Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

[Midsize Jake]

I was going to make a comment about the word-count limit, but User:Hlevy2 (T-C-L) has already said pretty much what I was going to say:

Comments by Hlevy2
Word limit on comments (outside of Arbcom proceedings)

If the Arbcom wishes to place an increased emphasis on civility, that goal is not furthered by artificial word count limits. In many cases, Fram correctly views the position of another participant in a discussion as wrong. Rather than curtly pointing out the error, a more polite approach would be to provide reasons, examples and perhaps a more wordy phrasing. Regardless of Fram's writing style, this would be a dangerous precedent to set, because once the word count limit is applied more broadly, talk page, ANI and other discussions would go from being a collegial discussion to a telegraphic tweet war. We do not want that, and civility involves the potential of wordiness, including phrases like "with all due respect..." and "I hear what you are saying but..." and "I understand your position to be X, but Y is a better view." Perhaps the ArbCom should impose a minimum word count requirement rather than a maximum in order to assure more polite modes of communication. However, since there are no findings of fact related to Fram's word count conduct, I am not in a position to judge what was intended. Thank you for your consideration. Hlevy2 (T-C-L) 14:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Everyone knows you're much more likely to be diplomatic in what you're writing if you don't have a word-count limit... this is just lazy and stupid. It's like they're punting their responsibility to determine what's civil, tactful, and/or polite in favor of this arbitrary numeric restriction. Heck, why not use byte-counts? Or what if he puts an emoji in there, does that count as a word, or a thousand words because it's a picture? Sheez Louise.

[Randy from Boise]

God damn.

I'm not sure about the wording (but I have not been involved in shaping the PD, so unaware of the thinking behind it) as it might be seen as odd to siteban an admin but allow them to keep their admin tools, but regardless of the wording, I think the question of Fram's admin status should be decided by the community when he returns to Wikipedia and is able to respond to questions and assure the community that he will tone down his frustration, and if someone is not responding how he would like, that he gets at least one other admin to look into the issue. SilkTork (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Then why are you voting?
Why are you even on ARBCOM?

Much like the Supreme Court of the United States, which it otherwise resembles very little, Arbcom findings and decisions are written by one or two members of the committee after discussion between the full committee. The drafters in this instance are Worm that Turned and Joe Roe.

RfB

[Vigilant]

I was going to make a comment about the word-count limit, but User:Hlevy2 (T-C-L) has already said pretty much what I was going to say:

Comments by Hlevy2
Word limit on comments (outside of Arbcom proceedings)

If the Arbcom wishes to place an increased emphasis on civility, that goal is not furthered by artificial word count limits. In many cases, Fram correctly views the position of another participant in a discussion as wrong. Rather than curtly pointing out the error, a more polite approach would be to provide reasons, examples and perhaps a more wordy phrasing. Regardless of Fram's writing style, this would be a dangerous precedent to set, because once the word count limit is applied more broadly, talk page, ANI and other discussions would go from being a collegial discussion to a telegraphic tweet war. We do not want that, and civility involves the potential of wordiness, including phrases like "with all due respect..." and "I hear what you are saying but..." and "I understand your position to be X, but Y is a better view." Perhaps the ArbCom should impose a minimum word count requirement rather than a maximum in order to assure more polite modes of communication. However, since there are no findings of fact related to Fram's word count conduct, I am not in a position to judge what was intended. Thank you for your consideration. Hlevy2 (T-C-L) 14:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Everyone knows you're much more likely to be diplomatic in what you're writing if you don't have a word-count limit... this is just lazy and stupid. It's like they're punting their responsibility to determine what's civil, tactful, and/or polite in favor of this arbitrary numeric restriction. Heck, why not use byte-counts? Or what if he puts an emoji in there, does that count as a word, or a thousand words because it's a picture? Sheez Louise.

[Vigilant]

God damn.

I'm not sure about the wording (but I have not been involved in shaping the PD, so unaware of the thinking behind it) as it might be seen as odd to siteban an admin but allow them to keep their admin tools, but regardless of the wording, I think the question of Fram's admin status should be decided by the community when he returns to Wikipedia and is able to respond to questions and assure the community that he will tone down his frustration, and if someone is not responding how he would like, that he gets at least one other admin to look into the issue. SilkTork (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Then why are you voting?
Why are you even on ARBCOM?

Much like the Supreme Court of the United States, which it otherwise resembles very little, Arbcom findings and decisions are written by one or two members of the committee after discussion between the full committee. The drafters in this instance are Worm that Turned and Joe Roe.

RfB

For this case?
That's malpractice.

"Uh yeah, I've been hearing some noise about some Roe v Wade thingy going on... I didn't bother to read the briefs, but let me weigh in here...Herp derp"

Do they all have to be Clarence Thomases?

[Moral Hazard]

Fram's prose is usually clear, dense, and documented. Rarely there may be unidiomatic phrasing.

Where is the finding of fact (with evidence) that Fram habitually bloviates?

The word-limit is dishonest, beastly, nasty, and too short.

