Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Fram 2

Watchlists?

 * The general comments about watch lists also include other questions - so moved back to general. — xaosflux  Talk 14:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Should functionaries be allowed to vote on this?
Given that the WMF placed a wildly inappropriate ban, should functionaries (myself included) refrain from voting on this RFA? I will happily strike my vote if people think it's inappropriate of me to participate here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't follow the logic. Are you asking if you shouldn't participate in protest of the WMF's action? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think people who are paid by WMF should consider staying well clear. There was also a discussion at WP:BN about whether current Arbs should comment. But I don't think volunteer editors who happen to be functionaries could be said to have any conflict of interest etc. that means they ought not participate. Those positions are not in the gift of WMF... WJBscribe (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The idea that only the anointed members of the community should be able to participate in this is pretty fucked up. Members of the community that work(ed) for the WMF or are in roles on arbcom/functionaries team don't stop being members of the community. Disenfranchisement isn't the solution to a contentious issue. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  17:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And it also seems strange to consider all WMF staff to be "involved" with this. Do people think that all 300+ employees of the Foundation (and maybe the hundreds of chapter employees as well) signed off on the ban? Or were involved with it in any way? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah. Just the Wikimedia DC Chapter then. ——  SerialNumber  54129  17:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the WMF does not check in with local volunteer groups when they decide to issue a ban? Gamaliel  ( talk ) 11:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * following up on my note at WP:BN, I don't see reason for enforced disfranchisement of any new class of editors at this time, and I haven't seen an otherwise emerging consensus to support such restrictions. The questions of "should you be allowed to vote" and "should you vote" are very different and the later is something each participant should personally reflect upon. — xaosflux  Talk

How many questions?
If I understand the way RfAs are designed, you get one question and then either a second question on another topic or a single followup question on the same topic. You don't get to keep asking additional followup questions, Morphing the Q&A format into a threaded discussion format. Is my understanding correct?

Smallbones appears to have exceeded his two-question limit. Who do we go to to have them look into this? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If the thread goes on much longer, I think an uninvolved editor should hat it, but right now it's in a grey zone between reasonable followup and distracting personal spat. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * from the RFA header: There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. So you can have 2 distinct questions, and relevant follow-ups to those distinct questions. — xaosflux  Talk 18:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, the follow-up questions should not be used merely to primarily rebut the answer with a cursory follow-up question to satisfy the requirement. This is a misuse of the question section. Rebuttals to the answers can be placed in the discussion section. –xenotalk 19:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was only responding to the specific count, not to the content of the current instance - which can still be evaluated. — xaosflux  Talk 19:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the content should be evaluated. They aren't actual questions. They are rebuttals. Smallbones should be required to post his rebuttals in his vote if at all. If we don't stop this here we will end up with a dozen long back-and-forth-threads.
 * I am still wondering, who "clerks" an RfA to insure that the rules are followed? I would like someone uninvolved and neutral to decide whether what I am seeing in that question should be allowed. I personally think that it shouldn't, but I am neither uninvolved or neutral. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 'crats generally clerk, though neutral admins are welcome to move weighty threads in the !voting section to the talk page. I think the first follow-up question is somewhat reasonable, with follow-up 2 being a bit closer towards not acceptable. If Fram chooses not to respond I think it's sufficient to leave it there, but otherwise the back-and-forth will likely be hatted or moved elsewhere. Primefac (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Please ping me if you are discussing something that you think I've done wrong. So now I get to reply about 9 hours later. The stated rule looks simple enough "There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted." But if 'crat or uninvolved admin would like me to make my 2nd followup into a 2nd question, I can move it there (or perhaps ask a different question instead).

My first question IMVHO is the key to this whole matter. has been complaining that nobody ever tells him what he's done wrong and nobody gives him the diffs. So he get the specifics and the diffs and the question and his only responses are close to being personal attacks. I think that deserves a follow-up or 2.

But it really doesn't matter now, Fram has given up apparently on answering the "additional questions" from individual editors. 5 of the 9 additional questions remain unanswered now. And another just asks essentially "shouldn't you answer Smallbones's question", with Fram just answering essentially "No."

