User talk:Fram

--Rschen7754 08:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Your edits to VisualEditor
It's clear that your edits are trolling, as well as editing copies of official correspondence that was already posted crosswiki; please do not do this again. --Rschen7754 08:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fuck off. What about my posts was "trolling"? If it is "official correspondence" that shouldn't be edited, they shouldn't make it editable and clearly indicate that it is for reading purposes only. This is still a wiki, no? Then correcting things is allowed, no, encouraged. Hiding your heads into the sand and acting as if all is well in VE land is not going to help anything or anyone. Fram (talk) 09:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, next time, you should preview your edits before saving them. At the top posting "Dear Fram, Welcome to MediaWiki.org! [...] Thanks, and regards, --Rschen7754", and then continuing with a second section "you are trolling", only makes you look like a fool. Fram (talk) 09:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see that you are an admin here, that may explain the entrenchedness of your action. Please, instead of using the cop-out of "trolling", next time try to articulate an intelligent reason for your reverts. If I had wanted to troll, I would have simply replaced the release notes with "Another week, another buggy Visual Editor release". That is trolling; what I did was correcting an incorrect text on a wiki with more correct (but less pleasant) information. I had provided most of these corrections on en-wiki first, but instead of retracting or correcting the text, the best one can expect of the WMF is creating bugzilla bugs (which one helpful developer did) or simpy total silence, despite explicit requests to post feedback there. So if you (WMF, Mediawiki admins, whoever thinks they are in charge here) can't correct things, and you pretend that this is a wiki and that I am an editor here as well if I want to, then you should be happy with my efforts in reporting my findings and correcting the incorrect information the WMF is spreading, instead of calling it "trolling" and bl;indly reverting it. Fram (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked
I'm not the same admin as the one who posted the warning above. At least on this wiki, especially given that you are an administrator on the English Wikipedia, you should know that better civility is expected. There were better ways to convey your concerns; this page is mainly for use by the maintainers of the project. Your edits to it have been disruptive and POINTy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Have you blocked Rschen as well? He accused me of trolling for making actual observations about the errors in your "official" statements. I only replied in kind... Or are admins not allowed to follow policies here, only regular editors? You blocked me for "Intimidating behaviour/harassment", which is strange, since I was not the one that reverted "trolling", and have not posted on his talk page, while he posted on mine. How have I harassed Rschen or anyone here? This block is ridiculous on all accounts. Have you found anything actually wrong with my edit, or simply unpleasant? Fram (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, my opinion is that the block is needed to prevent you from causing further disruption to that page. "Trolling" is indeed too far, in my opinion, but you seriously need to calm down and find less disruptive ways to convey your concerns. The block rationale more refers to "Intimidating behavior" - your edits to the page were not blockable alone, but your above comments and combativeness do warrant a block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, they don't warrant a block at all. I make one edit to that page, and an admin here decides that it is enough to call it "trolling" and to reverse it without any discussion of the merits (or lack thereof) of my edit. What reaction did he (or you) expect? I didn't go this talk page or some general page (this site's equivalent of WP:AN) to complain, I kept it here. You felt I overreacted or was too aggressive, fine, you could easily have come here and politely asked me to calm down and to discuss my edits on that page. Instead, I get a block, and the one calling my edit "trolling" without any justification doesn't even get a talk page message indicating that he was out of line here. Please unblock me and start discussing things in an adult way instead of using muscle to avoid problems. If polite discussion didn't help, then blocking might perhaps have been necessary. But not here and now. Fram (talk) 09:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would've been more lenient if I didn't also know you are an English Wikipedia administrator. Therefore I expected that you would not approach this in such a combative way. It was pretty clear - you made an edit you were not supposed to make, you were asked to not do it, and you were blocked as a result of disregarding that. You may be unblocked as soon as you promise to be more collegial and to refrain from making edits of that kind to that page. I personally also think VisualEditor was poorly executed. But this does not mean you get to take out your anger here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "you made an edit you were not supposed to make" Why? It is a wiki, I corrected errors. My version is more correct than what is there now. Why am I not allowed to make that edit? Is this an open wiki?
 * "you were asked to not do it," No, I was told that I was trolling. "Asking" is done in a different way.
 * "You may be unblocked as soon as you promise to be more collegial" If someone (who is an admin here) immediately attacks me, then I respond in kind. If you or anyone else is not willing to enforce civility against your own admins, then don't expect me to behave differently. You get the culture you deserve.
 * "refrain from making edits of that kind to that page." As soon as anyone explains what is wrong with them, or makes better edits to that page.
 * "But this does not mean you get to take out your anger here." I wasn't angry, I was serious. The way Rschen and you have handled this and treated me are working on getting me angry though. You at least are discussing things, not ordering trolls away; but you started with a block, instead of starting with discussion, and you have simply reverted my edits, instead of looking at their correctness, because they are negative. Well, sometimes reality isn't all rosy and shiny. Fram (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