[mendaliv]

I was going to make a comment about the word-count limit, but User:Hlevy2 (T-C-L) has already said pretty much what I was going to say:

Comments by Hlevy2
Word limit on comments (outside of Arbcom proceedings)

If the Arbcom wishes to place an increased emphasis on civility, that goal is not furthered by artificial word count limits. In many cases, Fram correctly views the position of another participant in a discussion as wrong. Rather than curtly pointing out the error, a more polite approach would be to provide reasons, examples and perhaps a more wordy phrasing. Regardless of Fram's writing style, this would be a dangerous precedent to set, because once the word count limit is applied more broadly, talk page, ANI and other discussions would go from being a collegial discussion to a telegraphic tweet war. We do not want that, and civility involves the potential of wordiness, including phrases like "with all due respect..." and "I hear what you are saying but..." and "I understand your position to be X, but Y is a better view." Perhaps the ArbCom should impose a minimum word count requirement rather than a maximum in order to assure more polite modes of communication. However, since there are no findings of fact related to Fram's word count conduct, I am not in a position to judge what was intended. Thank you for your consideration. Hlevy2 (T-C-L) 14:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Everyone knows you're much more likely to be diplomatic in what you're writing if you don't have a word-count limit... this is just lazy and stupid. It's like they're punting their responsibility to determine what's civil, tactful, and/or polite in favor of this arbitrary numeric restriction. Heck, why not use byte-counts? Or what if he puts an emoji in there, does that count as a word, or a thousand words because it's a picture? Sheez Louise.

EEng would be the king of noticeboards under such a restriction.

[mendaliv]

God damn.

I'm not sure about the wording (but I have not been involved in shaping the PD, so unaware of the thinking behind it) as it might be seen as odd to siteban an admin but allow them to keep their admin tools, but regardless of the wording, I think the question of Fram's admin status should be decided by the community when he returns to Wikipedia and is able to respond to questions and assure the community that he will tone down his frustration, and if someone is not responding how he would like, that he gets at least one other admin to look into the issue. SilkTork (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Then why are you voting?
Why are you even on ARBCOM?

Much like the Supreme Court of the United States, which it otherwise resembles very little, Arbcom findings and decisions are written by one or two members of the committee after discussion between the full committee. The drafters in this instance are Worm that Turned and Joe Roe.

RfB

NYB's "quiz" on ArbCom for lawyers is pretty on-point about this: People act like it's SCOTUS, but in reality that analogy is extremely strained. Though, I think the reason it's strained has less to do with "WP:NOTLAW" and more with the fact that ArbCom primarily handles cases in original jurisdiction (though even where SCOTUS does this, they appoint a "special master" to handle the initial case management and factfinding such that when issues come before the Court directly, they're operating more in their wheelhouse of judicial review).

Honestly, I'd say that most of the macro-scale differences between SCOTUS and ArbCom operations are actually flaws in how ArbCom works.

[Vigilant]

Fram's a wee bit pissed.

[Kumioko]

Fram's a wee bit pissed.

He should be pissed and he is right to be mad. He's also right that the Arbcom is a joke and a bunch of liars. I hope the community recognizes that ad disbands the arbcom and or votes out all its members.

But, on a side note, Fram being banned is yet another one of the people who participated in my bullshit ban being forced out...just like they forced me out.

[mendaliv]

But, on a side note, Fram being banned is yet another one of the people who participated in my bullshit ban being forced out...just like they forced me out.

Well, like my sig says, sometimes our rights get defined in cases involving not very nice people. Even if Fram was harassing someone, the process has been so egregious that it should be reversed, if only to serve as a lesson to WMF and those in power that they need not only to do the right things, but do them in the right way.

[Eric Corbett]

But, on a side note, Fram being banned is yet another one of the people who participated in my bullshit ban being forced out...just like they forced me out.

Well, like my sig says, sometimes our rights get defined in cases involving not very nice people. Even if Fram was harassing someone, the process has been so egregious that it should be reversed, if only to serve as a lesson to WMF and those in power that they need not only to do the right things, but do them in the right way.

Or perhaps more accurately not very popular people; but in either case you make a good point.

[Kumioko]

But, on a side note, Fram being banned is yet another one of the people who participated in my bullshit ban being forced out...just like they forced me out.

Well, like my sig says, sometimes our rights get defined in cases involving not very nice people. Even if Fram was harassing someone, the process has been so egregious that it should be reversed, if only to serve as a lesson to WMF and those in power that they need not only to do the right things, but do them in the right way.

Or perhaps more accurately not very popular people; but in either case you make a good point.

The whole case is just a sham, everyone knows it. The arbcom doesn't have the authority to overturn it, they are just wasting everyone's time. I can tell you from experience that the Arbcom are liars and cheaters and won't hesitate to ignore, manipulate or violate policy if it suits them.

[Eric Corbett]

I'm a bit puzzzled by Fram's response. Hasn't it been obvious for years that all ArbCom decisions are pre-determined? I doubt that any of the arbitrators even bother to look at the so-called evidence.

If Fram's only just realised that, then he hasn't been paying attention. But I suppose, having been an admin, he probably turned a blind eye to that until it affected him personally, and not some mere editor.

[Beeblebrox]

I'm not as cynical (or in some cases downright paranoid) as some of the rest of you about arbcom, we certainly didn't predetermine case outcomes when I was an arb and the office never once told us what we had to do to please them, nor did we worry about what they thought.

But of course this case changes everything, and it just sucks. It sucks for Fram, it sucks for the arbs, it sucks for the community. The way T&S set this up with all the extra restrictions there is no way for the committee to do anything that won't make them look like they are hiding something, because in this case we know for a fact that they are indeed hiding quite a bit. On top of that, Fram is that most problematic type of user, the ones who are at their most abrasive and their most correct at the same time. So of course he's pissed. Anyone would be upset at being tried a second time on evidence you weren't allowed to see.

The best thing arbcom could've done (still could but it's not likely given the PD so far) is just overturn everything T&S did as out-of-process interference, but that's probably too much to expect from this particular iteration of the committee. I suspect (as others have mentioned) they will instead go ahead and punt on the matter of adminship, by unbanning Fram and tell him he can run at RFA.

[Eric Corbett]

I'm not as cynical (or in some cases downright paranoid) as some of the rest of you about arbcom, we certainly didn't predetermine case outcomes when I was an arb and the office never once told us what we had to do to please them, nor did we worry about what they thought.

