User talk:Fram

Welcome to Meta!

Hello, Fram. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum if you need help with something (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

--Cohaf (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

A place for polite discussion of my enwiki ban, and related general issues with the handling of issues by WMF in general and Trust & Safety in particular. Fram (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Copy over Commons discussions?

Hi Fram. On the general matter, I am sure you have seen the latest update here. May I suggest taking taking time and taking advice before deciding what to do next. Maybe copy some of what is on your Commons page over here to meta? Carcharoth (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Permalink for reference. EllenCT (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Emails

Hi Fram. A quick question if I may. Reading what you originally posted here, you said: "I have not contacted anyone I was in conflict with in any offwiki way (be it through email, social media, real life contact, whatever)". Given the possibilities being discussed over at en-Wikipedia, my question is whether you have looked through the emails you have sent or received and considered whether some of those engaging in email correspondence may have considered you to be in conflict with them, even if you did not consider yourself to be in conflict with them? I am thinking here that maybe you said something in an email to someone (e.g. did you email ArbCom or WMF employees?) and something was said that triggered all this without you realising it? It would help to have that clarified. Carcharoth (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

A screenshot from my "sent items" from my wiki-emailaddress. I barely use this, and have not sent any emails from it between April 2018 and the start of the ban. I have also not contacted any Wikipedian from another account (well, obviously people I contact in real life may also be wikipedians, but none of the contacts were in any way wiki-relevant or as a result of wikiactions or so). Fram (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Thinking out loud

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm reading all discussions at en:Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram with a lot of interest, of course. One of the main problems seem to be finding a good way to show your disagreement with the way the WMF handled this (no matter if you agree with the actual sanction or not), since most of you don't want to "destroy" enwiki to spite the WMF. I agree that letting in attack pages, BLP violations, ... is bad because it creates innocent victims. So I tried to think of something which wouldn't make enwiki worse (for factual credibility), wouldn't include BLP attacks and the like (or not more than usual), but would still, if widespread enough, cause problems or embarassment for the WMF. An added bonus is that is one of the topics I regularly worked on. So, what if enwiki admins made it clear that, out of fear of being accused of harassment, stalking, nah, simply persistence and looking at too many edits by one editor, they are no longer going to take any action against copyright violations? Mark G12 and CCI as "historical". If someone asks, tell them that enwiki is no longer feeling "comfortable" going after copyright violations and that contributors may feel persecuted if you remove their contributions simply because they are not written by themselves. Does that mean that I argue that copyvios should be allowed on enwiki? No, of course not, don't be silly (oops, attack phrase there!). It simply means that the WMF will have to pay some professionals to deal with this problem from now on. Which obviously they're good at, so that will be a walk in the park! Seriously, what's the actual harm to enwiki readers and subjects (apart from some minuscule monetary loss to whoever wrote the original?) Why do we even bother with removing copyvio's? Mainly to protect the WMF, not to get a better encyclopedia, as you don't necessarily get a better encyclopedia by rewriting and summarizing bits instead of simply copying bits. It won't make the WMF tremble in their shoes of course, but every small bit might help? Fram (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC) Fram, as you know I'm not your biggest fan. But wow, is this a really bad idea that's likely to cut off sympathy for your cause. I'd urge you to retract and apologize for suggesting this. (It was just posted on EN.WP:ANI). Hobit (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC) @Hobit: This wasn't posted on ANI, it was posted (by me) at en:WP:FRAM. * Pppery * it has begun 17:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Have you made the same demands for apologies from anyone suggesting this or worse? As there have been many much more damaging suggestions than simply not removing copyvios and letting WMF deal with these instead. Not removing copyvio's is about the least damaging thing we can do, no idea why you consider this especially a "really bad idea" and not e.g. calls to close down all bots or to simply go on a general strike. Fram (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Feel free to ignore it. Certainly not a demand. I'm trying to be helpful. My sense is you may have just shot yourself in the foot. But I could easily be wrong. The difference is that you're the person people are so upset about. If you make it "hurt the encyclopedia in my name" I think it tarnishes you and is just generally poor PR. But again, I could be wrong and probably should have just let it pass. Sorry to bother you with this. Hobit (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Most people aren't really upset about me, but about process, about principle. Anyway, thanks for your response, I understand your position a bit better now. Fram (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom

ArbCom apparently had some long, good, fruitful, ... conversation with T&S. Can they now at least answer the simple questions I and many others asked T&S quite a few times, but which were ignored each time?

• Please confirm that this is purely about on-wiki behaviour (by Fram)
• Please confirm that what I posted on my talk page (Commons first, now here) is correct (two warnings and now the ban, the only diffs or names given to me are the ones I reposted, excerpts from mails are genuine, ...)

