Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

[chowbok]

Wow, you've been editing wp for fifteen years and 83 percent of those edits are to mainspace. That's pretty impressive, or sad, depending on one's perspective.

Thanks, I think.

[Poetlister]

This is gonna make Floq's RFA look positively calm and orderly....
I don't see how anyone could oppose based on the arbcom case because we literally do not know what he supposedly did, despite the fact that all the evidence is supposedly live on-wiki and people have been actively looking for it for several months.

If anyone can find the evidence, no doubt it will be presented at the RfA. If such evidence is not produced, Fram's supporters will be able to claim that there is no such evidence.

[Poetlister]

Fram got fucked over because he stopped Laura Hale's paid COI editing and ran afoul of Maria Sefidari Huici's backdoor play through Trust and Safety.

I just don't think you can accept that the volition here came from Ms. Sefidari without evidence. I think the alternative scenario, that LH had her own friends in high places, and that Fram had enemies in high places, makes total sense here. We do know that T&S advertised their new superpowers to groups of theoretically-highly-oppressed-and-cowed Wikipedians, such as LGBT. LH would have seen this notification independently of her spouse — and being a veteran power player for years would have logically followed through trying to take out her enemy completely independently of her spouse.

If Sefidari was complicit, you need to prove it. So far I have seen zero evidence that this was the case; which obviously is not to say that I think she's swell or that she does not need to go away, because I don't and she does.

RfB

Obviously, Maria is entitled to claim innocence unless she can clearly be proven to be guilty. However, surely there is a strong prima facie case against her. She had the power to put pressure on T&S, and an extremely powerful motive. Can anyone suggest anyone else with the power and motive to do this? Could LH have been having an affair with Jimbo? Preposterous.

[eagle]

Fram got fucked over because he stopped Laura Hale's paid COI editing and ran afoul of Maria Sefidari Huici's backdoor play through Trust and Safety.

I just don't think you can accept that the volition here came from Ms. Sefidari without evidence. I think the alternative scenario, that LH had her own friends in high places, and that Fram had enemies in high places, makes total sense here. We do know that T&S advertised their new superpowers to groups of theoretically-highly-oppressed-and-cowed Wikipedians, such as LGBT. LH would have seen this notification independently of her spouse — and being a veteran power player for years would have logically followed through trying to take out her enemy completely independently of her spouse.

If Sefidari was complicit, you need to prove it. So far I have seen zero evidence that this was the case; which obviously is not to say that I think she's swell or that she does not need to go away, because I don't and she does.

RfB

Obviously, Maria is entitled to claim innocence unless she can clearly be proven to be guilty. However, surely there is a strong prima facie case against her. She had the power to put pressure on T&S, and an extremely powerful motive. Can anyone suggest anyone else with the power and motive to do this? Could LH have been having an affair with Jimbo? Preposterous.

The community still does not know the timeline of the relevant events. 1) The exact date of the first two complaints to T&S. 2) The date that Raystorm filed her recusal with WMF's legal counsel, 3) The date that T&S notified Fram that they were opening an investigation about him [I doubt that they sent out any notice to him until the gentle warning.] 4) The date that LH got permission from the admin's named in her talk page warning to impose the requirement that Fram must go through one of them rather than interact with LH directly [By definition, aren't those four admins violating WP:INVOLVED?] 5) The date that LH got permission from the T&S employees listed in her talk page warning to name them in her talk page warning. 6) The dates that each of the supervisors approved the SanFranBan of Fram. 6) Any post warning diffs that are the basis of the SanFranBan and their dates.

[Vigilant]

How many other dossiers are being built, information being accumulated, cases being built by T&S?

Did anyone vote to enable the Stasi to keep information on them?

[Randy from Boise]

Osborne, please point to another case with similar evidence against an admin where a desysoping was successful or even brought.
Shit or get off the pot.

Proxying for a banned Crow:

linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... mbling_Man[/link]

Required reading, if only for the hilarious site (sic.) of Fram defending that piece of shit for similar reasons he is defending himself now, and for yet another example of just how long there has been bad blood between him and Ritchie. And a reminder that Opabina doesn't desysop if there has been no tool abuse.

Does the very worst evidence in that case even look worse than anything Fram has done? Does the pattern of recidivism look any different? Do the excuses and wikilawyering of the accused look any different? Does their righteous indignation look different in anyway way?

Then, as now, there were howls of injustice. Unlike 2019, just three years ago ArbCom were brave enough to say no to the mob, to tell them to go fuck themselves, confident their role was to hold Administrators to the higher standards, even if it meant giving the favourites a sore ring piece.