So we have an answer, one way or another. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand that you and Fram have some negative history with one another, but please keep in mind that people need to rest and handle their off-wiki affairs too. It’s gotta be at least 4:30am right now in Belgium. I’d suggest at least giving Fram some time to answer the questions before casting aspersions. OhKayeSierra (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No aspersions. If he answers the questions, which have been open for a dozen hours now, we'll have answers. And if he doesn't answer the questions, then we'll just have to do our best to figure out what that means. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with OhKayeSierra that this dig seems unnecessary especially given timezones etc. A 'dozen hours' doesn't seem like that long a time especially given many people sleep for 7-8 and may not want to deal with anything stressful for for a few hours before or after even accepting that when you're actively running for adminship you probably should deal with questions fast. Ultimately of course if Fram answers they answer, if they don't they don't anyone contributing should see that. While I agree the issue of 'should this be allowed to continue' is moot if Fram doesn't answer it may still be worth discussing considering the same time factor. Dealing with concerns after they happen is more likely to cause problems. In addition, as I understand it, some believe even the current unanswered followups go to far in which case it's clearly not moot. Nil Einne (talk) 05:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Fae's question
Question, isn't Fae's question a violation of their topic ban? Particularly the link to Fram's "N-word" comment which has to do with gender pronouns. Valeince (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The point being made has absolutely zero to do with sexuality. Appropriate or inappropriate use by Fram of the n-word is clearly not about sexuality. The topic Fram was writing about is irrelevant, which is the point being made, the n-word was entirely unnecessary and avoidable because it has absolutely nothing to do with sexuality and so the example I was giving, use of the n-word, is itself nothing to do with sexuality. --Fæ (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please forgive me if I'm incorrect here, but wasn't your topic ban from Sexuality and gender/transgender topics? Linking to a conversation that has to do with pronouns is linking to a topic which you are banned from. If that's not a violation then please hat this and we can move on. Valeince (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If the consensus that providing a (very) relevant link to where Fram unnecessarily used the n-word which was originally used in the FRAMBAN discussions to make the false presumption that I had complained to the WMF, while not making any point myself whatsoever about sexuality or gender should be interpreted as a tban violation, then I have made a genuine misinterpretation of how that is supposed to work. If so, then I'll happily revert my edit or just redact the part about the fact that Fram used the n-word.
 * In the meantime, I will remove the link altogether, and others can search out the usage if they want to, or add the link back as their own comment. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Support/Oppose/Neutral sections are already there.
Why are posters putting Support, Oppose or Neutral in their posts? The subsections for those positions are already in place. If you're in the proper subsection, you don't need to write support, oppose or neutral. etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC) On the actual matter at hand, the bolded votes do create a little more room to use the nuances of weak support, moral support, regretful oppose, etc. You could still do that otherwise of course, but it's a little more natural this way. MarginalCost (talk) 03:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Tradition -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  21:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Bots love it, don't they?  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 22:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As a bot should not rely on optional text, and as the mandatory ordered lists are ideal for counting, this likely isn't the reason. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * back in the olden days (2003-04) there didn't used to be separate sections, you just voiced your support or oppose. For example: Requests for adminship/Jamesday.   Separate sections came later as the number of voters grew, this made it easier to see the total I think. — Ched (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Old habits. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh man, I knew 2004 was a different time RFA-wise, but a nominator saying someone has been around for four months as an argument to vote for someone sure is something! (And about 1600 edits too)
 * What I find most annoying about "we have always done it this way" is the lack of signatures. Having your name in the heading isn't as good, because the unsigned comments have no timestamp. This makes it harder to find the comment in the history and create a diff. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

WMF DC Chapter
What is with this bashing of the Wikimedia DC chapter? What on earth does this have to do with Fram's fitness to be an admin? I think these irrelevant comments, along with attacks on chapter members, should be struck. They are petty and have nothing to do with evaluating Fram's conduct and admin record. Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. One otherwise productive editor argues that anyone those people oppose must be a very fine person. If the DC Chapter (whoever those people are) passed a resolution denouncing Hitler and Stalin, that editor will be in a very tough logical box. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 100% agreed. I have no idea what WMDC (or any other WM chapter, for that matter) has to do with this, and I would certainly love to see some evidence on how these WM chapters are “influencing” the project. This RfA is truly starting to get out of hand. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm never happy with referring to random other editors when it isn't necessary since IMO if you refer to them it's only fair they are allowed to respond and frankly this RfA is already messy enough as it is. I've seen the DC stuff before this RfA since I followed the various post WMF Fram ban issues a bit, but I never bother to work out precisely what people were referring to although can come up with educated guesses based on other stuff I know. Having looked at the evidence I plan to !vote oppose, but I've definitely never been in contact with some WMDC or WMF backchannel or any weird stuff like that. In fact, some of the comments seem to be alleging canvassing for this RfA. This is very concerning if it happened we need evidence so we can deal with it rather than something just alluded to in comments. I do agree with Cullen328 it would be funny if the WMFC denounce Hitler, Stalin or others of a similar ilk. Nil Einne (talk) 05:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Liz, as far as I am concerned, you are an honorary member of that bunch. That you do not understand why it is problematic, bearing in mind the press release, the Signpost article, the numerous past instances where WMDC have circled, the incredibly close, almost symbiotic relationship between WMDC and WMF etc, just suggests you're not fit to comment here at all because you would appear to be out of touch. - Sitush (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Speaking on behalf of The Conspiracy, we'd be glad to have Liz as a member. Dues are five dollars a year.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 11:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Gamaliel, who are you speaking on behalf of? I think I can read between the lines here, but am not sure exactly what you are saying here, so I am asking you first. Carcharoth (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Deep state in the United States, of course. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 11:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Part of the background is that the Wikimedia DC chapter issued a press release about the Fram incident, which didn't receive universal acclaim, partly because several people on WMDC have clashed with Fram before, including at least one losing an ArbCom case where Fram was on the other side. Anyway, that is something that could have been discussed at a proper Fram RFAR, but we didn't have one, so I'm not surprised these issues are brought up here. (But I think that cliques attacking other cliques who then circle the wagons is exactly the wrong way to go about anything on Wikipedia). —Kusma (t·c) 08:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Another part of this thread

