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

Community response to WMF
OK, I said further up that I wanted to wait a few days to hear from Fram before going bonkers. 17 minutes later, we heard from Fram. Is it time to go bonkers?

Support response to WMF (1st proposal)

 * 1) The block of Fram was ridiculous micromanagement by the WMF, and Fram wasn't even that noisy a WMF or Arbcom critic (I'm sure everyone here can think of noisier ones). I'm not an admin so don't want to sound like "let's you and him fight".  But the strongest response I can think of offhand would be an admin general strike (let the WMF handle its own vandalism and BLP reversions, or shut off editing) until Fram is unblocked and resysopped. Something like that should only be done if there is considerable solidarity among the active admins.  They should communicate with each other (probably off-wiki though it couldn't really be private) before deciding.  Lesser actions are also possible (suggest your own).  As a resolution I'd be fine with the WMF referring the matter to the en.wp arbcom, which I think would respond with an appropriate "sheesh" and do nothing. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Silencing criticism in such an obscure way is not acceptable --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Fram can be abusive, hostile, a pain, but existing WP policy is sufficient to ensure that we separate harassment from robust discussion. If the WMF believes Arbcom is incompetent, or policy is not being implemented properly, then that is something to raise openly, where the evidence can help improve the culture and norms. This action should be handled from here on by Arbcom, where Fram can follow the appeals process. --Fæ (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) What Fæ said. If an editor is causing problems, we have mechanisms either to deal with the problem or to decide that the problem isn't actionable; we don't need the WMF sending in secret death squads to eliminate editors against whom they've taken a dislike, simply because they don't trust our own processes to come to their preferred verdict. Consider this a complete vote of no confidence. &#8209; Iridescent 08:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Iridescent, this is a vote of no confidence. Yes, I know this will put me on the WMF's hit list. No, I do not care. Reyk YO! 09:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Fae and Iridescent.  &#x222F; WBG converse 09:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) First they came ...; per all the above. (Block all WMF accounts for a period as a minimum - anything 10 minutes to a match of Fram's block), just to kick things off. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Yes. The community needs to make it overwhelmingly clear to the Foundation folks that actions like this are not welcome here and won't be tolerated. If they won't repeal that ban, and do it quickly, heads must role at the office. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) We have long-established processes in place. We don't need or want WMF office actions for anything other than serious legal / safeguarding issues.  A faceless, anonymous WMF account with no accountability, no intention of explaining themselves, and no competence or experience deciding s/he knows better than the entire en.wiki community, deciding our norms for us, and flinging around blocks is not what we signed up to. WMF, if you don't trust the en.wiki admin corps, the en.wiki bureaucrat team, and the en.wiki arbitration committee to manage our own house, feel free to go right ahead and look after it yourselves.  Block your own vandals, protect your own pages, why should we do it for you if there's no trust?  Fish +Karate  09:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 10) Consider my comment a vote of no confidence in the WMF. This was a sanction in search of a reason, and when none could be found, the WMF hid behind Trust & Safety. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 11) Overturn as a gross abuse of wmf t&s oversight. I'll have more words later, but this unilateral ban for criticizing ARBCOM is completely unwarranted.&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Expanded version: I don't support strikes, letting vandalism in, or anything that would jeopardize our core mission. Plus, if this was the brainfart of a couple of well-meaning but over-reaching people in the ass end of a basement in the WMF, we should at least wait until the higher ups at the WMF respond. Yeah the T&S team fucked up (and I find the 'deep state' silence-the-critic accusations to be too out there and unsubstantiated to be believable at this point). But if this is resolved in say 1 week, or at the WMF meeting, let's not shoot ourselves in the foot by having to undo 7 days of unchecked vandalism. If vandalism/vandals are allowed, what pressure does that put on the WMF? Very little, if any. BLP lawsuits? Let's not forget that the real victims would be the subject of the biographies, not the WMF. If the WMF fails to properly respond? You want to take an action that puts actual pressure on the WMF? Then block all WMF accounts from enwiki. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is indeed precisely what I meant above, and it is clearly not ok. I do think there are issues (or more precisely there were issues a year ago), but they must have been handled via existing on-wiki processes.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC) I still think like this, but the header has been changed in the meanwhile, and I can not support the new header. --Ymblanter (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per Mr Ernie. WMF have made a huge error of judgement, people should lose their positions over this, and Fram should be restored to the community. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) I also agree with Fæ and Iridescent. I'm certainly not Fram's biggest fan but we do have processes here to deal with actual problems and it does not look as this was attempted and failed. That said, I do generally see a problem with WP:UNBLOCKABLES being able to evade scrutiny and in these cases an intervention from the Foundation might actually be helpful if local processes failed. I just don't see that this was the case here although I am open to be persuaded iff the WMF actually explains their actions. Regards  So  Why  09:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) I support any of the following "community responses" in order of decreasing severity: 1) a ban or block of WMFOffice, 2) a TBAN to WMFOffice from enacting blocks, bans, desysops etc except where legality supersedes community desire and/or 3) a general admin and editor strike. Consider this a vote of no-confidence with sanctions attached. (Oh yes, noting Headbomb's vote I'm also up for a very bold overturn of the office sanctions if that's the way we want to play it). Mr rnddude (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Overturn the ban, and start seriously discussing methods to ban Foundation-controlled accounts support MER-C's discretionary sanctions suggestion in instances of hideous overreach like this. This is not just beyond the pale, it's something that any other admin would lose his tools and very likely his editing rights over given how grossly disproportionate this is. —A little blue Bori v^_^v  Bori! 09:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Mr Ernie - this is an excuse to push through unwanted software changes when they can't even get the basics right. This decision should have been referred to Arbcom. Put all WMF staff under discretionary sanctions while we're at it. FYI: Community action against the WMF is not unprecedented - we nearly had to resort to using the abuse filter to implement WP:ACTRIAL (see Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC/The DGG discussion and Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC/Archive 1. MER-C 09:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting point. "Structured data"?  "AI-generated content"?  The WMF has a serious conflict of interest with the supposed goal of writing an encyclopedia.  But, I don't think that was the motivation for the immediate incident.  It seems more like a facepalm-worthy attempt at living the wokeness currently fashionable in the internet platform management world.  67.164.113.165 (talk) 09:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Per Mr Ernie and Iridescent. While Fram might be a "love him or hate him" character, they most certainly do not deserve such underhanded action. And the WMFs attempt at censorship is akin to an online dictatorship.   Cassianto Talk  09:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Support withdrawal of service. Until this is overturned, the WMF can do my admin job too, because I won't. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, an admin/functionary strike might help - or it might backfire horribly. I'm doubtful it'd be ignored, though. —A little blue Bori v^_^v  Bori! 09:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The only thing which would help is a blackout for a visible period of time.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't see any backfire that could possibly affect me. As I say in the section below, I will not work as an admin under the control of an unaccountable civility police - and if that is not rectified, I don't want to be an admin here anyway. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - I'm not really following this monster thread any more, but follow whatever action (such as striking) my fellow editors/admins agree upon. I'm not a scab! GiantSnowman 10:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - if people go for this then I'm in. I too am appalled by what's happened and happy to go with whatever consensus is reached. Another possible idea is to replace the main page with a banner of some sort. We could do that as a community couldn't we? &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, if we have a consensus to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would oppose doing anything destructive to the encyclopedia itself - I simply support the withdrawal of admin labour. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Admins going on strike is ipso facto destructive to the encyclopedia because it will give vandals the temporary ability to make hay. That action, although likely to make the WMF take notice, is actually a lot worse than turning off the main page would be, since it would affect our readers and the accuracy of what they read without their necessarily being aware that then are being affected. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The distinction I'm trying to make is between any of us actively doing anything destructive, and passively not doing anything to stop destruction. And I think that's an important distinction. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It is necessary to make it clear that we work here as volunteers and can withdraw our free labour as and when we choose. This is a message that some people at WMF apparently do not choose to hear. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 11:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Support general strike as described. Just halting Main Page processes like TFA, ITN, DYK, and OTD is going to make SanFran uncomfortable. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 10:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It'll take some balls, but that's a great idea. Let's just delete tomorrow's TFA, DYK, OTD, ITN, TFP.  The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, we shouldn't actively break things, just passively not do them any more until this is resolved. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I propose that we let the stale TFA, DYKs et al remain. No need to actively blank stuff.
 * And, along with that, cease using editorial/admin tools. If the WMF can micromanage to such extents, they can certainly write the encyclopedia and maintain it. &#x222F; WBG converse 10:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's not be actively disruptive - just passive. Non-violent civil disobedience. GiantSnowman 10:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, that. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Vote of no confidence, blocking all WMF usernames not associated with a specified person, and a general "down admin tools" until this has been reversed. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 11:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Support vote of no confidence. I will participate in any non-destructve measures to drive home the community's rejection of this gross overstep.  Tide  rolls  11:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Support CBAN per CIR. I believe there should be a measured and proportionate community response to this, so obviously we should hand out 1 year unappealable bans like candy. The OFFICE ban is ridiculous, and so is the form letter statement. At least put together a half-assed explanation when banning people, if a full-assed one is too hard. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Go bonkers. Per Fae & my longer comments above. . T&S should not supplant Arbcom and community processes except in the most extreme circumstances -- which these do not appear to have been. Jheald (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) * Pppery * it has begun...  11:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, per the above. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 12:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) I agree with many above that, based on the information provided here so far, this action by the WMF Office appears irresponsible and unjustified. I support the community overturning it, to the extent possible under applicable policy, and pending a better explanation by the WMF Office.   Sandstein   13:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Support anything that doesn't damage the encyclopedia. — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 13:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - I'm a non-admin, and even I think that something needs to be done, if nothing else to at least get the WMF's attention.--WaltCip (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - I'm out for now. - Sitush (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Just like the people in Hong Kong knew what was coming a long time, we knew what was coming the minute they started locking accounts at all. But now that it's here and they're directly making their move to take over, we still might as well protest like those million people on the front page.  We accumulated a lot of content and a lot of money and now a certain class of Better Than Us is here to take it all for themselves so they can continue to be Better Than Us. Wnt (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 12) Support at a minimum, we need to strongly consider banning LauraHale for her the grotesque and unconscionable overreach that resulted in an IBan, evidently at her behest. And yes, I'm quite comfortable taking Fram's word against the WMF's word. Why? Because Fram is the one who cares about and contributes to this community. Lepricavark (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reason to suppose it was her behind this? Two edits pertaining to her were used to explain the initial 'warning', but I don't want to infer too much from that.  If we lash out at a bystander carelessly, we'll take a beating for it. Wnt (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've revised my statement slightly, but suffice it to say the initial warning was extremely shady. Going back several months and handing out an IBan for two edits that weren't even inappropriate? Unbelievable. And I doubt that she had nothing to do with it. Lepricavark (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Note that this is not exclusive to my support of other options. rdfox 76 (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Support If "going bonkers" means strong, escalating responses to the WMF action - which has not been satisfactorily explained to the community - based on the continuing evolution of the situation, then yes, indeed, the community needs to "go bonkers" to adequately express its displeasure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Going bonkers, on strike, cancelling TFA etc whatever. Fuck the WMF, it's clearly starting to become incompetent to run the projects. They have little to no care about situations that clearly need their involvement (Croatian and Azerbaijan Wikipedia) but for some reason is happy to suddenly ban an admin while revoking talk and email for stuff that should be dealt here. Also block the WMFOffice account as a violation of the username policy. CoolSkittle  (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Support: There's a cancer at the heart of the Wikipedia establishment, and this is yet another example of it. That the Office have gone over the heads of the entire community to ban Fram for "civility" issues which wouldn't even result in a slap on the wrist from AN/I is unconscionable and we shouldn't have any part in it. Sceptre (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - The WMFs blocking and response above is all but bullshit and I would 100% support any strike that happens, If it's true Fram was blocked due to that last diff then well my respect for the WMF is nothing ... pretty much like their statement really. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Support walkout per B!sZ, who said everything I wanted to without the WTF sputtering. When I think of all the time I've spent helping to shore up Jimbo's pet project, I feel like a damn fool.  Mini  apolis  00:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) Support going bonkers. 04:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - think it was excessive and opaque.  starship .paint  (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - this is a vote of no confidence, not an endorsement of vandalism. Tazerdadog (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Even though I've been quite active here on Wikipedia, this whole drama somehow slipped by me. However, when I saw it at WP:AN, I was rather flabbergasted. The Wikimedia Foundation should not be micromanaging individual Wikis; and this type of unacceptable behavior has occurred in the past. I have no confidence in the WMF going forward. Rockstone   talk to me!   07:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Given that we have yet to get a straight answer to the simplest of questions from either T&S or the WMF board. I am supporting all options that oppose the WMF's totalitarianism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Given that we have yet to get a straight answer to the simplest of questions from either T&S or the WMF board. I am supporting all options that oppose the WMF's totalitarianism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose response to WMF (1st proposal)