As a person who hopefully can be considered uninvolved: I think Jasper is right here. The first VisualEditor/status edit of yours was kinda funny, but the situation, with the reverts and the "trolling" and the "fuck off", quickly stopped being funny and started being nasty instead (on both sides, yours and Rschen's).

By the way, comments about VE are better addressed to somewhere where they are more likely to be read, such as James' email. Matma Rex (talk) 10:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Then why am I blocked and Rschen hasn't received even a talk page message? According to you, I posted a "kinda funny" edit (hopefully in the "it's funny 'cuz it's true" sense), then Rschen reverted me and immediately accused me of trolling, and I end up getting blocked (for harassment, no less) while he doesn't even get a warning? The block isn't simply over the top and hasty (AGF, first try to discuss things and only block when that doesn't help), but it is severely unbalanced as well, giving completely different treatment to admins and non-admins here.


 * As for your final remark: James (you mean Jdforrester?) posted the release note at enwiki, with the request to post comments there or at the VE feedback page on enwiki. I did post my remarks on both pages, but Jdforrester hasn't even acknowledged them. A WMF dev has checked my tests and posted a few bugzilla bugs (which was nice), but no one could be bothered to update the release notes (or status page or whatever you want to call it), even after I had indicated that they were clearly wrong. So I did it myself. Apparently this isn't allowed. Why this site then is a wiki is not clear. Why apparently all of you prefer to have incorrect information posted, instead of correcting it before the actual rollout happens, is not clear. It's not as if I was correcting status updates from months ago, I was correcting the status notes for a release that will only reach most other wikis later this week. Fram (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Square one
I would like an answer to three questions:
 * 1) What was wrong with my edit on the Status page
 * 2) Why wasn't I first approached to discuss things instead of immediately blocking me?
 * 3) Why gets Rschen a different treatment than I do? You seem both to agree that he shouldn't have called it trolling, but still I am blocked for reacting in kind, while he gets nothing. Fram (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's an official page used for development purposes. Bug reports don't belong there, certainly not in the tone you wrote them in.
 * You were. Rschen said for you to please not do it again.
 * I will speak to Rschen about this (sent him some messages on IRC), but two wrongs do not make a right.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If people are not allowed to edit it, you should semi-protect it or otherwise make it clear that that page is not to be allowed. There was not a single indication at that page that not everyone was allowed to edit it. Furthermore, I didn't post bug reports, I corrected clearly incorrect claims. It is quite telling that no one has actually told me what was wrong with my edit apart from the "you are not allowed to make it" cop-out.
 * "Please" <> "Trolling". His edit summary was "revert trolling". I don't follow insults blindly. If people want cooperation, they should try a different approach. Furthermore, you don't reply my question. You can't seriously claim that his reversion and "It's clear that your edits are trolling" are an approach to discuss things.
 * Finally, thanks for taking the right action wrt Rschen at last, but indeed, two wrongs don't make a right, that's why I don't want you to block him (which would make two wrongs), but to unblock me (which would make one right).

