Talk:Office actions/Community consultation on partial and temporary office actions/draft

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

First comments[edit]

Thank you for this draft. In general, please consider replacing it with complete package that includes 1) a model code of conduct that is subject to adoption by each project, 2) deferring to each community for its own enforcement mechanism, 3) more thoughtful due process rights for people who are investigated by T&S, and 4) clearly specified appeal rights rather than "final and non-appealable". Many thanks for your consideration. Hlevy2 (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to split this into its own header. On enWikipedia we have time limits for appeals so that we don't have people endlessly pestering; generally no more than one appeal per year and no earlier than one year after the sanction kicked in. Perhaps we can have something like that here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I believe that the mandate for this consultation is to discuss the relationship between T&S and the English Wikipedia. That's where the Fram incident that triggered all of this happened. T&S should wait until we are done here, then decide whether to consult with the German Wikipedia etc, hopefully in their native language. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikimania starts today, so I want to give people a chance to get back from that and catch up before I respond. Given the WMF's preference for simple and straightforward text, some of you will be happy to know that most of the words that come to mind are just four letters long. Dank (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Unwatching. Today's entry at w:WP:FRAMSUM is encouraging. Dank (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Grammar issues, etc[edit]

  • In point #2, it says "adaptions". That's not (for the most part) a word. Perhaps adaptation and adoption got mixed up? In any case, I think what you want is "changes". Deacon Vorbis (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
    Not sure what you mean by "That's not (for the most part) a word". It's a legitimate synonym for adaptation. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
    No, it's not legitimate. It's just an alternate form of the word, and even Wiktionary's entry had to go back to back to a 1911 dictionary, and even back then, they called it rare. That's not a word that should be used. Moreover, even "adaptation" shouldn't be used here – it carries all sorts of inappropriate connotations. It's bureaucrat-speak for "change", which is all that's apparently meant here. Deacon Vorbis (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
    You claim it's not legitimate and then agreed it's 'an alternate form of the word'. That makes no sense. Last thing I will say is DO NOT defend on Wiktionary to get meaning of words. If I knew it's where you got this whole notion from the start, I'd not have commented. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
    I'm saying it's not "legitimate" because there's no good reason to ever use it, kind of like "irregardless". Dictionaries tend to be descriptive and not prescriptive, but we can and should be prescriptive when it's called for. The point about referring to Wiktionary was to find that even their source was calling it rare a century ago. Deacon Vorbis (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

"final and non-negotiable"[edit]

If the Fram fiasco on the English Wikipedia taught us anything, it's that "final and non-negotiable" bans from T&S are rejected by the community. Any "consultation" should take that into account. Jonathunder (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

That caught my eye too. Those three words imply that T&S never errs in its bans. If those words are kept, I'd recommend every person in the chain of command who approves one of these to take the text of the action to a quiet room, shut the door, turn off the phone, & read it carefully word by word including the punctuation marks while considering every possible outcome of this action.
Or the language could be changed to something less inflexible, such as "not usually altered". That wording allows some space to reverse an action that is found to be excessive or just plain wrong, while maintaining the seriousness an office action is intended to have. -- Llywrch (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi folks, let me stress again that this is a draft of a future consultation. That means we're not, currently, taking input into what the existing policy says or what the future policy will say, which is what you seem to be talking about. This draft is here so we can talk about what questions the consultation, when it launches, should be asking (and how it should be formatted, etc). So "the paragraphs as you have them laid out now makes them difficult to read" or "you really need to add a question asking people XYZ" are the kind of input that's going to be useful here. If you use this opportunity to instead share your thoughts on the policy itself, they're kind of going to go nowhere, because we're not recording that type of feedback at this point, because the consultation isn't open - or even in a format that necessarily asks the right questions (that's what we need your input for during this draft phase!). Will we try to remember in a month, when we're collating feedback on the actual consultation, "hey, someone said something on this other page last month that might be relevant"? Yes, sure. But generally if you want to have input into a consultation topic, you comment in the consultation, because that's where the people reading the consultation are sure to be looking. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Well in that spirit, I'd appreciate links to the pages where the relevant policy is spelled out. I'm having trouble conceiving of a situation where I'd want T&S to perform a temporary ban as opposed to a permanent, site-wide one, or having the local governance mechanism handle the situation. (No, I'm not arguing whether or not T&S should ban someone, just asking for links to relevant information so when it comes time to comment on the content of the draft I can do so in an informed manner.) -- Llywrch (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Welp that's embarrassing, we composed a consultation and forgot to, uh, link to the actual policy. Good catch, Llwyrch. I've added links now. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
"We're not, currently, taking input into what the existing policy says or what the future policy will say" Good luck with that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


The wikilink for "the English Wikipedia's community" goes to a page stating "Wikipedia does not have a project page with this exact name." EddieHugh (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Did they mean to link this? Jonathunder (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Yep, that was what we meant. Copying and pasting page titles: a dangerous business that should only be attempted by experts. Fixed, and thank you for catching it! Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Meta is not the correct venue for this consultation.[edit]

Meta does not seem to the correct venue for this consultation. The consultation consists of the trust and safety office asking the communities to delegate authority to utilize two proposed tools. To be legitimate, such a delegation would have to take place via each community's process for making such decisions. Those take place on the individual wikis, and not on meta - any result produced here would need to be ratified elsewhere, or (as has been seen already) risk being rejected as invalid.

While trying to comply with each project's decision making process might be more difficult, that's basically what the WMF is proposing with partial bans. If the WMF is incapable of determining if their own behavior complies with the rules set out by various projects in different languages, then how will the Foundation determine if the behavior of users complies with those same guidelines?

