User talk:Fram

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
English: Welcome to the Commons, Fram!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | অসমীয়া | asturianu | azərbaycanca | تۆرکجه | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | भोजपुरी | Bahasa Banjar | বাংলা | català | нохчийн | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | euskara | estremeñu | فارسی | suomi | français | Frysk | galego | עברית | हिन्दी | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Interlingue | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Kurdî | Latina | lietuvių | македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Mirandés | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk | occitan | Ирон | polski | português | português do Brasil | rumantsch | română | русский | sicilianu | Scots | سنڌي | ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး  | සිංහල | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | Basa Sunda | svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Tagalog | Türkçe | українська | اردو | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 粵語 | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−
Crystal Clear app korganizer.png 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.

Icon apps query.svg 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.

Transmission icon.png 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
Nuvola filesystems trashcan full.png 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[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!


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. GMGtalk 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. GMGtalk 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. GMGtalk 19:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrol given[edit]

Commons Autopatrolled.svg

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 sighted. This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, you can now share images from Flickr using the UploadWizard, batch-upload up to 500 files with UploadWizard instead of 50 and upload freely licensed audio files in the MP3 format. 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[edit]

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)



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)


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)


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[edit]

--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[edit]

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[edit]

"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, 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 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 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!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

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

Statement from Jan Eissfeldt, Lead Manager of Trust & Safety[edit]

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)
Yes; for example, when you rename on Commons an image that is in use on :en, a bot performs the filename-change on :en with your username. --Túrelio (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, interesting. What would happen if I was blocked at enwiki? A. I wouldn't be able to make the edit at Commons? B. The edit would be given to me at enwiki, despite my block? Or C. I would be able to make the edit here, but it wouldn't be assigned to me at enwiki? Fram (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
No idea, as I wasn't blocked on :en, so far. A hardly, possibly C. I just wouldn't risk it. Therefore, I notified you. --Túrelio (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
No, I think it would be D: You could make the edit at Commons, but the file (link) name change at enwiki wouldn't be done at all, if you're blocked there. Because, I think, the edit isn't made by a bot with your username, but by your actual account through a script. See Commons:File renaming/Global replace: "blocking will only prevent the user from updating the file link". Gestumblindi (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

WiR Twitter statements against you[edit]

Hello Fram, I don't believe we know each other, but I have filed a statement on 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)

For those looking for Starship.paint's original statement, it and others like it were deleted at the request of an arbitrator. I am astonished that people for whom I had a great deal of respect are trying to turn this into a gender-related dispute, and dumbstruck by the way they are going about it. It almost seems as if they are trying to top the person in a position of power and apparently a relationship with an involved party being the first to liken the situation to gamergate. EllenCT (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Look on the bright side[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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 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)

Thanks for the response, Fram. If you do change your mind, or want to speak on background (not for attribution), you have my information above.


Reply to the WMF update 17/06[edit]

Jan Eissfeldt said[8]

"As far as the ability for others to avoid making mistakes and finding themselves unexpectedly sanctioned, unfortunately, we cannot publicly disclose details of this or any particular case, for all the reasons previously discussed. This means that, as much as we understand your wanting the information, we cannot tell you what specific behaviors by Fram brought about this action. We can, however, say that abiding by the ToU is required of everyone who edits a Wikimedia site. That includes refraining from behaviors described by the ToU, including “[e]ngaging in harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism”. In cases where we believe a user may not be aware that they are violating expected behavioral standards, even repeatedly, we give conduct warnings prior to any action being taken. In Fram’s case, as noted on Commons, we did send more than one of those warnings/reminders before the most recent step."

"we cannot tell you what specific behaviors by Fram brought about this action." understood, but you should at least be able to confirm that it is about on-wiki behaviour only surely?

"In Fram’s case, as noted on Commons, we did send more than one of those warnings/reminders before the most recent step." Yes, as I noted on Commons but which you (WMF) failed to acknowledge until now, I got two such reminders (one very general, which is now being discussed at enwiki and doesn't seem to be really well recieved as an acceptable warning; and two, about a specific issue where the general opinion at enwiki seems to be that no warning was necessary for these quite normal edits), and then a sudden one-year ban (plus desysop) for quite different behaviour (not the supposed harassment of an individual, but incivility against the Arbcom), which doesn't seem to fit any of the "harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism" category.

