Thread by @tdadler

The Wikimedia Foundation who own Wikipedia have, for the first time ever, personally stepped in to ban a veteran administrator from just Wikipedia for one year. No public explanation given, no option for appeal, and not even local admins were warned it was coming.

At the moment there is pretty much universal condemnation of the action from Wikipedia's community, who feel Foundation involvement undermines the normally self-regulating nature of Wikipedia. The Foundation have also left an unsatisfying "explanation":

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti…

Other sites exist under the Wikimedia Foundation and they previously banned users from all sites, including Wikipedia, in exceptional cases. Temporary, localized bans were not done before this year and this is the only one to target an admin, let alone one with a clean record.

Note: the Foundation did not give an explanation for imposing the ban. Their explanation was about the process of how and when they would impose such a ban. Users noted a nearly identical "explanation" was given to the German Wikipedia over bans there:

de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti…

One clue some seized on is the Foundation indicated the process takes about four weeks and pointed to a discussion on pronoun usage where the administrator appeared to threaten blocking an editor who complained about people not using the user's preferred gender-neutral pronouns.

However, this administrator also has a lot of history of criticizing the Foundation itself over its adoption of certain technical changes such as integrating Wikipedia with certain less-monitored Wikimedia sites vulnerable to vandalism and an updated editing interface.

I also mentioned one controversy involving this administrator from late last year as Wikipedia looked to vote in the next year's Arbitration Committee. He picked a fight with one candidate and it got very ugly, as some of his comments were suppressed:

https://twitter.com/tdadler/status/1068928443591651328

So, the administrator has responded on another Wikimedia site laying out what he says are the reasons he was given for the Wikipedia ban and it basically boils down to him being a particularly vocal critic of the Foundation and the Arbitration Committee:

commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?ti…

Now that the apparent reasons are revealed, the Wikipedia community is more livid than ever and discussing some extreme steps such as a general "strike" of editors and even putting sanctions or blocks on the Foundation accounts.

So, the Foundation has put out a further statement to address all the people upset about the ban. Nothing particularly new is offered, but re-emphasizing on elaborating on the process behind the Wikipedia ban and why they can't discuss the reasons for the ban.

One administrator had been pledging to reverse the block on the banned administrator's account, but held off when the Foundation said they would comment further. After the above comment was made, he deemed it inadequate and undid the block. So far, his action has not been undone.

This may be meaningless as blocks are a technical measure to prevent editing. In theory users can be banned without a block. The unblocking administrator could still be subject to Foundation sanctions and any edits by the banned admin, Fram, would likely get the block restored.

However, another admin has also pledged to fall on her own sword as well if Fram's block is restored and action is taken against the unblocking administrator. Both admins are prominent and well-respected in the community, so further action is likely to greatly intensify matters.

So, that Wikipedia admin who unblocked Fram in defiance of the Wikimedia Foundation has been stripped of admin privileges by the Foundation for 30 days and Fram was reblocked. They also added a further statement suggesting that Fram's conduct may go beyond what he was told about.

Remember that other Wikipedia admin I mentioned who talked about unblocking Fram if the Foundation blocked him again? Well, she wasn't all talk.

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti…

So there is now a formal proposal to ban the Foundation's account from Wikipedia. Technically futile, like all other measures being taken. Literally all this boils down to is Wikipedia editors, including long-time admins, repeatedly poking the Foundation in the eye.

After banning a major admin with no clear explanation and no real notice to anyone at Wikipedia, the Foundation has stripped one admin of privileges and will likely do the same with another. Two admins from opposing sides have also resigned due to this event. #WikiMassacre

The Foundation Chair has commented on the ban since the one identifiable complainant against Fram was talked about as someone who may have been in a romantic relationship with her. She denies any involvement and invoked a favorite boogeyman from 2014. #WikiMassacre

Members of the local ArbCom initially made it seem like the Foundation did not inform them ahead of time, but it is now stated a member did learn about it in a call with Foundation staff and minutes of the call were shared with the others #WikiMassacre:

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti…

The Wikimedia Foundation chair's comments on people looking into her connection with one of the alleged complainants appears to have prompted additional comments from people supporting the ban, claiming Wikipedia has a toxic community and echoing the chair's sexism claims.