I'd like to echo this - If you want real community buyin, you need to take this to the individual projects and let them discuss it in the manner they choose. For English Wikipedia, this means a RfC at our Village Pump, not a community consultation on Meta. If you want to implement this on, then bring it there, and let them decide on a consensus there. The best you can get out of a discussion on Meta is an opt-in proposal. Maybe. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
However, Meta is the place where all Wikimedia-wide matters are handled (e.g Steward elections) and we cannot have the same discussion occur on over a hundred different projects anyway. I did come to this page thanks to a link the WMF put on a local project page, so it seems like it was adequately publicized. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Why would a ban from a single project be considered a Wikimedia-wide issue? The issue is not one of the publicity - it's determining when consensus has been achieved. For something like an election, determining consensus is possible - but that's a special case, since there's voting. In general, meta is suitable for announcements and discussions like this one, but it's not clear that consensus here corresponds to consensus on other projects. It sure looks like it does not. 13:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Because this page isn't about a ban on one project, it's about the policy that allowed that ban to happen and also led to one other controversial ban on dewikipedia, another on Chinese projects and could lead to more controversial bans on other projects down the road. Also, since it's a global policy the global project is the correct place to have the consensus finding process (c.f also the Global policies). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Jo-Jo, you are not addressing a more fundamental question: should these policies be global? That question is what lies behind all the controversy here. You see, a lot of people don’t WANT a global policy. They want to continue with their established project-by-project policies. That disagreement needs to be resolved before anything else. You need to go to each project and explain WHY the Foundation thinks a global policy is needed, and get approval for it. The Foundation put the cart before the horse by creating a global policy that (at least some of) the projects don’t want. Blueboar (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
    IMO, "should these policies be global?" is a different question from "should this be discussed here?"; I only commented on the latter point. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
    By carefully controlling what questions get asked and rejecting the questions that people want to ask, you offer us en:Hobson's choice. Might I suggest you simply save time and effort by simply writing the question and the answers with no participation by the community? The result (further protests) will be the same. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

So if it’s questions that are being asked for:[edit]

Should the WMF hire a Trust and Safety team comprised of unaffiliated professionals in their respective fields or continue to promote editors to this position?

I’m sure this can be worded better but the gist is that so much about the FRAMBAN looks awful from a personal COI perspective and any functional company should strive to avoid that. Everything on WP is recorded, and the past interactions with many of the involved parties, including WMF accounts, are there for all to see. I’m not making a judgement on the propriety of the action against Fram, that’s beside the point. I’m saying, that the WMF should be using its more than adequate resources to hire outsiders to deal with what T&S should be dealing with. If anyone can put that in the form of a better question, please do. Capeo (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

"This draft is here so we can talk about what questions the consultation, when it launches, should be asking (and how it should be formatted, etc)"[edit]

Let's start with the formatting.

Again and again I have seen (and not just on Wikipedia) alleged discussions in the form of questions where the questions are loaded, self serving, or contain unwarranted assumptions. It doesn't even have to be done on purpose; the person writing up the questions just naturally gravitates towards asking questions about what they want to talk about. In the most toxic cases, they then delete any "off topic" comments that don't fit the straitjacket they created.

If I understand correctly, you at T&S were told to have this consultation by the board after you did something which resulted in multiple administrators and editors resigning. You need to format this so that those concerns are addressed.

So my first formatting suggestion is dump the question and answer format, and structure the discussion the way most policy discussions on the English Wikipedia are structured. This is the format we are used to, and T&S should adapt to the community's preferred format for discussing things, not the other way around.

My second formatting suggestion is have the discussion in a newly created sub page of en:Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), not on meta. You really want to work with us so that we can resolve our differences through discussion instead of through mass resignations and articles about us fighting each other in the popular press. To do that, have the discussion where we are comfortable, not where you are comfortable.

My final formatting suggestion is Choose some topics yourself, but let the Wikipedia Community choose other topics on the fly." On the Village pump subpage, create a section for issues that T&S can address and participate in a back-and-forth discussion there.

If somebody posts a comment like "Hey! what about this page where a working group suggested that we allow material that is released under a CC NC (No commercial works) license?", just move it to another section with a comment like "this is not something T&S can address, but working group X has been invited to comment".

I also have some suggestions about "what questions the consultation, when it launches, should be asking", but first I want to see what kind of response I get to my formatting suggestions. To be frank, the usual response to an invitation to have an open discussion such as this one is [A] silence by everyone at the WMF, and [B] "answers" from members of the Wikipedia community who have the ability to criticize a question but lack the ability to make any actual changes at the WMF. I am hoping that this time it will be different. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Commenting on just one point, but this is about a Wikimedia-wide policy so it's definitively not appropriate for it to take place on a page on enwiki. There are people with stakes on other projects as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: As Jo-Jo Eumerus points out, this is a global policy, so we can't really hold the consultation on enwiki, as it would disenfranchise people from all other projects. And this draft/consultation is not intended to be a general discussion space for T&S topics, so while your second and third points present a good idea - and one we've been considering - for a general discussion space, this space is not that space. For your first point, could you be more specific about what format you'd like to see instead? In my experience, many policy discussions start with questions like "Should we change policy X to include the sentence "lorem ipsum blah blah'?" or "Does the policy as it is written mean that XYZ?" Are you envisioning a sort of free-form discussion where we just say "Partial/temporary office actions...give us your thoughts...go!"? If so, I would say the risk there is that we don't get the actual making-a-decision questions answered in that format - if what people discuss at the "go!" signal is "what the heck is a partial/temporary ban?", for example, that doesn't give us a "the community said yes, use them" or a "the community said no, definitely don't use them" to work off of the next time we need to make a decision about using a partial/temporary ban in general. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 11:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Kbrown (WMF): Why would holding the discussion on enwiki disenfranchise the members of other communities? The WMF would also need to to hold the discussion on those other communities, under the rules of those communities, for it to be a consultation with those communities. While that might lead to multiple discussions, the WMF is proposing that it be delegated additional enforcement powers by those communities - and hence the multiple discussions are in proportion to the additional responsibilities that the WMF wishes to assume. The problem with a consultation on meta is that the techniques for determining that a consultation is over and what the result is don't seem to function here, and hence it's very liable to produce results that are not accepted by the communities. 13:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
While holding 200+ individual consultations would be great in a perfect world, it's simply not feasible in reality. T&S lacks the staffing (and the language skills) to run localized consultations in hundreds of languages on hundreds of projects. We'd love it if we did have the capability to engage directly with each project simultaneously in its own language, but we just don't. So, since this is anyway a global policy that is expected to apply globally, we're holding the consultation here, where global policies are discussed and determined. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I get it. People on other wikis are able to access an English-language discussion on meta but are not able to access the exact same English-language discussion on enwiki because reasons. Thanks for clearing that up for me. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Kbrown (WMF): T&S has already undertaken partial bans on wikis, which means that that they believe that they have the resources to engage with those wikis in a non-trivial manner. Given that this consultation has been mandated by the board and director, those resources should be applied to this consultation. This is happening because the WMF decided a process it developed was mature enough, and it was incorrect. Does it make sense to plan a consultation that will lead to a similar outcome? 15:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Kbrown (WMF): I don't think anyone is realistically advocating 200+ consultations here. That said, you DO need to hold individual ones with the major parties affected. At minimum this is the English, German, and Chinese wikipedias. You can probably get away with fewer than 10 consultations, covering the rest of them with an opt-in discussion on Meta. Respectfully, if you cannot manage that level of engagement with these communities, you cannot engage sufficiently to handle the nuanced cases implied by partial or temporary bans. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

So I got an answer (no, we won't do that because reasons) to one of my suggestions and silence so far on everything else. The rest of my suggestions got zero response from anyone at the WMF. Now it may turn out that you are just slow to respond -- if so I will retract this and apologize, but I have received this same stonewalling/silence from multiple WMF employees on multiple occasions concerning multiple issues, so I am not holding my breath.

In particular I have not received any repose to my comments about questions that are loaded, self serving, or contain unwarranted assumptions, followed by deleting any "off topic" comments that don't fit the straitjacket T&S creates. This is important. We really need to discuss it.

So again I beg T&S to please, please, please, engage in an open dialog with the community on this page. Respond to questions. Push back against unfair criticisms. Admit you were wrong when the criticisms are valid. Have an extended, back-and-forth discussion, hopefully ending on something we can agree on.

I am really trying to work with you here. I am not your enemy. We are supposed to all be in this together for the good of the readers. Please don't make me have to report to the CEO and the board that I tried to have an open discussion with you but you refused. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to push back gently on the notion that I (or my team) am/are stonewalling or giving you "silence" here. I in fact did engage and am engaging with your points, and I would call what we're having here an open dialogue. If you feel I missed something (like your point about loaded questions), that's cool, it happens, let me know, but please don't characterize my engagement here as silence when I'm doing my absolute best to respond actively to users in this conversation as much as I can, and I in fact responded to all three of the main (judging by the bolding) points in your post.
Now, to address your point about loaded questions: I'm unclear on whether you're saying that the questions in this draft are "loaded, self serving, or contain unwarranted assumptions", or whether it's just a general criticism of ways you think the WMF tend to communicate. We did our best to compose the questions in this draft in a neutral, open-ended way, and if you think we fell short of that mark I'm interested to hear it, but I'll need you to be more specific about which questions you think are problematic and how they're problematic. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Point well taken. I was wrong. I made the mental error of treating you, a person who is clearly engaging in dialog and doing a good job of it, as if you were the same as certain past WMF staffers in the past who ignored questions. That was wrong, and I apologize. Sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Should this be a global policy?[edit]

Tazerdadog seems to me to provide above a strong argument why this does not have to be a global policy, however Kbrown (WMF) seems to believe that the decision for the policy to be global is fete accompli. Of course, this determination should be made very early on in this process as to whether the policy is/should be global in its authority. I say "no" and that there are many more downsides than upsides to making this policy global, but I'd like to know what the benefits are of making it global? Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow I've just received a new message from language community of one half-dead wiki. Wikimedia is the common point for such "developing" projects, so making it more global seems to be quite perspective. That's why, if we have the only metawiki project for all languages, though we have unique local wikis, we should also have common rules for the whole metawiki-community. I sure there will be many discussions and some of wiki-members might disagree with WMF principles and agenda. It is their own right. But if the main goal of meta-wiki is coordination between language communities, we should at least translate the final decision to as many languages as possible and inform others. Maybe they got used that nobody consults with them. Inmotional (talk)

Inmotion, Please read Tazerdadog's suggestion here as I think that would take care of the example and concern you are raising. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Engagement[edit]

Thanks for starting this draft, my usual question: what are the steps undertaken to engage the community? I didn't see there be any message of this consultation on village pumps of the projects I am active at? I know this is a draft for the main consultation, but some form of consultation will be better. Thanks. --Cohaf (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cohaf. We are in the process of sending out notifications to all projects; it's a little bit slow in happening because some of the staff involved in the messaging are doing double duty handling this while attending Wikimania in a professional capacity. But I promise the notifications will be coming! Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Kbrown (WMF): Appreciate it. For message, I am happy to provide translations if needed. --Cohaf (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


Editors cannot reasonably be expected to comment on potential inadequacies of the draft-consultation when we still have no outcome or answer what happened with the Framban. Trying to drive this process forwards before we are able to constructively comment on it will not be viewed favorably, it is not helpful, and you risk the entire process getting derailed. It's better to get this done right rather than done fast. I strongly advise that you defer the draft discussion until EnWiki-Arbcom publishes their result on the case. The expected timeline is a proposed decision posted by 7 September.