In any case, I guess we can use your note as a rather well hidden acknowledgment that my account of the WMF communications was accurate? That would at least lay to bed some of the more wild speculations made in these discussions. Fram (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Reply to Newyorkbrad's suggested resolution[edit]

"Some thoughts on how we might collectively deescalate the situation. Of course, if there is significant additional information that remains unknown to us, this might not work. But if the facts are basically as the community has come to understand them, how about this plan:

  • The Office terminates Fram's ban. We don't argue any more about whether it was right or wrong, legitimate or outrageous, although everyone can maintain their individual feelings about that. But the ban is just terminated as of now, on the grounds that (1) it seems to remain counterproductive to Foundation-community relations, and (2) one presumes that any "clean up your act" message that was intended for Fram has been received.
  • If there is a specific editor or two with whom the Office believes Fram was interacting problematically, Fram quasi-voluntarily agrees, without admitting any wrongdoing, to stay away from that editor(s). The editor's or editors' name(s) do not need to be disclosed on-wiki.
  • Fram also quasi-voluntarily agrees to improve his decorum a little bit. It may only be a surface issue, but there really are better ways to say "I disagree with ArbCom's action" than "Fuck you, ArbCom" (and I would say that even if I hadn't been a long-time ArbCom member myself).
  • The community hopefully accepts that even if this one was mishandled, Trust and Safety actions are generally taken with good intentions, and that there is a reason many of them can't be publicly discussed. As Opabinia regalis reminded us in her comments on the arbitration request, "T&S is these people." Most of them come from the Wikipedia communities, many from this community. They're not perfect, but they didn't accept jobs at the Foundation for the purpose of perpetrating a hostile takeover.
  • The Office opens, or reopens, or expands a dialog with the community about what it is trying to accomplish and how to get there (assuming it's somewhere it's desirable to be). It's been pointed out that various consultations have been open for awhile, but have flown under the radar of many editors, and certainly were not expected to culminate in this type of action. WMF, if you didn't before, you have our attention now. What are you trying to do, and how do you plan to go about doing it?

Comments appreciated. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)"

Hi Newyorkbrad, thank you for this. I agree with your first point (though some clarification about my admin status should be included as well probably). For the second point, I understand that the WMF is not willing to tell me who are the editors involved, but then of course it is rather hard for me to avoid them as well. For the one editor already mentioned here: I already tend to avoid their articles and will let others deal with them. I can't guarantee that I won't edit their articles in routine cleanup runs (e.g. when I am adding short descriptions to categories of articles, I don't first check who created each article).

Your third point, the decorum; as some editors already indicated, I already did this in general the past year, but I'll strive to improve even further.

I had already indicated some possible methods to resolve this higher on this page, this is one fine by me as well. Fram (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Fram, it could possibly help if you were to agree to keep the names of the complainant(s) confidential for the purposes of effecting an interaction ban, should T&S agree to these terms -- and it would probably mean checking the creators before adding those category descriptions. If that's all which is keeping this compromise, which has about 75-to-25 support on WP:FRAMBAN, from working, I hope you get it. I'd prefer that arbcom ask T&S for your initial compromise, but I just want to see this resolved without capitulation of the entire community. EllenCT (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I have no problem keeping the names confidential. Like I said, I don't even ask to know who complained, but for an interaction ban, obviously I do need to know this. A secret interaction ban has problems though; either the T&S then needs to actively monitor my enwiki edits (and those of everybody they would give such an interaction ban), or they would need to rely on the other party to report me. Which rules for an interaction ban will they then impose? Don't edit any page the other party ever edited (which would include, say, WP:ANI, WT:DYK, ...)? Checking the creators before adding anything means byebye to AWB editing, as that would defeat the purpose of AWB completely. For NPP, skipping pages created by X or Y is easier of course, and e.g. when checking DYKs I can also skip pages created by X or Y. But if I'm e.g. reverting vandalism across multiple pages, I'm not going to check first whether X or Y is the creator or a major contributor to that page. And I don't believe any admin would ever block someone with an interaction ban if they "violated" that interaction ban in such a manner. Would the WMF do the same? After this episode, I have my doubts. So, I have no problem with a standard interaction ban, in the sense that I don't actively check edits by person X, I don't reply to them or refer to them (with the exception of BANEXCEPT), I don't nominate their pages for deletion, etcetera: but when some of my edits, in the case of routine actions (AWB edits, vandalism reverts, ...) would affect articles X created (again, without targeting X), it would not be a ban violation. Fram (talk) 08:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Meanwhile on Wikidata (and thus here on Commons!)[edit]

Jimmy Page, immortalized as "shrek the seventh" and "big chonky boi" Bruno Mars or Bruno Marr?