But of course this case changes everything, and it just sucks. It sucks for Fram, it sucks for the arbs, it sucks for the community. The way T&S set this up with all the extra restrictions there is no way for the committee to do anything that won't make them look like they are hiding something, because in this case we know for a fact that they are indeed hiding quite a bit. On top of that, Fram is that most problematic type of user, the ones who are at their most abrasive and their most correct at the same time. So of course he's pissed. Anyone would be upset at being tried a second time on evidence you weren't allowed to see.

The best thing arbcom could've done (still could but it's not likely given the PD so far) is just overturn everything T&S did as out-of-process interference, but that's probably too much to expect from this particular iteration of the committee. I suspect (as others have mentioned) they will instead go ahead and punt on the matter of adminship, by unbanning Fram and tell him he can run at RFA.

To be quite honest, you're talking out of your arse. Anyone with half a brain could predict the outcome of any ArbCom case regardless of any so-called evidence.

ArbCom were given the opportunity by no less than Jimbo Wales himself to reverse the T&S decision, and they have apparently opted not to do so. There can can be no possible excuse for their complete and utter capitulation.

[mendaliv]

I'm not as cynical (or in some cases downright paranoid) as some of the rest of you about arbcom, we certainly didn't predetermine case outcomes when I was an arb and the office never once told us what we had to do to please them, nor did we worry about what they thought.

But of course this case changes everything, and it just sucks. It sucks for Fram, it sucks for the arbs, it sucks for the community. The way T&S set this up with all the extra restrictions there is no way for the committee to do anything that won't make them look like they are hiding something, because in this case we know for a fact that they are indeed hiding quite a bit. On top of that, Fram is that most problematic type of user, the ones who are at their most abrasive and their most correct at the same time. So of course he's pissed. Anyone would be upset at being tried a second time on evidence you weren't allowed to see.

The best thing arbcom could've done (still could but it's not likely given the PD so far) is just overturn everything T&S did as out-of-process interference, but that's probably too much to expect from this particular iteration of the committee. I suspect (as others have mentioned) they will instead go ahead and punt on the matter of adminship, by unbanning Fram and tell him he can run at RFA.

Generally speaking I'm willing to assume incompetence on the part of the Committee, and even of T&S.

I honestly regret having faith that WTT would actually take seriously the idea that they should have punted on jurisdictional grounds. It was the perfect way to force mutuality in the relationship between WMF and the Committee, since they'd have WP:FRAM embarrassing them again, with the arbs leading the demand for transparency and accountability, and forcing them to accept the Committee's involvement as a matter of policy rather than on a one-off basis.

[Eric Corbett]

But, on a side note, Fram being banned is yet another one of the people who participated in my bullshit ban being forced out...just like they forced me out.

Well, like my sig says, sometimes our rights get defined in cases involving not very nice people. Even if Fram was harassing someone, the process has been so egregious that it should be reversed, if only to serve as a lesson to WMF and those in power that they need not only to do the right things, but do them in the right way.

Or perhaps more accurately not very popular people; but in either case you make a good point.

The whole case is just a sham, everyone knows it. The arbcom doesn't have the authority to overturn it, they are just wasting everyone's time. I can tell you from experience that the Arbcom are liars and cheaters and won't hesitate to ignore, manipulate or violate policy if it suits them.

I think they had the authority to overturn it, just not the courage.

[mendaliv]

But, on a side note, Fram being banned is yet another one of the people who participated in my bullshit ban being forced out...just like they forced me out.

Well, like my sig says, sometimes our rights get defined in cases involving not very nice people. Even if Fram was harassing someone, the process has been so egregious that it should be reversed, if only to serve as a lesson to WMF and those in power that they need not only to do the right things, but do them in the right way.

Or perhaps more accurately not very popular people; but in either case you make a good point.

The whole case is just a sham, everyone knows it. The arbcom doesn't have the authority to overturn it, they are just wasting everyone's time. I can tell you from experience that the Arbcom are liars and cheaters and won't hesitate to ignore, manipulate or violate policy if it suits them.

I think they had the authority to overturn it, just not the courage.

It was vague enough that I'm perfectly comfortable arguing that they don't have the actual authority. Jimbo is just Jimbo. It's not his call, and people on all sides taking his word for it on anything is the worst thing I've seen in this entire fiasco.

[Kumioko]

But, on a side note, Fram being banned is yet another one of the people who participated in my bullshit ban being forced out...just like they forced me out.

Well, like my sig says, sometimes our rights get defined in cases involving not very nice people. Even if Fram was harassing someone, the process has been so egregious that it should be reversed, if only to serve as a lesson to WMF and those in power that they need not only to do the right things, but do them in the right way.

Or perhaps more accurately not very popular people; but in either case you make a good point.

The whole case is just a sham, everyone knows it. The arbcom doesn't have the authority to overturn it, they are just wasting everyone's time. I can tell you from experience that the Arbcom are liars and cheaters and won't hesitate to ignore, manipulate or violate policy if it suits them.

I think they had the authority to overturn it, just not the courage.

It was vague enough that I'm perfectly comfortable arguing that they don't have the actual authority. Jimbo is just Jimbo. It's not his call, and people on all sides taking his word for it on anything is the worst thing I've seen in this entire fiasco.

Yeah I agree, I stated myself early on the Arbs got the shaft on this and should have declined any involvement in the case and let the WMF fix their own mess. They didn't and now no matter what they do someone gets pissed.

I also agree with Eric here that everyone knew that the outcome of this case was predetermined and in fact almost all the arbcom cases are because if they didn't think there was a problem to resolve they wouldn't accept the case in the first place. I also agree that the Arbcom lacks the moral courage to even recognize, let alone actually do anything about, anything they find.