P.S. in this diff I recommend some formatting changes to make the page more clear. Alsee (talk) 10:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Alsee, I've implemented your double-boxing idea but am keeping the TOC for now. As far as your comment about the timing, I guess I'm not clear on how discussing what questions we should be asking is dependent on the Fram case? Certainly for the actual consultation where we'd be asking people to tell us whether they wanted us to use partial/temporary actions, I can understand not wanting to weigh in on that until you know what Arbcom says, but making a list of questions we want to ask people to discuss seems a lot less dependent on that. Whether Arbcom affirms the ban, changes the ban, or vacates the ban, "Should T&S use partial and temporary office actions going forward" is still a question people will want to answer, for example. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 10:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Kbrown (WMF) in short, we don't yet know what we will learn when Arbcom releases info about the case. How can I suggest the draft-questions need to be revised to discuss X, when I don't yet know X?
An attempt at a longer answer, it seems to me that the proposed consultation questions aren't addressing the actual issue. I don't think the issue here is really about "partial" or "temporary" actions per se. I believe the issue is which kinds of cases the Foundation should or shouldn't be getting involved in. There is a widespread concern that the kinds of cases that would result in a temporary or partial ban do not appear to overlap with the kinds of cases where the Foundation should be getting involved. The Foundation has thus far refused to provide any useful clarification on what kind of case the Framban was, we don't know what he was sanctioned for.
Once we understand what kind of case the Foundation wants to use these actions for, once we understand what kind of case the Framban was, we may agree that the Foundation can and should handle those kinds of cases in the future. Or we may try to explain to the Foundation why we don't think the Foundation should be handling that kind of case. It's not really about "partial" or "temporary", other than that "permanent-global-bans" appear to provide a clear and correct line defining the kinds of cases the Foundation should handle.
How can we ensure good consultation-questions when we don't yet know what the discussion is going to look like? The entire conversation is going to radically evolve once we get a better picture what the Foundation did use these kind of office actions for, once we better understand what the Foundation would use these kinds of office actions for in the future. Alsee (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I see what you were saying. My reply will probably not satisfy, but here it is: this consultation will be about, and limited to, partial and temporary Foundation office actions. Issues like the types of cases we take, due process concerns, and many of the other things people raised in "Fram" discussions are outside the scope of this consultation (though they will probably be in scope in some of the future consultations we'll be running - this isn't the only one). So I would encourage you to think here about what the questions that need to be answered are specifically in relation to whether and how the Foundation uses partial/temporary office actions in the future, and hold other questions in abeyance (or discuss them elsewhere) for the moment. I get that you're saying that you don't have enough information to necessarily form those questions, but please do your best and give us what you can.
Also, if it helps: for Fram's ban, the Foundation did say that "the issues reported to us [about Fram] fell under section 4 of the terms of use [...], specifically under the first provision entitled 'harassing and abusing others.'" I don't know if that gives you any clarity, but hopefully it does. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Kbrown (WMF): how do you reconcile your scope restriction with the Board's instruction to, "identify the shortcomings of current processes"? If a community member believes that T&S actions should be limited to child protection issues and threats, and that those issues should not involve consideration of temporary sanctions, will you disregard their opinion because you have determined in advance that such opinions are out of scope? EllenCT (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@EllenCT: I think we may be sort of agreeing while thinking we're disagreeing here? That is, shortcomings of partial and temporary bans is totally a topic that can be covered by this consultation when it launches, though it's not a question we thought to include in our initial draft and we'd appreciate your help crafting such a question. Believing that partial and temporary bans shouldn't be used, no matter the situation, is also covered by this consultation. What's not covered - and my understanding is that it's not covered here because we'll be covering it in other future consultations, rather than because we don't want to hear about it - is the extent to which community members believe that any T&S action should only happen in cases of child protection and threats. So basically what I'm saying is that "current processes" is a really big umbrella, and we don't think we can cover all of it (which is to say, find out all relevant information without the talk page descending into cross-topic confusion) in one consultation, so we're breaking it down into sub-parts. This consultation, about partial/temporary actions, is the first of those sub-parts, but to the best of my understanding will not be the last. Edited 16:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC): I double-checked this to be sure I was giving accurate information and it looks like I misunderstood our future-consultation plans. We're going to be running consultations about future changes to Office Action policy, but we don't have any further consultations planned about the current version of policy. Really sorry for giving misleading information! Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Kbrown (WMF): Issues like the types of cases we take, due process concerns, and many of the other things people raised in "Fram" discussions are outside the scope of this consultation. I think I spotted a miscommunication here. In regard to temporary and partial actions, all of those concerns are in-scope under Q2. I don't think anyone is asking for changes in how criminal-type-cases are handled. I also think editors assume/expect the Foundation NOT to toss around global-permabans based on "Someone is harassing me, they stalked me to three of my articles and said my work was bullshit and deleted it all and they called me incompetent".
I'd like to note that there have been poor outcomes in the past when past when the Foundation tried to constrain scope of discussion. If a person or two goes off-topic, that can be ignored or gently discouraged. However if many people consider a particular aspect to be important to the discussion then it's not a good idea to battle against the discussion itself. If people feel that you're refusing to allow discussion on types of cases or other issues they consider important then the likely result is to drive them to a simple "No" on Q1.
if it helps: for Fram's ban, the Foundation did say that "the issues reported to us [about Fram] fell under section 4 of the terms of use [...], specifically under the first provision entitled 'harassing and abusing others', we know. That's why we are here. A lot of people either don't trust the Foundation to handle this case and similar cases, or do trust and still think it's inappropriate. In the past our understanding was that the Foundation handled things like legal issues, threats of violence, cross-wiki abuse, and child protection issues, and no one had concerns about that. That list of case-types is quoted from what Board said T&S should be limited to handling until agreement between T&S and the community are achieved to expand the list. The community has extensive experience and expertise dealing with the kinds of complaints of harassment, bullying, stalking, and abuse that routinely arise out of content-disputes. A significant percentage of those complaints are filed by disruptive policy-violating editors, who are often on the verge of being blocked themselves. The complainant believes or claims harassment because other editors are properly trying to enforce policies against them. The Foundation must stay far away from passing judgement on content disputes or the routine squabbles arising out of content disputes. This topic may be drifting away from the intended "draft-discussion", but it may be exactly on-topic if it helps you understand some of the concerns that people want considered and resolved by this consultation. It's not about partial or temporary actions, it's about the kinds of cases. What kind of case is minor enough to only warrant a partial or temporary sanction, and simultaneously appropriate for an Office Action? Alsee (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Shall we ask the board?[edit]

Alsee wrote:

"I don't think the issue here is really about "partial" or "temporary" actions per se. I believe the issue is which kinds of cases the Foundation should or shouldn't be getting involved in. There is a widespread concern that the kinds of cases that would result in a temporary or partial ban do not appear to overlap with the kinds of cases where the Foundation should be getting involved."

Kbrown (WMF) responded:

"My reply will probably not satisfy, but here it is: this consultation will be about, and limited to, partial and temporary Foundation office actions... So I would encourage you to think here about what the questions that need to be answered are specifically in relation to whether and how the Foundation uses partial/temporary office actions in the future."

The board ordered this consultation. Should we ask the board whether they wish to order T&S to consult with the community regarding the narrow scope that Kbrown insists we limit ourselves to or the wider scope that Alsee advocates?

Now I can certainly see limiting the scope to exclude things that T&S has no power to change, but I can assure Kbrown that we didn't have multiple administrators resign over "how the Foundation uses partial/temporary office actions". They resigned over T&S one day, without any consultation or warning, taking over a basic function of running Wikipedia that has traditionally been handled by ANI or Arbcom. Limiting the discussion to exclude talking about that is pretty sure to result in the shit hitting the fan once again.