 * Moved from mainpage -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 08:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the crats should consider discounting all oppose !votes from people known to be associated with the WMF or WMDC because they're tantamount to being canvassed. The WMF/WMDC bods operate as a collective (hence their press releases etc) and have a long record of using relatively obscure backchannels such as mailing lists and IRC. - Sitush (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * While you're at it, you might want to analyze how this thing magically started out 12-to-1 Support during the first twenty minutes or so. Carrite (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to admit when I first saw this it was 40-8 or so, and was surprised to check a few hours later to find it was about 50-40 and now 101-100. But I don't know if this is that surprising or unusual given the circumstances. This was a much anticipated possible RfA and I assume those following the editor's talk page etc became aware of it quickly. This is most likely to be those who've interacted favourably with the editor as most of the time someone who has a very negative opinion of the editor shouldn't be following their talk page etc. As it spread more generally differing people became aware of it. Nil Einne (talk) 05:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I deliberately didn't leave the word canvassed unqualified. They agree a strategy behind the scenes and then come out in force as a sort of block !vote. In the case of WMDC, I've always been astonished regarding how few of its most well-known members actually seem to come from/be based in the area, how many of them have had roles with the WMF etc. - Sitush (talk) 06:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Why move this to talk? I am getting v fed up of you, DeltaQuad. You've threatened me without justification in the past and now do this without explanation. As previously, you are effectively protecting serial abusers of the system. Please in future keep well away from me. - Sitush (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Canvassed? You give us way too much organizational credit.  We had to have a poll to decide what kind of cake to have at a meeting.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 11:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Let's be frank. Adminship elections are a political process, and turning out one's supporters during a campaign is a natural part of the order of things. There are probably some WMF-loving cliques that talked amongst themselves and turned out. And there are probably some supporters of the candidate who talked among themselves and turned out. It's normal. Sockpuppets voting though, that's not normal. That would be election fraud. That's what needs to be stomped out and burned with fire. A little canvassing among friends is gonna happen..... always. Carrite (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think there was anything canvassy going on. The prospective RfA was discussed at length both at its draft and on Fram's talk, with many editors chiming in with critiques and advice, and a couple of comments referred to when Fram planned to start it. There were even people attempting to vote before it opened. It's a simple thing to watchlist the not-yet-existing RfA page, that's how I knew it had gone live before the watchlist banner appeared. I saw no evidence that anyone was collaborating behind the scenes to try to start a snowball support effect. --valereee (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Disclosure relating to Wikimedia DC press release
I am posting here to request that those who issued the following press release from Wikimedia DC and who have participated in this RfA should disclose this as part of their !votes (for the benefit of the bureaucrats). i.e. Say the following: (i) That they are on the Board of Directors of Wikimedia District of Columbia; and (ii) that they issued that press release. I can see why some people might not want to do that (because they don't want to mix their Wikimedia chapter roles with their personal editing), but when people take on positions of responsibility and leadership within the Wikimedia movement, they have an ethical duty to make disclosures like this. Pinging Kirill Lokshin (President of Wikimedia DC), Rosiestep (Vice President of Wikimedia DC). Are there any other members of the Board of Wikimedia DC who have participated in this RfA? Carcharoth (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This request has no merit. There is zero obligation for those active in WMDC to respond to this. I strongly recommend that those pinged here find other things to get on with.
 * There are no governance issues for WMDC to be concerned about, the statement was a very basic affirmation by the Chapter of accessibility and non-discrimination policies. The statement makes no recommendation about this RfA, nor has it been used to bias this RfA in any way, apart from Carcharoth trying to make it an issue.
 * If anyone wants to see my involvement in WMF Affiliates they can read my Wikimedia Commons user page, I have no relationship with WMDC. --Fæ (talk) 10:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Wikimedia District of Columbia is deeply concerned by recent events that have occurred on the English Wikipedia, including community controversy regarding a ban imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation". That ban and the actions of the WMF feature heavily in this RfA. It is a legitimate question. Please let Kirill and Rosie answer for themselves, Fæ. Carcharoth (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Pointing out the fact that there is no obligation for WMDC board members to respond to you here, is simply pointing out a fact. If you want to raise a complaint about good governance with WMDC, then write to WMDC, or make a complaint to the WMF. This RFA talk page is not the right place to discuss WMDC healthy statements about access and non-discrimination and if board members start debating WMDC actions here, that would be a mistake and potentially introduce governance issues. --Fæ (talk) 10:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not asking them to debate it. I am asking them to make an ethical disclosure. If they don't, then I may consider the steps you describe, but I am hopeful they will see it as a reasonable request. Could you please wait and see what they say. Carcharoth (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As the people you have pinged here have "declarations" on their English Wikipedia user talk pages, you are rather pointlessly asking them to do something they have already done. We do not, and never have, required participants in any RfA to make a long list of their affiliations and associations, and the fact that WMDC board members are publicly published, and at least in these cases the users have decided to add this fact to their Wikipedia user pages which are directly linked from their signatures, makes it incredibly easy to verify these off-wiki roles. --Fæ (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Fæ. That is not, in my view, sufficient (and doesn't answer my question about other Wikimedia DC board members). I'll ask again, could you please wait and see what they say. Carcharoth (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to say that the persistent efforts to preemptively disenfranchise, muzzle, and discredit votes both on BN and here don't do the candidate any favours, and only strengthens my opposition. MLauba (Talk) 10:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , why would the activities of others influence your judgement on the candidate?  Usedtobecool  TALK ✨ 10:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I dunno; because they're easily influenced? ——  SerialNumber  54129  10:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Because it would further diminish the legitimacy of the outcome, were their efforts to be successful. And thanks for the barely disguised PA, SN54129. MLauba (Talk) 10:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Kirill. Carcharoth (talk)
 * Yes, this is all that was necessary, as nobody is seeking to disenfranchise anyone. Making potential conflict of interest clear for both voters and closing bureaucrats while voting as a member of the community is the ethical approach, even if it isn't required; one shouldn't just take a hat off and put on another. In extraordinary times dealing with extraordinary situations, extra steps should be taken as a meaningful way forward to bring one divided community together. Thank you too, Kirill. Alex Shih (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that there is no doubt whatever that this is a thinly veiled attempt to disenfranchise editors in good standing. I refuse to accept the attempts to suggest otherwise and that a proper motive exists. It is, in short, a disgrace and those behind it and supporting it need to consider their position on this. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Leaky caldron. This is not an attempt to disenfranchise editors in good standing. I have not asked for !votes to be struck. I have only asked for disclosures. Could you please retract what you have said. Carcharoth (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, Carcharoth, what Leaky says is completely correct. Your coming in here demanding that individuals who've participated in the RFA disclose a nonexistent conflict-of-interest is completely out of order. Please desist. Could a crat hat this thread please, because IMHO it is not at all helpful. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth Hi to you too. You are confusing me with someone who can be prevented from expressing my view. In hundreds of RFA over 12+ years I have never seen such a request made in any circumstances for any cause. This is clearly an attempt to create a chilling effect for those editors to whom your injunction might apply who have yet to consider their !vote. I don't like Fram, I don't like Admin's in general. You want me to declare a conflict of interest? It is you who should unequivocally shut this down. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is possible this thread will get hatted. I am trying to express my view too, and the language being used by Amakuru ("completely out of order" and "Please desist.") and you ("a disgrace" and "shut this down") is clearly you both attempting to shut down discussion that you don't approve of. Who is being silenced here? Carcharoth (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth Yes, I did / do and I'll happily explain why. Not only did you launch this in the manner of a strongly worded "request", you actually provided the pro forma wording. No discussion, no real reasoning other than a link to a near 3 months old circular. It smacks of a high handed demand rather than "is this necessary AND wise" in the middle of the second most controversial RFA of the year. I see you have been a member of AC a couple of times. All I can say is "WOW"! Total lack of judgement. Leaky caldron (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So here you are saying "WOW" (hyperbole) and below you are saying Fram is my "friend" (wrong). I've said my piece. You disagree. Shall we leave it at that? Carcharoth (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a start; now for the rest. ——  SerialNumber  54129  11:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to thank Kirill for the response to my comment (but don't want to clutter the RFA itself further). —Kusma (t·c) 11:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Personally I would prefer not to go down this path I don't really see why people who hold personal views on this issue should be required to 'declare' that they are part of an organisation that happens to have similar views. To my mind declarations are only required where someone has interests at stake, not just that they have expressed their opinions in a different way. In some cases the demand to 'declare your relationships' can be used as a tool to try to undermine someone's comments or try to bludgeon them into silence and while I am 100% sure that was not the intention here, I would be really cautious about establishing a norm or precedent about this. The Land (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Echoing the statement made by, and copying it verbatim as it expresses my sentiment as well, I'm happy to confirm, for 's benefit, that (i) I am indeed a member of the Wikimedia DC Board of Directors; (ii) that Wikimedia DC did indeed make a formal public statement supporting efforts to make Wikipedia welcoming and accessible to people of all backgrounds and gender identities and opposing the use of discriminatory, racist, and homophobic language in Wikipedia discussions; and (iii) that I, personally, continue to embrace and support the principles expressed in that statement. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Disclosures of other potential biases
How do folks feel about disclosures of other biases that the closing bureaucrat might discount? I am specifically thinking of the massive "pro-Fram" campaign off-wiki, on a certain critical website, where several of the participants in this RfA have participated and where there can be little doubt that the comments, and some deliberate hostile trolling, is very clearly canvassing in a way that WMDC's generic statement is not. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this RFA is large enough that canvassing isn't really a huge issue either way. Most of the WMDC people I have seen vote here are people that I would have expected to notice this RFA and vote no matter whether WMDC alerted them to it or not. If everybody could turn down the assumptions of bad faith a notch or two, it would be much appreciated. —Kusma (t·c) 11:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, very much so. I've requested the crats to hat the thread above this one, and would do the same here. The community is already very divided over this, and trying to trace webs-of-intrigue from the off-wiki drama boards to WMF chapters to who-knows-what-else is just fuelling the fire for no great gain. This is a larger and more complex RFA than most, but ultimately our crats are there to filter out the noise and make the call at the end of it, and they continue to have my trust in doing so. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Amakuru. Briefly, in case this thread gets hatted. Please consider that shutting down discussion on Wikipedia (or indeed within the wider Wikimedia movement) encourages groupthink. It is allowing free and open discussion that allows people to hash out their differences and work out how to work together. I have tried (civilly and calmly) to discuss this, and got pushback from you and others. It is discouraging when that happens. Carcharoth (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against discussions in general, and of course it's great when people think outside the box and break the longstanding mould by coming up with new ideas and new ways of looking at the on-wiki processes. Challenging ingrained biases is also great. What concerns me about your thread above and this one, though, is that they appear to be targeted at specific individuals in an attempt to weaken their participation in the RFA. That comes under the umbrella of Casting aspersions, and is something which I don't personally think we should allow, even in the interests of the nobler goal of increasing diversity of opinion. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * How would it weaken their participation? Requesting disclosures makes people scared to participate? It sounds like you are trying to create a safe space where people don't have to answer 'difficult' questions. When you say casting aspersions, what aspersions have I cast and what aspersions have you and Leaky caldron been casting? Carcharoth (talk) 12:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If the disclosure is not intended to cast any sort of question-mark over the editors' votes, then what is the purpose of them doing so? Either there is a conflict-of-interest, in which case we should have a full and frank discussion about it here or elsewhere, and come to a community consensus on the matter; or there is no conflict-of-interest, in which case there is no value in requiring a disclosure. And I apologise if my language above appeared discourteous - it's always difficult when we come to RFAs and are forced to discuss individuals rather than policy. I don't believe you're acting in bad faith, and I respect you a lot, just that in my opinion the request above is creating a cloud of suspicion around a handful of editors who also work for the DC chapter, for reasons that don't appear valid. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe it suggests that editors from whom you would not usually hear are so incensed by your efforts to expose certain editors to pressure? Maybe, on reflection, you have simply got this wrong and that stirring up antipathy towards editors who happen to be employed by an organisation with which you have a beef is just plain wrong. Should we do the same to other groups of editors with which we have a philosophical disagreement? Leaky caldron (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Wikimedia DC board of directors are not employed in the normal sense as far as I know. They are volunteers. It is the WMF that employs people, as far as I know. Why are you so incensed by a request for disclosure? (Note that I have not asked for any !votes to be struck). Carcharoth (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Volunteers? Even worse then. Because it is unprecedented and will make volunteers think twice before contributing - not just in this case, but anywhere. You are also motivated by the fact that your friend's RFA is failing which seems a poor reason, justification and time to bring about a disclose  requirement previously unheard of. If this is so important that it affects future cases then start an RFC. But not here, today. !Votes do not come into it - it is the disclosure demand which has the chilling affect. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Where on Earth did you get the idea that Fram is my friend? There are people on Wikipedia I call friends. Fram is not one of them. I asked you above to retract one of your statements. You refused. Could you please retract that one. That is implying a bias that you have no evidence for. Carcharoth (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