How times changed, as ArbCom was gradually ethnically cleansed of the hardliners (with the help of Wikipediocracy), and the remainder began to blink at times when what was needed was the cold hard stare of leadership authority.

linkhttps://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... =30#p13072[/link]

RfB

[10920]

Nothing a deranged bird writes is ever required reading.

[Randy from Boise]

Nothing a deranged bird writes is ever required reading.

Dunno, "Bored Bird" over there is consistently fascinating...

RfB

[Midsize Jake]

Nothing a deranged bird writes is ever required reading.

Dunno, "Bored Bird" over there is consistently fascinating...

He's right about The Rambling Man (TRM) being a similar case of administrator incivility, but of course he's wrong about "hardliners" in the Arbcom - there have never, ever, ever been "hardliners" or decisive anti-admin decision-makers of any description in the Arbcom (the closest they've ever come to that was probably Alex Shih, but look how long he lasted), and nothing we've ever done here on WPO would have had much effect on that either way. (Also in our defense, the TRM case happened during the run-up to the 2016 election catastrophe, so people like Vigilant, RfB or myself wouldn't have been paying as much attention at the time. Sorry!)

He also doesn't point out that TRM's bête noire, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise (T-C-L), was an administrator, whereas Fram's was not. That's probably an excusable omission, and arguably, User:LauraHale actually had more power than any WP administrator, though nobody knew it at the time. But if he's going to drag us into it to help satisfy his personal vendetta or whatever, it's certainly fair for us to point that out. (It might even be worth pointing out that Mr. Sunrise himself was temporarily desyspooped for three months after the "Macedonia 2" Arbcom case back in 2009, though that decision was "vacated" two years later.)

Basically, if you're an admin yourself, your ability to survive an Arbcom case about your incivility really does depend on how many admin friends and/or enemies you have, and whether or not your primary accuser is also an admin. Fram may not have a lot of admin friends, but other than User:WMFOffice (T-C-L), he has very few admin enemies - even Drmies and Ritchie333 didn't want to get involved, everybody hates Gamaliel so he doesn't even count, and as for BU Rob13, the one guy who could have made a difference, well... he got out as soon as he saw which way the wind was blowing, whether or not you believe he was planning to get out around that time regardless. (SlimVirgin might have made a difference too, but she isn't exactly in the habit of turning on her fellow admins.)

I know Mr. Crowsnest will claim this is all "BS" or whatever else he has to say to shore up his basic argument - and really, I don't even blame him - but this is just a fact. It's always been this way on Wikipedia, almost since Day One, and if anything, it's more true now than ever.

[Randy from Boise]

...as for BU Rob13, the one guy who could have made a difference, well... he got out as soon as he saw which way the wind was blowing, whether or not you believe he was planning to get out around that time regardless.

He ditched a day or two before Bored Bird outed his real life identity on Sucks. Not sure there's a connection, but wouldn't discount it either.

RfB

[10920]

I don't get the constant proxying for the crow or whatever it calls itself now.

It howls to itself non-stop in its echo chamber. Why give it a voice? Anyone who wants to suck can post over there.

[Randy from Boise]

I don't get the constant proxying for the crow or whatever it calls itself now.

It howls to itself non-stop in its echo chamber. Why give it a voice? Anyone who wants to suck can post over there.

He did make a good observation that the Ramblin' Man detooling was extremely similar to the Fram case, in reply to Vig's challenge.

So I passed it along.

RfB

[Vigilant]

I don't get the constant proxying for the crow or whatever it calls itself now.

It howls to itself non-stop in its echo chamber. Why give it a voice? Anyone who wants to suck can post over there.

He did make a good observation that the Ramblin' Man detooling was extremely similar to the Fram case, in reply to Vig's challenge.

So I passed it along.

RfB

I don’t check there anymore.
It’s just too nutty.

[Midsize Jake]

I don't get the constant proxying for the crow or whatever it calls itself now.

It howls to itself non-stop in its echo chamber. Why give it a voice? Anyone who wants to suck can post over there.

I can see how that would be hard to understand, but he's an unusual case. Randy here is the one who does most of the proxying in question, and he knows that we do draw the line at posting anything here in which Mr. Crowsnest demands some sort of response from one of our members, especially a direct one (though at this point, I'd probably delete a demand for an indirect one as well, though I might be OK with a polite request as long as I'm allowed to see it beforehand).

Aside from that, he has his opinion as to why Fram was banned, and while I'd have to say the majority of WPO regulars don't agree with it, it's not like his opinion is completely absurd. Basically, he sees no reason why the WMF would be lying about their motives, their rationale, their timing, their evidence, or their version of the events, and he thinks we should all just trust them that there was no favoritism, nepotism, corruption, or deceptiveness - in other words, we should all just take their word for it. I guess I would only call that "somewhat absurd," not "completely absurd."

