Revision as of 14:22, 14 July 2014

Requests for arbitration

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

MediaViewer RfC

Initiated by 28bytes (talk) at 14:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties

• 28bytes (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Armbrust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Peteforsyth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Eloquence (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Armbrust (noted by Armbrust here)
• Fabrice_Florin_(WMF)
• Peteforsyth
• Eloquence / Erik Moeller

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• the MediaViewer RfC, as closed by Armbrust
• response to the results of the RfC by Fabrice Florin
• discussion of how to implement the results of the RfC
• AN discussion

Statement by 28bytes

Last month, User:Pine started an RfC over whether the new MediaViewer feature should be enabled or disabled by default on Misplaced Pages. Yesterday, it was closed by User:Armbrust, with the result that the feature would be disabled by default for both logged-in and not-logged-in users.

Following the closure, User:Fabrice Florin (WMF) commented on the talk page of the RfC with a "recommendation" that the MediaViewer continue to be enabled, despite the results of the RfC. Later in the thread, users discussed how to implement the results of the RfC, and administrator User:Peteforsyth made a change to MediaWiki:Common.js that disabled the feature.

Administrator and staff member User:Eloquence reverted the change, and threatened to temporarily desysop Peteforsyth or any other admin who reinstated the change. Eloquence characterized the revert and the threat of desysop as a "WMF action", but it is unclear to me by what authority WMF staffers can overrule the legitimate consensus of a local community, outside of WP:Office actions, which clearly do not apply in this case:

Office actions are official changes made on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, by members of its office. These are removals of questionable or illegal Wikimedia content following complaints. Office actions are performed so that the end result is a legally compliant article on the subject.

Now, the WMF does, of course, have "the keys to the server", which means that they have the power to do whatever they like, including desysoping and/or banning anyone for any reason, good or bad; we essentially have no recourse, other than, as is sometimes said, our "right to fork" and our "right to leave."

So my questions for the committee do not include "do they have the power to do this" (yes, they do), but rather:

1. Are WMF staffers, who are also Misplaced Pages editors and/or admins, violating our policies and community norms if they do this?
2. If I or another administrator implements the result of a validly conducted and closed RfC over the objections (or "recommendations") of the WMF, are we following policy and community norms, or violating them?
3. Was the MediaViewer RfC, and its closure, a valid exercise of Misplaced Pages's consensus-forming process?
4. If, after further discussion, an administrator re-implements the result of this RfC (either by restoring Peteforsyth's change, or via another method), will the committee support that administrator for following the expressed community consensus, or sanction them for wheel-warring?

This is the second time in recent memory that a WMF staffer has threatened to desysop (temporarily or otherwise) a Misplaced Pages administrator for implementing community consensus against WMF wishes, but in that case, WP:Office was relevant. As the WMF rolls out more and more features (many of which are great, but some of which the community may decide they don't want) this is likely to continue to be an issue. Administrators need to know where we stand when community consensus conflicts with WMF preferences outside of the bright line of "office actions". 28bytes (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Armbrust

Statement by Fabrice Florin (WMF)

Thanks for inviting me to participate in this discussion. I am following this case, and monitoring comments made on this thread. I believe that Eloquence has described factually the circumstances and rationale behind his action, as well as adequately presented the Wikimedia Foundation's position on this matter. He has also cited me accurately in his own statement, linking to a number of comments I have made relating to this case. And I find Risker's observations to be factual and well-reasoned, matching my own perspective on this topic. So I don't have anything else to add at this point, but am happy to answer any specific questions relevant to this case. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help resolve this request for arbitration. Respectfully, Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Peteforsyth

@Floquenbeam: Absolutely nobody, as far as I have seen, has suggested that re-enabling the faulty Javascript fix that I implemented one time is a good idea. @Eloquence: did use the term "edit war" on my talk page, I have no idea why he did so, but he clarified that it was an overstatement mere minutes later. There is no significant desire to disable the feature entirely. When I did so the first time, I was utterly ignorant that it would have that sweeping effect. Perhaps I acted in haste. Regardless, the change was reverted, and there is no revert-war going on, or likely to take place. -Pete (talk) 03:33, Today (UTC+10)

This comment was made in the arbitrators' section and has been moved here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

Please note WP:CONEXCEPT, which is part of WP:CONSENSUS, which policy also calls for taking multiple views into account in formation of consensus. Moreover, we are in community with the WP:WMF. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You can take this case or not but what you should not do is contradict English community Misplaced Pages policy, as that is beyond your remit. The discussions of WP:OFFICE are a red herring, as that policy states it does not contradict other policy. At the time that these actions were taken, however, English Misplaced Pages community policy stated: "Decisions, rulings, and acts of the WMF Board and its duly appointed designees take precedence over, and preempt, consensus." (emphasis added) And "Some matters that may seem subject to the consensus of the community at the English-language Misplaced Pages (en.wikipedia.org) are, in fact, in a separate domain. In particular, the community of MediaWiki software developers, including both paid Wikimedia Foundation staff and volunteers, . . ., are largely separate entities . ; . These independent, co-equal communities operate however they deem necessary or appropriate, such as adding, removing, or changing software features . . .WP:CONEXCEPT. Now since there appears to be confusion over the red herring that is WP:Office perhaps you should take this case but the English Misplaced Pages community has policy, which states the representatives of the WMF may, by action, preempt claims of consensus - now perhaps this committee would like to get into the weeds of what the undefined term "designees" for software is but your fact finding on that is not going to be with the rest of the community, and you will probably end up with the committee's usual inability to bridge gaps in community policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Eloquence / Erik Moeller / WMF

Hi folks,

A couple of notes:

1) As Risker pointed out, this RFC forms an insufficient basis for a decision affecting all logged-in users due to its small participation by logged-in users (much smaller by a factor of >100 than the number of people who'd previously enabled Media Viewer!), and certainly forms an insufficient basis for a decision affecting all readers. Generally, WMF treats such RFCs on a case-by-case basis; see also Limits to configuration changes for historical examples.

Fabrice Florin, the Product Manager for Media Viewer, has started a conversation here about a process that we could use to get better, more representative information from readers and editors alike. I trust him to continue this conversation, and would encourage others to participate in it.

2) Regarding site stylesheets and JavaScript, we regard them as subject to the same development policy that governs code that is executed server-side; i.e., WMF makes the final call regarding software deployed to sites hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation.

English Misplaced Pages articulates this in the WP:CONEXCEPT policy, but we’ve stated this independently in other forums as well, e.g. here.

In this instance, a core site feature was disabled on grounds we consider insufficient to do so. The reasons for our decision not to implement the RFC were previously communicated in Fabrice’s response.