sad.
Planned to !vote over the weekend as was out all week but obviously it's been withdrawn, FWIW I would've supported.... IMHO they shouldn't of been desysopped in the first place but there we are. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The last 64 revisions of Requests for adminship/Fram 2 have been suppressed...
The last 64 revisions of Requests for adminship/Fram 2 have been suppressed. Hmmm. Can I ask why?

I looked at the "logs for the page", and didn't see anything there. Geo Swan (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That is because suppression does not show up in the logs. You know that we cannot give the reason why it was suppressed; if you have concerns please raise them with ArbCom or the Ombudsman's Commission. Primefac (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So first there was a secret evidence, now there is a secret suppression of revisions. Nice. - Darwinek (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be useful if there were a feature allowing Oversighters the ability to redact specific bits of text from prior revisions. That way only the offending edit itself would need to be removed completely, and the others could be shown and differenced to provide full attribution. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Because someone made a particular comment that met the oversight policy. I can't tell you why it met the policy without revealing the inappropriate content in the first place. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 23:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , does it really require obfuscating 64 revisions? Geo Swan (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * the problem with revisions is that if you make some "bad text" in one revision, unless someone removes the "bad text" it is also in every subsequent revision. As far as attribution goes, the editor names have not been removed, so the list of authors for this page are still available. — xaosflux  Talk 23:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * When you need a diff, claiming JoeBlow said something, is a deeply inadequate substitute for a diff. It would be highly error-prone too.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