[Randy from Boise]

Crow is sort of like what Vigilant might sound like if he gobbled Peyote before burning some Meth... It's a frenetic splattering of distilled aggression and paranoia and rage; but entertainingly written and smart. Periodically he really hits the mark, but generally his endless political spinning — almost equal hatreds for Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy, which pushes him into the arms of WMF — negates virtually all of what he says.

Nevertheless, he's a keen observer — although he does not play well with others and was three times booted here for being a disruption.

Anyway, whenever Crow hits a home run ball, I'll pass on the details. Otherwise, avert your eyes and save your soul.

RfB

[10920]

I don't get the constant proxying for the crow or whatever it calls itself now.

It howls to itself non-stop in its echo chamber. Why give it a voice? Anyone who wants to suck can post over there.

I can see how that would be hard to understand, but he's an unusual case. Randy here is the one who does most of the proxying in question, and he knows that we do draw the line at posting anything here in which Mr. Crowsnest demands some sort of response from one of our members, especially a direct one (though at this point, I'd probably delete a demand for an indirect one as well, though I might be OK with a polite request as long as I'm allowed to see it beforehand).

Aside from that, he has his opinion as to why Fram was banned, and while I'd have to say the majority of WPO regulars don't agree with it, it's not like his opinion is completely absurd. Basically, he sees no reason why the WMF would be lying about their motives, their rationale, their timing, their evidence, or their version of the events, and he thinks we should all just trust them that there was no favoritism, nepotism, corruption, or deceptiveness - in other words, we should all just take their word for it. I guess I would only call that "somewhat absurd," not "completely absurd."

We know for a fact the WMF has been lying because some of the statements from the various members are contradictory.

How much dirty dealing was done by Laura/Maria is up for debate, I suppose.

Jan has not been honest, for one.

I'm sure this will infuriate the crow, but it can continue to suck. All I've seen from it when it gets proxied for are pathetic insults, rather than a refutation of points made.

[Vigilant]

I don't get the constant proxying for the crow or whatever it calls itself now.

It howls to itself non-stop in its echo chamber. Why give it a voice? Anyone who wants to suck can post over there.

I can see how that would be hard to understand, but he's an unusual case. Randy here is the one who does most of the proxying in question, and he knows that we do draw the line at posting anything here in which Mr. Crowsnest demands some sort of response from one of our members, especially a direct one (though at this point, I'd probably delete a demand for an indirect one as well, though I might be OK with a polite request as long as I'm allowed to see it beforehand).

Aside from that, he has his opinion as to why Fram was banned, and while I'd have to say the majority of WPO regulars don't agree with it, it's not like his opinion is completely absurd. Basically, he sees no reason why the WMF would be lying about their motives, their rationale, their timing, their evidence, or their version of the events, and he thinks we should all just trust them that there was no favoritism, nepotism, corruption, or deceptiveness - in other words, we should all just take their word for it. I guess I would only call that "somewhat absurd," not "completely absurd."

We know for a fact the WMF has been lying because some of the statements from the various members are contradictory.

How much dirty dealing was done by Laura/Maria is up for debate, I suppose.

Jan has not been honest, for one.

I'm sure this will infuriate the crow, but it can continue to suck. All I've seen from it when it gets proxied for are pathetic insults, rather than a refutation of points made.

Some sort of rage induced dementia is what I've been thinking.

[Vigilant]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... /Case/Fram

[eagle]

The community consultation temporary office actions is underway.

The conflict of interest issue has been raised:

Conflicts of Interest and Recusals
One of the most concerning aspects of the Fram case was the fact that the spouse of the WMF Board Chair filed the initial complaint. When a WMF Board member or a another member of his/her immediate family becomes involved in a T&S complaint, the Executive Director and the WMF Staff are placed in an impossible position. (The Executive Director reports to the Board through the Chair, and all Office Actions must ultimately be approved by the Executive Director.)
The response to this concern has been that the Chair notified the Board and Legal of her recusal. The problem is that both the name of the complainant and the scope and date of the recusal were kept confidential. (But for the complainant posting a highly visible public notice on her talk page, the community may have never known of this conflict.) Staff were put in the difficult position of having the complainant publicly naming the involved T&S staff members without a corresponding public recusal by the spouse. Even if there was an early and publicly disclosed recusal of a proper scope, how could a staff member be confident that the WMF Board member would not extract a future price on the staff member's career? It seems to me that possible solutions would be to exclude WMF Board members and their immediate families from filing T&S complaints or to have a more comprehensive and public recusal process for cases where a family member files a T&S complaint. Thank you for your careful consideration of this problem. Hlevy2 (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

[Vigilant]

Until the COI and paid editing by Laura Hale is examined in full public view, this issue won't get settled.

