Fram banned by WMF

General discussion about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects
Post Reply
Proabivouac
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Fram banned by WMF

Post by Proabivouac » Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:20 am

As readers of that other site know by now, the longtime (since 2005) Wikipedia contributor and administrator Fram has been banned from the English Wikipedia by the Wikimedia Foundation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... WMF_office

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 14&t=10443

Given the timing ("about four weeks",) the known propensity of transgender activists to purge their opponents, the prevalance of transgender ideology in the Wikimedia movement and the fact that Fæ has longstanding contacts withing the Wikimedia Foundation, and the fact that this his been his single-minded MegaWikiBattle for months now, I'm inclined to believe the theory that Fæ was behind this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =896149685

Here's Christel Steigenberger of the "Trust and Safety" team which decided upon the ban:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/profile ... genberger/

I feel more trusting and safer already.

Fæ denies growing suspicions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =901324060
Fæ wrote: As far as I know this block has nothing to do with anything Fram wrote to me, and it would be jaw droppingly astonishing if this action had anything to do with the campaign of transphobic abuse and death threats I have been targeted with recently.
Yet here is Fæ, exactly four weeks ago, urging people to contact WMF's "Trust and Safety" group about that very subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =896297507
Fæ wrote: If anyone that follows my talk page can think of any information that may help positively identify the puppet master for User:Oisehuck, User:Idylsara, or other accounts that have made death threats directed at me in the last couple of months and made offensive claims about non-binary gender, I would appreciate a confidential email or you can contact m:Meta:Trust and Safety without talking to me if you prefer. The WMF T&S team has some evidence of previous cases as unfortunately this is not the first time.
Thanks in advance for any help or evidence you can provide.

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 568
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Fram banned by WMF

Post by Auggie » Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:46 am

Good find. This is a very big deal. I haven't been this interested in random enwiki drama in years.

Fram seems to think it is because of his "f arbcom" message.

Also there is that editor who told him to stay off her talk page and then listed four powerful admin friends as well as four trust and safety contacts.

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 568
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Fram banned by WMF

Post by Auggie » Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:55 pm

From LauraHale's talk page
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =901356711
LauraHale wrote: 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

Proabivouac
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Fram banned by WMF

Post by Proabivouac » Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:58 pm

Auggie wrote:
Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:55 pm
From LauraHale's talk page
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =901356711
Hale created that section 9 Feburary, not four weeks ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =824628957

No doubt it was in the background, but could not have been the precipitating factor. If "Trust and Safety" is committed to preserving the anonymity of complainants, that would seem to oblige them to engage in misdirection about their reasoning. Or just give no reason, as in ArbCom's ban of Devil's Advocate which similarly was justified by the need to protect people from harassment. I suspect that "four weeks" was a tell they didn't fully consider, and once they realized that it implicated Fæ they had to come up with something else to match their timeframe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ode=source

But that edit has nothing to do with "Trust and Safety's" purported mission. It seems unlikely that their claim to Fram that it was the last straw was sincer, and there is as of yet no evidence that there was any complaint to T&S, as opposed to Hale and Fæ who both stated onwiki that they had complained to T&S.

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 568
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Fram banned by WMF

Post by Auggie » Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:37 pm

Maybe. Fae is a heavy hitter. But Hale is tight with one of the board members.

I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about this one. Abusive admins need to be held accountable, but this process doesn't seem like it was very fair or transparent.

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 568
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Fram banned by WMF

Post by Auggie » Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:08 pm

Floquenbeam unblocked Fram.
19:57, 11 June 2019 Floquenbeam talk contribs unblocked EngFram talk contribs (almost forgot! Remove block of alternate account now that block on main account has been undone)
19:39, 11 June 2019 Floquenbeam talk contribs unblocked Fram talk contribs (Overwhelming local consensus at Wikipedia:Community response to Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram‎ against this block, which applies only to our project and so should defer to our project's consensus. If people have a problem with Fram's behavior on this project, we have multiple local processes to address that, including ArbCom if there are privacy-related issues.)

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 568
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Fram banned by WMF

Post by Auggie » Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:15 pm

Wikimedia Foundation. June 11, 2019. wrote: Dear members of the English Wikipedia community,

Over the last few days we have received many requests to review the recent issues that have surfaced due to the office action taken against Fram. We are reviewing such feedback with care and aim to reply in helping to clarify the situation. We expect to reply at least one more time as we continue to review the feedback. We hope the following helps to address several points raised so far:

The Foundation is strongly supportive of communities making their own decisions within the framework of the Terms of Use, as outlined in section 10. There have been many questions about why the Foundation's Trust & Safety team handled this case rather than passing it to the local Arbcom to handle. This happened for two main reasons.