this is a known limitation of the software. I brought this issue up before on Wikipedia talk:Oversight a while back (now archived at Wikipedia talk:Oversight/Archive 6), although I have not yet filed a ticket for it. That would probably be the better place to discuss it than here. 28bytes (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @everybody; if you think this is bad, you should see the havoc that ensues when Editor X posts "such and such is a secret serial killer" on AN/ANI, and does it so incompetently and over so many revisions that the offending text isn't spotted for some hours, and is sent to OS when everyone is on holiday, and when we get around to it eleven thousand revisions have to be suppressed. (I'm exaggerating, of course, and the incident is fictionalized: but the issue is very real). Vanamonde (Talk) 23:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

If the OVERSIGHT policy says it is okay to do this clandestinely, and not provide any explanation, may I suggest the policy should be re-thought?

When an exercise of the OVERSIGHT policy is required, can't a summary be left on the talk page, or a log, somewhere? If this suppresssion was over someone outing someone's real email, then couldn't a note, saying that, be left on the talk page? Geo Swan (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to propose a modification to our privacy policies at the Village Pump, or other appropriate venue. I would suggest, though, that such a modification is unlikely to pass. The purpose of OS is to hide information that shouldn't be public. Calling attention to it through visible logs and talk page posts would be horribly counter-productive. We do warn and/or otherwise deal with editors who post private information. Talking about this to the general public isn't helpful. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Part of why I hesitate to start any wide discussion to examine the oversight policy is that, as can be seen in this RfA, it's not entirely clear to what extent we're even able to discuss what has been oversighted or why. And whenever that grey area is entered, we risk having parts of the discussion oversighted for getting too close to what had been originally oversighted. For example, I'm not even sure if it's appropriate to link to an on-wiki, unsuppressed discussion about a particular instance of suppression because according to 's first comment, we cannot talk about "why" and that discussion is entirely about the why. It's concerning how suppression has been used to both technically prevent as well as socially chill community evaluation of evidence in this instance, but I cannot give detailed examples of what substantiates my concerns because I worry that being too specific will result in content being suppressed. It seems that the only two options are ArbCom or the Ombudsman Commission, but we've seen over the past three months the acrimony that comes with decisions from ArbCom or the WMF. Wug·a·po·des​ 00:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a fair concern, but here's the logic behind it. Editor A posts their phone number at ANI. An hour later Editor B notices it, and reports it to the OS team; an hour after that, it's been suppressed. In that span of two hours, a Wikipedia mirror has copied the content over to their servers. Editor C then demands to know why 100 revisions of ANI were suppressed. Oversighter D replies that "Editor X posted their private information". Now, busybodies on the internet, including their wiki-enemies, can go looking for that phone number, and use it to harass Editor A, who doesn't deserve it. Obviously the problem still exists to some extent if we don't talk about it; but the less attention it receives, the better, and we're certainly not going to play twenty questions with respect to the oversighted content. Even my reply to you on the RFA was something not all OSs were comfortable with, I think; I gave it because obviously the diffs were relevant to the broader issue being discussed (Fram's fitness to hold the admin toolset). You do actually have a few reasonable options short of going to the Ombudsman or ARBCOM; you can email the OS team and ask us to discuss it; or you could email an OS that you trust, and ask them to raise it with the team. If you want to have general discussions about OS policy, you're more than welcome. The issue is with using specific incident histories in a public discussion; hypotheticals and generalizations aren't a problem. If you have a problem with an OS policy that isn't comprehensible without reference to a specific incident, yes, ARBCOM and the Ombudsmen are really your only options. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I would again point you to Wikipedia talk:Oversight. This is a site-wide issue. A software change (or policy change) relating to oversight is not going to happen on an individual RfA's talk page. 28bytes (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)