated.

4688: 2196:

Your statement is flawed. 1) There is no "non-public information" (other than private complaints to the WMF), unless Fram is lying. We can see all of Fram's contributions and whether they have been rev-deleted. Please show diffs of the harassment, if not, you are casting baseless

270:

Thanks for coming here and making the statement. The next step should be indeed a constructive discussion outlining the boundaries more clearly, sharing responsibilities, and clarifying how communication can be improved, because, indeed, in this case the communication was a total

2891:- We need an open, full and proper explanation from the WMF, and then a discussion with them as to what is going wrong and what the future relationship should be. This is more like firebombing Parliament because you don't like a small change in the way taxes are collected. - 2980: 6270:

arrangements, of hypothesized accusers on the basis of Fram's account" that does sound like the sort of doxxing that does get people banned. I'd hope if people have evidence of that they would take it to ArbCom who have banned and desysopped people for that sort of thing.

3052:. I hope you're wrong Boing!, because if the WMF knew full-well what the reaction would be, and then did it anyway, that's gross neglect for the relationship between the WMF and the community, and we need to respond with some form of direct protest (Freeze the Main Page?) 3398:- were you aware of this (or the team in general) WMore importantly, what do you think of the discussion above: Should the WMF have sought (and obeyed) cross-project consensus first, or should they implement changes they feel are necessary even if the community disagrees? 2956:– "The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken." 1626:

intervened in one specific instance against one individual. Since then it blew up, and understandably for good reason the WMF feels they have to see this through and therefore there is a lot of focus on it at the moment, but that doesn't demonstrate a lot of focus on en.

2224:

You have sanctioned Fram on grounds of harassment of another user -- so it seems from all of the evidence others have provided, & your own refusal to clearly provide an alternative interpretation. Congratulations: you have now just taken on legal responsibility for

518:

crime is severe enough for this penalty, it wouldn't be a complete surprise and if the crime isn't, it hasn't any business being taken out of ArbCom's hands. "Sorry, Mr. Hinckley, we can't tell you what president you're accused of shooting, because then you'll know!"

500:

Then the ban should have been escalated immediately. They did not do that, which has ultimately led to a Streisand effect with regards to the likely complainant. The downside to this is that this would have likely have instantly confirmed the complainant's identity.

6668: 4558:. I say that in this talk section because, in principle, the idea of a better WMF structure for dealing with serious bullying, and helping to repair the barriers that women and some other editing populations experience, is actually something with which I agree. 4566:

that happened with Fram and the subsequent communications. Should there be a safe way for a bullied editor to get help? Yes, I support that concept. But should we have something that looks like a gameable way to disappear someone you don't like? Of course not.

2971: 981:

Right, but not everyone who may be the victim of harassment is the victim of private harassment. I think that if anything is going to come of this, I hope that, at the very least, ArbCom changes their procedures to allow private hearings of on-wiki evidence.

5950:

As I understand it, the basis of the block and desysop was harassment and the evidence is private so as not to subject the accuser to further harassment. If this is indeed the truth, I can understand shielding him/her because it often feels like a mob here.

1162: 865: 5593:

rules that are already in force. Rather, as is often the case with new CoCs, it will decide to up the ante over the heads of community, quoting imaginery concept of safe spaces or whatnot, thus already appropriating position of moral superiority. Lovely.

3624:

impression that the opinion of the community is not important. I want to take this opportunity to invite everyone to participate in the consultations. I'm available to answer questions about the User Reporting System and the Universal Code of Conduct.

4516: 329:

been achieved, nor does there seem to have been any discussion with the community of the team's processes, its balances, or its outcomes. The community are stakeholders in this project too, and are right to insist on being treated as equal partners.

4707:

hundred different cultures. It turns out to be exquisitely americanocentric. A benchmark of honesty in some countries is to look straight into the eyes of the person you're speaking with. In others (Japan) that is taken to be intrusively aggressive.

3511: 920:"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. 2989: 3875:

I, for one, searched for the contributions of the relevant stuff and did not come across any (might have used MMS, though) post for the consultation of User-report-system. A string-search over AN led to a sole hit:- a Tech News report mentioning

3713:. We at Wiki Project Med Foundation and the Wiki Journal of Medicine are working on codes of conduct. IMO such codes need to be developed by the communities (with potentially some support from the foundation) not by the foundation independently. 3580: 1116: 3018:

Hands up everybody who wasn't even aware that we had an"Anti-Harassment Tools Team" . But that last one is the real kicker, isn't it? I hope somebody will ask Jan if he read the report commissioned for his team, and if he did, what he made of

1493: 1457:

Thanks for the response Jan, it was more informative than what we've received before. But I still do not believe that trust between the community and T&S can be restored until more transparency is provided into the process. In particular:

1352:

merit the draconian punishment from WMF. My conclusion is that WMF has punished its possible most ardent critic. If you think that will bring WMF any credit: you are wrong. I suspect most Wikipedians find the action of WMF totally despicable,

774: 2039: 1269: 1197: 3533: 2638:

minds to an issue, and it goes without saying most readers are (1) unregistered and (2) don't care about the backstage areas or the politicking that goes on between the WMF and the projects. They will care after the fact, which is too late.

887: 728: 714: 476: 3214:

Seen its history, I would NOT be surprised that a meta-RfC would gain sufficient traction to throw out WMF or to seriously restrict its powers (though I doubt we are int time for that - they might just block everyone who is against them).

1693: 1400:

we in a serious case of harassment. All we can hope is that the board will review it, and if they uphold it, give us a sense of why it was justified. IMHO, a year ban seems like a lot, even for one as prickly as Fram, but I don't know what

626: 1806: 1619: 1241: 1214: 1102: 803: 658: 566: 357: 6480:). He was also the only person with the authority to ban users. In December 2003 he delegated that role in dispute handling to an Arbitration Committee, with initial membership of volunteer experienced users. Wales wrote in January 2004: 4261:

I'm rather annoyed that this didn't get banners but the talk page did. We've only 2 weeks left to comment - I've added it to Cent and VPP (though it might belong in VPR). The timing isn't iffy, but the heavy lack of spreading the word is

1148: 280: 139: 4283:, which is an absolutely indispensable part of any fair process. The Army might court-martial you if you break their rules, but they will not do it in secret with you not allowed to present a defense or even know what you're accused of. 1861: 1604:

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

1427: 1346: 1086: 1053: 311: 171: 6639:

out procedures to make sure it didn't happen again. If the ban was justified, I'm sure they will find a way to make it clear to - at a minimum, if privacy issues play a role, to me, to the board, and to the Arbitration Committee.... --

3002: 2270: 2245: 1578: 157: 2449: 1361: 897: 132:

There are several aspects of this I find troubling, but I respect that you did come forward and put your name to it. It was well-written and it does add some information, considerably more than the statements made by the role account.

2297: 2210: 1707: 932: 788: 215: 695: 400: 5849: 1068:"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" 738:. I understand this would be counterproductive in some way - Upgrade to a glock, and you essentially confirm what Fram says; confirm it and breach people's privacy - but the way this was handled was such that T&S hasn't done 3491: 2962: 4043:. Riiiiight. In the same breath, talk about how much you respect local projects' self-governance, and state that you plan not to respect it at all. But, for all the good it'll do, maybe some objections ought to get registered. 372:

retaliation would almost be guaranteed. That isn't the system anyone in the community intended to have, but it is the one that best prevents disruption. I really don't have all the answers, but I'm glad that WMF at least wants

2506:

I know it's normally handled by the Devs, but I imagine they might balk at getting involved. Thus, even if not done by the same means I was wondering if we could do something similar (even if "blunter" and less easily done)?

1595: 4527: 4670:

on the problems of the carceral mentality behind the medicalization of life itself in modernization. I guess not. Some culturally thin bureaucrats are legislating 'health care' for editors. Jeezus! What a world of wimps.

2769:

doing anything directly destructive to the encyclopedia. While I supported that during SOPA, that was an existential threat to the project. This matter, while serious, is hopefully something that can still be worked out.

6664: 5967:

If it was harassment, then why did they not escalate Fram's block to global in responce to his Commons reply? Anyone with any sense can make a very compelling argument that they're technically furthering the harassment.

5000:

heard about over and over from people I trust and edit with. So I see good reason to address gender. I've just never met a gender-warrior and if they have a recruiting office, maybe I'll go find out what it's all about.

4741:

on anything I wrote above. But even so, how would that be usefully dealt with by a new code of conduct? If that is universally uncivil (I am not saying I disagree about that), what use would a "universal" code have that

6043:

Not so soon. Remember it takes about a month of internal meetings and quite a lot of expensive staff time to then issue a punishment so long after the event that it only serves to confuse the situation and increase the

5890: 2839:

people on both sides. This proposal is comparable to throwing a hand grenade into your rich landlord's house in a dispute over unresolved maintenance problems at your apartment and a rent increase that you do not like.

322:

mak more transparent to the team’s stakeholders - communities, affiliates, Foundation staff, and partners - what kinds of complaints the team refers to community processes under current practice and which types it does

126: 4406:

How and to whom should movement roles and structures be accountable? What structures, processes, and behaviours will enable us to include all voices (including e.g. current contributors and emerging audiences) in our

1302:

Exactly, Raystorm's playing of the gender/harrasment card simply made it much more probable that she brought implicit or explicit pressure to bear, otherwise there would be no reason to respond in the manner she did.

6842:

can contravene Section 10 of the Terms of Use ("In contrast to ... these Terms of Use, policies established by the community ... may cover a single Project") then how can they claim that their bans are unappealable?

2003:

I believe that working together, the community and the Foundation can come up with a solution. At the very least, as long as there is consensus in whatever solution is agreed, the community will back and support it.

1176: 94: 3333: 5533:

not have been written because it offended some people? Should its author have been sanctioned? A lot of activism and progress is caused by people who disturb the status quo, and who aren't afraid to speak up with

4830: 3751: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 4914:

frames the WMF as "activist-filled teams" does not help to discuss the situation in a calm way. If you assume that the "other side" is full of awful, terrible people out to get you, how can you reach consensus?

4205: 4188: 3211:.' (personal complaint, they refuse to work on material that is easily 10 years outdated, source of regular complaints, and would not even do it if it would get enough suppert in the annual Community Wishlist). 3902: 3862: 3294: 3197: 3179: 3134: 3120: 3105: 3091: 6150: 6132: 6112: 5763: 4852:

be proportional, and a fair process followed which considers someone's whole record. Which part(s) of the preceding sentence people latch onto has great bearing, I think, in how they view this incident. Best,

4846: 991: 4811: 3846: 6719:

and within the community, he only has the technical ability to perform actions on the English Knowledge. Functions previously held by him are now held by elected and accountable members of the community. --

6049:

contrast if they wanted to change behaviour on the site they would have made sure that the first few times they applied a 12 month ban it was very clear what sort of behaviour they wanted to stop happening.

3345: 3327: 3075: 3061: 2692:

per Bori. This is an internal political matter and is the last thing we should be airing to the general public. This dirty laundry will eventually get out into the mainstream media, let's not help it along.

2520: 2476: 976: 6615:

Rather interesting. Thank you for this reminder. I gather that the community was meant to have the final say if there was a dissent between the community and Jimbo, or the Foundation. This makes case law.--

6444: 5514: 5492: 4976: 4961: 4939: 2650: 2111:

with any (willing) WMF staffer in an individual capacity about Knowledge matters. SilkTork seems to have shown that they're trustworthy by reporting back what they've said. So far so good in my book. Best,

1547: 1517: 5909: 5726: 5717: 5702: 5009: 4994: 4924: 4393: 1312: 1293: 6304: 6286: 6159:

I fail to see a parallel between an unknown IP posting conspiracy theories in mainspace and numerous respected, well-established members of the community sharing their concerns on a Knowledge-space page.

5322: 5252: 5230: 5208: 4095:

Addendum: English-language Knowledge is not an American, but an international environment. The English language here is only a veneer, not really that unifying as one could believe on the surface. Often,

1409:

may not think there's any problem, but as long as the WMF disagrees, this sort of thing is bound to keep happening. With any luck, we will receive some clarification on how exactly harassment is defined,

1378:

Specifics regarding the case against Fram cannot be made public (or shared with anyone outside WMF) as a requirement of the Privacy Policy, and/or other contractual or legal obligations to the complainant

512: 485:

What if the accused disclose the evidence, as occurred here, potentially leading to further harassment of those named in the evidence, whether or not they were involved in or even aware of the complaint?

6086: 6065: 5931: 5831: 5801: 5783: 5186: 5169: 4877:

T&S, and elsewhere, that has not been either transparent or clear on EN-wiki. Fram appears to have been the first target/victim, via a new power that T&S/WMFOffice gave itself. Fram was given no

4861: 3585: 2744: 2609: 2079:

Fae, I do not think there is a reason to believe SilkTork does not have the community's interests at heart, and I think the message he describes sending to Jan is absolutely correct. I know it's hard to

3047: 2776: 2622:

pose an existential threat to (depending on viewpoint) - wikipedia, en-wiki, the community etc. Thus far that's always been against laws - but I would dispute that those are the only potential variant.

1432:

That is a conversation I am more than happy to share, but WMF thus far have not told us where it is deficient and are not likely to absent dropping their stance here (and this is the sort of thing that

841: 823: 527: 495: 6383: 6013: 5575: 5411: 5379: 5361: 5144: 5078: 5060: 918:

their obligations on that front, then say so. There's no need for chapter and verse, but we deserve to be informed if T&S no longer has faith in ArbCom's ability to perform its mandate. Secondly,

5657: 4820: 3239: 3149: 2974:– "quantitative data analysis of posts to AN/I ... 533 total ANI cases, 315 of which were resolved ... 40 cases included the keyword '3RR', 26 'COI', 18 'harassing', 14 'hounding' and 22 'boomerang'". 2806: 2571: 1448: 640: 243: 6794: 6780: 6137:

Nah; these days folks retire to participate in more dramas -- give them an edge. I ought to have known that. And most certainly, less than your obsession of using the wrong tools at the wrong place.

