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)

ANI post on Signpost article

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