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)

You have our support (and Bish hasn't been desysopped yet ). All the best, Miniapolis 15:48, 13 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 enwiki 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)

Hi Fram. No-one has copied this to the discussion on en-Wikipedia yet, and I am not going to unless you specifically want it to be, as there is more than enough being said at the moment (I am also mindful that proxying could become an issue). More important is another issue, which I will raise in a new section. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Copying it to enwiki after Fram indicates such a preference would run a far greater risk of being accused of proxying (the WP:PROXYING definition begins, "Wikipedians ... are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor....") so I went ahead and brought it to the attention of the enwiki Arbcom here. By the way, Fram, I am no fan of yours but the Office action is a thousand times worse than anything you ever did. EllenCT (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The (English Wikipedia) community, in its uproar at Fram's ban, is refusing to enforce it, and therefore will not deliver sanctions for proxying for Fram. The WMF hasn't taken action at far worse violations despite having the opportunity to do so, so it is unlikely that "proxying for banned editors" punishment will be metted out. Pppery (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Fram, you undoubtedly were told what you are accused of doing and, possibly, to whom (and no, please don’t out victims, I hear rumors that people are being harassed off-wiki already). Anyone can look at your behavior on en.wiki, where even your supporters admit you’ve been a jerk. ArbCom probably should have slapped you years ago with smaller, but prompt, blocks. If you think you’ve done nothing wrong, because you think it was all in the name of “quality control,” then the WMF was right to block you for long enough to, with luck, give you an opportunity to catch a clue. Montanabw (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Montanabw, "you undoubtedly were told what you are accused of doing and, possibly, to whom ": indeed, see above, where I gave you all the information I received. I have also heard the rumours that people are being harassed off-wiki already (heck, even accused of committing "real crimes"!), isn't it terrible? Anyway, please reread the statements I made about this, they contain all information I received, and I never claimed that I have "done nothing wrong". No idea why you start about "quality control", it doesn't seem to represent anything I said about this situation. About your claim that Arbcom should have slapped me with blocks year ago: this might well be true, but then perhaps someone should have raised a decent case with ArbCom about this? It isn't that hard to get ArbCom to sanction misbehaving admins, I have raised (or contributed to) such cases a few times in the past. I can't help if it others don't use this avenue. Fram (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Hi Fram. Thanks for having the guts to post all those statements. I looked at the one edit that you say was the reason you were blocked and while I can certainly see why people would have a problem with it (I've gotten harsher punishments for saying less), I don't see any reason why it couldn't have been handled on Wikipedia through our normal disciplinary system, where you could defend yourself publicly. Good luck and stay strong. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Verdussen.jpg

File:Verdussen.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

VLu (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Statement from Jan Eissfeldt, Lead Manager of Trust & Safety

Just in case you had not seen it, see here:

Should Fram edit English Wikipedia during the one-year period of their ban, the temporary partial ban of User:Fram will be enforced with a global ban (and accordingly a global lock).

Were you notified (by email?) of that by the WMF T&S team? Carcharoth (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The thought did cross my mind that you might want to be re-blocked locally on en-Wikipedia to avoid accidentally editing and triggering a potential global lock? Let me know what your thoughts on that are. Carcharoth (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll think about your other comments a bit longer, but no, I haven't received an email from the WMF or an individual from the WMF since the original block notice. Fram (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

If you plan to become active on Commons while you are temporarily banned in English-language Wikipedia (if that ban persists for now), I also think it would be a good idea if you could ask for a reinstatement of your en-wiki block, as editing on Commons easily might trigger an action by your account on English WP, especially (in case you're getting file mover rights) through global replace when using the "Move & Replace" gadget for renaming a file. Gestumblindi (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fram. Have you had any more thoughts on this? I am guessing you are waiting to see what happens. I see you have been contacted by a journalist - that was a sensible reply. Carcharoth (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Carcharoth, thanks for the offer, but I like the current situation of "banned by WMF but unblocked by enwiki", as it rather deftly shows the position of both parties at the moment. If I would be banned because an edit at Commons (or Wikidata or whatever) would trigger an edit on enwiki, then that would be extremely stupid by whoever does the block then. I don't know if Commons edits can trigger this kind of thing, I do know that e.g. an enwiki edit can register as a Wikidata edit even if one doesn't edit there at all, which is stupid.