 * 1) "Go bonkers" isn't really specific enough for me to be able to support. I do not support many of the escalation paths listed in the support section, such as beginning to block WMF-related accounts. It'd be nice to hear a more specific proposal. --Deskana (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose anything more than a passive "down tools" action right now. No WMF blocks, bans, or anything like that, as that is over-reaction at this stage. Jimmy is apparently looking at it, Doc James suggests the board will look at it, ArbCom is apparently seeking clarification. So let's keep our heads cool and not go dramatically overboard until we see how that all turns out, huh? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) More or less per Boing! said Zebedee in this section. Let's wait for inquiries to produce anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I'm particularly concerned about any attempts to make this a "you're either with us or against us" type situation with comments about scabs etc. If individual editors (including admins) want to stop editing here (including taking admin action) they're completely welcome to. But it would be incredibly harmful to everyone if we try and force others to act in a certain way. I'm likewise obviously completely oppose to any active attempt to harm wikipedia like deleting elements of the main page. (To be clear, blocking WMF accounts doesn't fall into that category since the WMF can ultimately override those if needed although I am opposed to it as it's something which just seems silly.) See also my oppose to the other proposal. Nil Einne (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - I don't see how this is going to help. Our responsibility is towards the encyclopedia, and us downing tools as our first counter-step is insanely counter-productive. Let's let the community reps on the Board have a go (they meet on the 14th June) and give us a thumb up/down on whether it was reasonable (even if excoriatingly badly handled). Nosebagbear (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. "Go bonkers" is not something that will plausibly help defuse the situation or result in any other positive outcome - whatever your view about Fram or the WMF. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , have you missed a "not" from this? - SchroCat (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I did indeed, now fixed. I went through about three different ways of phrasing this before clicking save - seems I didn't update everything! Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) 'going bonkers' can rarely count on my support and I support the statement by Zebedee above. I do however find this entire page plenty evidence as to why people would feel safer turning to T&S than to the community when it concerns Fram's behavior. I've long stated that I think the community is not upholding it's own rules when it comes to certain people; That I can barely support our current core community as it is and regularly consider leaving it (it's a tough battle between the mission I care for and getting rid of negative influences in my life, which i consider this community to be). I'm also first to admit that Fram gets considerably less consideration from me. Fram's behavior towards volunteers and staff was a big part of why I turned in my sysop tools for 2,5 years. While I've seen progress by Fram over the last few years, it is far from perfect. As such none of this surprises me very much. I also note that only T&S is likely aware of employee complaints about editors. I'm not sure that was into play here, but the communication does seem to imply some history (unsurprisingly). I fully support the Foundation in providing a safe and sane atmosphere for their emmployees to work in. If you don't, then please stop using this website and start running your own and hiring people yourself that you are responsible for. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 12:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Translation:- I developed severely shitty products during my tenure with WMF and plan to do so; Fram did not like it and criticized me. But obviously, we are above criticism. Incompetency is a virtue in WMF and we are a bunch of children, to be mollycoddled. We got angry and complained to our Class-Monitor and he (obviously) took action. Now I see that nobody supports such stuff but hey, that's the reason why I don't like the core community, at all. I am beginning to think that I am the sole arbiter of civility and that the rest of the community can fuck off. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 13:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I never worked for the foundation. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 13:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per .  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 13:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per most of the above, basically, "go bonkers" is not something that I can support. —DoRD (talk)​ 14:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) No it is not time to go bonkers.  It is time for civil discourse and possibly straw polls of actionable statements. —  xaosflux  Talk 14:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) As above. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) I had the pleasure of meeting at Wikiconference North America 2018 and hold him in high regard. His statement resonates with me. What real-world court would not find someone who addressed them in the manner Fram spoke about Arbcom without finding them in contempt? At least one member of the Arbitration Committee presumably read this, and they failed to effectively respond. wbm1058 (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ArbCom ain't your fucking Court. What do you propose next, that we start addressing the honorable arbitrators with Milord? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 18:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. "Going Bonkers" in this case is playing chicken with a train. Calm down.--Jorm (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. That said, WMF needs to exercise a bit more transparency.  I doubt the three edits Fram listed are the real reason.  The final may have been a last straw, but there is a lot more to this story.  Until we have more information, the torches and pitchforks need to be stored for later.  Montanabw (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Per TheDJ, Boing! said Zebedee and Deskana. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Per my comments below and per Montanabw. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Concur with sentiments expressed by Nil Einne, Nosebagbear and Thryduulf, among others. Overreaction will not solve any issue or improve the encyclopedia. SusunW (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose the initial suggestion here. I will not join in any "administrator strike". What a perfect example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point that would be! I do agree with the reaction of most people that this seems to have been an outrageous abuse of authority (which they recently granted to themselves) by WMF. But I doubt if any amount of outrage from us editors is going to have any effect on the situation. I think that ArbCom, Jimbo, and the WMF board are the actors that might be able to do something and we should encourage them. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per others. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Rschen7754 18:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose as not really able to evaluate this non-proposal, and it's not even really clear that everyone in the "support" heading is even voting for the same thing. ST47 (talk) 10:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose cases like these are difficult enough to handle when people are calm. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose per others.-- Vulp here  09:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose any strike actions. If administrators disagree with WMF's stance, the best move would be mass resignstion, not disruptions. Wikipedia's function should not be disrupted by internal issues. Administrators actively disrupting in protest should be removed for abuse. Juxlos (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose Admins should not use their power to protect each other. Lets not end up like the medical or legal professions.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 14) Opose: Action at this stage appears premature. The facts of the matter will no doubt emerge with time.--Ipigott (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose—Stop the drama. We do not own the Terms of Use. I place significant trust in the Foundation's T and S division. Shake yourselves out of the admin-for-life mindset, too. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  08:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose per Tony1. The WMF has responded more than adequately below. The reality is that when privacy and harassment are involved, not all the details can be made public. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose per Tony1. SD0001 (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Unban Fram
So it's now clear that while we had overwhelming  consensus to unblock Fram, that is actually meaningless to the wikilawyers who would tell us that since he's still banned yet unblocked, any edit he makes anywhere on en.wiki could end up lengthening his ban. Which of course is horseshit. So we need to try once more. In the face of precisely zero  evidence, I propose that Fram is unbanned from English Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Trusted community members are still investigating the matter. Procedurally, this is impossible. StudiesWorld (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Procedurally, this is impossible" anyone that says that  should be summarily ignored.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, explain this to me. You believe that it is currently possible under local policy to overturn an office action? StudiesWorld (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Trusted community members are still investigating the matter. if that means the same "trusted group" who banned Fram in the fist place, plus Jimbo  (please!), then the point is moot. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Of course. Fram  can  be re-sysopped locally by 'crats and his ban (which is an abstract concept now he has been unblocked) can  be ignored.  What kind of super powers do  you think WMF hold??! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The keys to the site? I mean it only exists at the whims of the Foundation. Q  T C 15:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong support The community needs to be able to make their own decisions without needing intervention from the Foundation. The ban of Fram is completely uncalled for and the inadequate response from the Office shows its complete lack of transparency, especially in this situation. I don't care that this is "procedually impossible" if its because the bureaucratic Foundation makes it that way. funplussmart (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per funplussmart. CoolSkittle  (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support in the absence of further information. If this is about civility, ban everyone else on the project, as the border of civility and rudeness is nebulous. If this is a metasticisation of his dispute with the WiR, check the WiR's history here on en.wp. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i> v^_^v  Bori! 20:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support WMF have acted inappropriately here, maybe on behalf of an inside relationship. This action should be seen as wholly illegitimate. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Mu. Office bans cannot be undone by the community. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 21:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course they can. If the community deems the Office to have over-reached, then it will be fixed.  Jeez, no-one "owns" the community, without us, you're nothing.  Get used  to thinking about how we feel about shitty decision-making.  Arbcom was bad enough, now we  have this Office bollocks.  Gervais would be proud of us.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. The "procedural impossibility" is for WMF to ban editors solely for their on-wiki conduct, with narrow exceptions such as child protection or threats. (If Fram's account of events leading to the ban were inaccurate, WMF has now had the opportunity with its second statement to dispute it, and did not do so, so at this point we will have to presume that Fram's account is accurate). "Fram was mean to me" is a matter for the English Wikipedia community to handle, either directly or through the Arbitration Committee it elects. It is not a matter in which the WMF can intervene because it does not like the community's decision, including a decision to refrain from action. If Fram has behaved in a way deserving of a site ban, that ban should be imposed by the community or ArbCom only. (And when there are not legal considerations, yes, the community absolutely can overturn Office actions. If we've not yet clearly established that we have that authority, now's as good a time as any.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In the abstract, I support unbanning and reopping, but that assumes the RFC is binding (and it’s unclear if it is at this moment). — python coder  (talk &#124; contribs) 21:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Mu (I like that as a response, thanks Rob). While we're here, let's vote to break the UK's parliamentary Brexit deadlock, to reconcile the Israelis and the Palestinians, and to cure the world of all known diseases too. Well, we have as much power to do those as reverse an Office ban, so why not? I think the ban is wrong, and I think it represents a power grab and a chilling shift in the governance structure of en.wiki. I think the ban should be reversed, but we can't do it, and voting on it here is just pissing in the wind. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support even if we can't make it stick, we can at least tell the WMF exactly what we think. Lepricavark (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The community consensus for an unblock already includes consensus that Fram be allowed to continue editing, otherwise it would be pointless. I doubt people were thinking, "restore Fram's technical ability to edit, but if he actually uses it then the ability should be removed again." Even if the WMF ban technically still exists, at minimum the community expects that it will not be enforced. (But whether the WMF enforces it anyways is a separate issue, of course.) <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 21:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Well yes. If the office wishes to make a case to arbcom they are free to do so.©Geni (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the community does not have the authority to override an office action, so this is not possible. The unblock, though understandable, was therefore premature. This will need to be looked at through proper channels, via the board members accountable to the community. They are in a position to question WMF staff about the reasons for these actions and explain them to the community. And, if need be, they can help take Foundation-level decisions about any necessary consequences from this episode, including personnel decisions and an office-level unban. Process should be followed, even if it is annoying.  Sandstein   21:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support in the absence of a non-boilerplate response by the WMF. For this nonstandard of an action to be taken against such a well-established editor, with little-to-no comprehensive explanation (thus leaving us all to speculate) is ridiculous. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#006600">(Channel 2)  21:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose In agreement with Sandstein. In the face of precisely zero evidence, I propose that the Brexit deadlock be considered null and void.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , is not it a bit rich for you, of all folks, to talk about evidence in these type of cases? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 12:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is not an anarchist site. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because people oppose a decision a leader(s) make, doesn't automatically make them anarchists. The people want good leadership, not incompetent leadership. X-Editor (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose when it comes to sensitive personal data we should be very careful. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Mu. BU Rob13 and Boing! said Zebedee are in the right here. The community cannot do this, and its time would be better spent on a different approach. Mz7 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the community can do whatever it gets consensus to do. Applying primitive constraints is stupid and wasteful.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Mu. It is not within the remit of the local community so discussing this is meaningless (this is the perfect way to describe my response; thanks!).--Jorm (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well it just think a bit harder then. What would you vote if you could get your desired outcome?  We,  as a community, can do anything we like here.  Or perhaps you'd prefer to just go along with the sheep?  Yes sir.  No sir.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you'd be happy to know my desired outcome.--Jorm (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't really care about your opinion.  What I do care about it is the  ability for us as a community to exercise our consensus in the way that Jimbo originally conceived.  Twenty years later we're not seeing that, too many owners. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You only care about the opinions of those who agree with you. Got it.--Jorm (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What a strange thing to say.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support i.e., the community resolves Fram in its view is still welcome to edit and administer the en.wp project. This means that by community consensus, Wikipedia admins should not intervene to enforce the ban.  Whether the WMF gives a fig about that, or enforces the ban itself, are separate matters that don't concern us here.  The community should also not recognize Fram's IBAN with the anonymous WiR, but it can postpone disputing that issue (and I'd advise Fram to do the same).  I'd be satisfied about the IBAN if WMF turns ownership of it over to Arbcom (Arbcom doesn't have a COI regarding it) and Arbcom lets it stay in force while they review it and ultimately decides whether to lift it. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here are some axioms: (a) we do not have the power, under US law, to override the office unless we fork and leave their servers, (b) there is allegedly an ongoing attempt by Jimbo Wales and Doc James to do some mediation, which has not run its course yet, and (c) we still don't know for certain whether there is more to this than Fram's statement would imply. Give those axioms I therefore propose that we sit tight for a while and wait and see. I agree with the spirit of Floq's unblock, but just as the WMF need to de escalate and build bridges, so also do we. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as overriding the office to say there is no community ban in force, the community wants Fram to be editing, and the community refuses to act on the WMF's behalf with regard to enforcing the ban. WMF owns this ban and if it is enforced at all, WMF itself must do the enforcement.  We won't do this dirty work.  67.164.113.165 (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Contrary to the statement above, there is nothing whatsoever in US law that forbids the user of a site from taking actions which the owner of the site disagrees with. The owner can, of course, undo the action and ban or block the user, since they have the technical and legal power to do this -- but that is entirely irrelevant in this case, which hinges not on what the WMF can do, but on what actions it is willing to do in the face of a community revolt.  They can choose to retaliate, and do, most probably, extreme damage to the website, destroying its ethos and undermining its future improvement, or they can look the other way and negotiate.  I believe they would do the latter, because as inappropriate and (predictably) stupid as this action was, I do not think that they are, collectively, unintelligent people. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as premature. As Wikimedia staff has stated, they are unable to release the evidence that supported their action.  Without having seen the evidence (or even a summary of that evidence), it is premature for the community to demand that the action be immediately overturned.  Let the oversight and investigatory processes proceed, and then an informed decision can be made. Cbl62 (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Its trivial to claim that you have evidence that you can't release.©Geni (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment what time is it in California? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 4 PM. 2001:4898:80E8:2:A5F:2E62:10E4:D7D1 (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not our call. The WMF has the authority to ban anyone from their site who they deem to have violated the ToS. Any community consensus to overturn such a ban is completely meaningless. AdA&D  22:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Moreover, if the WMF found that Fram has harassed and abused others, he should be held to account like any other user. I understand the frustration about the lack of transparency, but that's the unfortunate reality of harassment complaints lodged to WMF itself; they're confidential. And let's be real, people are only kicking up such a fuss because he's a power user. If this was some random editor you guys wouldn't give a shit. AdA&D  23:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, without a community, the WMF is purposeless. Think  about  it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * TRM, I like you but you are not cynical enough. Look at some of Wnt's posts.  She or he is more astute about this. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Even without a conclusion, we're learning a lot about our fellow editors, aren't we? Black Kite (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Arbcom is elected and accountable to the English Wikipedia Community. "WMFOffice" and whoever is behind it is not. The fact that there is no transparency behind who did this is another problem. I may not know who "BURob 13" is but enough editors of this community trusted them with the responsibility of being an Arb which is how this whole project works. Enough of us work together to build this place. One foreign, unaccountable person should not and cannot perform actions like this when we have local, effective governance in place. Fram is a pitbull when he finds an issues for better and worse. I've thought multiple times they need to back off but its always been because they want to make the Wiki better. I've been an on and off editor for 14 years. First as an IP, then as a user, back to an IP, and back to a sporadic user. Actions like this kills communities. Remember, this community is your golden goose. No community, no encyclopedia, no donations. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;"> spryde |  talk  23:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support unban. This section, as I understand it, is for gauging the community's views on the Office action banning Fram. The WMF may or may not take our views into consideration as they review this situation, but for God's sake don't pre-emptively say your voice doesn't matter by muing at us. Support the unban or oppose it, but don't sit in the cow pasture "mu"ing because you think you won't be listened to, because that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The WMF may ignore a strong consensus of editors, but they most definitely will ignore people who are fearful of taking one position or another, and they will be right to do so. 28bytes (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Of course. The block was only intended to enforce the ban, unblocking him only undoes the technical mechanism which kept him from editing. To be effectively undone, Fram needs to have the ability to edit freely as well. If undoing an OFFICE action is forbidden, well, then, Floq already crossed that threshhold (thank you, Floq), on his own, in recognition of community consensus.  If community consensus is also to unban Fram as well (as it should be), then some other admin should take that action.  Finally, if community consensus is that Fram's desysopping was out of process, and the community supporst his being re-sysopped in the interim, some brave bureaucrat should do that.  I say this with the full recognition that those taking these actions could easily find themselves the target of OFFICE actions as well, but if each action is properly well-supported by the community, then I don't believe that the WMF would be foolhardy enough to take those steps.  What they have now is a tightly-focused result, what they need to watch out for is provoking a widespread revolution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't sit behind my completely unprivileged IP address and encourage people with advanced permissions to wheel war with the WMF (I described my suggestion of admins passively going on strike as "going bonkers" but it turns out to be one of the mildest actions discussed). But I would say that the "unban" we're discussing means the community doesn't object to such actions, won't sanction anyone who does them (even if the WMF might do so), and might sanction those who try to undo the actions.  67.164.113.165 (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per, who hits the nail on the head. I say this, however, recognizing that there might be factors that I don't know because they haven't been made public. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per 28bytes. This is about sending a strong message to the WMF that local governance should not be sidestepped without a good reason. This discussion may not result in any concrete implementation (Fram is unblocked and can technically edit, the community won't sanction him if he does, so the ball is in WMF's court regardless of the outcome here), but we need to present a unified front to make it harder and harder for them to defend their actions (either that or provide an actual transparent explanation of what Fram did, if he did indeed do something ban-worthy). As shown in the superprotect fiasco, the WMF will cave under sufficient pressure. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless as to whether the community is capable of doing this, I support this proposal. Unless Fram's post-ban statement on commons is incorrect, then there is no confidential information in this ban, meaning nothing stops the community from coming to its own judgement. Since the community does not ban users for one year on a first offence, the one-year ban is clearly excessive and should be undone. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 00:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Logging in after not being here for ages just to support this, with a caveat: all evidence so far presented claims that Fram’s ban was solely for on-wiki behavior. Assuming that’s the case, that behavior hasn’t always been optimal but it certainly isn’t outside the purview of the community’s already in place mechanisms to deal with conflicts. That the diffs provided to Fram, including the backdoor IBan, all involved conflicts with people with direct access to the Office stinks to high heaven. Fram’s conflicts with the WMF are no secret and, much more often than not, he was correct about the facts, even if overzealous on the execution. Assuming the office ban is based solely on on-wiki behavior, the idea that anonymous complaints are “private” is asinine and antithetical to every conflict resolution process setup by the community. This same type of banning has happened across multiple language wikis since late 2018, baffling those communities as well. If that’s what the WMF wants, then so be it, but then drop the charade. Then, you know, actually pay community moderators to enforce your insular whims, if that’s their intention, because the WMF clearly didn’t have confidence that the community would sanction Fram for attacking their own. Capeo (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - For all I know, the sanction may be warranted (I personally think it was excessive, but that's beside the point). However, this is a local matter that should have been referred to Arbcom. I do not appreciate the WMF meddling in issues that are for the local communities to solve. –FlyingAce✈hello 01:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support At this point, it has become clear that the WMF doesn't care about being answerable to anyone but themselves, and providing a strong community consensus against this ban is the only way that we stand a chance of getting this overturned by the Board, by giving Jimbo and the Community Representatives something to point at and say how blatantly out-of-touch this action was. rdfox 76 (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I'm not just going sit back and let the WMF get away with banning a guy just because he made a somewhat rude comment against ARBCOM and get banned for a whopping one year as a result. The WMF needs to be more transparent and actually get consensus for this type of ban. X-Editor (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Benjamin (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong support per nom.   Oshawott 12  ==== Talk to me!  04:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. The ban may or may not be warranted, but it should not be WMF's decision to make. Their flimsy rationale for bypassing arbcom applies equally to WMF itself, of which Fram has been a long-time vocal critic. If Fram does need to be banned, and T&S reviewed Fram's entire history of 187k+ edits as claimed (or even a substantial portion thereof), then they should have no difficulty putting together a case for the community's established processes to consider, in private if necessary. T. Canens (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - No muing, the community should not enforce this ban. The ban itself is conexcept, but enforcement of it is not. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per Tazeradog and all above. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 06:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - reversal needed for this opaque, seemingly harsh, and confounding situation (if he did something so bad, would it be a one-year ban?  starship .paint  (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - It has become clear that this ban was arbitrary and capricious. Whether our reversion of this ban is real or symbolic, it is important. ~Swarm~  {sting} 08:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Mu? - Support in principle, but there's no point in this vote because the community can't overturn office bans. ST47 (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unless and until the investigation(s) by the board, Jimbo and Doc James demonstrate evidence that the ban is actually incorrect not just unpopular. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as there is no evidence to support a ban, and the ban itself appears to be an attempt to undermine community resolution in a disruptive manner. DuncanHill (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Ofcourse WMF blocks generally cannot be overturned blah blah blah - Block was ridiculous and as such I support unblocking, – Davey 2010 Talk 12:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support — This is how to walk back this gravely ill-considered office action. Of course, it would mean tacitly admitting error, so I don't have much hope that the geniuses who decided to do this will reconsider without a big push from their boss and/or nominal overseers. Carrite (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. We can only judge the situation based on the evidence presented to the community, and on the basis of the evidence, the ban is at the very least an unwise overreach. If we assume the worst of the imposers, then it could be corrupt and disruptive. DrKay (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose if this is a legal or safety issue, we don't have the "right" to view all of the lurid details in order to get this unblock. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Fram has already been unblocked (twice). This is about the ban.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. If there is a concrete legal concern behind the ban, that needs to be explicitly stated by WMF legal, which certainly could be done without revealing personal information or all of the background. If this is not a legal issue, this should have been addressed by Arbcom rather than the WMF; Arbcom is well equipped to handle sensitive and private information carefully and rationally.Dialectric (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose acting without information is very dangerous. Wait for Jimbo, Doc James, etc, to conclude their investigation. Banedon (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as others have said, not without further information. There is no rush, especially for an action which has no clear effect. Nil Einne (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we get a formal closure here? Tazerdadog (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean make the obvious close here, one that the majority of participants oppose (that the Wikipedia community did not ban Fram and as such cannot unban him)? No, I dont think anybody wants to do that. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 07:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We clearly disagree on the nature of the obvious close. To me, the obvious close would be something along the lines of "The community rejects the ban on Fram and will not enforce it."  This is why we have uninvolved experienced editors close discussions, however.  Tazerdadog (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's obviously incorrect, because the discussion isn't about enforcing the ban (which is only mentioned by a small number of people). And, as an aside, it's as meaningless as "The community rejects the law of gravity and will not enforce it". I think the most that could be said would be something like "There is a consensus opposing the WMF ban of Fram." Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You know what enforcement of the ban entails? A global lock. Then what, who's going to overturn that one for you? People are acting like we have some sort of trump card here, but the WMF is playing a hand of all spades. This thread is like a WikiProject deciding they can overturn an ArbCom ban. The only way this gets overturned is if the WMF overturn it, and efforts are better directed towards that end rather than this. The only people that can change this are the ones that can change T&S, or force them to change, and guess what, that aint us. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait The world isn't coming to an end, I'm definitely not on the WMF's side, no one should be but it's best to give it time and know where it's going. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> qedk ( t  桜  c ) 06:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The WMF office has every right to ban Fram, even if it is based on evidence that they won't show us. Personally, it doesn't come as a shock to me that a person with such aggressive and hostile behaviour has been banned for harassment. Nevertheless, they were great as an editor and content writer and will be missed. SD0001 (talk) 06:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral We, as a community, cannot unban Fram, since we do not enforce the terms of use, WMF does. Admins can unblock Fram, but admins can't unban Fram, and based on what I read, Fram arguably violated the terms of use. I'm simply hoping the WMF makes the correct call going forward here. SportingFlyer  T · C  08:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support unban. The hard way that the WMF has handled this is not the way forward.  If they come with a proper statement, or, better, they handle this to ArbCom (and they come with a proper statement).  This can only move forward if members of the community know what not to do and to what level.  And there is no way I will support unappealable bans for anything else than illegal activities (child pornography and similar).  As WMF has NOT issued a statement along the lines of 'Fram performed illegal actions within applicable jurisdictions', then this ban/block is a) too heavy for a first ban/block and b) should be fully appealable.  If the actions of Fram did warrant a clear warning, then consider this a final warning to him with 'time served'.  And yes, the community has the full right to overturn WMF (as we do with overriding their unwanted extensions) if they do not communicate ánd discuss with the communities the boundaries of certain restrictions they apply.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support and echo 28bytes. In fact I will be a bit more stronger and say if you are sitting on the fence here you are actively helping the WMF to impose its totalitarian practices. They should be sent a clear rejection even if we ultimately cannot functionally lift the ban, or they decide to lift it themselves. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, at the very least to make it clear that he is not banned by the community. We have waited long enough now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. In the absence of evidence (public or submitted to ArbCom) or an evidentiary hearing, this is the only logical position to take, unless we really are living in a totalitarian regime where a small unelected body can give itself the power to ban anyone without appeal or plausible explanation. Softlavender (talk) 08:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose—I'd like to see more WMF scrutiny—not less—of what's going on on its sites, globally. They have to deal with s**t people here don't know about. And legal responsibility stops with them, not en.WP editors or ArbCom. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  09:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , that is on the assumption that there is actually something that is a legal problem, right? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If 1,600 admins have a hard time making perfect judgments over disputes on Enwiki, how will a small unit culled from the 300 employees at WMF prove more efficient, under a new set of civility protocols that are even more stringent? You can only do that if (a) the work of judgment is delegated to mindless software or/and (b) by massively expanding your miniscule WMF workforce (a great temptation for bureaucracies). The prospect has nightmarish implications you appear to miss. Nishidani (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A bit of Devil's advocacy, but T&S wouldn't need to make perfect judgments at all. If they impose their own rules and their own judgment, which can not be appealed and do not need community approval, they don't need to satisfy anyone but themselves of the validity of their actions. Admins need to satisfy community consensus (which in a lot of cases is simply impossible) while T&S only need to satisfy T&S - and in some ways that makes their job far easier than admins doing the same thing, not harder. Power held by a small group with absolute authority is far easier to wield than power held loosely by a large group with community consensus authority. (I'm not saying anything about whether it's right or wrong, I'm just responding to that specific practical point.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a case of having "a hard time making perfect judgments" at all. Everyone makes mistakes, and no one is perfect: look at me. The tip of the iceberg is admins' systemic arrogance, acceptance of admin CoI, herd-like support of each other at public forums, public bullying and shaming of editors at ANI, and their breaking of policies without consequence. I don't trust that system now, and I've been here since 2005; it's why I rarely interact with the community nowadays. Who could be surprised that this toxicity would evolve in a job-for-life system where the judges of admin behaviour are themselves admins? Even crats are counted out of that system. Adopting de.WP's sensible reform that modified jobs-for-life (years ago) would be a start. We don't know whether it's a legal problem in this case; but knowledge of the world tells me loudly that the internet is fast becoming a legal quagmire. You can't blame the WMF for protecting the movement where it feels it needs to.  "Admins need to satisfy community consensus (which in a lot of cases is simply impossible)"—I rest my case. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b>  (talk)  10:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , as far as has been made clear to Fram, and according to their reports on meta commons, it is not. And that is in line with all the information  that has been received from WMF.  One line along ‘we had legal reasons to block Fram’ would have totally quenched this discussion.  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ,Well, I can understand your frustration with arbs - I have a block record to prove it! (Sometimes I think they are within their right: sometimes they are wrong - but I have never appealed even my permaban. I accept the decision because the process of indictment, discussion, and evaluation, together with the evidence, is in the public domain and my purview. It's democratic) The flaw is, in my view, that your experience tells you an open forum, democratic in form, has corrupt elements and therefore you can compensate for its failings by empowering an anonymous body to do the same thing, one that is without recall, using secret evidence no one, not even the accused, can evaluate or respond to. That is, surely, trying to fix a known problem, which has created an atmosphere of distrust, by a blind act of trust that exercises even more problematical procedures that are utterly opaque, and in which only the plaintiff, and the secret adjudicating body, will have any knowledge of - a recipe for disaster. Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 'public bullying and shaming of editors at ANI.' I've never seen that. I take harassment and bullying seriously, but where I grew up things like having the jagged edge of a broken bottle held at your throat to stop you running to intervene when your brother, without provocation, gets beaten to a pulp by a practiced drunken thug, defined bullying. Sharp words, an insult here or there quite another - the latter occurs every day in any normal family and not rarely among friends. That, to me, is not threatening. Apparently, for a lot of people it is. Nishidani (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I certainly don't always agree with you, but here, you've hit it dead on. What happened to Fram could, if anything, quite properly in itself be described as bullying, especially if he is accurately describing the communications he received. Also, if anyone thinks people are harsh on Wikipedia, they ought to have been on Usenet. This place, even this discussion, is a quiet conversation over tea compared to that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support.Nishidani (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I stand with the community and it's ability to govern itself. -- &oelig; &trade; 10:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, it's a manifestation of the wrong role th e service organisation WMF is usurping towards it's superior, the communities. The WMF is only there to support the real bosses, the communities. It must never even think about pretending to be some kind of boss of the Wikiverse, it's not. And I think it is really a perversion that one of the main villains of the Superputsch-disaster is now head of Trust & Safety. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Tentative support, mostly pending on the WMF response. I don't particularly like Fram, but based on the evidence available so far, and WMF statements made so far, this seems like gross overreach and completely unwarranted. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Our Wikipedia cannot function properly if it is subject to this dark, unaccountable power. --NSH001 (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not our call - it appears too few editors have a full understanding of the general powers of the WMF, so I'll just drop this link right here for whoever feels the need to learn how things operate per the WMF's By-Laws, and where we sit on the totem pole. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 15:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not our call - is totally correct. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment all this "not our call" or "mu" is pathetic.  The  British public  no longer has a say on Brexit yet they can express their  opinion.  The folks protesting in Hong Kong can't, themselves, change laws, but they can express their opinions.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Pathetic. Brexit and Hong Kong are meaningless here, we are not an activist site. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well you missed the point 100%. The examples given were simply to state that you can still give your opinion even if you can't enact it.  But sorry if that was too much for you.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * there you go again, belittling other users comments, a pattern for you. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't think that's a little hypocritical, given the post he was replying to? <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 18:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The heading of the section says "unban Fram" as a proposed course of action. We cannot take such a course of action, which is why mu is the correct answer. But to the extent that we are making some form of statement of opinion on what the WMF should do, oppose, given all the invective and personal attacks Fram threw toward the Committee (both collectively and as individuals) recently, and the fact that he followed me to multiple unrelated places to continue "confronting" me in a rather transparent exercise at wiki-stalking. That, itself, was harassment. His comments went far beyond criticism toward personally attacking individuals and stalking them. And before you ask, some example diffs:     ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Rob, didn't you retire about five times? And even if (once again) you haven't, those diffs just prove that people like Fram don't trust Arbcom etc.  Saying "fuck Arbcom" isn't a crime.  Just like saying "Fuck Trump" or "Fuck May".  Get over it.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * that's personal attack, so what, we can all do whatever we want, bullying in my opinion. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what constitutes a 'personal attack' in the above post? And while you're at it, can you all sort out the complete fucking mess of indents.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Rob, Fram was quite correct to revert you in that last diff - being an arb doesn’t give you the right to edit through protection when the page has not yet gone live. Admin permissions are supposed to be not a requirement for being on the Committee. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we all cool it with the invective above please? It's not reflecting well on either party, or the community as a whole.  Tazerdadog (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * TRM has been harrying any perceived opposition to his strident opposition at every opportunity, I don't think that is just an opinion. The comment was unequivocally thuggish. TRM is fuelled by righteous indignation, don't get sucked into his need to gain satisfaction by insulting others. cygnis insignis 18:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cygnis and agree. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No Cygnis, your actions and opinions have been overtly proven incorrect here. I have no "righteous indignation", I would like a clear indication as to why someone can be covertly banned for one year.  Rob has told us all, numerous times, that he has retied, yet he continues to opine.  That is not retiring.  I suggest you try another front.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I stand by my attempts to suppress drama mongering that causes real damage to other people, but not privy to the determination where I was proven wrong. There is currently no constraint to your conduct, no limit to trolling and harrying of people you nominate as adversaries. Your pronouncements are absurdly one-sided, it stinks of war and fear. It would be silly to express an opinion in the absence of information that I may have no business knowing. There are several possibilities that haven't been aired, no matter how narrow that possibility is, and some already aired that outline how it may be none of your business either. Do you accept that possibility? cygnis insignis 23:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Your hyperbole is noted and speaks volumes, I need add no more comment. Two things are clear.  The ban is wrong.  Rob hasn't retired.  If you wish to continue to dispute those facts, please, you have the floor. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for posting that set of diffs. They don't appear to be terribly egregious, but I suppose I could be wrong. A question for you: in their June 11, at 19:27 response the OFFICE writes: Secondly, we believe it would have been improper to ask the Arbcom to adjudicate a case in which it was one primary target of the person in question, as this could put volunteers into a very difficult position and create the appearance of a conflict of interest regardless of the actual handling of the case. Do you believe your diffs provide the answer to the question re "conflict of interest"? I've been wondering what that conflict could have been and why they decided to bypass Arbcom. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 18:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The WMF explicitly cited the "Fuck ArbCom" diff as their one example of Fram's pattern of harassment and/or abusing others. I assumed that diff was the potential conflict. I disagree with you on how egregious the diffs are. No volunteer should have to face a person saying all this in the span of a day or two: "Fuck you" (ArbCom, in the original quote, but made more general), "crawl into a corner and shut up", "tonedeaf powergrabbers", etc., with further comments suggesting someone shouldn't be allowed near a keyboard. Add onto that the following me to an unrelated ArbCom case just to revert me trying to perform my duties as an arbitrator and take shots at me in an edit summary... These are Fram's actions toward just me. He treats most people this way, from what I've seen. Why on earth would we want that around the project? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 18:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I thought it goes without saying that the "fuck Arbcom" comment isn't worth discussing; I was talking about the others not being particularly egregious (based only on my own experiences, of course). Anyway, thanks for the reply. Victoria (tk) 18:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Utter nonsense. There's no justification at all for a one-year unappealable off-wiki ordered ban for editors who may or may not upset others.  That's why we have dispute resolution, ANI and (sadly) Arbcom.  We don't need a God-account to suddenly drop by and issue executive orders without rhyme or reason.  That's what Nazis did.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Whoa,, back down! I worded that sentence carefully, "isn't worth discussing", can mean any number of things. Sheesh. If you want to scream at me for it, come to my user page. Victoria (tk) 22:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * sorry for the confusion. My response wasn't to you.  Ironically there are a number of individuals here who can't format responses properly.  I didn't want to scream at you at all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of the diffs were on ArbCom pages. Where were the clerks? --Rschen7754 03:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Did we change how we indent replies to people while I wasnt looking? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies, corrected now. --Rschen7754 04:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry lol, didnt mean to call you out but it had literally just led to a brouhaha right above you. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support only way to restore some semblence of calm and normailty—and, ironically, perhaps (make a start on) put the trust back in "Trust and Safety".. ——  SerialNumber  54129  22:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Behavioral problems on en-wiki should be handled by en-wiki processes. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support enough of this Kafkaesque process, Huldra (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support If we support overturning the ban and then implement it, what's WMF going to do? Ban us all? Rockstone   talk to me!   06:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose/Procedurally impossible. From a procedural perspective, the actions of the Trust and Safety team are allowed, and policy does not allow us to override them. We could definitely go through the process of trying to change those policies, although it will be complicated as it involves legal issues where the Wikimedia Foundation could—and perhaps even may be legally required to—override consensus. This is to say, even if there is a consensus to unban Fram here, it is not procedurally possible to actually enact that consensus. --Deskana (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: we can make clear at least they are not banned by the Community. Jonathunder (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Support response to WMF (alternative proposal)