4724: 4701: 4124: 3473: 2830: 2761: 2060: 674:

There is a striking implication in that statement that Fram was banned for harassment, otherwise such a statement would be very out of place. Would you be so kind as to answer a couple of questions?

286:

it is still not clear to them which red line exactly have they crossed. They are of the opinion that the "Fuck ArbCom" comment played a role, in which case dozens of users could be banned anytime. --

5945: 4777: 4165: 4109: 4090: 3527: 3459: 3437: 2883: 2852: 2702: 2670: 2145: 1844: 1677: 17: 6189: 6169: 6038: 5602: 3734: 2900: 1977:, I'd say that T&S actually has the opportunity to help bridge a gap in our systems as a partner with the community (or its representatives), rather than trying to be a replacement for them. -- 1657: 6255: 4930:

the community. I mean, you can continue to be a Neville Chamberlain if you want to, but there are only so many times editors can AGF before they look like fools. And that point was past ages ago.

4793: 3825:, be pleased to know that the consultation phase of User-reporting-System is already over and per their timeline, they are either preparing the workflow or designing the final software. I did see 2923: 2684: 1912: 1876: 1739: 295: 6919: 6904: 5979: 4680: 4462: 3767: 3412:

Was aware of the team. They have been working on tools such as partial blocks for EN WP. Am hoping they would also look at improving the CU interface (but as I am not a CU not sure if they are).

3219: 3032: 2163: 953: 6949: 6882: 6867: 6852: 6746: 6728: 6429: 6240: 5426: 4443: 3943: 3407: 1953: 603: 542:

for posting what he has. I do have two questions (or points for discussion), though I appreciate Jan may not be able to engage in back-and-forth answering of the many questions people may have.

234: 6711: 6213: 4631: 4481: 3282: 2727: 2178: 2105: 2090: 1766: 1724: 1129:. You have a contentious claim asserted as a fact. You have a link that looks like it might be a supporting source, but doesn't actually support the rebuttal. In an article I'd tag that with a 962: 454: 424: 47: 5962: 4761: 4028: 3495: 2953: 339: 259: 3917:

A very controversial new initiative, coming to light the day after the disappearing of one of the community's most vocal critics of controversial new initiatives. There appears to have been

3288: 2417: 2402: 2366: 2340: 2013: 1986: 1024: 191: 1781: 1599: 6820: 3633: 3306: 2309:

Jan is right here. It is important for people to have a safe way to report abuses without exposing themselves to harassment. That's not the issue. The issue is wether or not Fram's conduct

2120: 346:

Thank you for publishing this statement, and please do endeavour to keep the community informed as to how we can participate in improving the dialogue between ourselves and the Foundation.

2074: 1124: 6412: 5626:

As for harassment, it is indeed the person who is being harassed who has the first right of interpretation (the silly English language has no word for that, but there is one in Swedish -

6096: 3384: 3291: 6092: 317: 4037:

The Wikimedia Foundation’s general approach, as described, in the Terms of Use, section 10, is to respect local self-governance of the volunteer communities it supports where possible.

3566:"Two of the big initiatives that are going to be happening this next year - one of them is writing a universal code of conduct, and the second one is us making a new reporting system." 5870: 2548: 6910:

be unappealable. And a side note about the Jimbo of it all: I'd prefer that any sort of community oversight of the process or results come from the community or ArbCom, not him. --

6648: 5545: 3096:

They wouldn't have got a consensus for what they want, and they were going to do it anyway, so asking us first and then overriding the objections would have probably made it worse.

2542: 6624: 5474: 4227: 6684: 4118:

American, so it could hardly be referred to as an "American" wiki. The USA's significance is only that I think of any single country, it would have the most editors on en.wiki.

1167:

Nah. Firing people for their failures only breeds fear, not competence, and not improvement. We need a better response to crises, especially when they're entirely self-created.

4289: 4049: 4003: 812:

It isn't; it's just the last straw. Fram has outright stated that they've gotten two warnings from T&S over the past year; the ArbCom comment was a third strike of sorts. —

6519: 5675: 4891: 4371: 3980: 3680: 4354: 4306: 4271: 4256: 4022: 4576: 4429: 4148: 3965: 3925: 3704: 2634:

This is internal politics that, at worst, drastically changes the makeup of the editor corps and guts what few active administrators we have. A blackout is intended to draw

121: 4504: 4331: 4064: 6758:- did Fram also stridently criticize WMF? Then WMF has a possible COI also? (WMF noted that ArbCom was one primary target of Fram's harrassment and/or abuse, which could 4615: 3817: 3798: 6631: 4539: 3953: 1568: 6489:

and indeed even to dissolve the whole thing if it turns out to be a disaster. But I regard that as unlikely, and I plan to do it about as often as the Queen of England

2942:

For those of us with too much time on our hands, I've put together some links to what I've been able to find out about the background to the initiative to create a new

763:

grossly mismanaged by T&S from the word go, and because of that T&S as aa whole no longer has the community's trust, as Risker points out so succinctly below. —

5875: 4420:

Trying to initiate a cultural shift will cause a lot of shitstorms, and not a lot of cultural shift. This is a scary question for them to be asking in the first place.

687:

I'm sure you realize that answering those questions cannot possibly reveal any other parties in the matter, nor would it disclose any private information. Thank you.-

6799:

I know we're arguing for the sake of argument, but that just means all this time we've been enforcing our COI policies over those innocent article subjects, alas! --

1465:

he has made the claim that all the evidence of his alleged misconduct exists on-wiki, and additionally that he is happy for the contents of the emails to be shared.)

4362:

supposed to be serving the Wikimedia movement that aggressively takes control based on the argument that they have the guns and we do not. All hail Despotpedia.

162:

Really pathetic. Accusations of harassment are very serious. Please provide the diffs. This new type of star chamber judgment against editors is most unwelcome.

5722:

I think the candour in the above comments clarifies one view, a sort of undercurrent in the outrage that has been less frankly stated because of its ugliness.

4100:

people involved in an English-language conversation are not native speakers, and native speakers might come from countries so different as Ghana and Scotland.

2757: 1935:

both for your steps and for updating the proles. One of the most egregious problems with the currently imposed situation is that this cannot be appealed (even

4685:

Applying the idea of "mateship" to Knowledge is treating Knowledge like a men's space. Some references explaining how "mateship" is a male/masculine concept:

4562:

But I think many of us see danger in these new plans about a CoC and reporting system because it looks like they will be subject to the same serious problems

4345:

will be, and I have great doubts that it will be in line with current standards onto which community can decide to add some rules, or reverse them in future.

4768:"it can be a point of contention, it cannot be absolutely codified" and it is not for the WMF various activist-filled teams to codify it in the first place. 4467:

Well, it's a question that invites answers. I would observe that culture does in fact change, so presumably it's possible to change it. And the objective of

1278:

If it was, they wouldn't dare confirm it so as to protect the complainant. But Raystorm's accusing everybody defending Fram of sexism strongly hints that it

672:"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." 4512: 3740: 5901:. As far as I am concerned the WMF should refuse to accept secret accusations and expecially should refuse to act on them. This stinks to high heaven. - 3161:

introducing a highly buggy VE, that caused more issues than it solved. There are major differences between today's VE and the one, that was first launched.

2285:

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.

1107:

I like the polite fuck off statement but it solves nothing. There is no escalating blocks or indeed any sort of system to appeal or otherwise moderate it.

5811:

Almost as scary as a universal policy on paid editing. Oh, wait, we managed to handle that - including WMF-recognised local exceptions - with zero drama.

5538:. Different cultures have different standards, and I'm not ready to have the American HR Culture become the only acceptable culture allowed. This is why 2525: 2455: 6369:

is WMF looking at this as a precedent now, that any editor can be summarily banned for a year without appeal without any definition of their wrongdoing?

5986:

recent stuff has anything to do with this editor. I'm doubtful it's just the arbcom stuff either which suggests it could very well be some other party.

1567:

are Office bans which are not required for legal compliance reasons, such as bans with blocks for harassment and incivility, appealable to Jimbo Wales?

6485:

The Arbitration Committee can impose a solution that I'll consider to be binding, with of course the exception that I reserve the right of executive

1591: 1391:

WMF considers WP:HARASS inadequate in covering violations of the ToU, or else it views ArbCom as incapable of adequately enforcing WP:HARASS (or both)

415:, thanks for your thoughts on this. I think you expressed many of my main concerns better than I could have. I agree with everything in this comment. 5914:

Seems like the answer is yes, it was in one instant, with no on-wiki warnings. Several off-wiki messages were sent, snippets of which can be seen at

2753: 1939:). I understand why a full SanFranBan (Foundation wide, all encompassing, for paedos, etc) does not have one, but for the temporary blocks like this 3853:

I am pretty sure I have seen a notice several times. I believe it was on AN for both consultation rounds, though I might have a memory aberration.--

3784:

enforce it? T&S, who somebody somewhere described as "having our backs", but who will never in a million years "have the back" of most of us? --

893:

community interaction could have become head of trust and safety, he is the very opposite of trustworthy from the community perspective. Grüße vom

557:

I suspect others will want the issues of local autonomy and allowing en-Knowledge to police their own addressed, so will not say anything on that.

6694:, so it is an irrevocable move. I remember this period in the founding of Knowledge because when I was a member of the German ArbCom I researched 4985:

I never said or implied or assumed anyone or any group is/are "awful, terrible people out to get me", and you failed to address any of my points.

3363:. The efforts of the anti-harassment tools team to improve the blocking interface have been publicized there on several occasions last year: e.g. 1607:

I don't understand why there is so much focus here and not on other wikis that are promoting genocide denial or other POV editing and copyvios. --

909:

Thank you for your statement, Jan. Despite what I'm about to write, I do appreciate you taking the time to make it. First I want to welcome this:

743:

maintains that literally everything is privileged, dowm to the word "the". This is not only an asinine position to take, but Raystorm's statement

719:

Statements like this are why I consider T&S to be one of the most competent teams at the WMF. Thank you for acknowledging the confusion here.

3005:— "Findings ... Current systems for reporting, managing, and evaluating user incidents do not appear to be effective at preventing harassment. " 4243:

is somewhat irrelevant to the concerns. If the WMF picks a "bare, required minimum", which would be good, then they could probably go with it.

1749: 794:

Fram made about ArbCom was the immediate reason for the office action, then it just does not seem like a valid reason for the office action. --

148:, "And since, my soul, we cannot fly / To Saturn nor to Mercury, / Keep we must, if keep we can, / These foreign laws of God and man." Cheers. 5530: 5177:

Errors need to be corrected always. I agree with that completely. I don't know about the case you're referencing, so I can't speak to it. :(

3372: 3337: 3311: 3298: 2937: 6737:

As I recall, when Jimbo has a COI, no appeal is possible. Given the conflict between them, Jimbo likely does. Possibly explains the offer.--

4472:

from outside a project... if you hold those views (or, indeed, something else) then please do feed it in to the Working Group page on Meta!

4418:

How can cultural shift in communities be initiated to make contributing a more positive experience for everyone participating in good faith?

2255: 199:

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

5195: 3368: 3364: 4411: 4405: 378:

have this kind of conversation. I can't say I agree with how this has been handled up by the foundation up to this point, but if at least

4384:. I used it because it was an example that I'd experienced when I was in the military. I agree that the WMF is not a commanding officer. 856:. This has led to his de-sysop in the German Knowledge. No, no, no trust in this man. A former german language Wikipedian admin... OMG -- 6218:

Frankly, the reaction on this page, with theories proposed about the potential harassed parties and quite a bit of scrutiny placed upon

4583:

I agree with a lot of what has been said here (not everything, certainly) and would just like to add a couple of points. Caveat: we can

2752:

Compared to the readers of Knowledge and even its users, this is relatively minor—it's not nearly 'major' enough to warrant a blackout.

870:

Thanks for stepping up. For any future TS bans where you can't identify the accuser, it may make sense not to say it was for harassment.

3166:

A software product must be stable to minimum extents, before throwing it to the masses -- that (apparently) evaded the WMF developers.

2353:

has infiltrated our collective logic to the point that accusations are considered proof. What we have here is private accusation -: -->

6660: 5741:

There are certainly hurdles to trying to produce some kind of universal code of civility, and if we're pedantic about it then a truly

998:

I was going to say the same thing as Rexx about the "minimum standards", but he did it better than I would have. We have no idea how

3021:"whatever changes we recommend, it must adhere to these values even as we change key features, otherwise it will not be trustworthy." 6502:

In April 2007, Wales confirmed that the Committee could overturn any decision he makes in his traditional capacity within Knowledge.

4114:

I don't see anyone arguing that en.wiki is American. I don't have statistics for this but I'd say the majority of en.wiki users are

3539: 3494:- I don't see anyone representing us and I'm not sure how they would do it in any case. The job seems immense and pretty important. 680:

If so, was public evidence used in your findings (content that can be found on enwiki pages, or in enwiki logs or revision history).

316:

It is striking that Eissfeldt says that the unexpected blocking reflects "changes to the Trust & Safety team’s processes". Yet

5029:

I have asked a similar question at Wikimania 2017 in Montreal, about how you could go around telling someone from a minority group

3464:

Gee, all I want to do is edit/create Knowledge articles. Wasn't aware of the AHT Team or the Community health Initiative either...