Just as an aside, I would support T&S temporarily blocking a user for any reason or for no reason at all with the case then sent to Arbcom to decide whether to vacate it or decide on how long it should last. We don't want something that violates a person to slip through the cracks while we wait for Arbcom to respond, and temporary blocks while we ("we" meaning the English Wikipedia community, not T&S) look into a potentially bad situation really don't hurt anyone other than causing a minor inconvenience. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

1 very large question[edit]

Trying to stick to the actual theme of this page (that is, discussing questions, not giving answers)

Question 2 is the one that is going to get all the long, long answers. I'm concerned that on consultations with long answers, the WMF is less than perfect at picking out all the particulars each user might make. E.g. I might go "Yes, on projects which agree" to Q1, then for Q2 say "No to old version, and here are 7 points of change, each with an explanation".

As such, I think breaking down the "if no, what changes" part of Q2 into several other questions is beneficial. I'd suggest things like "Types of Conduct they'd be used for", "Permissible duration(s) of bans", "Appealability status" (and an "other" category, of course) Nosebagbear (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Nosebagbear, this is a great suggestion. I'll take it back to the rest of the team and we'll see about rewording along these lines. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Questions submitted here[edit]

What, if any, is the downside of returning to (or establishing) a protocol where the foundation has no authority to discipline any editor?Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC) Revised question is below, preceded by a title in bold. Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I know that we really shouldn't try to answer questions here, but I have an answer that might help you to refine the question.
In the short term, huge harm. Let's say that T&S is notified of someone posting links to child pornography. Everyone agrees that they should immediately delete the edit, remove it from the history, and block the user.
And, BTW, the WMF has been able to do that from the beginning. So "returning to" isn't accurate. it would be "establishing".
In the long term, the downside is mass resignations of admins and the board telling the CEO to tell T&S to knock it off.
So how do we reconcile the short and long terms? I say T&S should (if the edit was on a project that has something like Arbcom which can deal with something like this without revealing where those links went to) turn it over to Arbcom to either vacate the decision or make it an Arbcom ban. In smaller projects that don't have the resources to handle it, I say let T&S's immediate decision stand.
I also say that T&S should tell the person making the complaint that they will share the full details with Arbcom, and that Arbcom has a spotless record of not revealing this sort of thing to the public. The two go hand in hand: turning over the decision to Arbcom requires turning over all of the evidence to Arbcom.
Could you please refine the question so that it doesn't imply stopping T&S from responding to kiddy porn with at least a short term deletion/block? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow, I know why some of the permanent San Fran Bans were placed. (Well, technically I don't "know"; the WMF never explicitly provides a reason for such a ban, but I was aware of the incidents that occurred right before they were placed, so for all intents and purposes I know.) I'm not going to go into detail, but I will say that there are some truly bad people out there, ones who do far worse than edit war or insult ArbCom. And I do not want those people anywhere near Wikimedia projects. Remember that the matters WMF have traditionally handled are ones like child protection and threats of violence; cases where it might be necessary to contact law enforcement. Imagine a case where someone's done something of a magnitude that necessitates literally calling the cops, but WMF cannot remove them from the project.

Now, I tend to think matters of that level of seriousness are the only ones WMF ought to be directly handling; "Fram was mean to me" does not necessitate calling the police. But prohibiting them from doing anything about even the most serious, urgent situations would be ludicrous, and those situations, while fortunately rather rare, really do happen. Seraphimblade (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Broadly, I agree with Seraphimblade. I'm not seeing any compelling reason for T&S to deal with anything except legal issues, threats of violence, cross-wiki abuse, and child protection issues, with the addition of harassment and civility issues in relation to projects with no equivalent of's ArbCom. For any project with an ArbCom or equivalent, though, T&S needs to stay away and allow the project to regulate itself. If the project manifests a history of not being able to do that, then a public hearing of some sort can be mounted to determine if that project needs to be put under some sort of outside control, in which case T&S would be the obvious agency to do that -- but that decision cannot be made privately and without direct input from the communities. This can be done in a way that protects privacy; it's more difficult, but it can be managed. What cannot be allowed is any further interference in community self-policing based on unchecked, non-public, private bureaucratic decisions. T&S needs to stick to its core remit in regard to self-regulating communities. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Revised question per above comments: What, if any, is the downside of establishing a protocol where the foundation has no authority, regarding a project with the equivalent of's ArbCom, to discipline any editor except in regard to legal issues, threats of violence, cross-wiki abuse, and child protection issues; with the understanding that the foundation may have said authority regarding harassment or civility issues in relation to projects with no equivalent of's ArbCom ? Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Misleading to refer to a "policy" which was never approved[edit]

The early June 2019 policy as shown was imposed by the Foundation without approval by any community rule-making processes, and the consultation should say so. Referring to it as a policy could mislead respondents into thinking it was discussed among the community like approved, longstanding policies. EllenCT (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Ain't it the truth; but this is the new normal; the majority of communication coming out of the USA is now either misleading or downright false; and the worse thing is, I believe its by habit as opposed to being by intent. Once the misleading crap is out there its damn near impossible to correct it. There's a major spiral downwards in terms of the quality of communication originating anywhere in the USA, so why should it be any different here?
Its a "policy" because someone with some (could be just a teeny, weeny bit) authority says it is. Full stop. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Consultation charter should be quoted[edit]

The consultation should tell potential respondents why it is taking place; specifically, it should include this quote from the Board of Trustees resolution of July 2nd:

We have asked Katherine Maher, CEO of Wikimedia Foundation, to work closely with staff in support of our communities to identify the shortcomings of current processes and to propose solutions. This could include current and upcoming initiatives, as well as re-evaluating or adding community input to the two new office action policy tools (temporary and partial Foundation bans).

We recognize that T&S has established a track record for managing highly complex situations. While the aforementioned conversations between T&S and our communities take place, we recommend T&S focus on the most severe cases, for instance: the handling of legal issues, threats of violence, cross-wiki abuse, and child protection issues until consultation and agreement between T&S and the community are achieved.

Any changes in the long-established practices of dealing with toxic behavior within the communities should be introduced carefully and only following close collaboration with the communities.