Early yesterday (i.e. more than 24 hours ago), both Bruno Mars and Jimmy Page got (independently) vandalized, certainly in the case of Jimmy Page in a very blatant way. As is too often the case, neither was reverted at Wikidata.

Both cases impacetd not only Wikidata, but also Commons (and other sites), since the commons category page for both (Category:Bruno Mars and Category:Jimmy Page) has an infobox that gets populated by Wikidata (the images above are taken from those Commons pages). The description (in the case of Jimmy Page) also is visible at Commons, Simple, ... in mobile applications. At enwiki, we luckily disabled much of this functionality last year when we warned the WMF about the BLP risk these things pose.

These two examples will be swiftly corrected now they have been pointed out (good!), but the underlying problem of a site which wants to be a major player and content deliverer, but which lacks decent vandalism reversion and prevention (a bit a la enwiki at the time of the Seigenthaler incident), remains. The captions are a different issue... Fram (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this the kind of description Commons wants to show? Ohm Matias or José? Name and image don't seem to match The village is called Clowne The plague, or as it will now be known as ...

And if people think unreverted vandalism of this kind staying for hours (days, months in some cases) on Wikidata is an exception: "Central Amerika" is now "Central Ame"[9], countless people change their name to something unrelated[10][11][12] or something close but wrong[13][14][15], BLPs get insulted in their descriptions without anyone bothering to revert[16][17], villages change their name[18], many name disambiguation pages get a new name (e.g. [19]). en:Krama Inggil has had four different vandal labels since September 2018, and none of these has even been reverted or corrected[20]. The previous vandal description here lasted for three days, the revert lasted for three days as well, and now again it is vandalized. Even the rather basic vandal magnet "sex" was vandalized for 12 hours today before anyone noticed[21] (this as well meant that the Commons category was also vandalized!). It's a plague[22]. Fram (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Free for all?[edit]

Most people at the enwiki discussions treat the whole episode in quite acceptable ways (including expressing opinions which perhaps aren't "nice", but which are either an honest indication of how a person feels about someone else (e.g. me), or listing problematic posts and actions. However, some seem to think that since I have been declared a temporary outlaw by the WMF, common rules no longer apply and I may be attacked any way they like, truth be damned.

Jorm, a former WMF employee and one of the people behind Flow, said yesterday[23]

  • " The reason WMF slide decks aren't put on commons is because commons folk have a habit of deleting everything that staff upload to be point-y and contrarian. It got so bad that people just stopped trying because why bother? Ironically (or not, depending) one of the people most adamant about deleting WMF stuff on commons was, ah, Fram. So. --Jorm (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)"

They were called out on this by others[24], but Jorm couldn't be bothered to provide any evidence[25]. WBG then asked quite rightly to either provide evidence or strike through the accusation[26], which got this reply[27]

  • "This is my shocked face and this is the field of fucks that I give about it.--Jorm (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)"

which they undid the next minute because they "don't fucking care"[28]

Another editor then removed the PA[29], thanks. For the record, I don't believe I have ever deleted (or nominated or supported deletion of) any WMF stuff at Commons, never mind made a "habit" of it or was being "adamant" about it. I have a lot less than 500 edits at Commons, so it's not as if this is an insurmountable number to check. Looking at them all doesn't show any obvious candidates for what Jorm claims.

Making a mistake when claiming someone did X or Y can happen. "Not giving a fuck" or "not fucking care" about providing diffs and about whether your claim has any relation to reality is a lot worse though. Fram (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually I looked through all your contributions (not every single one obviously) and sampled probably about half of them that could possibly be remotely related to what he was alleging. And found nothing unsurprisingly. Hence the removal. (I think the other editor who called him on it did something similar) Only in death (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I also searched for this and found nothing. I actually couldn't find any evidence of board presentations getting deleted at all. (I'm not sure the comment rose to the level of "personal attack" that had to be deleted, though, as opposed to simply contradicted/disproven.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for deleting half your page[edit]

