Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:30, 13 June 2019

Please feel free to leave a message for me here. You can click the link in the box below to do so. Please be sure to link to relevant articles/diffs and sign your name by typing ~~~~ at the end of your message. Adding content within an irrelevant subsection on my page will likely result in no response.

If you sent me an email, there's no need to notify me here. I check my email regularly and will respond as time permits.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Fram

Were you the one who complained to the foundation about Fram’s harassment of arbitrators? It is understandable if you do not wish to confirm or deny — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.59.221.76 (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Structured Data - testing qualifiers for depicts

As you might have seen, testing is underway for adding qualifiers to depicts statements. If you have not left feedback already, the Structured Data on Commons development team is very interested in hearing about your experience using qualifiers on the file page and in the UploadWizard. To get started you can visit Test-Commons and chose a random file to test out, or upload your own file to try out the UploadWizard. Questions, comments, and concerns can be left on the Structured data talk page and the team will address them as best as they can. Thank you for your time. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go.

I know we haven't always agreed on everything, BU Rob13, but it always saddens me to lose an active and engaged user (and, as of earlier, former administrator). Best wishes on in your endeavors. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

don't think someone who actively retains checkuser and oversight privileges is retiring somehow. Save the tears. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, that's quite unkind, not to mention inaccurate. – bradv🍁 21:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

please try harder. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I hadn't seen that request. So I'll strike the comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Rob, really sorry to see you go, and (while I firmly believe I did the right thing) I'm sorry the whole thing distressed you so much. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Floq, I hope you think on the fact that the WMF has stated that Fram was harassing or abusing another Wikipedian, and that they likely cannot release additional evidence for fear of that Wikipedian facing further harassment or abuse. You have made a powerful statement that, if you wish to have any protections whatsoever on enwiki, you must throw yourself into the lion's den to be further victimized. Think carefully on what that does to editor retention. Until then, I will recall you as someone who was willing to martyr yourself to protect an abuser. ~ Rob₁₃ 21:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    • "protect an abuser"? Getting beyond the pale now. Time to pack it in Rob. This is becoming disgusting. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

      The Rambling Man, this is even worse than the comment you struck. – bradv🍁 21:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

      • Bradv What? "protect an abuser" needs full evidence and diffs. I think such a claim is far worse than the comment I struck. This kind of claim is really disgusting without evidence. Seriously now, Bradv, if you want to continue to defend someone who makes unverifiable claims of "protecting an abuser" then that's fine, but we need to talk about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

        The Rambling Man, I was referring to the "pack it in" part. – bradv🍁 21:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

        Okay, ENGVAR, pack it in for me means "shut up" or "stop going on about it". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

        Just gonna point out that "abuser" in this context clearly meant someone who was "harassing or abusing another Wikipedian", but the quote TRM calls "beyond the pale", taken out of context like it is, makes it look like Rob was accusing someone of being a child molester. That's ... pretty sick. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

This is the second thought that would perhaps have been better expressed elsewhere - hopefully off wiki - rather than this user talk page. I think there's a lot that happened here, and I don't know how I feel about all of it but Rob, like everyone on wiki, is deserving of respect and the trust the community displayed for him is worthy of respect too. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) That's probably enough gravedancing now, TRM. We get it, you're angry and outspoken. Please go do something else. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 21:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