Next time, please do a few things differently:
 * a) Don't start claiming that things are "trolling" even if you think that the tone or place are misguided (which I suppose were Rschens problems with my edit), or even if the contents would have been wrong (which no one has said or shown so far)
 * b) Don't treat people wildly different, this doesn't improve the chance of them accepting your "ruling". Blcoking the user who is unfairly accused of trolling for lashing back on his own talk page, while not bothering to even contact the "troll" commenter, gives no trust in the admin community here.
 * c) If you want people to stop and/or calm down, engage them in civil, calm, adult conversation first. If that doesn't work, it is still time enough to block them. It's hardly as if I was doing extensive damage to Mediawiki, with two edits to one page and edits to my own talk page apparently sufficient to need an immediate block.
 * d) Provide an unblock template or other means to ask for independent review here. It helps if people at least have the feeling that they are being heard.

Any reason that I am still blocked, by the way? Two wrongs may not make a right, but one wrong doesn't make a right either. Fram (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I really hoped I did not have to do this, but I feel that you are not listening to what I have been saying; as such, I have disabled your talk page access for the remainder of the block. As an English Wikipedia admin, you should know that to get unblocked, there's en:WP:NOTTHEM. You remain blocked because it is evident it is still necessary to prevent further disruption - and given your volatile replies to Rschen7754, you probably should look at yourself a bit more closely.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering that you also made edits such as, where you deliberately made test edits that damaged pages on this site, I don't think accusations of bad faith were far off. --Rschen7754 15:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Also made edits such as" => "Also made this single edit". Yes, I probably should have reverted that. But I wanted to show where the status page was wrong and what happened when you did what was claimed to be solved. That's one edit, labeled as "Testing version", where one header is removed. Big deal... Fram (talk) 10:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The day after

 * Why was I blocked? Seriously. You agree that "trolling" wasn't correct, so I have been blocked for making an edit you don't like "twice".
 * Why was talk page access removed? Simply ignoring me wasn't possible? My posting here disrupted your workspace?
 * Why has Rschen still not received any warning or trout on his talk page, while my record is now forever tainted with an undeserved block? Talking to him on the ephemeral IRC, but blocking me, gives a distinct impression of two measures and weights for admins vs. outsiders
 * Why has no one bothered to address the contents of my disputed edits? If it really was blockworthy trolling, it shouldn't be too hard to show the errors in it and refute the claims I made. Fram (talk) 10:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I consider trolling to be posting something that will deliberately get a rise out of someone else. I find it very hard to believe that you weren't doing this in part to anger James Forrester, especially the edit where you removed the header. Thus, I find my statement that this was trolling very reasonable, and others have backed me up on this in private. --Rschen7754 16:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How was that edit aimed at James Forrester? Is it a page he created or maintained? If so, then that's an unhappy coincidence which I honestly hadn't noticed. If not, then why do you think that edit was aimed to get a rise out of him? Why would he even notice it? And is the problem now with the edit, or with not undoing it? Fram (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I find it... difficult to believe that you didn't realize that the page was not maintained, if not by James Forrester, than by some other members of the VisualEditor team. Pages in the Extension: pages aren't supposed to be "neutral" commentary on the extension, you know - they're the release notes created by the maintainers of the extension. And even if you believed that, I find it hard to believe that you didn't think the VE team would notice this, and be happy about it. --Rschen7754 17:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)I did not state that that page wouldn't be maintained. You said that especially my edit at Parsoid/MediaWiki DOM spec was aimed to anger James Forrester. I said that I had no idea that he was involved with that page and would notice my edit, which was emphatically not aimed at him or anyone else specifically. It is only logical that pages here are maintained and that someone would notice my edit, just like it is only normal that all the VE errors in e.g. en-wiki are noticed by other editors and get reverted or corrected.
 * For your second part, I have no idea what you are talking about. "Pages in the Extension: pages"? Do you mean an "Extension" namespace or something? Which page was that? I took a totally random page for my header edit, I don't know or care what the page is actually about, I used it to test the new VE version since that one is installed here already. And the other page doesn't seem to be in some special namespace either. So could you please elaborate what you mean with the Extension? Fram (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Your Edits Regarding the VisualEditor
I'm going to ask that you not make any edits on this wiki regarding the VisualEditor. Your edits are clearly coming from a place of bad faith and are largely trolling. There are other venues for you to express your frustration (most notably the Feedback page on the English Wikipedia).