People at Wikipediocracy, which was investigating the chair's relationship with one apparent complainant about Fram, have not taken kindly to being compared to GooberGobbler. It is ironic, given the site's blog once doxed two GamerGate sympathizers who edited Wikipedia.

Yeah, it sure does suck when your legitimate grievances about censorship and attempts to investigate conflicts of interest get smeared as merely an excuse to engage in misogynistic harassment. #WikiMassacre

To get an idea how much support those reversing the Foundation's block of Fram are getting from Wikipedia editors: both of their pages are inundated with "awards" for their actions. Lots of praise from all corners #WikiMassacre:

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti…

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti…

One award, in particular, caught my attention and shows that #WikiMassacre is not just some random idea of mine.

The Foundation has not taken action regarding the second reversal of their block. It may be due to Jimmy Wales and another member of the board advising the Foundation staff to hold off. Potentially, as long as Fram does not edit, it will not be restored imminently. #WikiMassacre

Regarding the only known complainant against Fram: Laura Hale has a history of conflict with Fram stemming from his criticism of her edits on Wikipedia. At one point he got her sanctioned, specifically for "significant translation errors" #WikiMassacre:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia…

In that case Hale was allowed to run her any translations by user Raystorm, whose real name is María Sefidari. At that time, Sefidari was already a member of the Foundation Board. She has been, since mid-2018, the chair of the Board #WikiMassacre:

foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolutio…

People on Wikipediocracy posted pictures and links to Hale's Facebook account where she has pictures of her with Sefidari that appear to indicate the two were, at least at some point, romantically involved. This is what prompted Sefidari's comments on Fram's ban. #WikiMassacre

This does not mean they were the precise catalyst for this ban as Fram's own comments about what the Foundation told him indicated other harsh comments made while criticizing Foundation stuff and Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee played a role in the decision. #WikiMassacre

Despite what Sefidari said, Fram did not single out Hale as he just relayed what the Foundation told him, including them telling him to stay away from Hale back in March. In that case, they only identified two old edits he made that they acknowledged were correct. #WikiMassacre

There is no reason his silence on that would have prevented her from being linked to this Wikipedia ban, because she alluded to Wikimedia Foundation involvement herself on her own page in a message explicitly directed to Fram. #WikiMassacre

Right now, seems the point to look at is Friday as a member of the Foundation Board said there is a pre-scheduled meeting of the board and Fram's ban will likely be discussed. Board Chair Sefidari stated she would not be present for any briefing on the ban. #WikiMassacre

So someone didn't get the memo about reducing drama. A bureaucrat, a Wikipedia volunteer who can appoint and remove administrators, just overruled the Foundation's removal of administrative privileges from the admin who first unblocked Fram. More poking in the eye. #WikiMassacre

One of the Wikipedia admins who had been leading the charge against the Foundation's ban has stormed off in response to the chair's remarks on those criticizing the Foundation's actions and expressing concerns about the chair's potential conflicts of interest. #WikiMassacre

More subtly flouting Foundation authority, the bureaucrat who restored admin privileges to the admin who blocked Fram just reported himself to the Arbitration Committee, clearly looking to assert community jurisdiction over the Foundation #WikiMassacre:

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti…

This last comment from an admin at the request for Wikipedia's ArbCom to intervene with the Fram Ban situation has me in stitches. #WikiMassacre

Not all the negative response has been of this rough and tumble rogue mentality. The proposal to ban the Wikimedia Foundation account was rejected and some are just overwhelmingly supporting a "no confidence" motion against the Foundation. #WikiMassacre

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti….

Here is a live link dedicated to the whole issue to help keep track of all the developments for anyone wanting to easily keep track on their own #WikiMassacre:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia…

Apparently, there was an old Norwegian ship used for traveling the Polar regions named "Fram" and someone decided to have some fun #WikiMassacre:

A feminist Wikipedia blog put up a post strongly backing the action against Fram: genderdesk.wordpress.com/2019/06/12/you… I previously brought up this blog after it made some incoherent claim about my identity with some unsolicited opinions about Muslims #WikiMassacre:

https://twitter.com/tdadler/status/1005224605525659653

One noteworthy incident mentioned about Fram was last year. Kudpung, an admin who ran Wikipedia's main newsletter, wrote there criticizing the Foundation's Executive Director after a contractor was found to be engaged in undisclosed paid editing: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia…