[Eric Corbett]

But, on a side note, Fram being banned is yet another one of the people who participated in my bullshit ban being forced out...just like they forced me out.

Well, like my sig says, sometimes our rights get defined in cases involving not very nice people. Even if Fram was harassing someone, the process has been so egregious that it should be reversed, if only to serve as a lesson to WMF and those in power that they need not only to do the right things, but do them in the right way.

Or perhaps more accurately not very popular people; but in either case you make a good point.

The whole case is just a sham, everyone knows it. The arbcom doesn't have the authority to overturn it, they are just wasting everyone's time. I can tell you from experience that the Arbcom are liars and cheaters and won't hesitate to ignore, manipulate or violate policy if it suits them.

I think they had the authority to overturn it, just not the courage.

It was vague enough that I'm perfectly comfortable arguing that they don't have the actual authority. Jimbo is just Jimbo. It's not his call, and people on all sides taking his word for it on anything is the worst thing I've seen in this entire fiasco.

If so, they should never have accepted the case.

[mendaliv]

I also agree with Eric here that everyone knew that the outcome of this case was predetermined and in fact almost all the arbcom cases are because if they didn't think there was a problem to resolve they wouldn't accept the case in the first place. I also agree that the Arbcom lacks the moral courage to even recognize, let alone actually do anything about, anything they find.

I actually think this specific case had a higher probability than most of reaching an unexpected outcome simply because the Committee felt itself unable to punt until the problem developed more.

That said, I agree that the way cases arrive to the Committee at present is horribly flawed and almost always winds up being a "cart before the horse" situation, where the merits of the case are effectively decided along with the case request. This is why the Committee resolves cases by motion so often, because they feel like a full case is a waste of time given they've already made up their minds.

[Eric Corbett]

I also agree with Eric here that everyone knew that the outcome of this case was predetermined and in fact almost all the arbcom cases are because if they didn't think there was a problem to resolve they wouldn't accept the case in the first place. I also agree that the Arbcom lacks the moral courage to even recognize, let alone actually do anything about, anything they find.

And that, I would argue is a systemic failure in the farce that one might laughably call Wikipedia's system of governance.

Why are there only administrators on ArbCom? Because only administrators can be trusted to toe the party line. It's an inherently immoral and corrupt system.

[mendaliv]

I also agree with Eric here that everyone knew that the outcome of this case was predetermined and in fact almost all the arbcom cases are because if they didn't think there was a problem to resolve they wouldn't accept the case in the first place. I also agree that the Arbcom lacks the moral courage to even recognize, let alone actually do anything about, anything they find.

And that, I would argue is a systemic failure in the farce that one might laughably call Wikipedia's system of governance.

Why are there only administrators on ArbCom? Because only administrators can be trusted to toe the party line. It's an inherently immoral and corrupt system.

I've actually thought for awhile that a decent short-term remedy would be to have seats that may only be filled by non-admins, while the whole system is rethought.

[Eric Corbett]

I also agree with Eric here that everyone knew that the outcome of this case was predetermined and in fact almost all the arbcom cases are because if they didn't think there was a problem to resolve they wouldn't accept the case in the first place. I also agree that the Arbcom lacks the moral courage to even recognize, let alone actually do anything about, anything they find.

And that, I would argue is a systemic failure in the farce that one might laughably call Wikipedia's system of governance.

Why are there only administrators on ArbCom? Because only administrators can be trusted to toe the party line. It's an inherently immoral and corrupt system.

I've actually thought for awhile that a decent short-term remedy would be to have seats that may only be filled by non-admins, while the whole system is rethought.

I believe that's been suggested before, but it'll never fly.

Part of the objection would be to giving editors who haven't been through RfA the ability to see things like deleted edits and so on. But it's basically about not allowing those who don't like the way things are currently run to have any kind of voice.

[Vigilant]

Hlevy makes a very cogent point.

Redacted Materials and Objectve Standards

FoF6 says, "These unredacted materials show a pattern..." If Arbcom never saw the unredacted materials, you probably mean "These redacted materials...." I am also troubled by evaluating redacted materials where the name of the complainant is withheld. It is impossible to find "harassment" without evaluating the conduct of both parties and whether the wikihounding was centered on related matters or following an editor to unrelated matters. If BLP are involved, then Fram and other admins are held to a higher standard to act quickly to prevent harm to third parties. Also, if the editor or subject matter is the subject of special enforcement, discretionary sanctions, or other restrictions, that would be relevant, although potentially hidden by redacting the names. Finally, all FoFs should be framed in terms of the Arbcom looking at the facts objectively, rather than from the subjective point of view of the unnamed party feeling harassed. The finding of facts and principles should be consistent and emphasize an objective standard for evaluating an admin who tries to solve the problems created by a chronically problematic editor. Many thanks. Hlevy2 (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Quite a few of Laura Hale's articles on paralympians must fall under BLP protection.
There were quite a few just terrible things in the articles she created.
Just by way of example, 5 BLP articles where all 5 have the same birth date.

What a complete clusterfuck.

[Moral Hazard]

This case and Wikipedia remind me of the ending of The Dead Don't Die (T-H-L).

"This is not going to end well."

[Kumioko]

I also agree with Eric here that everyone knew that the outcome of this case was predetermined and in fact almost all the arbcom cases are because if they didn't think there was a problem to resolve they wouldn't accept the case in the first place. I also agree that the Arbcom lacks the moral courage to even recognize, let alone actually do anything about, anything they find.

I actually think this specific case had a higher probability than most of reaching an unexpected outcome simply because the Committee felt itself unable to punt until the problem developed more.