On another note: I said as much below, but for all clarity; if, to pacify things, a compromise would be that I would be unbanned and resysoped, under the condition that an enwiki ArbCom case about me is opened, then fine (not that I can stop such a case anyway, but it is probably better if the subject agrees with it). Fram (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

WiR Twitter statements against you

Hello Fram, I don't believe we know each other, but I have filed a statement on en.wiki ArbCom for comments made by the Women in Red Wikiproject Twitter account, some of which were directed against you. Starship.paint (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Look on the bright side

The ENWP community has effectively written a War and Peace level of text because of this. Maybe we should dramatise it... Hang in there. Only in death (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

One week on

So, one week on, where are we now?

• The much-anticipated 14 June board meeting has come and gone without anything resulting from it at all. Apparently Doc James (and Jimbo Wales?) are still discussing things with the WMF, so we'll wait a bit longer for that, I guess.
• Most people will have by now a pretty good idea of who was behind the final T&S complaint leading to this debacle, but without an actual confession we shouldn't speculate on who the complainant was.
• BU Rob13 makes some rather dubious claims in his latest post-retirement post to the discussion[4][5]. His "evidence" for his claim that "the fact that he followed me to multiple unrelated places to continue "confronting" me in a rather transparent exercise at wiki-stalking. That, itself, was harassment. " are five diffs:
  • [6] this first one is well-known by now, and is a general statement about an ArbCom message
  • the second one is another post to the same discussion and about the same subject, again about ArbCom in general.
  • As is the third diff, again not about Bu Rob or directed directly towards him or in answer to him.
  • The fourth is a discussion at BU Rob13s user talk page, hardly an "unrelated place".
  • Which leaves us with the final diff, this one: this was an ArbCom case I was already involved in[7] and where I had all related pages added to my watchlist (evidence, workshop and proposed decision). I was rather surprised to see an arb edit through protection to ask a question on a page which isn't opened yet (at all, not for arbs, not for others) and where people weren't even allowed to respond. This was a clear misuse of the admin tools. I reverted this, after which Bu Rob threatened to block me (well, to get me blocked "as a clerk action"). I invited him to take it to ANI, which they never did, as they were probably aware that their own action was clearly against policy in the first place.
  • Note that the page were I reverted BU Rob stated at the top "The workshop phase of this case does not open until 00:00 UTC May 8th. Edits made to this page before that date will be removed." (bold in original). The edit I reverted was made on the 5th, so way before the startdate given. Furthermore, that page says "Any user may edit this workshop page", unlike the proposed decision page which should only be edited by arbs and clerks. Probably the reason that no arb or clerk indicated any displeasure at all about my edit. Their statement that "If you do it again, you are highly likely to be blocked as a clerk action for violating the procedures of this case." was a complete fabrication, as no procedures of the case were violated by me, only by BU Rob...

So this means that the "evidence" that I "followed him to multiple unrelated places" etcetera boils down to one unrelated place where I was already active, causing his misuse of the admin tools to appear on my watchlist. If that is stalking or harassment, then BU Rob13 has a very low tolerance level. And of course, as an arb and admin he should know that we have plenty of options for dispute resolution which he could have tried if he really felt this to be harassment and stalking, and isn't just using it as some flimsy excuse to now take revenge. Since they didn't try any on-wiki avenue for dispute resolution at all, I assume they didn't immediately secrfetly jump to some higher authority, which would be rather, well, ironic (taking on a role as dispute resolver, but not trusting in the very procedures you are a candidate for). Fram (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

What may admins and arbs still do on enwiki?

One aspect that regularly returns in the enwiki discussions about my ban is the uncertainty it creates as to what you may or may not do as an admin or arb, and what kind of activities may be considered "harassment" or "threatening". I'll quote a full paragraph I received from T&S at the time of my initial WMF warning in 2018:

Indeed, I have not seen you literally threatening other contributors. But, I have observed the sum of your activity in certain areas of interest (like copyvios, for example, or automated editing) having a similar effect to that of a threat: causing contributors to be scared to continue to contribute in fear of being constantly monitored and later attacked through community process, and eventually driving them away. From what I've seen, you are very good at spotting problematic edits and editing patterns; the issue is with the way and the perseverance with which you appear to approach the editors responsible for them. In many cases, even if your concerns have been valid, their raising has been done with a degree of abruptness, repetition, scrutiny and persistence that feels like hounding to the person on the receiving end, and causes them to abandon the project or limit their contributions. Now, I don't think this is your intention, but this does seem to be the result in several cases, hence the warning. So, I'm not saying you should stop trying to improve En.WP., only that in doing so you also consider how your activity and approach impacts the users you address and other readers of your comments, and how it contributes to an unfriendly volunteering environment that discourages them from returning to it.

Apparently not only my abruptness was a problem (when dealing with e.g. serial copyright violators), but "repetition, scrutiny and persistence" are also a problem when they "feel like hounding to the person on the receiving end, and causes them to abandon the project or limit their contributions". I stopped replying to the WMF after this, and probably should instead have raised this at enwiki at the time instead.

Basically, it is more of a problem that some editors would edit less or stop editing than that they are actual serial copyright violators or otherwise constantly creating substandard or problematic content. When you notice such problems, you may approach the editors involved, but don't you dare to follow up on these issues as perseverance, repetition, scrutiny, and persistence are all problematic conduct issues.

The "fear of being constantly monitored and later attacked through community process" is something the WMF doesn't want... Then perhaps the WMF should inform the community about this, and make it clear to everyone what is acceptable and what isn't, and how we are to deal with editors with continuing editing problems?

Anyway, I invite everyone on enwiki to carefully read the above paragraph and see how it applies to them in particular and to our community processes in general, and what the impact is if this would become actual policy. And, as always, I invite the WMF to post their full posts themselves (minus any personal information, but there isn't any in them anyway), or to confirm or deny that my quotes and summaries are accurate. Fram (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

"Basically, it is more of a problem that some editors would edit less or stop editing than that they are actual serial copyright violators or otherwise constantly creating substandard or problematic content." No. They're both problems, but I don't think it's helpful to assign priority to one over the other. I can't speak for anyone else, but from my personal experience I didn't like the way you framed Dr. Blofeld and Martinevans123 as "serial copyright violators" and proposed kicking the former off the project and blocked the latter for a month. In Martin's case, the block was criticised and overturned as being draconian. Similarly, the block of GorillaWarfare was ill-advised and was reversed.

Your problem is that your communication style is annoying to some people and you have a tendency to be very much up for a debate and keeping it going until everyone else has dropped out of exhaustion. I think it's just basically the sort of person you are; you deal very much in facts, discard emotions and believe that being right is the only thing that matters. I don't want to name names but there are certain well-known world leaders where (at least as I see it) facts are an annoying distraction, and name-calling and emotional responses are legitimate responses to criticism. Yet they get significant enough support from the electorate to get into power. So that should demonstrate that your approach to conflict isn't going to be well-received by everyone. I've had a significant number of off-wiki complaints about your behaviour landing in my email inbox (and they're off-wiki because people didn't want you turning up and putting your 2c into the discussion). Though the majority got a reply along the lines of "well that wasn't nice but Fram's actually right because of our (copyright|notability|verifiability) policies, and here's why" it got to the point where I thought "why am I micromanaging Fram?" I think that's part of where we are now.