If you don't even know these things, then I don't see how you can come to a conclusion about how T&S handled this. If you do know these things, then I don't see how answering these simple questions can be a problem. If I'm telling the truth and you know this by now, then how would confirming this endanger any other person? On the other hand, if the T&S claims I'm lying about either of these, then I'ld like to know this, as then at least it might explain the discrepancy between the sanction and the mails I received (and with the scrutiny multiple editors have given to my edits of the last months), as T&S then clearly based the sanction on something apart from my onwiki edits.

I don't expect ArbCom to have some instant magic wand to resolve this, but answering these questions might indicate to people that they can at least expect a bit more openness and cooperation from ArbCom than what we have so far gotten from T&S. Fram (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• Hello Fram, this is what ArbCom member Joe Roe said [1]: We have asked, and were told a) there is additional, private and off-wiki information relevant to the ban; b) ArbCom doesn't have all of it; and c) they do not consider the ban, as an office action, to be overturnable by ArbCom. Starship.paint (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks. So, just like T&S, no actual answer to either question. A "no" would be a lie, and a "yes" would weaken the position of T&S even further than the current ambiguity does. Well, perhaps ArbCom didn't get an answer to these questions either, but then it's not much use that they are discussing things if that is the kind of trust the T&S has in them... Fram (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

    Wouldn't that statement be a "yes" to question 1? It specifically says "off-wiki information". Also, I've linked this talk page from near the top of your en.wiki talk page. If you don't like that, ping me. Starship.paint (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

    • That's the ambiguity they (WMF) have tried to create for weeks now. "Additional, private and off-wiki information" can mean "someone addressed a T&S member personally at a Wiki-event and claimed to have contacted a doctor about the stress levels they felt after Fram said the F-word against the English ArbCom" or a 1000 other things. They very carefully don't make any actual statements about me doing anything off-wiki which contributed to this ban, as there isn't anything they could use to back up that claim if they ever would be forced to show their hand (to ArbCom or people on the board or so). But they don't actually answer the questions either, so that enough people can continue to believe that there has to be something, or believe that they have actually said that they have taken into account offwiki behaviour by me. Fram (talk) 04:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

When I said "off-wiki information", I meant only information that is not currently publicly available on Wikipedia. I don't know the answer to either of your questions, Fram, and I agree, I/we don't have enough information to come to a conclusion about how T&S handled your case (I said as much in the case request yesterday). Joe Roe (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Fram (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not a usable statement. We already know they were contacted off-wiki and won't say by who, let alone give us the full text of those communications, so we already knew there existed "private and off-wiki information". The relevant question was whether any portion of the ban was based on anything but Fram's on-wiki actions, and that response isn't an answer to that question. Seraphimblade (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Your enwiki admin rights

I don't know whether you have done something wrong or not. Maybe you don't either. I do know that in recent weeks you have been treated extremely poorly and that WMF has failed to extend to you the most basic of procedural fairness. I have restored your admin rights on enwiki for the reasons stated here. I wish you all the best. WJBscribe (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it (even though it is only symbolic at the moment). Fram (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, it only lasted for a few hours apparently... Fram (talk) 06:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Enough time for you to look at All The Deleted Revisions, no doubt. Please forget what you've seen. –xeno 13:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

:-) (I do assume you are joking?) No idea if view-deleted actions are in any way logged, but I haven't looked at any during my brief re-admin spell, if anyone wonders. I rarely if ever am online during those hours Fram (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

A development

[2] - thought you would like to know. Any response? Starship.paint (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Hard to reply to "I found something". I note that in the last diff you cite they is now claiming that ArbCom is lying as well, since Jehochman states "I believe ArbCom or at least some of its members are fully aware of what transpired with Fram." while ArbCom has just denied knowing anything... Anyway, "Fram’s explanation lacks critical details."? No, it has all the information I received and which I can base anything on (like, say, a change in behaviour in a year's time). I have no idea what I have done (apart from being critical about ArbCom) between the October warning and the ban this month that would warrant a one-year ban or the comments by Jehochman. Fram (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Another question: could you show us more of the emails? With redactions of sensitive parts? Reading through what I compiled that you said, I get the sense that the emails are incomplete. [3] Starship.paint (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course they are incomplete, that's what I said right from the start :-) I don't think it would be wise to quote even more from them, posting someone else's mails is normally not allowed and I only did this to give myself some chance at a defense, and the enwiki community some indication of the actual history. Like I said, the remainder of the posts doesn't contain further names, diffs, or pointers to what I should avoid after this year (or however long it lasts) is over. All I now is that the actual ban is for my "abusive communication", apparently towards ArbCom. So presumably not for edits made in 2016 or whatever else people are digging up at the framban discussion on enwiki. Fram (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Arb case

"Using publicly available information I have identified at least one user who appears to have been targeted by Fram in a way that felt like severe harassment. The incidents I found date back to 2016. I used the user interaction tools to find multiple instances of one way interaction where Fram consistently followed another user around causing that user distress, even after being warned to stop by other editors and administrators. " Without further information, it is rather hard to say anything useful about this. It is unclear whether Jehochman means a case which ended in 2016, or one which started in 2016 (which makes a serious difference of course).

