User:Fram/Archive 1

Welcome to Meta!

Hello, Fram. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum if you need help with something (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

--Cohaf (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

A place for polite discussion of my enwiki ban, and related general issues with the handling of issues by WMF in general and Trust & Safety in particular. Fram (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Copy over Commons discussions?

Hi Fram. On the general matter, I am sure you have seen the latest update here. May I suggest taking taking time and taking advice before deciding what to do next. Maybe copy some of what is on your Commons page over here to meta? Carcharoth (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Permalink for reference. EllenCT (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Emails

Hi Fram. A quick question if I may. Reading what you originally posted here, you said: "I have not contacted anyone I was in conflict with in any offwiki way (be it through email, social media, real life contact, whatever)". Given the possibilities being discussed over at en-Wikipedia, my question is whether you have looked through the emails you have sent or received and considered whether some of those engaging in email correspondence may have considered you to be in conflict with them, even if you did not consider yourself to be in conflict with them? I am thinking here that maybe you said something in an email to someone (e.g. did you email ArbCom or WMF employees?) and something was said that triggered all this without you realising it? It would help to have that clarified. Carcharoth (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

A screenshot from my "sent items" from my wiki-emailaddress. I barely use this, and have not sent any emails from it between April 2018 and the start of the ban. I have also not contacted any Wikipedian from another account (well, obviously people I contact in real life may also be wikipedians, but none of the contacts were in any way wiki-relevant or as a result of wikiactions or so). Fram (talk) 12:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Thinking out loud

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm reading all discussions at en:Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram with a lot of interest, of course. One of the main problems seem to be finding a good way to show your disagreement with the way the WMF handled this (no matter if you agree with the actual sanction or not), since most of you don't want to "destroy" enwiki to spite the WMF. I agree that letting in attack pages, BLP violations, ... is bad because it creates innocent victims. So I tried to think of something which wouldn't make enwiki worse (for factual credibility), wouldn't include BLP attacks and the like (or not more than usual), but would still, if widespread enough, cause problems or embarassment for the WMF. An added bonus is that is one of the topics I regularly worked on. So, what if enwiki admins made it clear that, out of fear of being accused of harassment, stalking, nah, simply persistence and looking at too many edits by one editor, they are no longer going to take any action against copyright violations? Mark G12 and CCI as "historical". If someone asks, tell them that enwiki is no longer feeling "comfortable" going after copyright violations and that contributors may feel persecuted if you remove their contributions simply because they are not written by themselves. Does that mean that I argue that copyvios should be allowed on enwiki? No, of course not, don't be silly (oops, attack phrase there!). It simply means that the WMF will have to pay some professionals to deal with this problem from now on. Which obviously they're good at, so that will be a walk in the park! Seriously, what's the actual harm to enwiki readers and subjects (apart from some minuscule monetary loss to whoever wrote the original?) Why do we even bother with removing copyvio's? Mainly to protect the WMF, not to get a better encyclopedia, as you don't necessarily get a better encyclopedia by rewriting and summarizing bits instead of simply copying bits. It won't make the WMF tremble in their shoes of course, but every small bit might help? Fram (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC) Fram, as you know I'm not your biggest fan. But wow, is this a really bad idea that's likely to cut off sympathy for your cause. I'd urge you to retract and apologize for suggesting this. (It was just posted on EN.WP:ANI). Hobit (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC) @Hobit: This wasn't posted on ANI, it was posted (by me) at en:WP:FRAM. * Pppery * it has begun 17:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Have you made the same demands for apologies from anyone suggesting this or worse? As there have been many much more damaging suggestions than simply not removing copyvios and letting WMF deal with these instead. Not removing copyvio's is about the least damaging thing we can do, no idea why you consider this especially a "really bad idea" and not e.g. calls to close down all bots or to simply go on a general strike. Fram (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Feel free to ignore it. Certainly not a demand. I'm trying to be helpful. My sense is you may have just shot yourself in the foot. But I could easily be wrong. The difference is that you're the person people are so upset about. If you make it "hurt the encyclopedia in my name" I think it tarnishes you and is just generally poor PR. But again, I could be wrong and probably should have just let it pass. Sorry to bother you with this. Hobit (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Most people aren't really upset about me, but about process, about principle. Anyway, thanks for your response, I understand your position a bit better now. Fram (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom

ArbCom apparently had some long, good, fruitful, ... conversation with T&S. Can they now at least answer the simple questions I and many others asked T&S quite a few times, but which were ignored each time?

• Please confirm that this is purely about on-wiki behaviour (by Fram)
• Please confirm that what I posted on my talk page (Commons first, now here) is correct (two warnings and now the ban, the only diffs or names given to me are the ones I reposted, excerpts from mails are genuine, ...)

If you don't even know these things, then I don't see how you can come to a conclusion about how T&S handled this. If you do know these things, then I don't see how answering these simple questions can be a problem. If I'm telling the truth and you know this by now, then how would confirming this endanger any other person? On the other hand, if the T&S claims I'm lying about either of these, then I'ld like to know this, as then at least it might explain the discrepancy between the sanction and the mails I received (and with the scrutiny multiple editors have given to my edits of the last months), as T&S then clearly based the sanction on something apart from my onwiki edits.

I don't expect ArbCom to have some instant magic wand to resolve this, but answering these questions might indicate to people that they can at least expect a bit more openness and cooperation from ArbCom than what we have so far gotten from T&S. Fram (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• Hello Fram, this is what ArbCom member Joe Roe said [1]: We have asked, and were told a) there is additional, private and off-wiki information relevant to the ban; b) ArbCom doesn't have all of it; and c) they do not consider the ban, as an office action, to be overturnable by ArbCom. Starship.paint (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks. So, just like T&S, no actual answer to either question. A "no" would be a lie, and a "yes" would weaken the position of T&S even further than the current ambiguity does. Well, perhaps ArbCom didn't get an answer to these questions either, but then it's not much use that they are discussing things if that is the kind of trust the T&S has in them... Fram (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

    Wouldn't that statement be a "yes" to question 1? It specifically says "off-wiki information". Also, I've linked this talk page from near the top of your en.wiki talk page. If you don't like that, ping me. Starship.paint (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

