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)