He criticized the Director, Katherine Maher, for doing speaking engagements around the world and not addressing the controversy. Another administrator, GorillaWarfare, who was taking a year-long break from the Arbitration Committee, tore into him claiming misogyny. #WikiMassacre

Fram stepped in to try and remove the attack, then blocked her when she kept restoring it. Many other editors and admins rallied around her, claiming it was not really a personal attack, and eventually the block was reversed #WikiMassacre:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia…

So, I took time to review significant developments, but first more of the usual. Another Wikipedia admin resigned, citing frustration with members of the community subverting the Foundation's actions. This is the second supporting the Foundation to leave in protest. #WikiMassacre

Another incident involved a former member of the Arbitration Committee, who supported the Foundation's actions, repeatedly stating Fram was banned for harassment. One admin threatened to block him if he kept saying that without evidence. The former Arb backed off. #WikiMassacre

The really significant development today was that the head of the Trust and Safety Department came out with a statement on the recent events and what would happen going forward. #WikiMassacre

Main thrust of the statement is they apologize for the "disruption and confusion" resulting from their actions and not "working more closely" with the Arbitration Committee. They pledge more community engagement in the future, but there are some important caveats. #WikiMassacre

Nothing about the bans or their process will really change. They make clear that local admins will likely still not be told what prompted a ban, even members of ArbCom who already have non-disclosure agreements with the Foundation and claim there are legal reasons. #WikiMassacre

Foundation continues to assert they have a right to intervene when they feel Terms of Use violations are involved including on issues of "harassment" if, in their opinion, the community is not doing enough to self-regulate or is otherwise unable to take action. #WikiMassacre

The head of Trust and Safety mentions ongoing consultations beginning early this year on a tool for filing private complaints and then goes on to talk about the diverse staff they have at the Foundation and how it includes members of the Wikimedia communities. #WikiMassacre

Big takeaway is at the end where he states, essentially, that the Foundation is standing down from any direct action against those who have reversed Foundation actions in "acknowledgement of the confusion" brought on by these events. #WikiMassacre

However, Fram remains banned and the Head of Trust and Safety makes clear that if he makes any edits on Wikipedia, he will be banned from all the Wikimedia sites and his account locked. It seems from their phrasing it will still remain a temporary ban in that event. #WikiMassacre

At the beginning of his statement, he does state that the Trust and Safety Team will make a further statement tomorrow at the request made to the Arbitration Committee for a review of the recent actions taken by admins in response to Fram's ban. #WikiMassacre

Seemingly by coincidence, a statement was published right after that by Risker, a former member of the Arbitration Committee who served for four years. Her statement provides a fairly concise description of the complaints and issues involved in this controversy. #WikiMassacre

Just as soon as I finished posting, another former member of the Arbitration Committee came forward with a point-by-point rebuttal to the Foundation demanding respect for Wikipedia's editorial independence and questioned the propriety of other Foundation actions. #WikiMassacre

There was discussion during all this about past Foundation bans and the situation at the Chinese-language Wikipedia came up. A user from Hong Kong has shown up to describe the situation behind those bans last year and ongoing issues #WikiMassacre: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti…

I had looked into this situation after the removal of Checkuser privileges, which allow access to private user data, from Chinese Wikipedia admins. The description of the dispute matches what I read at the time. Cannot attest to the accuracy of all the allegations. #WikiMassacre

Additional statements were posted by the Foundation's Head of Trust and Safety. The Foundation is allowing the Arbitration Committee to decide what to do with administrators who reversed the Foundation actions. He states they intend to engage the community further. #WikiMassacre

In a follow-up to community response on his other statement, the Head of Trust and Safety promise "consider . . . carefully" the significant community rejection of the new approach to bans. Again, he talks about improving communication and cites some suggestions. #WikiMassacre

Controversy has also stirred over social media response to Fram's ban. The Twitter account belonging to the Women in Red Wikiproject, a feminist group that creates articles about women, made inflammatory comments about Fram and the community #WikiMassacre: archive.is/fhDMU

One tweet accusing Fram of "real crimes" particularly became contentious and has led to considerable discussion on Wikipedia. The tweet was deleted, but despite some gratitude there is still a push to identify the editor responsible so that there can be sanctions. #WikiMassacre