 * 1) Support – I'm adding a new heading, because I don't think "go bonkers" is quite the right reaction. I don't know how I should format this, so feel free to change it. As I mentioned above, I think  has the right idea.  KSFT  (t&#124;c) 09:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you mean ban WMF accounts? I'd count that as going bonkers (and I'm in favor of going bonkers), but it is silly and wouldn't change anything (try to realistically imagine how it would play out).  67.164.113.165 (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean that we should start by making clear statements, like, I hope, the one I wrote above, and that we should consider later symbolic protests like imposing a community ban on WMF accounts, possibly including WMFOffice. As much as I seem to agree with you, I don't think "go bonkers" is a particularly useful call to action here. This isn't mutually exclusive with the heading above. KSFT  (t&#124;c) 09:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you want to suggest an alternative wording to "go bonkers"? Would "throw a gauntlet" work for you?  What I mean is take non-symbolic action that potentially leads to disruption (e.g. the idea of an admin strike: who needs to do shitty volunteer work day and night if the result is to be treated like this?).  Banning WMF accounts would be symbolic (i.e. ineffectual) and disruptive, which seems even more bonkers to me.  67.164.113.165 (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Just ban the ones that do not have a responsible person attached. We already have a policy that an account must be for a single user. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 13:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. This is not mutually exclusive with the Support I will be giving above. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i> v^_^v  Bori! 09:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Support- again, this complements my support of the "bonkers" section. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 09:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Support of course they were wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per Fæ. If the WMF can persuade ARBCOM this was justified, that would be adequate, but to have not even attempted to do so is overreach. Even as a new user, I'm shocked. GreyGreenWhy (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry this is one of your first looks at behind-the-curtain stuff. This doesn't paint anyone involved in any sort of a good light. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i> v^_^v  Bori! 09:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I appreciate the comments in opposition to this, and my support can be considered withdrawn if arbcom or the community board members express confidence this was okay. Thanks, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. MER-C 09:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Partial Support. I wasn't generally opposed to WMF's handling of Office Bans because there are some that clearly need to be done. But this is clear overreach and is firmly overstepping into issues that the community and ArbCom should have been left to handle. The T&S squad has appointed itself as an unaccountable civility police. That's a chilling development and presents an environment under which I will not work. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Obviously Per all above. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 09:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Per everything. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) There are some issues that need to be handled privately, but this is not one of them. For a WMF employee to appoint themselves as en-wiki's Civility Cop and start handing out additional blocks and bans because they don't feel we're being harsh enough is a gross abuse of their position. For a WMF employee to be so clueless that they're unaware of how much reputational damage this would cause is incompetence rising to the level of outright misconduct. &#8209; Iridescent 10:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, they should be encouraged to seek alternative employment. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - of course. GiantSnowman 10:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Support and one wonders if this piece of gross mismanagement is the WMF's new method of removing their critics, in which case a lot of us should be severely concerned. Black Kite (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, if was good enough for the Nazis and the North Koreans... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This was bound to happen eventually... — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 13:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. What Iridescent said. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as an alternative to bonkers, which is my preferred choice. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 10:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  ~Swarm~  {sting} 10:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Support as second choice to the above - SchroCat (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Support No confidence in WMF's handling of this office ban, anyway.  Jheald (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  11:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Prefer this one after reflection on Boing's oppose. – Teratix ₵ 11:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. The handling of this has been unacceptable; I have been reading and drafting responses to this thread for too long - a statement of lack of confidence is important, but other action may also be required. My guess is that at the very least, a number of experienced people will get completely disenchanted with the whole thing and gafiate (a pretty useful term, even though this isn't fandom). --bonadea contributions talk 12:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 10) Support --Fæ (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 11) Support -- In fact, I am very tempted to take the next year off in protest. -- Dolotta (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Absolutely outrageous the WMF would trample over Arbcom and all our processes this way.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 13)   Sandstein   13:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 14) Support per everything. — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 13:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 15) Partial support along the lines of Boing. I found Fram's actions towards ArbCom troubling, especially when ArbCom decided to started making changes in response to Fram's decision to clerk through protection like sectioning themselves (which is silly) because it suggested Fram cowed ArbCom. I still cannot in any form or factor support the WMF Office action in response. ArbCom was wrong to not stand up for itself. We the community were wrong to not stand up to Fram in a stronger way about their actions towards ArbCom. And yet despite that wrong and that inability/failure of the community to act WMF got it wrong in more substantive substantial ways with this action. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 16) There are some bans that absolutely have to be done, and whose reasons are unsuitable for public discussion. Arbcom spent years trying to get WMF to take over child protection bans, for example. But WMF needs to remember that the legitimacy of their bans depends on a limited reservoir of community goodwill, and that reservoir can easily be depleted by this kind of overreach. T. Canens (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 17) Support; aside from the fact that this specific ban appears totally unjustified based on the evidence so far presented, the idea that we will now have two overlapping and competing bodies (one paid, one volunteer; one accountable to the community, one not) dealing with routine conduct and civility issues is a terrible idea for many reasons, made worse by the fact that it was imposed on the community without any input or consultation, and made worse still by the fact that the first target was a long-standing administrator well-known for offering legitimate, on-point criticism of the WMF's various bureaucratic overreaches and technical foul-ups. This really stinks, and needs to be pushed back on with whatever means we have at our disposal. 28bytes (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 18) Support to the same extent as my support for the previous proposal. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 13:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Disgraceful and sinister (ab)use of power that undermines the open and community-based decision-making of the project. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 20) Support certainly a broad statement, but it's pretty hard to have confidence right now. What concerns me is that the WMF apparently thinks they will get away with this. Lepricavark (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 21) Support at a minimum. Outrageous. No such user (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 22) Support First choice. Again, not exclusive of my support of other options, but we need to send T&S a vote of no confidence right back at them for their vote of no confidence at the community.  rdfox 76 (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 23) Support - what a clusterfuck. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. I largely agree with several of the "Oppose" voters, particularly Deskana and TonyBallioni&mdash;Trust and Safety has up to this point had a good track record and I don't see any reason to question their actions up until recently in applying global bans. However, from the evidence brought forth so far, it seems that as a result of the T&S consultation and the changes to allow a broader spectrum of office actions than permanent global bans, T&S feels empowered to expand its scope of practice well beyond what they've done competently in the past, and beyond what (IMO) even their revised policies support. I think a vote of "no confidence" in the parliamentary sense is justified—not that nothing they do can be presumed competent, but because going forward there's going to be a big element of uncertainty as to whether an office action was for the horrific misconduct we expect or for tone-policing. Choess (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Unless and until T&S and the WMF have satisfactorily explained this action - which they have not done to this point - then supporting this proposal is a necessary step. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 26) Support as per those above. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 27) Support p  b  p  22:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 28) Support, obviously, Huldra (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 29) Partial support I don't believe that "go bonkers" was intended literally, and our sea of indignant words must be reinforced with action or the WMF will simply wait us out. Boycotts are effective.  Mini  apolis  01:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 30) Support per Fæ.   Oshawott 12  ==== Talk to me!  02:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 31) Support Benjamin (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 32) Support, in the "parliamentary sense" as mentioned above. Prior to this, I did know why some WMF bans were implemented (granted, the WMF still didn't say, but I was already familiar with the background). Those bans were entirely appropriate and necessary, and were folks who we very much do not want around. However, they seem to be extending their reach to interfere with normal community policy enforcement, and based upon the accounts of editors from the German and Chinese projects, does not seem to be the first time they've done it, nor the first time they did it badly and upset those communities. I do not have confidence in WMF to take those kind of actions; community processes are already in place to deal with regular on-wiki misconduct and that should not be tampered with by WMF. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 33) Support - think it was excessive and opaque.  starship .paint  (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 34) Support Agree with this statement. ST47 (talk) 10:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 35) Partial support following Boing! said Zebedee's comment above, some WMF bans are necessary, but this ban appears to be overreach. The WMF has not yet made a strong case as to why this could not have been handled by arbcom. Dialectric (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 36) Support. There appears to have been a secret trial without the right of representation, defense or appeal. That's not the way community projects should work. Nor is it even the way these things work in the non-virtual world. DrKay (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 37) Support - This ban in particular is ridiculous based off what we know. A substantial amount of faith has been lost. <b style="font-family:Papyrus"> Anarchyte ( talk  &#124;  work ) </b> 16:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 38) Support per Iri. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 39) Support. I have no idea whether Fram deserved a ban, but the WMF was definitely wrong to ban him. --Yair rand (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 40) Support - Office actions should be limited to legally necessary steps, and privacy requirements should not be used to keep civility sanctions trials secret. EllenCT (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 41) Comment I support the handling of civility issues using on wiki processes such as ANI and Arbcom, while recognizing that harrassment issues require privacy. Unfortunately, I despair at the thought of codifying the distinction. S Philbrick (Talk)  16:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 42) Support If the WMF is now asserting en.wiki are their own personal fiefdom, I'm out. A little confused by people who oppose any action. You're going to sit back and take this? I don't care how you feel about Fram. I don't have any personal feelings about him. What has been happening is outrageous. We have given them plenty of time to apologize or backtrack and all they've done is double down and triple down. As for 'confidence', given what they've done (whoever they are, I have no idea if every action/edit is signed off on by every member of the team or not), I have zero confidence in them to handle any cases whatsoever. Competence issue. <b style="color: blue;">Enigma</b><i style="color: #FFA500;">msg</i> 16:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 43) Support. Are we in CIR territory for trust and safety? Tazerdadog (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 44) Support per Boing --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 45) Support: "Trust and Safety" are not trustworthy or safe. Jonathunder (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 46) Support: This is mutually inclusive of my support for above. The Wikimedia Foundation should not be micromanaging individual Wikis; and this type of unacceptable behavior has occurred in the past. I have no confidence in the WMF going forward.  Rockstone   talk to me!   07:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 47) Support: Office actions should be taken only when necessary as required by law. WMF has not even made a bare claim that this action was a legal necessity.  I vehemently reject any notion that the WMF should be the behavior police for en.wikipedia.  The mere fact that taking this action entered into their head has caused me to lose confidence in their decision making. Sperril (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 48) Support Given that we have yet to get a straight answer to the simplest of questions from either T&S or the WMF board. I am supporting all options that oppose the WMF's totalitarianism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 49) With the caveat that this doesnt apply to global bans, none of which Ive seen as a problem. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 50) Support --Hubertl (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 51) Support. I have read most of this page and a bunch of the long list of ArbCom statements this quite honestly terrifies me. There was no reason for this to be kept secret, otherwise why was the ban only on en.wiki and not global, and why did it have to be resolved by the WMF rather than by ArbCom or just the community? I feel like the WMF have been taking some pointers on how to moderate this site from the charlatans who run Quora, i.e. in the most opaque way possible and usurping the responsibility to do so from the community, to whom that responsibility has always fallen. This is wrong and the absurd "temporary desysopping" of Floquenbeam is even more wrong. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose response to WMF (alternative proposal)