Trust and Safety's intervention and heavy handedness prevented the examination of the complainant's issues and prevented any application of WP:BOOMERANG.

[No Ledge]

WP:BOOMERANG (T-H-L)

There is no "immunity" for reporters

A common statement on noticeboards is "this isn't about me; this is about them". There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is "changing the subject" and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participated in the dispute or discussions might find their actions under scrutiny.

"BOOMERANG" is part of the Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot (T-H-L) humorous essay; it shouldn't be taken as a serious policy.

If an editor is accused of incivility and harassment in their complaints about policy- or guideline-violating contributions of another editor, then it is appropriate to examine the specific contributions that have been alleged to violate policies and guidelines, and any talk page discussions about them.

It would not be appropriate to introduce evidence about the other editor's off-wiki relationships and activities, or even irrelevant on-wiki contributions.

If the other editor is found to be going against policies or guidelines in separate areas where they have had no interaction with the editor accused of incivility and harassment, then those issues should be addressed by filing a separate complaint about that other editor -- they should not be piggybacked onto the original complaint for incivility and harassment. That truly would be "changing the subject". However, general cases where an editor retires and vanishes, or desysop cases where an administrator voluntarily resigns their position, should be treated as nolo contendere (T-H-L) pleas; the Arbitration Committee halts proceedings in these cases.

Those concerned about fairness should be equally concerned about fairness towards both the accused and the accusor.

Relevant legal concepts:
Rules of evidence (T-H-L)
Under seal (T-H-L)

[Osborne]

WP:BOOMERANG (T-H-L), a not-even-guideline is used more often, than policies... elitism and partial treatment at its best. However, you might have a more specific message here, that's also an appropriate observation.

[Midsize Jake]

"BOOMERANG" is part of the Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot (T-H-L) humorous essay; it shouldn't be taken as a serious policy.

What it is, actually, is a de facto state of affairs. There isn't any policy against it, and the natural inclination of people is to examine the accuser in the context of the accusation, so it does "exist" almost as if it were policy. Just because the quick/mnemonic link in this case points to something that calls itself a "humorous essay" (it's not humorous at all, btw) doesn't mean it's somehow "not serious" - if anything, the Wikipedians are doing potential accusers a favor there by assigning an easily-remembered internal-vernacular term to something they might otherwise be inclined to take advantage of, if it weren't the de facto state of affairs.

[Randy from Boise]

WP:BOOMERANG (T-H-L)

There is no "immunity" for reporters

A common statement on noticeboards is "this isn't about me; this is about them". There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is "changing the subject" and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participated in the dispute or discussions might find their actions under scrutiny.

"BOOMERANG" is part of the Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot (T-H-L) humorous essay; it shouldn't be taken as a serious policy.

Wow, that's a bit shocking to learn that. It truly is a fundamental description of reality — and a caution to those making complaints to the drama boards that they had better come there with clean hands.

John 8:7 and all that...

RfB

[Osborne]

a caution to those making complaints to the drama boards that they had better come there with clean hands.

Should your hands be clean, the dust on your feet will be your fault and downfall.

[MrErnie]

How stupid is this comment?

I'm not sure the lesson from FRAMBAN is quite what everyone is taking away from it. Everyone here seems quick to say "only on projects where local processes aren't working" but that was itself the basis for FRAMBAN. ArbCom had multiple opportunities to consider the issue and failed. After it was highlighted in no uncertain terms by the Foundation, they finally did, unanimously found conduct unbecoming, desysoped, and the decision was upheld by the community. That seems like pretty compelling evidence that there was a problem, the system wasn't working, and only began to work after the Foundation stepped in. I'm not entirely sure what other less there is to take away there. GMG talk 05:19, 1 October 2019

Why does everyone assume that since ArbCom didn't take action against Fram before the ban, that they somehow failed to address the issue? Why not consider that Arb or the community didn't think any action was necessary?

[MrErnie]

Emphasizing one of the best comments I've seen regarding this mess:

I agree broadly that the board is unlikely to be directly involved in day-to-day decisions, but there is the idea that the best way to avoid scandal is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. (If New York Brad pops in I'm sure he could elaborate and provide some Latin name for it) I think what we do know strongly suggests that, unfortunately for T&S, they got played on their first-ever deployment of this new tool by a complainant who knew they could not make their case on wiki and decided to use backchannels to get what they wanted. There is also the matter of T&S doing something that would normally be handled by ArbCom when a member of T&S paid staff has a real-world relationship with a member of En.Wp ArbCom. I'm not saying or even suggesting that anything untoward actually happened, but I feel like the office shoud've been in front of this, not scrambling to keep up with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2019

+1 to Beeblebrox for that.