Editors raised this at the request for the Arbitration Committee to review the recent admin actions. Some asked them to examine all conduct around discussion of Fram's ban. The Women in Red account made further inflammatory responses to discussion of their tweets. #WikiMassacre

So far, there is no word on what happened at the meeting of the Board of Trustees. Board member James Heilman has told one user "Discussions are ongoing and conclusions have not yet been reached." #WikiMassacre

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti…

A clerk for Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has removed all mentions of the Women in Red Twitter comments, declaring the request to be only about the administrator actions and warning all who raised it to not raise it again. #WikiMassacre

Just a day after Fram's ban, a YouTube video from the University of Washington was published on the "gender gap" on Wikipedia. This video is stirring up even more controversy over Fram's ban due to comments by a Foundation employee #WikiMassacre:

In last 30 seconds of the video an employee of the Foundation's Trust and Safety department, Sydney Poore, states one of the "big initiatives" coming "this next year" is creating a "universal code of conduct" for the sites owned by the Foundation. #WikiMassacre

Numerous editors, including administrators have already expressed concern about the implications of this undermining the independence of the Wikipedia community and frustration at the feeling this coming change was not communicated to them. #WikiMassacre

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti…

A recently-resigned member of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee posted links to what he claims as "proof" of Fram engaging in harassment and stalking of ArbCom and himself. It includes the comment to ArbCom Fram mentioned and others #WikiMassacre:

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti…

The ArbCom member who resigned, did so shortly after the dispute in those links. When asked his reasons, he explicitly cited "abuse" from the community. He has now "retired" from Wikipedia and resigned his admin privileges citing the response to Fram's ban. #WikiMassacre

So, that member of ArbCom has acknowledged he talked to the Foundation's Trust and Safety team about Fram. He is being a bit evasive about it and claiming it wasn't really a complaint. Also, he claims ArbCom was routinely informed about Foundation investigations. #WikiMassacre

Fram commented again on his Foundation ban and the warnings leading up to it. He posts a portion of an e-mail he received and it is prompting a great deal of concern from other editors who feel it implicitly shackles them in dealing with poor editing. #WikiMassacre

Yet another statement from the head of the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust and Safety department. Again, this statement reiterates prior statements that no specifics will be provided about Fram's ban and offers no concrete promises to be more transparent in the future. #WikiMassacre

He does pledge the Foundation will try making the process fairer and more transparent for the accused and to do a better job of informing users about changes the Foundation is making with enforcement. Also included is a graph laying out the approval process. #WikiMassacre

Their stats show about 90% of cases referred to Trust and Safety are referred to community processes and, of cases they take, about 50% result in some kind of action. Those actions include conduct warnings or bans. Less than a third covered English-language sites. #WikiMassacre

One member of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, SilkTork, has said he is considering resigning from the Committee over the recent controversy. He expresses frustration with a lack of transparency in the process with the Foundation and wants a more open discussion. #WikiMassacre

NewYorkBrad, who has spent the most years on the Arbitration Committee out of any member and is a corporate lawyer who once represented Stan Lee, has offered what he considers a compromise solution. Part of the proposal suggests the Foundation lift Fram's ban. #WikiMassacre

Brad's proposal has received considerable support, including from other former members of ArbCom, with a small amount of opposition. I have seen at least ten former ArbCom members either support lifting Fram's ban or criticize the Foundation's approach. #WikiMassacre

I should note the figure for former ArbCom members includes Floquenbeam, the first admin to fall on his sword to remove Fram's block, whose admin privileges were then removed by the Foundation, and then restored by a volunteer user using his own advanced privileges. #WikiMassacre

An e-mail posted to the Wikimedia mailing list in the midst of this controversy is stirring up more resentment. Wikimedia Belgium are calling for an internal audit of the Foundation's Trust and Safety team over unrelated complaints #WikiMassacre:

lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki…

The community chapter lists several criticisms of the Trust and Safety team's treatment of one of their members, who was accused of misconduct that included speaking too loud and standing too close. It is stated this was because the member had a hearing impairment. #WikiMassacre

Some complaints involve an individual who handles grants for the Foundation and was working with Wikimedia Belgium. On the mailing list, that individual comes forward and claims they mischaracterized events involving her and that her own complaints were valid #WikiMassacre:

An individual who attended one of the Wikimedia community events about which complaints were made has given his own take on what occurred and expressed frustration with Trust and Safety's handling of the matter. #WikiMassacre

One of the community-elected members of the Foundation's Board of Trustees also commented to condemn the airing of the matter on a public mailing list and argues the Trust and Safety team's handling of the matters mentioned was justified. #WikiMassacre

Community reaction on Wikipedia has been pretty harsh and the comments from the Foundation board member are prompting alarm, particularly the suggestion that rumors of potential danger are legitimate cause for barring someone from an event #WikiMassacre:

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti…

Here are some of the messages editors and administrators are placing on their profile pages on Wikipedia in response to the recent Fram ban debacle. #WikiMassacre

The Board member who commented about the Wikimedia Belgium situation has left further comments on Wikipedia in response to the discussion about the incident. #WikiMassacre

Here is also an additional statement from the person at Wikimedia Belgium whose conduct was complained about #WikiMassacre:

lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki…

Foundation Board has gone a week without a decision and Wikipedia editors are restless. Proposals made to split content to another site (largely rejected as impractical), to go "on strike", or place a site-wide notice asking people to petition the Foundation. #WikiMassacre

The Chair of the Wikimedia Belgium chapter has come out with a statement on the recent discussion. He states he has reprimanded the person who posted to the mailing list for making the details public, but reiterated the group's complaints about the Foundation. #WikiMassacre

So, the member of Wikimedia Belgium stated he was no longer attending Foundation events and left a farewell thread on the Wikimedia mailing list. One of the complainants showed up and it just went downhill from that point forward #WikiMassacre:

lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki…

Head of the Foundation's Trust and Safety team has responded again, further explaining their process. Most notable is they rejected the proposal by former ArbCom member NewYorkBrad, which was supported by nearly 90 users, including eight other former ArbCom members. #WikiMassacre

In rejecting Brad's proposal, they claimed people could not know the evidence behind Fram's ban. Some speculated this meant something off-site, which would contradict Fram's response to the ban. However, another admin has offered a plausible explanation. #WikiMassacre

Wales, who sits on the Foundation's Board of Trustees, insists the Board is working on something, though it is obviously not ready yet. He has given some statements alluding as to his possible position, but leaving it up for others to "read between the lines" #WikiMassacre:

There have now been two more admin resignations over the recent controversy over Fram's ban. In both cases they cite the Foundation's recent action against Fram and responses insisting on the Foundation's current course. One gave a very detailed statement. #WikiMassacre

Yet another admin has resigned in response to the Fram ban situation. This makes six resignations in total. Four are due to frustration with the Foundation, while two are due to frustration with the community. #WikiMassacre

Aaaaaaaand another one just went down. That is four admins in the past two days for seven overall since this whole kerfuffle got going. #WikiMassacre

Currently, there is a fight over deprecating the "office actions" policy page that outlines rules for handling Foundation actions. A bureaucrat dropped it to being an information page. This sparked an edit war and there is now a discussion widely endorsing the move. #WikiMassacre

Responding to calls for a "strike" over the Fram ban situation, one Wikipedia administrator has turned off an anti-spam bot he maintains that is used to remove certain links added by new users. Wikipedia has a spam blacklist, which is unaffected by the move. #WikiMassacre

Another case of poking the Foundation in the eye, but perhaps with less support. The bureaucrat who restored the admin privileges of the user who unblocked Fram today restored admin privileges to Fram. However, a couple other bureaucrats intervened to overturn him. #WikiMassacre

The bureaucrat, WJBScribe, was involved in the above-mentioned edit war about the policy on Foundation actions and also made this edit to Fram's user page, which was only open to editing by admins and other users with similar advanced privileges. #WikiMassacre

Seems this is eroding some consideration WJBScribe had over other actions defying the Wikimedia Foundation as a few members of the Arbitration Committee, which was previously looking to punt the issue of sanctions by motion, may reconsider regarding him at least. #WikiMassacre

WJBScribe has resigned after the controversy over him granting Fram back his admin privileges. This is despite him receiving considerable support. One bureaucrat is now suggesting ArbCom go after the bureaucrat who re-removed Fram's admin privileges. #WikiMassacre

Administrator Jehochman, a critic of the Foundation's actions, threw everyone into a tizzy saying he found the smoking gun that proves the Foundation's ban was justified, but couldn't tell anyone. He was just talking about the Laura Hale stuff everyone knew about. #WikiMassacre

