User talk:Fram

English: Welcome to the Commons, Fram!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki ‒ it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

--SieBot 19:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

TUSC token 8ab7029b0dc9f34db1938cdf80009487

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Sidebar

This isn't necessarily appropriate for the broader discussion, but the nature of a "utilitarian item" has to do with the "class of item" and applies regardless of the complexity of design. It doesn't matter how uniquely you design a fork; it's still a fork. That's why cars, no matter how complex and unique the design may be, are generally not copyrighted, but toy cars are normally copyrighted no matter how simple the design. GMG^talk 17:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

But these are not sold for or intended to be used, these are intended to be display items, things you hang on the wall or put on a pedestal. The "Hadhafang" sword is delivered with a wooden pedestal for a reason[1]. The File:Malcolm Reynolds blaster-P5120252.JPG has been closed as "utilitarian", even though the blaster is not a functional object but a model, a toy. Fram (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

For the "blaster" I agree, and I've gone ahead and wrapped them all up in the same DR. For the sword, it doesn't matter how decorative it is, it's still an actual sword with a sharpened steel blade. If it were plastic then obviously it would have no utilitarian value as a sword, and would clearly be a COM:TOY. The same would go if it were a miniature sword, and would qualify as a model of a utilitarian object, but not one in and of itself. But as it stands, it appears that it is particularly flashy, but an actual sword none-the-less which has an intrinsic utilitarian value whether anyone chooses to use it as such or not. GMG^talk 17:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it is a strange reasoning that Commons doesn't look at the major purpose of the item, but just takes a "if it can be utilitarian, that trumps every other consideration" approach. But I'm not going to renominate them. Thanks for grouping these in any case! Fram (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's the type of legal mumbo jumbo that lawmakers and courts have come up with. The only requirements for Common's purposes is 1) in scope, 2) free in source country and the US. GMG^talk 19:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. --4nn1l2 (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 12:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Seeing as you're not banned here

If you have any comments to add to en:Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#User:Fram banned for 1 year by WMF office, let me know and I'll copy them across. — iridescent 19:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who commented at the various discussions or sent me an email about this. I'm as baffled about this as any of you, I'll share whatever information I have. i'll not repost full emails, as that is normally not allowed, but I'll try to give a fair assessment.

In April 2018, I received an office email from Kalliope (on behalf of the Trust and Safety team) with a "conduct warning" based on offwiki complaint by unnamed editors. "I have taken a look at several conflicts you’ve had over the years with other community members as well as Foundation staff, and I have noticed increasing levels of hostility, aggressive expression—some of which, to the point of incivility—and counterproductive escalations." The "as well as Foundation staff" is quite telling here...

In March 2019, I received a "reminder" about two edits I made in October 2018 (!); this one and this one. Even though acknowledging that my edits were correct, and that "We remain convinced that the activity on Laura’s articles listed above was not intended to intimidate or make her feel uncomfortable." (which is true, as I was, as is most often the case, new page patrolling when I tagged and corrected these), they issued a one-sided interaction ban (yep, the WMF issues interaction bans as well apparently, no need to bother enwiki with these any longer).

And then a few hours ago, they posted my one year ban, and helpfully gave the actual reason. Which is one edit, this one. That's it.

"This decision has come following extensive review of your conduct on that project and is an escalation to the Foundation’s past efforts to encourage course correction, including a conduct warning issued to you on April 2018 and a conduct warning reminder issued to you on March 2019. With those actions in mind, this ban has been triggered following your recent abusive communications on the project, as seen here [2].

This action is effective immediately and it is non-appealable."

Basically, after you recive a conduct warning from the Office based on undisclosed complaints, any pretext is then good enough to ban you (1 year now, I presume indef the next time I do anything they don't like). That I just happen to be one of the most vocal and efficient critics of the WMF is probably a pure coincidence (sorry to tout my own horn here, but in this case it needs to be said).

No evidence at all that the enwiki community tried and failed to address these issues. No indication that they noticed that my conduct has clearly improved in general over the last 12 months (I said improved, not been raised to saintly standards). No, an edit expressing widefelt frustration with an ArbCom post is sufficient to ban me.

