Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Katie · Unread post by **Katie** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:37 am

I care very little for either Fae or Fram, but I have to say I would much prefer Fram. He’s very annoying at times but at least he’s not painting any criticism as harassment the way Fae is and he’s done much more for Wikipedia than Fae ever will.

Ansh666 · Unread post by **Ansh666** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:53 am

So at this point, fully half of Arbcom is inactive...

Also, several users are trying to start an initiative to ban WMFOffice (T-C-L) from en-wiki. I'm sure that will go over well.

Catnip the Dwarf · Unread post by **Catnip the Dwarf** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:06 am

There were mentions of Flow. I assume others have gotten the notification about the talk pages consultation -- the discussion is really long, but it sounds like they're going to implement some kind of changes on top of wikitext talk pages instead of trying Flow again. If the ban is related to some upcoming "feature", it's probably not that one.

I don't see how this is a bad decision from their point of view unless they face consequences for it. Would be interesting if the WMFOffice ban happened, but it would probably just be undone, possibly with the claim that there wasn't really a consensus because (as with every English Wikipedia discussion these days, since it's such a big place) most of the active editors didn't show up to it. IIRC that's what they said about Media Viewer. Xover says it would not be possible and suggests instead banning accounts ending in (WMF).

Katie · Unread post by **Katie** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:08 am

If the community did ban accounts ending with (WMF), that would be very interesting, however I doubt even that would get the WMF to change, they would just overturn that and ban the people who banned the WMF accounts.

Catnip the Dwarf · Unread post by **Catnip the Dwarf** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:13 am

Katie wrote:If the community did ban accounts ending with (WMF), that would be very interesting, however I doubt even that would get the WMF to change, they would just overturn that and ban the people who banned the WMF accounts.

Yes. Probably what would need to happen is bad publicity or a drop in donations. I don't know how either of those would be accomplished.

MrErnie · Unread post by **MrErnie** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:02 am

Aside from the Fae stuff, the only thing I could think of is that Elisa.Rolle complained about her treatment regarding copyright issues. But surely Fram didn't necessarily do anything ban worthy there. WMF seems like they'd only take action for some kind of significant harassment, such as gender or sexuality, but they haven't done anything in the past when those types of issues crop up.

Pudeo · Unread post by **Pudeo** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:07 am

Fram has responded at Commons.

Copying it here in full in case it gets WMF'd at there.

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.

Katie · Unread post by **Katie** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:21 am

I feel sorry for Fram, this ban is obviously unjust. I am not the biggest fan of him, he's like Inspector Javert at times, but no one deserves to be banned merely for criticising ArbCom.

Jans Hammer · Unread post by **Jans Hammer** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:31 am

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.

Encouraging a campaign of disruption against WMF probably equals a life ban.

TheElusiveClaw · Unread post by **TheElusiveClaw** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:38 am

No justification for such a step. Popcorn opened, WP:BN on auto-refresh and watch the meltdown

MrErnie · Unread post by **MrErnie** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:52 am

What an unbelievably stupid action by the WMF. How could they have debated this and come to the conclusion that this was the best thing to do and the best way to handle it? The smart thing would have been to ask Arbcom or a sympathetic functionary to drop the hammer. Now they've placed the target squarely on their back, and just about unanimously united the community. I guess they think it will just blow over after a little while?

TonyBallioni's comments before Fram's statement make him look stupid too - "People I trust say this is warranted" - Uh, who said that Tony and do you still agree??

Something interesting in Fram's statement is that the WMF dropped an interaction ban on him with LauraHale. Laura's got a nice statement directly to Fram on her talk page - link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LauraHale[/link]. I've never noticed LauraHale before, but it looks like she is very interested in gender / LGBT issues, somewhat lining up with what I said earlier regarding topics the WMF will take action on.

Alex Shih · Unread post by **Alex Shih** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:27 am

Haven't been following at all, but this isn't surprising. Trust and Safety generally act based on the "recommendations" of Arbcom; so no "extensive review" were done here. I am sure this is the work coordinated by mostly AGK.

The way Fram conduct their business has always been problematic especially toward women editors, but this feels more like revenge.