There's a significant difference between grave-dancing and responding to completely unverifiable accusations. I'm not angry, nor am I outspoken Ivan, but thanks for trying to claim otherwise. I'm going to leave it now, but there are serious issues here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• • • Or instead of the lion's den, they could email ArbCom privately, and it could be taken care of locally. If Fram were banned by the community or ArbCom, with the right to appeal, I would likely have not batted an eye. Anyway, I will assume my presence is no longer welcome on this page. Vaya con Dios anyway. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
      • @Floquenbeam: They could not do that, actually. ArbCom's long-standing stance has been that anything related to on-wiki evidence only must be handled on-wiki. It would be redirected on-wiki, at which point the victim of harassment can endure a month-long public case where they are likely further attacked for daring to speak out against a long-term editor, or they can go gently into that good night. I do not believe many would choose the former. ~ Rob₁₃ 21:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
        • Rob, I do not believe ArbCom was in the habit of evidence in cases of harassment. Whether that concerns on-wiki or off-wiki remarks makes no difference; it is entirely possible, for instance that on-wiki evidence, while out in the open, has a double layer whose harassing function is visible only to the victim and the harasser. Any ArbCom that I'll ever be on would not disclose the ins and outs of such harassment. We banned an editor for harassment based on off-wiki evidence, and never explained why to the community, or indeed to the person who was banned. The community doesn't like that, of course, but I am pretty sure that Floquenbeam didn't bat an eye lid in that case, and he was right to do so: that's ArbCom's function. In this case, I am still a bit puzzled over what all happened, and while I want to believe that the WMF did the right thing, that's all AGF on my part. I wish ArbCom had been on this; on occasion one sees ArbCom "take over" a block from a regular admin or the community, and that kind of "taking over" should have been done here, IMO. I am curious about what happened--what ArbCom knew and when, to which extent the WMF cared about local governance. I have no idea. And none of that is a good thing, as we've seen. Anyway, I also am sad to see you go, and I thank you for your contributions. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• If it is indeed the Committee's position to redirect private complaints of harassment to the public forum to be handled by the Committee, then the Committee is incompetent to handle cases of harassment, and thus a) it's no surprise the WMF acted as they did in this case, and b) it reinforces my position that the Committee should resign. But setting aside those differences, how might we as a community improve the situation so that the people we elect to hear private evidence (in part) actually hear that evidence privately? Ivanvector (/_Edits) 13:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Ivanvector: I mean, they could start by not skewering the Committee every time they do otherwise. The procedure is what it is largely because the community would mutiny if ArbCom heard public evidence privately. They've done it repeatedly in the past. They've lampooned the Committee even when private evidence had to be heard privately, with no understanding of the situation. People who are claiming they would be 100% okay with this ban coming from ArbCom and just don't trust the WMF are kidding themselves. The community response would be just as negative if ArbCom had heard this case privately. Wikipedians can't stand the thought they do not know something. ~ Rob₁₃ 14:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Well yes, I suppose there are always going to be some trolls out to punch holes in harassment policies, or just to take potshots at power structures in general. It's unfortunate that(/if) the Committee's response to that is to remove the only facility we have as a community for victims of harassment to report. It's an odd thing, now that you've kind of led me to think of it, that nobody ever really bats an eye at checkuser and oversight blocks, although those are basically the same thing: functionaries reviewed private evidence and issued a private-evidence block. I don't recall having ever explained to a user why I checkuser-blocked them, and I don't know what oversight does in those cases really. It occurs to me that if Arbcom is going to act on private evidence then they should do it quietly, using {{arbcomblock}}, and not doing as it often does with issuing formal statements like "we received a complaint of harassment and User:SoAndSo is now blocked" or some such. I'd think that would reduce some of the drama (from people trying to dig in blocked editors' histories and "connect the dots" in inappropriate ways), but then again that didn't work so well for the WMF banning Fram. I don't know, it's a tough spot I'm sure, but not having a good process locally forces victims to go directly to the Foundation, and, well, you see how that works out. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 14:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with you on the lack of local process. Unfortunately, the community is currently blaming the Foundation for their own mess, in my opinion, which was caused by our abject failure to develop procedures to enforce civility without Foundation intervention. Here's a start for how to fix this. At the earliest opportunity, vote out arbitrators who do not think tackling civility issues is a productive use of their time, and replace them with arbitrators willing to handle such issues. Vote in arbitrators who have a deep respect for protecting accusers from abuse, for handling harassment cases privately (with gag orders on the participants, even) so that the victims have an opportunity to speak out and the accused may hear the evidence without the victim having to be afraid of facing a mob. When the community objects, loudly, acknowledge it for what it is - a particularly rude subset who is very loud, screaming because they know that if any one rude editor is dealt with, then they all will be. Once all that's happened, I don't think the community will have to worry about an alternative DR process that goes through the WMF. Until then, the WMF has a moral and, in some cases, legal obligation to ensure their platform is not used for harassment or abusive conduct. ~ Rob₁₃ 14:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• *applause* Ivanvector (/_Edits) 14:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• BU Rob13, there is no evidence to call Fram "an ubuser", other than someone's say-so. I would request you strike that comment and apologise. Cassianto 21:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Excellent admin and ArbCom member, who I found very helpful in explaining decisions and situations; because they had a strong analytical and decision making capability (and once, a passion for WP). Sad to see this. Britishfinance (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• This is a crying shame, Rob. You were one of the better ones. I hope you'll come back some day. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• And now you admit there is no evidence, so again, would you like to retract your PA against Fram by calling them "an abuser", without a shred of evidence? If this were anyone else, they'd have been blocked. Cassianto 14:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Mail call

Bishonen | talk 21:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC).

Please don't go

Misplaced Pages hasn't been a very good place for a while, but it'll only get worse without you. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 21:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I second this. As you may possibly know, I have come to have almost no respect for Arbcom. And we undoubtedly disagree on other things, too. But you have been brave, principled, and straightforward in arguing for what you believe to be right, and I respect that and am grateful for it, and the project needs it. I hope you will think again. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Three kittens for you.

I have no idea what to say. I can't ask you to stay in a community that has disappointed you in this way. I can't react with any endorsement or happiness either, because Misplaced Pages loses a valuable contributor. I can't react with a barnstar for the same reason. I can't react with food, because food is too ephemeral. I can't react with one kitten because one kitten isn't enough. As you can see, I have no idea what to say.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I know what it feels like. Go enjoy life outside the wiki. (And if you decide to return, I've been told Wikidata has a very pleasant community.) Ed  01:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

StudiesWorld (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Rob

I understand you are retiring or taking a break from Misplaced Pages. I just wanted to say thanks for communicating on Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard about the Fram incident. I'm late to the discussion, just learning about it several hours ago so I might not be up on the current state of the situation. But your willingness to respond to editors upset by the situation is commendable and goes to the heart of what being an arbitrator should mean. I know other arbitrators have participated, too, and I'm grateful for that but I just wanted to be sure your willingness to enter into hard conversations is acknowledged and you are thanked.