I apologize for the unduly stern warning to Pete, who performed an action that he felt was acceptable and warranted, and who did so in good faith. However, the decision to reinstate the feature is one we maintain. Generally, we would ask users to request such configuration changes through Bugzilla in the future, where WMF will always seek to provide a response in a timely manner.

To be clear, we understand that we need to work together in these matters. As noted above, we’re prepared to discuss constructive paths forward. Fabrice will continue to take the lead on that from WMF. Above all, we look forward to further improving the experience for uploading media, viewing them, and curating file metadata, all of which is part of the multimedia team's roadmap.

For the complete avoidance of doubt, this response is in an official capacity.

Sincerely,
Erik Moeller
Vice President of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

 Clerk note: User:Eloquence is the account used by Erik Moeller, this is a little unclear above.

A couple of users (notably Gwillhickers and Jayen466) have commented on whether data supports the deployment of Media Viewer for all users.

First, as per my original statement, our primary concern here was with the decision to disable Media Viewer on the basis of the RFC, given the very low participation rate by a small subset of the English Misplaced Pages community (64 users voted to disable for an active editor population of >30,000 people who make 5 edits/month). Even with significantly higher participation, when it comes to defaults for readers, the RFC process is unsuitable because it's not designed to take their preferences into account.

There was a survey built into Media Viewer itself to get user feedback (accessible via a megaphone icon). Regarding the survey data, a few comments:

• The Media Viewer Survey Results breakdown as of 6/20 (15,736 respondents) shows the following approval across all wikis combined: 56% for all users, 65% for readers, 45% for editors.

• It's true that the subset of English Misplaced Pages survey responses show significantly lower approval, while most other wikis show significantly higher approval. Results have improved since the 6/20 breakdown, see the live dashboard for English Misplaced Pages (total approval across the sample increased from 28% to 36% -- that's for the entire sample and time period). The data trends tab shows that that the average of daily responses increased from 23% daily approval (6/4, after deployment) to 47% daily approval (7/8, the last day responses were actively invited) across both readers and editors combined. While daily response rates are comparatively low, the increase is consistent over time.

We attribute the changing response pattern to two factors: users are simply getting used to Media Viewer (change aversion is a common initial response to user experience changes), and the user experience has improved and key concerns have been addressed. Performance of the viewer depends significantly on cache hit/miss ratio for image sizes required by the viewer, which has improved over time. On June 12 we began deploying new features and bug fixes, including a more convenient link to the full-size original version of the file . This was followed quickly by providing a simple opt-out for anonymous users.

We don't think the survey in the viewer itself is a perfect tool, because it still suffers from significant self-selection bias, initial lack of familiarity by respondents (e.g. many capabilities users expect are there, but take some time to discover, as with any new feature), and a low response rate from readers. As Fabrice pointed out here, we're considering implementing a consistent "Viewing options panel". This could be shown to all users after a few image views as a way to measure how many users actually prefer one viewing mode over another (current opt-out statistics are here). It seems clear that to the greatest extent possible we ought to base defaults on users' actual preference.

In addition, we maintain that measured changes in user behavior are an important indicator for whether a feature is a net benefit or not. As a small example, do users find the "next/previous" navigation offered by Media Viewer useful, or do they just want to get to the File: page? For a typical day, July 12, we get 7.71M total clicks on thumbnails, and 8.7M clicks on next/previous combined. That demonstrates that users intuitively and frequently use the built-in navigation features of Media Viewer to discover other images in a page. Relatedly, the data shows that the mean load time for media viewer is significantly faster than File: pages (and near-instantaneous for next/previous images due to intelligent preloading of images).

In sum, in considering the default state of a feature, we should:

• Take into account that initial user response to significant changes in user experience is often negative -- changes need time to "settle";
• Ensure we properly represent the interests of both readers and contributors;
• Measure actual impact of a feature on user behavior;
• Reflect users' actual preference to the greatest extent possible.

We'll continue to engage on the RFC talk page regarding next steps; Fabrice's most recent response has a lot of useful information in it.

Erik Moeller (on behalf of WMF) 17:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Kww (uninvolved)

This is the second case this year I'm aware of this year where WMF staff members have used their powers in ways that violate the relationship between WMF and the community. The Javascript supporting English Misplaced Pages is under our control, and we are free to modify it based on community consensus. The Visual Editor fiasco set a fairly strong precedent in that regard, and Erik knows better. I would recommend reinstating the Javascript change and removing Erik's sysop status. Certainly the latter is solely a symbolic gesture, but sometimes symbols are all we have.—Kww(talk) 15:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

One thing that strikes me here is the difference in implementation between this and the time I did essentially the same thing with Visual Editor.

1. The RFC was prolonged, and heavily advertised.
2. When it became clear that the WMF was not going to listen, I openly discussed that I was going to override them and sought input as to exactly what the best way to override them was.
3. When it became clear that they still wouldn't back down, I put a notice on WP:AN announcing the pending override and posted links to my intended override.
4. I maintained a countdown on WP:AN of impending implementation, and invited all administrators to test to ascertain that my fix didn't have any unintended side effect.

Some accused me of fomenting drama, but the actual intent was to gain consensus for the need to override the WMF. We didn't really have that here. While it needs to be made clear to Erik that his desysop threats were beyond problematic, I think we should also be clear that there needs to be a consensus building process before implementing any override that specifically addresses whether the problem is serious enough to warrant the override.—Kww(talk) 18:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

NativeForeigner, if there is any positive result, it would be something to formalize what I wrote above. While there was a consensus that MediaViewer shouldn't be the default, there was not a consensus that it was worth overriding the WMF and exactly what that override should consist of. If the extra steps to do that had been taken, a working override could very well have been made to stick. I don't think Arbcom has the power to dictate that a specific consensus be sought, but it does have the power to recommend it.—Kww(talk) 14:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown

My concern is that an admin would threaten to unilaterally desysop someone using Foundation level tools for a singular edit that was clearly based on the request of the community as a whole. For me, it isn't about the act of reverting as much as the behavior when doing so. The threat was an amazingly brazen overreaction and unnecessarily inflammatory, particularly since he has the biggest hammer in the room. At a minimum, it is behavior that is unbecoming of an admin and serves to only drive a wedge deeper between the Foundation and the Community. Do we exclude Foundation members from the normal behavioral expectations and accountability of other admin? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Begoon

Basically I agree witn Dennis. He's probably used to people agreeing with him, as he's an agreeable chap. Seriously.