    • That's the ambiguity they (WMF) have tried to create for weeks now. "Additional, private and off-wiki information" can mean "someone addressed a T&S member personally at a Wiki-event and claimed to have contacted a doctor about the stress levels they felt after Fram said the F-word against the English ArbCom" or a 1000 other things. They very carefully don't make any actual statements about me doing anything off-wiki which contributed to this ban, as there isn't anything they could use to back up that claim if they ever would be forced to show their hand (to ArbCom or people on the board or so). But they don't actually answer the questions either, so that enough people can continue to believe that there has to be something, or believe that they have actually said that they have taken into account offwiki behaviour by me. Fram (talk) 04:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

When I said "off-wiki information", I meant only information that is not currently publicly available on Wikipedia. I don't know the answer to either of your questions, Fram, and I agree, I/we don't have enough information to come to a conclusion about how T&S handled your case (I said as much in the case request yesterday). Joe Roe (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Fram (talk) 07:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not a usable statement. We already know they were contacted off-wiki and won't say by who, let alone give us the full text of those communications, so we already knew there existed "private and off-wiki information". The relevant question was whether any portion of the ban was based on anything but Fram's on-wiki actions, and that response isn't an answer to that question. Seraphimblade (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Your enwiki admin rights

I don't know whether you have done something wrong or not. Maybe you don't either. I do know that in recent weeks you have been treated extremely poorly and that WMF has failed to extend to you the most basic of procedural fairness. I have restored your admin rights on enwiki for the reasons stated here. I wish you all the best. WJBscribe (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it (even though it is only symbolic at the moment). Fram (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, it only lasted for a few hours apparently... Fram (talk) 06:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Enough time for you to look at All The Deleted Revisions, no doubt. Please forget what you've seen. –xeno 13:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

:-) (I do assume you are joking?) No idea if view-deleted actions are in any way logged, but I haven't looked at any during my brief re-admin spell, if anyone wonders. I rarely if ever am online during those hours Fram (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

A development

[2] - thought you would like to know. Any response? Starship.paint (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Hard to reply to "I found something". I note that in the last diff you cite they is now claiming that ArbCom is lying as well, since Jehochman states "I believe ArbCom or at least some of its members are fully aware of what transpired with Fram." while ArbCom has just denied knowing anything... Anyway, "Fram’s explanation lacks critical details."? No, it has all the information I received and which I can base anything on (like, say, a change in behaviour in a year's time). I have no idea what I have done (apart from being critical about ArbCom) between the October warning and the ban this month that would warrant a one-year ban or the comments by Jehochman. Fram (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Another question: could you show us more of the emails? With redactions of sensitive parts? Reading through what I compiled that you said, I get the sense that the emails are incomplete. [3] Starship.paint (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course they are incomplete, that's what I said right from the start :-) I don't think it would be wise to quote even more from them, posting someone else's mails is normally not allowed and I only did this to give myself some chance at a defense, and the enwiki community some indication of the actual history. Like I said, the remainder of the posts doesn't contain further names, diffs, or pointers to what I should avoid after this year (or however long it lasts) is over. All I now is that the actual ban is for my "abusive communication", apparently towards ArbCom. So presumably not for edits made in 2016 or whatever else people are digging up at the framban discussion on enwiki. Fram (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Arb case

"Using publicly available information I have identified at least one user who appears to have been targeted by Fram in a way that felt like severe harassment. The incidents I found date back to 2016. I used the user interaction tools to find multiple instances of one way interaction where Fram consistently followed another user around causing that user distress, even after being warned to stop by other editors and administrators. " Without further information, it is rather hard to say anything useful about this. It is unclear whether Jehochman means a case which ended in 2016, or one which started in 2016 (which makes a serious difference of course).

" There are also a few recent instances of potentially problematic editing by Fram, such as [4]": that's not a remark I made, that's a remark by WBG where the redaction was too heavy-handed (losing not only the tone of the comment, but also the meaning, which was more important at the time). See my edit summary ("We are not the civility police. Restore deleted rude comment. If you want to redact it, then at least leave the meaning intact instead of just censoring like this"). I hardly see how something like this is ArbCom-worthy (note that the comment has since not been redacted again, nor reported to AN as far as I know).

"In May of this year, Fram used a racial slur on WT:NPA in an argument with another prominent editor. While he might argue it was used in a descriptive fashion, its use was highly inappropriate and paradoxically was not raised by anybody for further review. I will not go into great detail as to why this is not excusable. The diff speaks for itself. [5] I believe this particular diff, as well as the context in which the slur was uttered, further indicate a need for review at some level. I am sure others who make statements will point to evidence of why other dispute resolution has failed or is futile". The discussion was about things which are offensive but mislabeled (or not). E.g. if one would call female editors "lassie" or some such, that would probably be insulting (if it wasn't used in a more joking exchange, like in a reply to a comment about "boys and their toys" or some such), but it would not be "misgendering", which was what the dispute was about (basically, whether using gender-neutral "xe" instead of the preferred gender-neutral "they" was "misgendering or not"). Since Fae seemed to misunderstand my point, I tried a much clearer example, with an example which is clearly insulting in almost all cases (the N-word), but which wouldn't be "misracing". I believe it is important that we don't go around mislabeling things even if they are objectionable. I haven't had interactions with Fae before or since (well, none that I remember, it is likely that our paths have crossed in some discussions over the years but I don't think we were involved in disputes), and the comment was not reported on at the time. Using an example which some may consider too extreme may have been stupid at most, but actionable? Note that the N-word has been posted on the main page (DYK) multiple times...

Leaving apart the issue of whatever Jehochman may send privately to ArbCom, I fail to see how these two edits or discussions could form the basis for an ArbCom case (or even an ANI discussion). Fram (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I copied your statements here to the case request page. You're probably best off not commenting on the most recently posted diffs regarding the editor the WMF wanted you to avoid, especially since the case looks likely to be declined at this point. 28bytes (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The next Signpost

The next issue of the signpost will contain different sections about the SanFranJanBansFram saga. I have had the chance to give my comment about some points, but the following, which I proposed to link to in the comments section after the special report was published (later today normally), was deemed inacceptable (and even as possibly leading to a permanent global ban!) because it purportedly contained "outing". In fact, no one is even remotely outed in it, so I'll just post it here instead (it was in my sandbox).

Reply

Anonymous complaint

"It is difficult and embarrassing as a man to come to grips with being sexually harassed, as the culture has the expectation that you should ignore this kind of behavior and that it should have no effect on you.