[Carcharoth]

Emphasizing one of the best comments I've seen regarding this mess:

I agree broadly that the board is unlikely to be directly involved in day-to-day decisions, but there is the idea that the best way to avoid scandal is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. (If New York Brad pops in I'm sure he could elaborate and provide some Latin name for it) I think what we do know strongly suggests that, unfortunately for T&S, they got played on their first-ever deployment of this new tool by a complainant who knew they could not make their case on wiki and decided to use backchannels to get what they wanted. There is also the matter of T&S doing something that would normally be handled by ArbCom when a member of T&S paid staff has a real-world relationship with a member of En.Wp ArbCom. I'm not saying or even suggesting that anything untoward actually happened, but I feel like the office shoud've been in front of this, not scrambling to keep up with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2019

+1 to Beeblebrox for that.

To clarify, Courcelles (inactive for health reasons and recently resigned from ArbCom) is married to Fluffernutter (member of T&S department at WMF) and Laura Hale (the vanished user who was in dispute with Fram) is married to María Sefidari (Chair of the Board of the WMF). And yes, the WMF should have been aware how bad that would look.

[Carcharoth]

How stupid is this comment?

I'm not sure the lesson from FRAMBAN is quite what everyone is taking away from it. Everyone here seems quick to say "only on projects where local processes aren't working" but that was itself the basis for FRAMBAN. ArbCom had multiple opportunities to consider the issue and failed. After it was highlighted in no uncertain terms by the Foundation, they finally did, unanimously found conduct unbecoming, desysoped, and the decision was upheld by the community. That seems like pretty compelling evidence that there was a problem, the system wasn't working, and only began to work after the Foundation stepped in. I'm not entirely sure what other less there is to take away there. GMG talk 05:19, 1 October 2019

Why does everyone assume that since ArbCom didn't take action against Fram before the ban, that they somehow failed to address the issue? Why not consider that Arb or the community didn't think any action was necessary?

You have to remember that GMG is the editor who made this oppose at the RFA:

Oppose - Even their supporters admit their behavior has been appalling and undermining of their own efforts to support them, where they themselves admit that they probably should have been blocked for their behavior. They are happy to shower ArbCom with praises when they think they're on their side. And when it becomes apparent they're not, ArbCom is a cabal of lies conspiring to undermine them (which by some observers could be construed as a personal attack). The best defense here seems to be that they've been doing a bit better lately, except they haven't really.
The nomination wants us to believe that they care deeply about the project, while the evidence that I've seen is that they care first and foremost about being conspicuously correct, and making sure everyone knows it regardless of the consequences. As pointed out above by Montanabw, "caring about the project" went right out the window the moment it stood in between Fram and being vindictively right. The notion in #3 that they had a brief spat of incivility for two isolated months shows...what?...obliviousness? I get it, people get divorced, family members get sick, sometimes people have a rough go, but we just finished an ArbCom case where, even with time limits placed on evidence we have a novella's worth of incidents. So everything outside these two months is perfectly okay?
There is simply no reality in which we would give access to the tools to any other user who has such a sustained record of toxicity, been dragged to noticeboards so often, desysoped by ArbCom for cause (in a case where there was unanimous agreement that their conduct was unbecoming, and the most significant debate was how rather than whether to desysop), is even remotely a candidate for being banned by the Foundation, and who continues to be toxic even as the community is debating the extent of their toxicity. The only thing that makes this different is that vocal parts of our community are itching to give the finger to the Foundation whatever it takes.
So by all means cast a !vote to give the finger to the Foundation by restoring adminship to a toxic user, but heaven help you if you ever find yourself standing between Fram and conspicuous correctness, because they don't care about you, and they will grind you down in the same way they've spent years doing the same to others. Good luck. GMGtalk 14:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Though they were perfectly nice when talking to 28bytes on their talk page:

Hey 28bytes. I think there's fairly good evidence to suggest that spirited debate has an important moderating effect on our community over time, and probably prevents us from being one of those communities where everyone agrees, but the stuff they agree about is just fanatical bonkers. But a boxing ring isn't a battlefield, and the difference between opponents and enemies is that one of the two shakes hands when the bell rings. [...] GMGtalk 02:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure they have the self-awareness to realise that they (GMG) are adding to the toxicity (but that may apply to a lot of people in this matter - it is very polarising). Does anyone think that GMG will ever 'shakes hands' with Fram and see them as an opponent, not an enemy?

[Vigilant]

This little gaggle of butthurt dipshits made me smile this morning.