EllenCT (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone else here think that the above constitutes an answer to my question Shall we ask the board above? Anyone think it doesn't? Please comment in that section either way. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I think so. The stated desire to make a no answer to Question 1 "out of scope" if its rationale depends on issues, "like the types of cases we take, due process concerns, and many of the other things people raised in 'Fram' discussions" is manipulative and should be rejected by the community. EllenCT (talk) 05:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@EllenCT: The consultation already says
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees requested that staff hold this consultation to "re-evaluat[e] or add community input to the two new office action policy tools (temporary and partial Foundation bans)", and the executive director subsequently affirmed that "[the Foundation] will seek further community feedback on those [partial/temporary tools] changes".
Are you saying you think we should quote more of the Board resolution? Because I'm not sure the entirety of what you quote here is relevant (for instance, I think including the paragraph about "We recognize that T&S has established [...]" would take up space but not really contribute to people's understanding of the consultation topic). Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 09:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@Kbrown (WMF): I'm primarily interested in conveying (1) that "re-evaluation" is on the table, as opposed to simply an endorsement campaign; (2) T&S work on non-severe issues has been suspended until this is resolved; and (3) that the proposed changes won't be re-introduced without the community's approval. EllenCT (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Question 2[edit]

I think Question 2 (which as of this writing reads Can the Office Actions policy on partial and temporary bans, as written (circa June 2019), be used? If not, what changes need to be made to its text?), may be a bit too broad. It might be better to break that out into more focused queries, like "For what types of behavior (if any) should partial and temporary bans be considered?" "How serious or pervasive should the behavior need to be before use of such a ban is considered?" "What steps, if any, should be taken to contact the person who may be subject to such a ban to hear their side prior to a final determination?" (This one is especially crucial if the decision would be final and unappealable.) Following those, there could then be a catch-all "What other considerations should be taken into account when use of a ban is being considered?". Seraphimblade (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Seraphimblade. Nosebagbear made a similar suggestion a few sections up, so I'm going to take both your suggestions back to the team and we'll work on rewording the question along these lines. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 09:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

"not appealable" / "final and non-negotiable"[edit]

I'd like to remind everyone that it is my long established view that all bans are appealable to me.
-- Jimbo Wales, 11 June 2019

EllenCT (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I have concerns about Jimbo's traditional role of being the final arbiter, but, putting those aside, it's obvious to anyone who followed FRAMGATE that "not appealable" and "final and non-negotiable" were a core part of the problem. Unless T&S can assure us that everyone is -- literally -- a saint and never, ever makes a mistake, bans must have an appeal process. I'd be much less concerned about this if T&S would simply stick to its original remit, dealing with legal issues and pedophiles and so forth, but their attempt to step into Office Actions which effect normal, non-criminal editors means that we should never see "not appealable" and "final and non-negotiable" in relation to these bans, ever again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
(+1) Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Agree with BMK, actually. I don't think that Jimmy should have any role in ban appeals, but all bans should be appealable - even if the answer is going to be no in particularly egregious cases. Just because other websites have unappealable bans should not be a reason for us to have them. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I fully agree, it's nonsense and highly counterproductive having terms like "not appealable" / "final and non-negotiable" in a policy, specially when it is not evident at all which purpose they would serve. All bans should be appealable by principle. If the WMF has that policy of "not appealability" at its core, it's way past the time to scrap it for good.--- Darwin Ahoy! 00:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
That was my point above -- which was ruled as "irrelevant". Mistakes happen. While common sense admits there are cases where any sanction must be final for it to work, to insist that any decision must stand regardless what subsequent investigations show. My suggestion -- "rarely altered" -- avoids this conflict. (And "appeal to Jimbo" is something unique to the English Wikipedia, based on his act of transferring his authority to the English Arbcom; there is no basis to conclude he has/had similar authority over other language Wikipedias. And one could further reason that even if he retains this right in en.wikipedia, he has no power to enforce it.) -- Llywrch (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

WMF research staff on the necessity of transparency[edit]

From Anti-Harassment Tools Team Design Researcher Claudia Lo's 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.

EllenCT (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Reasons for temporary ban[edit]

I cannot think of a legitimate potential reason why someone should be banned by the Foundation, temporarily, from one Wiki with working admins and a working (en.Wikipedia) Arbcom, except possibly for one of the following:

  1. The Arbcom or admins have gone rogue. (Probably should be permanent, rather than temporary, even so.)
  2. The "temporary" time period relates to an event which may only encourage problematic actions until the event is completed.
  3. The "temporary" time period is until Arbcom has a chance to rule.

I'm not asking why Fram was banned temporarily from en.Wikipedia. I asking why anyone would be banned temporarily from a working Wiki. If no reason can be found, this suggests the reasons could be personal. — Arthur Rubin T C (en: U, T) 03:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Why temporary? My view: I prefer temporary actions to permanent. People change, and a lot can change after some arbitrarily chosen time (eg. a year), after which the person has another chance. In my experience if it's personal, then it's indefinite.
What reason? ArbCom might not be in the position (eg. have the power) to act, or the members decide an issue is not arbitration matter. Other than ArbCom, there are only the admin noticeboards, which are only effective in trivial cases.
About 2.: there are event bans too, 3.: this is a very practical use — Aron M (talk) 04:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Transparency, trust[edit]

In the whole fram drama one of the complaints I heard repeated most, was the lack of transparency. I can wholeheartedly agree with that, and I am thinking about how the topic of transparency can be introduced into the consultation. I think the community would be considerably more trusting, if the policy would balance the envisioned sanctions with guarantees that the decision making process and the justification of those decisions will be as transparent to the community, as possible, while still respecting the involved parties' privacy.

To start with, I could come up with the following, and hope the team can turn these into presentable questions:

  • What actions do you expect from the WMF that would make the process transparent?
  • If you were to report an issue, and wish to remain anonymous, what evidence could be presented to the public to ensure transparency?