A troll on an offsite forum posted a graphic written depiction of myself engaged in sexual activity with another editor. Fram repeatedly posted a link to this depiction on Wikipedia, even after it was revision deleted. A regular editor would likely have been blocked for this behavior, but since Fram was a powerful, influential administrator, ArbCom just shrugged and ignored it. Fram's behavior is a large reason why I barely ever edit Wikipedia anymore.

I can only imagine what he's done to female editors on Wikipedia.

— Anonymous, June 2019"

To start with the last line, what an utter non sequitur. The editor who wrote this complaint has access to all my edits, and if I did anything similar to what is described here towards female editors, it would long have been unearthed and displayed (and the logic of "is he was mean to me, a man, then he certainly has been more mean to women" is rather dubious and an example of the en:Think of the children fallacy). Of course, the major problem is that I didn't do this with this editor either. What in reality happened was that the anonymous admin used their tools to rev-del a link to an off-wiki site where their admin actions were criticized. In a reply to these descriptions, some commenter made a crude joke (the kind which wouldn't be accepted on-wiki), but this was not the reason the link was made. Worse, when confronted with this, the admin claimed that this wasn't true, and that the off-wiki page did not contain any criticism of their adminning. I then linked to (once only, IIRC) and quoted the actual relevant parts of the post (not the crude response): these quotes, made in ArbCom case pages, have not been removed, as they were not BLP violations or otherwise revdelable. The arb case ended without any comments about me, while the admin involved was admonished for his behaviour.

"since Fram was a powerful, influential administrator, ArbCom just shrugged and ignored it. " is a bit bizarre coming from an admin with probably at that time more onwiki "friends" and a "higher" position than I ever had. Perhaps Arbcom just "shrugged and ignored it" because it was not so vile as they try to make it here, but a small but correct piece of evidence about their behaviour?

BU Rob13 complaint

Following a contentious dispute over a recent ArbCom circular, Fram went to my user talk page and continued attacking me in rather personal terms. Very shortly after, he showed up at an unrelated ArbCom case and obstructed my ability to work as an arbitrator by reverting an edit asking a question of a party, while further attacking me in the edit summary. I felt extremely uncomfortable with what felt like harassment. It felt that he was signaling that I would be watched everywhere, that there would be no boundaries in his continued personal attacks. It made me feel unsafe. His actions, and the Arbitration Committee's failure to act promptly in condemning them, were the largest immediate factor that led to my resignation. That’s a major reason why I no longer believe the current Arbitration Committee can handle harassment, in any form. The Committee wasn't able to handle harassment directed at an arbitrator that occurred on a fully protected arbitration case page. If they can't handle that, how can they handle harassment in general? — BU Rob13, via email, June 2019

This is about one discussion, [6]. My first post is about all arbs, my second post is about all arbs, and so on. Only the last post, in reply to a block threat by BU Rob, was a reply about him personally. And why did he want me blocked? Because I reverted him at an Arb Case I was already involved in (the Rama case), here [7]. "The Committee wasn't able to handle harassment directed at an arbitrator that occurred on a fully protected arbitration case page." Perhaps because you could, just like everybody else, raise the issue at WP:ANI, just like I said at your talk page? You decided not to use the standard processes in our community (of which you were at the time an arb and admin), but instead tried to get your way informally among your fellow arbs. That this failed is probably because you were wrong here (since you had no business using that page to ask questions at that time, when no one else could do this or could respond), not because the arbs trembled before me and rather sacrificed you than taking action against me. These complaints are really ascribing power and influence to me that I don't have nor want.

Fram (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom open letter

Here. Thank you. I don't know if it will help bridge the gap between WMF and enwiki, but it certainly will help bridge the (much smaller) gap between ArbCom and some critical editors (like me). Well thought out, balanced, and clear. Fram (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Reply to BU Rob13

"You're preaching to the choir; I'm quoted in that Signpost article, and I'm not particularly positive on Fram. The first bombshell in that article is that Fram can immediately rattle off ten editors that likely felt harassed by him when given a conduct warning. The second is that multiple editors made reports to T&S and ArbCom over a duration of years without any community action being done. This upends the narrative of T&S doing some hasty, sneaky action and doing a complete end-run around community processes. The community processes abjectly failed here, and so in response to an apparent deluge of complaints, T&S eventually had no choice but to act. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)"[8]

No, I can not "rattle off ten editors that likely felt harassed by" me. I can rattle of ten or more editors who have been banned, indef blocked, stripped of advanced permissions, or otherwise sanctioned because (at least in part) of actions taken by me, and who I could imagine would retaliate by claiming harassment. See e.g. Cwmhiraeth (noted at the start of that upcoming signpost article), but in general check my 12 years as admin and look for those cases at AN or Arb I started or significantly participated, and which ended in sanctions.

"The community processes abjectly failed here"? No, again taking the case of Cwmhiraeth as an example, the community processes didn't fail, they worked like they should, e.g. an unwarranted request was rejected (with some arbs even suggesting a boomerang instead). In your own case, you didn't even attempt to use community processes but first tried off-wiki discussion with fellow arbs (who rightly rejected your plea), and then went straight to T&S. "in response to an apparent deluge of complaints, T&S eventually had no choice but to act." Again, completely wrong. Sanctions shouldn't be decided by the number of complaints, but by their validity. If e.g. an editor gets community indef blocked at enwiki and then complains at T&S about harassment, then that shouldn't indicate that there is a problem at enwiki. Fram (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Please reconsider

...your refusal of a block on enwiki, solely to prevent accidents. Your immediately-self-reverted edit of a few hours ago is already being spun as a deliberate provocation. I'm willing to push the button, if you want (though I am going offline in about two hours). —User:Cryptic (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, please do. It wasn't a deliberate provocation, it was a stupid mistake, but I can't guarantee that it won't happen again. Can you (whoever pushes the button) please indicate in the block notice that it is a self-requested block to avoid the risk of a ban? Thanks! Fram (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Fram (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

ANI post on Signpost article

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

Apparently it's better to name and link the actual case than try to protect the identity of the anonymous poster. For all clarity, Smallbones has not given me the identity of the poster or anything else beyond what is in the Signpost article, so they haven't breached any confidentiality. The case the anonymous poster refers to (or at least the only case in all those years I can imagine to somewhat resemble the account) is [en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop], and my comments there are in this section [10].