One member of the Arbitration Committee is now suggesting they don't punt on sanctions and, instead, open multiple cases: a case examining the conduct of admins and bureaucrats, a case examining Fram's conduct, and a case to review handling of harassment. #WikiMassacre

BuzzFeed published an article on the Fram ban situation advancing the usual claims about white male toxicity being a danger to Wikipedia. Community haven't take the hint or read between the lines and somehow believe it is supporting them or not taking sides. #WikiMassacre

So ensconced are they in this view that when Katherine Maher made a rather rude subtweet about the BuzzFeed author tweeting out his story a few times, a bunch of them got really mad. Demands for her firing and digging into staff who liked the tweet commenced. #WikiMassacre

A galaxy-brain editor suggested #WikiGate for discussing the controversy. Not an idea I endorse for any revolt/social movement standing up against SocJus organizational principles. Do use #WikiMassacre as that is descriptive of the event and not easily made a badge of shame.

More admin resignations have happened in the past few days. Only one very clearly references the recent Fram ban situation and another alludes to it, but the rest are unexplained. It is possible some resignations are unrelated, so I put the count at eight or nine. #WikiMassacre

Floquenbeam, the admin who first unblocked Fram, has resigned. He is joined by a parade of resignations one after another. Six admins in total have resigned their positions in the past 24 hours in clear or apparent response to the Fram ban controversy. #WikiMassacre

That figure is in addition to the seven or eight resignations in clear or apparent response to the controversy and doesn't include other resignations where people have not given any kind of hint as to the reason for resignation. #WikiMassacre

One admin mentioned above, who resigned more advanced privileges, has fully resigned as an administrator. The explanation makes it pretty clear this is also related to the recent Fram ban controversy. Confirmed admin body count now at 14, possibly 15 and higher. #WikiMassacre

This resignation wave has also spread out from the English Wikipedia. Someone who had admin privileges and the only one with bureaucrat privileges on the Sanskrit Wikipedia has now resigned citing the ongoing battle over Fram's ban as a contributing factor. #WikiMassacre

Even as I was tweeting this, another admin has gone down citing solidarity with another admin who resigned over the Fram ban situation. That makes for eight since the current wave started and 15 confirmed in response to this situation on the English Wikipedia. #WikiMassacre

Significant public response from the Arbitration Committee to the Foundation Board regarding the Fram ban situation. They are asking the Foundation to devolve matters such as Fram's case back to them and the local community. If not, four members threaten to resign. #WikiMassacre

Here is another admin resignation citing the Fram ban controversy as the motivation. Someone else has also compiled information on resignations, though not all may be related to Fram's ban, and found they performed roughly 1 out of every 50 admin actions this year. #WikiMassacre

Wikipedia's main newsletter, the Signpost, published a piece in the past day on whether Fram engaged in harassment. Several named editors comment on Fram's conduct towards them or others. However, there are also anonymous comments #WikiMassacre: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia…

The only anonymous comment from someone claiming to have been personally harassed accused Fram of "sexual harassment" by "repeatedly linking" to off-site graphic sexual writings about him and others. Such a serious claim being made stirred up strong objections. #WikiMassacre

An editor objected to the inclusion of the anonymous accusation and argued it violated Wikipedia's policies on claims about living people and raised questions of libel. This resulted in an edit war and attempts to have some action taken against the Signpost editor. #WikiMassacre

The allegation is very specific in its statements, which makes it fairly easy to identify the anonymous complainant. Only incident matching the individual's description involved Fram posting a link to a WikiInAction thread discussing then-ArbCom member Gamaliel. #WikiMassacre

However, context reveals the dishonesty of how the situation is framed in the Signpost article. The link consisted of various comments criticizing Gamaliel's conduct and just one gratuitous one. Fram linked it as a piece of evidence in a wider case against Gamaliel. #WikiMassacre

Back in 2016, when this case occurred, Gamaliel was the editor-in-chief of the Signpost and they did an April Fool's issue mocking then-candidate Trump, which included links to dummy pages with mocking headlines under different dates: #WikiMassacre