 * 1) Oppose. I don't agree with the above statement, because I think it is far too broad. I haven't yet looked in detail into the circumstances of Fram's ban. However, even assuming that the ban was handled improperly, I do not agree with the blanket statement that I "have no confidence in the WMF's handling of office bans". The vast majority of their bans are reasonable, so if this ban was handled improperly then I would say that my confidence would be reduced, but I would not say that I "have no confidence" at all. --Deskana (talk) 11:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Deskana. I personally do feel the way the WMF handled this was very poor, and I'm not convinced they should have gotten involved in the way they did. But I also don't feel I've seen enough to be able to comment reliably and in any case it's only one particular action (or a series of actions about one editor). And I do find a number of the comments Fram has made that I've seen before, and I don't just mean the ones highlighted here, the sort of commentary which I feel harms a community. Whether they were bad enough to warrant sanction, I make no comment in part because I haven't looked into them in detail and I'm also unsure how far we should go in requiring civility etc. (And I repeat what I said that I'm unconvinced it made sense for the WMF to involve themselves the way they did.) But I was very reluctant to post this because I didn't want to paint a target on my back from anyone. I ultimately plucked up the courage due in large part to someone who is either new or socking and Deskana the first (and only when I wrote this) to oppose either proposal as well as coming to the realisation that I don't really care that much what others think. And I trust that however people may disagree what I've said, it's not going to be strong enough reaction to encourage doxing or anything untenable. So whatever the WMF have done wrong, I do think we need to consider how we have responded. P.S. Give the two principles of 'don't care enough' and 'this is a mess all around and I don't like a lot of what I'm seeing', this will probably be my last involvement in the matter. Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose 1) Let's wait and see if the board reps feel it was justified as a ban (even if badly handled). 2) As Deskana says, I don't have no faith in their office bans - we are instead concerned with a growing overreach of their responsibility. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose as far too broad per Deskana. The handling of this particular block was terrible but we don't know enough to understand whether it was reasonable or not. Other office blocks that I know about (e.g. from my time on arbcom) were absolutely correct and handled appropriately. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * the problem with that argument is that firstly its not enough to be reasonable but it also has to be reasonable for the WMF to do it through the office mechanism. The other issue is that it appears this block is so flawed that it is difficult to have any faith in their actions going forward.©Geni (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Every office action I know enough details of to have a firm opinion about was a correct use of the office mechanism. I do not agree that the publicly available evidence gives the appearance that this block is flawed - it simply shows that the communication of the block was flawed; we do not have enough evidence to know whether the block was flawed or not. My gut feeling is that it was not, but I will happily change my view if the evidence shows otherwise. Even if this was an error, it does not rise to the level that I have no confidence going forward. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Deskana. I aware of the circumstances of a number of the office bans and in all of those cases they were done properly and were warranted. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 13:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose as too broad. I do have confidence that the office has, at least up to this point, made appropriate and necessary bans, and that they likely can in the future. —DoRD (talk)​ 14:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) In favour of alt 2. I have general confidence in their ability to handle bans. It just appears this one was a pretty large mistake. Basically what DoRD said. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I have confidence in office bans. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Deskana and Gamaliel. SusunW (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per others. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per Gamaliel. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per my opposition below to alt 2. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose, sometimes privacy is needed. AdA&D  21:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose per Deskana and Gamaliel and AnnedrewAndrewandDrew. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose really, nobody should be drawing conclusions based on no information. Banedon (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose per Deskana and Gamaliel.-- Vulp here  10:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose As I say far below, I have been involved with cases like this, and it is often not that black and white. Moreover (to mirror one or two other attitudes here) there is a major issue with users and admins who think they can do what the hell they like, and that policy (due to IAR) does not apply to them.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose: Premature to take any action at this stage.--Ipigott (talk) 11:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose—Per quite a few of the comments in this section. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  09:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose – this statement is absurdly overconfident considering how little we know about the details of the situation. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose – per others. SD0001 (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose per the last sentence of Deskana's comment. Abequinn14 (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Support response to WMF (alternative proposal 2)