" There are also a few recent instances of potentially problematic editing by Fram, such as [4]": that's not a remark I made, that's a remark by WBG where the redaction was too heavy-handed (losing not only the tone of the comment, but also the meaning, which was more important at the time). See my edit summary ("We are not the civility police. Restore deleted rude comment. If you want to redact it, then at least leave the meaning intact instead of just censoring like this"). I hardly see how something like this is ArbCom-worthy (note that the comment has since not been redacted again, nor reported to AN as far as I know).

"In May of this year, Fram used a racial slur on WT:NPA in an argument with another prominent editor. While he might argue it was used in a descriptive fashion, its use was highly inappropriate and paradoxically was not raised by anybody for further review. I will not go into great detail as to why this is not excusable. The diff speaks for itself. [5] I believe this particular diff, as well as the context in which the slur was uttered, further indicate a need for review at some level. I am sure others who make statements will point to evidence of why other dispute resolution has failed or is futile". The discussion was about things which are offensive but mislabeled (or not). E.g. if one would call female editors "lassie" or some such, that would probably be insulting (if it wasn't used in a more joking exchange, like in a reply to a comment about "boys and their toys" or some such), but it would not be "misgendering", which was what the dispute was about (basically, whether using gender-neutral "xe" instead of the preferred gender-neutral "they" was "misgendering or not"). Since Fae seemed to misunderstand my point, I tried a much clearer example, with an example which is clearly insulting in almost all cases (the N-word), but which wouldn't be "misracing". I believe it is important that we don't go around mislabeling things even if they are objectionable. I haven't had interactions with Fae before or since (well, none that I remember, it is likely that our paths have crossed in some discussions over the years but I don't think we were involved in disputes), and the comment was not reported on at the time. Using an example which some may consider too extreme may have been stupid at most, but actionable? Note that the N-word has been posted on the main page (DYK) multiple times...

Leaving apart the issue of whatever Jehochman may send privately to ArbCom, I fail to see how these two edits or discussions could form the basis for an ArbCom case (or even an ANI discussion). Fram (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I copied your statements here to the case request page. You're probably best off not commenting on the most recently posted diffs regarding the editor the WMF wanted you to avoid, especially since the case looks likely to be declined at this point. 28bytes (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The next Signpost

The next issue of the signpost will contain different sections about the SanFranJanBansFram saga. I have had the chance to give my comment about some points, but the following, which I proposed to link to in the comments section after the special report was published (later today normally), was deemed inacceptable (and even as possibly leading to a permanent global ban!) because it purportedly contained "outing". In fact, no one is even remotely outed in it, so I'll just post it here instead (it was in my sandbox).

Reply

Anonymous complaint

"It is difficult and embarrassing as a man to come to grips with being sexually harassed, as the culture has the expectation that you should ignore this kind of behavior and that it should have no effect on you.

A troll on an offsite forum posted a graphic written depiction of myself engaged in sexual activity with another editor. Fram repeatedly posted a link to this depiction on Wikipedia, even after it was revision deleted. A regular editor would likely have been blocked for this behavior, but since Fram was a powerful, influential administrator, ArbCom just shrugged and ignored it. Fram's behavior is a large reason why I barely ever edit Wikipedia anymore.

I can only imagine what he's done to female editors on Wikipedia.

— Anonymous, June 2019"

To start with the last line, what an utter non sequitur. The editor who wrote this complaint has access to all my edits, and if I did anything similar to what is described here towards female editors, it would long have been unearthed and displayed (and the logic of "is he was mean to me, a man, then he certainly has been more mean to women" is rather dubious and an example of the en:Think of the children fallacy). Of course, the major problem is that I didn't do this with this editor either. What in reality happened was that the anonymous admin used their tools to rev-del a link to an off-wiki site where their admin actions were criticized. In a reply to these descriptions, some commenter made a crude joke (the kind which wouldn't be accepted on-wiki), but this was not the reason the link was made. Worse, when confronted with this, the admin claimed that this wasn't true, and that the off-wiki page did not contain any criticism of their adminning. I then linked to (once only, IIRC) and quoted the actual relevant parts of the post (not the crude response): these quotes, made in ArbCom case pages, have not been removed, as they were not BLP violations or otherwise revdelable. The arb case ended without any comments about me, while the admin involved was admonished for his behaviour.