I believe transparency is so crucial to trust and to community acceptance, that the final policy will dedicate quite a few sentences to that matter. The upcoming consultation could start a few steps ahead, with a more trustful community, if the team was to include an initial formalization of the transparency measures guaranteed for office actions. I'm still working on ideas for this, maybe your team has something in mind? — Aron M (talk) 06:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

One answer which I think has been repeated at least a hundred times and probably more since Fram's ban was announced is that editors need to know the standards by which they are being judged. If you are banned but nobody is allowed to say why, that will just lead to rumors and scouring of histories for wild guesses -- as we have seen in abundance -- not to mention a chilling effect. For child protection and threat issues the desire to keep the bans out of the courts justifies this, but secrecy for lesser offenses can not. So, as for the second question, at least an abstract summary of the accusation is necessary. The identity of the accuser(s) is not. EllenCT (talk) 06:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Even if child protection, or threat issues are involved, the ban should state so, without showing the evidence. With Fram's ban, the T&S could and should have presented at least the publicly available, on-wiki evidence of the issues, so the community would not have felt like this is a punishment, out of thin air. — Aron M (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Puppet accounts[edit]

And what about puppet accounts and continuous disruption of communities?--Kalogeropoulos (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Q:On all projects, or only on a subset?[edit]

I would suggest splitting the group of communities into three types

  1. Big ones with an elaborate conflict resolution team/function (like enwp/Arbcom) (a few (one or two?) communites)
  2. Medium ones with a working process for conflict resolution (but not elaborate or fully formal) (many communities but perhaps only 50-80)
  3. Small ones where neither follow up on all edits is done nor a proper conflict resolution exist (the rest being 150-200)

The small ones is mostly under supervision of Stewards and I think it will be good for WMF to be able to step in when there are ugly conflicts. For medium ones I also think it would be good to have a supervision role of WMF for ugly behavior in those communities if and when there are situations they are unable to resolve themselves. But for the big and strong ones I believe a more hands-off reaction would be recommended, where WMF only act in coordination with the local conflict resolution function.Yger (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Small communities without a functioning dispute resolution regime are appropriate for much closer T&S involvement, but no excuse for secret accusations. EllenCT (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes and also medium-sized ones. Both Azerbadjan and Croatia versions have been unable to sort out their problems, and I would welcome an active involvement from T&S after the discussions re them on meta have run for a while.Yger (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Which would be a good reason for any Code of Conduct adopted by T&S/the wider volunteer community to be considered a model Code of Conduct: it is in force in all projects (i.e. not only the different Wikipedias, but Commons, Wikisources, Wiktionaries, etc.) unless a given project has adopted both its own CoC & an official conflict resolution process. This then leads to the issue how a small community where conflicts are resolved by T&S advance to a larger one that handles its resolution internally -- which would need to be discussed in the next stage. -- Llywrch (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I add that the biggest projects also have their fair share of difficult, complex issues, that are not handled properly, or simply ignored, ex. Fram. These issues should be handled by trained professionals (mediators), for which the WMF has the resources. This should be done transparently, and in cooperation with the local ArbCom. Such involvement would be beneficial to long-running issues: mediation - if done well -, results in a mutually agreed-upon resolution, not a one-sided sanction. — Aron M (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
The problem with difficult & complex cases is enforcing any decision. I've always envisioned any body like the English Wikipedia ArbCom as nothing more than where disputes go to die; if any resolution body cannot enforce or convince its community to accept its ruling about a dispute, then the dispute will continue & possibly destroy the community. (To use the legal analogy, this is akin the common motivation for appellate courts to duck issuing a judgment based on some technicality, such as jurisdiction or mootness.) -- Llywrch (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
T&S? Trained professionals? One of those phrases does not belong in the same sentence. — Arthur Rubin T C (en: U, T) 19:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Arthur Rubin:, I think you attached your comment to the wrong one of mine. -- Llywrch (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Mediators would have no idea how to operate within the Wikipedia communities. Mediators generally act in broad but specific spheres, to give them experience and background in an area. There isn't a pool of professional mediators who work in the Wikimedia sphere. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Solution seeks for a problem[edit]

In almost two decades of WP there was, aside from some legal issues, never a need for offisäktschns except for those cases in which the foundation wanted to exersize power against the communities and finally, the foundation had to step back. Just in case the foundation is not aware of: WP is no sect, the WMF is not a government and surely is not a government/court/police within one body.

Some of the communities do have own established means (e.. en ArbcCom, de Schiedsgericht) for dealing with almost every problem which can occur when different people collaborate; most small projects have very smallcommunities what on one side means that disruption potential is smaller and on the other side easily can be overlooked by stewards.

Overall I don't see the need for T+S and any offisäktschns. Besides, a trust and safety committe does need trust by us users. Concerning trust the Fram case is a disaster in communication, transparency (cf. Aron @ 06:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)) and some other isssues. First of all a T+S committee needs to deserve trust. Which, sadly, the foundation is throwing away every other year or so, for years, by disrespecting the communities, naming superblock, image filter and some other communication catastrophes. I believe that trusting the foundation has never been so low than it is now. And, IMHO, the 2018-2020 strategy planning discussed elsewhere is the next step to worsen trust into WMF. Sorry, I have to oppose those type of offisäktschns decidedly so I even abstain on further comments to the draft. Much simplier: No, next. --Matthiasb (talk) 09:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