I see several problems. First, ArbCom is supposed to deal with cases when other types of dispute resolution have failed. Few people who have been harassed, especially from well-established editors or admins, would want to subject themselves to an ANI complaint because they would be under as much scrutiny as the accuser and they are bound to suffer backlash from the more established editor or admin's supporters (and the sometimes obnoxious, knee jerk cries of "Boomerang!!!"). I have occasionally seen ANI work but only in cases the harassment or personal attacks was beyond the pale, that is abuse using racist, sexist, ableist (or about mental health) or anti-Semitic language. More subtle incidents of persistent hounding are much less clear to more noticeboard regulars.
Secondly, and this is even more difficult, it was impossible to ignore the effect of other websites or social media in some of these cases. Wikipediocracy ran an ongoing investigation and commentary during the entire Fram incident and subsequent case and it was clear that some more outlandish allegations made on Wikipedia had their origin on that discussion forum. That site doesn't have the same policies against outing or requiring substantiated allegations and some editors seem to have no qualms about taking dirt that's been dished there and bringing it over to Wikipedia. That can be a toxic influence that is difficult if not impossible to control. Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with this, and ended up designing a process that would solve for this, but it would require two very important changes in the standard way things are handled:
All harassment cases would be handled privately (because no one wants to endure the scrutiny of uninvolved assholes trying to be "helpful" in the way they rules lawyer and
They would be able to consider off-wiki behavior as well. Harassment almost never happens on-wiki. It happens on reddit or twitter or facebook, and thus cannot be submitted as "evidence".
I think about these things a lot.--Jorm (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with Liz's assessment. Whatever the solution is, it probably isn't ArbCom. Not only does ArbCom take months to enact a remedy, but sometimes they completely ignore the harassment aspects of a case and just focus on the other policy violations, no doubt due to the community's ambivalence about the civility policy. Kaldari (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

You guys are angry that we found out all the dirt and posted it in a place that you have no control over.
Please feel free to refute the information found here.

P.S. Snuffster, Ryan.

[eagle]

Maile66 and Fram are starting to relitigate Framgate using the Sept. 30 Signpost talk page as a forum:

Indeed, where do we go from here? We need to be better at policing our own, and it will happen (has happened) in baby steps. Arbcom has limitations. Over the years, I have seen many stalked by the recently defrocked admin. Fram has gone after me. Responses only go so far. After a few back-and-forths, I realized that Fram in a defensive position had no intention of retreating. In such a case, you dust yourself off and get on with more important things. Fram is not the only such one who employs heavy-handed tactics, admin or otherwise. So ... in other words ... Fram and those of his mindset rule the roost, free to delete anything they don't like, free to continually hound others, free to use the tools unhindered. We need to find a way to honor's Jimbo's ideal of "anybody can edit" without someone in power turning that into, "only people I personally deem competent can edit". We need to be able to get past WP:FANCLUB, those in power protecting their own. When the summer brouhaha happened on Jimbo's talk page, I wondered if some of the anger was also fear of , "...there but for the grace of God, go I ..." by some I had seen demonstrate the very behavior that got Fram banned. We need to recognize that Fram may (or may not) have been the extreme of power over-reach among some admins. But he certainly was not the only one; Fram was either the one who didn't know when to back off, or the one who didn't see when he crossed the line of no return on one or more editors. Whatever the case, we need to do better at stopping the subculture of bullying on Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66:. Care to provide some links to cases where I have "gone after you"? "Stalked" even? "Bullying" as well, apparently? We have been in the same discussions at WT:DYK from time to time, which is normal for DYK regulars. But I don't recall any situation that could even remotely be called "stalking" or something similar. Please refresh my memory. Fram (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Please see WP:HOUNDING and reflect on how you lost your tools, over a case of one individual you've repeatedly "gone after" for years. Please see Rich's testimony in your recent RFA. Hounding is, to the victim, stalking. If an editor feels you have followed them around year after year, to them it's stalking/hounding. I didn't say you stalked me personally. But most dialogues with you have been pretty much my-way-or-the-highway. Yeah, you have. And, again, read and take to heart the diffs that were provided on the RFA from others. I know there are others, but they don't want to deal with what you are doing here. The fact that you don't recognize your effect on other editors is a problem in itself. And we are not going to re-visit the case here. It's in the RFA. — Maile (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

[Vigilant]

Maile66 and LauraHale worked together on shitty DYKs.

[Vigilant]

At this point, the signpost just seems to be the WMDC grievance machine.

It's probably time to disband it.

[eagle]

At this point, the signpost just seems to be the WMDC grievance machine.

It's probably time to disband it.

Signpost or WMDC? Both have their downsides.