I would like to state empathically, if someone would have doubts about it, that I have not socked (despite the rather nefarious sounding "Office actions are covering individuals and not just individual user accounts. Therefore, the measure covers more than one user account in this case."), I have not contacted or otherwise followed or bothered anyone offwiki, I have not even contributed to any of the Wikipedia criticism sites or fora (though it does become tempting now), ... Everything I did is visible on enwiki, no privacy issues are involved, and all necessary complaint, investigations, actions, could have been made onwiki.

Basically, this one-year ban is at the same time a means to silence one of their most vocal (and fact-based, consistently supporting WMF criticism with many examples of what goes wrong) critics, and a serious (and unwarranted) blame for the enwiki admin and arbcom community, who are apparently not able to upheld the TOU and to manage the site effectively.

This ban is not open to appeal, so I'll not bother with it: but I most clearly disagree with it and the very flimsy justification for it, and oppose this powergrab by the WMF which can't be bothered to deal with actual serious issues (like the rampant BLP violating vandalism at Wikidata, where e.g. Brett Kavanaugh has since 31 March 2019 the alias "rapist"[3] (A BLP violation whether you agree with the sentiment or not).

I have not the faintest clue why the WMF also couldn't post the justification for their block online, but communication has never been their strongest point.

Any non-violent action taken by enwiki individuals or groups against this WMF ban has my support. If you need more information, feel free to ask. I also allow the WMF to publish our full mail communication (I don't think it contains any personally identifying information about me or others), to give everyone the means to judge this impartially for themselves.

Again, thank you to everyone who expressed their support, especially those who would have reasons to dislike me based on previous interactions. I'm not a model admin or editor, but I believe I was steadily improving. But that's not for enwiki to decide apparently. Fram (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, if necessary, feel free to either copy this post to the enwiki bureaucrat's noticeboard, or to post a link on it. I guess that that will still be allowed, and otherwise the Trust and Safety team is likely to contact you soon! Fram (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, now also discussed at Jimbo's WP-talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This actually sets a rather dangerous precedent, it also basically States that all Wikimedia communities have lost any autonomy, which they technically lost a long time ago as global bans/locks can't be overridden locally, but by extending WMF bans to specific Wikimedia websites they've basically stated that if a user doesn't get the person they want to ban through the local apparatus they can always resort to the WMF. And while sysops are theoretically liable to the community the WMF clearly is not interested in ever being open to scrutiny or having any level of transparency. As I am afraid that the WMF will globally ban me I won't be too critical of them, but the fact that they do not have to disclose why they ever ban anyone and ignore community consensus despite calling their bans "supplemental and not replacing" shows that the community is to be ignored by them whenever they see fit. I'd almost propose that the WMFOffice account should be able to get de-sysopped if they go against community consensus here, but I highly doubt that they would adhere to any community consensus. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Outcast

I offer two images, simply flowers, and the spirale of (no) justice, from the cabal of the outcasts. I wanted to place them on your en user talk, but ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It's good to see people I have directly or indirectly clashed with in the past, commenting to either support me, or at least to oppose the WMF action (in an "even criminals have rights" kind of way :-) ). Fram (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

From outcast to outcast: I try to let go, again and again, and not to hold grudges, and think we had good New years resolution, #2019 on your en:talk. - I could now move this there, but think the other - restored - is as good. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion

I hope this doesn't come across as "blame the victim", it's certainly not your job to fix anyone else's mess ... but I think the point Jimbo makes (at en: Wikipedia:Community response to Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram... search for "emotionally") is valid ... it may become harder for people to back down if a lot happens all at once. Just some food for thought: would you be willing to agree to not edit at en.wp for, say, a week, in exchange for getting the block lifted, to avoid the possibility of various Wikipedians falling on their swords to make a point? To repeat ... I'm not putting this on you at all, you're not responsible for the current crisis. Dank (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, if you want to be more selfless than it is reasonable to ask of anyone in your position, actively discouraging Flo and Bish from falling on their swords in your name an hour or so from now would probably be the most effectual. At best it will lose us two more admins we can't afford to lose. At best. --Xover (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Note

Just a little note - if there's anything admin-y I can do to help you out over here, just ping. Nick (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

--Floquenbeam (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope I can ever repay this (to you specifically, or to the enwiki community in general). Fram (talk) 11:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

About the ban

First, thank you to everyone who stands up against or at least questions the handling of this by the WMF (no matter if you think I'm a good admin or if you believe I should have been banned a long time already).