Seriously though - this is crap. If the ultimate intention is to alienate established users and/or the people who've given most to this community, and have them piss off somewhere else, then this will work fine - the old guard will indeed piss off somewhere else, and WMF can create their brave new world. If that's not the intention, I'd recommend liberal apologies and a change of approach. Can I say "seriously" again? Begoon  16:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Risker

Statement by Ubikwit

Agree with the cogent statement made by Rsiker, and am commenting here simply to point out that the assessment of consensus in closes of various types of threads seems to be falling far short of WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS and instead relying on numerical superiority in vote count. I don't think addressing that problem is an issue directly under the purciew of Arbcom, but Arbcom can certainly expose the problems if a case were to be accepted.
In this particular case, disabling software functionality in which a substantial investment has been made seems to go against common sense, but there seems to be something of a tug-of-war between WMF and "the community" here. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

To clarify vis-a-vis the "tug-of-war", as Risker points out, there is a case to be made that WMF is not only protecting its investment, but standing up for the "over 14,000 of our colleagues" in the community that have "actively elected to make this software their default". Does WMF have a right to intervene in the case of a flawed community process? These increasingly seems ripe for Arbcom to accept a case.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Hammersoft (uninvolved)

The close of the RfC is lacking. We have many RfC closes that are problematic, and we have means of addressing that problem without the need of ArbCom stepping in. That the implementation of the closure was inappropriate and breaking is also a non-issue in so far as ArbCom is concerned. The statistics are not relevant either. I do, however, thank Risker for all of this.

The larger problem at hand here that needs to be addressed by ArbCom is this: Does the WMF have authority to do as they have done in this case or not? If not, what actions can ArbCom undertake that will prevent this from happening again? Conversely, what happens if ArbCom does not act in this case? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by S Philbrick

As Risker notes, there are multiple issues. One issue is how to ascertain consensus when the affected community might not be the same as the editing community. I haven't followed the RfC, or the debate, so treat the following as abstract - if there is an issue for which the viewing community might reach a different conclusion than the editing community, how do we obtain the overall consensus. It seems plausible that non-editing readers might prefer a different conclusion than editing members of the community, yet without some way to reach out and query non-editors, we judge consensus on the feedback of the editors.

The other specific issue is the threatening to de-sysop an admin who attempts, even if incorrectly, to implement what is viewed as a community consensus. If I say per Dennis, my point might get less weight, so I'll emphasize that the WMF should not be making such a threat. We have DR mechanisms, they are not just for editors, they apply to WMF employees as well. While there are exceptions for legal issues, I see nothing to suggest that such an exception applies in this case.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Scott

I initiated the AN discussion linked to above. I have no comment on the legitimacy of the RfC, and happen to use Media Viewer by choice myself, even though it needs a fair amount of work. If I had discovered it to have been disabled for me due to the "fix", I would have been unhappy, but no doubt a technical correction would have been implemented in short order. My concern, as at the AN discussion, is the threat of temporary desysopping as a "WMF action" made towards Peteforsyth by Eloquence. I would like the Committee to investigate its basis. — Scott • talk 17:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Addition: I concur with Hasteur's argument below regarding editable site elements. — Scott • talk 10:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Alvesgaspar

I strongly suggest Arbcom to look into this issue in a broader scope than the one specified above. In my opinion there are two important points that should be addressed carefully:

1. Enforcing MediaViewer as a default against the opinion of the volunteer editors, the ones who keep this project rolling, is a dangerous precedent which has already broken the trust and may poison the relationship with WMF in the future;
2. MediaViewer is far from being ready and its several drawbacks have been extensively described in the various discussions. However the policy of fait accompli adopted by WMF leaves no real option for the new users/editors, who know nothing about opt-ins and opt-outs.

Yes, I’m aware that this committee has no formal power over WMF but a recommendation from you might help solving the dispute and bring WMF to reason. As someone has already pointed out, please think of the consequences of not accepting this case. - Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Guerillero

I don't think that arbcom can take up this issue. We don't own Misplaced Pages; the WMF can do what it pleases when it pleases. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Formerip

Agree with Hammersoft and others that the correctness of the close and the appropriateness of the fix are not the real issues here. To the degree to which the community has sovereignty over the organisation of en.wp (while acknowledging that this sovereignty is not absolute), it is free to manage its internal affairs as badly and messily as it likes. I'm not making any judgement at all about the close or the fix, but WMF was neither needed nor welcome to help us get it right in either case.

@Salvio giuliano:. The committee has a legitimate role in resisting any inappropriate erosion of the authority of the community. Because there has been an attempt to inappropriately invoke WMF authority, this situation should, IMO, be brought to a close either with an unequivocal apology from Eloquence or, failing that, the clearest possible statement from the community that Eloquence was out-of-line. It will be unfortunate if such a satisfactory outcome needs forcing, but if it does then it does, and an ArbCom case will be the way to do that. Formerip (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade

This is a very difficult case. I don't think, like the previous incident involving WMF mentioned here, that this can just be resolved by motion. That case, unlike this one, unquestionably involved an office action. Under normal circumstances, there would be at least two things to examine, that being Eloquence's use of normal admin tools to revert a protected page in defiance of the result of an RfC rather than challenging the closure, and his threat to use staff tools out of process. The classification of these as a "WMF action" throws an additional wrench into these. Those are not Office actions as described there, since it clearly states that "Office actions only occur by formal complaint made off-wiki...", clearly not the case here. So the first question is whether Eloquence's edit and subsequent issuing of the threat is acceptable, and whether actions can be carte blanche designated as beyond challenge by WMF employees outside the recognized scope where that happens today (office complaints and legal matters).

There's also questions raised as to what the consensus is. The proposed edit would have disabled Media Viewer entirely, even for those who want it. That outcome wasn't really contemplated by the RfC, but is the only way to implement to some degree its outcome. The admin who made it has indicated they didn't know it would do that and probably wouldn't have done it if they did know. The only known way to reach that outcome is with developer/sysadmin assistance, which Eloquence has clearly indicated will not be provided. Therefore, the possibility of implementing the next-best thing is one that would under normal circumstances be at least considered.

That being said, I think ultimately the Committee should take the case to at least examine what happened here, and to handle any portions it can. The idea that a WMF staffer can by fiat make any action into an unchallengeable "WMF action" even without emergency or legal risk being at play is a troubling one, and shouldn't pass unexamined. I don't know what could be done aside from to register disapproval (as several have pointed out, at the end of the day the WMF owns the servers and will do as they please regardless of the outcome here), but I think at least the possibility of registering such disapproval should be examined.

Statement by Go Phightins!