 * 1) Regardless of broader issues they've failed to provide any justification for a block or the need for the block to be carried out by the WMF using the office mechanism. There is no evidence that they have any such justification and what evidence is availible strongly suggests they don't.©Geni (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Obviously. This support is not mutually exclusive with the others I have supported. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 13:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Assuming that the information we have access to is accurate and complete, I support this statement. —DoRD (talk)​ 14:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I now know that the information available then was incomplete, so I can no longer support this. —DoRD (talk)​ 11:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * TonyBallioni (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * per striking per DoRD. My concern is with this being done locally only. I do not know if it was justified, so I should not be supporting this. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Per DoRD and Geni. Currently, there is no information available to suggest that this was an appropriate action. Regards So  Why  14:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Yep. GiantSnowman 14:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) I think Fram should have been desysopped and banned for his behavior a long time ago. I also think it should have come from ArbCom or the community, not WMF. --Rschen7754 14:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) I'm concerned that the quantity of proposals floating around here will muddy the waters and result in us all getting bogged down in disagreements. We need to provide a united front to the WMF letting them know that we are not okay with what they did and that there will be consequences. We may need to take a bit longer to work out exactly what those consequences should be, but for now this proposal is a good starting point. Lepricavark (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) From the evidence we have, I think the statement is correct. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Support as third and weakest choice. Again, this is not exclusive of my support of other options.  rdfox 76 (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 7)  SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  15:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. If a WMF employee were to open an ArbCom civility case, that would have been more likely to accomplish the WMF’s apparent goal of deopping one of its biggest critics. But that didn’t happen, so here we are. This is a new low for the WMF. — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 15:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) This is the one I am comfortable to support. The case must have been referred to ArbCom to follow usual dispute resolution avenues. The office action is not appropriate in this case (on the basis of what we currently know).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 10)   Sandstein   16:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 11) I don't understand what was so problematic with those sports edits, it appeared Fram just added templates. The Arbcom comments were a bit harsh but not enough to warrant even a block, let alone an office action. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 12) If Fram's description of the precipitating events is accurate - and we have no reason to believe it is not, given the absence of a substantive response from WMF - then the block was unjustified.  It is also unjustified in that no community involvement was sought, and there is no apparent reason that T&S couldn't have referred the case to ArbCOm and allow normal processess to work. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 13) Assuming Fram's description is accurate. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  19:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 14)  p  b  p  23:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 15) Reading through the opposes, the issue is not so much the one-year unappealable ban (which, based on the facts we know from Fram, I believe is excessive, but opinions may differ), it's that the ban should never have gone through Office in the first place, then the completely botched handling of post-ban events. – Teratix ₵ 23:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 16) Support, although in light of increasing evidence I think we're parsing this major screw-up to death. We, the backbone of WP, deserve more respect.  Mini  apolis  01:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Especially considering the way it was done, this should be uncontroversial. Benjamin (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 18) Support - think it was excessive and opaque.  starship .paint  (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 19) Support  Firstly, the opacity is a problem. The ban is inexplicable, no explanation has been offered. The combination of both its urgency, and its limited duration, are even more puzzling. But the real problem is that in the absence of any adequate explanation, the rumour mill is now circulating its own which offers a plausible explanation that reflects very badly on WMF. In the absence of anything else, that's the version which will have legs. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 20) Support - in addition to the arguments above, if the Arbcom had a COI because Fram used uncivil language, they should have been given the opportunity to make that decision themselves. EllenCT (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Given that we have yet to get a straight answer to the simplest of questions from either T&S or the WMF board. I am supporting all options that oppose the WMF's totalitarianism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 22) Support – Based on the information that is publicly available, the WMF banned Fram from the English Wikipedia for being one of their biggest critics. Every other justification has proven spurious at best. I was already uneasy with the manner in which the WMF exercised its authority, but this is by far their most draconian decision yet. It almost makes me want to quit the site in protest. Kurtis (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 23) Support, as second choice to alt3. Though I do have my reservations. I am particularly concerned about the fact that this is a case being dealt through a public vote, even though this case involves private evidence. With that thought, I have no idea if this vote is what I would have voted if the WMF was more transparent on this matter. Abequinn14 (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose response to WMF (alternative proposal 2)