3450:

Sure, no worries - I'm sure you came out of the board meeting to an avalanche of pings - plus everything else that draws your time

5746:

polarizing of positions, this is another issue where the answer is simply not black or white. The choice we face is not between a

5549: 6462: 5768:

Wouldn't it be simpler, more effective, and certainly more pertinent to the present case, to develop a code of what is and isn't

1745: 2710:

per Wehwalt. Jimbo blacked out the site years ago over some political grandstanding, - I opposed it then - I oppose it now. —

958:

ARBCOM doesn't decide on cases unless DR or ANI fails first and I for one would never go to ANI on a conduct or bullying issue.

6695: 2598:- The only reason a Knowledge should be blacking out is to protest laws and ordinances that pose an existential threat to it. — 2372: 1158: 861: 6174:

When the "concerns" stray into manufacturing motives and actions out of pure conjecture, that's conspiracy theory territory.

1414:

the ToU, and what ArbCom would need to do to better enforce it, thus avoiding the need for office action in the first place. —

911:"We will improve our coordination with community-elected bodies like ArbCom across the movement when carrying out our duties." 4522: 3889:

learning of the pending development of an universal CoC from an offsite video, is pretty against our values of transparency.

3360: 1634:

only about 22 May that people began to really bug them about it. (Although it is possible they were told in private before.)

4448:

That they are even asking that kind of question shows that they have no clue what they are talking about. And yes, scary. --

1899:

me to do that as a member of the Committee, so if I did that I would resign from the Committee and resign CU and OS as well.

6769: 6399:

also to explicitly lie to everyone before and after about why they are blocking editors, even well established Wikipedians.

5165:

about women. The problem with the articles wasn't that they were about women - it was that they were riddled with errors.

3066:

However the new power structure was introduced, what do you reckon are the chances there wouldn't be a shitstorm reaction?

2488:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1541: 1487: 223:, I don't read that as a pardon by any means – "we will not be issuing sanctions" doesn't mean ArbCom won't be doing so. – 3003:

Recommendations on the Development of Anti-Harassment Tools and Behavioural Dispute Resolution Systems for Wikimedia (pdf)

2933:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2252:

no ... system exists for victims to make reports privately without fear that their “case” will be forced to become public.

6873:

reasonable, could they sanction editors who prevent homeopathy advocates from adding their material to medical articles?

6839: 5837: 5827: 3336:

but never watchlisted the corresponding page (and its talk page), so I've not kept abreast of the progress in this area.

2580:

That would certainly be an alternate option, I mapped the SOPA angle, but a less extreme response would also make sense.

1005:

does handle. The program will reduce the risk of double work on the same issues from staff and volunteer functionaries...

4193:

The code of conduct has to encompass more than civility - don't upload copyvios and don't write POV content, for one. --

6393:"With those actions in mind, this ban has been triggered following your recent abusive communications on the project... 6656: 2675:

I opposed the SOPA blackout, I oppose this too. Black out the fundraising banner if you like, but spare the content.--

1744:

To give some clarification: The process of desysop in de.wp is quite different than in en.wp. Every sysop in de.wp is

853: 6148: 6110: 4809: 4186: 3900: 3844: 3325: 3177: 2802: 1753: 1154: 857: 4650:, the most aristocratic yet comradely politician the post-war world ever heard, loved Ciceronian speech-making, but 1757:

mind, when he now wants to protect the T&S-team members from being hold personal accountable for WMF actions. --

4201: 4161: 4144: 3278: 3023:

Given that clear warning dated November 2018, you have to wonder why he didn't see the current shitstorm coming. --

2825: 2159: 1720: 1673: 1615: 1396:

We are not going to get details about who accused Fram of what, ever. Nor would we if this had gone to ArbCom, nor

1236: 1209: 352: 4747:

be a point of contention, it cannot be absolutely codified. (It is past midnight and I hope I make some sense.) --

2493:

Striking has the risk of doing damage that we will literally never be able to undo, while risking actually giving

2033:, not via a back channel. Opaque back channeling caused this blowup to start with, and it certainly won't fix it. 1506:

With respect to 3, knowing that X complaint was received at Y time can lead to exposing the person who filed it. —

1437:

be subject to privilege; we can't fix it if we don't know where the flaws in the policy are in the first place). —

1002:

is 'falling short' of Terms of Service, so we are all literally in the same boat as Fram! I also take umbrage at

5121:

However, I know I don't want HR types to adjudicate these sorts of content disputes as if they were harassment.

3744: 3726: 3591:(Apologizes for top posting) My name Sydney Poore and I work at Wikimedia Foundation. Some of you may know me as 3429: 2875: 1902:(Sorry, just re-read Jan's post. No need for this as it appears the Foundation will not be reapplying the block). 1665:

I know for Croatian we stewards point-blank asked T&S if they would do anything about it and they said no. --

5552:(everyone) in France, instead of having a United Nations rating that has force of law everywhere on the globe. 3937:, Fram's not banned on meta, where he's free to criticize controversial new initiatives, at least at this time. 6698:, how they came into being and how they developed up to then. Jimbo was quite keen to get rid of his role as a 6227:

not penalized severely enough for what they were accused of," but rather, "how dare the WMF suspend one of the

5562: 5398: 5348: 5131: 5047: 2981:

Knowledge:Community health initiative on English Knowledge/Research about Administrators' Noticeboard Incidents

2389: 2327: 1342: 3266:

I guess I just don't see how we go from superprotect to this (and I don't like bringing up names here but Jan

1712:

To be fair, dewiki did a lot of things after superprotect that I am not sure were the "right" things to do. --

6424: 5974: 5759: 5650: 5160:"Gender warrior" is indeed the wrong term here, and as you say is not the best way to be constructive. What 4754: 4608: 4455: 3810: 3791: 3234: 3130: 3101: 3081:

So, basically, ask us what we want done, don't tell us what will be done. And given those earlier instances,

3071: 3043: 2645: 2604: 2267: 1512: 1443: 1288: 972: 818: 769: 507: 3652: 3314:, have you read of the User-reporting-system consultation? Please point me to the relevant thread. Reagrds, 6138: 6100: 4799: 4523:

What privileges and power structures are hindering our progress towards our strategic direction and vision?

4176: 3890: 3834: 3543: 3315: 3184: 3167: 3011: 364: 6456: 4402:

Just to point out that there is an ongoing Movement Strategy Process which are looking at questions like:

1867:

in garden-variety harassment or civility enforcement, and sticking their nose in it will not be popular.

1382: 6277: 6056: 5850:

Knowledge talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram § Table of relevant locations

3730: 3433: 2972:

Knowledge:Community health initiative on English Knowledge/Research on dispute resolution and harassment

6835: 6813: 5886: 4842: 3225: 2502:

Does the en-wiki community have the technical capability to lock and black-out the entirety of en-wiki?

1112: 38: 5641:

efforts to make Knowledge a better place for women and non-binary people to edit safely and in comfort

6655:

I asked the WMFOffice account whether they agree with Jimbo here, and asked the same of Jan here and

6490: 5723: 5698: 5510: 5470: 5375: 5318: 5226: 5182: 5074: 5005: 4957: 4920: 4817: 4712: 4389: 4223: 2434: 4247:

they demonstrated they could be trusted and that both harassed and accused could be treated fairly.

3610: 2860:- keep our problems to ourselves and resolve them internally. No need to annoy millions of readers. 1405:

trying), but this would be an opportune time to review our harassment policy and how it's enforced.

6831: 6775: 6477: 6440: 6419: 5969: 5755: 3803:

Even worse, "universal" means it is going to involve all WMF projects, I bet. Oh this is so bad. --

3660: 3614: 3229: 3126: 3097: 3067: 3039: 2740: 2640: 2599: 1536: 1507: 1482: 1438: 1283: 968: 813: 764: 502: 109: 3486:

Does enwiki have/want a "Volunteer to be a liaison to your wiki community or Wikimedia affiliate"?

2990:

Knowledge:Community health initiative on English Knowledge/Administrator confidence survey/Results

6516: 6265:

stop "throwing the book at harassers". As for unblockables, yes there are people suggesting that

5823: 5779: 5540: 4972: 4935: 4773: 3758:

Last I checked, the community was still trying to flesh out a broad-brush "strategy for 2030"...

1308: 1265: 4690: 2230:

Foundation legal department will need to handle lawsuits & the threat of lawsuits over this.

6272: 6266: 6228: 6051: 5797: 5713: 5671: 5535: 4990: 4887: 4697: 4621: 4367: 4105: 4086: 3976: 3629: 987: 949: 883: 724: 712: 523: 491: 472: 420: 368: 232: 4659: 4513:

What kind of regulatory framework do we need to prevent harassment and increase accessibility?

3881:

I am not doubting any conspiracy or invoking an ulterior motive in the Community Health plans

3739:

So that the link is on record, the draft CoC that the WikiJournal User Group is working on is

6838:) recognizes Jimbo as the final avenue of appeal for the banned. If the Foundation thinks an 6644: 6329: 6165: 5941: 5907: 5882: 5598: 5248: 5204: 4838: 4791: 4651: 4639: 4350: 4302: 4267: 4252: 4041:

While the Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative will make the final decisions...

4018: 3508: 3455: 3403: 2798: 2628: 2585: 2562: 2516: 2472: 2279: 2219: 2191: 1794: 1691: 1585: 1562: 1325: 1248: 1203:

communication? Or is it your position that this is either impossible, or not worth the time?

1183: 1108: 1061: 904: 665: 636: 622: 612: 539: 117: 6548: 6117:

You seem to be developing quite an obsession with me. Want to come edit my userpage again?

5385: 4646:

is proverbial in Melbourne at least for illustrating the language governing mateship codes.

248:

I was simply highlighting the difficulty these people have formulating a coherent sentence.

6569: 5694: 5611: 5506: 5483: 5466: 5371: 5329: 5314: 5237: 5222: 5191: 5178: 5166: 5157: 5070: 5020: 5001: 4953: 4916: 4826: 4572: 4425: 4385: 4338: 4313: 4276: 4234: 4219: 4198: 4158: 4141: 3961: 3922: 3700: 3469: 3275: 3224:

For reference for those wondering what the controversy the thread above is discussing was:

3057: 2908:

affecting the WMF's bottom line is probably a much more effective form of protest anyways.

2821: 2198: 2156: 1872: 1717: 1670: 1612: 1232: 1098: 837: 799: 653: 562: 5936:

Apparently, any of us could be banned out of the blue if we were to write "f*** the WMF."

5521:"And the outcome should clearly be the offending party please back off." that is ... very 4434:

That's exactly what happened with the ban of Fram (according to Risker on the talk page).

4153:

Also, those pages linked to above on Meta are hard to navigate and make me want to cry. --

1798: 1282:, and I don't think Raystorm realised that was how such an accusation would be received. — 8: 6945: 6915: 6863: 6764: 6724: 6590: 6473: 6436: 6300: 6251: 6236: 6201: 6009: 5927: 4857: 4829:

looks very poorly on employers who sack employees for swearing at their bosses: consider

4720: 4676: 4589: 3858: 3722: 3523: 3425: 3193: 3145: 2869: 2845: 2736: 2698: 2666: 2531: 2116: 1653: 1531: 1528: 1477: 1474: 1172: 1144: 291: 276: 4601:. Not even in English. And trying to impose such a code will only erect new barriers. -- 3695:, could you include anything that you know about this in your report to the community? 2437:, and it seems it taps well into your intentions. Sadly, it never got off the ground... 6900: 6707: 6620: 6182: 6125: 6079: 6031: 5814: 5775: 5558: 5502: 5487: 5422: 5394: 5344: 5127: 5043: 4968: 4946: 4931: 4911: 4769: 4628: 4500: 4477: 4327: 4284: 4060: 4044: 3998: 3502:

for drawing attention to it. I'll admit I knew about it but wasn't about to volunteer!

3492:

m:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation/Volunteer sign up page

3115: 3086: 2963:

m:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation/Volunteer sign up page

2896: 2771: 2735:

I'd only support a blackout for something of much greater global importance than this.

2385: 2323: 2174: 2085: 2056: 2034: 2009: 1960: 1949: 1908: 1857: 1832: 1735: 1421: 1336: 1304: 1261: 1192: 1083: 1046: 577: 309: 167: 6878: 6848: 6790: 6742: 6680: 6379: 6209: 5793: 5709: 5687: 5667: 5653: 5026:

generalization that apply in the aggregate to individual cases where nuance is lost.

4986: 4906: 4883: 4757: 4693: 4611: 4458: 4381: 4363: 4101: 4082: 3972: 3813: 3794: 3763: 3625: 3558: 3357:

Hands up everybody who wasn't even aware that we had an"Anti-Harassment Tools Team" .

2918: 2680: 2376: 2263: 2241: 2141: 1762: 1574: 983: 945: 879: 720: 705: 519: 487: 468: 432: 416: 225: 153: 102: 5097:

subsequent claims that someone has some anti-whatever bias as invalid, based on the

6640: 6469: 6351:

Was he subject to a series of increasing blocks as a result of bad behaviour (sic)?

6161: 5937: 5902: 5594: 5570: 5406: 5356: 5307: 5244: 5215: 5200: 5139: 5055: 4834: 4786: 4535: 4438: 4346: 4341:

I think the proposed mechanism is understood, what worries at least me is that the

4298: 4263: 4248: 4014: 3576: 3503: 3451: 3413: 3399: 3341: 3302: 2814:: This is neither the time nor the proper situation for use of the nuclear option. 2789: 2624: 2581: 2555: 2537: 2512: 2468: 2444: 2397: 2335: 1824: 1748:. Whoever was responsible for the development of Superprotect, Jan was the one who 1686: 1386: 1357: 1071: 913:

However, I have grave concerns about a couple of the statements you make, namely:

754: 632: 618: 598: 335: 113: 6510: 5898: 5174: 5106: 4743: 4667: 4568: 4421: 4413:

contributing a more positive experience for everyone participating in good faith?