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia…

Editors objected to the pages, starting a fight where Gamaliel generalized opponents as "Gamergaters" and repeatedly took admin actions on the dispute, in violation of policy. The deletion of the WikiInAction link was cited by Fram to illustrate a pattern. #WikiMassacre

A major result of this dispute was that Gamaliel resigned from the Arbitration Committee, his position as editor-in-chief of the Signpost, and "retired" from editing. The anonymous complainant in the Signpost article on Fram claims to "barely edit" now. #WikiMassacre

This is, again, not accurate. Although Gamaliel still lists himself as "retired" and his editing has dropped, a review of his contributions shows that he still makes over a thousand edits each year. He has already made over 500 edits halfway through this year. #WikiMassacre

Not only is Gamaliel being extremely deceitful about this claimed instance of "harassment", he has previously engaged in quite severe harassment himself by going after the job of journalist and Wikipedia critic David Auerbach with smears #WikiMassacre:

breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/0…

Gamaliel faced no consequences for his actions towards Auerbach. Far from it, he received grant money from the Wikimedia Foundation to cover his expenses so he could act as the "communications chair" for the WikiConference in North America the same year. #WikiMassacre

In addition, Gamaliel has been "communications chair" for the Wikimedia DC chapter organization for the past few years and serves on their board, which recently released a statement supportive of the Foundation, which Gamaliel shared on a Wikimedia Mailing list. #WikiMassacre

To summarize: Gamaliel gave an anonymous, dishonest, and hypocritical statement on Fram to the newsletter he once ran for a piece rationalizing Fram's ban and an organization where he is communications chair put out a statement defending the Foundation ban approach. #WikiMassacre

Situation with the Signpost article on Fram has escalated to extremes. An edit war erupted over the page, the matter was brought before the Arbitration Committee, and the piece is now deleted. Here is an archive of it prior to deletion #WikiMassacre: archive.is/acG5f

Fram posted e-mails he exchanged with the editor-in-chief of the Signpost in which he plainly refuted the anonymous allegation pre-publication. Despite redacting Gamaliel's user name, it is painfully obvious and easy to identify Gamaliel as the anonymous accuser. #WikiMassacre

According to Fram, Smallbones e-mailed some intimidating remarks after Fram posted his response following the article's publication. He suggested that posting his defense against the allegations was such that it "outed" Gamaliel and that Fram could be banned for it. #WikiMassacre

Here is a permalink to the ongoing Arbitration request over the Signpost article. Many recriminations and accusations being thrown about over this piece. Several admins involved on both sides. ArbCom so far seems willing to accept the case: #WikiMassacre

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti…

Meanwhile, the Foundation is planning an imminent response to ArbCom's de-facto ultimatum over the Fram ban and Wales also indicates a response from the Foundation board to the Fram situation is incoming. He says he thinks it will satisfy people. #WikiMassacre

Some controversies playing out during all this over the weekend warrant mention. User Starship.paint was someone alluded to above who looked into Foundation staff liking a tweet by Executive Director Katherine Maher that was seen as a subtweet of a BuzzFeed author. #WikiMassacre

He followed up by inquiring with the staff members on Wikimedia sites about those social media accounts. An administrator proceeded to block Starship indefinitely claiming these inquiries were "harassment" of the staff and intruding into their "private" lives. #WikiMassacre

This block was controversial, especially as Starship was denied use of his own talk page, something usually not done as that is where appeals are typically posted. Floquenbeam offered to unblock, but was warned against it given its relation to the Fram case. #WikiMassacre

Foundation Board member James Heilman, who is also an administrator on the site, granted Starship use of his talk page and was promptly criticized by the blocking administrator, who suggested this "proved" why the Foundation doesn't trust them with harassment cases. #WikiMassacre

Another administrator stepped in to lift the block without preconditions, to which the blocking administrator responded by demanding that admin's resignation. Various others condemned the admin's unblock as enabling harassment. The response was rather dismissive. #WikiMassacre

Someone took it to the Arbitration Committee to request a case on the fight, but participants in the dispute all urged to avoid a case and it appears ArbCom is honoring that sentiment by declining the request. Starship subsequently announced a break from Wikipedia. #WikiMassacre

One other block involved user Wnt, who has a reputation for eccentricity. He was blocked indefinitely after suggesting protesting against the Foundation by widely citing links to the Christchurch shooting video in order to create trouble for the Foundation. #WikiMassacre