Then, to the actual case. As far as I am concerned, there are no privacy reasons involved in any of this (never mind anything legally actionable). I'll repeat it once more, if it wasn't clear:

• I have not contacted anyone I was in conflict with in any offwiki way (be it through email, social media, real life contact, whatever)
• I have not discussed anyone I was in conflict with in any offwiki way (e.g. I have not contacted employers, I haven't discussed editors or articles at fora, twitter, reddit, whatever).
• I haven't threatened to do any of the above either.
• I don't know who made complaints about me to the WMF, and I won't speculate on it. The information I gave in my original post here just repeated the info I got from the WMF.

I invite the WMF to either simply confirm that my original post was a fair summary of the posts they sent me, or else to publish the posts in full (I don't think any editors were named in their posts, but if necessary they can strike out such names if they prefer). I also invite the WMF to explain why standard procedures weren't tried first, i.e. why they didn't refer the complainants to our regular channels first.

I'll not comment too much further, to avoid throwing fuel on the fire (or giving them a pretext to extend the ban). I'll not edit enwiki for the moment either, even when unblocked (thanks for that though), at least until the situation has become a bit clearer. Fram (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

One more thing, regarding my first post here, and now BU Rob13 claming that it was misleading: they have their facts wrong (e.g. the warning was not from a year ago, but from March 2019), but I noticed on rereading my post that I had one fact wrong as well. I said that I had received an interaction ban, but what I actually had was:

"However, in the hopes of avoiding any future issues and in the spirit of Laura’s own request on her talk page, we would like to ask that you refrain from making changes to content that she produces, in any way (directly or indirectly), from this point on. This includes but is not limited to direct editing of it, tagging, nominating for deletion, etc. If you happen to find issues with Laura’s content, we suggest that you instead leave it for others to review and handle as they see fit. This approach will allow you to continue to do good work while reducing the potential for conflict between you and Laura.

We hope for your cooperation with the above request, so as to avoid any sanctions from our end in the future. To be clear, we are not placing an interaction ban between you and Laura at this time. We ask that her request to stay away from her and the content she creates be respected, so that there is no need for any form of intervention or punitive actions from our end."

To me, a "suggestion" that I stay away from her or I would get sanctioned by them does read like an actual interaction ban, but technically it wasn't. But whether it was an interaction ban or not, former arb BU Rob13 should be aware that mentioning an interaction ban and the editors you are banned from in the course of ban discussions and the like is perfectly acceptable. I did not drop her name just for the fun of it, I raised the issue because it was the only thing I got alerted from by the WMF between their vague first warning in April 2018, and the ban now. I was trying to be complete and open, but apparently that was "misleading"?

BU Rob13 may thing the LauraHale thing was unrelated, but the actual mail by the WMF says otherwise:

"This decision has come following extensive review of your conduct on that project and is an escalation to the Foundation’s past efforts to encourage course correction, including a conduct warning issued to you on April 2018 and a conduct warning reminder issued to you on March 2019. "

(note that the "including" may suggest that there is more than these two, but there isn't: the March 2019 reminder is the LauraHale one).

All of this could be made easier if the WMF posted their full mails of course (although by now large chunks have been reposted here). Doing this the wiki way instead of through mail would have helped a lot. Fram (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Re: Megalibrarygirl comments

"People who have not been the subject of harassment don't understand what the victim goes through. Sometimes these situations need to be handled anonymously. I would also say that the fact that this was handled anonymously shows that something very serious must have happened." It would be better if you didn't speculate about what happened or raised accusations without a shred of evidence. Nothing "very serious" has happened. I have no idea why the WMF feels the need to handle this with such secrecy, or why they drop hints about legal and so on being involved. Basically, they are pointing a very ominous picture without providing any evidence for any of this (because, well, there isn't any). If their reasoning is that I have been uncivil towards too many people for too long, or that I have kept an eye on some problematic editors for a longer time, and that from now one they will be banning or blocking people for such things, fine, say so, no need to be secretive. But your comments make it very clear that their process, the way they handle this, is effectively poisoning the well, in a "well, if there's smoke there has to be fire" method.

I would invite the WMF to provide their evidence to a number of trusted WMF people who have no real reason to defend me, but whom I still trust to be impartial. People like Newyorkbrad, Drmies, Ymblanter, GorillaWarfare, Giant Snowman, ... Let them judge the evidence in private, without sharing it with me; if they agree that a) th evidence is compelling, and b) it couldn't have been handled in public, then so be it. Fram (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)