4215: 4195: 4172: 4155: 4138: 3957: 3934: 3710: 3696: 3465: 3272: 3053: 3028: 2817: 2618:

I proposed this as lots of editors have been thinking that the change of control

2413: 2362: 2293: 2206: 2153: 1982: 1974: 1868: 1840: 1802: 1777: 1714: 1703: 1667: 1609: 1228: 1204: 1094: 1011:

administrators on anything it cares about - and any powers they retain is merely

959: 928: 833: 795: 784: 648: 558: 373: 347: 254: 240: 210: 186: 6675:

strategy working groups. There has been no answer to the question anywhere yet.

6408: 4686: 2101: 2070: 46:

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

6941: 6911: 6889: 6859: 6807: 6720: 6296: 6261: 6247: 6232: 6005: 5923: 5566: 5402: 5352: 5135: 5051: 4853: 4716: 4708: 4672: 4119: 3997:

can shed some light on this subject, but it is...concerning, to put it mildly.

3867: 3854: 3714: 3690: 3551: 3519: 3417: 3393: 3204: 3189: 3154: 3141: 2862: 2840: 2785: 2719: 2694: 2662: 2554:

Do we have to black-out all of en-wiki? We could just black out the frontpage.

2393: 2331: 2112: 1820: 1649: 1168: 1140: 1075: 439:

I'm pretty sure that is the first time someone has ever told me that on wiki. –

320:

he gives by way of support/explanation of this presents a primary objective of

287: 272: 134: 4549:

requires an office action. And I think the community has a consensus that the

3547: 2968:

Overview of research about English Knowledge dispute resolution and harassment

894: 6896: 6703: 6616: 6175: 6118: 6072: 6024: 5862: 5554: 5526: 5418: 5390: 5367: 5340: 5123: 5066: 5039: 4647: 4625: 4496: 4473: 4323: 4075: 4056: 3592: 3534:"Writing a universal code of conduct, and making a new user reporting system" 3380: 3267: 3216: 2892: 2430: 2381: 2347: 2319: 2170: 2081: 2052: 2026: 2005: 1967: 1945: 1932: 1904: 1853: 1836: 1828: 1731: 1415: 1332: 1221: 1079: 1020: 691: 594:

of proxying for a banned user when they copied Fram's comments from Commons.

587: 446: 392: 304: 163: 145: 1007:

To me this is confirming what I suspected - the Trust and Safety goal is to

127:

Response to Statement from Jan Eissfeldt, Lead Manager of Trust & Safety

6874: 6844: 6786: 6753: 6738: 6676: 6375: 6205: 5645: 4833:

where a worker sacked for telling his boss to "get fucked" was found to be

4798:

Nick Throne has clarified the Australian perspective. Same goes for India.

4749: 4663: 4655: 4603: 4450: 4175:, how does one exactly avoid an az-wiki or Croatian-Wiki rerun with a CoC? 3822: 3805: 3786: 3759: 2909: 2676: 2259: 2237: 2137: 1812: 1758: 1570: 149: 18:

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

1730:

right thing, it's still a pretty questionable optic for the WMF to have.

1698:

The head of T&S is a former admin desysoped on his home wiki? Unreal.

747:

given she accused everyone defending Fram of sexism, which only serves to

4643: 4531: 4435: 4032: 3938: 3572: 2534: 2438: 1816: 1353: 1191:

You also do not overrule or bypass our editorial or community processes.

1133: 595: 331: 6702:

at the time. This was not just for fun, and it cannot later be undone.--

6507: 6295:

Well it's all over this page, which I'm sure Arbcom is watching, so...

3499: 3024: 2409: 2358: 2304: 2289: 2202: 1978: 1773: 1699: 1220:

Nableezy completely and fully. Now, I originally wanted to discuss how

941: 924: 780: 583: 249: 205: 181: 6404: 5338:

happening. Hence the roundtable idea I brought up on your talk page.

2097: 2066: 6801: 6357:

Was his behaviour damaging to Knowledge, in a sense that needed a ban

5335: 4136:

implement it on Day 1 with little to no changes to local policies. --

3496:

m:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019

3359:

As a shameless plug, for things like this I recommend subscribing to

2954:

m:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019

2714: 1461:

Will specific details of the case be made known to WMF board members?

1038: 591: 220: 2965:– Twelve volunteers signed up to be liaison for wikis or affiliates. 6486: 5953: 5857: 4816:

That would be regarded as uncivil in Australia and anywhere else.

4469:

a more positive experience for everyone participating in good faith

3376: 1016: 688: 441: 412: 387: 6858:

the wording rather than T&S acting outside of their scope. --

6497:, basically never, but it is one last safety valve for our values. 2661:

No thanks, as per my reasons given in multiple sections above. --

6045: 2532:

The community has the technical ability to do almost anything ...

677:

Was Fram banned for "hostilities like harassment", or harassment?

363:

there is a shield of protection that exists for the powerusers,

2994:

Comments about policy, reporting, harassment, community culture

1070:, is that an acknowledgement that it was a bad idea to desysop 176:

I'm unsure how you think the WMF is able to both provide diffs

2946:. I've added a few quotes to give a flavour of each document. 2313:

actually harassment, or if Fram got banned for making someone

1752:(with his WMF-account) and the reaction were immediately the 3921:

little notification of this on enwiki, as far as I can see.

3829:

notice over en-wiki, awaring the community of the phase and

3416:

been busy at work today and need a bit of time to catch up.

6023:

Okay, let's try it. Fuck the WMF! Nope, not banned yet.

3993: 180:

protect the anonymity of those that were harassed. Regards

4495:

If you have views then I'd suggest adding them on Meta...

967:

That is simply not true, not in cases involving privacy.

6388:

More troubling is the explicit lying from WMF employees.

3987: 758:

warned twice before, and WHY the ban was limited). At a

5792:

the Issue is not rules, but uneven enforcement I think.

5548:(under 17 must be accompanied by adults) in the US and 5035:

I know better because I'm member of the social majority

5525:

dangerous to codify, especially when it comes down to

3571:

Not clear what the community's role in this will be.

2467:-closed, clear community unhappiness with the concept 2084:

in instances like this, but I believe we should here.

550:

make as a team until those trust issues are addressed.

382:

good comes out of this then we'll at least have that.

3626:

SPoore (WMF), Strategist, Community health initiative

3334:

this announcement of the community health initiative

5536:

words that would cause Victorian society to implode

3157:, IIRC, the core of the problem was not VE itself, 2511:ongoing damage to the project we fight to protect. 6472:dealt with all serious disputes other than simple 5876:From admin to one-year block, in a blink of an eye 5809:"A universal code of conduct? That is very scary." 3833:4 admins from en-wiki seem to have participated. 2999:Harvard Negotiation and Mediation Clinical Program 1125:changes to the Trust & Safety team’s processes 647:Thanks. We are not done, but that's a good start. 631:That's not a bug, Nosebagbear. It's a feature. -- 6591:" Brandt unblocked by Jimbo – community support?" 6476:(straightforward vandals could be blocked by any 1153:Fire Jan Eissfeldt and his whole T&S-Team. -- 1043:us then you need to explicitly say what that is. 6391:The (uncontested) WMF email sent to Fram states 5065:I totally understand how you felt in that case, 6760:create the appearance of a conflict of interest 5919: 3548:"Exploring the gender gap in Knowledge editors" 1594:? (or some of the other broken Wikipedias like 1383:harassment clause of the Wikimedia Terms of Use 1078:stepped in and did it, less than 24 hours ago? 4666:on the medicalization of social problems, or 4652:it didn't exclude him from using the word fuck 4624:is considered uncivil, even in Australia. -- 3546:, people have started wondering about a video 1127:, and are not an expansion of the team’s scope 878:moderators used by the other large platforms. 6785:The owner doesn't get disqualified for COI.-- 5994:don't know, but there are no easy solutions. 5915: 3611:Exploring the gender gap in Knowledge editors 2373:Bahrain, and you edit primarily on gay topics 239:Do you really think ARBCOM will do anything? 5196:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Sarah Tuttle 4297:so they run off their own viewpoints alone. 3125:As I say, there were going to do it anyway. 3012:Reporting systems on English Knowledge (pdf) 1074:? Do you regret not re-sysopping him before 4013:it comes - it's a lock-out the site level. 2456:Plan F - Technical Feasibility of Black Out 1123:While these changes were the result of the 6935:The owner doesn't get disqualified for COI 4027:By the way, apparently this is being done 6097:general proficiency at casting aspersions 6091:From what I've seen, much better than an 5501:I think you bring up a good distinction, 736:you have done nothing in responce to this 734:things missing in his reply on Commons, 582:The Wikimedia Foundation did not accuse 6463:Knowledge:Arbitration Committee/History 5639:Another question: above you talk about 5118:men behave in less-than-exemplary ways. 14: 4380:Don't take the analogy too literally, 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3885:running non-advertised consultations 3038:Oh, I'm quite sure he saw it coming. 6549:" Wikiquette committee appointments" 6345:Was he issued with on-wiki warnings? 4031:. There's a breathtaking example of 3361:Knowledge:Administrators' newsletter 2549:Thoughts on the proposal if feasible 2484:The following discussion is closed. 832:Then it isn't a valid last straw. -- 25: 5384:You can disagree, but you would be 4599:is no universal concept of civility 404:Replaced: 21:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 23: 6665:User Reporting System Consultation 1381:Fram was banned for violating the 1260:, and must be dealt with as well. 24: 6961: 6493:Parliament against their wishes, 3985:I'm certainly hoping that either 3653:"Video: The Knowledge gender gap" 3645: 108:factual and language errors. See 5897:is simply a total abrogation of 5843: 3605: 2929:The discussion above is closed. 2151:won't personally attack them. -- 29: 5114:men are "fair targets" because 5033:, without causing them to hear 1797:: Thank you for your comments. 6895:out of scope for WMF. Cheers, 6583: 6562: 6541: 4837:and ordered to be reinstated. 4556:mislabeled as an office action 3490:See the link mentioned above: 3110:Simple enough solution, then: 13: 1: 6840:unnanounced edit to WP:OFFICE 6836:WP:ARBPOL#Appeal of decisions 6468:Until the beginning of 2004, 5031:you are wrong about something 3550:(YouTube, 3 mins), posted by 3287:Hands down; read about it in 3083:they should already know that 6832:WP:BAN#Appeal to Jimbo Wales 6669:Roles & Responsibilities 4825:Except it would not be. The 4640:the Prime Minister Bob Hawke 2354:private investigation -: --> 1155:Informationswiedergutmachung 858:Informationswiedergutmachung 703:introspection of our own. – 7: 6506:Maybe the above will help. 5920:#Fram's response on Commons 5838:Table of relevant locations 4969:Only in death does duty end 4932:Only in death does duty end 4770:Only in death does duty end 3777:A universal code of conduct 3709:Not aware of any specifics 2938:New "User reporting system" 2355:private deliberation -: --> 2317:they were being harassed. 10: 6966: 6696:the history of the ArbComs 6692:binding pledge upon myself 5841: 5417:such outrageous sexism. - 852:Jan E. was the man behind 6950:16:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 6940:Policies can be changed. 6920:15:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 6905:07:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 6883:07:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 6868:04:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 6853:04:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 6821:11:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 6795:07:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 6781:04:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 6747:00:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 6729:00:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 6712:00:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 6685:22:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 6649:14:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 6625:22:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 6570:" Mediation, arbitration" 6520:21:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 6445:06:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 6430:05:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 6413:03:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 6384:03:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 6305:18:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 6287:18:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 6256:13:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 6241:12:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 6214:12:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 6190:13:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 6170:21:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 6151:15:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 6133:13:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 6113:13:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 6087:12:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 6066:11:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 6039:01:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 6014:06:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 5980:01:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 5963:01:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 5946:22:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC) 5932:22:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC) 5916:#An interesting paragraph 5910:22:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC) 5891:21:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC) 5871:13:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 5832:15:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC) 5802:08:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC) 5784:23:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC) 5764:20:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC) 5727:12:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC) 5718:08:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC) 5703:19:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC) 5676:09:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC) 5658:09:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC) 5603:01:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC) 5576:01:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC) 5515:19:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC) 5493:23:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 5475:23:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 5427:09:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 5412:20:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 5380:20:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 5362:19:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 5323:17:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC) 5253:02:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC) 5231:19:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC) 5209:02:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC) 5187:23:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 5170:23:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 5145:21:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC) 5079:19:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC) 5061:00:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC) 5010:23:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4995:23:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4977:23:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4962:23:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4940:23:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4925:23:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4892:23:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4882:gender war. Who is next? 4862:01:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 4847:23:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 4821:11:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC) 4812:04:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC) 4794:00:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC) 4778:23:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4762:22:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4725:20:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 4713:Female genital mutilation 4702:16:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 4681:20:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC) 4632:21:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4616:20:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4577:19:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4540:19:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4505:18:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4482:11:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC) 4463:20:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4444:19:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4430:19:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4394:23:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4372:17:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4355:17:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4332:16:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4307:16:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4290:16:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4272:16:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4257:16:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4228:16:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4206:16:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4189:16:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4166:16:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4149:15:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4125:17:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4110:16:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4091:16:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4065:15:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4050:15:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4023:15:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 4004:14:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 3981:14:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 3966:13:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 3944:18:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 3926:13:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 3903:14:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 3870:, possilikely, certainly. 3863:13:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 3847:13:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 3818:13:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 3799:13:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 3768:13:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 3752:01:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC) 3735:23:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 3705:13:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 3634:02:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC) 3604: 3599: 3581:12:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 3528:07:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 3512:16:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 3474:18:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC) 3460:23:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 3438:23:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 3408:19:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 3385:19:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 3346:06:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC) 3328:19:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 3307:18:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 3283:18:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 3240:07:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC) 3220:10:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC) 3198:04:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC) 3180:04:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC) 3150:19:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 3135:19:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 3121:19:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 3106:19:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 3092:18:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 3076:18:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 3062:18:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 3048:18:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 3033:17:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 3008:Reporting systems summary 2924:07:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC) 2901:07:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC) 2884:05:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC) 2853:03:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC) 2831:02:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC) 2807:02:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC) 2777:02:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC) 