Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun Jul 28, 2019 9:46 am

Kumioko wrote:The problem with that statement is that these days there are more admins and Wikipedia defenders and abuse justifiers on this site than critics.

It's not unknown for admins to attack things on Wikipedia. Anyway, we're not voting or even !voting.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Sun Jul 28, 2019 10:56 am

Poetlister wrote:
Kumioko wrote:The problem with that statement is that these days there are more admins and Wikipedia defenders and abuse justifiers on this site than critics.
It's not unknown for admins to attack things on Wikipedia. Anyway, we're not voting or even !voting.

Oh I know, just making a statement and I don't deny some admins provide some good input sometimes. Many of them though have also just made excuses for one thing or another to discredit citicism.

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Sun Jul 28, 2019 11:34 am

https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Zaphod_Beeblebrox

Poetlister wrote:We should be glad to see a member here get his tools back. The more admins we have here giving their viewpoint, the better informed we'll be about how admins think. And of course in Beeblebrox's case, two heads are better than one..

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Sun Jul 28, 2019 12:26 pm

tarantino wrote: A little birdy pointed me to María and Laura on facebook. There is of course more.

Wikipedians should purchase t-shirts supporting LauraHale (T-C-L) and es:María Sefidari (T-H-L) Huici from Hasten the Day Enterprises, Inc.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Sun Jul 28, 2019 1:27 pm

It would be funny to see those at Wikimedia.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Jul 28, 2019 3:13 pm

Oh, god.

The Giraffe Stapler has created an account for the Dutch lawyer that makes his special spot tingle.
And he's talking to it pretending it's not the most obvious sockpuppet on the planet.

http://www.wikirev.org/forum/viewtopic. ... t=10#p6128

That's simply pathetic.

Someone should drop the law firm a note that one of their partners is being impersonated by a Dutch national in an online fight.

https://www.ausmadejong.nl/advocaat/ausma/

Contactinfo
Email ausma@ausmadejong.nl
Mobiel nummer 06 222 012 21
Telefoon kantoor 030 605 1550

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Jul 28, 2019 3:21 pm

Mille Boele was a 12 year old who was raped and murdered by the defendant.
They found her body buried in his garden.

Ausma knew this child rapist and murderer was guilty.
Knew it in his bones.
He took the case anyway.

And lost it.

Perp got 18 years.

If Ausma's a defense attorney for criminal cases, why would he be interested in a wikipedia forum slap fight?
I looked at their website and see the following areas of expertise claimed.

Criminal cases
Tax law
Employment and dismissal law
Family law
General civil law
Tenancy law

I don't see anything dealing with defamation, libel, slander, privacy, data retention issues, international law...

Is it just possible that Martin has been lying again?

He'll probably try to shrug it off an another of his famously funny 'jokes'.
You now, like the one where he makes threats of physical violence and then cowers and snivels when called on it.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sun Jul 28, 2019 3:54 pm

Vigilant wrote:Mille Boele was a 12 year old who was raped and murdered by the defendant.
They found her body buried in his garden.

Ausma knew this child rapist and murderer was guilty.
Knew it in his bones.
He took the case anyway.

And lost it.

Perp got 18 years.

How do you reconcile this perspective with your support of the ACLU?

Is not competent legal defense a fundamental right to everyone, regardless of the hideous nature of their transgressions?

tim

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Jul 28, 2019 4:08 pm

The ACLU does this kind of work out of a moral, ethical and philosophical basis.
I’ve yet to see the ACLU take an appeal case on behalf of a convicted child rapist and murderer where the police had found the victim’s body in the perp’s garden.

Ausma does it for the attention and notoriety.
Everything is about marketing and visibility for this slippery shit.

It’s only fitting that Martin would hero worship this guy like a 15 year old groupy.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:48 pm

SPICY!

http://www.wikirev.org/forum/viewtopic. ... 2266#p6173

Carcharoth · Unread post by **Carcharoth** » Mon Jul 29, 2019 1:12 pm

To get back on topic...

Fram has returned from wiki-break and posted to meta to say this; I'll just quote the final line:

Fram wrote:All in all, everything I have seen so far gives me very little trust in this ArbCom case

TheElusiveClaw · Unread post by **TheElusiveClaw** » Mon Jul 29, 2019 1:49 pm

Carcharoth wrote:To get back on topic...

Fram has returned from wiki-break and posted to meta to say this; I'll just quote the final line:

Fram wrote:All in all, everything I have seen so far gives me very little trust in this ArbCom case

I agree with him. I have little trust in ArbCom ever, but in this matter, where they can't even see all the information, it looks like he's being dealt with very, very badly.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not an apologist for him, and he should probably have been blocked some time ago, but this is just the entirely wrong way to go about it.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Jul 29, 2019 2:33 pm

There's something wrong if the WMF don't trust ArbCom enough to give them the necessary facts. If because of this ArbCom come to a conclusion that people in the WMF can see is wrong, what will happen? It would really cause an uproar if they overrule ArbCom.

10920 · Unread post by **10920** » Mon Jul 29, 2019 3:08 pm

This ArbCom case seems like an utter farce to give the appearance that Fram was given "due process". As with some other ArbCom cases, they seem to have decided the case before accepting it.

Oh, and another admin has shown up to BN for a resysop. Lectonar.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Jul 29, 2019 3:30 pm

The Arbcom case is a total farce and every mother-loving son and daughter on that committee needs to be wiped out in the next Arbcom election. It's a pity that they aren't all up for defeat simultaneously...

BTW, here is the complete Fram statement (mentioned above)...

Mister Sensitivity wrote:So:

I'm banned and desyssopped based on ... what? No one knows but ArbCom, and they don't consider it sufficient to ban or desysop me apparently.

For some unclear reasons, it took ArbCom weeks to open a case with unknown support or oppose votes (not unprecedented that they accept things this way, but shown to be a very bad idea in the past already, and goes against all accountability we expect from them).

People now get to post evidence until 7 August, and then, in just one week (7 to 14 August), they will summarize and anonimize it, post these things somewhere between these two dates, let me react in the remaining time, and post a decision? Basically, everyone holding some grudge (or, who knows, having a legitimate complaint) has had weeks to prepare their posts to ArbCom, and I get considerably less than a week to react to it, and then only based on summarized and anonimized results, not on anything concrete (will the summarized results even have any diffs?)

The 2016 date seems totally arbitrary

No reason has been given why the case needs to be held in private. Nothing happened off-wiki, all evidence is onwiki, and my contributions have already been checked by multiple editors over the past month+. When you publish the evidence summary, either you will need to summarize it beyond recognition, in which case no defense is possible (e.g. "we received multiple complaints that Fram targets vulnerable editors", well, all I or anyone else can say is "no", but no actual rebuttal of something so general is realistically possible); or you will need to publish recognizable cases, which will then get scrutiny from me and the community anyway, and may present unwanted comments about the supposedly targeted editors even if they have nothing to do with the complaint against me (since e.g. editor X may feel the need to take up the defense of editor Y, even if editor Y wisely decided to keep quiet if they realise that the fault is largely with them).

I don't know what the conclusion is ArbCom is aiming for, but this procedure has all the indications of being a show process trial to justify a foregone conclusion as if some actual openness and right to defend myself has been given.

Proceeding like this will only result in unhappy editors on nearly all sides, as anyone who disagrees with or doesn't understand the result will be reacting rather negatively to how the decision was reached. A lack of openness will only boomerang on the ArbCom, no matter if you indef siteban me or completely unblock and reinstate me.

----------------

"How much weight we give to the report will very much depend on what is submitted by the community, I personally intend to give the community more weight than the T&S report. WormTT(talk) 15:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)" — This makes no sense, how can the weight of the report no one in the community has seen depend on whatever the community submits? No one is able to provide evidence countering claims in the T&S document, since we don't know what claims have been made, apart from the very limited info they gave me (which I already shared here). Let's say it includes info like the two more detailed complaints in the infamous Signpost article; it reads as if you would believe these complaints if some people made the same fake complaints directly to you through email. That's not a way to have a fair result, but an echo chamber weighted extremely in favour of those having complaints. If you don't have permission to share the T&S document, then you should simply toss it out. Any sanction which is, even partially, based on that document where I have no chance to defend myself (nor any way to avoid the same behaviour after a sanction would expire, nor any way for others to avoid the same behaviour), is not acceptable.

"If you refuse to allow Fram to respond to evidence you have accepted and reviewed, its in direct violation of how ARBPOL is written and intended. That editors have a chance to defend themselves." Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)" — True.

"I don't like it as a method and the outcome seems to be a foregone conclusion in such circumstances. At least a separate workshop would enable some review of anonymised evidence because, after all, arbitrators are no more infallible than the rest of us when it comes to sifting through stuff. But here we are, I guess: I pity Fram, who not only has to go through the torture of an arbcom case but now effectively will be trying to counter what is almost certain to be evidence biassed by weight and, possibly, connections. That is a lot of stress." - Sitush (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC) — Again, true.

"Yes, I believe that we intend to package up all the evidence at the end of the phase and send it to Fram. They therefore do not have 7 days to comment, and any extension would simply afford others more time to send in evidence and delay when Fram gets to begin responding to arbitrators." AGK ■ 21:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)" — Thank you at least for confirming that I won't even have 7 days to reply...

All in all, everything I have seen so far gives me very little trust in this ArbCom case. Fram (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Jul 29, 2019 3:53 pm

Fun with pictures...

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jul 29, 2019 4:31 pm

Well, looks like ARBCOM and the WMF are going to be actively encouraging new membership here.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jul 29, 2019 4:41 pm

For the record, I don't have an account on sucks or wikirev.
I only have this one on WO.

That ausma account isn't me.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:27 pm

Gender desk has a mini expose on Ausma.

https://genderdesk.wordpress.com/2019/0 ... jan-ausma/

He's a vapid, shallow child rapist defender.
No wonder Martin likes him.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jul 29, 2019 5:42 pm

*::You're thinking of Courcelles and me (it's on his [[User:Courcelles|userpage]] and my [[User:Fluffernutter|volunteer userpage]]). While I can't speak for him and any decisions he might make, I can tell you that he's traveling with limited internet access for the next few weeks, and before he left I had already urged him to, if the case is still ongoing when he returns, either confirm that he's still inactive or officially recuse so as to avoid any appearance of impropriety. [[User:Kbrown (WMF)|Kbrown (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Kbrown (WMF)|talk]]) 16:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Do none of them know how to tether a cell phone?

10920 · Unread post by **10920** » Mon Jul 29, 2019 7:40 pm

It's high time for Courcelles to have all permissions stripped. Extreme dereliction of duty.

He openly lied to get his seat on ArbCom and has failed to resign despite always being "too busy" to ever contribute anything.

I'm not sure what's worse, him or Rob...

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jul 29, 2019 8:02 pm

The Giraffe Stapler's been quiet on WR for 8 hours now...

Did he get a cease and desist notice from the great Willem Jem Ausma?

P.S. Dear Giraffe Stapler,
I've included an example of the use of the term star chamber on this very site by me prior to your momentous 'discovery' of the term.
Note the date.
You have never added anything of value to this site or any other.
You are the physical manifestation of a FailArmy.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2651&p=53763&hilit= ... ber#p53763

Ansh666 · Unread post by **Ansh666** » Mon Jul 29, 2019 8:26 pm

Meanwhile, +1 more admin back, Lectonar (T-C-L). That makes 7 admin returnees out of the 25ish who left (including Floq).

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Jul 29, 2019 8:38 pm

10920 wrote:As with some other ArbCom cases, they seem to have decided the case before accepting it.

That's very wise. That way, they can work out the effect of their decision and decide if it's worth the hassle.

Beeblebrox · Unread post by **Beeblebrox** » Mon Jul 29, 2019 9:09 pm

Since you asked, here's why I went back:

I left because of the apparent power grab by the WMF over local control of routine behavioral problems, the seeming favoritism given to a friend (wife, is it?) of a board member, and the appallingly terrible response from the CEO . If they want to take over the day-to-day work, they can take over all the shit jobs admins and functionaries do for them currently.

For weeks they didn't do shit. Then, seemingly, finally, they blinked and are letting arbcom handle it.

I don't care for this secret trial with invisible evidence any more than the rest of you, but arbcom doesn't have any way around it. T&S assures everyone their communications with them are private, so they can't put the (70 pages!) of material in any publicly viewable place, so for arbcom it was this or nothing. I certainly hope this is a one-time deal and not a precedent for the new normal.

I give not one shit about Fram specifically and it wouldn't upset me one bit if arbcom ended up agreeing with T&S and banning him. This was never about "justice for Fram", it is about local control and the paid staff not treating us like peons, in particular T&S when up until they came along we were doing their job for free and generally doing pretty well at it.

If this is all just an illusion to placate the masses while the plan is to actually replace us all with bots or whatever, that shoe will drop at some point and that'll be that for me.

All that being said I am still kind of waiting and seeing what really happens. the current crisis seems to have passed but that doesn't necessarily mean the WMF learned the right lesson from it, they've shown in the past how incredibly tone deaf they can be about this sort of thing.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Mon Jul 29, 2019 9:55 pm

As I said before, complaints like this are completely absurd. When the banned me and bill I knew this day was coming and everyone else should have to. Had this been a regular editor, no one would have said shit. Since this was an admin though everyone wants to circle the wagons. Everyone who resigned or got upset about this are all, every single one, a bunch of hypocrites. Fram deserves to be banned, this is nothing but protecting an admin with a history of abuse and nothing more.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:40 pm

Vigilant wrote:The Giraffe Stapler's been quiet on WR for 8 hours now...

Did he get a cease and desist notice from the great Willem Jem Ausma?

Auggie has blocked the combatants.

Remember this, you hypocritical madman enabling doofus?

Auggie wrote:Please keep fighting. I like conflict.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jul 29, 2019 11:43 pm

tarantino wrote:
Vigilant wrote:The Giraffe Stapler's been quiet on WR for 8 hours now...

Did he get a cease and desist notice from the great Willem Jem Ausma?
Auggie has blocked the combatants.

Remember this, you hypocritical madman enabling doofus?

Auggie wrote:Please keep fighting. I like conflict.

And with that, wikirev returns to a total of 2 posts per day...

Auggie · Unread post by **Auggie** » Tue Jul 30, 2019 12:01 am

Vigilant wrote:

And with that, wikirev returns to a total of 2 posts per day...

haha yes it's been really quiet.

But TDA is posting good stuff today and there is always me to listen to. And we have Pudeo and some others.

tarantino wrote:Remember this, you hypocritical madman enabling doofus?

This should go in my sig along with Somey's quote.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Tue Jul 30, 2019 1:28 am

I wish TDA would post here. Politics aside, the guy can research and write.

RfB

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Tue Jul 30, 2019 2:25 am

Randy from Boise wrote:I wish TDA would post here. Politics aside, the guy can research and write.

RfB

I agree. We should all thank him for moving Fram-Hale-gate forward.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:30 pm

Kumioko wrote:As I said before, complaints like this are completely absurd. When the banned me and bill I knew this day was coming and everyone else should have to. Had this been a regular editor, no one would have said shit. Since this was an admin though everyone wants to circle the wagons. Everyone who resigned or got upset about this are all, every single one, a bunch of hypocrites. Fram deserves to be banned, this is nothing but protecting an admin with a history of abuse and nothing more.

If it had been a typical editor, nobody would have noticed. It's not so much that admins favour each other as that they have influential friends. I expect that there are high-profile non-admins who would have had similar treatment.

10920 · Unread post by **10920** » Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:59 pm

Poetlister wrote:
Kumioko wrote:As I said before, complaints like this are completely absurd. When the banned me and bill I knew this day was coming and everyone else should have to. Had this been a regular editor, no one would have said shit. Since this was an admin though everyone wants to circle the wagons. Everyone who resigned or got upset about this are all, every single one, a bunch of hypocrites. Fram deserves to be banned, this is nothing but protecting an admin with a history of abuse and nothing more.
If it had been a typical editor, nobody would have noticed. It's not so much that admins favour each other as that they have influential friends. I expect that there are high-profile non-admins who would have had similar treatment.

Yes and yes.

Jans Hammer · Unread post by **Jans Hammer** » Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:53 pm

Is this a new revelation, or just more ambiguity?

I believe the community is aware that certain things have happened off wiki, including the actual complaints to T&S and emails between T&S and Fram. In addition, the document is redacted in places. So, I disagree with Fram's assertion that "nothing happened off-wiki". Moreover, the committee has accepted that this case needs to be heard in private. I hope that helps. WormTT(talk) 4:26 pm, Today (UTC+1)

mendaliv · Unread post by **mendaliv** » Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:05 pm

Jans Hammer wrote:Is this a new revelation, or just more ambiguity?

I believe the community is aware that certain things have happened off wiki, including the actual complaints to T&S and emails between T&S and Fram. In addition, the document is redacted in places. So, I disagree with Fram's assertion that "nothing happened off-wiki". Moreover, the committee has accepted that this case needs to be heard in private. I hope that helps. WormTT(talk) 4:26 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Huh. Yeah I'd not heard of that. Of course, there's a difference between "certain things have happened off wiki" and "I didn't do anything off-wiki".

I mean, by definition, the T&S thing is itself off-wiki. If I were questioning WTT, I'd ask whether "off-wiki" means the narrow definition of "not on the (english) WIkipedia website", the broader definition of "not on a Wikimedia website that operates the mediawiki software", or the (in my view) more appropriate definition of "outside the Wikimedia ecology" (i.e., would include things like WMF mailing lists but would exclude things like visiting someone's LinkedIn page and triggering a visit notification). I would also ask whether "certain things have happened off wiki" means things Fram did, and whether that means wrongful things.

Auggie · Unread post by **Auggie** » Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:41 pm

10920 wrote:Auggie:

hey Earl can you chill out a bit? Multiple posts in a row full of profanity in big colored text. Come on.

Earl is fine in case you were worried.

rhindle · Unread post by **rhindle** » Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:45 pm

mendaliv wrote:
Jans Hammer wrote:Is this a new revelation, or just more ambiguity?

I believe the community is aware that certain things have happened off wiki, including the actual complaints to T&S and emails between T&S and Fram. In addition, the document is redacted in places. So, I disagree with Fram's assertion that "nothing happened off-wiki". Moreover, the committee has accepted that this case needs to be heard in private. I hope that helps. WormTT(talk) 4:26 pm, Today (UTC+1)
Huh. Yeah I'd not heard of that. Of course, there's a difference between "certain things have happened off wiki" and "I didn't do anything off-wiki".

I mean, by definition, the T&S thing is itself off-wiki. If I were questioning WTT, I'd ask whether "off-wiki" means the narrow definition of "not on the (english) WIkipedia website", the broader definition of "not on a Wikimedia website that operates the mediawiki software", or the (in my view) more appropriate definition of "outside the Wikimedia ecology" (i.e., would include things like WMF mailing lists but would exclude things like visiting someone's LinkedIn page and triggering a visit notification). I would also ask whether "certain things have happened off wiki" means things Fram did, and whether that means wrongful things.

After a couple of replies...

The T&S document is not mine to reveal, I've said all I really can there. I've yet to review the evidence to the b list, so I can't really comment there either. What I can say is that I am hopeful that the committee will be able to present something to Fram and the community based on what we are sent. WormTT(talk) 17:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

TheElusiveClaw · Unread post by **TheElusiveClaw** » Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:29 pm

rhindle wrote:
mendaliv wrote:
Jans Hammer wrote:Is this a new revelation, or just more ambiguity?

I believe the community is aware that certain things have happened off wiki, including the actual complaints to T&S and emails between T&S and Fram. In addition, the document is redacted in places. So, I disagree with Fram's assertion that "nothing happened off-wiki". Moreover, the committee has accepted that this case needs to be heard in private. I hope that helps. WormTT(talk) 4:26 pm, Today (UTC+1)
Huh. Yeah I'd not heard of that. Of course, there's a difference between "certain things have happened off wiki" and "I didn't do anything off-wiki".

I mean, by definition, the T&S thing is itself off-wiki. If I were questioning WTT, I'd ask whether "off-wiki" means the narrow definition of "not on the (english) WIkipedia website", the broader definition of "not on a Wikimedia website that operates the mediawiki software", or the (in my view) more appropriate definition of "outside the Wikimedia ecology" (i.e., would include things like WMF mailing lists but would exclude things like visiting someone's LinkedIn page and triggering a visit notification). I would also ask whether "certain things have happened off wiki" means things Fram did, and whether that means wrongful things.
After a couple of replies...
The T&S document is not mine to reveal, I've said all I really can there. I've yet to review the evidence to the b list, so I can't really comment there either. What I can say is that I am hopeful that the committee will be able to present something to Fram and the community based on what we are sent. WormTT(talk) 17:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

What an astonishing piece of evasion. Not at all surprising, but astonishing that he can not answer the same direct question put to him by WereSpielChequers, Tryptofish, Schrocat and Future Perfect. If I was Fram I'd be preparing to take up another hobby for the next 11 months

mendaliv · Unread post by **mendaliv** » Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:34 pm

TheElusiveClaw wrote:If I was Fram I'd be preparing to take up another hobby for the next 11 months

I see no reason to believe the Committee will confine itself merely to affirming rather than increasing the sanction against Fram. I think it’s very likely it’ll be an indef ban and include all other sorts of ridiculous supplementary conditions for unbanning. Possibly even secret conditions.

And even if they do merely agree that a year is the right penalty, I honestly wonder if they’ll backdate it.

Jans Hammer · Unread post by **Jans Hammer** » Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:43 pm

mendaliv wrote:
TheElusiveClaw wrote:If I was Fram I'd be preparing to take up another hobby for the next 11 months
I see no reason to believe the Committee will confine itself merely to affirming rather than increasing the sanction against Fram. I think it’s very likely it’ll be an indef ban and include all other sorts of ridiculous supplementary conditions for unbanning. Possibly even secret conditions.

And even if they do merely agree that a year is the right penalty, I honestly wonder if they’ll backdate it.

I reckon they might just call it "time served". Gets everyone off the hook and closes down 90% of the inevitable ongoing chaf.

mendaliv · Unread post by **mendaliv** » Tue Jul 30, 2019 7:06 pm

Jans Hammer wrote:
mendaliv wrote:
TheElusiveClaw wrote:If I was Fram I'd be preparing to take up another hobby for the next 11 months
I see no reason to believe the Committee will confine itself merely to affirming rather than increasing the sanction against Fram. I think it’s very likely it’ll be an indef ban and include all other sorts of ridiculous supplementary conditions for unbanning. Possibly even secret conditions.

And even if they do merely agree that a year is the right penalty, I honestly wonder if they’ll backdate it.
I reckon they might just call it "time served". Gets everyone off the hook and closes down 90% of the inevitable ongoing chaf.

I could make some good arguments against using that concept in "preventive" sanctions (though really I could also make some great arguments against non-indef sanctions that are supposed to be preventive).

I think there's a good chance that someone will bring up the concept of "time served" though. Unless someone on the Committee is feeling particularly vindictive it'll carry.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Tue Jul 30, 2019 8:23 pm

Whatever, you can bet that the decision will be based more on politics than on the narrow facts, to the extent that ArbCom knows the facts.

TheElusiveClaw · Unread post by **TheElusiveClaw** » Tue Jul 30, 2019 8:27 pm

Poetlister wrote:Whatever, you can bet that the decision will be based more on politics than on the narrow facts, to the extent that ArbCom knows the facts.

will be based? I think that a few Arbs have already decided to hang him out to dry

MoldyHay · Unread post by **MoldyHay** » Tue Jul 30, 2019 8:29 pm

TheElusiveClaw wrote:
Poetlister wrote:Whatever, you can bet that the decision will be based more on politics than on the narrow facts, to the extent that ArbCom knows the facts.
will be based? I think that a few Arbs have already decided to hang him out to dry

They kinda have to if they want to preserve their existence.

10920 · Unread post by **10920** » Tue Jul 30, 2019 8:42 pm

Auggie wrote:
10920 wrote:Auggie:

hey Earl can you chill out a bit? Multiple posts in a row full of profanity in big colored text. Come on.

Earl is fine in case you were worried.

I noticed that yesterday. He was getting a bit... carried away.

Off the rails, one would say.

10920 · Unread post by **10920** » Tue Jul 30, 2019 8:44 pm

MoldyHay wrote:
TheElusiveClaw wrote:
Poetlister wrote:Whatever, you can bet that the decision will be based more on politics than on the narrow facts, to the extent that ArbCom knows the facts.
will be based? I think that a few Arbs have already decided to hang him out to dry
They kinda have to if they want to preserve their existence.

One of several reasons the case was decided before they "accepted" it.

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Tue Jul 30, 2019 9:25 pm

To me, defining a standard of conduct is essential. I believe that if an administrator (or senior editor) detects a problem, it is appropriate to fully investigate the problem, educate the problematic user as to the nature of the problem, and then work out a corrective plan. That should not be deemed "harassment", but rather holistic training and compliance. For example, toxic user nominates an article for "good article" and the reviewer detects some close paraphrasing concerns. It would be appropriate for them to work together to clear up the concerns. However, the toxic user withdraws the "good article" nomination, and then quickly renominates it so that the user's landlord can be the reviewer, and the landlord immediately passes the article as a GA. Following through on the close paraphrasing issue would not be harassment in this context. The toxic user then nominates a series of articles for DYK that are problematic and do not meet the DYK criteria, although the individual reviewers do not take a sufficiently careful look so as to detect the problem. An admin who works in the DYK area sees the pattern should work to stop the replication of the problems without being deemed "harassment."

If all of this were "on-wiki", the accused and the toxic user would have to sort it all out in light of the user's track record of attacking anyone who corrects the user. However, if the toxic user can make "off-wiki" complaints to T&S alleging "harassment", there is no guarantee that the proper standard of conduct will be applied.

This is all-the-more true if the toxic user happens to be the wife of the WMF Board chair. So, I would expect the ArbCom to investigate how the Fram-toxic user interaction started: did they both work on DYK? How quickly did the toxic user acknowledge her deficiencies? Did the toxic user enter into an agreement to solve the problem and improve the editing (e.g., to have her wife review her translations of Spanish sources)? Objectively, did this solve the problem? Did the toxic user then "drop the stick" or go to T&S (dates are very relevant here)? Did the toxic user complain alone or organize off-wiki with others to launch further complaints against Fram?

If the toxic user filed an Arbcom case against Fram, all of these questions would be raised, and I don't understand how the current format will allow them to be publicly aired.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue Jul 30, 2019 11:58 pm

10920 wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
Kumioko wrote:As I said before, complaints like this are completely absurd. When the banned me and bill I knew this day was coming and everyone else should have to. Had this been a regular editor, no one would have said shit. Since this was an admin though everyone wants to circle the wagons. Everyone who resigned or got upset about this are all, every single one, a bunch of hypocrites. Fram deserves to be banned, this is nothing but protecting an admin with a history of abuse and nothing more.
If it had been a typical editor, nobody would have noticed. It's not so much that admins favour each other as that they have influential friends. I expect that there are high-profile non-admins who would have had similar treatment.
Yes and yes.

Well you may be right but there are far fewer and the protection of the admins has been established into the culture to the point where they nearly have to shoot someone in the face to even be brought to Arbcom for consideration. In fact, as far as I know almost no admins have ever been desysopped for acting abusively to editors or just generally being unprofessional jerks. Basically every admin who has been desysopped had one thing in common; they did something to another admin. I've tried to think of one that didn't meet this criteria and I honestly can't think of a single one.

10920 · Unread post by **10920** » Wed Jul 31, 2019 12:55 am

Kumioko wrote:
10920 wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
Kumioko wrote:As I said before, complaints like this are completely absurd. When the banned me and bill I knew this day was coming and everyone else should have to. Had this been a regular editor, no one would have said shit. Since this was an admin though everyone wants to circle the wagons. Everyone who resigned or got upset about this are all, every single one, a bunch of hypocrites. Fram deserves to be banned, this is nothing but protecting an admin with a history of abuse and nothing more.
If it had been a typical editor, nobody would have noticed. It's not so much that admins favour each other as that they have influential friends. I expect that there are high-profile non-admins who would have had similar treatment.
Yes and yes.
Well you may be right but there are far fewer and the protection of the admins has been established into the culture to the point where they nearly have to shoot someone in the face to even be brought to Arbcom for consideration. In fact, as far as I know almost no admins have ever been desysopped for acting abusively to editors or just generally being unprofessional jerks. Basically every admin who has been desysopped had one thing in common; they did something to another admin. I've tried to think of one that didn't meet this criteria and I honestly can't think of a single one.

I'm not going to provide examples, but you are 100% wrong about this.

Over 50 admins have been desysopped 'for cause' and there are a few on the list who definitely who were not desysopped for "doing something to another admin". Perhaps more than a few, but I know a few off the top of my head.

It sounds like you're unaware of the sheer numbers of desysoppings.

As far as the claim as it's just admins who are protected, the two best examples of 'protected' or 'unblockable' are/were Giano and Eric Corbett/Malleus. Neither are admins.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Wed Jul 31, 2019 1:10 am

Actually I am very aware of that list and in fact I was reading through several from that list just now.

I also agree there are some non admins who fall under the unblockable list and there are some admin outliers that would probably see the tools removed for even a minor screw-up, including Jimbo.

I still support my original conclusion, of those 50 admins, virtually all did things to get desysopped that affected other admins and any affect on editors they posed was merely a secondary consideration.