I did not object to Smallbones posting the Signpost article, but I do object to them then making false claims about me (and also the inflammatory claims he made towards me in mails). I have replied to this at lenght below, so no need to repost this here. Considering these actions by Smallbones, I presume it would indeed be best to simply pull the article as it is by now rather tainted and only leads to more drama, not less. Comments by Smallbones like "Fram has had lots of chances to respond and told me to go ahead with the story yesterday. Perhaps he likes the attention, I don't know why, but he was very cooperative with the investigation." (emphasis mine) are really way beneath what I would expect from someone presenting themselves as a neutral journalist. No, I don't like the attention (it is not really enjoyable to have anonymous complaints, correctly rejected arbcom cases from years ago, and already refuted claims repeated on a high-profile page, when one is restricted from replying in an adequate way), but I try to be open and honest, as I tried to do throughout this case (and throughout my enwiki career). But I do expect to be treated the same in return, which is e.g. a major failing with the WMF so far (failing to answer even the most basic questions, finding ridiculous excuses for inflammatory tweets, ...), and is now what I receive from Smallbones. For a reason I still don't get, they suddenly turned very hostile during our email exchange, and then started spreading lies about me at the discussions about the Signpost page. I hope they'll give some kind of explanation for this about-face. Fram (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Smallbones making baseless accusations

" There's another issue on what looks to me like an attempted outing by Fram on another website. I'm not going to accuse Fram of outing or speculate on his motives. I'll only say that at The Signpost we do not intentionally link to anything even close to outing, so we will not insert that link into the story. Please be patient for further responses from me - more emails. "

I'm not going to accuse Fram of what looks to me like attempted outing? No, please do accuse me, post the links, or retract the claims. I have never tried to out anyone, and I'm not active on "another website", unless you mean my posts here at meta? If you want to try your hand at investigative reporting, then go all the way, but don't drop unsubstantiated hints and then refuse to link to it.

Rest assured that this was the last time I tried to help you with a Signpost story. I don't like the kind of backstabbing you are practising here. Fram (talk) 06:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl

First there was this. Then there was the WIR "real crimes" twitter statement, where it is unclear how far you were involved with this.

And now you decide to continue the false statements by Smallbones, repeated by Bilorv but long since refuted, at ArbCom?

"I am in agreement with Bilorv. Fram had opportunity to dispute the content and declined as written here. This cannot be a BLP violation since the person in question did not dispute. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)" I thoroughly disputed the content:

"To start with the last line, what an utter non sequitur. The editor who wrote this complaint has access to all my edits, and if I did anything similar to what is described here towards female editors, it would long have been unearthed and displayed. Of course, the problem is that I didn't do this with this editor either. What in reality happened was that an admin used their tools to rev-del a link to an off-wiki site where their admin actions were criticized. In a reply to these descriptions, some commenter made a crude joke (the kind which wouldn't be accepted on-wiki), but this was not the reason the link was made. Worse, when confronted with this, the admin claimed that this wasn't true, and that the off-wiki page did not contain any criticism of their adminning. I then linked to (once only, IIRC) and quoted the actual post: these quotes, made in ArbCom case pages, have not been removed, as they were not BLP violations or otherwise revdelable. The arb case ended without any FoF about me, while the admin involved was admonished for his behaviour.

"since Fram was a powerful, influential administrator, ArbCom just shrugged and ignored it. " is a bit bizarre coming from an admin with probably at that time more onwiki "friends" than I ever had. Perhaps Arbcom just "shrugged and ignored it" because it was not so vile as you try to make it here, but a small but correct piece of evidence about your behaviour? Fram (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

But the reaction of Smallbones was: "Fram, You do realize that you are apparently outing the admin you mention, don't you? You shouldn't be playing hardball with me like that. I'm pretty sure you could get permanently globally banned for that now. If you'd like to delete the meta page and say whatever you'd like as a response to the admin in the same number of words the admin used (125) without identifying him in any way, we could probably do that. The offer stands for 1 hour. User:Smallbones"

and they didn't reply to my next posts at all.

Please stop claiming that I didn't dispute this or anything similar, I clearly disputed it, and Smallbones was aware of this but instead of trying to accommodate this started threatening me with completely invented claims of "outing" someone and getting a permanent global ban.

If you have followed this episode the last few weeks, you may have noticed that I have not replied to anyone saying that my ban was well-deserved, much too late, too short, whatever. I have no problem with people feeling this way and expressing their opinion of me. What I do have a problem with is people, certainly admins who should know better, engage in the thing they claim to fight against, harassment. Not the kind of "harassment" which consists of dealing with policy-violating edits by some editors, but the actual harassment of trying to get editors into trouble by spreading lies about them repeatedly. Fram (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

And now this? "we see Fram basically outing the person who made the accusations" Have I posted any personal information? Or have I posted onwiki-stuff only? "I post a recognisable but badly-deformed claim about things that happened onwiki, so anyone pointing out that the claim is probably about onwiki case X is outing me?" That's a completely incorrect reading of what en:WP:Outing actually is, and the same mistake Smallbones already made. Smallbones may have promised the editor anonimity, but that doesn't bind me in any way or shape. If I can't post to the actual case behind this, then all we are left with is a meaningless, pointless "did / did not / did / did not" shouting match which has no place in an "investigative journalism" case trying to make it possible for the readers to decide on my block (which the article explicitly stated, it ended with "We’ll let our readers judge for themselves on the propriety of the block." based on false, anonymous information.