I encourage ArbCom to accept this case, as it deals with prevalent issues such as the role of WMF employees. One area it could explore is what a "WMF action" is, as it does not fall under the criteria of office actions. Moreover, there is ambiguity as to how we distinguish a WMF employee acting as a volunteer from a WMF employee using their personal account to act as a WMF employee. I am inclined to agree with Dennis above when he notes that the most startling aspect of this case is the manner in which an admin reverted the action of another admin. Regardless of whether the action should have been reverted (and I think most agree on that point), the manner in which it was done is unbecoming of an administrator, not to mention the deputy director of WMF. That said, <sigh> we have no recourse against Erik acting in his role as deputy director of WMF, meaning it is difficult to distinguish the roles, which again brings me back to the fact that ArbCom should accept the case to review not only this specific action, but the method in which the community and WMF employees act. One final note – someone above noted that ArbCom may not have jurisdiction here ... the policy states "The Committee has no jurisdiction over: (i) official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff; " - how are we to know that this was an official action of WMF or its staff when it was made from a personal account, by an administrator duly elected by the community acting in an area that required admin privileges? There is significant ambiguity here that the committee ought to review. Go Phightins! 19:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Kevin Gorman

I agree with Risker's analysis of the problematic nature of the RfC, its close, and the implementation of its close. I don't believe that reviewing Erik's action is within Arbcom's scope. He clearly stated that he was acting in his capacity as WMF's DD, and he's certainly among the members of WMF empowered to conduct office actions. I see no great disconnect between Erik's action and WP:OFFICE - particularly since it says office actions can be made as the result of complaints lodged during personal meetings, and since Erik and Fabrice work in the same building, I'd imagine there was a personal meeting involved. Even if there was a disconnect between the two, WMF in general and probably Erik personally can unilaterally rewrite WP:OFFICE without needing the consent of the community anyway. And, additionally, even if there was an issue theoretically within arbcom's mandate, what the bloody hell would they do? They can't revoke +staff privileges from someone, even if they decided it was warranted.

The RfC close was bad. Shitty closes happen multiple times a day. I doubt the closer will do it again. Shitty closes don't warrant arbcom cases. Pete should have examined the RfC, its closure, and how he was implementing it more thoroughly and realized that what he did was not a good idea. I can't imagine that he will fail to do so in similar situations in the future. The fact that Pete mucked up a bit in a way that is unlikely to occur is not going to get him desysopped or any other meaningful punishment - it's Pete. It might get him admonished with a featherbrush or some such silliness, but that's a meaningless result that's not worth the time and drama that handling an arbcom case involves.

I don't see any reason for the committee to accept this. People made mistakes, and we should all move on from the situation. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, @GP - many longtime staffers only use one account for both personal edits and work related edits. Eloquence is both Erik's personal account and his work account. He indicated in this situation he was acting in his official capacity, and I can't recall a case offhand where he failed to indicate that he was acting in his official capacity, so I see no serious issue there. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Nick

I would urge some form of acceptance to review the RfC, which wasn't just badly closed, but poorly executed in its entirety. It was badly advertised and did not gain a suitable volume of responses from representative cross section of the community. Nick (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

I was not aware of the RfC until I saw this arbcom case about it. Reading about it now, it seems that the issues are:

1. Was the RfC a representative summary of the communities views?
2. Was the closure correct and in good faith?
3. Was the action as a result of the closure correct and in good faith?
4. Was Eloquence's action an OFFICE action?
   1. If so, was this a correct use of the OFFICE action policy?
   2. If not, was it a correct and proportionate admin action made in good faith?

Personally, I think it would be beneficial to take the following action:

• Pass a motion prohibiting anyone making any changes to the way MediaViewer is or is not enabled and applied on the English Misplaced Pages, including the Javascript. This to last until further notice or dismissal of this case request (whichever happens first).
• Post a statement, independent of the acceptance or dismissal of the case, about whether each of the individual issues is within its jurisdiction (it is possible for something to be within jurisdiction but not rising to the level of arbitration, and for something to be arbitration-level but outside jurisdiction). Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur

Regarding site stylesheets and JavaScript, we regard them as subject to the same development policy that governs code that is executed server-side; i.e., WMF makes the final call regarding software deployed to sites hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation.

— Eloquence

The foundation may regard that the foundation makes the final call about stylesheets and Javascript, however if that is the case then they should be 100% edit protected from being edited from within the wiki. That these pages are editable suggests that the foundation is giving the pages back to the community to have a more collaberative environment and should only use the "My Servers" argument when the change seriously affects the servers. Hasteur (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Kurtis

I frankly couldn't care less what de jure authority the Wikimedia Foundation thinks it retains over its websites. Misplaced Pages has long since ceased to be a small domain run by a group of programmers — it is possibly the single most popular source of information in the entire world. This project would be nothing without the people who built it from the ground-up.

If I were in Peteforsyth's position, I would feel grossly offended by such a brazen display of authoritarianism. I would also feel as if arguing against it would be futile, seeing as it came from the Deputy Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. I haven't actually looked into the specifics of this case, but I think it's possible that Pete erred in his decision to disable MediaViewer entirely. Making a mistake doesn't warrant such a heavy-handed response. Does Erik's status as a long-term WMF employee exempt him from the same rules that apply to everyone else?

I would like the Arbitration Committee to accept this case. Not only could it help to resolve this situation, it would also better define the role of the WMF in present-day Misplaced Pages. Kurtis 07:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Only in Death

Much as Risker would love to muddy the waters above, questioning the RFC result (or the process itself) should not be in scope for this case. RFC's as they are currently organised are the best way to get a reading of community consensus even with their faults. And in this case the consensus was clear. Want to complain about the failings of the RFC process? Take that to...an RFC.

Specifically Arbcom should be concerning itself with Eloquence's 'WMF action' rationale, which reads as 'we will do anything we want because we can regardless of project consensus that we shouldnt' and if threatening to de-sysop local admin staff was appropriate.

Personally I think a greater discussion also needs to be had about the WMF's recent trend of attempting to use en-wp as both a testing ground and PR vehicle for the WMF development team's latest waste of donor money, but I suspect that is out of scope for Arbcom. Maybe there needs to be an RFC on future software "improvements" Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite

I recommend taking this case, with a view to examining what seems a pretty clear case of tool abuse by Erik Moeller/Eloquence. He is clearly an involved party in terms of his professional interest in seeing adoption of this new software initiative over the head of the En-WP community and he has left the reservation by threatening desysopping, it seems to me. If he is found to be an abusive administrator, he should suffer sanctions like anyone else. Carrite (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

I see no case here. I do see a case for a dialogue about the relation between the Foundation, and Foundation Staff, and the community. These issues cannot be resolved by an Arbcom case, but instead need a radical re-thinking of cultural issue, possibly including the remit of the Foundation itself.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC).