Do I think these incidents (and telling Arbcom to fuck off) merit an immediate expulsion from the project with no possible appeal? Absolutely not. I would have supported an Arbcom case examining your behaviour at one point, but as I noticed it was improving throughout last year, I didn't feel the need to. But the message you quoted above is not particularly different from anything I might have posted myself (it's basically a long-winded way of saying "You're being right and being a jerk. Stop being a jerk. Just be right.") I just felt you might have replied with something like "No. These are copyright violators. They must be booted off the site for breaking the law." so I didn't think it was an effective way of getting through. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

No, what that message says is "stop being a jerk and stop being right" ("the issue is with the way and the perseverance"). This is not about blocks I placed (e.g. the block of GorillaWarfare had little to do with persistence, stalking, ... it was a one-off debate where I was wrong (or at least the most wrong of those involved), and we had no negative interactions before or after IIRC), this is about people not wanting scrutiny of their edits, no matter how problematic. I don't think that I have "a tendency to be very much up for a debate and keeping it going until everyone else has dropped out of exhaustion", at least that claim has to my knowledge not been made before. It is due to persistence that a number of (temporarily or long-term) problem editors have had to change their approach (e.g. GiantSnowman, who is firmly in the "temporary" section) or find another place to edit (someone like Richard Arthur Norton). But in this second group of cases, the proper procedures were followed, multiple discussions were had, and increasing sanctions were taken. Did these editors feel harassed? Quite possibly. Is that a problem? No, not really, it's the logical consequence of their own edits. Would it have been better if in those cases I had not been persistent, and stopped scrutinizing their edits? For them, yes. For enwiki, no. Editors who continue to make copyvios despite warnings and blocks? No big loss. Editors who continue to make blatant BLP violations after warnings and blocks? No big loss either. Every editor but the most extreme cases deserves multiple chances, and I think I normally

Even so, thanks for acknowledging my improved approach the last year or so (you also did this in the enwiki discussions). That's what makes this so bizarre to me (and to most editors who have commented). When you warn an editor about behaviour, and that behaviour significantly improves, then why is the next step a one-year ban + desysop? The WMF response is complete disproportionate to the supposed infraction, and their lack of any meaningful response rather clear.

One final thing: I just reread the Blofeld discussion, and I don't seem to have suggested "kicking him off the project" at all. I asked for a way to handle his old copyvios, not for a ban (not even a block actually). Fram (talk) 11:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• This T&S paragraph (as one of the justifications for a site-ban and desysop) is the most shocking, of all. I mean, ...... Winged Blades ^Godric 13:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

  On another note, I have written about your editorial behavior in some details over here which got a subsequent reply by another admin over here. You might have missed that and I ought to have mentioned that, earlier, over here:-( Regards,Winged Blades ^Godric 13:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for the note, and no problem. I have no issue with people openly describing how they perceive me, as long as they don't use underhanded techniques (for example, the description of what I wanted for Dr. Blofeld as given by Ritchie above is probably an oversimplification or a wrong memory of what I actually wrote, but doesn't look malicious; but comments by a few others on enwiki were a lot more dubious in that regard). I'm glad you noticed that I tried (and in most cases succeeded) in improving my behaviour the past year or so. Which is probably why most editors familiar with my editing are soemwhat surprised that I got this one-year ban now. Fram (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello from a reporter

Hi Fram!

Joseph Bernstein from BuzzFeed News. I'm very interested in what's happened to you on Wikipedia, and I'm hoping you have some time to chat. I'm at joe.bernstein@buzzfeed.com or 301-704-2549. Thanks very much. -Joe

Hi, thank you for your interest. For the moment, I try to resolve this in as peaceful a manner as possible and still hope that the WMF will come to their senses and revert the ban and desysop (e.g. by opening an ArbCom case instead). For that reason, I prefer not to discuss this with journalists (or fora or the like) for the moment. You can of course use the statements I have made on this page, they are public. Fram (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)