"since Fram was a powerful, influential administrator, ArbCom just shrugged and ignored it. " is a bit bizarre coming from an admin with probably at that time more onwiki "friends" and a "higher" position than I ever had. Perhaps Arbcom just "shrugged and ignored it" because it was not so vile as they try to make it here, but a small but correct piece of evidence about their behaviour?

BU Rob13 complaint

Following a contentious dispute over a recent ArbCom circular, Fram went to my user talk page and continued attacking me in rather personal terms. Very shortly after, he showed up at an unrelated ArbCom case and obstructed my ability to work as an arbitrator by reverting an edit asking a question of a party, while further attacking me in the edit summary. I felt extremely uncomfortable with what felt like harassment. It felt that he was signaling that I would be watched everywhere, that there would be no boundaries in his continued personal attacks. It made me feel unsafe. His actions, and the Arbitration Committee's failure to act promptly in condemning them, were the largest immediate factor that led to my resignation. That’s a major reason why I no longer believe the current Arbitration Committee can handle harassment, in any form. The Committee wasn't able to handle harassment directed at an arbitrator that occurred on a fully protected arbitration case page. If they can't handle that, how can they handle harassment in general? — BU Rob13, via email, June 2019

This is about one discussion, [6]. My first post is about all arbs, my second post is about all arbs, and so on. Only the last post, in reply to a block threat by BU Rob, was a reply about him personally. And why did he want me blocked? Because I reverted him at an Arb Case I was already involved in (the Rama case), here [7]. "The Committee wasn't able to handle harassment directed at an arbitrator that occurred on a fully protected arbitration case page." Perhaps because you could, just like everybody else, raise the issue at WP:ANI, just like I said at your talk page? You decided not to use the standard processes in our community (of which you were at the time an arb and admin), but instead tried to get your way informally among your fellow arbs. That this failed is probably because you were wrong here (since you had no business using that page to ask questions at that time, when no one else could do this or could respond), not because the arbs trembled before me and rather sacrificed you than taking action against me. These complaints are really ascribing power and influence to me that I don't have nor want.

Fram (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom open letter

Here. Thank you. I don't know if it will help bridge the gap between WMF and enwiki, but it certainly will help bridge the (much smaller) gap between ArbCom and some critical editors (like me). Well thought out, balanced, and clear. Fram (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Reply to BU Rob13

"You're preaching to the choir; I'm quoted in that Signpost article, and I'm not particularly positive on Fram. The first bombshell in that article is that Fram can immediately rattle off ten editors that likely felt harassed by him when given a conduct warning. The second is that multiple editors made reports to T&S and ArbCom over a duration of years without any community action being done. This upends the narrative of T&S doing some hasty, sneaky action and doing a complete end-run around community processes. The community processes abjectly failed here, and so in response to an apparent deluge of complaints, T&S eventually had no choice but to act. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)"[8]

No, I can not "rattle off ten editors that likely felt harassed by" me. I can rattle of ten or more editors who have been banned, indef blocked, stripped of advanced permissions, or otherwise sanctioned because (at least in part) of actions taken by me, and who I could imagine would retaliate by claiming harassment. See e.g. Cwmhiraeth (noted at the start of that upcoming signpost article), but in general check my 12 years as admin and look for those cases at AN or Arb I started or significantly participated, and which ended in sanctions.

"The community processes abjectly failed here"? No, again taking the case of Cwmhiraeth as an example, the community processes didn't fail, they worked like they should, e.g. an unwarranted request was rejected (with some arbs even suggesting a boomerang instead). In your own case, you didn't even attempt to use community processes but first tried off-wiki discussion with fellow arbs (who rightly rejected your plea), and then went straight to T&S. "in response to an apparent deluge of complaints, T&S eventually had no choice but to act." Again, completely wrong. Sanctions shouldn't be decided by the number of complaints, but by their validity. If e.g. an editor gets community indef blocked at enwiki and then complains at T&S about harassment, then that shouldn't indicate that there is a problem at enwiki. Fram (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Please reconsider

...your refusal of a block on enwiki, solely to prevent accidents. Your immediately-self-reverted edit of a few hours ago is already being spun as a deliberate provocation. I'm willing to push the button, if you want (though I am going offline in about two hours). —User:Cryptic (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, please do. It wasn't a deliberate provocation, it was a stupid mistake, but I can't guarantee that it won't happen again. Can you (whoever pushes the button) please indicate in the block notice that it is a self-requested block to avoid the risk of a ban? Thanks! Fram (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Fram (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

ANI post on Signpost article

I have some concerns about the new Signpost [9] Haukurth (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Apparently it's better to name and link the actual case than try to protect the identity of the anonymous poster. For all clarity, Smallbones has not given me the identity of the poster or anything else beyond what is in the Signpost article, so they haven't breached any confidentiality. The case the anonymous poster refers to (or at least the only case in all those years I can imagine to somewhat resemble the account) is [en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop], and my comments there are in this section [10].

