Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

10920 · Unread post by **10920** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:31 am

I'm not caught up in this thread, so I may have missed it, but Schrocat's comments about the desysop got hatted.

I agree with the cat. As I've stated previously, this case is a total farce and ArbCom is proving me right with its actions (more accurately, inactions because the WMF told them what not to do, and will not allow ArbCom to overrule them).

The desysop was obviously improper. If they think there's anything worth desysopping, then have a new case after they end the ban.

link

Osborne · Unread post by **Osborne** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:52 am

CoffeeCrumbs wrote: I've given money every year for a decade because I'm a romantic moron who believes in the base mission of the Wiki movement.
... I thought I was supporting a crowd-sourced encyclopedia, not a jobs program for tin-pot bureaucrats.

I've encountered corporate POV-pushers in 2 months of editing, and full-time, aka. paid admins in 3 months time. What took you so long?

Osborne · Unread post by **Osborne** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 4:11 am

Carcharoth wrote: The whole debate over whether to decide things in public or off-wiki is expressed well here by Isaacl (T-C-L).

That's very good reasoning there.

Carcharoth wrote: In retrospect, the strategic mistake from ArbCom was the failure to hammer out a consensus behind closed doors, putting up a proposed decision, and voting on it swiftly and decisively (while pretending to vote as if they hadn't conferred first).

That would be against "transparency", as expected by the community, wouldn't be?
Alternatively, if they did decide the "consensus" beforehand, then this PD act worked well to convince you and many, that it was not a predetermined decision.

Carcharoth wrote: By instead having the (normal) protracted, and in full public view, wrangling over the proposed decision, AND having the consensus against the ban so obvious, it wasn't long before someone realised the obvious (Fram needed to be able to participate once the ban was obviously going to be overturned) and suggested Fram be unbanned. So ArbCom end up looking silly. Fram is probably not sure what to do now. And elements of the community are still looking for somewhere to vent their anger.

I wonder. Nobody else realized, that the project-wide blocking/banning is a flawed concept? Per the blocking policy blocks should prevent damage, not do more (punish), thus blocking should be done in the area (page/topic), where the editor might cause damage. While in the case of Fram one might argue that he would cause damage even if only editing ArbCom case pages, there was no such precedent, so it's really dumb to block him from his own case, even while banned. To put it simply: conduct dispute resolution should not be considered part of the encyclopedia by the blocking policy.

Jans Hammer · Unread post by **Jans Hammer** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:30 am

His first public (en-WP) words on the subject just posted:

Comments by Fram| Archive
I share the confusion or unease displayed by some people above. It is to me rather unclear on what grounds individual arbs are currently supporting the desysop. In general, it seems that 4 issues in the last 18 months have been identified, 2 cases of incivility and 2 of admin actions?

"Fuck Arbcom" (which is explicitly taken out of the equation by some (most? all?) arbs
A slightly sarcastic reply to GiantSnowman, made on my own user talk page after they mistakenly accused me of following them around: we ended up resolving this as adults, acknowledging where and why the communication went South. See here
My block of GorillaWarfare for a personal attack, where consensus at ANI was quite clear that it was a bad block ("bad" as in shouldn't have been made, not "bad" as in nefarious abuse of the tools)
A 1 month block of MartinEvans for copyvio, which was seen as correct (reason) but way too long
In the FoF 8, the arbs have agreed that "The evidence provided by the community, as summarized on the evidence page, reveals instances of incivility or lack of decorum on Fram's part, but does not reflect any conduct for which a site-ban would be a proportionate response. In addition, the evidence reveals instances in which Fram has made mistakes as an administrator, including the overturned blocks of Martinevans and GorillaWarfare, but does not constitute misuse of administrative tools. " Before the Arbs realised that they have manouvred themselves in a corner they couldn't get out of, they supported in this FoF that the evidence " does not reflect any conduct for which desysopping would be a proportionate response", but instead of proposing a new FoF (8a), they rewrote this to change the meaning quite drastically.

The FoF9 explicitly confirms that, wrt "recent" incivility, only the above two incidents (at most) are considered.

Can the arbs, especially those that support a desysop, confirm which of these 4 incidents actually are their concern and reason to vote for a desysop (apart from the "continuing a pattern from before March 2018" aspect).

I doubt that, if a regular case had been presented at ANI or at ArbCom citing these four diffs as the reason to start a case for a desysop, it would ever have been accepted (the remainder of the evidence is either old or invalid). While these issues show that I won't get the "admin of the month" award and should be more careful in words and deeds sometimes, it is hardly a convincing case to base a desysop on: nothing in it is really egregious, and to call it persistent is rather a stretch as well (certainly for the admin actions, and one uncivil comment per year is hardly a persistent pattern warranting a desysop or a case either). So it feels as if the only reason for a desysop is to appease the WMF, as if a 100-days ban and an admonishment isn't enough. Fram (talk) 7:59 am, Today (UTC+1)

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:27 am

Osborne wrote:
CoffeeCrumbs wrote: I've given money every year for a decade because I'm a romantic moron who believes in the base mission of the Wiki movement.
... I thought I was supporting a crowd-sourced encyclopedia, not a jobs program for tin-pot bureaucrats.
I've encountered corporate POV-pushers in 2 months of editing, and full-time, aka. paid admins in 3 months time. What took you so long?

Wikipedia only works, and indeed the WMF largely keeps afloat, because well-meaning people like CoffeeCrumbs are hooked by the principle of Wikipedia and hence turn a blind eye to its defects. There is no doubt that the concept of a comprehensive, freely available encyclopaedia is an excellent one. Indeed, on eof the main criticisms of Wikipedia is that by its existence it deters the creation of a decent comprehensive, freely available encyclopaedia.

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:55 am

Given the comments of CoffeeCrumb Fram, Carcharoth, and New York Brad, it is difficult for the Arbcom to vote to desysop on this record.

NewYorkBrad wrote:If the Committee as a whole or individual arbs believe that Fram, or admins generally, should behave differently in the future from how Fram behaved in the past, then by all means say so, with as much specificity as is appropriate and permissible. But given the tortured procedural history here, this is the wrong time and the wrong case in which to begin enforcing some new standard, or even an old revitalized standard, with a desysopping.

If the concern from some arbs is that restoring Fram's +sysop would constitute an unwarranted endorsement of all of his prior behavior, which is how I read a few of the vote comments, then that's easy enough to avoid: just explain that it isn't.

Finally, it's been pointed out that the WMF's desysopping of Fram may have been a procedural artifact of the ban, rather than a separate WMF decision to begin with (a point I didn't realize when I workshopped the case).

Carcharoth wrote:Finally, can I ask arbitrators who are willing to speak up, to say where people should raise COI concerns with respect to WMF Board members and whether this aspect of the matter factored into their decision making.

These comments provide a solid pathway to giving Fram his bit back. They also bring Arbcom back to the fact that there was not very much in the post-warning evidence, leaving us with the conclusion that Laura Hale, who filed the original complaint with T&S against Fram proved to be unblockable up until the day that she vanished. If this were a normal ArbCom case filed by LH against Fram, Fram would have never been blocked and LH would be deemed to have departed "under a cloud."

Osborne · Unread post by **Osborne** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:27 pm

Poetlister wrote: Wikipedia only works, and indeed the WMF largely keeps afloat, because well-meaning people like CoffeeCrumbs are hooked by the principle of Wikipedia and hence turn a blind eye to its defects.

And take all the abuse without complaining...

musikaman · Unread post by **musikaman** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:39 pm

Man, SilkTork. Whadda person. He responds to not a single point Fram lays out, but instead focuses on the tone and how disappointed he is. My fucking god. How did that community ever elect such a simpering pile of passive-aggressive shit to ARBCOM.

People are looking for what you will say, and in your first significant post where you can publicly acknowledge what the community and ArbCom have been doing, and start a healing process, you make a statement that is more likely to stir the pot and be divisive.

Which was expected, and by a number of people watching, likely wanted.

Let's see how many decide to call ST out.

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:57 pm

Fram responds to ST:

I was not aware that any Arbs resigned because they were "stunned and appalled by what WMF have done". I do know that there are some arbs who have so far given very, very weak reasons for the desysop (if one claims that the desysop is for the civility issue, and also claims that the "Fuck Arbcom" comment doesn't come into play, then that means that the only actual reason for a desysop is supposedly my comment to GiantSnowman on my user talk page. Right...), who in words supported the unban but did nothing to actually make it happen (but at the same time didn't oppose or abstain the actual motion, but simply ignored it), arbs who made incomprehensible statements and refused to do anything about it when this was pointed out, arbs who made personal attacks, an arbcom who didn't have the rights to reveal anything of the T&S document unless it suited them (until you finally tried to use it for its actual purpose, which was way too late but otherwise useful), ...
My post here was not "pointless", on the contrary. If expressing how I feel, how this whole episode comes across, is "pointless", then that is a sad state of affairs. Apparently it is perfectly allright for you arbs to use "evidence", "findings of fact" which boils down to "some people feel unhappy about Fram, but don't provide actual evidence for their claims", but when I post that I am unhappy about ArbCom because of X, Y and Z, it suddenly is unacceptable? All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal, something like that?
Oh, and perhaps you can also answer the fundamental points of my post, i.e. the actual reasons for the desysop, instead of focusing only on the one sentence showing how I feel about this whole situation. "I made it clear to T&S and the Foundation that I felt their banning of you was out of process. My colleagues did the same. We wrote a public letter. We made comments on Wikipedia and by email to the Foundation and T&S, indicating that we felt the ban was out of process. We overturned the ban unanimously." You got permission to take over the case and do with it as you pleased two months ago. You, and all you colleagues, couldn't be bothered to answer, even once, to the requests by me and by many others about why I couldn't be unblocked to participate in the case only, or at the very least have my talk page access restored so I could comment from there. Yes, in words you condemned the ban, but in practice you as a committee tried your very hardest to keep it in place until the case was over, and only the pressure of non-arbs here made an actual change. So no, I don't really am expressing my gratitude to ArbCom in glowing terms, and have no plans to do so.
"you sometimes say things that are not just unhelpful, but can be demotivating, and this is not something that I feel is appropriate in an admin. " Too bad, it often is necessary to point out the truth, even if it is demotivating. Just like keeping someone banned for 100 days without good reason is rather unhelpful and demotivating, just like nitpicking over one sentence where an editor then expresses his impression of these unfortunate events is rather demotivating. If you want to desysop me over community concerns, then you aren't doing your job right. Create an evidence / workshop / FoF chain where you have actual, serious cases of me being "unhelpful and demotivating", preferably without good reason, and then you would have the necessary evidence to discuss a desysop. "Some people are unhappy" though is, I hope, still not an acceptable reason to desysop (and not really much better than "the WMF wants it"). Fram (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Fram is being quite classy and not even raising the Laura/Maria situation.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:16 pm

Jesus.

Fram is beating ARBCOM to death on the Proposed Decision talk page.
I see clearly now why they didn't want to unban him and allow him to participate.

He hasn't even brought up the Laura Hale debacle yet and I already have reflected cringe from the verbal ass beating ARBCOM is taking.

Carcharoth · Unread post by **Carcharoth** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:19 pm

This is pertinent from SilkTork:

I was discussing matters with Fram on Meta, and providing as much details as I could. The talks stalled, so not everything was discussed - certainly not as much as I would have liked. At this moment someone is making a complaint to the Stewards about the amount of detail I discussed with Fram, so it's probably best if I don't go any further in that direction. [...] 15:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

It might explain the radio silence from some arbitrators.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:27 pm

Silk Tork is really bad at this.

He's backpedaling and dodging and weaving about admin behavior and Fram's alleged lack of it, but he's going to get caught up on the horns of selective enforcement pretty soon.

No admin in the history of en.wp will ever have been desysoped for anything close to Fram's relatively mild behavior.

Look at the Ironholds case for a quick comparison.

Osborne · Unread post by **Osborne** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:12 pm

Vigilant wrote: No admin in the history of en.wp will ever have been desysoped for anything close to Fram's relatively mild behavior.

Times change, fortunately. It's to the benefit of the community to finally hold admins to higher, not lower standards, than editors in general.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:19 pm

I still don't understand why they are dragging this out.

He's reinstated, pull tools pending a reconfirmation vote by a split decision of the committee, and be done with it. Jesus, it's not too hard to figure out... People will howl no matter what.

Is it fair? No, but nothing about this entire proceeding was "fair." It does send a message both to the community and to WMF that civility is important and effectively kicks the can for the decision on tools from WMF to Arbcom to the community.

Hopefully lessons were learned all around:

1. WMF should not be making it their business to micromanage user behavior on the projects.

2. Arbcom should not be in the secret evidence/secret decisionmaking/Star Chamber business. They have established procedures and they need to follow them...

3. Administrators should not act like dicks.

RfB

Osborne · Unread post by **Osborne** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:23 pm

Yep. Reasonable summary.

Fram wrote:I, nor anyone else, can actually ''learn'' anything from this except "if you want someone sanctioned, post as much as you can to T&S, that will do the trick?".

You could learn something, if you wanted to. It's spelled out in simple English:

PD 2d wrote:The behaviour shown in the case materials falls below the standards expected for an administrator.

The message is not getting through, it seems.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:33 pm

Osborne wrote:
Vigilant wrote: No admin in the history of en.wp will ever have been desysoped for anything close to Fram's relatively mild behavior.
Times change, fortunately. It's to the benefit of the community to finally hold admins to higher, not lower standards, than editors in general.

You don't do it retroactively.

Ex_post_facto_law (T-H-L)

Jbhunley · Unread post by **Jbhunley** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:36 pm

Carcharoth wrote:This is pertinent from SilkTork:

I was discussing matters with Fram on Meta, and providing as much details as I could. The talks stalled, so not everything was discussed - certainly not as much as I would have liked. At this moment someone is making a complaint to the Stewards about the amount of detail I discussed with Fram, so it's probably best if I don't go any further in that direction. [...] 15:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
It might explain the radio silence from some arbitrators.

It is pretty much bullshit too. The only discussion on the stewards relating to the case that I am aware of is link https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? ... d=19394498[/link] thread #2. SilkTork was provided with all of the material and there is no complaint about him or any arb in it. He may be concerned about this Letter to WMF Ombudsman Committee. It is not a complaint about him, it is a complaint about T&S invocation of the confidentiality agreement back when I thought meta:Ombudsman commission was an actual ombudsman instead of a a complaints window for checkuser/oversight with a grand sounding name*.

* See this for why that is so.

--
Jbh

//Edited to shorten links and remove help request//

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:56 pm

Osborne wrote:
Vigilant wrote: No admin in the history of en.wp will ever have been desysoped for anything close to Fram's relatively mild behavior.
Times change, fortunately. It's to the benefit of the community to finally hold admins to higher, not lower standards, than editors in general.

Laura Hale is/was an admin on Wikinews and Raystorm is an admin on esWP, if not on more projects, so go make your case.....

Osborne · Unread post by **Osborne** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:26 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Osborne wrote: Times change, fortunately. It's to the benefit of the community to finally hold admins to higher, not lower standards, than editors in general.
You don't do it retroactively.
Ex_post_facto_law (T-H-L)

Don't get me wrong. The laws (policies) did not change in ca. a decade. What's changing is that it is now actually applied.

TheElusiveClaw · Unread post by **TheElusiveClaw** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:55 pm

Carcharoth wrote:This is pertinent from SilkTork:

I was discussing matters with Fram on Meta, and providing as much details as I could. The talks stalled, so not everything was discussed - certainly not as much as I would have liked. At this moment someone is making a complaint to the Stewards about the amount of detail I discussed with Fram, so it's probably best if I don't go any further in that direction. [...] 15:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
It might explain the radio silence from some arbitrators.

Scrocat seems to be one of those making some very good points, but not always in the best way. He is scoring some very good hits along the way, however.

ArbCom <- joke · Unread post by **ArbCom <- joke** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 8:02 pm

Pfff ... someone just start an RfA for Fram, and in 7 days the ArbCom case is just moot (though, it would save the face of ArbCom, and wedon’t want to miss that show ... do we?).

ArmasRebane · Unread post by **ArmasRebane** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 8:05 pm

eagle wrote:
Osborne wrote:
Vigilant wrote: No admin in the history of en.wp will ever have been desysoped for anything close to Fram's relatively mild behavior.
Times change, fortunately. It's to the benefit of the community to finally hold admins to higher, not lower standards, than editors in general.
Laura Hale is/was an admin on Wikinews and Raystorm is an admin on esWP, if not on more projects, so go make your case.....

Less than two dozen people care about Wikinews. She can do whatever there and virtually no one will read it.

I don’t even see her active over there anyhow: https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?tit ... &limit=500

Ada Sinn · Unread post by **Ada Sinn** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 8:07 pm

CoffeeCrumbs wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:Unless Fram does something game-changing after being unblocked, the case is still close to closing and in its endgame stages. It is difficult to undo the effect of seeing Fram coralled at Meta with arbs trooping to his talk page to talk to him. That memory won't fade for a long time.

In retrospect, the strategic mistake from ArbCom was the failure to hammer out a consensus behind closed doors, putting up a proposed decision, and voting on it swiftly and decisively (while pretending to vote as if they hadn't conferred first). That would have shortened things immensely, and left Fram and the community with the ball in their court after the case closed.

By instead having the (normal) protracted, and in full public view, wrangling over the proposed decision, AND having the consensus against the ban so obvious, it wasn't long before someone realised the obvious (Fram needed to be able to participate once the ban was obviously going to be overturned) and suggested Fram be unbanned. So ArbCom end up looking silly. Fram is probably not sure what to do now. And elements of the community are still looking for somewhere to vent their anger.

The whole debate over whether to decide things in public or off-wiki is expressed well here by Isaacl (T-C-L).
I've given money every year for a decade because I'm a romantic moron who believes in the base mission of the Wiki movement. Now, I'm no plutocrat or anything, but it's a good chunk of money that I almost approve every year now more out of habit than anything. I'm increasingly thinking I've sent my last payment; I thought I was supporting a crowd-sourced encyclopedia, not a jobs program for tin-pot bureaucrats. I've never interacted with Fram in my life but this whole thing has really just triggered my overwrought feelings about justice and fair play.

From my experience, lots of donations come from readers who are just enthusiastic something like Wikipedia even exists. These people naturally don't see behind the curtain and have no idea what kind of wiki politics drama is boiling behind. We here on Wikipediocracy, however, know what's going on backstage. Having said that I share your view and the behavior of WMF strongly discourages me from donating this year.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 8:28 pm

Osborne wrote:Don't get me wrong. The laws (policies) did not change in ca. a decade. What's changing is that it is now actually applied.

You referred to the standards, not the policies. WP:ADMINCOND (T-H-L) doesn't spell out the standards, because it would be a hundred pages if it did. Instead, it says, "administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors." Who determines the standards? Presumably it's always been the admins and the Arbcom, and now the WMF wants in as well, but you're never going to get even close to full agreement on detailed standards, even if you can come close to full agreement on general ones.

But what I see as really happening here, personally, is that the WMF maybe wants to change the English Wikipedia admin culture so that past instances of "misconduct" are given more weight in determining an admin's culpability, not to mention motivations, in whatever current instance is being adjudicated. Until now, past instances/issues have typically been treated as mere background by admins/arbs on en.wiki, sometimes even dismissed as irrelevant. "Every situation is different" has always been a hallmark of Wikipedia culture for some reason, probably because almost every WP user is either anonymous or assumed to behave much more erratically online than they probably would in reality. Or, maybe they just don't like dealing with lengthy "dossiers." But the WMF, at least in this case, now seems pretty high on the whole lengthy-dossier concept, so that makes us ask, why?

In other words, this case represents a kind of disconnect - almost an abnormality. So we look for a reason, something that might cause the disconnect/abnormality, and sure enough we find out that the person who's complained most bitterly about this guy Fram over the years is married to the Chairperson of the Board of Trustees, and (please forgive me for saying this) is also kind of a scary person. "We must not upset Laura" just makes more sense than the idea that the WMF, after years of running the site in a hands-off way, would just suddenly waltz in, with little or no warning, and just snap, ban this guy, at this point in time, in this way, all because of his "long history of incivility." And yet, both reasons could conceivably be correct - it's just that because we've seen for so long what the WMF is capable (and incapable) of, we're just much more comfortable with the former explanation than the latter.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:00 pm

eagle wrote:
Osborne wrote:
Vigilant wrote: No admin in the history of en.wp will ever have been desysoped for anything close to Fram's relatively mild behavior.
Times change, fortunately. It's to the benefit of the community to finally hold admins to higher, not lower standards, than editors in general.
Laura Hale is/was an admin on Wikinews and Raystorm is an admin on esWP, if not on more projects, so go make your case.....

Raystorm is indeed an admin and even a bureaucrat on ESWP, though she is not a sysop anywhere else.

Laura has not edited Wikinews for two years.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:15 pm

Osborne wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Osborne wrote: Times change, fortunately. It's to the benefit of the community to finally hold admins to higher, not lower standards, than editors in general.
You don't do it retroactively.
Ex_post_facto_law (T-H-L)
Don't get me wrong. The laws (policies) did not change in ca. a decade. What's changing is that it is now actually applied.

From the lede

In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:16 pm

ArmasRebane wrote:
eagle wrote:
Osborne wrote:
Vigilant wrote: No admin in the history of en.wp will ever have been desysoped for anything close to Fram's relatively mild behavior.
Times change, fortunately. It's to the benefit of the community to finally hold admins to higher, not lower standards, than editors in general.
Laura Hale is/was an admin on Wikinews and Raystorm is an admin on esWP, if not on more projects, so go make your case.....
Less than two dozen people care about Wikinews. She can do whatever there and virtually no one will read it.

I don’t even see her active over there anyhow: https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?tit ... &limit=500

Apparently Jimbo hates, hates, hates wikinews and tried to get it shut down at one point.

That he failed is what's strange.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:23 pm

As I've said several times before too ALL arbs: These are Fram's contributions between 1 April 2018 and 30 June 2019 (his last edit pre-block). You do not have to hide behind the NDA or worry about what it contains if, as you claim "the committee takes over the decision to remove Fram's administrator tools". Put the T&S document in the bin, along with all the private evidence and spend ten minutes going through his diffs. Find some evidence to justify your actions. Without providing the diffs you are relying on to desysop him you (individually and collectively as a committee) are close to breaching WP:ADMINACCT: "Failure to communicate[6] – this can be either with editors (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to address concerns of the community" and "Administrators who ... have lost the trust or confidence of the community". - SchroCat (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Cheeky!

I like this guy.

Mason · Unread post by **Mason** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:26 pm

Fram, previously: "Fuck ArbCom."

Looks like ArbCom is now returning the sentiment.

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:37 pm

Vigilant wrote:
ArmasRebane wrote:
eagle wrote:
Osborne wrote:
Vigilant wrote: No admin in the history of en.wp will ever have been desysoped for anything close to Fram's relatively mild behavior.
Times change, fortunately. It's to the benefit of the community to finally hold admins to higher, not lower standards, than editors in general.
Laura Hale is/was an admin on Wikinews and Raystorm is an admin on esWP, if not on more projects, so go make your case.....
Less than two dozen people care about Wikinews. She can do whatever there and virtually no one will read it.

I don’t even see her active over there anyhow: https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?tit ... &limit=500
Apparently Jimbo hates, hates, hates wikinews and tried to get it shut down at one point.

That he failed is what's strange.

At one point, Mr. Wales also tried to shut down Wikiversity. Did you hear that, Abd and Leigh Blackall? The point that I am making is that any argument that Fram should be held to a "higher standard" applies equally to LH and MS. Although an action blocking the Chair of the WMF or a vanished user may not have an immediate effect upon their editing, it would become quite a campaign issue if Raystorm attempts to run for another term on the WMF Board or if LH decides to unvanish. I am all for dropping the stick, but only after justice is done.

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 10:40 pm

Mason wrote:Fram, previously: "Fuck ArbCom."

Looks like ArbCom is now returning the sentiment.

We need someone to run for Arbcom who can think clearly and act with humility? Someone with proven ability to get enough votes to win the election. Do we know anyone who fits that description?

Beeblebrox · Unread post by **Beeblebrox** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 11:31 pm

ArmasRebane wrote:
eagle wrote:
Osborne wrote:
Vigilant wrote: No admin in the history of en.wp will ever have been desysoped for anything close to Fram's relatively mild behavior.
Times change, fortunately. It's to the benefit of the community to finally hold admins to higher, not lower standards, than editors in general.
Laura Hale is/was an admin on Wikinews and Raystorm is an admin on esWP, if not on more projects, so go make your case.....
Less than two dozen people care about Wikinews. She can do whatever there and virtually no one will read it.

I don’t even see her active over there anyhow: https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?tit ... &limit=500

I agree that almost nobody cares about Wikinews, but she was indeed active there 11 days ago, well after her "vanishing".
https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Special:Co ... fdfmykrdyr

EDIT: nope, misread timestamps, she hasn't been active there in 3 years and had her admin status revoked for inactivity.

ArmasRebane · Unread post by **ArmasRebane** » Thu Sep 19, 2019 11:37 pm

Beeblebrox wrote:
ArmasRebane wrote:
eagle wrote:
Osborne wrote:
Vigilant wrote: No admin in the history of en.wp will ever have been desysoped for anything close to Fram's relatively mild behavior.
Times change, fortunately. It's to the benefit of the community to finally hold admins to higher, not lower standards, than editors in general.
Laura Hale is/was an admin on Wikinews and Raystorm is an admin on esWP, if not on more projects, so go make your case.....
Less than two dozen people care about Wikinews. She can do whatever there and virtually no one will read it.

I don’t even see her active over there anyhow: https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?tit ... &limit=500
I agree that almost nobody cares about Wikinews, but she was indeed active there 11 days ago, well after her "vanishing".
https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Special:Co ... fdfmykrdyr

Oh right, wasn't thinking about the fact that her rename applied cross-project.

As an aside, this board is interesting: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposa ... g_projects

It's kind of funny how a handful of people can prevent the shutdown of their projects. As Adam Cuerden points out, Wikinews fails at reporting news... so what point is there in keeping it around?

Katie · Unread post by **Katie** » Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:00 am

Beeblebrox: I think you made a mistake there. I can't see anything after 2016 in the edits she's made to Wikinews.

Beeblebrox · Unread post by **Beeblebrox** » Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:34 am

Katie wrote:Beeblebrox: I think you made a mistake there. I can't see anything after 2016 in the edits she's made to Wikinews.

Yep. I thought I had edited the post to reflect that before anyone replied.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:34 am

Vigilant wrote:
As I've said several times before too ALL arbs: These are Fram's contributions between 1 April 2018 and 30 June 2019 (his last edit pre-block). You do not have to hide behind the NDA or worry about what it contains if, as you claim "the committee takes over the decision to remove Fram's administrator tools". Put the T&S document in the bin, along with all the private evidence and spend ten minutes going through his diffs. Find some evidence to justify your actions. Without providing the diffs you are relying on to desysop him you (individually and collectively as a committee) are close to breaching WP:ADMINACCT: "Failure to communicate[6] – this can be either with editors (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to address concerns of the community" and "Administrators who ... have lost the trust or confidence of the community". - SchroCat (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Cheeky!

I like this guy.

Yes, SchroCat is one of the best!

He should be here...

tim

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:09 am

Ah look, here comes the WeMakeFailures to fuck everything up even further.

link https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 93529.html[/link]

Countdown to deployment against alpha target in 3, 2, 1..

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:27 am

Vigilant wrote:
ArmasRebane wrote:
eagle wrote:
Osborne wrote:
Vigilant wrote: No admin in the history of en.wp will ever have been desysoped for anything close to Fram's relatively mild behavior.
Times change, fortunately. It's to the benefit of the community to finally hold admins to higher, not lower standards, than editors in general.
Laura Hale is/was an admin on Wikinews and Raystorm is an admin on esWP, if not on more projects, so go make your case.....
Less than two dozen people care about Wikinews. She can do whatever there and virtually no one will read it.

I don’t even see her active over there anyhow: https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?tit ... &limit=500
Apparently Jimbo hates, hates, hates wikinews and tried to get it shut down at one point.

That he failed is what's strange.

No financial Conflict of Interest there!

https://www.wikitribune.com/

RfB

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:56 am

Vigilant wrote:Ah look, here comes the WeMakeFailures to fuck everything up even further.

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 93529.html

Countdown to deployment against alpha target in 3, 2, 1..

I thought everyone liked the idea of partial blocks...?

I mean, it doesn't affect me personally of course, but if it were my site I'd probably support the idea. Consistent and fair application is obviously the key to success, but even if they completely fail in that regard (which is a very strong possibility), I doubt it would be significantly worse than what they have now.

You're right about them using/misusing partial blocks on someone like Fram, but even there, it still would have been better than what they actually did. (IMO.)

Osborne · Unread post by **Osborne** » Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:57 am

Midsize Jake wrote: I thought everyone liked the idea of partial blocks...?

Yes, everyone does.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:15 am

Midsize Jake wrote:
Vigilant wrote:Ah look, here comes the WeMakeFailures to fuck everything up even further.

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 93529.html

Countdown to deployment against alpha target in 3, 2, 1..
I thought everyone liked the idea of partial blocks...?

I mean, it doesn't affect me personally of course, but if it were my site I'd probably support the idea. Consistent and fair application is obviously the key to success, but even if they completely fail in that regard (which is a very strong possibility), I doubt it would be significantly worse than what they have now.

You're right about them using/misusing partial blocks on someone like Fram, but even there, it still would have been better than what they actually did. (IMO.)

What are the odds that the feature works as advertised right out of the gate?

How many additional blocks will be done, just because?

How will bad admins abuse this tool?

Will the T&S morons be enabled because of the select fire nature of this tool?

Let's find out.

MrErnie · Unread post by **MrErnie** » Fri Sep 20, 2019 6:36 am

Ah so here it finally comes:

ADMINCOND
15) The Arbitration Committee has received public and privately submitted evidence about Fram's conducting, including the 70 page report from Trust and Safety (T&S) and a number of individual submissions. The accumulated evidence (public and private) supports the view that Fram's conduct was not consistent with WP:ADMINCOND. Due to confidentiality restrictions, especially with respect to the T&S report, a significant and substantive portion of the evidence submitted cannot be disclosed to either Fram or the community at large as would typically be expected in a standard Arbitration proceeding.

Assuming they aren't talking about Fram's work on the podium with a baton, this looks to be what they will hide behind to support the desysop. A total cop out. After assurances beforehand that the private evidence wouldn't be weighed as heavily as the community submitted evidence, they must have been upset when the public evidence turned out to be a dud, so now have to retreat back to an unassailable position.

Osborne · Unread post by **Osborne** » Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:14 am

Vigilant wrote: What are the odds that the feature works as advertised right out of the gate?

That it's been in testing since January on Italian, since March on Arab (RTL) wiki, and Telugu, Japaneese, and I guess a few more that I missed.

Vigilant wrote: How many additional blocks will be done, just because?

As much as used to be "just because".

Vigilant wrote: How will bad admins abuse this tool?

As they abuse project-wide blocks, but with less damage caused.

Vigilant wrote: Will the T&S morons be enabled because of the select fire nature of this tool?

What? Translater, please.

"Always with the negative waves Moriarty, always with the negative waves."

TheElusiveClaw · Unread post by **TheElusiveClaw** » Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:23 am

eagle wrote:
Mason wrote:Fram, previously: "Fuck ArbCom."

Looks like ArbCom is now returning the sentiment.
We need someone to run for Arbcom who can think clearly and act with humility? Someone with proven ability to get enough votes to win the election. Do we know anyone who fits that description?

JBHunley is looking like a good fit. He's been shredding ArbCom constantly over this

Carcharoth · Unread post by **Carcharoth** » Fri Sep 20, 2019 11:29 am

Not sure where things are headed now (probably to a case close, and then an RFA, which hopefully Fram will get the tone right for). Not sure if he should self nominate or not.

It is saddening to see even reasonable arbs worn down by this, even Opabinia regalis is getting tetchy (I get her laidback approach, but I suspect she doesn't fully understand the feelings in the community over this and has got disconnected somehow while being an arb - she is exhibiting classic signs of not caring much any more after four years as an arbitrator). There are other signs of arb fatigue among the other arbs as well.

Meanwhile, some comments are getting quite pointed: "The arbs that vote for Fram's desysop are complicit in corruption" Chowbok (T-C-L) and "I have to say that were I an Arbitrator and someone I voted to desysop immediately ran a successful RfA afterwards, I would feel obliged to resign - but that will be a matter for individual Arbitrators if we end up in that territory" WJBscribe (T-C-L) and "I have significantly more trust in Fram's ability to correctly use sysop powers than I have in some members of the Committee to use Arb powers. [...] Here, all we learn is to be afraid of people connected to T&S and to respect the authority of ArbCom." Kusma (T-C-L).

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:26 pm

Let the games begin.

Ritchie333 · Unread post by **Ritchie333** » Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:31 pm

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fram 2 (T-H-L)
I'm gonna make me some popcorn and get comfy.....

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:52 pm

I don't believe the document was "provided" by the initial complainants, I think it far more likely that it was the product of someone at the WMF carrying out an investigation. But given we can't pass it beyond our mailing list, I agree that there's only so much weight we should give it. I'm not willing to completely ignore it, but I'm also not willing to implement actual sanctions based upon it. I'm also not willing to be an investigator, it's far too likely that I'd miss something - I get where you are coming from on the the lack of diffs (and you'll note I'm not supporting a desysop, beyond a no-fault refer to community). WormTT(talk) 12:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, I wonder how many of these 'investigations' there are ongoing and why the comparison to the Stasi keeps jumping to mind?

Secret evidence that the defendant cannot rebut is exactly what you should ignore.

The source of the complaint that spawned the secret investigation is also relevant here.
Laura Hale and Maria Sefidari Huici are corruptly manipulating the structure of en.wp and the WMF to get an outcome that masks their misdeeds.

Carcharoth · Unread post by **Carcharoth** » Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:52 pm

Oh. Fram's RfA is not transcluded at RfA yet so technically hasn't started, but should have waited really (at least until the case closes). Or at least draft in user space. Wait for some comments to start to appear at the talk page of the arbitration noticeboard. Jumping in now could backfire badly.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:55 pm

Carcharoth wrote:Oh. Fram's RfA is not transcluded at RfA yet so technically hasn't started, but should have waited really (at least until the case closes). Or at least draft in user space. Wait for some comments to start to appear at the talk page of the arbitration noticeboard. Jumping in now could backfire badly.

How so?

I also think they should name and shame Laura and Maria here.