Dysklyver · Unread post by **Dysklyver** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:51 am

Fram's behavior on Wikipedia has always been especially combative, however it generally doesn't matter for them because as we have discussed on countless threads, the difficultly of defeating an admin on a dramaboard such as AN makes it nearly impossible to actually do anything about it.

However technically speaking a WMF ban, in this case a temporary ban, doesn't need that process. So in theory it could have been applied based on a request by anyone, for any ToS related reason. However, the WMF doesn't generally respond unless action is requested by real life named people or functionaries which have identified to the WMF, so it's not like anyone can make an anonymous complaint.

However, there are dozens of people that Fram has harassed off the project in the last year alone, so trying to figure out whom is responsible for getting the WMF involved is rather difficult. There are a number of instances of Fram technically breaking the ToS while doing this, so unless someone in the know says something it may well remain unclear.

Although we have enough information to provide decent speculation already.

Jans Hammer · Unread post by **Jans Hammer** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:21 am

Wales now involved. "Reviewing situation" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =901344709

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:33 am

So Fram was banned for the same reasons as me, welcome to the club of unjustly banned editors.

WBG · Unread post by **WBG** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:39 am

I note that T&S folks have gone into hibernation. AFAIH, they are not replying to any individual mail, after having pointed the very first bunch of emails to the non-answer boiler-plate, that came from their role-account.

iii · Unread post by **iii** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:04 am

This is surely new territory. Does it portend a brave new world of top-down TOS enforcement? Is the WMF taking a page from the Twitter/Facebook/YouTube moderation playbook?

We here at this website know that the en-wp arbitration committee has been capricious and uneven in their practice, but it seems something of a slap in the face to community process to go over their heads like this.

Aside from pure authoritarianism, can any of y'all think of a justification for why they didn't just file an arbcom case like any other poor schmuck?

At the very least, someone should file an arbcom case about this even if the whole process has been essentially been made moot.

Jans Hammer · Unread post by **Jans Hammer** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:50 pm

I am seeing a massive amount of virtue signalling support for someone who has certainly rubbed up many of those same editors over the years.

Some of the reactions are laughable verging on the hysterical.

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:20 pm

MrErnie wrote:WMF dropped an interaction ban on him with LauraHale (T-C-L). Laura's got a nice statement directly to Fram (T-C-L)on her talk page - link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LauraHale[/link]. I've never noticed LauraHale before, but it looks like she is very interested in gender / LGBT issues, somewhat lining up with what I said earlier regarding topics the WMF will take action on.

Laurahall is perfectly balanced as can be seen here:

Fram
This is a request to stay off my talk page, in the same style as you request it of other editors. Other admins have requested that you stop posting on my talk page before. They have requested you stop taking action in regards to me, especially given your problematic actions as they relate to your inability to be impartial where I am concerned. You have claimed that DYKs I did were related to Gibraltarpedia, when they were clearly not, and you never retracted this. You completely out of process deleted article drafts from my user space citing gross BLP violations, which other admins said were not this after viewing the deleted content. You defended these actions, did not admit your errors, and did not retract this. These are two examples, of several, where you have acted in bad faith with me. Enough. Stay off my talk page Fram.

You were asked in September 2017 to disengage in admin actions related to me. You were asked in September 2017 to stop commenting on my talk page and you are being asked again in February 2018. If you have a problem with my work, then you need to talk to another admin and have them handle the problem. It should not be you. If you have questions about my edits, please direct them at admins and other users like SlimVirgin, Pigsonthewing, SkyHarbor, Orderinchaos and Victuallers.

If you are nominating any of the content I created for deletion or userifying any pages or redirecting any pages, these notifications need to be posted on the talk pages of the aforementioned admins so they may deal with your notifications. They can assess your admin actions, and if they believe any actions need to be taken on my part to change my editing behavior following any return, these admins can be the ones to communicate that message to me: NOT YOU.

If these admins are not able to work with you regarding my work to your personal satisfaction, please contact James Alexander, Patrick Earley, Jan Eissfeldt or Sydney Poore, members of the WMF's Support and Safety team.
LauraHale (T-C-L)

She has been discussed at Wikipediocracy.

