Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 14

End of community consultation on temporary and partial office bans
The Community consultation has ended, and T&S posted their conclusion to the talk page:

In short, the actions that led to this crisis are not going to be repeated, and the Trust and Safety team has recognized its role in dealing with "legal issues, threats of violence, cross-wiki abuse, [and] child protection issues". Looks good. It seems that the situation has come to an end. --Yair rand (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * First, the whole point of bullets is that they are not numbered. Secondly, In line with the consultation’s feedback, these policy tools will not be reintroduced to the office action policy until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive. What? Thirdly, we didn't need a consultation to know T&S wouldn't dare a repeat. Nothing else seems to have changed.  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 17:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I, on the other hand, do not think at all that this outcome was inevitable. And I'm happy to see it: a refreshing example of WMF actually taking community feedback seriously. It seems to me that this statement is a reasonable one, and probably about the best that could be realistically expected. Now, the question will be whether or not they actually follow through on what they promise. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This was never about partial and temporary office actions, despite what T&S would have you believe. T&S used partial and temporary office actions as a stalking horse for their recent objectionable behavior. (Stalking horse: A thing that is used to conceal someone's real intentions. Originally referred to a screen made in the shape of a horse behind which a hunter stays concealed when stalking prey.)


 * If T&S completely stops all use of partial and temporary office actions but continues the recent objectionable behavior using the same office action policy that has pretty much been around forever, the shit will hit the fan again and the board will end up telling T&S to consult with the community again.


 * If T&S decides to go back to doing things they way they did them before -- the way that nobody had a problem with -- everyone will be happy whether or not they retain the ability to perform partial and temporary office actions. It would just be another tool used to do what we hired them to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What Guy Macon said. While all this has been going on, the self-same T&S people have been working and continue to work on drafting a "universal code of conduct" to be imposed on us by and enforced by themselves. This whole sorry saga was just a misfired opening salvo in T&S's power-grab over English Wikipedia's governance (and the governance of the other big largely autonomous wikis like de-wiki and Commons), not the end of it. &#8209; Iridescent 16:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * From meta:Talk:Universal Code of Conduct:
 * "If nearly 50 editors randomly come across a proposal to ban the WMF from doing something, and every single one of them supports preventing the WMF from doing that thing, the WMF should probably not do that thing. If you try to push for it anyways, we will have a crisis on our hands, and anyone trying to do any productive work will despair as we yet again need hundreds of volunteers to try to stop the WMF from causing yet another catastrophe." --Yair rand, posted 17:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I fear that we are heading to another huge time-wasting fight once again. The only solution will be a message from upper management: "Do that again and you are fired." --Guy Macon (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In a true only-on-Wikipedia moment, the only person on that thread to support the imposition of a code of conduct is now indefinitely blocked for repeated violations of our (existing) conduct policies. Sometimes this place is beyond parody. &#8209; Iridescent 17:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless you're the Evelyn Waugh of Scoop or Put Out More Flags -- I think he would have been able to deal with it. Hayford Peirce (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on what look like replies to me, I'd like to clarify what I said. I agree with other editors that there are serious problems that go beyond temporary and partial bans, and I did not mean to imply otherwise. But I disagree that such bans were never in any way part of the problem. Even though I agree that they were, to some extent, a stalking horse for deeper problems, they were also, nonetheless, significant problems in their own right. If others want to see this as a glass half (or more) empty, that's ok, but I see it as a glass that is half (more or less) full. And I think we can all agree that it matters a lot what happens going forward, as I already said above. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless you're the Evelyn Waugh of Scoop or Put Out More Flags -- I think he would have been able to deal with it. Hayford Peirce (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on what look like replies to me, I'd like to clarify what I said. I agree with other editors that there are serious problems that go beyond temporary and partial bans, and I did not mean to imply otherwise. But I disagree that such bans were never in any way part of the problem. Even though I agree that they were, to some extent, a stalking horse for deeper problems, they were also, nonetheless, significant problems in their own right. If others want to see this as a glass half (or more) empty, that's ok, but I see it as a glass that is half (more or less) full. And I think we can all agree that it matters a lot what happens going forward, as I already said above. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not see this as indicative of a conclusion that Office does not have a right to implement and enforce rules without notice to, let alone consultation, of the volunteer corp of a wiki project - outside of its legal remit and obligations. It is an acknowledgement that Office created more disruption to the project than the issue which it was trying to address in the manner in which it bypassed the community in the first instance and then its initial response to the reaction, and the difficulty in equating their requirements of anonymity to that of the open wiki method of dispute resolution. Unfortunately, it is only in this particular instance of limited (within a project space) action against individuals for behaviours allegedly within that space. There is no apparent conclusion that imposing Office decisions into and onto project space without reference to the project participants should be discarded. That I find troubling. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)