 * 1) Civility and respect, one of the five pillars, is at best a weak suggestion these days. I have no problems with T&S taking action against users who have a years-long track record of incivility and making rude/nasty comments to people. I would like to see the WMF being more transparent about this type of ban, however, and will be recommending that to them. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If they had a worthwhile case they could present it to arbcom like anyone else.©Geni (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Per Ajraddatz. I can't say I'm an expert in all things Fram-related, but i don't object in principle to a civility-related block from the WMF for a longtime offender. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Exactly per Ajraddatz. The problem with this block is how it was communicated, not that it was made. Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Since we don't know the entire circumstances, how do you know that the block itself was not problematic? Are you saying that it is justified based on the evidence in Fram's statement?  I don't see that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Since we do not know the entire circumstances we know only that the block was poorly communicated and widely unpopular. This does not equate to it being incorrect. Based on what I do know (which includes things from off-wiki sources*) I believe it is more likely than not that this block was a reasonable application of the terms of use. If the review by Jimbo and the board finds otherwise I will revise my opinion. (*I cannot ottomh remember the privacy of this material (I'd guess it dates from circa September 2018 but that is plus or minus several months) so I will assume that I cannot disclose it here). Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Ajraddatz and Calliopejen1.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 16:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Ajraddatz, Calliopejen1, and Montanabw. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Ajraddatz, Calliopejen1, and Thryduulf. SusunW (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per others. How can anyone support this, while complaining about not knowing the facts of the case? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) For the same reasons outlined above by Ajraddatz. I might as well indicate my support here. We should avoid making statements until we know all the info, and I do think we have unaddressed conduct problems at a decently high level. :/ &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per Ajraddatz, Calliopejen1, Thryduulf and Montanabw. Fram should have been banned for life a long time ago.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per above. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per Ajraddatz. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per Ajraddatz. I find it embarrassing that Fram apparently thinks he's not had enough warnings and was banned over one (emphasis his) edit. Banedon (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose As I've explained before, I think the WMF handled this poorly. I can't judge whether or not they were wrong to ban Fram without further info. I do have concerns over the way Fram generally interacts and am not sure whether them being the one to ban was the best course of action although I do understand the great difficulties privacy issues create. While I also understand the concern some community members have about the apparent secrecy of the proceedings (complaints, evidence etc) even when it comes to Fram themselves, I also understand that the WMF we probably be between a rock and a hard place given their legal obligations and reasonable expectations they have on the information they received, as well as the nature of the internet making any NDA or similar difficult. (If these sort of things were to happen at an employment or university level for example, the person will often be entitled to a fair amount of detail over what is alleged but may also be binded by an NDA or similar as well as various other legal recourses relating to harassment etc if there is concern over details of the complaint resulting in harassment etc.) The way this was handled is of course not that different from the way a lot over websites will handle complaints, the problem is we have a community where this is very far from the norm. I really have no idea how to proceed from here, but do think this action is not it. Not without a lot of further info and as said, I'm not even sure if we should ever have that further info. Nil Einne (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 11) Per Ajraddatz. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose per Ajraddatz.-- Vulp here  10:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose Again, they may have had no reason or a very good reason. The simple fact is we do not know, and we need to protect all users (dare I say it even IP's), not just certain admins and their buddies..Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose WMF may block users who violate the terms of service, that's not the community's job. I don't agree with how this has been communicated, but I can't make the argument this was wrong not knowing everything that went into this just because I don't like it. SportingFlyer  T · C  03:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 15) *Thought about this more now that I understand what happened better. If Fram violated the Terms of Use of the website, why are they only banned from English-language wikipedia? Shouldn't a TOU breach be a global ban, even if temporary? I still don't support any of these proposals, since none of them get to the real issue: perhaps they were right to ban Fram for a TOU violation, I still don't know their side, and the TOU says they have leeway to do what they want, but the actual actions are confusing here. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose We don't have all the information, so we can't say the Wikimedia Foundation was wrong in banning Fram. The manner in which they executed it was wrong, but that is a different matter. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 01:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose—It's presumptuous to claim to know the details. Get a grip. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  09:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 18) Without all of the information, it's impossible to say for sure whether it was wrong to ban Fram. However, based on the information that is available publicly, I concur with Ajraddatz et al. --Deskana (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose. We can't possibly know whether or not the ban on Fram was justified. Those who say the issue should have been handled by Arbcom have overlooked T&S saying it is "improper to ask the Arbcom to adjudicate a case in which it was one primary target of the person in question, as this could put volunteers into a very difficult position and create the appearance of a conflict of interest regardless of the actual handling of the case." How very true. Imagine the screams had Arbcom taken this action. Moriori (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose As others have said, the WMF have access to details that we don't have and shouldn't have. Given that, I have no idea if the ban was justified or not. - Bilby (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose, not something the community is able to determine.
 * 22) Oppose can't say without the evidence being revealed. SD0001 (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Alternative proposal 3: Work towards the position where Office local actions are appealable to ArbCom
I think we can assume that almost nobody took real offence at Fram's posts which were the stated reason for the ban, otherwise they would have ended up at ANI or ArbCom, so it's likely that most folks on enwiki would have viewed the "fuck ArbCom" post as a bit of venting following a badly worded message from ArbCom. Fram is a highly valued, long term editor and admin, and despite any differences we've had, I fully believe they have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart, and don't think we should be losing their contributions for a year over a trivial matter. So it's quite understandable that most of us feel outraged at the ban imposed.