That said, I agree that the way cases arrive to the Committee at present is horribly flawed and almost always winds up being a "cart before the horse" situation, where the merits of the case are effectively decided along with the case request. This is why the Committee resolves cases by motion so often, because they feel like a full case is a waste of time given they've already made up their minds.

You're giving them more credit than they are due. They do it because they are lazy and it's easier, there's really no other reason.

I also agree with Eric here that everyone knew that the outcome of this case was predetermined and in fact almost all the arbcom cases are because if they didn't think there was a problem to resolve they wouldn't accept the case in the first place. I also agree that the Arbcom lacks the moral courage to even recognize, let alone actually do anything about, anything they find.

And that, I would argue is a systemic failure in the farce that one might laughably call Wikipedia's system of governance.

Why are there only administrators on ArbCom? Because only administrators can be trusted to toe the party line. It's an inherently immoral and corrupt system.

I've actually thought for awhile that a decent short-term remedy would be to have seats that may only be filled by non-admins, while the whole system is rethought.

I believe that's been suggested before, but it'll never fly.

Part of the objection would be to giving editors who haven't been through RfA the ability to see things like deleted edits and so on. But it's basically about not allowing those who don't like the way things are currently run to have any kind of voice.

Most of the admins on the site are to inactive to bother anyone. The problem stems from many of the active ones like those on the Arbcom (such as GorillaWarfare, WTT and NYB) or those like Bbb23, HJMitchell, Sandstein, Drmies or Jehochman that have ego's the size of Jupiter and morals the size of a raisin.

[Eric Corbett]

This case and Wikipedia remind me of the ending of The Dead Don't Die (T-H-L).

"This is not going to end well."

Probably not.

But what seems clear is that the WMF, with the collusion of ArbCom, have decided that a wholesale clear out of editors who actually know what they're doing is in order, so that children and incompetents can have their social playspace. And who knows, maybe they're right, so let's see what the incompetent children come up with. Wikipedia is, after all, supposed to be a safe space, not an encyclopedia.

[eagle]

This case and Wikipedia remind me of the ending of The Dead Don't Die (T-H-L).

"This is not going to end well."

Probably not.

But what seems clear is that the WMF, with the collusion of ArbCom, have decided that a wholesale clear out of editors who actually know what they're doing is in order, so that children and incompetents can have their social playspace. And who knows, maybe they're right, so let's see what the incompetent children come up with. Wikipedia is, after all, supposed to be a safe space, not an encyclopedia.

We should be careful to frame the issue as we are working to keep WP safe for the NPOV editors that Laura Hale bullied; for the readers who seek accurate information that trust WP; and for the people/causes that Laura Hale would harm if her public policy objective were adopted after her WP-based advocacy.

1) At the time that Laura Hale was advocating adding Netball to the Olympics, wrestling (which at the time was male-only) was facing exclusion from future Olympics. Instead, the IOC emphasized equal participation for men and women in wrestling, boxing, etc., and added 3 x 3 basketball for both men and women in the Olympics.

2) The opportunity cost of giving Laura Hale et al the $110,000 grant for a on-wiki History of the Australian Paralympic Committee was that a trained historian was not commissioned to write a conventional book, which would serve as a reliable source for WP and many other purposes. Her efforts to use a contest to motivate editors to write about the APC failed.

3) Fram detected many errors in Laura Hale's BLPs. Her work, including content on the DYK section of the main page, was hurting WP's reputation and spread misinformation about specific Paralympic athletes.

4) If Fram did not make WP a safe space for Maria's spouse, we should also consider that Laura Hale did not make WP a safe space for Fram and other editors who were trying to produce a NPOV reliable encyclopedia. Those people are here to build an encyclopedia without pay or expectation of junkets or other consideration. They should be honored, valued and protected rather than subjected to random bans from T&S.

[Ryuichi]

I'm also not thrilled with GorillaWarfare voting for a desysop, the entire public justification for which is the overturned blocks of two editors, one of whom is GorillaWarfare. ... it seems like preserving the appearance of impartiality could be given a little more consideration here. 28bytes (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

... As for recusing on that particular remedy, it would be bizarre to feel impartial enough to vote on whether to impose the strongest sanction (siteban) but not so impartial that I could vote on a less severe sanction (requiring RfA before regaining sysop tools). GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree it would be bizarre. But if we wanted to not be bizarre, that gives two possible options, of which you chose the wrong one. Recusal is not about whether you feel impartial enough. It's about whether there is a perception of a lack of impartiality.

As I said recently, GorillaWarfare lacks the maturity and integrity to abstain.

Indeed.

[Vigilant]

JBHunley opens the floodgates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =914224101

Laura Hale as a complainant and whether she was credible and whether Trust and Safety vetted her is squarely in the arena.

[Randy from Boise]

I'm also not thrilled with GorillaWarfare voting for a desysop, the entire public justification for which is the overturned blocks of two editors, one of whom is GorillaWarfare. ... it seems like preserving the appearance of impartiality could be given a little more consideration here. 28bytes (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

... As for recusing on that particular remedy, it would be bizarre to feel impartial enough to vote on whether to impose the strongest sanction (siteban) but not so impartial that I could vote on a less severe sanction (requiring RfA before regaining sysop tools). GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree it would be bizarre. But if we wanted to not be bizarre, that gives two possible options, of which you chose the wrong one. Recusal is not about whether you feel impartial enough. It's about whether there is a perception of a lack of impartiality.

As I said recently, GorillaWarfare lacks the maturity and integrity to abstain.

Indeed.

But this...