MrErnie · Unread post by **MrErnie** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:30 pm

Do I understand correctly, from this post - viewtopic.php?f=14&t=6332&p=137770&hili ... le#p137770, that LauraHale's significant other (or at least one time significant other, I've no idea if they are still together) is a WMF board member? This is starting to get very interesting.

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:38 pm

An "out, damn spot" vibe, amirite?

HRIP7 wrote:Unless I am very much mistaken, waves of the election are reaching Jimbo's talk page ...

Clues include
– the recent suggestion of a DYK topic ban for Laura Hale,
– Laura Hale stating in her dissertation that Ross Mallett (Hawkeye7 (T-C-L)) was her landlord,
– the arbcom finding that Hawkeye7 has an undisclosed conflict of interest with regards to Laura Hale,
– the arbcom remedy directing Hawkeye7 "not to take any further administrative action with regards to, or at the behest of, Laura Hale"
– and the fact that Ross Mallett is the Hale Party's candidate for treasurer, opposing Craig Franklin (Lankiveil (T-C-L)) from the Vandenberg Party.

So Laura Hale is running for president, and she has nominated her landlord who helped her with her dissertation as a candidate for treasurer.

ZettaComposer · Unread post by **ZettaComposer** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:55 pm

Looks like people are trying to pull a Spartacus and willingly lose their admin privileges in an attempt to overrule the ban to make a point. Floquenbeam and Bishonen have offered to do so, and Serial Number attempted to start an RFA for this single purpose.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:06 pm

MrErnie wrote:What an unbelievably stupid action by the WMF. How could they have debated this and come to the conclusion that this was the best thing to do and the best way to handle it? The smart thing would have been to ask Arbcom or a sympathetic functionary to drop the hammer. Now they've placed the target squarely on their back, and just about unanimously united the community. I guess they think it will just blow over after a little while?

TonyBallioni's comments before Fram's statement make him look stupid too - "People I trust say this is warranted" - Uh, who said that Tony and do you still agree??

Something interesting in Fram's statement is that the WMF dropped an interaction ban on him with LauraHale. Laura's got a nice statement directly to Fram on her talk page - link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LauraHale[/link]. I've never noticed LauraHale before, but it looks like she is very interested in gender / LGBT issues, somewhat lining up with what I said earlier regarding topics the WMF will take action on.

She's gonna be super popular...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... _mentioned

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:27 pm

In the war to prove just how ineffective a group of people can be, teh communitah has taken the lead here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... an_of_Fram

Reminds me of this.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:27 pm

How delightful. Laura Hale not only writes in some strange dialect of Klingon but has been using Wikipedia for personal promotion (and to scam airline tickets etc) for years. And of course they get rid of Fram on her say-so.

The Garbage Scow · Unread post by **The Garbage Scow** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:44 pm

DanMurphy wrote:How delightful. Laura Hale not only writes in some strange dialect of Klingon but has been using Wikipedia for personal promotion (and to scam airline tickets etc) for years. And of course they get rid of Fram on her say-so.

She's a former Wikimedian in Residence, too. She retired abruptly in Feb 2018, then reappeared in Feb 2019.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:55 pm

The Garbage Scow wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:How delightful. Laura Hale not only writes in some strange dialect of Klingon but has been using Wikipedia for personal promotion (and to scam airline tickets etc) for years. And of course they get rid of Fram on her say-so.
She's a former Wikimedian in Residence, too. She retired abruptly in Feb 2018, then reappeared in Feb 2019.

Yes. That was a promotional job for the Spanish Paralympic Committee. She filled up DYK with crap, much of it hilariously and erroneously translated from Spanish. Ms. Hale is not the sort of wishy-washy Wikimedian to let a little thing like not speaking a language get in the way of front page clicks, though, and she thoughtfully described all objections to her filling the website with misinformation as motivated by misogyny and jealousy.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:57 pm

LauraHale's contributions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... /LauraHale

Makes her look like a female Fae.

Jans Hammer · Unread post by **Jans Hammer** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:21 pm

Jans Hammer wrote:I am seeing a massive amount of virtue signalling support for someone who has certainly rubbed up many of those same editors over the years. Some of the reactions are laughable verging on the hysterical.