On the other hand, if we step back a bit and try to assume good faith (hard as it may be) on the part of Trust & Safety (and given the people involved, I think we ought), I feel we ought to concluding that they were also acting in what they felt were the best interests of enwiki, but were mistaken. Now, if that sort of mistake was easy to rectify, then we wouldn't really have a big problem. Just appeal the T&S decision and be prepared to accept whatever the result of the appeal was. But that's not how things are currently set up.

Sadly, I don't think that we can any longer trust T&S to make ban decisions affecting just a single wiki without a mechanism to appeal that decision, particularly when the wiki in question has a well established, accountable body in place that is charged with making those decisions. So I propose that we focus our efforts on ensuring that the sort of local ban we have seen is appealable, and I suggest that ArbCom is the correct venue for that appeal. Don't be distracted by red herrings like "T&S need to be able to impose bans over confidential issues" – of course they do, but they also need to be accountable to the community they claim to serve, and that accountability can easily be implemented by making their ban decisions which affect only enwiki subject to review and appeal though the English ArbCom, which is directly accountable to the community that elected them. --RexxS (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Support making T&S enwiki bans appealable to ArbCom (alternative proposal 3)

 * 1) Support as proposer. --RexxS (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Support with caveats - (1) only when the sanctioned user communicates to arbcom that they wish to appeal; (2) it is explicitly limited to actions that are not global in scope; (3) any appeal to ArbCom is explicitly final.  Thryduulf (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I can understand the concerns expressed below, but this proposal is for single-wiki bans only, and the kind of serious stuff that should not be appealable will be global. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as a final action. However, the role of Wikimedia Foundation in Wikipedia matters needs to be clarified, and  Thyrdulf's three caveats are good. This ban seems to be unfair and especially points to a lack of clarity in understanding the role the WF has or should have in Wikipedia affairs. This proposal would be a sensible unemotional response but also a wider dealing with the multiple issues that have arisen is needed both for Fram and for the future. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Much of the community outrage is because the nature of this ban just doesn't make sense.  Mini  apolis  01:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Second choice after abolishing them. If T&S needs to issue a ban, it should not be limited to a single project. EllenCT (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. No brainer. Arbcom is the official venue for last-resort or sensitive issues. No opaque, uncommunicative, and authoritarian regime should be over-riding standard, policy-based, trusted, equitable processes on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, per Boing! said Debedee. Abequinn14 (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose making T&S enwiki bans appealable to ArbCom (alternative proposal 3)

 * 1) Oppose as pointless. The WMF has shown on many occasions that they have no interest in having to be accountable to local wikis, and any attempt to push for this position will just be stonewalled and/or ignored by the Foundation--and, fundamentally, as owners of the site, they don't have to be accountable to the users, in a legal sense, so the only leverage we would have would be threatening to fork enwiki to a new site, which is, frankly, a pretty empty threat, given the odds of any attempt to do so succeeding.  rdfox 76 (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose again, I do not want ArbCom dealing with pedophiles. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Pedophiles would not get just a single-wikipedia ban and would not be covered by this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Tony, couldn't any WMF block involving a pedophile simple be rubber-stamped by ArbCom? I see no reason for them to open a case, or even a full in camera review, for every appeal which might be brought to them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The fear of pedophilia is frequently used as a wedge to deny other people their rights. But for every one pedophile we know about, there are probably a hundred we don't.  Are we really making anybody safer by endorsing a Star Chamber procedure to deal with a small risk with a small percentage of pedophiles we know about, rather than having an honest community process?  I should note that I had this position from the very beginning because I knew then that we would end up here out of it.  No bureaucrat ever really gives a damn about the children. Wnt (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Some things may truly be legal or safety issues, that may not be safe to disclose to even NDA'd users. StudiesWorld (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Truly legal and safety issues would not get just a single-wikipedia ban and would not be covered by this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose The thinking is right, but this is structured the wrong way around. Given the lack of cross-examination and appeal, office actions on en-WP should generally be reserved for misconduct so egregious as to require permanent sanction, such as the categories named above. If T&S receives a complaint and decides that it's problematic but doesn't rise to the level of a perma-ban, they can take it to ArbCom themselves to ask for whatever intermediate sanction they deem appropriate. Choess (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per TonyBallioni, StudiesWorld, etc. Arbcom is hardly capable of dealing with the sorts of issues that T&S has to deal with.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 16:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Ideal oppose ArbCom should not be involved in areas where the T&S should be (namely legal issues). But vise versa should most certainly also be the case, which the banning of Fram clearly demonstrates isn't. funplussmart (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose In most cases where the WMF steps in, there's a legal issue involved. ArbCom is a volunteer group, and as such, there is pretty significant liability protection for the individuals who serve.  Unless ArbCom can also be sued the way the WMF can be-- with concomitant protections -- they can't be offered nor should they accept this kind of power.  Montanabw (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Supporting this unfortunately does not make sense; or maybe it does symbolically, but I am not a fan of symbolics. Per Office actions, these bans are not even appealable to the Foundation. "They are final and non-negotiable." . So this proposal is not enforceable. It'd be better if something with possibility of happening is proposed in place of this. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) It would make more sense to make T&S actions appealable to the Foundation in general. Nobody is perfect and every action should be reviewable somewhere. I do understand though that if the Foundation steps in, it usually means - or ought to mean(!) - that local processes, including ArbCom, are not equipped to handle these kinds of problems. If the Foundation steps in without need to do so, someone higher up at the Foundation should be able to hear an appeal and overwrite the decision if needed. Regards So  Why  18:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per Montanabw and because this would likely have other unintended consequences. --Rschen7754 18:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per TonyBallioni, StudiesWorld and SoWhy SusunW (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per others. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose If there are legal and safety issues, we need to be careful. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose per rdfox 76. Banedon (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose I would support WMF bans having an appeal process to the foundation. Not to the arbcom given the numerous problems that would create re: privacy etc. While I have great respect for the work arbcom does, history makes it difficult to trust anything sent to them is not going to eventually leak. More importantly even if it does, I can understand both the legal issues, and the reasonable expectations of complainants etc which would mean they would not want arbcom being provided all the info needed making this a non starter. Nil Einne (talk) 03:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose per rdfox76.-- Vulp here  10:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose per Megalibrarygirl. I can imagine situations where I would want an appeal process implemented, but I can imagine situations in which I accept that the no appeal decision is appropriate. This proposal overreaches. S Philbrick (Talk)  18:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose As I say above, I do not want to see a situation where if you get enough buddies you can do as you like. Nor do I accept the "this user is too valuable to lose" argument.Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose This would just create a situation where people who have connections would be able to walk. As much as we need more transparency from the Wikimedia Foundation, their bans should not be reviewable to potentially biased people. No offense to Arb Com or anyone else, but we simply can't take any chances. The bans from the foundation should stay there, but we should have more transparency. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 01:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose—Certainly not. ArbCom isn't charged with enforcing the Foundation's Terms of Use. In my view, a bit more centrally imposed discipline is needed in the WMF's 900 or so sites. On some of those sites, things are seriously amiss. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  09:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose The WMF and its various bloated teams have shown they have no interest in working with the communities that give them a job, dictators should not be appeased. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 19) I don't think this is workable, per Montanabw and others. It'd be nice if it could work this way, but in practice it can't. --Deskana (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Support statement (proposal 4)