Statement by Gwillhickers

I respectfully disagree with @Eloquence: and @Risker: and their rather narrow assessment of the RfC and their apparent lack of faith in the Misplaced Pages process altogether. The RfC in question ran for over a month and many dozens of (mostly frequent/experienced) editors weighed in. Like any other poll, the RfC reflects the greater picture. We don't have to interview every solitary editor to ascertain that Media Viewer is not needed or wanted by the greater majority of editors and readers at English Misplaced Pages, as MV was 'introduced' with many bugs and faults, many of which it still has. It would be sort of naive to assume that most other editors would not arrive at a similar opinion of Media Viewer, given all its problems. The RfC in question is also consistent with WMF's own feedback page. (1, 2(archived)), filled with negative feedback, which probably explains why they recently removed the feedback link from Media Viewer. What is most troubling is that the WMF project team are not only ignoring the RfC, and their own feedback, they are ignoring their own statistics(1, 2}, which clearly reveal that on English Misplaced Pages the greater bulk of editors and readers alike do not need or want MV to remain the default. Still, the individuals on the WMF project team refuse to make 'any' concessions and at least not make MV the default viewer for logged in users/editors on English Misplaced Pages. Now there is a similar RfC being conducted by Commons and I think at this point it's safe to assume the WMF will be ignoring this RfC also. I have asked @Fabrice Florin (WMF): to clarify the response/comments he made regarding the closure of the RfC of June 2014 but this, like other questions, continue to be ignored. In light of this, it is good to see that the issue has finally been brought to the attention of the Arbitration Committee. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Risker: The numbers of edits you flouted made by registered users doesn't say much by itself, and this has already been addressed as anyone who has payed attention to this ongoing issue knows. To repeat, most editors don't care about the Media Viewer issue, obviously. If they did we would seem more comment, for and against, both on the Media Viewer feedback page and in the RfC of June. Of those editors who 'do' care there is a clear consensus to disable on two separate RfC's and on the Media Viewer feedback page (which you seem to be ready to dismiss also). Are you also willing to dismiss WMF's own statistics as "hyperbole" also? I linked to them above. WMF's own statistics are consistent with two RfC's. Did you even bother to look at them before you took off with your slew of additional comments? Your suggestion that because most editors didn't comment and/or disable that there is no support to disable ignores the facts that 1. Large numbers of editors make edits with no clicks/views of images -- esp among editors that just go around and do routine fixes and cleanup. There are many. 2. Media viewer was presented with no disable feature, and when it was finally included, it was put at the bottom of the pop up menu, which itself is mostly hidden. 3. That most editors with even nominal experience would naturally oppose a viewer that was and continues to be beset with bugs and faults. Again, the RfC of June was very indicative of the consensus among editors, like any other well run poll. Again, we don't have to hear from 100,000+ editors to know that Media Viewer is rife with bugs and faults and as such it will naturally receive and continue to receive overwhelming negative feedback, as revealed on two RfC's, the MV feedback page and WMF's own statistics. Are you saying no decision should be made anywhere, including here, until we hear from 100,000+ editors?? And would that also include any decision to keep MV as a default? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Pine

I appreciate Arbcom being willing to consider this case. I would like to comment on points made by Risker.

Risker wrote,

• "Some statistical information:
  • "Prior to MediaViewer being activated as the default media viewer, 14,681 English Misplaced Pages editors had voluntarily opted in for it to be their default viewer.
  • "As of around 0600 UTC today, 1652 English Misplaced Pages editors had actively disabled MediaViewer, either through their preferences or by clicking the "disable" button when looking at an image with MediaViewer (which alters their preferences).
  • "There were only 111 editors who participated in any way in the RFC. Of those:
    • "64 supported disabling MediaViewer as default for logged-in users
    • "43 supported disabling MediaViewer as default for logged-out users

"Should you accept this case, you need to start with the "root cause", which is the non-standard activation of the RFC, the inadequate advertisement and participation in the RFC, and the inaccurate assessment of consensus that was made to close the RFC."

Armbrust has agreed to add the words "by default" to the close. A review by Arbcom of the close is unnecessary.

I disagree with Risker that "you need to start with the "root cause", which is the non-standard activation of the RFC, the inadequate advertisement and participation in the RFC..." I see no way in which this RfC was activated in a non-standard manner. The discussion was tagged as an RfC with the usual method, was announced on the Village pump (technical), and was announced on the Media Viewer talk page. There was plenty of notice, and the RfC remained open for a full 30 days. Also, it is commonplace on English Misplaced Pages for RfCs with a relatively small percentage of the editing population to make decisions that affect all editors. There is no minimum participation level required for an RfC beyond what is necessary to establish consensus.

The statistics cited about activation and deactivation numbers are irrelevant to the RfC and Consensus policies as we currently have them. A review of the statistics would be entirely appropriate for WMF and the community to consider in making decisions, but those statistics do not substitute for an RfC any more than public opinion surveys would substitute for an official election in most democracies.

There is no deficiency with regards to policy for the creation, notice, and level of participation in the RfC, and I hope Arbcom will issue a finding that this is the so. For Arbcom to find otherwise would be to open countless RfCs to challenges on the basis that they were inadequately advertised or that participation was insufficient.

--Pine 07:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Beyond My Ken

The relationship between the WMF and the en.wiki community is complex and co-dependent, and primarily determined by politics and diplomacy. The later has been rather lacking on the WMF side recently, I would hate to see it also deteriorate on the en.wiki community side as well (as a community, not in terms of individuals).

Further, I see nothing in the statement of ArbCom's Scope of responsibilities which allows for political or diplomatic ventures, nor do I see anything there that allows ArbCom to determine its own remit. It can certainly determine how much or how little it concerns itself with the five statements of Committee responsibility, but it cannot grant itself new powers or authorities ootside of those five, which are:

1. To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve;
2. To hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users;
3. To handle requests (other than self-requests) for removal of administrative tools;
4. To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons;
5. To approve and remove access to (i) CheckUser and Oversight tools and (ii) mailing lists maintained by the Arbitration Committee.

Nothing of the current request fits into those 5 categories which define and limit ArbCom's scope, with the exception of the behavioral issues of the editors involved -- but since apologies have been given, and repetition of specific acts has been disavowed, I don't see what good that would do.

The upshot here is that there's really no case for ArbCom to consider, since most of the issues are outside of its remit, and those that are within seem to be under control. I would suggest that absolutely no good will come for anyone by ArbCom venturing into uncharted waters when they are not charged to do so. If you should arrive at a decision that the WMF disagrees with, one could say, like President Andrew Jsckson (apocryphally) said about Chief Justice John Marshall: "He has made his decision, now let him enforce it." BMK (talk) 10:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Jayen466

According to the Media Viewer survey results, in the English Misplaced Pages –

• 1,376 = 28% of all respondents said the feature was useful
• 2,947 = 61% of all respondents said the feature was not useful
• 520 = 11% of all respondents were not sure
  • Total number of English Misplaced Pages respondents: 4,843 (the English Misplaced Pages represented the biggest sample in the survey).