If you want to accuse me of real, actual outing, then indicate where I did this. If you only want to continue to spread misinformation to damage me though, then I don't think that is a wise thing to do in an Arb case where you aren't yet but likely to become a party. Fram (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
You know, Fram, what I am not seeing anywhere is you taking responsibility for how you have gone over the top in your attacks on other people, whatever their mistakes may have been. All I see is you engaging in sarcasm, concern trolling, and disingenuous "solutions" such as (and I am paraphrasing for brevity) "let's ignore copyvio". A person can exercise quality control without being a jerk, and you seem to have not understood this message. I guess this raises an open question: Do you think you are completely in the right? Or do you, sincerely and without sarcasm or excuse, acknowledge that there are legitimate grounds for people to be concerned about your behavior (even if you disagree with the action taken)? Montanabw (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey there pot calling the kettle black. How many editors have you and your crew driven away from horse related topics? I can count at least a couple. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Those who understand the feelings of frustration that arise over problematic editors and editing are actually in an excellent place to discuss where the line needs to be drawn, Ernie. This is about Fram's behavior and no one else's. He was the one who allegedly was reported to the WMF by multiple parties. And he is the one who still is not acknowledging that he did anything wrong. Montanabw (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for openly stating that, since I have been accused, I'm a free target for anyone to spout whatever imagibned grievance they may have, "this is about Fram's behaviour and no one else's". You consider me a serial harasser, so whatever nonsense is said about me is well-deserved and should not be sanctionable in any way or shape, something like that? Fram (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Fram, No, your twisting of words is part of your problem. You really have no idea what **I** think of you beyond what I have stated publicly, and you should know better than to use false paraphrasing of what I said. There’s a difference between “nonsense” and truth. At the moment, I suspect you have lost any interest in showing your throat, but you might want to start looking for a way forward (without sarcasm). IMHO, Your quest for quality control as you understood it seemed to turn into a grand obsession where you behaved as if your ends justified any means. ( Others go well beyond me, was it the writer for Buzzfeed who actually called you an “asshole?”) More to the point, You have many supporters but some of them are behaving very, very badly. So though this ban’s gotta sting pretty good, what you are dealing with is small potatoes compared to the things people alleged to have complained about you are facing. The solution is not to respond with sarcasm and exaggeration, but rather to seek ways to solve the problem. Montanabw (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

(Edit conflict.) Fram, I'm not sure why you include the twitter "True Crimes" under a section about me. Are you accusing me? Also, I stand by what I said that WMF wouldn't block you for no reason. There are reasons even if I don't know them. As for agreeing with Bilorv about the Signpost article written by Smallbones, the way you discuss the issue isn't clear at all. You do not make it clear exactly what needs to be removed. You write about the situation and ramble quite a bit. Make your point more concise. I'm willing to change my mind if I understand what's going on more clearly. As for outing, you make it clear that you were dealing with an admin, which narrows the possible suspects. That's part of the process of outing someone--learning a little more about them over time so as to reveal their identity. Also, please ping the people you want a response to. I don't watch your page, nor am I going to. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: I struck the Twitter thing, I confused you with someone else. Anyway, if you had read this page, you would have seen that I already named the admin and linked to the Arb case above. Wrt the Signpost; I may be rambling and unclear, but most readers had no problem seeing that I had clearly responded to the Gamaliel accusations, and that Smallbones was falsely claiming that I had not replied to these accusations. But Bilorv and you decided to continue spreading these false allegations. And this wasn't the first time that you were happy to uncritically support any claim about me, no matter how disputed it had become. And then you continue with the "outing" nonsense as well, asa if there is any rule about not identifying an anonymous but clearly recognisable account. "I want anonimity" is not a get out of jail for free card, and it is not because Smallbones promised anonimity that the remainder of the enwiki community is bound by this in any way or shape. Identifying Gamaliel as the probable anonymous person is not outing and not bannable, and as an admin you should know better. Fram (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for pinging me. I did not think that was clear at all. Nor did I even guess that you were talking about Gamaliel--I thought it was one of a few candidates (not going to share my guesses). I don't even know how to respond right now. I believe that you think you're being clear, but it really wasn't to me. I do think that there was outing (in drips and drabs) and now, I think there's even more since you've given a name. I really don't know you. I've heard about you from time to time from other editors. I only got involved because I trust WMF and I wanted that voice heard on the WP:Fram page. Otherwise, everyone anti-WMF claims they have consensus, which they don't. I've had good experiences with WMF and generally trust them, even if they may have done things in a clumsy way this time, and that's where I stand. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: I have struck through my incorrect statement about you wrt Twitter. Have you done the same with your claim "Fram had opportunity to dispute the content and declined as written here. This cannot be a BLP violation since the person in question did not dispute. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)" " Or do you believe that I did not dispute this and that my mail correspondence with Smallbones was all made up? (In which case it would be weird for Smallbones to demand my removal of his posts for copyright reasons only, and not for the rather more problematic issue of me faking his mails). Or, as it looks like from your post, are you seriously claiming that User:Fram/Sandbox is not clearly an answer from me disputing the content? Smallbones claims (and you repeat) that I declined to dispute the content, when he was well aware that I had written that sandbox page (and called it global ban worthy). Fram (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

So you are saying that you did not want any of the parts that you claim are about Gamaliel published in the Signpost? Is that correct? Because I don't think you're very clear. I will strike where I wrote that you were OK with the publication if you say that here. Thanks. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl:No, that's not what I said (or meant). It was not up to me to decide what would be published or not, that was the job of Smallbones. What I did to is describe what was wrong with the statements by anonymous/Gamaliel, and by BU Rob13. Instead of either checking into this, or saying that he would post it regardless but would put a link to my comments in the article, Smallbones decided to suddenly attack me for "outing" the anonymous editor in a way that could and should get me globally and permanently blocked. He did not reply to any further communication from me, but instead posted the Signpost as is, and then went on record stating that "Fram was given several chances to respond to this quote and didn't." Which, since he claimed outrage at my reply to the quote, was a bald-faced lie, which he hasn't retracted or corrected at all, despite having seen (and not disputed) the mails I posted.

So no, I was not okay with the publication as is, I explained to Smallbones that the two main (or at least the two detailed) complaints were simply false, and that the "anonymous" one was easy to identify from his statement. I had no problem with the claims being published together with my rebuttal, as that would show the kind of "harassment" claims I was talking about, where people made up stories of harassment (and of ArbCom failing to act on them) when what really happened was quite different and that one shouldn't take the "victim's" story simply for granted. By denying me the chance to defend myself (and note that Smallbones still insists that every mention of Gamaliel, or even every bit of information that might be slightly more revealing than his own story already was, needs to be hidden from sight: "I'd like the Arbs to do everything in their power, including asking other bureaucrats etc., to stop Fram from currently trying to out an editor on another website." (in bright yellow, a nice way to get people to look for the information you want hidden)), and at the same time telling lies about me and trying all he can to stop me from bringing this to the light, Smallbones has shown his true agenda (in as far as it wasn't clear by the overall tone of and the conclusion to his post, or his repost of a Gamaliel gender-gap post in the Signpost as if the gender-gap and the Framban were related).

