But the WMF can desysop, under the global office actions policy. See meta:Office actions#Secondary office actions, "Removal of advanced rights". In this case I think they went beyond that policy, but we've told them as much and they've accepted it, so I don't see any reason to make a big song and dance of the 'constitutional' issue now. ArbCom isn't actually a representative of enwiki or go-between for the community and the WMF. We're a dispute resolution body. We can desysop users under the arbitration policy, and if we end up doing that in this case we will explain why we've reached that decision.
As an aside, I don't agree that the boundaries for admin conduct are vague or made up by this committee. They're spelled out in black and white at WP:ADMINCOND. The problem is we've been inconsistent in enforcing it. – Joe (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
What you're trying to say is that ADMINCOND has been selectively enforced.
Selective_enforcement (T-H-L)
In law, selective enforcement occurs when government officials such as police officers, prosecutors, or regulators exercise enforcement discretion, which is the power to choose whether or how to punish a person who has violated the law. The biased use of enforcement discretion, such as that based on racial prejudice or corruption, is usually considered a legal abuse and a threat to the rule of law.
There's no way to talk about this case without discussing the underlying corruption that the Laura Hale/Maria Sefidari Huici situation brings to the case.
Without that linkage, Fram never gets to the attention of Trust and Safety, never gets the extraordinary/unique sanctions applied, this ARBCOM case never gets started and Proposed Decisions that twist the Findings of Fact to fit the predetermined outcome don't happen.
If you ignore the path that brought you to this point, you can't ever bring this case to a fair and just close.
You're setting the stage for the next great war as surely as the
Treaty_of_Versailles (T-H-L).