I did not object to Smallbones posting the Signpost article, but I do object to them then making false claims about me (and also the inflammatory claims he made towards me in mails). I have replied to this at lenght below, so no need to repost this here. Considering these actions by Smallbones, I presume it would indeed be best to simply pull the article as it is by now rather tainted and only leads to more drama, not less. Comments by Smallbones like "Fram has had lots of chances to respond and told me to go ahead with the story yesterday. Perhaps he likes the attention, I don't know why, but he was very cooperative with the investigation." (emphasis mine) are really way beneath what I would expect from someone presenting themselves as a neutral journalist. No, I don't like the attention (it is not really enjoyable to have anonymous complaints, correctly rejected arbcom cases from years ago, and already refuted claims repeated on a high-profile page, when one is restricted from replying in an adequate way), but I try to be open and honest, as I tried to do throughout this case (and throughout my enwiki career). But I do expect to be treated the same in return, which is e.g. a major failing with the WMF so far (failing to answer even the most basic questions, finding ridiculous excuses for inflammatory tweets, ...), and is now what I receive from Smallbones. For a reason I still don't get, they suddenly turned very hostile during our email exchange, and then started spreading lies about me at the discussions about the Signpost page. I hope they'll give some kind of explanation for this about-face. Fram (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Reply to Smallbones

My discussions with Smallbones in the lead-up to the Signpost article were amicable and productive, until the "anonymous" issue happened and Smallbones suddenly went very defensive for no apparent reason. He now claims at WP:ANI:

"OK, what people don't seem to realize is that Fram was given several chances to respond to this quote and didn't. "

This is false. I'll quote the mails from them. At first they said to me:

""There will be quotes from 2 unidentified editors one saying that you used an off-wiki site to harass them, the other saying that you picked on especially vulnerable editors."

To the first part I replied: "The first is simply not true. I have never used off-wiki sites. I am not a member of any wiki criticism site, nor have I commented about Wikipedia or any of its editors through other means (whether Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, ...). I haven't even used any of the IRC channels even once. I can't judge whether the unidentified editor is making things up or is the victim of a joe job, but this one simply isn't true. I would advise this editor to send evidence of this to ArbCom to let them judge whether it is a credible claim, something they can't determine, or a likely false claim."

Smallbones then send me the actual text of the signpost article on fr 28 jun. 22:46, which contained the "sexually harassed" bit.

I replied at sat 29 jun. 2019 12:04: "My claim that " Fram categorically denied that he ever used off-Wiki sites to harass editors." wa about a pervious version you posted me, where the claim was included that I had posted on offwiki sites to harass someone. This new claim is about a dispute I can't immediately find the link to, where IIRC an editor revdeled a link to a reddit discussion where their admin actions were discussed. They claimed repeatedly that no such content was included in that link, only " a graphic written depiction of myself engaged in sexual activity with another editor". This was patently false, and to see this editor repeat this untruth to finally score points and get back at me is disappointing. I hope someone else will find the link to the onwiki discussion, so people can judge for themselves and don't have to base their opinion solely on a "he says - she says" scenario.

Feel free to use any of this or not, if you post the page as is I will probably post some comments on my talk page to be posted in the reactions. The only thing I would like you to change is the bit about "off-wiki harassment" I stated above, as that was a reply to the earlier claim that " you used an off-wiki site to harass them", which sounded completely different than what is now being said (that I "linked" to an offwiki site onwiki). "

I followed this up at sa 29 jun. 12:39 with:

"Ah, found it, the reddit revdel discussion is at [link to actual discussion and name of anon editor removed here, was included in post to Smallbones]

The claim is " A troll on an offsite forum posted a graphic written depiction of myself engaged in sexual activity with another editor. Fram repeatedly posted a link to this depiction on Wikipedia, even after it was revision deleted. A regular editor would likely have been blocked for this behavior, but since Fram was a powerful, influential administrator, ArbCom just shrugged and ignored it."