2762:01:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC) 2745:01:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC) 2728:23:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 2703:23:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 2685:23:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 2671:22:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 2651:22:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 2610:22:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 2572:22:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 2543:22:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 2521:22:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 2477:11:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC) 2450:05:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 2418:15:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC) 2403:19:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC) 2367:19:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC) 2341:18:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC) 2298:17:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC) 2271:13:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 2246:17:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2211:12:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2179:21:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2164:18:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2146:16:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2121:13:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2106:13:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2091:11:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2075:11:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2061:11:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2040:11:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 2014:11:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1987:10:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1954:10:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1913:11:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1877:10:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1862:09:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1845:07:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1807:07:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1782:15:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1767:14:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1740:04:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1725:04:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1708:02:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1694:01:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1678:04:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1658:03:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1620:00:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1592:do something about azwiki 1579:00:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1548:00:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1518:00:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1494:00:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1449:00:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1428:23:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 1362:23:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 1347:23:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 1313:02:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 1294:23:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 1270:23:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 1242:23:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 1215:22:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 1198:22:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 1177:22:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 1163:22:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 1149:22:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 1117:22:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 1103:22:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 1087:21:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 1054:21:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 1025:22:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 992:09:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 977:22:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 963:21:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 954:21:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 933:21:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 898:21:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 888:21:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 866:21:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 842:21:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 824:21:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 804:21:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 789:21:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 775:21:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 745:emphatically did not help 729:21:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 715:21:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 696:21:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 659:21:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 641:21:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 627:21:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 604:21:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 567:21:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 528:23:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 513:22:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 496:21:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 477:21:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 455:22:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 425:21:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 401:21:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 358:21:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 340:21:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 325:This is plainly what has 312:21:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 296:21:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 281:21:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 260:23:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 244:21:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 235:21:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 216:21:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 192:07:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC) 172:20:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 158:20:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 140:20:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC) 122:08:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC) 6093:admonished administrator 5088:to happen to you, and a 4343:defined minimum standard 3661:University of Washington 3615:University of Washington 3586:Response by Sydney Poore 2931:Please do not modify it. 2486:Please do not modify it. 1257:institutional corruption 110:de:User:Mautpreller/Meta 6690:Well, we speak about a 6363:on this Knowledge only? 5541:Silver Linings Playbook 5086:most infuriating things 4638:No. You're dead wrong. 3613:, 3:09, June 11, 2019, 3185:Winged Blades of Godric 2497:authority to the WMF. 6657:on his staff talk page 6504: 6499: 3569: 1385:, but not necessarily 6593:. Lists.wikimedia.org 6551:. Lists.wikimedia.org 6483: 6466: 6095:who seems to have a 4281:argue in your defense 3563: 3561:(FloNight) talks of 2944:User reporting system 2526:Technical Feasibility 2256:Arbitration Committee 1387:our harassment policy 42:of past discussions. 6663:and on Meta, at the 6572:. Mail.wikimedia.org 6224:their edit histories 4827:Fair Work Commission 4620:I'm reasonably sure 3538:In a few places, eg 1093:Fucking disgusting. 6700:benevolent dictator 6661:I also asked Arbcom 6659:without any reply. 6202:appeal to the stone 5756:Boing! said Zebedee 4660:newspaper reporters 4658:in the presence of 4517:"current situation" 3226:WP:VisualEditor/RFC 3127:Boing! said Zebedee 3098:Boing! said Zebedee 3068:Boing! said Zebedee 3040:Boing! said Zebedee 2433:A while back I had 969:Boing! said Zebedee 6421:A little blue Bori 5971:A little blue Bori 5628:tolkningsföreträde 5194:the discussion at 4835:unfairly dismissed 3231:A little blue Bori 2977:Research about ANI 2959:Volunteer liaisons 2642:A little blue Bori 2601:A little blue Bori 2487: 2082:presume good faith 1931:Excellent. Thanks 1799:m:Trust and Safety 1754:25 votes necessary 1509:A little blue Bori 1440:A little blue Bori 1285:A little blue Bori 815:A little blue Bori 766:A little blue Bori 504:A little blue Bori 6612: 6611: 6513: 6457:Jimbo's authority 6188: 6131: 6085: 6037: 5656: 5491: 5167:Black Kite (talk) 5105:invalid. Causing 4950: 4760: 4739:no bearing at all 4614: 4528:More diversity Qs 4461: 4288: 4048: 4002: 3923:Black Kite (talk) 3816: 3797: 3748: 3620: 3619: 3559:User:SPoore (WMF) 3268:used superprotect 3119: 3090: 2881: 2775: 2725: 2567: 2485: 2089: 2038: 1964: 1196: 1121:This bothers me: 1056: 581: 538:My thanks too to 457: 438: 405: 369:established users 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current main page 6957: 6893: 6819: 6816: 6810: 6804: 6772: 6767: 6757: 6673:Community Health 6602: 6601: 6599: 6598: 6587: 6581: 6580: 6578: 6577: 6566: 6560: 6559: 6557: 6556: 6545: 6524: 6523: 6511: 6427: 6330:The Rambling Man 6284: 6280: 6275: 6185: 6180: 6178: 6146: 6141: 6128: 6123: 6121: 6108: 6103: 6082: 6077: 6075: 6063: 6059: 6054: 6034: 6029: 6027: 5977: 5961: 5883:The Rambling Man 5869: 5860: 5847: 5846: 5830: 5821: 5817: 5691: 5649: 5615: 5574: 5490: 5410: 5386:materially wrong 5360: 5333: 5311: 5241: 5219: 5143: 5059: 5024: 4944: 4839:Triptothecottage 4807: 4802: 4753: 4607: 4470: 4454: 4419: 4407:decision-making? 4287: 4238: 4184: 4179: 4079: 4047: 4001: 3996: 3990: 3898: 3893: 3842: 3837: 3809: 3790: 3746: 3719: 3694: 3673: 3672: 3670: 3668: 3649: 3609: 3608: 3597: 3596: 3506: 3422: 3414:User:Nosebagbear 3397: 3332:I recall seeing 3323: 3318: 3237: 3208: 3175: 3170: 3118: 3089: 2986:Admin confidence 2878: 2872: 2867: 2865: 2850: 2848:Let's discuss it 2829: 2795: 2792: 2774: 2724: 2722: 2711: 2648: 2607: 2569: 2565: 2560: 2447: 2441: 2401: 2351: 2339: 2308: 2283: 2280:JEissfeldt (WMF) 2223: 2220:JEissfeldt (WMF) 2195: 2192:JEissfeldt (WMF) 2088: 2037: 1971: 1958: 1606: 1589: 1586:JEissfeldt (WMF) 1566: 1563:JEissfeldt (WMF) 1544: 1539: 1534: 1515: 1490: 1485: 1480: 1446: 1424: 1418: 1329: 1326:JEissfeldt (WMF) 1291: 1252: 1249:JEissfeldt (WMF) 1240: 1195: 1184:JEissfeldt (WMF) 1138: 1132: 1109:Hell in a Bucket 1072:User:Floquenbeam 1065: 1062:JEissfeldt (WMF) 1049: 1044: 1013:current practice 908: 905:JEissfeldt (WMF) 821: 772: 708: 669: 666:JEissfeldt (WMF) 656: 651: 616: 613:JEissfeldt (WMF) 575: 510: 453: 444: 437: 436: 429: 403: 399: 390: 376: 228: 189: 184: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 6965: 6964: 6960: 6959: 6958: 6956: 6955: 6954: 6887: 6814: 6808: 6802: 6800: 6770: 6765: 6751: 6608: 6607: 6606: 6605: 6596: 6594: 6589: 6588: 6584: 6575: 6573: 6568: 6567: 6563: 6554: 6552: 6547: 6546: 6542: 6529: 6515: 6459: 6425: 6376:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 6372:Ostensibly yes. 6337:in one instant? 6282: 6278: 6273: 6267:WP:UNBLOCKABLES 6229:WP:UNBLOCKABLES 6183: 6176: 6142: 6139: 6126: 6119: 6104: 6101: 6080: 6073: 6061: 6057: 6052: 6032: 6025: 5975: 5952: 5899:natural justice 5878: 5858: 5856: 5853: 5852: 5844: 5840: 5819: 5813: 5812: 5724:cygnis insignis 5695:Megalibrarygirl 5685: 5612:Megalibrarygirl 5609: 5553: 5507:Megalibrarygirl 5484:Megalibrarygirl 5467:Megalibrarygirl 5389: 5372:Megalibrarygirl 5339: 5330:Megalibrarygirl 5327: 5315:Megalibrarygirl 5305: 5238:Megalibrarygirl 5235: 5223:Megalibrarygirl 5213: 5192:Megalibrarygirl 5179:Megalibrarygirl 5158:Megalibrarygirl 5122: 5107:Jussie Smollett 5071:Megalibrarygirl 5038: 5021:Megalibrarygirl 5018: 5002:Megalibrarygirl 4954:Megalibrarygirl 4917:Megalibrarygirl 4818:cygnis insignis 4803: 4800: 4668:Michel Foucault 4468: 4441: 4440:it has begun... 4417: 4386:Megalibrarygirl 4339:Megalibrarygirl 4314:Megalibrarygirl 4277:Megalibrarygirl 4235:Megalibrarygirl 4232: 4220:Megalibrarygirl 4180: 4177: 4073: 3992: 3986: 3894: 3891: 3838: 3835: 3715: 3711:User:Tazerdadog 3688: 3683: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3666: 3664: 3663:. June 12, 2019 3651: 3650: 3646: 3606: 3600:External videos 3588: 3536: 3504: 3488: 3418: 3391: 3319: 3316: 3235: 3202: 3171: 3168: 2940: 2935: 2934: 2876: 2870: 2863: 2846: 2815: 2793: 2790: 2720: 2712: 2646: 2605: 2563: 2556: 2551: 2540: 2539:it has begun... 2528: 2490: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2458: 2445: 2439: 2380: 2345: 2318: 2302: 2277: 2258:not qualify? – 2217: 2189: 1965: 1903: 1603: 1590:Can you please 1583: 1560: 1542: 1537: 1532: 1513: 1488: 1483: 1478: 1444: 1422: 1416: 1323: 1289: 1246: 1226: 1212: 1136: 1130: 1059: 1047: 902: 819: 770: 751:those theories. 740:anything at all 706: 663: 654: 649: 610: 601: 600:it has begun... 