 * 1) Support – I'm adding yet another proposal here, because, while the ones above have significant support, some people think they are too broad or go too far. I wrote proposal 2 and stand by it, but I think it might be useful to see if this is a baseline statement more people can agree on. Of course, this is not mutually exclusive with the other proposals. KSFT  (t&#124;c) 18:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Office actions should be limited to legally necessary bans and blocks, and ToC issues limited to a single project within the purview of established policy procedures and community processes should not be within the Foundation's remit. We shouldn't allow discretionary editorial control by the Foundation for intermediary liability reasons anyway, in case section 203 case law returns to its previously established state. EllenCT (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose statement (proposal 4)

 * 1) Oppose. While the handling of this was at the very least suboptimal, whether the community supports an action enforcing the ToU and/or an action taken based (in part) on private evidence is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose since there may be legal and safety issues involved, we should leave the situation at WMF. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose per Thryduulf. Banedon (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose based on all I've said before and Thyrduulf. Nil Einne (talk) 03:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I don't have sufficient facts to assess whether the decision was wrong. That's not to say I don't have raised eyebrows and concerns about the process, but I don't accept the the community has the authority to reverse it simply because it doesn't support the action. S Philbrick (Talk)  18:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose As I have said more then once, I can see scenarios where it was right or wrong, the problem is that (given the mentality shown here and at ANI on occasions) putting a user in a position where their actions against Fram can be ID'd means WMF must protect the user. Admins should not be above the law. In fact admins should be leading by example.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose—Stop the screeching outrage. A more mature, considered reaction would be welcome than this pile-on herd mentality. Here, we have a rather narrow grasp of the facts. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  09:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose proposals to revert the ban, because we literally can't do it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Alternative proposal 5: Use Editorial Independence to Force Communication
If, after a reasonable time (say a week from now), no steps towards a resolution of the core conflict have been taken, we temporarily suspend WP:NAVEL and put a summary of this case and our concerns with undue WMF intervention onto the main page. And leave it there for however long it is necessary - or until the WMF uses advanced rights to remove it.

Support statement (proposal 5)

 * 1) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC) (as proposer)
 * 2) In principle this is a good idea, but prefer MediaWiki:Editpage-head-copy-warn to reach all editors, instead  of Main Page readers. This is appropriately targeted in the spirit of the warning message: to warn editors that they are subject to secret behavioral rules by secret judges based on secret accusations, with no right of representation, defense, or appeal, and provide instructions for contacting the Board, CEO, and Chief of Community Engagement to ask for a revision to the T&S policy. EllenCT (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose statement (proposal 5)

 * 1) Oppose. Absolutely not, no. Vandalism of the encyclopedia itself is not an ethical option. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. The Foundation has already behaved irresponsibly and in a way that's destructive to the project and the encyclopedia, and we are quite properly condemning them for it. We lose any right to do so if we behave the same way. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. hell no. This amounts to vandalism by administrators in defense of another administrator. The fact that there are administrators supporting this stance puts into question the RfA process if anything. Juxlos (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. This would completely destroy the reputation of Wikipedia as a neutral, unbiased source of facts. The average user of Wikpiedia does not care about this, and they shouldn't. We may very well win if we did this, but we'd just cause more ruin to the project. Rockstone   talk to me!   21:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of statement (proposal 5)

 * 1) Re. Boing!: The main page is the most visible page, it draws in attention, and it points me to many interesting topics. But it is of marginal encyclopaedic value. And the encyclopaedia is not autonomous - in my opinion it depends on a vibrant community. There is plenty of historical precedence - from the original sabotage via 20th century suffragettes and Gandhi's passive resistance to burning draft papers where necessary resistance goes beyond what is usually considerer acceptable behaviour. If the WMF does come to its senses and talks to the community at eye level, I'll be more than happy. But if they need some reminder that this is not a situation where they hold all the aces, so be it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's all very poetic and emotive - but anyone I see vandalising the main page gets blocked by me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course if this gets consensus (which, admittedly, does not look likely right now), it would not be vandalism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You'd need to get a consensus to change the wording of WP:Vandalism, which says "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia", and what you propose would do exactly that - even with consensus. The consensus would simply be to vandalize. As it happens, you have no chance of getting this proposal passed, so it's moot anyway really, but I think its disgraceful to see an admin advocating for vandalism of the encyclopedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Main page content is subject to consensus. If the consensus was to replace its entire content with the portrait of Jimbo done by Pricasso, it still wouldnt be vandalism as the main page has zero impact on the projects purpose as you have defined it. You coudld delete it entirely and all encyclopedic content would remain. Stephen is correct here. Personally I dont think altering the main page will serve any *useful* purpose as the average reader who visits it is unlikely to care, and it will just antagonise the DYK/ITN/etc crowd who wont get their credits... Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I fear we may be too far apart to come to an agreement, but maybe we can get at least a common understanding. How would that be "deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia"? The encyclopaedic value of the main page is low to non-existent (I don't deny it's value to the project, but it is not a core part of an encyclopaedia - most encyclopaedias don't have anything comparable). I see this very much comparable to the SOPA blackout and the more recent blackouts in Europe protesting the EU copyright reform. Do you consider these as vandalism as well? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually a lot of wikipedia editors objected to that as it was using wikipedia for political purposes (and the way it was forced through by certain parties) but I dont recall any credible argument it was vandalism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and while I think sometimes such an approach is better than the alternatives, I fully understand that opinions on the usefulness or even the cost/benefit ratio of the proposal differ. But Boing! seems to deny that it can ever be a legitimate tool. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I take your point about the SOPA thing, but that was very controversial, and there was a direct link to actually improving the encyclopedia - and using the main page to fight internal squabbles is a very different thing. It simply is not true that the SOPA blackout justifies every possible consensus change to the main page, or that consensus automatically is not vandalism. Also, how "core" you might think the main page is is of no relevance. It got more than 17,000,000 page views yesterday, it is a very important part of the encyclopedia, and I will not budge from my conviction that one faction deliberately damaging it to try and win their fight against the other faction is vandalism. Anyway, it's academic - the community is simply not that vindictive and there will be no consensus to use the main page in this way, so any further discussion is probably pointless. (And no, Boing! most certainly did not "deny that it can ever be a legitimate tool", Boing! has only opined on this one specific proposal) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Obligatory link to WP:DDMP — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 22:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The worst part is that most involved don't seem to be joking - and are admins. Juxlos (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Re Juxlos: I don't think it is at all relevant to the discussion that Fram is an admin. I would react in exactly the same way for any other established editor. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It is completely unacceptable for any editor to conduct vandalism under any reason, period. Worse if said editor is one of few granted permission to edit the main page specifically because they could be trusted by other editors. In a polite way, I recommend any admins who would do this to just resign as an administrator. Juxlos (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Alternative proposal 6: Use Editorial Independence to Force Communication (2)
If, after a reasonable time (say a week from now), no steps towards a resolution of the core conflict have been taken, we use MediaWiki:Editpage-head-copy-warn or a similar prominent location to inform editors that they are subject to secret behavioural rules by secret judges based on secret accusations, with no right of representation, defence, or appeal, and provide instructions for contacting the Board, CEO, and Chief of Community Engagement to ask for a revision to the T&S policy. Modified from Proposal 5 based on a suggestion by EllenCT.

Support statement (proposal 6)

 * 1) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - This is appropriately targeted in the spirit of the warning message. EllenCT (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) This is a proportionate response.  I hope it will prove unnecessary.  Tazerdadog (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose statement (proposal 6)

 * 1) Petty childish nonsense. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Although I wouldn't have put it quite that way, I agree with Boing! said Zebedee. Users are informed they're subject to the Terms of Use, there's no need to supplement those warnings with a petulant version of them. --Deskana (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * do you find the wording objectionable, or just the idea that we should warn people they are subject to opaque rules and enforcement? How do you feel about petitioning from that interface message? EllenCT (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of a loaded question, which I think was unintentional, so I'll try to answer it anyway. The Terms of Use are already advertised immediately above the save button ("By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use…") and in the footer when reading "By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use…"). Making the Terms of Use even more prominent, and using quite pointed language in the notice ("opaque" is quite a charged term), feels to me like a knee-jerk reaction to this situation, intended to attack the Wikimedia Foundation rather than contribute to a resolution of the problem. --Deskana (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the Terms of Use which suggests that people will be tried in secret, on secret evidence, or without any avenue of defense, representation or appeal. Because this is a change to longstanding processes and the expectations of editors, a warning is justified. When explaining the state of affairs seems like an attack, that proves that they have deteriorated such that they are indefensible on their own right. Here's how Anti-Harassment Tools Team Design Researcher Claudia Lo put it in her November 2018 "Reporting systems on English Wikipedia" written for the Community Health Initiative:
 * 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.... whatever changes we recommend, it must adhere to these values even as we change key features, otherwise it will not be trustworthy.
 * Do you see a resolution to the problem which does not involve petitioning the Board and management? Are you satisfied with the newly imposed T&S process? EllenCT (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Both. No editor without a history for incivility or behavioural issues has been banned under these allegedly opaque rules. SD0001 (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Prior to the imposition of the new rules, editors banned for incivility were done so in a transparent fashion. What is the cost of allowing secret accusations and trials without defense or appeal? How is the community expected to know what the civility standards are under these conditions? EllenCT (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Childish nonsense as Boing! says. SD0001 (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Yeah, this is exactly the same as vandalizing the main page - probably even worse. I imagine a stark majority of editors don't even care about this and will only be discouraged from editing Wikipedia knowing that admins act this way. Juxlos (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * See Seraphimblade's quorum statistics discussion here please. EllenCT (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Dumb. (Also, enforcement of terms of use on other websites is usually opaque, so readers will probably have no idea what we're ranting about.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I don't have that much else to say... Abequinn14 (talk)

Discussion of statement (proposal 6)

 * My goodness, proposal 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 101. We really are going crazy here. I think we really have to just wait for more information about what is going on, such as waiting for the Board's discussions to be published, before we have so start making it seem like we can have any proposals at all. People here are obviously in a bit of a panic mode, what has happened here is a bit shit, but you know, just calm down and wait. talk to ! dave 07:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)