First, I reposted one of two links, once, not repeatedly. My reasoning is stated at the ArbCom page, and I still stand behind it: " As for "Are you seriously making the bad faith accusation that I deleted this BLP violation to cover up a "conduct accusation"? I have no idea what accusation is being made there about my Wikipedia conduct.", let me quote a few things to refresh your memory: "I like how within 2 hours X's guard dog Y decided to extend the 500/30 restriction to the article. 'How did this guy get administrative privileges?' Because everything he's done is always done an "uninvolved" with his own actions. How someone can not be involved with what they do is a classic wikipedia Gordian knot" and further "Neutral and independent and randomly coincidental arb Y rolls in to town, and invokes a rule designed for protecting the most controversial pages on Wikipedia like A, B and er... C. Which coincidentally solely restricts the one editor questioning X!!! Much neutral. So wisdom. Truly Y." This is about half of that discussion. Only the last post in it contains the oh-so-offending innuendo that prompted your rev-del, and even then it is only insulting to you, not to those people you supposedly tried to protect." [I replaced some names with letters here, the post to Smallbones contained the full original text]

Exposing involved admin actions and the lies told to cover this up is not "harassment", and continuing the same line of defense (already rejected at the ArbCom case) to get back at me is not really impressive. "

Smallbones removed the line I originally posted about claims that I used an offwiki site, but didn't know what to include from my responses. I then said (29 jun. 2019 17:55); "No, feel free to post it (with that line removed as it was confusing, thanks). I have prepared a reply at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fram/Sandbox which, after publication, should perhaps be copied over or linked to in the comments section under the page."

And then the shit hit the fan

"Fram, You do realize that you are apparently outing the admin you mention, don't you? You shouldn't be playing hardball with me like that. I'm pretty sure you could get permanently globally banned for that now. If you'd like to delete the meta page and say whatever you'd like as a response to the admin in the same number of words the admin used (125) without identifying him in any way, we could probably do that. The offer stands for 1 hour. User:Smallbones" (29 jun. 2019 21:11)

I invite everyone to look at the version of my meta sandbox at that time, and try to match it with the reply by Smallbones.

I replied "??? How did I out them? I'm sorry, I truly don't know what you mean. Do you mean that my post makes his onwiki account more identifiable? That may be true, although it will be very easy for many other insiders to identify hm anyway. But I don't think I make any reference to real life identities.

Bye, Fram" (29 jun. 2019 22:47 )

and

"Smallbones,

I have reread that meta page I wrote a few times now, and I don't see anything there that is in any way "outing" or that " you could get permanently globally banned for that now" (well, I could probably get permanently banned for saying "boo" for all I know, but in normal circumstances?). If someone posts "anonymously" a recognisable (rather unique) but quite warped story to score a point, then giving my version of the same events is not "outing" (and I didn't even mention their onwiki username, link to the case, or provide any actual quotes from it). You should keep "outing" for cases where people link offline identities (no matter if they are real names, or accounts on other websites) to an onwiki identity. It is not outing when you identify an anonymous complainer by the facts they provide. I'm not trying to guess who the other anonymous complainers might have been, that would be pointless, but in this case I can hardly defend myself without referring to the exact same case they are referring to.

If you had promised them anonimity, then you would do better to remove their complaint, as it won't be too hard for others to find out who they are anyway (it's not as if they otherwise kept a low profile in this case, where they have been one of the most obvious WMF defenders). If they fear that others will criticize them for their comment, then perhaps they should have written a truthful account in the first place. But I'm not going to redact my defense because you try to scare me with things which are not applicable at all, and I have to say that it severely disappoints me to see this from you after the fair exchanges we had about this before.

Bye, Fram" (30 jun. 2019 07:47)

I got no reply to either post, and now have to read that "Fram was given several chances to respond to this quote and didn't."? No, sorry, but that's not how it works. I try to be honest, giving him my full posts including the less smart bits, and let him freely use these (I only asked to remove the names of people I mentioned, since these were my speculation only and there is no evidence that any of them actually ever complained to T&S). The least I expect in return is equal honesty in describing in how I dealt with Smallbones, and not accusations that I was "apparently outing" someone (not at all) or that I could get "permanently globally banned" for this (not with any normally functioning banhammer, no), or that I never replied to that quote.

Fram (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Smallbones making baseless accusations

" There's another issue on what looks to me like an attempted outing by Fram on another website. I'm not going to accuse Fram of outing or speculate on his motives. I'll only say that at The Signpost we do not intentionally link to anything even close to outing, so we will not insert that link into the story. Please be patient for further responses from me - more emails. "

I'm not going to accuse Fram of what looks to me like attempted outing? No, please do accuse me, post the links, or retract the claims. I have never tried to out anyone, and I'm not active on "another website", unless you mean my posts here at meta? If you want to try your hand at investigative reporting, then go all the way, but don't drop unsubstantiated hints and then refuse to link to it.

Rest assured that this was the last time I tried to help you with a Signpost story. I don't like the kind of backstabbing you are practising here. Fram (talk) 06:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl

First there was this. Then there was the WIR "real crimes" twitter statement, where it is unclear how far you were involved with this.

And now you decide to continue the false statements by Smallbones, repeated by Bilorv but long since refuted, at ArbCom?

