User talk:Samuel (WMF)
Such a ban receives review from multiple people, including both members of the T&S and Legal teams before going into effect. - We have heard these precise lines from your fellow comrade, Jan in the course of FRAMGATE. Sadly, ...... Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Would you be happier if they had individual discretion? In this aspect, I think it's as good as it can reasonably get. Vermont (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'll ping Winged Blades of Godric,Vermont, Seraphimblade and EddieHugh as presumably interested participants of this discussion.
- Prior to the closure several editors (including myself) attempted to raise concerns on Kbrown's talk page regarding the content of the proposed close, but KBrown went unresponsive. In a nutshell I noted the Board of Trustees statement that 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. I noted that if the Foundation's proposed resolution were not adequate it could lead to a community consensus declaring "no agreement had been achieved", leaving that board statement in place and active. After reading the close, I am optimistic that the concerns may be resolved with minor clarification.
- Samuel (WMF), the consultation was a mess because T&S incorrectly defined the issue as Temporary&Partial-ban-policy. The close largely suffers from the same problem. No one particularly cared that the Foundation added lighter sanction options. The new Temporary&Partial ban policy was incidental to the real issue. The issue was that T&S expanded scope of cases were it was getting involved, regardless of the type of sanction. The close is, at best, murky in addressing the real issue. However I'm cautiously optimistic that some minor clarification can resolve the concerns. It would help if the close were more clear that T&S understands why the community reacted so strongly, and more clear whether the scope-of-cases issue has been genuinely been resolved.
- To quote English Wikipedia's policy section Harassment#What harassment is not: there is an endemic problem on Wikipedia of giving "harassment" a much broader and inaccurate meaning. T&S stomped on Not-Harassment policy. Building an encyclopedia inherently involves critiquing each other's work. It also involves tracking the content produced by an individual, to find and address any pattern of problems in their editing. Relevant criticism is not harassment, tracking a user with a pattern of problems is not harassment. Users with persistent content problems will often claim "harassment" when they are repeatedly or harshly criticized.
- The Framban issue is that the Foundation is not supposed to get involved in content decisions, not supposed to get involved in judging critique of content, nor the tracking and cleanup of content deemed problematical by the community. Fram's criticism was at times unbecomingly-harsh for an Administrator. However Fram was doing fundamentally valid work tracking, criticizing, and cleaning up content problems. That is not harassment, that is not a threat, that is not a safety issue, T&S should not have touched the case.
- The close says The threshold for a Foundation global ban is much higher than the threshold for a partial or temporary ban... the issues that tend to lead to traditional Foundation global bans are not issues that would have resulted in a temporary or partial ban to begin with. While that is promising, it doesn't actually say anything in particular. It doesn't show that T&S really understand what the problem was, and it doesn't really indicate that the problem has been resolved. Alsee (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)