If you continue to be disruptive, you will be blocked again, and probably indefinitely next time.

Please remember to be civil and respectful.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Your edits are clearly coming from a place of bad faith and are largely trolling." "Please remember to be civil and respectful." Please turn of the hipocrisy or just fuck off. If you call my edits "trolling", then you shouldn't lecture on being "respectful" and "civil".


 * I have spent my time testing your latest release and giving my conclusions. Apparently, I am the only one that has done so. Fair enough, but the problem is that in the eyes of the WMF, that is one person too many, not 100 too few. Instead of lecturing me and threatening me, perhaps you can simply reply to my comments, take them at face value, and tell me what is wrong in them and what is right. Or are you going to join the long list of people here who don't care about what is correct in their "official" statements, but only wants to keep things quiet and peaceful here.


 * Please tell which of my edits since my block have been disruptive, and in what way. Not speculating on my motives and making bad faith ad hominem remarks, but what about my edits was disruptive? I'll help you; I only made two, one to my talk page which can hardly be disruptive (I didn't ping anyone, didn't use helpme or other intrusive templates, ...), and one to the talk page,, which was what people told me I should have done instead of just editing the status page directly. So, which one was the disruptive one, and was bad enough to topic ban me from VE and threaten me with an indef block? Fram (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me make it clear, Fram. Regardless of the merits of your edits, telling others to "fuck off" is not OK, and I will block you again if necessary.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Telling editors that they will be indefinitely blocked when they have made only two edits, one here and one on the talk page of a status page, neither of which anyone has pointed out any problems with, telling them at the same time that they are trolling and editing in bad faith, and telling them that they are no longer allowed to discuss VE here (even though this is the central site for VE and my remarks are correct and pertinent), and then finishing with "be respectful and civil", is utter hipocrisy. What Jorm wanted to say apparently was "you are disturbing our quiet and peace with your pertinent but uncomfortable criticism; we don't like this, so we'll indefinitely block you for no good reason at all". Please tell me how I am supposed to respond to that, on my own talk page, but with "fuck off"? "Thank you, Jorm, for sharing your wisdom"? Please, my "fuck off" may not be acceptable, but Jorm told me the same in more words, with less justification, on my talk page. Flowery bullshit is still bullshit, and allowing this to continue is worse than an occasional f-word. Fram (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fram. I agree with the general principle of chilling out. I understand that VisualEditor and its related development process are frustrating, but try to keep a cool head and focus on bugs, features, and other ways to improve the software. :-) (Or alternately disable VisualEditor altogether and try to forget about it. There are plenty of other projects that need help and would love to have your feedback.) I made you an admin here so that you can help out with documentation and development, if you're inclined. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See also Steward requests/Permissions - I believe this action was completely out-of-line and should be reverted, as the local community does not condone it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you speaking for yourself or the local community here? --MZMcBride (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We'll find out here. But given that others agree with me, I feel that despite my involvement as Fram's blocker, I speak for the community.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making me a sysop here. I don't intend to use the rights in the foreseeable future (I have a feeling that retaliatory blocks wouldn't help the situation :-) ), but the gesture is appreciated. Fram (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