If the general behavior of Fram described in the document was the cut-and-dried, egregious behavior that typically comes to mind when you think of "harassment" (outing, off-wiki stalking, hateful comments, etc.), they would have long ago have been ejected from the community. But most of the behavior was firmly within that grey area of hostility that Wikipedia has struggled to handle for as long as I've been here. It is not behavior that is well covered by policy, nor is it easy behavior to address with "partial sanctions" (a term I'm using here to describe sanctions short of blocks and sitebans, such as topic and interaction bans) to remove the person from areas where it's occurring. GorillaWarfare (talk) 4:51 pm, Today (UTC−7)

[Vigilant]

But this...

If the general behavior of Fram described in the document was the cut-and-dried, egregious behavior that typically comes to mind when you think of "harassment" (outing, off-wiki stalking, hateful comments, etc.), they would have long ago have been ejected from the community. But most of the behavior was firmly within that grey area of hostility that Wikipedia has struggled to handle for as long as I've been here. It is not behavior that is well covered by policy, nor is it easy behavior to address with "partial sanctions" (a term I'm using here to describe sanctions short of blocks and sitebans, such as topic and interaction bans) to remove the person from areas where it's occurring. GorillaWarfare (talk) 4:51 pm, Today (UTC−7)

So, Molly White is saying they are going to strip Fram of his admin permissions for behavior that is generally practiced and tolerated within the community and has been historically allowed by ARBCOM.

Nice.

It's not often that you get to see the knife coming that clearly.

[Randy from Boise]

Since Laura Hale is attempting to file her smoking gun User Talk page down the memory hole on-wiki, I think it would be good to document it (again) here with a permalink...

Fram

This is a request to stay off my talk page, in the same style as you request it of other editors. Other admins have requested that you stop posting on my talk page before. They have requested you stop taking action in regards to me, especially given your problematic actions as they relate to your inability to be impartial where I am concerned. You have claimed that DYKs I did were related to Gibraltarpedia, when they were clearly not, and you never retracted this. You completely out of process deleted article drafts from my user space citing gross BLP violations, which other admins said were not this after viewing the deleted content. You defended these actions, did not admit your errors, and did not retract this. These are two examples, of several, where you have acted in bad faith with me. Enough. Stay off my talk page Fram.

You were asked in September 2017 to disengage in admin actions related to me. You were asked in September 2017 to stop commenting on my talk page and you are being asked again in February 2018. If you have a problem with my work, then you need to talk to another admin and have them handle the problem. It should not be you. If you have questions about my edits, please direct them at admins and other users like SlimVirgin, Pigsonthewing, SkyHarbor, Orderinchaos and Victuallers.

If you are nominating any of the content I created for deletion or userifying any pages or redirecting any pages, these notifications need to be posted on the talk pages of the aforementioned admins so they may deal with your notifications. They can assess your admin actions, and if they believe any actions need to be taken on my part to change my editing behavior following any return, these admins can be the ones to communicate that message to me: NOT YOU.

If these admins are not able to work with you regarding my work to your personal satisfaction, please contact James Alexander, Patrick Earley, Jan Eissfeldt or Sydney Poore, members of the WMF's Support and Safety team.

LauraHale

Emphasis by me. —t.d.

linkhttps://web.archive.org/web/20190629135 ... :LauraHale[/link]

[Randy from Boise]

But this...

If the general behavior of Fram described in the document was the cut-and-dried, egregious behavior that typically comes to mind when you think of "harassment" (outing, off-wiki stalking, hateful comments, etc.), they would have long ago have been ejected from the community. But most of the behavior was firmly within that grey area of hostility that Wikipedia has struggled to handle for as long as I've been here. It is not behavior that is well covered by policy, nor is it easy behavior to address with "partial sanctions" (a term I'm using here to describe sanctions short of blocks and sitebans, such as topic and interaction bans) to remove the person from areas where it's occurring. GorillaWarfare (talk) 4:51 pm, Today (UTC−7)

So, Molly White is saying they are going to strip Fram of his admin permissions for behavior that is generally practiced and tolerated within the community and has been historically allowed by ARBCOM.

Nice.

It's not often that you get to see the knife coming that clearly.

Pulling his toolbox for general prickishness would be a pretty expected outcome out of a regular case against Fram, had one been actually made. Because he is, generally, a prick.

RfB

[Moral Hazard]

How is she being dishonest, Eric?
Inconsistent, partisan, ideological, harmful to the institution and to an encyclopedia --- yes.

[Randy from Boise]

GW's rationale for vacating the WMF's one year ban on Fram, per the Arbcom proposed decision page:

As I wrote in my comment accompanying my vote in FoF 6, most of Fram's behavior that was mentioned in evidence fell "firmly within that grey area of hostility that Wikipedia has struggled to handle for as long as I've been here." There were occasional instances that were severe (the attacks against ArbCom as one example), but the majority of the issue is that on multiple occasions Fram has identified editors whose contributions they have felt were substandard, and then over a significant period of time followed (see principle 5) those editors and scrutinized their contributions extremely closely, often bluntly and sometimes quite rudely. Although correcting the errors of other editors is a key part of Wikipedia's culture, editors are expected to do so carefully and constructively. If an editor believes that another editor with whom they have clashed is displaying a pattern of substandard contributions, they should involve neutral parties to address that concern rather than hounding that editor (principle 6).

Although I believe Fram's behavior has been unacceptable (both the attacks and the excessive scrutiny), the community in general has not taken a strong stance against editors who maintain plausible deniability that they are not intentionally harassing other editors, but are only focused on improving the encyclopedia. This is particularly true for administrators, editors who have been active for a long time, and those whose own contributions are exceptional—Fram fit within all three of these categories.

The community (including the Arbitration Committee) has also generally allowed more leeway when it comes to attacks against groups, particularly groups with more "power" than the editor making the attack (in this case, the Arbitration Committee).