And this from WBG https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =900941613

“ This user refuses to edit, unless Fram is unblocked and re-sysopped coupled with an unconditional apology by WMF to the community, for indulging in thoroughly abominable behavior. "

I mean, come on. I cannot get away with this er' so noble "I am Spartacus" waffle.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:38 pm

Shit's starting to get real...for small values of real. WikiReal.

Statement of intent

If WMF isn’t going to say more, I am going to assume everything Fram says is true. Now that I understand the circumstances better, this “strike” seems too passive for my taste. Since there is near unanimous opposition to this site ban, I intend to unblock Fram as soon as I get to a regular computer. If that results in Fram’s reblock by WMF and my desysop, I’ll be sad. It would make me feel better, however, if another admin unblocks him when I’m desysopped. And another. And another. See how many admins they’re willing to lose. If the answer is “as many as it takes to enforce our will”, then I don’t want to be part of the system anymore. —Floquenbeam (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This will most certainly result in Fram's reblock and your desysop, without any benefit for the cause, so that I strongly advise you against doing this. There are other, more efficient ways, to express your distrust with WMF actions.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

if I’m the only one desysopped, that’s true. We’ll see if I’m the only one. Civil disobedience with no potential cost isn’t civil disobedience, it’s whining. —Floquenbeam (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Please don't do that. It is really unnecessary. Both Doc James and I are on the case, trying to understand what happened here, and the ArbCom is discussing it as well. Drama will not be necessary, but more importantly, drama will not be helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

DO NOT REDUCE THE DRAMAH GOD!

The god-king sees his gravy train being threatened...
Maybe no more nice dinners (and large honorarium checks) with despotic central Asian dictators if things get really bad.

Hop, hop, Jimbo!

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:43 pm

Ruh Roh, Raggy...

Board

I have requested, as a board member, a briefing of what occured, preferably today Pacific standard time. Might not be able to arrange anything until Jun 14th however. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

ObKohs: You can't spell occurred even with a spell checker?

Trust and Safety must be thinking right about now that they've stuck their collective dicks in the light socket.

As is Soviet Russia: There's no trust in safety and no safety in trust.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:03 pm

Jiminy Whales wrote:I'd like to remind everyone that it is my long established view that all bans are appealable to me.

I know I mostly don't do shit around here and fuck everything all to hell when I do emerge from my burrow on Ground Hog day, but you really should pay attention to me!

Jiminy Whales wrote:I seldom intervene, even if I have some minor disagreement with a ban, because no major constitutional issues or errors are at stake.

I'm dusting off my sole flounder act here.
Watch me be relevant, mommy!

Jiminy Whales wrote:It is too early to know what is going on in this particular case,

I read slow and have have a tough time concentrating unless, like Trump, people are constantly saying my name in adoring terms.

Jiminy Whales wrote:but please if anyone is planning to "fall on their sword" for principle, let it be me.

Dude, what a meaningless statement.
You're invulnerable.
Offering to take a bullet that can't hurt you isn't sacrifice, it's attention whoring.
Shut the fuck up, you grandstanding feeb.

Jiminy Whales wrote:But, I really don't think that will be necessary here.

I have no idea what I'm talking about!

Jiminy Whales wrote:The WMF staff are diligent, thoughtful, and hard working.

I really am fucking utterly clueless... see?!

Jiminy Whales wrote:If an error has been made, I'm sure they will revert and work out procedures to make sure it didn't happen again.

Like Visual Edsel?
Like Media Viewer?
Like Aunt Flow?
Like SuperProtectMyVirginity?
Like the Mo:leMan's "that would be a lie" speech?

What can you point to the would give any rational viewer a sense of the WMF's ability to undertake a reasoned review of their decisions?

Jiminy Whales wrote:If the ban was justified,

Can you point to any policy that justifies how they changed the rules and then dropped an unappealable ban in the middle of the night?

Jiminy Whales wrote:I'm sure they will find a way to make it clear to - at a minimum, if privacy issues play a role, to me, to the board, and to the Arbitration Committee.

Y'all bitches are in trouble nah...
Jimmy da Pimp is in da hizzouse!
See me flex my WikiDick!

Jiminy Whales wrote:Therefore, dramatic action would not be helpful at the present time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I want all the glory!
You guys stand over there and root me on!

God, I love this pic!