RE: User talk:Rschan7754#Mediawiki
We can't possibly explain the differences between this wiki and every single other wiki out there. Your wiki is not special and we should not have to create pages specifically aimed at it's editors. My comment about 'not a way to become popular' was probably too open to interpretation ('party manifesto', wow.) - I suggest it be read as '[Making edits like the ones you did is] a good way to become very unpopular very quickly to the point of blocked'. -- Krenair (talk &bull; contribs) 17:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No one asks you to explain the difference with other wikis; just explain how things are done here. I don't ask for a page for the en-wiki aloe, but a page that explains what is expected from editors here is not to much to ask surely? Do we have to pussyfoot around or is strong language allowed? Is reverting enough to get an instant block? How can blocks be appealed? What is acceptable on your user talk page when you are blocked? Which pages are not editable despite the "wiki" character of this site? This has nothing to do with "my wiki is special", this has to do with how new editors are treated here and are expected to behave, no matter where they came from previously. Both the block and the locking of the my talk page came out of the blue, and I hadn't expected an indef block threat after my two posts of today, where no one has yet said what the problem with them was. If it is normal here that admins (I assume Jorm is an admin) can decide to indef block people on the basis of absolutely nothing at all, then fine, just say so, but don't call it "common sense". If admins don't have to follow the same standards here as other editors, no problem, but describing such things somewhere can avoid problems. If being unpopular is enough to get blocked, then fine, but I don't see what is common sense about that. Many sites (like many instances in real life) allow dissent, opposition, protest, criticism, as long as it is based on something factual and not simply calling people names (like, e.g., "troll"). It is not "common sense" that this isn't allowed here.


 * I would like some explanation of what in my two edits I made today after the block expired warranted the topic ban from VE and the indef block threat. And I'm still waiting for anyone to address the actual points I made about the Status page. It is quite telling that everyone has the time to come here to shut me up, but that no one seems to have the time to answer the actual relevant points. Fram (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I told you not to revert, and you reverted. That doesn't even follow English Wikipedia norms; w:en:WP:BRD is not BRRRRRRD. --Rschen7754 18:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you told me I was trolling. I don't respond well to personal attacks. "Bold, revert, insult" isn't the norm here or at enwiki, I hope. If you had simply asked me to post to the talk page and discuss my edit there, then I would probably have done that (or else you would have a reason to suspect me of bad faith). Fram (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I find it a waste of time to argue with someone who continues wikilawyering. "Do not do this again" would certainly include reverting, I would assume? Saying something is "trolling" is not a personal attack. I don't feel that I am getting anywhere in helping you understand what you did wrong, and I have better things to do with my Wikimedia time. --Rschen7754 18:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikilawyering indeed... If not a "personal attack", then a highly uncivil, personally directed remark. Same difference. If you can't understand that people won't listen to you if you barge in with "you are trolling", then I can't help it. Engaging in civil discourse first and trying whether that gets the intended result may be a better approach. And since you replied to my question about my edits today with remark about my edits yesterday, I'll repeat my questions in the hope that anyone who considers topic banning or indef blocking me would first consider these and give me a reply to them Fram (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I would like some explanation of what in my two edits I made today after the block expired warranted the topic ban from VE and the indef block threat. And I'm still waiting for anyone to address the actual points I made about the Status page. It is quite telling that everyone has the time to come here to shut me up, but that no one seems to have the time to answer the actual relevant points. Fram (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Tvar tags
I believe that is covered by and ? --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Possibly, hard to tell. I made another edit to your sandbox, don't know what happened there but I'm pretty sure it isn't supposed to be possible in VE. I started from the current version, selected the "Mediawiki" text without the square brackets, and clicked the "no entrance" sign (circle with slash in). I checked my changes, but review found no difference. I then again selected that same "Mediawiki" text without the square brackets, and linked it (using the "chain" symbol) to MediaWiki. I ended up with no more "nowiki"s and with 4 square brackets in a row (in wikitext mode). Very strange, this. Fram (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I reproduced snowmen of fr.wp, they're cute. I know it is not related to the Translate tag because I had already seen it elsewhere today. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's funny because the diff I had seen was about the same issue, but it was caused by the traditional editor instead. I left it at 54877 though. Regards, --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Promotion reversed
I have reversed MZMcBride's promotion of you to sysop status access since the discussion on Project:Current issues indicates that there was no consensus in favour of this action. You can apply for adminship at Project:Requests. -- Tim Starling (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Fram (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)