It has been said, meta is not the place to discuss, but the individual affected projects. I do not think so. Links from the projects to meta are enough for that. However, the text can not be presented in english only. At least the languages used by a significant number of users need to be addressed: English, German, French, Spanish, Arabic, Farsi, Chinese, Portugese, Russian, Dutch, Swedish, Japanese, Hebrew, Italian, Greek, Turkish at a minimum. --C.Suthorn (talk) 10:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem is not so much the place as the language. Why? Pues mira, porque si lo escribís en inglés hay mucha muchísima gente que no se va a enterar de nada. Ya les va a costar venir aquí, pero es que cuando lleguen se van a topar con un pedazo de tocho indigesto que te pasas que encima está en una lengua que igual ni entienden. ¿A que me he explicado perfectamente? B25es (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Meta tiene un gran grupo de traductores voluntarios activos, que son bastante buenos para presentar varios párrafos de exposición con cualquier cantidad de preguntas, y casi tan buenos para resumir las respuestas multilingües recibidas de ellos. Y sé que esto probablemente sea lo suficientemente bueno para que los hablantes nativos de español lo entiendan, porque a pesar de todos sus defectos, Google Translate puede traducir su texto a otro idioma y luego volver al suyo para mostrar la inteligibilidad o falta de ella. EllenCT (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Agradezco tu respuesta @EllenCT:, pero creo que hay algo que se debe entender. La mayoría de los que participamos en los proyectos no estamos particularmente interesados en la gestión de normativas. No es que no nos interesen, porque nos afectan y muchas veces son imprescindibles. Pero lo cierto es que no estamos en los proyectos para eso. Yo mismo, ahora, estos últimos tres días, he estado preparando un proyecto para sacar fotos de un centenar de municipios de la provincia de Cáceres. El más cercano está a 490 km de mi casa. Nos llevará cinco días sólo recorrer el terreno y hacer las fotos, 2700 km. Luego hay que subirlas. Hay que categorizar. Hay que usarlas en Wikidata y otros proyectos. Pero es que eso no es más que una actividad adicional. Porque lo que estoy haciendo como "actividad principal" es crear Q en Wikidata para todos los monumentos protegidos de las categorías BIC y BRL de mi comunidad autónoma, la Comunidad Valenciana, me faltan unos 2000. Y además colaboro con mi esposa, que también es editora, en pequeñas -o no tan pequeñas- actividades. Además me he tirado cuatro horas leyendo el tocho de los Working Groups; cuatro horas porque no tenía más que una tarde. Porque este voluntario, por las mañanas, curra en un una empresa, que es lo que le paga las facturas. Y después de todo eso pues intenta hacerse una idea de lo que está pasando.
Y mi inglés es bastante bueno. Mejor que la media de mi país, pero no tan bueno como el de los nativos o casi nativos. Las personas cuyo inglés sea peor que el mío se tienen que hacer una idea remota. Hay traductores en línea y algunos fragmentos se traducen, pero cuando hay textos largos, técnicos o argumentos complejos, los textos no son precisamente fáciles de digerir. Por ejemplo, de lo de Fram, en castellano nos hemos enterado cuatro.
No se pone una nota en la lengua de Cervantes. No sé si en la de Goethe o en la de Rimbaud. Ya digo, si lo ponen fácil; un texto breve, un lenguaje no técnico... quizá alguien lo lea. Si no, al final la gente corriente del movimiento piensa que hay unos que "hacen política" y otros que "curran en el tajo". Y claro, se ponen negativos. Lo que es malo, la verdad. Muy malo. Uno de los argumentos recurrentes contra innovaciones (un ejemplo para mí muy doloroso es la reticencia a enlazar con Wikidata en la Wikipedia en español) es que "vienen impuestas de fuera".
En el caso de los Office Actions, no sé dónde se publicitó este asunto en castellano, pero no he sido capaz de encontrar el lugar (porque de alguna manera llegué yo aquí). B25es (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Snaevar comment[edit]

Listed as an answer to the three questions on the main page.

  1. Yes, partial and temporary bans can be used, on all projects
  2. The office actions policy can be used. It does make sence to use the same policy for long and short bans.
  3. The problem with the June 2019 policy is that it wanders too far from the office actions policy. Temporary actions are likely cases where the community itself reacts to the issue at hand. The community is likely to intervene if the issue is on the wiki itself, while it is less likely to do so when the issue is on social media or in person. The temporary policy should follow the bullet points below.
  • The WMF would go over prior ArbCom disscussions about the users and see if they cover the issue at hand. List over arbcoms is at Arbitration Committee. WMF would also go over the block history of the user at the project in question and see if any of the blocks could have been becouse of the issue at hand, based on date and block reasoning.
  • WMF would not intervene when the issue has been fully covered by an arbcom, except if it considers the issue to be serious enough that it could be in breach of US law.
  • Issues at social media or in person can be the tipping stone in deciding if the issue should lead to an ban. As such issues which have discussed the part of the issue that happened on wiki, whilst not the aspect on social media or in person could warrant a block.
  • WMF would have broader rights to temporary ban users on projects whith no arbcom, but it should still not ban users for issues that they have allready been banned for by the community, again except when the issue could be serious enough that it could be in breach of US law.--Snaevar (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

How will the results of the consultation be determined?[edit]

I'm going to be blunt. I don't trust the T&S, or the WMF at large to accurately summarize the results of this consultation. I suspect I can find a number of other editors who would feel similarly. The level of trust just is not there. I'd like to see a system where the communities are meaningfully involved in the closure of this discussion. It would get ugly if the WMF and the communities can't agree on what the consultation found, and we could wind up in the same mess all over again. I'd request that the consultation be closed and the decision on the future of these tools be made by representatives of the communities of the projects they affect. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Now that's a good idea. Make a series of binding requests for comment on each of the questions suggested in this draft, to be closed by a group of crats or trusted admins from multiple projects, including the English, German and Chinese Wikipedias as they have all been directly affected. — Bilorv (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I also hope WMF will be wise enough to not force anything down the community throat here. Not holding my breath, though, considering their history.--- Darwin Ahoy! 00:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I absolutely agree with this. Perhaps we should in general try working on an inter-wiki committee/parliament that could close this kind of a discussion or at least make a well-heard impartial comment on the WMF decision. Daß Wölf (talk) 07:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The question depends on another question[edit]

The answers to the questions asked here depend on another unresolved question: Will T&S stay within the area its legitimate authority or not?

Many editors would say that it would be completely unreasonable to allow T&S to use partial or temporary bans, as part of its actual role of dealing with things like legal issues, threats of violence, and child protection. Allowing T&S to ever use partial/temporary bans would be very dangerous, especially since it might cause T&S to try to extend its own influence beyond its role.

Many of the same editors would also say that if T&S were to seize control over regular conduct/policy enforcement, it would be unreasonable for T&S to only use permanent global bans. Whatever might remain of the projects would be worse off, if such a thing could be said, were the new authorities limited to using only permanent global bans to enforce their policies.

The question of partial/temporary bans depends on the question of restraining T&S. The former cannot be answered so long as the latter is still insufficiently certain. --Yair rand (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Involvement[edit]

I understand that this is a draft for the RFC questions and not the RFC itself (in which I am prepared to provide my opinion, as it affects my decision to accept nomination on advanced permission due to the similar behavior between myself and some other users at my local community). Here, I would like to propose another question in items 3.

To what extent should the community be allowed to participate in the discussion about temporary Office Actions? What if the temporary Office Actions were challenged by the local community?

This question is added in order to address the concern about community participation in the temporary office action more explicitly. Thanks. --G(x) (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)