Of the 4,843 English Misplaced Pages respondents, 3,842 stated their role (reader, editor or frequent editor), and only

• 37% of self-identified readers said the feature was useful
• 21% of self-identified editors said the feature was useful
• 16% of self-identified frequent editors said the feature was useful

This is hardly a ringing endorsement of the feature, and in fact very similar to the RfC result. Going by those results, shouldn't the WMF itself refrain from implementing the Media Viewer in the English Misplaced Pages? Andreas JN466 10:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Redrose64

I would like to take exception with the claim of Gwillhickers "Media viewer was presented with no disable feature, and when it was finally included, it was put at the bottom of the pop up menu, which itself is mostly hidden." (also stated by one or two others in differing words).

When first introduced, on or about 22 November 2013, the feature was opt-in, and the setting that controlled it was at Preferences → Beta features. When it was enabled for all users on en.wp, on 3 June 2014, it changed from being opt-in to opt-out, and the setting that controlled it moved from the Beta features tab to Preferences → Appearance, where it remains. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Stefan2

I find some actions remarkable:

• One editor inserted code in MediaWiki:Common.js which he did not fully understand. This is obvious from the edit summary: he wrote that he was disabling the Media Viewer by default, but instead he disabled the Media Viewer for everyone who doesn't explicitly override that code by adding a line to his own Special:MyPage/common.js. As changes to MediaWiki:Common.js immediately affect all users (logged in and IPs), someone adding code to that page should be absolutely certain that the code is correct. If you do not know if the code is correct, then test it first, and if you are still uncertain, then ask someone else for help. You can test the code by adding it to your own Special:MyPage/common.js. I do not think that the arbitration committee can do anything about this.
• One editor reverted the edit to MediaWiki:Common.js and threatened to desysop the editor who had inserted the code there. I think this is an overreaction to say the least, and the user was abusing his power. Discuss the matter with the editor instead. The arbitration committee could maybe investigate if something wrong was done here. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

MediaViewer RfC: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <5/1/1/4>-MediaViewer_RfC-2014-07-11T15:38:00.000Z">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Recuse. Seraphimblade 15:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)"> ">
• This is a complicated issue that I'll mull over for a couple of days, and in the short term, I'd really, really suggest no one attempt to re-implement the fix. Among other things - and correct me if I'm wrong - it appears to prevent anyone from even opting-in, so I'm not sure it did what was intended. But mostly because it would be pouring gasoline on a fire. I really don't know yet what I will suggest in the longer term.

  Realpolitik-wise, I suppose we have to recognize that (a) this is not a symmetrical relationship, since WMF owns the servers, but (b) en.wiki volunteers can vote with their feet if they are continually treated with what they consider disrespect. It's kind of like mutually assured destruction, which is kind of stupid since we're theoretically on the same side. One goal I have is to try to convince each side not to push their button. I would have thought that it would be in WMF's best interests to avoid throwing their weight around unnecessarily (i.e. in cases like this where WP:OFFICE doesn't apply), and I was under the impression they were making an attempt to not do that as much recently... --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  Peteforsyth has pointed out to me that I'm implying above someone might re-implement his specific edit, which he points out no one is proposing. What I meant was, I think in the short term no one should attempt to implement anything to enact the consensus of the RFC. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  Just being transparent about my evolving thought process (which may be less interesting to people than I think): A lot of this is ultimately political, rather than policy-based, and I'm not not sure ArbCom can make this situation better. It's like the parliament of Ukraine passing a law that Russian annexation of Crimea violates Ukrainian law; that isn't really going to change anything except loudly announce we're impotent. It's also complicated by the fact that this is an imperfect test case: the fix was definitely flawed, and there's a decent possibility that the RFC was insufficient to overcome the fact that 14,000+ users actively chose to opt-in to the media viewer (this is based on @Risker:'s comments; is this really true? I was unaware Media-viewer was ever opt-in. I'd like a pointer to where this data came from, and I'd like to know if anyone on the other side of the argument actively disputes it). If any en.wp admin had reverted this specific change without the threats of a foundation-level block, I would have supported that revert.

  Ultimately, the en.wp community should have an expectation that our "reasonable" requests to remove features or make them opt-in will be respected by the WMF; the WMF should have an expectation that their "reasonable" opposition to requests to modify what it considers core features will be respected by en.wp. When people disagree about what is reasonable and what isn't, when there is a long history of dysfunction on our end, and arrogance on their end, it's an intractable problem. I suppose ArbCom would be in a decent position to try to "negotiate" this kind of thing, but I doubt that's really in our remit. If we had a GovCom (which I wish we had), this would be a great job for them.

  I'm still undecided, but leaning decline, because really all we have that we can actually do something about are ticky-tack things like "not using an account with (WMF) at the end of the name", and "should have used some different terminology because there's not really anything officially called a WMF action" and "try not to be so rude". Ruling on those type of things is a pretty small potential payoff. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• As a person with a legal background, I find this case rather interesting, because it demonstrates the difference between power and authority. In this case, the Foundation do have the power to override the community, but not the authority to do so, unless WP:OFFICE applies or a decision has been made by the Board. And neither one of those conditions is met.

  On the matter of desysopping, as I affirmed earlier this year, during another case involving a WMF employee, it's always a good idea to restate that, barring cases of emergency, the power to restrict and sanction administrators rests squarely with the Arbitration Committee, even in the event of a WP:OFFICE violation. To understand why that's a good idea, one just has to take a look at 's impulsive and precipitate reaction (for which, it's true, he has duly apologised).

  That said, even assuming we accepted this case, I don't know what our powers would be, considering, that the Foundation do indeed have the de facto power to do as they please (Misplaced Pages is run on their servers, after all). So, in short, I'm still on the fence and will welcome all input to help me make up my mind. Salvio 16:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I think we always have jurisdiction to determine our own jurisdiction, indeed we do (cf. Kompetenz-kompetenz). Salvio 21:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I believe ArbCom should, as a body, answer Tim's questions. Accept. Salvio 10:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if we have a case here or not. As has been observed, there are several issues. At least one of those issues, "can the WMF sumarrily desysyop one of our admins without consensus" is not something we can make any sort of binding decision on. I'm not at all sure the rest of it is something that can't be resolved by lesser means, but I will wait till I've had more time to review the situation and everyone involved has had an opportunity to comment here before considering accepting or declining this as a case. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Still on the fence. While I am not comfortable with doing nothing here, I'm also not sure it requires a full case. Frankly, I find it unlikely the WMF would still be paying attention when we rendered a decision a month or more from now, and the question of the appropriateness of the RFC close seems like something that can be sorted out without a case. I'm thinking of drafting some motions to deal with this more expeditiously. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I have just posted a motion to deal with at least one aspect of this. I think we can deal with this bit by motion regardless of whether we take on a full case here. It's only a request, because we can't write policy ourselves and we can't bind the WMF, but I would hope if the committee passed it the Foundation would respect it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I've moved the proposed motion to directly under this voting section, just for continuity and easy-to-find-ness. This is consistent with how motions arising from case requests (as opposed to ones arising independently) have been formatted in the past. My moving the section is not a substantive action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I am sufficiently convinced that there are other issues above and beyond the one I have attempted to deal with by motion below, and therefore vote to accept this case regardless of the fate of the motion.Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• As Floquenbeam and others above state, the actions threatened are troubling, and do not appear to have a basis in any local or global policy. However, the committee's jurisdiction excludes actions of Wikimedia Foundation staff taken while in a staff role—what appears to be the major issue in this case. I'll have to investigate further to see if there are in-scope matters that merit arbitration. LFaraone 19:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
• I generally agree with Seraphimblade's discussion in his statement. I think we always have jurisdiction to determine our own jurisdiction, including whether Eloquence's actions fall within one of the exceptions to our jurisdiction, and whether we may nonetheless take notice of it in light of the third paragraph of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Policy#Jurisdiction. Thinking about this some more. T. Canens (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Accept, to consider, at the very least:

1. Whether the freshly minted interpretation of WP:CONEXCEPT to apply to MediaWiki namespace pages editable by the enwiki community is correct, especially in light of the VE precedent;
2. Whether Eloquence's edits fall within one of the exceptions to our jurisdiction;
3. If so, whether the committee should nonetheless take notice of them under the third paragraph of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Policy#Jurisdiction. T. Canens (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Accept to examine Eloquence's conduct, which it appears may have fallen below the required standard. On the jurisdiction question, I am of the mind that no user involved in this dispute was entitled to act as a deus ex machina. AGK 23:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
• Of the arbitrator comments thus far, Floquenbeam's thoughts come closest to mine. Allowing a little more time for input on the request before voting. (If we do ultimately accept this as a case, let's please adopt a reasonably expeditious schedule, and stick with it?) More later. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've asked Armbrust and Fabrice if they plan to submit statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Leaning decline largely per Floquenbeam (above) and David Fuchs (below) as well as the lack of clear answers in my mind to NativeForeigner's question (also below). I am not clear, at this stage, what helpful outcome a full case might have, though I remain open to persuasion. I am considering a motion addressing some of the issues raised, although that would be more for the point of emphasizing some points of agreement than sanctioning anyone. Thoughts:
    • Going forward, I believe the WMF leadership has stated that it is a priority to improve liaison with editors on software/interface changes; obviously the community agrees, and it would be good to focus, via an RfC or otherwise, on how this can be done. Creating a group of editors, at varying experience levels, to work as some sort of focus group is one possibility that should receive attention.
    • Second, there is clear agreement that WMF official actions should be clearly marked as such, preferably through a separate "(WMF)" designated account—this has largely been happening, but we can emphasize the desire for it where practicable.
    • Third, although I don't enjoy wiki-legalism for its own sake (I am unlikely to discuss "jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction" in any document I'm not being paid to write, and bizarre overemphasis on process belongs Offwiki), it may be time for a community discussion on how our most important RfCs should work, particularly how they should be publicized and to whom (I hesitate to suggest an "RfC on RfCs" only from fear of infinite regress).
    • Fourth, while we don't have the ability to tell the Office when they are authorized to desysop or threaten to desysop an administrator, common sense suggests that this should be reserved for extreme circumstances and be a last resort, particularly on a project like this one with an existing desysopping mechanism. (I understand the temptation they feel, of course: I've sometimes suggested myself when someone banned here is trolling as an admin on another project, "Why don't they just ban this clown as an Office action?" But that's different, he said, while not explaining why just now.) The Office's communications with our admins will not always ring with Eloquence, but neither should they be crass.
    • With all that said, I'm not sure what would be left for a case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
• Accept. I think that Tim's questions should be resolved. For example, although the arbitration policy is clear that the Arbitration Committee has no jurisdiction over the "official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff," it does not clarify if this is limited to OFFICE actions, or if it extends to everything that is claimed to be on behalf of the WMF. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
• This is very clearly problematic, but I'll hold off on a stance on whether we should take this or not until I can adequately read the background and gain a good understanding of the issues at play. To some degree, I am sympathetic to those who say we should take the case, this whole mess is incredibly fuzzy, and if we wished to we could draw this out in terms of de jure and de facto powers (in the context of WP:CONEXCEPT). Though this isn't exact, it seems we have been asked to Arbitrate between the foundation and the community, if we can call it that. I'm not sure what we gain out of this. Yet I would disagree with Risker that T Canens questions are inherently answered. We can answer them via current practice, but my perception is the community, if only on this case page, has expressed issue with the status quo. However, as a counterpoint to that, it really should be the community causing these changes, but as of the present, they are being thrust upon us. (Additionally, the WMF still holds the ability to more or less define WP:CONEXCEPT.) WP:CONEXCEPT certainly defines scope of powers, but certainly not best practice for the foundation, and here I think that the recent series of scuffles certainly shows that a clarification of best practice on technical issues ought to be formalized. But again, my hesitation lies with the fact that I don't have a good idea of how this case can be well-resolved, and what action would be taken. (Although it is possible in this case, there is no good solution for us, even though we should take it.) Broadly speaking, what outcomes (concrete actions) would those asking for a case like to see? NativeForeigner 07:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
• Decline Not that this is likely to matter, but after reading through everyone's responses, I don't see any avenue a case can be productive. I don't, as many have opined, see our role in performing judicial review on an RfC's outcome. No one is disputing that the case in question fell under the WP:OFFICE remit--it didn't. All that remains is whether you think this is a case of WP:CONEXCEPT, and I think it is. The WMF has the right to block such changes, but it should also have the common sense to acknowledge significant user feedback from its editors and work collaboratively towards a solution instead of threatening them with blocks, especially when the basis of the block would be invalid. But this doesn't seem to be within our scope. Perhaps a better question is to ask people what ultimate proposed decision do they see coming from this case, and what "evidence" can be provided besides multiple interpretations of a few lines of policy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Motion

The Wikimedia Foundation is requested to do away with "grandfather rights" regarding personal and official accounts of staff members, and to instead require all staff members to use accounts with a personally identifiable name with "WMF" appended when acting on-wiki in their capacity as staff. We ask them to extend this courtesy in order to reduce confusion regarding when our users are dealing with a fellow member of the community or a representative of the Foundation. Staff accounts, their actions, and their user rights or permissions shall be under the sole jurisdiction of the Foundation. Personal accounts of staff members shall be considered members of the community and shall be treated as such, including access to user rights or advanced permissions. While the English Misplaced Pages cannot make a binding decision on this matter we believe it is evident that making this change will ease communication and improve general relations between our project and the Foundation and we further believe the Foundation can institute this minor change with little to no disruption of their activities, and we further ask that they consider making this a requirement not just here but at all WMF projects.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