"I am in agreement with Bilorv. Fram had opportunity to dispute the content and declined as written here. This cannot be a BLP violation since the person in question did not dispute. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)" I thoroughly disputed the content:

"To start with the last line, what an utter non sequitur. The editor who wrote this complaint has access to all my edits, and if I did anything similar to what is described here towards female editors, it would long have been unearthed and displayed. Of course, the problem is that I didn't do this with this editor either. What in reality happened was that an admin used their tools to rev-del a link to an off-wiki site where their admin actions were criticized. In a reply to these descriptions, some commenter made a crude joke (the kind which wouldn't be accepted on-wiki), but this was not the reason the link was made. Worse, when confronted with this, the admin claimed that this wasn't true, and that the off-wiki page did not contain any criticism of their adminning. I then linked to (once only, IIRC) and quoted the actual post: these quotes, made in ArbCom case pages, have not been removed, as they were not BLP violations or otherwise revdelable. The arb case ended without any FoF about me, while the admin involved was admonished for his behaviour.

"since Fram was a powerful, influential administrator, ArbCom just shrugged and ignored it. " is a bit bizarre coming from an admin with probably at that time more onwiki "friends" than I ever had. Perhaps Arbcom just "shrugged and ignored it" because it was not so vile as you try to make it here, but a small but correct piece of evidence about your behaviour? Fram (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

But the reaction of Smallbones was: "Fram, You do realize that you are apparently outing the admin you mention, don't you? You shouldn't be playing hardball with me like that. I'm pretty sure you could get permanently globally banned for that now. If you'd like to delete the meta page and say whatever you'd like as a response to the admin in the same number of words the admin used (125) without identifying him in any way, we could probably do that. The offer stands for 1 hour. User:Smallbones"

and they didn't reply to my next posts at all.

Please stop claiming that I didn't dispute this or anything similar, I clearly disputed it, and Smallbones was aware of this but instead of trying to accommodate this started threatening me with completely invented claims of "outing" someone and getting a permanent global ban.

If you have followed this episode the last few weeks, you may have noticed that I have not replied to anyone saying that my ban was well-deserved, much too late, too short, whatever. I have no problem with people feeling this way and expressing their opinion of me. What I do have a problem with is people, certainly admins who should know better, engage in the thing they claim to fight against, harassment. Not the kind of "harassment" which consists of dealing with policy-violating edits by some editors, but the actual harassment of trying to get editors into trouble by spreading lies about them repeatedly. Fram (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

And now this? "we see Fram basically outing the person who made the accusations" Have I posted any personal information? Or have I posted onwiki-stuff only? "I post a recognisable but badly-deformed claim about things that happened onwiki, so anyone pointing out that the claim is probably about onwiki case X is outing me?" That's a completely incorrect reading of what en:WP:Outing actually is, and the same mistake Smallbones already made. Smallbones may have promised the editor anonimity, but that doesn't bind me in any way or shape. If I can't post to the actual case behind this, then all we are left with is a meaningless, pointless "did / did not / did / did not" shouting match which has no place in an "investigative journalism" case trying to make it possible for the readers to decide on my block (which the article explicitly stated, it ended with "We’ll let our readers judge for themselves on the propriety of the block." based on false, anonymous information.

If you want to accuse me of real, actual outing, then indicate where I did this. If you only want to continue to spread misinformation to damage me though, then I don't think that is a wise thing to do in an Arb case where you aren't yet but likely to become a party. Fram (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
You know, Fram, what I am not seeing anywhere is you taking responsibility for how you have gone over the top in your attacks on other people, whatever their mistakes may have been. All I see is you engaging in sarcasm, concern trolling, and disingenuous "solutions" such as (and I am paraphrasing for brevity) "let's ignore copyvio". A person can exercise quality control without being a jerk, and you seem to have not understood this message. I guess this raises an open question: Do you think you are completely in the right? Or do you, sincerely and without sarcasm or excuse, acknowledge that there are legitimate grounds for people to be concerned about your behavior (even if you disagree with the action taken)? Montanabw (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey there pot calling the kettle black. How many editors have you and your crew driven away from horse related topics? I can count at least a couple. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Those who understand the feelings of frustration that arise over problematic editors and editing are actually in an excellent place to discuss where the line needs to be drawn, Ernie. This is about Fram's behavior and no one else's. He was the one who allegedly was reported to the WMF by multiple parties. And he is the one who still is not acknowledging that he did anything wrong. Montanabw (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for openly stating that, since I have been accused, I'm a free target for anyone to spout whatever imagibned grievance they may have, "this is about Fram's behaviour and no one else's". You consider me a serial harasser, so whatever nonsense is said about me is well-deserved and should not be sanctionable in any way or shape, something like that? Fram (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Fram, No, your twisting of words is part of your problem. You really have no idea what **I** think of you beyond what I have stated publicly, and you should know better than to use false paraphrasing of what I said. There’s a difference between “nonsense” and truth. At the moment, I suspect you have lost any interest in showing your throat, but you might want to start looking for a way forward (without sarcasm). IMHO, Your quest for quality control as you understood it seemed to turn into a grand obsession where you behaved as if your ends justified any means. ( Others go well beyond me, was it the writer for Buzzfeed who actually called you an “asshole?”) More to the point, You have many supporters but some of them are behaving very, very badly. So though this ban’s gotta sting pretty good, what you are dealing with is small potatoes compared to the things people alleged to have complained about you are facing. The solution is not to respond with sarcasm and exaggeration, but rather to seek ways to solve the problem. Montanabw (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