Smallbones knew of my objections, and posted it anyway. As far as I am concerned, the whole thing should stay deleted now and Smallbones sanctioned for his completely irresponsible way of proceeding here. Fram (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

So you wanted which claims specifically to be deleted? You do understand that Smallbones disputes that the information from harassed editors was false. In addition he says he checked into the claims. Therefore I'm stuck in a you-said, he-said situation. So what words exactly was he supposed to get rid of before publication that you say he didn't? Was it the entire section where the editor was identified as a man? Was it something else? You think you're being clear, but you're not. I had no problem with the claims being published together with my rebuttal you write. Where did Smallbones deny you the chance to defend yourself? He quotes what you're saying on this page at the end of the article as far as I remember. And I agree that mentioning Gamaliel by name is the wrong thing to do. You think everyone would have known who that was. Well, I didn't. Not everyone is involved with the same issues as you are. It's outing. I think Smallbone's true agenda is to get at the truth, something I hope we're all working towards. Assuming any other motives is unproductive. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl:, you are an admin you are able to actually check the information, compare the ArbCom case by Gamaliel with the quote from Gamaliel and the claims by Smallbones. You are not stuck into a he said / she said situation at all. Then again, you continue with the false claim that naming Gamaliel is "outing". So I think we are done here, and you should present that claim at the Arb Case instead. I can't help an admin who is not able to check the facts in a he said / she said situation where everything can be checked by them, and I can't help an admin who doesn't know what outing is. As for Smallbones real agenda, just read his statements at the Arb case, perhaps these will be clearer than my comments here are apparently. " Where did Smallbones deny you the chance to defend yourself?" For the last time, he started the ridiculous claim that I was outing Gamaliel and that I would get a permanent global block for this, and considered my statement (sandbox here) unacceptable. He then claimed at the ANI discussion that I never even replied to the Gamaliel quote at all. And still you claim that he didn't deny me the chance to defend myself? That's rich... Fram (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Despite what you think, I am stuck to a you said - he said situation because I haven't seen the emails exchanged with Smallbones. Nor do I know which case we're talking about or even if it definitively is Gamaliel, like you claim. (Also, I believe Smallbones already brought the issue up at Arb, so no need to be redundant). In addition, your sandbox statement is vague and confusing and that's why you and I have also been going back and forth. I'm happy to be done here since it's clear that you are unable to answer my question: which sections were supposed to go? So please don't ping me on this particular issue in the future (other issues are fine). Thanks. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: - I’m not Fram and I will not discuss Twitter. You said Fram’s words narrows the possible suspects and is part of the process of outing. If that is true, then Smallbones has done the same. Smallbones reporting has identified that this editor claims to be male, claims to barely edit Wiki anymore, had an off-wiki site provide offen9sive content about, and apparently was either involved in an ArbCom case or reported to ArbCom about Fram repeatedly posted a link despite it being revdeled. Starship.paint (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Smallbones at the Arb Case

"That's right, the original agreement was that I could have printed the whole thing in the Signpost, and the current agreement is that I can summarize it, comment on it, etc. anywhere as long as I don't use identifying information (other than that it was from Fram)."

Uh, no. For clarity, Smallbones asked me if he could have my email conversation with the WMF (my posts, not theirs), and I agreed. But my condition (in my first post to Smallbones, 17 jun. 2019 11:01" was

"I will share my two posts from April 2018 with you, but please don't quote them onwiki (signpost or elsewhere) without first consulting me, as it discusses quite a few other editors who I don't want to unnecessarily drag into this mess."

Smallbones then asked for clarification, and I replied

"what I meant was that you would simply give me a heads-up with "hi, we plan on using these quotes from your emails "X" and "Y", do you see any problem with that? I obviously don't want to censor what you are writing or who you are contacting (and don't need to know any of this in advance). Oh, and if you do quote me, please make it clear that these are statements from April 2018, not statements I made now. I hope this is reasonable? "

How anyone can read that as "I could have printed the whole thing in the Signpost" is not clear.

Smallbones then says:

• "It was incredibly reckless and arrogant for Fram to give me that info. My reading of it is: here is a list of people who I harassed - I'm proud of harassing them. And something much more serious." That's news to me. First off, Smallbones is the one who asked me if he could see these mails, I did not approach him in any way to provide them. Apparently it was incredibly arrogant to reply in an open and cooperative way to questions of the Signpost (I know realise that it is indeed very reckless to believe that Smallbones would treat people fairly and present the facts in an objective and neutral way, as he seems intent as painting me in the worst possible way while ignoring the actual grounds for the Arb case completely).

The mail I gave was not of people I harassed, it was of people who had been sanctioned after an intervention by me and who I could imagine would be pissed off sufficiently to go to the WMF (this was before I interacted with the former BU Rob13, but one can see them as an example of how little is needed to be accused of harassment and have someone go to the WMF to ask for sanctions).

If it is in any way useful, I'm willing to send my mail conversation with Smallbones to ArbCom of course. Fram (talk) 04:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Smallbones, stating that the "anonymous" source is most likely Gamaliel is not "outing" in any sense of the word. They were the only ones involved in a case even remotely similar to what they are describing in yuor article, and used the same false arguments back then. As a wannabe journalist, you should have known that you could not protect their anonimity at all (I even told you what case this was talking about before the article went life, and you then accused me of outing as well), and as a wannabe journalist with some integrity you should have checked their story and seen what was the truth of it. That you failed at both hurdles is your problem only, not mine. That you still claim I can somehow "out" your anonymous source by matching their story with a real onwiki one. Fram (talk) 06:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

About the mails I sent to the WMF in April 2018: you claim "I couldn't have released that info in any case without hurting at least a dozen specific innocent individuals and the Wikipedia movement as a whole." I explicitly denied you permission to release any information about individuals named in those two posts just because there is no evidence that they have anything to do with this current situation (which doesn't mean they are "innocent" of course, no idea where you make that deduction from). Why you have to belabor the point that you wouldn't release something where you never had the right to release it in the first place isn't clear. In retrospect, I shouldn't have sent these mails to you, but I naively believed you to be fair and trustworthy.

• "The only way to deal with this info in Wikipedia is to have both Fram and I state that ArbCom can see the text and view it in private." Uh, I don't think I need your permission to send this text to ArbCom, no idea why you would need to state that ArbCom can "see the text and view it in private".