Capeo · Unread post by **Capeo** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:17 pm

If Floq and Bish actually go through with unblocking Fram shit could get really interesting. Will Arbcom step in desysop them? Most of them are inactive or don’t seem to agree with the ban to begin with. Or will the office step in and desysop them?

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:24 pm

Capeo wrote:If Floq and Bish actually go through with unblocking Fram shit could get really interesting. Will Arbcom step in desysop them? Most of them are inactive or don’t seem to agree with the ban to begin with. Or will the office step in and desysop them?

The WMF office, "Trust and Safety" group in particular, can be unfavorably compared a semi-feral cat that's made its way in the bathroom late at night while trying to eat the domestic cats' food but has been terrifyingly discovered by the humans and is in the process of losing its mind and is scrambling and shitting all over the place trying desperately to figure out why the fucking cat door doesn't work anymore.

Carcharoth · Unread post by **Carcharoth** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:44 pm

There has been a lot to read to keep up with what is going on. Bit ironic that I am posting here, rather than there, as it is, um, quieter here.

The thought did cross my mind that this would be a really good point for a mostly inactive admin, who doesn't use their tools much, to 'enact' the emerging consensus at the discussions to carry out the unblock. Or even simpler, to unblock with the rationale "to save Floquenbeam" (or "to save Bishonen"). Maybe someone still will (the perils of stating in advance that you intend to unblock at a certain time).

That attempted RFA is a classic (four people voted on it before Bbb23 deleted it claiming it was a joke - I actually think it was serious):

Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs) – User:Floquenbeam has stated that he intends to "unblock Fram as soon as I get to a regular computer", which, of course, will probably "result...in Fram’s reblock by WMF and my desysop". This is a terrible vista, and cannot be allowed to happen.

I am therefore requesting sysop rights for the purpose of making a single admin action—unblocking User:Fram. This will probably result in my desysop and block: but better me than Floquenbeam.

If, by some miracle, neither of the latter occurs, I will—within the week—post at WP:BN requesting my de-adminship.

There may be plenty of editors who rate me as likely to supplant the pope as become admin: hopefully my promise to limit myself to a single action will allay any fears.

The motto of this RfA is DON'T DO IT FLOQ. ——SerialNumber54129 13:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, if this passes, I have never edited for remuneration, and will not for the 168 hours following. ——SerialNumber54129 13:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:47 pm

23 people, including 19 guests reading this thread as I post.

Hi everyone.

Carcharoth · Unread post by **Carcharoth** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:49 pm

Do a blog post on this before they all go away!

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:58 pm

It has not occurred to any of them that restoring talk page access to Fram would be a reasonable first step. After all, he has not been globally locked - he is free to edit every single Wikimedia site but one. The usual arguments around locking talk page access - that someone is so dangerous and abusive that they must be gagged - clearly do not apply.

Auggie · Unread post by **Auggie** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:06 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Capeo wrote:If Floq and Bish actually go through with unblocking Fram shit could get really interesting. Will Arbcom step in desysop them? Most of them are inactive or don’t seem to agree with the ban to begin with. Or will the office step in and desysop them?
The WMF office, "Trust and Safety" group in particular, can be unfavorably compared a semi-feral cat that's made its way in the bathroom late at night while trying to eat the domestic cats' food but has been terrifyingly discovered by the humans and is in the process of losing its mind and is scrambling and shitting all over the place trying desperately to figure out why the fucking cat door doesn't work anymore.

ok Vig this is a good post.

Carcharoth · Unread post by **Carcharoth** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:14 pm

Does anyone following this have any idea who might have complained to T&S about the 'Fuck ArbCom' edit? We will likely never find out, but I don't know what is more disturbing, that someone complained to T&S about that or that the WMF were monitoring Fram for potential violations following the 'warnings' they issued to him earlier (April 2018 and March 2019). Or maybe those who complained earlier were following his edits and waiting for something to complain about.

Capeo · Unread post by **Capeo** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:44 pm

Carcharoth wrote:Does anyone following this have any idea who might have complained to T&S about the 'Fuck ArbCom' edit? We will likely never find out, but I don't know what is more disturbing, that someone complained to T&S about that or that the WMF were monitoring Fram for potential violations following the 'warnings' they issued to him earlier (April 2018 and March 2019). Or maybe those who complained earlier were following his edits and waiting for something to complain about.

