• @Mkdw, DeltaQuad, and Premeditated Chaos: I have sent you all a copy of an email I received by mistake a few weeks ago. Assuming it is authentic, and there is no reason to think it is not, at a minimum it sheds some light on Praxidicae's the author's real world 'behavioral pattern' which should be considered here. Jbh ^Talk 15:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC) (Last edited: To not impute authorship since it is unclear from context. 17:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)) (Just saw this edir conflicted and did not save)[reply]

• That's a hell of an accusation, and my preliminary looks show that this is completely out of context and that the text you saw was not written by Prax. I've redacted the accusation for the time being. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I had changed it an hour or so ago. The email read like it was being forwarded to the target but that may simply be because of the context in which I read it -- addressed to me, not a report since no one reports such things to me. Jbh ^Talk 17:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I decided to move the discussion here so that @Praxidicae: can respond to the accusation too. So this was not Praxidicae doing anything wrong. She was trying to get warning to Jehcohman (as noted publicly), whom @SQL: mixed up to be you. The editor who posted the blurb you saw in the email on zh-yue wiki was zh-yue:Special:貢獻/157.250.156.34. I can independently verify that. Praxidicae was only trying to warn about the message.

Furthermore, I'm absolutely shocked that you would decide to restore an oversighted edit. That is technically grounds for an {{oversightblock}} as you still posted a potentially libelous statement, leaving Praxidicae's name involved. Be more careful about restoring oversighted edits in the future, or those blocks will show up. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Easy with your threats here, DeltaQuad. Your bias and favouritism is potentially debatable here, so please discuss with your fellow oversighters on whether or not this is an example of "restoring an oversight edit" before making such judgements. Let them make the call/make the warning, not you. In any case, if this was a serious matter as you seem to imply, you would be discussing all of these relevant matters privately rather than drawing additional attention on the supposedly "harassed "victim. Please stop. Alex Shih (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih: I'm absolutely aware of what I can and cannot do. I have not issued the block, nor have I reoversighted it, and furthermore have no intention of doing so for this edit. I'm not that snappy. Also if you have an accusation that I'm WP:INVOLVED, take it to the appropriate place and provide evidence instead of casting the aspersion here. I have not raised any further attention to a matter than was already posted by Praxidicae on Jechoman's talkpage, as was linked. It's already public. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad: Let me get this straight. So you were making an oversight blocking threat over an edit that was neither grounds for suppression nor blocking, when you explicitly said "I'm absolutely shocked that you would decide to restore an oversighted edit. That is technically grounds for an {{oversightblock}} as you still posted a potentially libelous statement". Got it. I have sent an e-mail to oversight-en-wpwikimedia.org to ask for clarification, and I trust you will respond there. As for the other point, when dealing with genuine harassment victims, it doesn’t matter if edits are public on Wikipedia or not, isn’t it? You know this far better than I do. The purpose of suppression is to not draw further attention from what was being suppressed, but isn’t that what you were doing here. Also, the point of protecting harassment victims is to not draw any further attention to them in subsequent edits, and I am also afraid this is what you have done here, is it not? Alex Shih (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suppression is to prevent the vast majority of people from seeing information which could otherwise cause harm, not necessarily to prevent attention from being drawn towards it. Vermont (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Alex Shih the oversighted diff in question concerned me and an accusation that I had done something nefarious in real life when in fact the e-mail in question has literally nothing at all to do with me other than the fact that I happened across it while patrolling x-wiki and am the person that reported it to T&S and emergency as harassment and a threat for which JSutherland (WMF) can also confirm. For that reason, I won't post the exact details of the content here, nor should anyone need to know them. I had asked SQL off-wiki if he would not mind e-mailing said content to Jehochman who asked here as I currently utilize my real-life identity in my attached e-mail and am not willing to disclose it to editors I do not know. SQL mistakenly sent it to Jbhunley. That is the extent of this e-mail being discussed and it was used as an accusation against me, as a "real life" accusation of wrong-doing, which is both an attack and, shocker, a BLP violation! So in light of your last response, would you not consider someone posting on-wiki that you had done something nefarious in real life to be a blatant attack, especially when it was wholly incorrect and unsupported by any actual evidence and in fact, evidence to the contrary? This stuff is and should be routinely oversighted. Please see It is used within strict limits to protect privacy, remove defamatory material, and sometimes to remove serious copyright violations, from any edit, revision, page, or log entry (including, if required, the list of users) on the English Wikipedia. emphasis mine. Praxidicae (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Praxidicae: I accused you of nothing in the edit DeltaQuad oversighted and all I said in the forwarded email was "This email was sent to me, in error, by SQL. I do not know who it was intended for but Praxidicae looks to have pretty unclean hands in any 'stalker' situation. If it was re Ritchie33 it is germane to the ongoing dispute."