• " This isn't a lightly sourced article." And did you "check" any of these sources? Or did you simply reprint their statements "as is", without any care about correctness? With BU Rob13, who at least had the courage to be open about his testimony, people can check for themselves. But with "anonymous" reports, it is the responsability of the "journalist" to make reasonably sure that the testimony is truthful and to the point (e.g. the final sentence of Gamaliel's quote was simply a very low rethorical fallacy, like I said to you). Giving people a platform to spout unverifiable accusations is not responsible journalism at all, and the reason the article got pulled (which you could have seen coming after the pre-publication reverts).

Main issues

The two most important issues though are these:

a) There is no rule, poliy, guideline, ... why I couldn't publicly identify the enwiki account of the anonymous editor you quoted. The action they describe is quite recognisable, the information is publicly viewable (not revdeled or otherwise removed), and the only way for uninvolved people to judge the information (and hence the reliability of that single anonymous source, and the quality and trustworthiness of your article as a whole) is to get the actual evidence in front of them, not the biased view one or other party may present. What I did is not outing, and is perfectly allowable. That this means that the only two concrete cases you have (Gamaliel and BU Rob13) turn out to be not cases of harassment at all, but two cases of sour grapes, is your problem, not mine. That this also means that perhaps you promised anonimity, and that said promise turned out to be of no value, is also your problem, not mine. Posting it in yellow on the Arb Case won't help you there.

b) Your Arb text is an interesting attempt at shifting the blame completely, and totally ignores the claims you made here [11] and which are patently false. Lying about the subject of your article to make a futile attemmpt to defend your journalistic integrity is basically making yourself unfit for the role of E-in-C (or collaborator in general) of the Signpost, and a refusal to correct or retract your false claims makes this a severe personal attack (not just the personal attacks by Gamaliel where you were used as a proxy, but attacks made by you directly).

These two points should be the main focus of the Arb Case, with secondary issues (the edit warring and admin actions on the article, the people who blindly or worse knowingly repeated the above two points by Smallbones) tacked on but of less importance. Fram (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Can someone perhaps post the above at the Signpost Arb case? Both issues seem to be ignored by Smallbones and the declining Arbs. The problem is not the false claims by Gamaliel, but the attempts by Smallbones to suppress my replies and claiming that I made some unforgivable error in my reply. Apparently the rule that anything goes at an Arb Case, including spreeading whatever falsehood you like, still goes. Perhaps Arbs (and clerks) can act more on that, and less on the oh-so-important 500 word limit (well, that limit seems to have gone out of the window as well in this case at least)? If you can't even act on (or judge) such simple things like the formerly yellow highlighted claims by Smallbones about outing (which were either correct, and then you should have contacted me or made someone act against my outing, or incorrect, in which case you should perhaps have instructed Smallbones that continuing with that false claim at Arb would not be tolerated?), then how are you going to judge on and act in more complicated cases?

Note that Smallbones is still rather selectively quoting me, my post about "no problem with the report" is the actual post Smallbones wants to suppress for outing, and is the same post he claims I never made, since I never replied to the statement by Gamaliel in the first place. It has to be some kind of first to have one person describing the same post as a) being non-existant, b) needing removal as outing, and c) a compliment and permission to post the article, all at the same time, no? Fram (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I can relay something to the ArbCom page if you want though I'd probably ask a clerk first about the best procedure. I am not your lawyer and you can say whatever you like but I offer the following for your consideration: The case page has so far operated on the polite fiction that the admin in question is anonymous. If you want to accuse Gamaliel of being the originator of the attack maybe you want to do so directly and pointedly rather than sort of as an aside. I think everyone is assuming that it is Gamaliel but he hasn't confessed to it and I guess in theory it could be someone else essentially pretending to be him (and him not correcting the record for some reasons of his own). Also, maybe you'd want to frame your statement as "ArbCom should accept the case because I have been mistreated in way X and I seek redress" rather than sort of starting in medias res with addressing some particular facts. But, again, these are just some idle thoughts and you have way more experience with ArbCom cases than I do. Haukurth (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Finally, ArbCom is clearly not impressed with Smallbones' accusation of you "outing" anyone so maybe there isn't a pressing need to further address that point. Haukurth (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Moot at this point, I suppose, with the case rejected. Unless there is another page where you want to chime in. Haukurth (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Signpost

Fram, several editors have suggested that a modified version of the Signpost article might be acceptable. I'm of a mind to leave it deleted until ArbCom rules. What is your feeling on this? Jehochman (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Seeing the comments by Smallbones ("Much (by no means all) of the evidence in harassment cases comes off as sounding like "He said, they said". "He said" in this case is being accepted without examination even though Fram's supporters often say (approx) "He can be very difficult to deal with." The "they said" side hadn't been heard at all during this "constitutional crisis", though they have been shamefully harassed (e.g. attempted outings) at WP:FRAM."), I think it needs to remain deleted and ArbCom needs to have th case instead. It is obvious from all statements Smallbones made since he got what he wanted from me, and started threatening and ridiculing me, that he is not an objective reporter at all but a highly biased one. Coupled with the continued falsehoods and his total lack of reply to those specific questions, instead going on and on about how he needed to right great wrongs, makes it highly undesirable to have his article back up.

The ArbCom should accept the case, the article should stay deleted. A Signpost that gives a voice to all sides is good. A Signpost that functions as the champion of one side, at all costs, is not acceptable though. Fram (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I expected you would hold this opinion, but wanted to ask to be sure. Most of the editors at RfAR supported my deletion; I received many thanks for it. However, Kirill Lokshin, a member of WikiMedia DC chapter, launched a multi-sided character assassination against me. I bet you can figure out why. When you return to Wikipedia, beware of users affiliated with WMF and its local chapters. An improbably large number of them seem to be gunning for you. Jehochman (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Arb Request

I've filed for a second time a request for arbitration based on the Board of Trustees document. I think you deserve to have your case heard by ArbCom, preferably in the open light of day. This time I'm not adding any evidence because other people will do that if they want to. I thought your statements in the section above suggest that you want your matter tried by ArbCom, not by the Signpost. Is that right? In any event, if you post a statement I or somebody else can copy it over the the RfAr page. Jehochman (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, no, my post above indicated that I think the Signpost case (the behaviour of Smallbones e.a.) should be an Arbcom case in itself. I also, but separately, have indicated that I am perfectly OK with ArbCom having a case about my actions and ban, based on whatever evidence they receive. I understand that not all of such a case may be public, but as much of it as possible should be in public, since it is all based on publlicly available information.

