The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fram has requested I provide surrebuttals to his rebuttals to my response to his most recent proposal for a DYK TBAN against me. The reason I did not provide surrebuttals to his previous rebuttals is that I had previously committed to an admin to disengage from that thread and was unable to do so without violating that commitment. In respect of Fram's repeated requests, and as a possible workaround, I am posting my response here in lieu of the thread itself. Following are the statements by me Fram has requested proof of:
1. LavaBaron: Fram has already misrepresented my past actions once, resulting in a bad block.
all of the following, except where otherwise specified, quoted from [closed AN thread (linked here for ease of reading in lieu of diffs)]
- Two months ago, in one of his previous requests for a TBAN, Fram identified me as a person knowingly putting erroneous hooks on the Main Page (this referenced Howe Street Stairs - I had said it was 1.3 miles long instead of 1300 feet long [I acknowledge I make a lot of mistakes when not dealing with metrics]): "Someone who believes and defends that knowingly putting a hook with an error on the Main Page..."
- Acting in response to the allegation, I was given a 30 day block for "hoaxing" by a second admin. [1]
- Four different editors affirmed this was not a case of hoaxing, with Sphilbrick saying "I think "hoax" is quite an over-reaction." and Oiyarbepsy noting "The real error ("hoax") on the stairway article was the claim that it is over a mile long, and with the correct distance of 1300 feet, the time is reasonable."
- The hook was immediately pulled 24 hours later and Deryck Chan ruled that "There was overwhelming consensus that LavaBaron's earlier block was unjustifiable."
2. LavaBaron: This seems to have become a personal vendetta from Fram due to a tiff we had a few months ago over an unrelated matter
- Two months ago, before Fram introduced the current matter of having me blocked for re-opening a discussion two days after it had closed, we engaged in a heated discussion at Talk:Howe Street Stairs over whether measurements of linear distance or step count should be used to measure staircases. I ultimately disengaged from the discussion. I believe the argumentative tone of the discussion objectively qualifies it as a "tiff". [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10],
3. LavaBaron: He was previously warned by Ritchie to WP:DROPTHESTICK with regard to it.
- On 23JUN, Ritchie said: "I'm tempted to say that if any ban should be brought before the ANI peanut gallery, it would be two-way interaction ban between Fram and LavaBaron. I think Fram has been right to bring the nomination here for discussion and pulling, but I also think it would be good after he makes the initial criticism of a nomination and any announcement of removal from the prep, queue or main page, to then drop the stick and let other people decide whether the criticism should stand." [11]
4. Fram goes on to allege canvassing by me. | Fram: Perhaps throw in some canvassing as well? Note that LavaBaron started this section with "GF ping everyone who registered a !vote in the linked discussion ", and then only pinged three people who supported the lifting of part of the restrictions and one who commented (seemingly in favour of lifting them all), but none of the more negative commenters; and followed this up with, in a proposal from me, pinging everyone he believed had recently had a DYK pulled by me.
- As noted in my post, I pinged every person who !voted in this thread without regard to status of vote. And, as the proposal was a modification of the terms of that just-concluded decision, it was appropriate and, perhaps required, I do so. Fram suggests I was canvassing as I only pingeed "Support" !voters. What he fails to mention is that there were only "Support" !voters in the thread (with the exception of myself).
- Canvassing requires contact be (a) subjective, (b) suggestively worded, (c) inappropriate. As demonstrated, the contact was objective (every person who registered a !vote in X thread). As it took the form of a ping only, there was no wording (suggestive or otherwise) employed at point of contact. The appropriateness was already explained; I was motioning a modification of a decision just arrived at and was pinging persons who had !voted in that decision.
LavaBaron (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)