508: 442: 440: 430: 388: 386: 374: 355: 226: 187: 182: 129: 105: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 6963: 6953: 6952: 6938: 6931: 6930: 6929: 6928: 6927: 6926: 6925: 6924: 6923: 6922: 6885: 6829: 6828: 6827: 6826: 6825: 6824: 6823: 6732: 6731: 6715: 6714: 6653: 6652: 6628: 6627: 6610: 6609: 6604: 6603: 6582: 6561: 6539: 6538: 6535: 6534: 6531: 6530: 6527: 6509: 6501: 6481: 6461:At the top of 6458: 6455: 6454: 6453: 6452: 6451: 6450: 6449: 6448: 6447: 6437:Stephan Schulz 6400: 6389: 6373: 6370: 6367: 6364: 6361: 6358: 6355: 6352: 6349: 6346: 6343: 6339: 6338: 6334: 6333: 6326: 6325: 6324: 6323: 6322: 6321: 6320: 6319: 6318: 6317: 6316: 6315: 6314: 6313: 6312: 6311: 6310: 6309: 6308: 6307: 6198: 6197: 6196: 6195: 6194: 6193: 6192: 6157: 6156: 6155: 6154: 6153: 6046:nameless dread 6021: 6020: 6019: 6018: 6017: 5912: 5877: 5874: 5842: 5839: 5836: 5835: 5834: 5806: 5805: 5804: 5787: 5786: 5766: 5752:no code at all 5738: 5737: 5736: 5735: 5734: 5733: 5732: 5731: 5730: 5729: 5663: 5662: 5661: 5660: 5634: 5633: 5632: 5631: 5621: 5620: 5619: 5618: 5607: 5606: 5605: 5590: 5581: 5580: 5579: 5578: 5519: 5518: 5517: 5496: 5495: 5478: 5477: 5462: 5461: 5460: 5459: 5458: 5457: 5456: 5455: 5454: 5453: 5452: 5451: 5450: 5449: 5448: 5447: 5446: 5445: 5444: 5443: 5442: 5441: 5440: 5439: 5438: 5437: 5436: 5435: 5434: 5433: 5432: 5431: 5430: 5429: 5278: 5277: 5276: 5275: 5274: 5273: 5272: 5271: 5270: 5269: 5268: 5267: 5266: 5265: 5264: 5263: 5262: 5261: 5260: 5259: 5258: 5257: 5256: 5255: 5155: 5154: 5153: 5152: 5151: 5150: 5149: 5148: 5147: 5119: 5027: 4983: 4982: 4981: 4980: 4979: 4895: 4894: 4873: 4872: 4871: 4870: 4869: 4868: 4867: 4866: 4865: 4864: 4831:this 2012 case 4814: 4796: 4782: 4781: 4780: 4735: 4734: 4733: 4732: 4731: 4730: 4729: 4728: 4727: 4709:Germaine Greer 4594: 4593: 4580: 4579: 4545: 4544: 4543: 4542: 4525: 4520: 4507: 4492: 4491: 4490: 4489: 4488: 4487: 4486: 4485: 4484: 4446: 4439: 4409: 4399: 4398: 4397: 4396: 4375: 4374: 4358: 4357: 4335: 4334: 4310: 4309: 4293: 4292: 4274: 4259: 4245:If and only if 4230: 4212: 4211: 4210: 4209: 4208: 4169: 4168: 4132: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4128: 4127: 4093: 4068: 4067: 4052: 4025: 4006: 3983: 3968: 3949: 3948: 3947: 3946: 3929: 3928: 3914: 3913: 3912: 3911: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3906: 3905: 3879: 3877: 3873: 3871: 3801: 3773: 3772: 3771: 3770: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3682: 3679: 3675: 3674: 3643: 3642: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3621: 3618: 3617: 3602: 3601: 3587: 3584: 3552:User:Rosiestep 3535: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3487: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3388: 3387: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3285: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3212: 3164: 3162: 3137: 3016: 3015: 3009: 3006: 3000: 2997: 2987: 2984: 2978: 2975: 2969: 2966: 2960: 2957: 2951: 2939: 2936: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2904: 2903: 2886: 2855: 2833: 2809: 2786:I feel cold... 2779: 2764: 2747: 2737:WanderingWanda 2730: 2705: 2687: 2673: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2613: 2612: 2596:Absolutely not 2592: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2575: 2574: 2550: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2538: 2527: 2524: 2491: 2482: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2457: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2274: 2273: 2249: 2214: 2213: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2166: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2043: 2042: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1901: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1746:open to recall 1696: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1662: 1661: 1581: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1521: 1520: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1402: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1389: 1379: 1371: 1370: 1365: 1364: 1349: 1331:or otherwise. 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1297: 1296: 1273: 1272: 1244: 1217: 1208: 1200: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1151: 1119: 1105: 1090: 1076:User:WJBscribe 1057: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 996: 995: 994: 956: 936: 935: 900: 890: 875: 871: 868: 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 844: 827: 826: 807: 806: 791: 777: 752: 731: 717: 699: 698: 684: 683: 682: 681: 678: 661: 645: 644: 643: 608: 607: 606: 599: 570: 569: 554: 553: 552: 551: 547: 535: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 515: 480: 479: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 407: 406: 360: 351: 344: 343: 342: 300: 299: 298: 268: 267: 266: 265: 264: 263: 262: 196: 195: 194: 160: 142: 128: 125: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 6962: 6951: 6947: 6943: 6939: 6936: 6933: 6932: 6921: 6917: 6913: 6908: 6907: 6906: 6902: 6898: 6891: 6886: 6884: 6880: 6876: 6871: 6870: 6869: 6865: 6861: 6856: 6855: 6854: 6850: 6846: 6841: 6837: 6833: 6830: 6822: 6817: 6811: 6805: 6798: 6797: 6796: 6792: 6788: 6784: 6783: 6782: 6779: 6777: 6773: 6768: 6761: 6755: 6750: 6749: 6748: 6744: 6740: 6736: 6735: 6734: 6733: 6730: 6726: 6722: 6717: 6716: 6713: 6709: 6705: 6701: 6697: 6693: 6689: 6688: 6687: 6686: 6682: 6678: 6674: 6670: 6666: 6662: 6658: 6651: 6650: 6646: 6642: 6636: 6635: 6634: 6633: 6626: 6622: 6618: 6614: 6613: 6592: 6586: 6571: 6565: 6550: 6544: 6540: 6537: 6533: 6532: 6526: 6525: 6522: 6521: 6518: 6514: 6508: 6503: 6498: 6496: 6492: 6488: 6482: 6479: 6478:administrator 6475: 6471: 6465: 6464: 6446: 6442: 6438: 6433: 6432: 6431: 6428: 6423: 6422: 6416: 6415: 6414: 6410: 6406: 6401: 6398: 6394: 6390: 6387: 6386: 6385: 6381: 6377: 6374: 6371: 6368: 6365: 6362: 6359: 6356: 6353: 6350: 6347: 6344: 6341: 6340: 6336: 6335: 6331: 6328: 6327: 6306: 6302: 6298: 6294: 6293: 6292: 6291: 6290: 6289: 6288: 6285: 6281: 6276: 6268: 6263: 6259: 6258: 6257: 6253: 6249: 6244: 6243: 6242: 6238: 6234: 6230: 6225: 6221: 6217: 6216: 6215: 6211: 6207: 6203: 6199: 6191: 6186: 6179: 6173: 6172: 6171: 6167: 6163: 6158: 6152: 6149: 6147: 6145: 6136: 6135: 6134: 6129: 6122: 6116: 6115: 6114: 6111: 6109: 6107: 6098: 6094: 6090: 6089: 6088: 6083: 6076: 6069: 6068: 6067: 6064: 6060: 6055: 6047: 6042: 6041: 6040: 6035: 6028: 6022: 6016: 6015: 6011: 6007: 6003: 5999: 5995: 5991: 5987: 5983: 5982: 5981: 5978: 5973: 5972: 5966: 5965: 5964: 5960: 5958: 5957: 5949: 5948: 5947: 5943: 5939: 5935: 5934: 5933: 5929: 5925: 5921: 5917: 5913: 5911: 5908: 5906: 5905: 5900: 5895: 5894: 5893: 5892: 5888: 5884: 5873: 5872: 5868: 5866: 5861: 5851: 5833: 5829: 5825: 5820:Pigsonthewing 5816: 5810: 5807: 5803: 5799: 5795: 5791: 5790: 5789: 5788: 5785: 5781: 5777: 5776:Beyond My Ken 5773: 5772: 5767: 5765: 5761: 5757: 5753: 5749: 5744: 5740: 5739: 5728: 5725: 5721: 5720: 5719: 5715: 5711: 5706: 5705: 5704: 5700: 5696: 5689: 5684: 5683: 5682: 5681: 5680: 5679: 5678: 5677: 5673: 5669: 5659: 5655: 5652: 5651:contributions 5648: 5647: 5642: 5638: 5637: 5636: 5635: 5629: 5625: 5624: 5623: 5622: 5613: 5608: 5604: 5600: 5596: 5591: 5587: 5586: 5585: 5584: 5583: 5582: 5577: 5572: 5568: 5564: 5560: 5556: 5551: 5547: 5543: 5542: 5537: 5532: 5528: 5527:tone policing 5524: 5520: 5516: 5512: 5508: 5504: 5503:Seraphimblade 5500: 5499: 5498: 5497: 5494: 5489: 5488:Seraphimblade 5485: 5482: 5481: 5480: 5479: 5476: 5472: 5468: 5464: 5463: 5428: 5424: 5420: 5415: 5414: 5413: 5408: 5404: 5400: 5396: 5392: 5387: 5383: 5382: 5381: 5377: 5373: 5369: 5365: 5364: 5363: 5358: 5354: 5350: 5346: 5342: 5337: 5331: 5326: 5325: 5324: 5320: 5316: 5309: 5304: 5303: 5302: 5301: 5300: 5299: 5298: 5297: 5296: 5295: 5294: 5293: 5292: 5291: 5290: 5289: 5288: 5287: 5286: 5285: 5284: 5283: 5282: 5281: 5280: 5279: 5254: 5250: 5246: 5239: 5234: 5233: 5232: 5228: 5224: 5217: 5212: 5211: 5210: 5206: 5202: 5197: 5193: 5190: 5189: 5188: 5184: 5180: 5176: 5173: 5172: 5171: 5168: 5163: 5159: 5156: 5146: 5141: 5137: 5133: 5129: 5125: 5120: 5117: 5113: 5108: 5104: 5100: 5096: 5091: 5087: 5082: 5081: 5080: 5076: 5072: 5068: 5064: 5063: 5062: 5057: 5053: 5049: 5045: 5041: 5036: 5032: 5028: 5022: 5017: 5016: 5015: 5014: 5013: 5012: 5011: 5007: 5003: 4998: 4997: 4996: 4992: 4988: 4984: 4978: 4974: 4970: 4965: 4964: 4963: 4959: 4955: 4948: 4947:edit conflict 4943: 4942: 4941: 4937: 4933: 4928: 4927: 4926: 4922: 4918: 4913: 4912:Only in death 4908: 4905: 4904: 4903: 4902: 4901: 4900: 4899: 4898: 4897: 4896: 4893: 4889: 4885: 4880: 4875: 4874: 4863: 4859: 4855: 4850: 4849: 4848: 4844: 4840: 4836: 4832: 4828: 4824: 4823: 4822: 4819: 4815: 4813: 4810: 4808: 4806: 4797: 4795: 4792: 4790: 4789: 4783: 4779: 4775: 4771: 4767: 4766: 4765: 4764: 4763: 4759: 4756: 4755:contributions 4752: 4751: 4745: 4740: 4736: 4726: 4722: 4718: 4714: 4710: 4705: 4704: 4703: 4699: 4695: 4691: 4689: 4687: 4684: 4683: 4682: 4678: 4674: 4669: 4665: 4661: 4657: 4653: 4649: 4648:Gough Whitlam 4645: 4642:joshing with 4641: 4637: 4636: 4635: 4634: 4633: 4630: 4627: 4623: 4619: 4618: 4617: 4613: 4610: 4609:contributions 4606: 4605: 4600: 4596: 4595: 4591: 4586: 4582: 4581: 4578: 4574: 4570: 4565: 4561: 4560:In principle. 4557: 4552: 4547: 4546: 4541: 4537: 4533: 4529: 4526: 4524: 4521: 4518: 4514: 4511: 4510: 4508: 4506: 4502: 4498: 4493: 4483: 4479: 4475: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4460: 4457: 4456:contributions 4453: 4452: 4447: 4445: 4442: 4437: 4433: 4432: 4431: 4427: 4423: 4416: 4415: 4414: 4410: 4408: 4404: 4403: 4401: 4400: 4395: 4391: 4387: 4383: 4379: 4378: 4377: 4376: 4373: 4369: 4365: 4360: 4359: 4356: 4352: 4348: 4344: 4340: 4337: 4336: 4333: 4329: 4325: 4320: 4315: 4312: 4311: 4308: 4304: 4300: 4295: 4294: 4291: 4286: 4285:Seraphimblade 4282: 4278: 4275: 4273: 4269: 4265: 4260: 4258: 4254: 4250: 4246: 4242: 4236: 4231: 4229: 4225: 4221: 4217: 4214:I agree with 4213: 4207: 4204: 4203: 4200: 4197: 4192: 4191: 4190: 4187: 4185: 4183: 4174: 4171: 4170: 4167: 4164: 4163: 4160: 4157: 4152: 4151: 4150: 4147: 4146: 4143: 4140: 4134: 4133: 4126: 4123: 4122: 4117: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4107: 4103: 4099: 4094: 4092: 4088: 4084: 4077: 4072: 4071: 4070: 4069: 4066: 4062: 4058: 4053: 4051: 4046: 4045:Seraphimblade 4042: 4038: 4034: 4030: 4026: 4024: 4020: 4016: 4012: 4007: 4005: 4000: 3999:Seraphimblade 3995: 3989: 3984: 3982: 3978: 3974: 3969: 3967: 3963: 3959: 3955: 3951: 3950: 3945: 3942: 3940: 3936: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3927: 3924: 3920: 3916: 3915: 3904: 3901: 3899: 3897: 3888: 3884: 3880: 3878: 3874: 3872: 3869: 3866: 3865: 3864: 3860: 3856: 3852: 3851: 3850: 3849: 3848: 3845: 3843: 3841: 3832: 3828: 3824: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3815: 3812: 3811:contributions 3808: 3807: 3802: 3800: 3796: 3793: 3792:contributions 3789: 3788: 3782: 3778: 3775: 3774: 3769: 3765: 3761: 3757: 3753: 3750: 3742: 3738: 3737: 3736: 3732: 3728: 3724: 3720: 3718: 3712: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3702: 3698: 3692: 3685: 3684: 3662: 3658: 3654: 3648: 3644: 3641: 3635: 3631: 3627: 3622: 3616: 3612: 3603: 3598: 3594: 3590: 3589: 3583: 3582: 3578: 3574: 3568: 3567: 3562: 3560: 3555: 3553: 3549: 3545: 3541: 3529: 3525: 3521: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3510: 3507: 3501: 3497: 3493: 3475: 3471: 3467: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3457: 3453: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3439: 3435: 3431: 3427: 3423: 3421: 3415: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3405: 3401: 3395: 3390: 3389: 3386: 3382: 3378: 3374: 3370: 3366: 3362: 3358: 3355: 3354: 3347: 3343: 3339: 3335: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3326: 3324: 3322: 3313: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3304: 3300: 3296: 3293: 3290: 3286: 3284: 3281: 3280: 3277: 3274: 3269: 3265: 3264: 3241: 3238: 3233: 3232: 3227: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3218: 3217:Dirk Beetstra 3213: 3206: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3195: 3191: 3186: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3178: 3176: 3174: 3165: 3163: 3160: 3156: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3147: 3143: 3138: 3136: 3132: 3128: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3117: 3116:Seraphimblade 3113: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3103: 3099: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3088: 3087:Seraphimblade 3084: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3073: 3069: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3059: 3055: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3045: 3041: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3030: 3026: 3022: 3013: 3010: 3007: 3004: 3001: 2998: 2995: 2991: 2988: 2985: 2982: 2979: 2976: 2973: 2970: 2967: 2964: 2961: 2958: 2955: 2952: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2945: 2932: 2925: 2922: 2920: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2906: 2905: 2902: 2898: 2894: 2890: 2887: 2885: 2882: 2879: 2873: 2866: 2859: 2856: 2854: 2851: 2849: 2844: 2843: 2837: 2834: 2832: 2827: 2823: 2819: 2813: 2812:Strong oppose 2810: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2787: 2783: 2782:Strong oppose 2780: 2778: 2773: 2772:Seraphimblade 2768: 2765: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2748: 2746: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2731: 2729: 2723: 2717: 2716: 2709: 2706: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2691: 2688: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2659: 2652: 2649: 2644: 2643: 2637: 2633: 2632: 2630: 2626: 2621: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2611: 2608: 2603: 2602: 2597: 2594: 2593: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2573: 2570: 2568: 2561: 2559: 2553: 2552: 2544: 2541: 2536: 2533: 2530: 2529: 2523: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2508: 2504: 2503: 2498: 2496: 2489: 2478: 2474: 2470: 2466: 2451: 2448: 2442: 2436: 2432: 2429: 2419: 2415: 2411: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2378: 2374: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2349: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2325: 2321: 2316: 2312: 2306: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2286: 2281: 2276: 2275: 2272: 2269: 2266: 2265: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2250: 2248: 2247: 2243: 2239: 2234: 2228: 2221: 2216: 2215: 2212: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2199:WP:ASPERSIONS 2193: 2188: 2187: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2167: 2165: 2162: 2161: 2158: 2155: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2134: 2122: 2118: 2114: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2087: 2086:Seraphimblade 2083: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2041: 2036: 2035:Seraphimblade 2032: 2028: 2025: 2024: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1969: 1962: 1961:edit conflict 1957: 1956: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1942: 1938: 1934: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1914: 1910: 1906: 1900: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1833:NTymkiv (WMF) 1830: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1814: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1793: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1755: 1751: 1750:used it first 1747: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1723: 1722: 1719: 1716: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1705: 1701: 1697: 1695: 1692: 1690: 1689: 1683: 1679: 1676: 1675: 1672: 1669: 1664: 1663: 1660: 1659: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1618: 1617: 1614: 1611: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1587: 1582: 1580: 1576: 1572: 1569: 1564: 1559: 1558: 1549: 1545: 1540: 1535: 1530: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1519: 1516: 1511: 1510: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1495: 1491: 1486: 1481: 1476: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1460: 1459: 1456: 1455: 1450: 1447: 1442: 1441: 1436: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1425: 1419: 1413: 1408: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1390: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1377: 1376: 1373: 1372: 1367: 1366: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1350: 1348: 1344: 1341: 1338: 1334: 1327: 1322: 1321: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1305:Beyond My Ken 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1295: 1292: 1287: 1286: 1281: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1262:Beyond My Ken 1259: 1258: 1250: 1245: 1243: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1223: 1218: 1216: 1211: 1206: 1201: 1199: 1194: 1193:Seraphimblade 1189: 1185: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1135: 1128: 1126: 1120: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1091: 1088: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1066:when you say 1063: 1058: 1055: 1051: 