1. As proposer. Even if we do accept the full case, I think this particular aspect can be dealt with by motion. I am confident that if it passes the Foundation will respect the decision and make what is really a very minor change, but a change that will alleviate the lingering confusion regarding the exact role of staff who also maintain personal accounts. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Aside from the issues above, this seems like a no-brainer in dispelling confusion in certain instances where it could easily be avoided. It also gives a moment to force the users in question to stop and think about how their actions can be construed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Hopefully this doesn't smell too much like tactical voting. I'm still weakly leaning towards opposing a full case. However, it appears at this point that a full case is likely. If there is a full case, I think it's unwise to consider this aspect early and separately, and so I oppose this motion. It's possible I would support something along these lines if part of a full case; I agree with the gist of it, but have some concerns about the details, and don't think now is the time to propose alternate motions. If things change and a full case is declined, I'll revisit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
2. I agree with the gist of the motion, but not with its details; so, for the moment, I'll park myself here. Salvio 10:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments

• Makes general sense; awaiting community comments on the wording, etc. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
• It should be noted that whether or not this motion passes, and whether or not the foundation adopts the requested policy, nothing prevents the community from adopting a policy regulating the non-staff actions taken from accounts used for staff actions, or indeed prohibiting them altogether, if it so desires. T. Canens (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding some of the community comments below: staff accounts are, by definition, under the authority of the WMF already. We can discuss things with staff, we can make recommendations, we can ask for things, but we can't actually make them do anything. This language does not grant any new or special authority to staff that they did not already have, it just seeks to clearly define when one is acting as a member of the community as opposed to an official, representative of the WMF. So, in this scenario we wouldn't have had a user named Eloquence suddenly turning into the deputy director in the middle of a conversation, he would have to either be one or the other. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Community Comments

• From my experiences as a steward, I believe something like this is long overdue. --Rschen7754 18:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
• Does anything need to be said about linking the two accounts? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
• Makes sense; I'm surprised this wasn't already a requirement. Support – BethNaught (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
• Deeply troubled by the wording Staff accounts, their actions, and their user rights or permissions shall be under the sole jurisdiction of the Foundation. This gives Foundation carte blanche which they neither need, deserve nor, probably, want. We have to be crystal clear that the Foundation was created to support the projects, and by implication the community that creates these projects. Unless the culture of the Foundation is changed (which I think they have been attempting to do) we will have more conflict instead of less. The community takes responsibility for content, we created the Foundation to handle contracts, money and legal requirements (and these raise other issues). The question of other intellectual property used to deliver the projects has never been fully resolved. Most of it was developed by the community, though those members are largely now employed by the Foundation. It is "nice to have" full time software developers, but... since I have been aware of them, there has been signal failure to deliver in accordance with the communities wishes, full-time developers have to fulfil their staff function, of course, and that seems to be the pet projects of Foundation managers. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC).
  
• Per Rich. Splitting staff and personal accounts is great, but this is way beyond that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
• What Rich said. You can't have diplomatic immunity for Foundation members, particularly since diplomacy has been a concern and is at issue here. What happens off these pages is one thing, but it is completely against everything that Misplaced Pages stands for if onwiki, some animals are more equal than others. We have enough trouble with the communities impression of the accountability of admin as it is, creating a new "super admin" class would make that even worse. Yes on adding WMF tag, but no to reducing accountability in any way whatsoever, and an absolute NO to granting any extra bits outside of normal community processes. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The motion is just repeating what the committee's jurisdiction is in English Misplaced Pages Arbcom policy. Moreover, WMF already grants permissions on English Misplaced Pages as it does on all projects, at least, that has been my understanding for a very long time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't wander into the political areas often and wasn't aware that they were giving away permanent admin bits without community consent, to be honest. I knew temporary bits were granted if needed and that is understandable, but this gets more and more disturbing. It does make us look the fools for doing it for free if those doing it for pay can threaten and override without any accountability. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason for you to feel that way. This is a privately owned website, and it has always been a privately owned website. I know you know that, but perhaps you have not contemplated the full implications of that thoroughly. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes I know about the ownership but it is almost never relevant in day to day editing. My concern is about accountability, not ownership. Over the 8 years I've been here, accountability seems to be decreasing, not increasing, which is a problem. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

That's just it. The WMF is accountable to the governing documents and processes of the WMF, and its constituencies are very vast (much vaster than English Wikipedians are wont to speak of), from multiple projects, to donors, to employees, to readers, to governments, to the general public, and more. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• I also disagree with the idea that "staff accounts" and their actions should be placed solely under WMF. Perhaps "the actions of staff accounts which follow the guidelines at WP:OFFICE" are left solely to WMF jurisdiction, and it's stated explicitly they may not take non-community or "Foundation" actions beyond that aside from to join in discussion? Seraphimblade 02:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
• Putting "WMF" in usernames is ugly and clunky. Unlike sites such as GitHub, MediaWiki does not currently make it easy to switch between multiple accounts. I don't think there was any ambiguity here regarding whether Erik was acting as a local administrator or as a Wikimedia Foundation employee. He was very clear on this point.

  The motion here seems to suggest that the English Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee can make pronouncements on behalf of the English Misplaced Pages, which is certainly not the case. The motion's language should be tightened to make it clear that the English Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee is only speaking for itself. Otherwise, you can hold a requests for comment here or on Meta-Wiki to discuss the staff username policy. I hear holding an RFC gives you something more, err, concrete to cite. ;-)

  Finally, I take issue with the suggestion that it's the usernames that have anything to do with Wikimedia Foundation–community interactions ("we believe it is evident that making this change will ease communication and improve general relations between our project and the Foundation"). This is nonsense. The issues here are not superficial and tied to the account name being used. The issues here are much deeper and nobody should be pretending that something as minor as the account name being used is really relevant. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• I echo the second paragraph of MZMcBride's comment. The motion purports to speak on behalf of the community. The Committee really has no authority to request changes in policy or practice from the WMF on behalf of the community. The proper course would be for the proposed request to be submitted to the community in the form of an RfC. Neljack (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
• While I've long believed that WMF staff should have separate accounts, over time I've become aware of some of the complications. One is SUL, another is global renaming, and a third is people who bounce regularly back and forth between contract work and volunteer status. I support the notion of this motion, but I think until some of these Meta issues are resolved, it will be unenforceable. I tend to agree with MZMcBride that this is more a meta issue - all WMF staff rights are global rights, not local rights. Risker (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)