It seems plausible that at least a few people with WMF ties could’ve been watching Fram and waiting for an excuse to drop the hammer. It looks like the impetus of this was his tangling with Hale and her WMF friends.

Guido den Broeder · Unread post by **Guido den Broeder** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:59 pm

Kumioko wrote:Ironically, Fram now makes #5 of the people who supported my ban to now also be banned and he is one of several I have been saying for a long time is problematic and needs to be dealt with. I do not have any sympathy at all for either Fram or the WMF for the backlash they are receiving. If Fram wasn't suck a prick to everyone, he might not be banned now and if the Trust and Safety section and the WMF were competent in the least, then they would have explained this decision better and made it clear to the community it was their call, THE END!.

Fram makes #13 for me, if I've counted correctly. Usually they appear to have been doing what they falsely accused me of doing, so we'll see what will surface. Or maybe I should count him multiple times, as he was the force behind every one of my bans.

I'm dancing now

Not that the WMF is inclined to right any wrongs that someone did who fell out of grace.

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:01 pm

Capeo wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:Does anyone following this have any idea who might have complained to T&S about the 'Fuck ArbCom' edit? We will likely never find out, but I don't know what is more disturbing, that someone complained to T&S about that or that the WMF were monitoring Fram for potential violations following the 'warnings' they issued to him earlier (April 2018 and March 2019). Or maybe those who complained earlier were following his edits and waiting for something to complain about.
It seems plausible that at least a few people with WMF ties could’ve been watching Fram and waiting for an excuse to drop the hammer. It looks like the impetus of this was his tangling with Hale and her WMF friends.

What you might find interesting is the intersection of Hales friends and editors fram has successfully laid the smack down over various issues in the past. Wikidata and Gibraltarpedia being the two most relevant. See Pigs and Victuallers. Oh and who does Hale want to forward Fram to on her talk page?

No Ledge · Unread post by **No Ledge** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:02 pm

Carcharoth wrote:Does anyone following this have any idea who might have complained to T&S about the 'Fuck ArbCom' edit? We will likely never find out, but I don't know what is more disturbing, that someone complained to T&S about that or that the WMF were monitoring Fram for potential violations following the 'warnings' they issued to him earlier (April 2018 and March 2019). Or maybe those who complained earlier were following his edits and waiting for something to complain about.

Eh, you think that maybe, just maybe, at least one Arbitration Committee member might have been sufficiently disturbed by this edit to believe that it merited a sanction for contempt of court (T-H-L)? It's not hard to guess what they might have done after finding that, to their dismay, few or no other Committee members agreed with them (resign?)(complain to WMF?)

The Garbage Scow · Unread post by **The Garbage Scow** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:03 pm

Oh please, oh please, oh please let them all start doing exactly what Floq suggested.

This manure truck explosion really needs to be a blog post.

Katie · Unread post by **Katie** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:08 pm

Agreed, I can't say I've came across a situation like this before and a blogpost may help summarise what's going on.

No Ledge · Unread post by **No Ledge** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:28 pm

Don't let The Wikipedian beat you to it. Odds are this will become one of his Top Ten Wikipedia Stories of 2019.

I can't wait to read GenderDesk's take on it, when she returns from her week off.

Jans Hammer · Unread post by **Jans Hammer** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:30 pm

Didn't he have a massive bust up with AGK during the Giant Snowman case a few months ago. Became quite personal, IIRC. Timing would fit.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:46 pm

The polecats at r/wikiinaction have latched their teeth into this topic.

https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/c ... l_banning/

Another Boring Diatribe pontificates with all of the gravitas of a toddler with a soiled diaper.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:47 pm

Catnip the Dwarf wrote:
Katie wrote:If the community did ban accounts ending with (WMF), that would be very interesting, however I doubt even that would get the WMF to change, they would just overturn that and ban the people who banned the WMF accounts.
Yes. Probably what would need to happen is bad publicity or a drop in donations. I don't know how either of those would be accomplished.

I think our friend Crow has the solution: John Oliver. The WP annual fund raising scare and their wasteful spending has his name written all over it...

RfB