Sorry for deleting half your page. My old message was because I engaged in some speculation as to your view of authority in w:Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation's_ban_of_Fram#Other, which by now has been responded to by Nishidani. In short Nishidani (09:10, 18 June 2019 and 17:00, 18 June 2019) and I are interpreting the recent controversy as being more about contested principle(s) than about you. I am mentioning this exchange in case you wish to review it here on this page, especially in case you want to criticize me in the event I misinterpreted you.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

"Editorial use only"[edit]

Hi Fram! Do you know how we should understand the words "Editorial use only" which seem to occur in hundreds of file descriptions over here? gsearch Is this compatible with free licensing? Haukurth (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey Haukurth. Short answer is that it doesn't matter so long as the image is properly licensed. You cannot add qualifiers for use that are more restrictive than the license; you can only amend the terms to make them less restrictive. For example, most Creative Commons licenses used here require attribution, but the owner can relicense the media with a public domain dedication, that would remove the requirement for attribution. GMGtalk 23:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The Belgian chapter situation[edit]

At enwiki, Carcharoth placed a link to a post from 15 June 2019 by the Belgian Wikimedia chapter to the Wikimedia mailing list. Despite being Belgian, I have no knowledge of or connection with any of the people involved, and I haven't been to any Wikimania events or anything similar, so the whole situation was news to me. Just like most people have no means to really decide who is right or wrong (or which bits are right or wrong) in my ban, I don't have the means to be certain what really happened in the WMBE situation. But my own experience, and the way this situation is described, are too similar to be purely coincidental in my opinion.

The mail is very disheartening, and seriously diminishes my belief that the WMF is willing to work on a solution, instead of just stalling in the hope that the enwiki dissent will somehow run out of steam.

"They also indicated that they "had to do something" so they could show the complainants that they do something when complaints are received, even while their decision did not solve/improve the complaints at all. The Trust & Safety team refused to think about real solutions, they refused to organise a dialogue to solve the complaints, they refused to mediate, they promised to organise a meeting with a supervisor, but that they never did. It also became clear they have zero feeling with people with autism. The Trust & Safety said they could not share any more information about what happened because of the privacy of the complainants." Eerily similar...

"Again it must be noticed that the Trust & Safety team for the third time on a row refuses to talk with the individual who it concerns first, before drawing any conclusions."

"The Trust & Safety team provided in their communication zero examples of where the Friendly Space Policy has been breached." (at least in my case, they did provide actual examples of what they considered my bannable behaviour, which I have already disclosed above)

"Two chapters have reached out to the Wikimedia Foundation, indicating that the way how the Trust & Safety team was operating is not appropriate, but WMF refuses to take these concerns seriously and has ignored this fully. Again the Trust & Safety team refuses to work together on actual solutions.

To summarise, feedback/information from WMBE's treasurer has been ignored by WMF, feedback from the president of WMBE has been ignored by WMF, feedback from the president and director of WMNL have been ignored by WMF, feedback from other staff members in WMF have been ignored by WMF, feedback from many community members from the movement have been ignored."

A Trust & Safety team which is rapidly losing the trust from large parts of three or four of its biggest "customers" (enwiki, dewiki, frwiki and nlwiki) is a serious problem, and so far there seem to be very few efforts made to regain that trust and open up an actual, open, solution-finding discussion (it may be happening behind the screens of course, but the onwiki comments have been rather vague and noncommittal). Fram (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Pointer towards place for general (non-Commons) discussions[edit]

I have been asked to refrain from using Commons to discuss my enwiki ban. If I have further comments to make, I'll post them at my Meta talk page, which is probably a better place for these issues. Fram (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fram. Just the one post here, to keep things in context. Could I ask who asked you this and how (email, on-wiki somewhere)? I had a further comment, but will post that over there on meta after saving this edit. Carcharoth (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Carcharoth, we had a thread at COM:AN/U#User:Guido den Broeder during which Fram decided to take this to Meta. We are not terribly strict about this. Usually we dislike it if, for example, en:wp admins are contacted here at Commons in regard to blocks at en:wp. Hence, we ask not to import conflicts of other wikis to Commons to avoid unwanted harassments and escalations. This is obviously not a problem here at this talk page. However, I think that the move to Meta was a wise decision nonetheless. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Meta is probably better fitting given its scope - the "Fram ban" can be seen as a "meta issue" (as it touches general questions with regard to Wikimedia and the community, not just pertaining to English-language Wikipedia), but not so much as a Commons issue, as Commons isn't affected by this case. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)