  The reason I said that is I initially received and read it as from you to me and it stayed in my mind as from you to someone. I am sorry for that but it was only sent to the admin's involved in the, in my view at the time, relevant dispute and, as I assume they did, all they needed to do is ask you about it to clear things up. The potential harm should it have been from you far outweighs a couple of admins asking you about a very stalkery attempt to intimidate someone.

  After reading the email from a different perspective and this little bit of unneeded drama from DeltaQuad, it is clear the message did not originate from you. Jbh ^Talk 13:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize my comment was specifically about your on-wiki accusation, not whatever you sent via e-mail, right? There was a direct and blatant accusation there. That is what is being discussed, which is in absolutely no way a reflection of my behavior here or anywhere else. Not to mention, it's silly to believe that an administrator would send you a threatening message on behalf of an actual abuser. I would just like for the air to be clear here, what was said here and elsewhere has absolutely nothing to do with me nor should anyone believe as much. Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I sent material, I mistakenly believed you had some hand in -- the closing comment from the person who forwarded it was "Creepy stuff. My understanding is that emergency@ has been notified. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance." which left me with the impression that the the reciepient was the target and I assumed, incorrectly you were the source. Take that as you will, I am informing you of my state of mind because you questioned it, not debating it -- I provided that material to the involved admins. In the interest of transparency I left a note saying what I had done and why I had done it. I got a reply from one of those admins that said "It’s worth mentioning that we have reason to believe the contents were directed at Praxidicae and not authored by her" Note: The reply was not "Praxidicae did not write this" which I take as a strong indication that my initial view was not completely off-the-wall or even unreasonable in the context then available.

I then edited my comment to indicate the author was unclear, hit save and left the computer. I came back later, saw it had edit conflicted; copied the text; re-opened the edit window; pasted it; hit save; and went about my day. I returned to this overblown shitshow.

I am sorry I misinterpreted the situation. The content and my then belief left me with a duty of care to pass it on since I, at the time, had reason to suspect there was more than met the eye was going on in the current Richie33 matter. I am glad it was not you

Could I get a copy of this email please? I have been tracking this perpetrator for months and working with T&S resolve the problems they've caused innocent users. I'd like to see what it says and then make use of it in the investigation. Jehochman ^Talk 00:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman: I will forward it to you. Jbh ^Talk 13:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @DeltaQuad: WTF!!?? You made no mention of oversighting the edit you said "I've redacted the accusation for the time being". That is a long way from "oversighted" or even "revdeled" and since when is an edit OVERSIGHTED "for the time being"?! How the hell do I take that to mean you have invoked your WP:OVERSIGHT superpowers? No ping, no note, NOTHING. If I had not noticed that my change, made before your action, had edit conflicted and not saved, leading to my "restoration" I still would not know one of my edits had been oversighted.

  What portion of the oversight policy do you claim the edit violated? Hell "shed light on real world behavioral pattern" is only "potentially libelous" if you know the content of the email. So since my comment did not even meet the criteria for WP:REVDEL and you have copied it over to my talk page, please undo your your oversighting. Considering you are on the meta:Ombudsman commission, who would I, hypothetically, go to to complain about your abuse of an advanced permission and wildly inappropriate threat to block to back it up? Jbh ^Talk 13:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's assume any conflict here is fog of war, and we all forgive each other and move on. Jehochman ^Talk 22:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I will wait until DeltaQuad edits again and see if/what her response is and how she responds to her ADMINACCT and ADMINCOND duties. In my view she made a bad oversight call, performed it with less than usual care ot courtesy and compounded it with a backhanded 'I'm not going to block you but I can and will (if you do something you did not ever do in the first place)'.

  To put it mildly, on my Wikipedia scale of things, I am extremely pissed, even on second and third reconsideration. DQ can fix this, the question is if she recognizes her error and does so or if it takes a drama-fest. ArbCom has set out their new expectations on admin behavior and this, in my strong and unwavering opinion, is far over the old line for abuse of tools.