[Vigilant]

At this point, the signpost just seems to be the WMDC grievance machine.

It's probably time to disband it.

Signpost or WMDC? Both have their downsides.

Smallboner aka Peter Exman is tight with the WMDC crowd.

[Moral Hazard]

Phrasing

[Carcharoth]

Bit of aftermath with Ad Huikeshoven (T-C-L) at the Signpost story talk page calling Fram a "serial hounding harasser" in an edit summary that Jehochman revision deleted (Fram revealed what Ad Huikeshoven had said, so no concerns there about revealing what was said).

[CoffeeCrumbs]

You are wrong that nobody praised the WMF for finally taking action. It was long overdue but very welcome. It is great that the ArbCom finally picked up this bone of contention that is the real misery in all this; that it took an office action in the first place. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Someone should let Meijssen know that Sefidari isn't going to fall in love with him and doesn't even swing that way.

[Vigilant]

Uhhhh, wow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ficiencies

Hello Jimmy. I think we have run into some problems with the way ArbCom is working. As you were originally responsible for this group, I'd like your thoughts on whether there should be an RfC to improve things. Some of my concerns:

* The Fram arbitration case was unfair because Fram was not unblocked to participate. We should agree that editors having a case heard by ArbCom should be unblocked so that they can participate in their own case. If an editor can't be trusted to participate in their own case, then there's no need for arbitration; just block them and be done with it.

* Arbitrators are under intense stress, as evidenced by their high attrition rate. We should discuss whether each case should be heard by a smaller number of arbitrators. This might help ease the workload.

* Arbitrators are being criticized for failing to engage with case parties and failing to sufficiently explain their reasoning (See IceWhiz appeal above). What can be done to improve communication? Even if an editor is in the wrong, they should feel that they have been heard. I've witnessed many times that ArbCom seems to decide cases on their private mailing list and then votes in a pro forma manner. (The Fram case was actually a good counter example of them not doing this.)

* ArbCom's data security is questionable. They have an unlimited retention period for confidential data, which ensures that this data will eventually leak. There should be a more thoughtful data retention policy.

In general the community does not want to ruled. Instead, we want ArbCom to be functional to help resolve intractable disputes. Jehochman Talk 12:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this Jehochman, I hope you don't mind me responding in turn.

* The board required that Fram would remain blocked while the review happened. We had the choice of accepting this requirement, or stamping our feet over this issue. I personally did turn up on Fram's meta talk page during the workshop as much as I could and I am aware that he pinged and discussed matters - I am not sure that having him on en.wp would have made a massive difference to the case. I agree that it would have been preferable to have him unblocked to participate - however there were a number of things I would have changed about the case if I had the option.

* Of the five arbitrators who retired this year, three were for personal reasons unrelated to cases, and the arbitrators had not been particularly active up to that point. I can get you the statistics of how many emails were sent to the list if it helps. I am not convinced that smaller numbers of arbitrators on cases would reduce the stress - however this is something that should be discussed. Probably not at Jimmy's talk page though

* The committee did not engage sufficiently on the Poland case. This is because the arbitrators who were working on the case included one who left for personal reasons, one who was less active than he hoped and one who focussed on co-ordinating the Fram case. This did not stop us reaching the correct decision (in my opinion). However, given that we will be electing 11 out of 15 of the new committee next year, can I suggest you raise your communication concerns as a candidate question at the next election? You do generally issue a voter's guide - perhaps include it in that.

* I generally agree.

Overall, I very much doubt people feel ruled by the Arbitration Committee. We are here to deal with the stuff the community cannot or will not. WormTT(talk) 13:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The board required that Fram would remain blocked while the review happened.

Let that sink in.
Why?

Doc James, at the least, has a lot to answer for there.

[Vigilant]

Wow.

For what it is worth, I think it plainly obvious that Fram was not "railroaded" by ArbCom. I've read their decision and looked at the evidence, and they acted in a balanced and thoughtful way. Fram, if our systems were working better, should have been desysopped a long time ago - his failed RfA shows why. His conduct was not appropriate for that position. Normally in disagreements around behavioral issues and what to do about them, there are two basic kinds of disagreements we might have. One kind of disagreement is around the facts of what the conduct actually was. The other is a more philosophical disagreement around what the principles may be. I believe, in this case, there is little disagreement about the facts - Fram's problematic behavior was pretty universally acknowledged, in some cases - and to his credit - even by him. And I think the RfA gives a strong indication of a lack of community consensus that his behavior as an admin was ok.