First, our privacy provisions do not always allow us to "pass back" personal information we receive to the community; this means there are cases where we cannot pass on to Arbcom things like the names of complaining parties or the content of private evidence that might support a concern. As a result, the best we could have given Arbcom in this case would have been a distillation of the case, severely limiting their ability to handle it.

Secondly, we believe it would have been improper to ask the Arbcom to adjudicate a case in which it was one primary target of the person in question, as this could put volunteers into a very difficult position and create the appearance of a conflict of interest regardless of the actual handling of the case.
For these two reasons this case was handled differently than Trust and Safety would usually have handled cases falling under section 4. of the Terms of Use.

In terms of us providing direct justification for this ban to the community, as both several community members and we have already mentioned, we do not release details about Trust & Safety investigations due to privacy concerns. What do we mean by that? We mean that when someone reports a situation to us, or someone is involved in a case we investigate, we are obligated to keep their identity and any personally-identifying evidence private. That includes not only literally not publishing their name, but often not sharing diffs (which might show things like "who the named party was targeting" or "what dispute this investigation arose from") or even general details (in many cases, even naming the specific infraction will allow interested sleuths to deduce who was involved). What we can say in this case is that the issues reported to us fell under section 4 of the terms of use, as noted above, specifically under the first provision entitled “harassing and abusing others.”

Many of you have asked questions about why a one-year local ban was placed in this case, as opposed to the more-common indefinite global ban. The Trust & Safety team updated the policies to allow these less-stringent sanction options for use in cases where there was reason to think time might change behavior, or where disruption is limited to a single project. The intention of these new options is to be able to act in a way that is more sensitive to an individual’s circumstances and not have to give out indefinite global bans for problems that are limited in time or project-scope. Based on the evidence we received, this is such a case and we are hopeful that if Fram wishes to resume editing in a year, they will be able to do so effectively and in line with the terms of use. Prior to this policy update, the only sanction option available in a case like this would have been an indefinite global ban.

We know this action came as a surprise to some within the community, and we understand that many of you have deep concerns about the situation. We can only assure you that Trust & Safety Office Actions are not taken lightly, nor are they taken without sign-off by multiple levels of staff who read the case’s documentation and evidence from different angles. We take these actions only in situations where we believe no other option is available that will preserve the health and/or safety of the community. We will continue to monitor your feedback and provide at least one more reply regarding this matter. Best regards, WMFOffice (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 568
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Fram banned by WMF

Post by Auggie » Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:17 pm

This is amazing! They've gone completely pre-Hammurabi. No right to confront your accuser or even know exactly what you did to break the rules. The Star Chamber decides and that's it. :lol:

Proabivouac
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Fram banned by WMF

Post by Proabivouac » Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:23 pm

Like I said, it's Fæ:
Trust and Safety wrote: We mean that when someone reports a situation to us, or someone is involved in a case we investigate, we are obligated to keep their identity and any personally-identifying evidence private. That includes not only literally not publishing their name, but often not sharing diffs (which might show things like "who the named party was targeting" or "what dispute this investigation arose from") or even general details (in many cases, even naming the specific infraction will allow interested sleuths to deduce who was involved). What we can say in this case is that the issues reported to us fell under section 4 of the terms of use, as noted above, specifically under the first provision entitled “harassing and abusing others.”
There would be no need for any of this language if Laura Hale dispute or the ArbCom diff were the cause of the ban. By their own policy as stated, they can mention only things that were NOT the reasons. Now that this has blown up so terribly in their faces, now that it's clear that Fæ will not be treated as some kind of courageous trailblazing hero, it is more incumbent upon them then ever to protect him. This means allowing him to run around and claim to be shocked and appalled by the action that they took on his behalf.
Last edited by Proabivouac on Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Auggie
Posts: 568
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:00 pm

Re: Fram banned by WMF

Post by Auggie » Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:33 pm

So your money's still on Fae?

I wouldn't worry. Someone at the WMF is bound to leak pretty soon. I can't imagine these jokers being able to keep a secret for very long.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests