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

This is an essay on civility.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Five pillars edit

five.apply

Introduction edit

A lot is going on with the WP:FRAMBAN. This essay has been written to call attention back to our civility policies.

It's during trying times like this we all tend to forget what we're actually here for. Without making a complete comment on this particular event, it might still be a good time to remind ourselves of the Five pillars. As a community, these have been the building blocks of which we built the entirety of Wikipedia. All that is asked of editors is to keep this in mind during one of the most contentious debates we have had in a while. If you agree to the five pillars, sign below. Related are two other statements that it is suggested (but not mandatory) you put your name to.

Thank you all for your hard work.

Policy edit

The fundamental principles of Wikipedia may be summarized in five "pillars":

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a social network, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, nor a collection of source documents, although some of its fellow Wikimedia projects are.

Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view

We strive for articles with an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy with citations based on reliable sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute

All editors freely license their work to the public, and no editor owns an article – any contributions can and may be mercilessly edited and redistributed. Respect copyright laws and never plagiarize from any sources. Borrowing non-free media is sometimes allowed as fair use, but editors should strive to find free alternatives first.

Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility

Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and do not engage in personal attacks or edit wars. Seek consensus, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers. Should conflicts arise, discuss them calmly on the appropriate talk pages, follow dispute resolution procedures, and consider that there are 6,822,754 other articles on the English Wikipedia to improve and discuss.

Wikipedia has no firm rules

Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: they can be corrected easily because (almost) every past version of each article is saved.

Signatures edit

Please sign here if you agree to this statement: five.signed

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The five pillars are what made me register an account and start editing in the first place. My biggest disappointment so far has been finding out that they aren't as universally-upheld by the community as I thought they would be. – Levivich 20:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CoolSkittle (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tazerdadog (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

An exercise in sheer pointlessness. Why the sudden urge for ratification of the 5 PILLARS? ∯WBG^converse 06:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping debate truthful edit

facts.certain At WP:FRAM/S, you can review one of three complete summaries of the events that have been provided to benefit anyone with a limited amount of time. Beyond that, it is recommended for each user to review each of the statements made by WMFOffice for themselves as well as a few of the comments made by members of the community. Regardless, the most important thing editors should do is keep committed to an honest discussion about this controversy. If you aren't sure of the accuracy of a statement, don't make it. Open speculation is less helpful and can lead to unrelated parties getting caught up in this mess.

For those within the community with greater knowledge of events, it's important to clear up any misconceptions that arise.

Examples edit

N[Insert username here] must've been the one to report Fram.
Open speculation about who was the person that reported Fram is never helpful. The details of who reported Fram have been kept private for a reason. Unless you are a party directly involved here or work for the Wikimedia Foundation, it's highly doubtful you have good reason to know the person's identity.

NThe Trust and Safety team issued this ban unilaterally
We know that as a unit, the Trust and Safety team has at least a minimal of oversight within the foundation. Many discussions have focused on to what extent individuals from T&S can issue office actions. However, according to the update from Jan (WMF), that there are internal controls in place from preventing members from going rogue. It remains up for debate whether or not WMF has been successful in promoting community health thus far.

Y According to the WMF, Fram was banned for violations of Section 4 of the Terms of Use.
The WMF has said as much in one of their official statements from the WMFOffice account. By qualifying the statement with According to the WMF you avoid getting into endless debates about the "TRUE reasons" this action was taken. Conspiracy theories are an endless pit, so it's better to just stick with the things we know for sure.

Signatures edit

facts.signed Please sign here if you agree to this statement:

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
– Levivich 20:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CoolSkittle (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The second isn't necessarily incorrect, but neither is it useful. Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

The second example has now changed. This feedback was appreciated.

The following discussion has been closed by MJL. Please do not modify it.

The second example is very highly appropriate. If you take offence at that, grow a thicker skin. And, the third example is ridiculous. Overall, can't see this in any manner other than portraying blind & unquestioning compliance with WMF, as an ideal value of Wikipedians. ∯WBG^converse 06:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WBG, the second admitibly has problems with wording but was mostly trying to explain how people sometimes add Ansh666 to the list of axxed sysops when they left for unrelated reasons. It isn't offensive, but it isn't really true.
As for the third, I don't think you are reading it the way I intended. Saying Fram was banned for violations of Section 4 of the Terms of Use is just as unhelpful as saying Fram was banned because WMF had an axe to grind with their most vocal critic. It isn't about whether or not you believe WMF, but it's about ensuring people have the ability to decide for themselves. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining civility edit

civil.preface

1. Introduction edit

It's slightly ironic that a controversy that started about civility concerns has gotten so vitriol as to need this to be said, but please be civil. This never stopped suddenly being a thing. It is okay to be upset, but losing your cool is quite not alright. There are some suggestions below structured as five parts when reacting to all this. We're still a community after all, and moments like these can be really defining for us.

This isn't about just one user. It's about a process, so we should act like it.

civil.please

2. Don't be mean edit

More specifically: Stop saying expletives to the WMF.

You really aren't going to get anywhere with that attitude. It might be their job to serve the community in your mind, or to you they may have screwed up beyond levels heretofore unknown; but that really does not matter in the grand scheme of things. Saying a bunch of nonsensical curse words or typing things out in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS AND BOLDED just to blow off steam is beneath our collective dignity. We can be professional, make our disagreements known, and still stay calm about it. It can be upsetting to people (members of the community included) if you lose your temper, and we are never going to get anywhere with that. WMF staff are people, too.

It never hurts to assume they are genuinely trying to improve things.

3. Respect everyone's privacy edit

civil.privacy Please respect the privacy of all those involved in this event. Fram, the user Fram had an IBan with, the WMF staff, and everyone else for that matter. If the staff member(s) behind the User:WMFOffice do not want to come forward with their name at this time, then don't ask. There is nothing that can be gained for them to come forward right now, and that most certainly will remain the case if users keep harassing the names of those who have spoken publicly about this.

At the end of the day, our ideal situation would have been if WMF referred this case to Arbcom. We trust them to handle sensitive information like this. There is a good reason we don't let just anyone become an Oversighter. Our goal is to not play detective with real people's lives, and we most certainly shouldn't try to do it as a full community.

4. Unneeded proposals don't help edit

civil.proposals This needs to be repeated: stop asking who is behind the WMFOffice account. No one is going to give an answer after the fifth time it has been asked.

With that statement out of the way, some proposals are really just silly. We can't block the WMFOffice account for being a shared/role account. If your proposal is just to prove a WP:POINT, well please reconsider it. This whole process has been taxing enough as it is, and it never gets better when people are sharing different ideas on how best "a statement" or something. Collective action is one thing, but if a proposal actively can hurt Wikipedia.. maybe let's not do it?

5. Taking a break is an option edit

civil.problems Please don't get too worked up about all this. There is nothing wrong with walking away. To paraphrase one admin as it related to another affair, We are but cogs in a machine that will still run without any of us sticking around. This does not mean your contributions aren't valued, but the Wikipedia community is a lot bigger than any single user. Take a break if you need it. No one will fault you, but we hope to see you back soon.

Signatures edit

civil.signed Please sign here if you agree to this statement:

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
– Levivich 20:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]