Just to summarize the difference between WMF and ArbCom, in view of the
majority of the en.wiki community:
We elect ArbCom, and if they do not do what they should be doing, they do
not get re-elected in two years, which happens on a regular basis
We do not elect WMF and in fact we have no means of influencing WMF (apart
of the three Trustees we elect every three years who are themselves
typically alienated from the community). Short of taking down the
fundraiser banner or of organizing a Wikipedia blackout.
This is the difference, and this is why virtually everybody who had to say
smth about this episode was unhappy with the process. Without looking at
the diffs, I only remember three users who were perfectly happy with what
happened, out of hundreds who said smth.
One unfortunate consequence of the whole episode was, whoever is right and
whoever is wrong, the general opinion about WMF in the community is
all-time low, with people generally not prepared to believe to anything
communicated to them. If WMF is not interested in getting very unpleasant
surprises, they should start working towards building the community trust.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:48 PM GorillaWarfare <
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:36 AM Fæ
Any Arbcom approved sanction against Fram based
on the evidence would not
be controversial for anyone.
Sorry for coming in late to this conversation; I've mostly been following
the sicussion happening on-wiki. But I wanted to pipe up to say that I
absolutely do not believe this is true (see also my comment here
To repeat my comment somewhat, the
English Wikipedia ArbCom has in the past
had to place similar bans: that is, ones against long-term contributors
with many supporters, and ones in which the full details behind what led to
the ban cannot be revealed publicly. The reaction has been quite similar to
the one the WMF is currently experiencing—"star chamber" accusations,
claims that we've abused our power or the process, and assumptions that the
ban is unwarranted unless everyone is allowed to scrutinize the private
evidence. The ArbCom is empowered to take action based off of
privately-submitted evidence and private discussion, but in practice it is
extremely poorly-received when we do, basically across-the-board.
– Molly (GorillaWarfare)
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org