  I have better things to do than deal with this shit, I was not even editing when the FRAM thing caught my attention. but I am not going to have an OVERSIGHTED edit, especially one which the oversighter herself copied the text to my talk page after performing the oversight!! Jbh ^Talk 17:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Jbhunley, I hope you'll let this drop. DeltaQuad saw something that seemed to throw a serious shadow over a third party (unfairly), and she removed it before it caused harm. No more needs to be said about it. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @SlimVirgin: I will drop it and consider it done business when DQ reverses her oversighting and retracts her threat to block me. She screwed up, badly. We just went through 100+ days of drama the end result of which was an unequivocal statement that admins must be held to a higher standard even in their regular interactions. DQ is not only an admin, she is an oversighter, not only that she sits on the meta:Ombudsman commission -- the people one goes to when one has a complaint about misuse of the oversight permission. More that that I have current business before the Ombudsman Commission so: she misused the oversight tool; failed to inform me she had oversighted an edit I had made; copied the very edit she oversighted to my talk page; and threatens me with an oversight block for restoring that very same material. All when I have an issue I brought before a commission I have publicly criticized. That is so much more than simply failing ADMINCOND. She is 100% in the wrong here and needs to own up to it.

  I like Wikipedia, I agree that the environment here can be toxic and I believe, very strongly, in standing up against the types of behavior that make it toxic. DQ's behavior and the idea that I should let it slide is right near the top on the type of thing that people complain about -- toxic admins.(Add: I just re-read that last. I do not mean to say your request is toxic, I see it as a good faith attempt to reconcile a dispute. It is the idea that something so bad as this should not be addressed that I have an issue with. It normalizes incorrect behavior, leaves the wronged party feeling helpless and gives no feedback to the person who made the error to ensure the mistake is not repeated. That loop is what contributes to the toxic environment.) Since she has not edited on WP since my response to her here on my talk page I am assuming that she made an honest mistake and will correct it when she next edits here -- be that tomorrow or next year, this being the kind of matter that must be resolved. That is where I both hope and want things to end and until given reason to believe something along those lines will not occur I will believe and behave as if it will.

  PS. What harm? If I had both described and attributed the material, sure but oversight not even revdel or "please strike or reword"... really? Or were you just defending her intention, not her action? I can respect that and even accept she had the best intentions -- they were just wrong. Jbh ^Talk 03:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC) Last edited: to add clairification. 04:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have removed the suppression on the diff. I also already self-reported to ArbCom and invoked their audit function. They will consider any sanctions against me, not that that should be exclusive, and anyone can take any other action else where. If you wish you can pass this on to the Ombuds too or even try the WMF. I have no objection to that. Also, as an Ombud I can not, nor would I touch, comment on, or deal with any cases that involved actions taken on this wiki. This is why I have had no involvement in your case that you mention, nor do I even know what it is about. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I will also admit that I failed to inform you here or there (though I would have done it here) that the edit had been oversighted. I was doing that initially to not draw attention to it, that said, I definitely could of informed you here about it. I did not think of that at the time and for that I apologize. It also did not give you a clear picture of the status of that edit, making it hard for you to understand you would have been restoring such an edit. Therefore, I view my comment now as unwarranted, and I withdraw my initial statement about this triggering an oversightblock. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @DeltaQuad: Thank you. I see no need to take this any further, you have done all I could ask or properly expect and I appreciate that very much. I do understand your concern with that edit and, until this blew up on my talk page I had assumed you had simple]y {{redacted}} it ie removed material by normal editing. In that case I figured it would be more proper for me to change what I had written to reflect my new understanding of the situation rather than allow my assertion to stand, keeping the inaccurate implication that what I had written was correct, just not proper to say.

  I believe strongly in positively, not passively, correcting my errors be they in fact or in behavior. Thank you for addressing and correcting yours. That leaves me with a stronger positive impression than any negative feeling the initial issue evoked. Enjoy your weekend. Jbh ^Talk 11:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding these edits]: I understand what you meant to say, but consider the literal meaning of I consider her a loss as an admin. It unfortunately means you think someone's tenure as an admin was a loss. But not sure it's worth doing anything about, now that the discussion is closed... isaacl (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my sentiment was clear in context even though my syntax was off. Jbh ^Talk 02:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]