1050: 1041: 1040: 1034: 1033: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1001: 1000:the community 997: 993: 989: 985: 980: 979: 978: 974: 970: 966: 965: 964: 961: 957: 955: 951: 947: 943: 940: 939: 938: 937: 934: 930: 926: 921: 916: 912: 906: 901: 899: 896: 891: 889: 885: 881: 876: 872: 869: 867: 863: 859: 855: 851: 850: 843: 839: 835: 831: 830: 829: 828: 825: 822: 817: 816: 811: 810: 809: 808: 805: 801: 797: 792: 790: 786: 782: 778: 776: 773: 768: 767: 761: 756: 750: 746: 741: 737: 732: 730: 726: 722: 718: 716: 713: 710: 709: 701: 700: 697: 693: 690: 686: 685: 679: 676: 675: 673: 667: 662: 660: 657: 652: 646: 642: 638: 634: 630: 629: 628: 624: 620: 614: 609: 605: 602: 597: 593: 589: 585: 579: 578:edit conflict 574: 573: 572: 571: 568: 564: 560: 556: 555: 548: 544: 543: 541: 537: 536: 529: 525: 521: 516: 514: 511: 506: 505: 499: 498: 497: 493: 489: 484: 483: 482: 481: 478: 474: 470: 465: 464: 456: 452: 450: 445: 434: 428: 427: 426: 422: 418: 414: 411: 410: 409: 408: 402: 398: 396: 391: 384: 381: 377: 370: 366: 361: 359: 354: 349: 345: 341: 337: 333: 328: 324: 319: 315: 314: 313: 310: 308: 307: 301: 297: 293: 289: 284: 283: 282: 278: 274: 269: 261: 258: 257: 253: 252: 247: 246: 245: 242: 238: 237: 236: 233: 230: 229: 222: 219: 218: 217: 214: 213: 209: 208: 204: 200: 197: 193: 190: 185: 179: 175: 174: 173: 169: 165: 161: 159: 155: 151: 147: 146:A. E. Housman 143: 141: 138: 137: 131: 130: 124: 123: 119: 115: 111: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 6934: 6834:(along with 6763: 6759: 6699: 6691: 6654: 6637: 6629: 6595:. Retrieved 6585: 6574:. Retrieved 6564: 6553:. Retrieved 6543: 6536: 6505: 6500: 6494: 6484: 6467: 6460: 6420: 6396: 6392: 6271: 6223: 6219: 6143: 6105: 6050: 6004: 6000: 5996: 5992: 5988: 5984: 5970: 5955: 5954: 5903: 5879: 5864: 5854: 5828:Andy's edits 5824:Talk to Andy 5815:Andy Mabbett 5808: 5794:Slatersteven 5770: 5769: 5751: 5748:perfect code 5747: 5742: 5710:Slatersteven 5688:Slatersteven 5668:Slatersteven 5664: 5644: 5640: 5627: 5539: 5522: 5366:I disagree, 5336:bandwagoning 5161: 5115: 5111: 5102: 5098: 5094: 5089: 5085: 5034: 5030: 4987:Softlavender 4907:Softlavender 4884:Softlavender 4878: 4804: 4787: 4748: 4738: 4737:That... has 4694:Calliopejen1 4664:Thomas Szasz 4656:Paul Keating 4602: 4598: 4597:TLDR: There 4590:tall poppies 4584: 4564:in execution 4563: 4559: 4555: 4550: 4449: 4382:CoffeeCrumbs 4364:CoffeeCrumbs 4342: 4318: 4280: 4244: 4240: 4194: 4181: 4154: 4137: 4120: 4115: 4102:Gestumblindi 4097: 4083:Gestumblindi 4040: 4036: 4029:here on Meta 4010: 3994:SPoore (WMF) 3973:Gestumblindi 3941: 3918: 3895: 3886: 3882: 3839: 3830: 3826: 3804: 3785: 3780: 3776: 3745:T.Shafee(Evo 3716: 3665:. Retrieved 3656: 3647: 3639: 3570: 3565: 3564: 3556: 3554:on June 11. 3537: 3489: 3419: 3356: 3320: 3271: 3230: 3172: 3158: 3111: 3082: 3020: 3017: 2943: 2941: 2930: 2916: 2911: 2910: 2888: 2861: 2857: 2847: 2841: 2835: 2811: 2781: 2766: 2749: 2732: 2713: 2707: 2689: 2641: 2635: 2619: 2600: 2595: 2564: 2557: 2509: 2505: 2501: 2499: 2494: 2492: 2483: 2464: 2314: 2310: 2284: 2262: 2251: 2235: 2231: 2226: 2152: 2030: 1940: 1936: 1897: 1839:). --sasha ( 1713: 1687: 1666: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1608: 1508: 1439: 1434: 1411: 1406: 1397: 1339: 1284: 1279: 1256: 1255: 1187: 1122: 1067: 1045: 1037: 1012: 1008: 1003: 999: 984:StudiesWorld 946:StudiesWorld 919: 914: 910: 880:FeydHuxtable 854:Superprotect 814: 765: 759: 749:help confirm 748: 744: 739: 735: 721:TonyBallioni 707:Juliancolton 704: 671: 520:CoffeeCrumbs 503: 488:StudiesWorld 469:CoffeeCrumbs 448: 433:StudiesWorld 417:StudiesWorld 394: 383: 379: 326: 321: 305: 255: 250: 227:Juliancolton 224: 211: 206: 202: 198: 177: 135: 106: 78: 43: 37: 6641:Jimbo Wales 6632:a week ago: 6470:Jimbo Wales 6162:Lepricavark 5938:Jonathunder 5904:Nick Thorne 5595:EllsworthSK 5550:Tous public 5308:Lepricavark 5245:Lepricavark 5216:Lepricavark 5201:Lepricavark 5101:claim that 4788:Nick Thorne 4644:Ron Barassi 4347:EllsworthSK 4299:Nosebagbear 4264:Nosebagbear 4249:Nosebagbear 4033:doublespeak 4015:Nosebagbear 3505:Doug Weller 3452:Nosebagbear 3400:Nosebagbear 3112:Don't do it 2625:Nosebagbear 2582:Nosebagbear 2566:talk to me! 2513:Nosebagbear 2469:Nosebagbear 2031:on the wiki 1825:Jimbo Wales 1688:Nick Thorne 779:simply thx 670:You wrote: 650:S Philbrick 633:Floquenbeam 619:Nosebagbear 367:, and even 271:disaster.-- 114:Mautpreller 36:This is an 6597:2014-06-14 6576:2014-06-14 6555:2014-06-14 5771:harassment 5175:Black Kite 4569:Tryptofish 4436:* Pppery * 4422:Tazerdadog 4216:Rschen7754 4173:Rschen7754 3958:Carcharoth 3935:Black Kite 3779:? That is 3697:Tazerdadog 3681:Discussion 3640:References 3500:User:RexxS 3498:Thanks to 3466:Shearonink 3054:Tazerdadog 2950:Start here 2818:Javert2113 2754:Abequinn14 2535:* Pppery * 1975:Tazerdadog 1869:Tazerdadog 1841:krassotkin 1803:krassotkin 1605:standards. 1435:should not 1229:Javert2113 1205:Ivanvector 1095:DuncanHill 960:Sir Joseph 834:Tryptofish 796:Tryptofish 755:end result 596:* Pppery * 559:Carcharoth 348:Ivanvector 241:Sir Joseph 95:Archive 10 6942:Guettarda 6912:Ajraddatz 6890:Ajraddatz 6860:Ajraddatz 6721:Ajraddatz 6491:dissolves 6474:vandalism 6297:Simonm223 6262:Simonm223 6248:Simonm223 6233:Simonm223 6006:Nil Einne 5924:Yair rand 5848:Moved to 5743:universal 5529:. Should 4879:plausible 4854:Barkeep49 4717:Nishidani 4673:Nishidani 3988:Doc James 3952:As I say 3868:Ymblanter 3855:Ymblanter 3717:Doc James 3691:Doc James 3687:target. 3557:At 02:32 3520:Ymblanter 3420:Doc James 3394:Doc James 3205:Barkeep49 3190:Barkeep49 3155:Barkeep49 3142:Barkeep49 2864:Anarchyte 2695:Blackmane 2663:Ajraddatz 2558:Rockstone 2435:this idea 2315:feel like 2254:Does the 2113:Barkeep49 1937:in camera 1821:Doc James 1650:Nil Einne 1412:vis-a-vis 1401:happened. 1333:Cas Liber 1169:Guettarda 1141:Guettarda 1039:The Trial 288:Ymblanter 273:Ymblanter 144:To quote 103:RfC draft 90:Archive 9 85:Archive 8 79:Archive 7 73:Archive 6 68:Archive 5 60:Archive 1 6897:Pgallert 6766:starship 6704:Aschmidt 6667:and the 6617:Aschmidt 6487:clemency 6283:Chequers 6177:Gamaliel 6120:Gamaliel 6074:Gamaliel 6062:Chequers 6026:Gamaliel 5555:Headbomb 5419:SchroCat 5391:Headbomb 5368:Headbomb 5341:Headbomb 5124:Headbomb 5067:Headbomb 5040:Headbomb 4744:WP:CIVIL 4626:RoySmith 4551:intended 4497:The Land 4474:The Land 4324:rdfox 76 4076:Claude J 4057:Claude J 3727:contribs 3667:June 12, 3593:FloNight 3430:contribs 3373:Oct 2018 3369:Aug 2018 3365:Jan 2018 2893:SchroCat 2803:contribs 2636:readers' 2431:SilkTork 2382:Headbomb 2348:Headbomb 2320:Headbomb 2171:SilkTork 2053:SilkTork 2027:SilkTork 2006:SilkTork 1968:SilkTork 1946:SchroCat 1933:SilkTork 1905:SilkTork 1854:SilkTork 1837:antanana 1829:Raystorm 1732:rdfox 76 1600:Croatian 1596:Georgian 1417:Rutebega 1343:contribs 1080:Bishonen 1048:nableezy 1009:supplant 895:Sänger ♫ 588:SchroCat 318:the link 306:Jprg1966 164:Mr Ernie 6875:EllenCT 6845:EllenCT 6787:Wehwalt 6754:Wehwalt 6739:Wehwalt 6677:EllenCT 6528:Sources 6206:WaltCip 5646:bonadea 5546:rated R 4750:bonadea 4604:bonadea 4451:bonadea 4035:there: 3823:Bonadea 3806:bonadea 3787:bonadea 3760:wbm1058 3657:UW News 2912:Sunrise 2822:Siarad. 2677:Wehwalt 2238:llywrch 2138:llywrch 1813:Schiste 1759:Magiers 1571:EllenCT 1529:King of 1475:King of 1233:Siarad. 1188:may not 760:minimum 323:handle. 203:WHAT??? 150:Dumuzid 39:archive 6771:.paint 4629:(talk) 4532:Jheald 4121:Enigma 3939:MLauba 3876:it ;-) 3573:Jheald 3338:isaacl 3312:Isaacl 3299:isaacl 3295:places 2889:Oppose 2858:Oppose 2842:Cullen 2836:Oppose 2791:python 2767:Oppose 2750:Oppose 2733:Oppose 2708:Oppose 2690:Oppose 2500:Thus: 2440:Pundit 2379:you. 1817:Pundit 1398:should 1354:Huldra 1222:WP:IRL 655:(Talk) 365:admins 332:Jheald 136:Enigma 6426:v^_^v 6279:Spiel 6260:Dear 6058:Spiel 5976:v^_^v 4585:never 4509:Also 3954:above 3747:& 3731:email 3434:email 3292:usual 3270:). -- 3236:v^_^v 3025:RexxS 2794:coder 2647:v^_^v 2606:v^_^v 2463:Self 2446:utter 2410:Buffs 2359:Buffs 2305:Buffs 2290:Buffs 2203:Pudeo 1979:RexxS 1811:FYI: 1774:Capeo 1700:Capeo 1514:v^_^v 1445:v^_^v 1290:v^_^v 1210:Edits 942:RexxS 925:RexxS 820:v^_^v 781:-jkb- 771:v^_^v 584:Pudeo 509:v^_^v 353:Edits 16:< 6946:talk 6916:talk 6901:talk 6879:talk 6864:talk 6849:talk 6803:qedk 6791:talk 6776:talk 6743:talk 6725:talk 6708:talk 6681:talk 6671:and 6645:talk 6630:And 6621:talk 6512:Talk 6495:i.e. 6441:talk 6409:talk 6380:talk 6301:talk 6274:Ϣere 6252:talk 6237:talk 6222:and 6220:them 6210:talk 6200:See 6184:talk 6166:talk 6127:talk 6081:talk 6053:Ϣere 6033:talk 6010:talk 5942:talk 5928:talk 5922:. -- 5918:and 5887:talk 5865:Talk 5798:talk 5780:talk 5760:talk 5750:and 5714:talk 5699:talk 5672:talk 5654:talk 5599:talk 5531:this 5523:very 5511:talk 5471:talk 5423:talk 5376:talk 5319:talk 5249:talk 5227:talk 5205:talk 5183:talk 5116:some 5075:talk 5006:talk 4991:talk 4973:talk 4958:talk 4936:talk 4921:talk 4888:talk 4858:talk 4843:talk 4774:talk 4758:talk 4721:talk 4698:talk 4677:talk 4622:this 4612:talk 4573:talk 4536:talk 4501:talk 4478:talk 4459:talk 4426:talk 4390:talk 4368:talk 4351:talk 4328:talk 4303:talk 4268:talk 4253:talk 4224:talk 4202:7754 4199:chen 4162:7754 4159:chen 4145:7754 4142:chen 4106:talk 4087:talk 4061:talk 4019:talk 3977:talk 3962:talk 3919:very 3859:talk 3831:only 3814:talk 3795:talk 3781:very 3764:talk 3749:Evo) 3741:here 3723:talk 3701:talk 3669:2019 3630:talk 3577:talk 3544:here 3540:here 3524:talk 3509:talk 3470:talk 3456:talk 3426:talk 3404:talk 3381:talk 3342:talk 3303:talk 3279:7754 3276:chen 3194:talk 3146:talk 3131:talk 3102:talk 3072:talk 3058:talk 3044:talk 3029:talk 2919:talk 2897:talk 2877:work 2871:talk 2799:talk 2758:talk 2741:talk 2715:Ched 2699:talk 2681:talk 2667:talk 2629:talk 2620:does 2586:talk 2517:talk 2495:more 2473:talk 2465:SNOW 2414:talk 2377:outs 2363:talk 2294:talk 2260:Tera 2242:talk 2207:talk 2175:talk 2160:7754 2157:chen 2142:talk 2117:talk 2102:talk 2071:talk 2057:talk 2010:talk 1983:talk 1950:talk 1941:must 1909:talk 1873:talk 1858:talk 1778:talk 1763:talk 1736:talk 1721:7754 1718:chen 1704:talk 1674:7754 1671:chen 1654:talk 1616:7754 1613:chen 1575:talk 1423:talk 1358:talk 1337:talk 1309:talk 1266:talk 1173:talk 1159:talk 1145:talk 1113:talk 1099:talk 1084:talk 1021:talk 988:talk 973:talk 950:talk 929:talk 884:talk 862:talk 838:talk 800:talk 785:talk 753:The 725:talk 637:talk 623:talk 592:1989 580:× 2) 563:talk 524:talk 492:talk 473:talk 449:Talk 421:talk 395:Talk 380:some 336:talk 292:talk 277:talk 221:EEng 168:talk 154:talk 118:talk 6397:but 6366:Yes 6342:Yes 6231:!" 6204:.-- 6144:WBG 6106:WBG 5859:MJL 5822:); 5544:is 5162:did 5112:any 5103:was 5099:one 5095:all 5090:lot 4805:WBG 4530:-- 4319:not 4241:add 4182:WBG 4116:not 4098:all 4039:... 3991:or 3896:WBG 3883:but 3840:WBG 3377:Mz7 3321:WBG 3289:the 3228:. — 3173:WBG 3159:but 2726:— 2311:was 2264:tix 2227:all 1795:Jan 1602:)? 1017:Wnt 694:🖋 590:or 540:Jan 443:MJL 413:MJL 389:MJL 327:not 256:Eng 212:Eng 188:Why 178:and 6948:) 6918:) 6903:) 6881:) 6866:) 6851:) 6812:桜 6793:) 6762:) 6745:) 6727:) 6710:) 6683:) 6647:) 6623:) 6517:📧 6443:) 6411:) 6405:Fæ 6382:) 6360:No 6354:No 6348:No 6303:) 6254:) 6239:) 6212:) 6168:) 6099:. 6012:) 5959:iz 5944:) 5930:) 5889:) 5826:; 5800:) 5782:) 5762:) 5716:) 5701:) 5674:) 5601:) 5569:· 5565:· 5561:· 5513:) 5473:) 5425:) 5405:· 5401:· 5397:· 5378:) 5355:· 5351:· 5347:· 5321:) 5251:) 5229:) 5207:) 5185:) 5138:· 5134:· 5130:· 5077:) 5054:· 5050:· 5046:· 5008:) 4993:) 4975:) 4960:) 4938:) 4923:) 4890:) 4860:) 4845:) 4776:) 4723:) 4700:) 4679:) 4575:) 4567:-- 4538:) 4503:) 4480:) 4428:) 4392:) 4370:) 4353:) 4330:) 4305:) 4270:) 4255:) 4226:) 4196:Rs 4156:Rs 4139:Rs 4108:) 4089:) 4063:) 4021:) 4011:If 3979:) 3964:) 3887:or 3861:) 3827:no 3766:) 3743:. 3733:) 3729:· 3725:· 3703:) 3659:. 3655:. 3632:) 3579:) 3542:, 3526:) 3472:) 3458:) 3436:) 3432:· 3428:· 3406:) 3383:) 3375:. 3371:, 3367:, 3344:) 3305:) 3297:. 3273:Rs 3215:-- 3196:) 3148:) 3133:) 3114:. 3104:) 3085:. 3074:) 3060:) 3046:) 3031:) 2899:) 2874:| 2805:) 2801:| 2784:. 2760:) 2743:) 2721:? 2718:: 2701:) 2683:) 2669:) 2631:) 2519:) 2475:) 2416:) 2396:· 2392:· 2388:· 2365:) 2334:· 2330:· 2326:· 2296:) 2244:) 2209:) 2177:) 2154:Rs 2144:) 2119:) 2104:) 2098:Fæ 2073:) 2067:Fæ 2059:) 2012:) 1985:) 1952:) 1944:- 1911:) 1875:) 1860:) 1843:) 1831:, 1827:, 1823:, 1819:, 1815:, 1805:) 1780:) 1765:) 1738:) 1715:Rs 1706:) 1668:Rs 1656:) 1610:Rs 1598:, 1577:) 1546:♠ 1492:♠ 1426:) 1407:We 1360:) 1345:) 1311:) 1280:is 1268:) 1213:) 1207:(/ 1175:) 1161:) 1147:) 1139:. 1137:}} 1134:cn 1131:{{ 1115:) 1101:) 1082:| 1052:- 1023:) 990:) 975:) 952:) 931:) 886:) 864:) 840:) 802:) 787:) 727:) 711:| 689:Mr 639:) 625:) 586:, 565:) 526:) 494:) 475:) 423:) 375:to 356:) 350:(/ 338:) 294:) 279:) 231:| 201:– 183:So 170:) 156:) 120:) 112:. 64:← 6944:( 6914:( 6899:( 6892:: 6888:@ 6877:( 6862:( 6847:( 6818:) 6815:c 6809:t 6806:( 6789:( 6778:) 6774:( 6756:: 6752:@ 6741:( 6723:( 6706:( 6679:( 6643:( 6619:( 6600:. 6579:. 6558:. 6439:( 6407:( 6378:( 6332:: 6299:( 6250:( 6235:( 6208:( 6187:) 6181:( 6164:( 6140:∯ 6130:) 6124:( 6102:∯ 6084:) 6078:( 6036:) 6030:( 6008:( 5968:— 5956:L 5940:( 5926:( 5885:( 5867:‐ 5863:‐ 5855:– 5818:( 5796:( 5778:( 5758:( 5712:( 5697:( 5690:: 5686:@ 5670:( 5614:: 5610:@ 5597:( 5573:} 5571:b 5567:p 5563:c 5559:t 5557:{ 5509:( 5469:( 5421:( 5409:} 5407:b 5403:p 5399:c 5395:t 5393:{ 5374:( 5359:} 5357:b 5353:p 5349:c 5345:t 5343:{ 5332:: 5328:@ 5317:( 5310:: 5306:@ 5247:( 5240:: 5236:@ 5225:( 5218:: 5214:@ 5203:( 5181:( 5142:} 5140:b 5136:p 5132:c 5128:t 5126:{ 5073:( 5058:} 5056:b 5052:p 5048:c 5044:t 5042:{ 5023:: 5019:@ 5004:( 4989:( 4971:( 4956:( 4949:) 4945:( 4934:( 4919:( 4886:( 4856:( 4841:( 4801:∯ 4772:( 4719:( 4715:. 4696:( 4675:( 4654:. 4571:( 4534:( 4519:) 4515:( 4499:( 4476:( 4424:( 4388:( 4366:( 4349:( 4326:( 4301:( 4266:( 4251:( 4237:: 4233:@ 4222:( 4178:∯ 4104:( 4085:( 4078:: 4074:@ 4059:( 4017:( 3975:( 3960:( 3892:∯ 3857:( 3836:∯ 3762:( 3721:( 3699:( 3693:: 3689:@ 3671:. 3628:( 3575:( 3522:( 3468:( 3454:( 3424:( 3402:( 3396:: 3392:@ 3379:( 3340:( 3317:∯ 3301:( 3207:: 3203:@ 3192:( 3169:∯ 3144:( 3129:( 3100:( 3070:( 3056:( 3042:( 3027:( 2996:. 2921:) 2917:( 2895:( 2880:) 2868:( 2828:) 2826:¤ 2824:| 2820:( 2816:— 2797:( 2788:— 2756:( 2739:( 2697:( 2679:( 2665:( 2639:— 2627:( 2588:) 2584:( 2515:( 2471:( 2443:| 2412:( 2400:} 2398:b 2394:p 2390:c 2386:t 2384:{ 2361:( 2350:: 2346:@ 2338:} 2336:b 2332:p 2328:c 2324:t 2322:{ 2307:: 2303:@ 2292:( 2282:: 2278:@ 2268:₵ 2240:( 2222:: 2218:@ 2205:( 2194:: 2190:@ 2173:( 2140:( 2115:( 2100:( 2069:( 2055:( 2008:( 1981:( 1970:: 1966:@ 1963:) 1959:( 1948:( 1907:( 1871:( 1856:( 1835:( 1776:( 1761:( 1734:( 1702:( 1652:( 1588:: 1584:@ 1573:( 1565:: 1561:@ 1543:♣ 1538:♦ 1533:♥ 1489:♣ 1484:♦ 1479:♥ 1420:( 1356:( 1340:· 1335:( 1328:: 1324:@ 1307:( 1264:( 1251:: 1247:@ 1239:) 1237:¤ 1235:| 1231:( 1227:— 1171:( 1157:( 1143:( 1111:( 1097:( 1089:. 1064:: 1060:@ 1019:( 986:( 971:( 948:( 927:( 907:: 903:@ 882:( 860:( 836:( 798:( 783:( 723:( 692:X 668:: 664:@ 635:( 621:( 615:: 611:@ 576:( 561:( 522:( 501:— 490:( 471:( 451:‐ 447:‐ 435:: 431:@ 419:( 397:‐ 393:‐ 385:– 334:( 290:( 275:( 251:E 207:E 166:( 152:( 116:( 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 7 - Knowledge

Index