As it currently exists, the section of harassment policy that discusses hounding leaves plenty of room for Fram's behavior—the concerns they raised were not always without "good cause", and (as evidenced by the extensive discussion that has happened at WP:FRAM and elsewhere) it is not without question that Fram was engaging in these behaviors with the intention of causing distress. Policy also makes no room for the distinct possibility that there is a discrepancy between whether a target of these discussions experiences distress and whether the instigator intends to cause it.

Even was it agreed that Fram was hounding editors, it is unlikely that this behavior would have led to a lengthy ban (either of one year or of three months). More likely it would have been addressed with interaction bans, or possibly a topic ban from the area(s) of conflict. While I do not agree that these types of sanctions tend to put a stop to the root behavior, they are the standard. I suspect that the Wikimedia Foundation also disagreed that these sanctions are useful in addressing the cause of the issue, and, like myself, wished to see the English Wikipedia take a stronger stance on harassment and other behaviors that can drive editors away from the project. However, imposing the ban themselves was not an appropriate or effective way to move forward, and neither would it be appropriate for the Arbitration Committee to do so (or for me to vote that we do).

It is the community as a whole that accepts these kinds of behaviors, and it cannot be just one body (the WMF or the Arbitration Committee) that decides they are unacceptable and acts against them. If the community does not wish to allow editors, even those who have made great contributions to this project or edited for years, to drive off other editors with plausibly productive but intensely critical focus, then the community must take a stance against this behavior in policy and in support for said policy's enforcement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 6:48 pm, [5 Sept 2019] (UTC−7)

linkhttps://web.archive.org/save/https://en ... d_decision[/link]

[Moral Hazard]

GW's rationale for vacating the WMF's one year ban on Fram, per the Arbcom proposed decision page:

As it currently exists, the section of harassment policy that discusses hounding leaves plenty of room for Fram's behavior—the concerns they raised were not always without "good cause", and (as evidenced by the extensive discussion that has happened at WP:FRAM and elsewhere) it is not without question that Fram was engaging in these behaviors with the intention of causing distress. Policy also makes no room for the distinct possibility that there is a discrepancy between whether a target of these discussions experiences distress and whether the instigator intends to cause it.
GorillaWarfare (T-C-L) (talk) 6:48 pm, [5 Sept 2019] (UTC−7)

https://web.archive.org/save/https://en ... d_decision

Here, she is dishonest.
Sorry about my questions, Eric.

[Midsize Jake]

Here, she is dishonest.

Double-negatives are tricky...

Still, I think GW's done better with this than a lot of folks here seem to have been expecting. I'd agree that Fram's "concerns" about article content were justifiable in the vast/overwhelming majority of cases, and if it were my website I'd rather have people err on the side of doggedly pursuing quality even if some people's feelings get hurt on occasion. But Wikipedia disputes (and related admin actions) aren't exclusively about article content. The Laura Hale-related disputes were pretty much all about article content, but we have to bear in mind that GW isn't in a position where she could publicly assert that the disputes between Fram and LH were the only real causative factor here, even if she wanted to. (Which I'm guessing she doesn't.) Maybe that makes her dishonest, but at least she has plenty of company.

We'll probably just have to deal with the fact that there are people on WP who will never, ever accept that this entire comically-awful incident ultimately came down to simple nepotism. Hopefully, the rest of the world isn't quite as talented at ignoring the obvious just because someone can't show them a "smoking gun."

[MrErnie]

I've half a mind to go post on Jan's WMF page and tell him how dumb and completely out of touch the ban makes him look. Your T&S team everyone!

[Moral Hazard]

Here, she is dishonest.

Double-negatives are tricky...

Do not enable her dishonesty.

Molly did not accuse Fram of opening Laura's mailbox and dropping a load of shit, which would have been a lie.

[Randy from Boise]

Here, she is dishonest.

Double-negatives are tricky...

Do not enable her dishonesty.

I think you are being overly harsh. Let's get rid of the double negatives...

* * *Although I believe Fram's behavior has been unacceptable (both the attacks and the excessive scrutiny), the community in general has not taken a strong stance against editors who maintain plausible deniability that they are not intentionally harassing other editors, but are only focused on improving the encyclopedia....

As it currently exists, the section of harassment policy that discusses hounding leaves plenty of room for Fram's behavior—the concerns they raised were not always without Fram raised were at least sometimes for "good cause", and (as evidenced by the extensive discussion that has happened at WP:FRAM and elsewhere) it is not without question quite possible that Fram was not engaging in these behaviors with the intention of causing distress. Policy also makes no room for the distinct possibility that there is a discrepancy between whether a target of these discussions experiences distress and whether the instigator intends to cause it.

That's not an unreasonable view, is it?

RfB

[MrErnie]

I do not understand how Arb can say the WMF ban was unwarranted and vacate it, while at the same time endorse the WMF desysop. Seems like it should be we either agree with the WMF action as a whole or not.

I don't see another RFA for Fram being successful. You'd have all those who opposed Floquenbeam and then some. The civility warriors, the WMF supporters, and everyone else who was on the receiving end of a Fram administrative action would be piling in to oppose.

[Poetlister]

I do not understand how Arb can say the WMF ban was unwarranted and vacate it, while at the same time endorse the WMF desysop. Seems like it should be we either agree with the WMF action as a whole or not.

I don't see another RFA for Fram being successful. You'd have all those who opposed Floquenbeam and then some. The civility warriors, the WMF supporters, and everyone else who was on the receiving end of a Fram administrative action would be piling in to oppose.

Undoubtedly, endorsing the desysop and not the ban is highly inconsistent, but that would scarcely be the first time that Arbcom has been highly inconsistent. One interesting way they could be less severe on Fram is to say that the RfA will not require the usual range of percentages of support to pass, but be entirely at the discretion of the bureaucrats, as if it were an AfD. That would make it much easier to pass.