(Edit conflict.) Fram, I'm not sure why you include the twitter "True Crimes" under a section about me. Are you accusing me? Also, I stand by what I said that WMF wouldn't block you for no reason. There are reasons even if I don't know them. As for agreeing with Bilorv about the Signpost article written by Smallbones, the way you discuss the issue isn't clear at all. You do not make it clear exactly what needs to be removed. You write about the situation and ramble quite a bit. Make your point more concise. I'm willing to change my mind if I understand what's going on more clearly. As for outing, you make it clear that you were dealing with an admin, which narrows the possible suspects. That's part of the process of outing someone--learning a little more about them over time so as to reveal their identity. Also, please ping the people you want a response to. I don't watch your page, nor am I going to. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: I struck the Twitter thing, I confused you with someone else. Anyway, if you had read this page, you would have seen that I already named the admin and linked to the Arb case above. Wrt the Signpost; I may be rambling and unclear, but most readers had no problem seeing that I had clearly responded to the Gamaliel accusations, and that Smallbones was falsely claiming that I had not replied to these accusations. But Bilorv and you decided to continue spreading these false allegations. And this wasn't the first time that you were happy to uncritically support any claim about me, no matter how disputed it had become. And then you continue with the "outing" nonsense as well, asa if there is any rule about not identifying an anonymous but clearly recognisable account. "I want anonimity" is not a get out of jail for free card, and it is not because Smallbones promised anonimity that the remainder of the enwiki community is bound by this in any way or shape. Identifying Gamaliel as the probable anonymous person is not outing and not bannable, and as an admin you should know better. Fram (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: - I’m not Fram and I will not discuss Twitter. You said Fram’s words narrows the possible suspects and is part of the process of outing. If that is true, then Smallbones has done the same. Smallbones reporting has identified that this editor claims to be male, claims to barely edit Wiki anymore, had an off-wiki site provide offen9sive content about, and apparently was either involved in an ArbCom case or reported to ArbCom about Fram repeatedly posted a link despite it being revdeled. Starship.paint (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Smallbones at the Arb Case

"That's right, the original agreement was that I could have printed the whole thing in the Signpost, and the current agreement is that I can summarize it, comment on it, etc. anywhere as long as I don't use identifying information (other than that it was from Fram)."

Uh, no. For clarity, Smallbones asked me if he could have my email conversation with the WMF (my posts, not theirs), and I agreed. But my condition (in my first post to Smallbones, 17 jun. 2019 11:01" was

"I will share my two posts from April 2018 with you, but please don't quote them onwiki (signpost or elsewhere) without first consulting me, as it discusses quite a few other editors who I don't want to unnecessarily drag into this mess."

Smallbones then asked for clarification, and I replied

"what I meant was that you would simply give me a heads-up with "hi, we plan on using these quotes from your emails "X" and "Y", do you see any problem with that? I obviously don't want to censor what you are writing or who you are contacting (and don't need to know any of this in advance). Oh, and if you do quote me, please make it clear that these are statements from April 2018, not statements I made now. I hope this is reasonable? "

How anyone can read that as "I could have printed the whole thing in the Signpost" is not clear.

Smallbones then says:

• "It was incredibly reckless and arrogant for Fram to give me that info. My reading of it is: here is a list of people who I harassed - I'm proud of harassing them. And something much more serious." That's news to me. First off, Smallbones is the one who asked me if he could see these mails, I did not approach him in any way to provide them. Apparently it was incredibly arrogant to reply in an open and cooperative way to questions of the Signpost (I know realise that it is indeed very reckless to believe that Smallbones would treat people fairly and present the facts in an objective and neutral way, as he seems intent as painting me in the worst possible way while ignoring the actual grounds for the Arb case completely).

The mail I gave was not of people I harassed, it was of people who had been sanctioned after an intervention by me and who I could imagine would be pissed off sufficiently to go to the WMF (this was before I interacted with the former BU Rob13, but one can see them as an example of how little is needed to be accused of harassment and have someone go to the WMF to ask for sanctions).

If it is in any way useful, I'm willing to send my mail conversation with Smallbones to ArbCom of course. Fram (talk) 04:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)