For the record, I have a thorough case of the common Arb-flu, i.e. I will be largely or completely off-line between 15 and 30 July, with probably reduced activity between 8 and 15 July. For those who may find this too "convenient", I invite you to check my enwiki contributions from the last few years; I made no edits to enwiki between 30 June 2018 and 29 July 2018[12], no edits between 7 July and 30 July 2017[13], and no edits between 11 July and 31 July 2016[14]. I usually have similar but shorter periods in August as well.

I understand that this may be inconvenient if a case were to start in the near future, but I'm not going to change my private life to accommodate my wiki-life.

As for the actual case request, I agree that it is rather pointless until the WMF / T&S have indicated how they will react to the Board letter and if they will transfer authority for the ban over to ArbCom. Fram (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy has indicated that they will transfer authority and that ArbCom is empowered to revise or remove the ban as they see fit.[15] I am sorry for pushing this ahead quickly, which could be an imposition on you. I have added a comment about your break and requested that they schedule the case at your convenience. To be clear I have two concerns (1) that you be treated fairly, and (2) that a case be accepted quickly to calm the community. There's been a too much collateral damage already (and this is entirely WMF's responsibility, not yours). Jehochman (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: I have forwarded all emails about the T&S warnings and ban (mails from T&S and from me, not comments from others), and all emails about the Signpost article (mails from Smallbones and me, not mails by others) to ArbCom. Fram (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fram. I am going to be posting less here now that things seems to moving towards a resolution of sorts. Enjoy your upcoming break (see above). If you have time, do you have strong views on the Board statement and the response from Maher (I am thinking here if there is further media coverage and you are contacted about this)? I understand completely if you do not want to say too much on that, as you may want to concentrate on the arbitration cases. Carcharoth (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad that there seems to be significant progress, I hope T&S will communicate their agreement with the statements by the Board, KMaher, and Jimbo Wales, and will present ArbCom with the necessary evidence. Fram (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks like my request for arbitration will be shot down for a second time. It may be best for you to write a request on your own behalf if you have time before you leave for your break. I believe you interests are best served by having an open case request with comments from the community, and then an open presentation of evidence, as far as possible. Jehochman (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to confirm that we've seen your note above, thanks. Hope you have a good break. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Did anyone ever figure out what deletions Jorm was complaining about?

Hi Fram, I hope you are well in exile. Is there any explanation for the deletions which spurned this complaint? I am inclined on AGF grounds to presume it was a case of mistaken identity clouded by tribal affinity drives. EllenCT (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• Jorm holds long-term grudges against Fram at least since asking to desysop Fram in 2013, so you have to factor in some emotional response and not expect a tight connection to actual facts. Nemo 14:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm getting quite used to accusations without evidence in this whole situation. Fram (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

COIs and impending break

Hi Fram. Are ArbCom aware of your impending break (one would hope they use the time wisely)? A quick additional question, which you may or may not want to answer (the questions only make sense if you have connected various dots). If you have been following along at various places then you may be aware of developments relating to the Chair of the WMF Board (Raystorm/María Sefidari). You interacted with her (or to be more accurate, she interacted with you) here in September 2016. At the time, she was Vice Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board, and later (in 2018) became Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board. Were you aware of her roles and status when you interacted with her, were you aware of her likely motivation for intervening as she did, and if you had been aware of all this would it have made any difference to your actions at the time? Carcharoth (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: I wonder how this matters. Not seeing the deleted material in question, I am inclined to say that senior Foundation officials and long-term editors who conduct outreach activities based on their promotion of focus on specific content areas should be held to higher standards of BLP compliance, whether or not but especially if they are in a relationship with each other, because they are de facto role models for new and experienced editors alike. EllenCT (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Question about the Elisa.rolle CCI

Just curious, did she copy more from books or from online webpages? Asking because you seem to know the most about her vios. Hope to see you back soon. Money emoji (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Both. But when I see people like Ritchie333 misremembering things as badly as his: "About a year ago, I was managing the block with TonyBallioni and we agreed to drop it down to a fixed time so we could talk about copyright, before Fram popped in and reblocked indefinitely, causing Elisa to quit the project (and a truck load of off-wiki complaints about Fram landing in my mailbox). I am happy to unblock Elisa; she is a prolific content creator and published author and we need people like her working on the project - and if people find themselves putting Template:Db-copyvio on her work four days after unblocking .... well, blocks are cheap and easy for any admin to do if they know they have consensus between them. Elisa, if you want me to do a standard offer review at AN, respond in the affirmative and I'll get it done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)", then my appetite to discuss this is rather low.

Here people can see what actually happened: Elisa.rolle, who had been twice indef blocked for copyvio (once by me) and twice for disruptive editing (not by me), had her most recent block, for disruptive editing, discussed by Tony Ballioni and Ritchie333, and reduecd to one month with conditions. Neither that block nor the unblock conditions were about copyvio, so Ritchies claim that "we agreed to drop it down to a fixed time so we could talk about copyright" seems to be wrong. At least, there is no indication onwiki that they had been talking about copyvio at all at the time, nor that any discussion was ongoing then. The unblock discussion was finished by the 13th, and my unrelated indef block for copyvio was on the 22nd. To present this as if I was "popping in" on some discussion between Tony Ballioni and Ritchie333 and overruled them both by issuing an indef block is a rather peculiar reading of the situation, and "causing Elisa to quit the project" is, well, shifting the blame towards the admin upholding policy instead of towards the editor getting her 5th indef block for diverse kinds of problematic editing. That Ritchie then claims to have received "a truckload of off-wiki complaints about Fram" may or may not be true, but is not really interesting apart from the clear attempt to poison the well and smear me. If they complaints were valid, they could have and should have started an AN discussion or something similar (ArbCom, whatever). Letting such a terrible admin as me knowingly run loose on enwiki is rather a poor indicator of the judgment of Ritchie, certainly when they just had been witness to one such instance apparently. Or perhaps there wasn't much meat to the complaints, and then bringing them up now is just a very petty way of getting back at me without having to make an actual complaint. Oh well, probably this episode will appear (in summarized and anonimized form) in the Arb Case as well, as evidence of my poor track record. When there's smoke, there just has to be fire, isn't it? Fram (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)