Quoting seraphimblade onwiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram#Editorial_independence_of_the_English_Wikipedia_community_and_response_to_Jan

“Very well, here's the feedback: Don't ever again take an action of this 
nature. Take office actions only where the community has agreed you may: United 
States legal requirements, child protection, or threats of harm to oneself or 
others. Otherwise, leave control entirely local, and refer any complaints to 
local English Wikipedia authorities, even if you grit your teeth while you do 
it.”

WMF T&S: This is an emerging consensus that not only was this clumsy, but was 
legitimately an overstep of the authority that the community granted T&S and 
the Foundation, and in fact damages your credibility in enforcing things like 
threats of violence or child protection issues or legal/law enforcement issues.

There were several claims that handing this issue to Arbcom was problematic 
because Fram had prior conflicts with Arbcom.  Arbcom deals with actual or 
potential conflicts and people they dislike every day.  That hasn’t stopped it 
in well over a decade.

I believe that you were convinced that was a legitimate reason not to let 
Arbcom and the community handle this.  But that’s not true.

The “but we had this complaint and couldn’t forward it without breaking 
confidence!” claim is also legitimate but misguided.  You might not be allowed 
to forward it, but you could tell the complainer to make their own report to 
Arbcom in private.  That someone complains to you doesn’t necessarily make it 
your problem to solve.  Sometimes you can and should direct them to someone 
else.  Forcing yourself to solve it is part of how you got into this mess.

It wasn’t clearly your job or authority.

The Wikipedia community created the Foundation, not the other way around.  The 
Foundation exists to support the community and projects.  When you go beyond 
support into trying to run it for us you fail.

When several key Administrators and a Bureaucrat overturned things, that showed 
that you’d lost the community authority to exercise your T&S role without 
oversight.

There are credible efforts to ban Office, or desysop it, though I hope those 
fail.

Foundation owns the servers; that’s different than owning the community and 
project.  Owning the servers gives you the capability to override the community 
but not the authority.

This can go in extremely unfortunate directions from here.  I hope it doesn’t.  
Foundation and particularly T&S staff need to slow down your responses and get 
a handle on your loss of authority.  I for one don’t want the job of dealing 
with death threats or pedophiles or subpoenas back on Admins and Arbcom, and 
would be happy to reestablish Foundation authority over such traditional T&S 
roles.  Help us trust you enough to give it back.

-george 
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to