I hope your break will be brief and you'll find yourself wanting to return to this crazy place at some point in time. I, myself, have taken extended breaks and found they were essential for my returning to edit here. It was great to leave for a while and I found myself missing the place and returning with renewed energy. But even if you move on to other work, your effort here is appreciated. Thank you. Liz 01:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I would just like to second Liz's sentiments. This can be a thankless place at times. The work you have done has been truly appreciated. Best wishes in your future endeavours. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, do take a break. Misplaced Pages gets frustrating for everyone after a while. I've been around on and off forever, including some quite long breaks. Eventually the tension fades, you find yourself fixing a typo in an article, and not long after that you're editing in full swing again. Thanks for all the good stuff you've done. We've all also done some bad stuff without intending to, and I can't thank anyone for that, but it's expected and it's ok. Enjoy the relaxation. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 03:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't blame you for taking a break, but hope that you come back soon. Doug Weller talk 10:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Extremely sad to see you go. I can certainly see why you would leave the community here, but if all the good people go.. :/ Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't put words to how much I appreciated your work. You volunteered for the most thankless tasks and were a model on how to do them with care. I looked through your early contributions to try and find our first interaction, and it reminded me of the amazing editor I saw four years ago. Whose efforts I was excited to see recognized with positions of great trust. I don't blame you for leaving, you've been treated badly for dealing with impossible situations. I hope you remember the editor who brought over 60 articles to DYK and who tirelessly shared knowledge at the Resource Exchange. All your contributions will be missed, but those I will miss most of all. I understand if you never take up a mop again, but I hope we don't lose an editor who has provided content of such high quality. If you don't return, thanks for what you've done in your time. Wugapodes 19:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Uour userpage

There is a clearly false claim on your userpage. DuncanHill (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Funny, I would say the same about yours. ~ Rob₁₃ 13:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not pretending to be something which I am not. DuncanHill (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

In addition, the latest statement by Fram on Commons contains some direct contradictions to several posts you've made now at WP:FRAM. I hope you'll take the time to look at them in case something should be updated. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not see contradictions. Fram continues to emphasize the information he's been given by the WMF, which probably makes sense, but continues to neglect to consider the fact that he has been a jerk to a great many people for a very long time, and any one of them could have reported his behavior to the WMF. "Including" does not mean "This is a total list of issues". The WMF mail explicitly states he was banned for continuing a pattern that first appeared in those warnings, not just for the conduct that already led to the warnings themselves. To be clear, I don't think Fram is being intentionally misleading. I think he's being unintentionally misleading, because he's trying to speculate on the rationale for his ban without knowing the full rationale himself. ~ Rob₁₃ 14:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You're a champ!

Pony Champion!
Congratulations! For calling it as you see it, you are declared a pony champion! A pony champion faces tough odds and comes out ahead. Hold your head up and select your prize! Montanabw 17:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

To send a pony or a treat to other wonderful and responsible editors, click here.

Thank you for "...the community is currently blaming the Foundation for their own mess...caused by our abject failure to develop procedures to enforce civility..." And, "Vote in arbitrators who have a deep respect for protecting accusers from abuse... without the victim having to be afraid of facing a mob. When the community objects, loudly, acknowledge it for what it is - a particularly rude subset who is very loud, screaming because they know that if any one rude editor is dealt with, then they all will be. " You've nailed the real issues on en.wiki and I hope you return. The rest of us benefit from this level of clear-eyed analysis. Montanabw 17:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Your retirement

It is a great pity that having found the only arbitrator that is talking sense, I find you are retiring. The Wikimedia Office did not ban Fram on a whim, but after a careful investigation. They know the facts and thought the behaviour worthy of a block. Floquenbeam, Bishonen and the rest of the community do not know the circumstances but still think they know better than the WMF what should or should not be done. It's very childish. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

AGF applies to everyone

• User:BU Rob13/AGF applies to everyone

Would you be okay with another admin restoring this and placing it in my userspace? It was a good essay on its own if you don't mind. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 17:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I was going to ask as well, or else propose making it a project-space essay. Fine by me if you prefer MJL taking it over, though. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 19:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd prefer it not being available in its present form anywhere, personally, but ultimately it is under a free license. If it is restored, I'd prefer it be re-worked to be a genuine essay rather than heavily personal. ~ Rob₁₃ 19:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I was asked if I would restore this and move it to another user's subpage, but declined unless you were ok with it. I personally won't proceed based on your statement above. -- ferret (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thank you for your service and your commitment to the fourth pillar. — Newslinger talk 02:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)