[GoldenRing]

I don't see another RFA for Fram being successful. You'd have all those who opposed Floquenbeam and then some. The civility warriors, the WMF supporters, and everyone else who was on the receiving end of a Fram administrative action would be piling in to oppose.

I was wondering about this. Set against those you name will be the crowd who want to be allowed to say whatever they like to whoever they like so long as they can point to a GA they wrote in 2004.

Would I be justified in offering 5/7 on successful and 2/7 on unsuccessful, do we think?

[GoldenRing]

Undoubtedly, endorsing the desysop and not the ban is highly inconsistent, but that would scarcely be the first time that Arbcom has been highly inconsistent.

Desysopping for cause without a siteban is a perfectly normal outcome of an arbitration case. If they think that's the right outcome here, what's the problem? You can quibble about whether it is the right outcome, but I don't see anything inconsistent about it.

One interesting way they could be less severe on Fram is to say that the RfA will not require the usual range of percentages of support to pass, but be entirely at the discretion of the bureaucrats, as if it were an AfD. That would make it much easier to pass.

And I'm sure Mendaliv will be here telling you it's okay for the committee to make policy by fiat.

[MrErnie]

Undoubtedly, endorsing the desysop and not the ban is highly inconsistent, but that would scarcely be the first time that Arbcom has been highly inconsistent.

Desysopping for cause without a siteban is a perfectly normal outcome of an arbitration case. If they think that's the right outcome here, what's the problem? You can quibble about whether it is the right outcome, but I don't see anything inconsistent about it.

One interesting way they could be less severe on Fram is to say that the RfA will not require the usual range of percentages of support to pass, but be entirely at the discretion of the bureaucrats, as if it were an AfD. That would make it much easier to pass.

And I'm sure Mendaliv will be here telling you it's okay for the committee to make policy by fiat.

The problem is that you have this Finding of Fact:

While a variety of views were expressed, a consensus emerged that the English Wikipedia community wishes to retain its role, including the role of the community-elected Arbitration Committee where necessary, in regulating user conduct on this wiki, rather than have the Office undertake that role in cases that can be handled through existing on-wiki or ArbCom processes.

Therefore the Committee needs to say that the entirety of the WMF was overreach and all of it is undone, including the desysop. It is inconsistent, as Poetlister says, to say ok WMF we don't want you sanctioning users over the head of the Arbcom, so that ban you did is invalid and vacated, but we will let that desysop (which is one of the Committee's most important roles) you did stand.

[GoldenRing]

Therefore the Committee needs to say that the entirety of the WMF was overreach and all of it is undone, including the desysop. It is inconsistent, as Poetlister says, to say ok WMF we don't want you sanctioning users over the head of the Arbcom, so that ban you did is invalid and vacated, but we will let that desysop (which is one of the Committee's most important roles) you did stand.

But not inconsistent to say, "Ok WMF, we don't want you sanctioning users over the head of the arbcom. Having reviewed the situation, we don't think a siteban is merited but we do think a desysop is warranted." Just about everyone disagrees with the WMF taking action here; that does not imply that Fram is without fault.

[eagle]

I am still troubled by all the victimhood being thrown around. Since at least Laura Hale's Fan History days, she has a habit of enlisting allies to defend her against some third party who is making her a victim. Dr. Hale went to T&S saying "I am being harassed by Fram." T&S then wrote the very gentle and polite email to Fram which did not impose a formal Iban but suggested that Fram avoid contact Dr. Hale or reviewing her work. She then posted the very public and hostile message quoted above on her talk page saying that if Fram has any concerns about her editing, take it up with named T&S staff members (by implication, not ANI or Arbcom). The principles also incorporate the view that the (unnamed) Dr. Hale is a victim:

The views and feelings of editors who believe in good faith that they are being or have been harassed are to be respected and fully considered, whether or not it is ultimately concluded that harassment actually occurred.

Arbcom appears to be creating a strict liability rule for editors who make other editors feel harassed. "Respected and fully considered" by whom? Is Fram supposed to assume that the editors he properly criticizes for bad editing will feel harassed? If so, what steps should he take -- use IRC to recruit a second admin to make the next critique or just take the person to ANI quickly without interacting first to correct the problem?

Is Arbcom making Fram the victim by failing to give him a proper warning, and by recasting the two T&S informal messages as a more formal Iban that has been violated?

If an editor spends 8 years playing the victim card instead of improving her editing, when does Arbcom view the editor as losing her claim to a "good faith" belief in feeling harassed? The Arbcom's message to all editors should be "Be bold. Try things, but be mindful when admins find serious fault with your editing." Similarly, the Arbcom should realize that copyvio, BLP, NPOV are policies which create conflicts between editors. The "I feel harassed" claim should never be a defense to the proper application of those policies. However, the proposed decision leaves that question open.

[Vigilant]

Therefore the Committee needs to say that the entirety of the WMF was overreach and all of it is undone, including the desysop. It is inconsistent, as Poetlister says, to say ok WMF we don't want you sanctioning users over the head of the Arbcom, so that ban you did is invalid and vacated, but we will let that desysop (which is one of the Committee's most important roles) you did stand.

But not inconsistent to say, "Ok WMF, we don't want you sanctioning users over the head of the arbcom. Having reviewed the situation, we don't think a siteban is merited but we do think a desysop is warranted." Just about everyone disagrees with the WMF taking action here; that does not imply that Fram is without fault.

Based on the public evidence, there's no way Fram should be getting deadminned.
ARBCOM would never have even taken a case to deadmin Fram based on what is alleged.

The fact that the Trust and Safety did it already out of process shouldn't b e a backdoor to do something ARBCOM would never have taken up in the first place.