As to whether Fram should have been banned - I think that's a complex matter, but I would have equally supported the ArbCom had they made that decision. My view is that absent some kind of egregious abuse of a ArbCom gone mad, in which my (theoretical?) reserve powers to call a new election would be in play, it is extremely important that the community support strongly the principle of an independent, respected ArbCom. If you disagree with a particular decision, it's perfectly fine to say so. If you disagree in some really very strong way, it's perfectly fine to run for office as a member of ArbCom on that platform. What I think is not very helpful is to undermine the authority of ArbCom while simultaneously rejecting (rightly, in my view) the idea that the WMF should step in to detailed internal user issues in the fashion of twitter/youtube staff moderation. You can have the one, or you can have the other. You can't have anarchy as that would lead to Wikipedia being overrun by trolls.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Fuck you, Jimmy.

Why don't you run for RfA again and find out how that works for you?

[Randy from Boise]

If you disagree with a particular decision, it's perfectly fine to say so. If you disagree in some really very strong way, it's perfectly fine to run for office as a member of ArbCom on that platform. What I think is not very helpful is to undermine the authority of ArbCom while simultaneously rejecting (rightly, in my view) the idea that the WMF should step in to detailed internal user issues in the fashion of twitter/youtube staff moderation. You can have the one, or you can have the other.

This is on-point.

RfB

[Vigilant]

If you disagree with a particular decision, it's perfectly fine to say so. If you disagree in some really very strong way, it's perfectly fine to run for office as a member of ArbCom on that platform. What I think is not very helpful is to undermine the authority of ArbCom while simultaneously rejecting (rightly, in my view) the idea that the WMF should step in to detailed internal user issues in the fashion of twitter/youtube staff moderation. You can have the one, or you can have the other.

This is on-point.

RfB

False dichotomy.

The board insisted that ARBCOM keep Fram banned during the case.
ARBCOM agreed and ran a show trial.

Gross conflicts of interest were never addressed.
Evidence and complainant motivations were never seriously examined.

Jimmy is trying to force a choice between two bad alternatives.

Here's a third way:
* WMF T&S to stay out of almost everything
* ARBCOM improved
* Basic process always applied: No secret evidence, Defendants always allowed to participate, No secret complainants

[Poetlister]

If you disagree with a particular decision, it's perfectly fine to say so. If you disagree in some really very strong way, it's perfectly fine to run for office as a member of ArbCom on that platform. What I think is not very helpful is to undermine the authority of ArbCom while simultaneously rejecting (rightly, in my view) the idea that the WMF should step in to detailed internal user issues in the fashion of twitter/youtube staff moderation. You can have the one, or you can have the other.

I hope that this is up on a noticeboard in WMF HQ. It is absolutely essential that they all realise this, and good for Jimbo that he said it. Will he press the point with the rest of the Board?

[Osborne]

What I think is not very helpful is to undermine the authority of ArbCom while simultaneously rejecting (rightly, in my view) the idea that the WMF should step in to detailed internal user issues in the fashion of twitter/youtube staff moderation.

That's a very nice way of saying, that he is a disruption / troll. Or in WPO words: an inconsistent, two-faced disgrace.

[Eric Corbett]

If you disagree with a particular decision, it's perfectly fine to say so. If you disagree in some really very strong way, it's perfectly fine to run for office as a member of ArbCom on that platform. What I think is not very helpful is to undermine the authority of ArbCom while simultaneously rejecting (rightly, in my view) the idea that the WMF should step in to detailed internal user issues in the fashion of twitter/youtube staff moderation. You can have the one, or you can have the other.

I hope that this is up on a noticeboard in WMF HQ. It is absolutely essential that they all realise this, and good for Jimbo that he said it. Will he press the point with the rest of the Board?

What real "authority" does ArbCom have that can be undermined?

[Moral Hazard]

Terms of Service

[Poetlister]

What real "authority" does ArbCom have that can be undermined?

Quite a lot. It can block someone and no admin would dare to unblock. It can order an admin to be unfrocked and that would happen. It can make all sorts of decrees and they are usually enforced.

[Eric Corbett]

What real "authority" does ArbCom have that can be undermined?

Quite a lot. It can block someone and no admin would dare to unblock. It can order an admin to be unfrocked and that would happen. It can make all sorts of decrees and they are usually enforced.

You're having a laugh.

Nobody has ever been blocked in any meaningful sense, as I'm quite sure that Kumioku would be very happy to explain to you. And nobody can ever be blocked unless and until the WMF comes to its senses and insists on its editors identifying themselves, which they'll never do. So it's a sham process that in reality means nothing, and encourages bounty hunters like Bb123 to go about their business as if it makes the slightest difference to anything.

[Randy from Boise]

If you disagree with a particular decision, it's perfectly fine to say so. If you disagree in some really very strong way, it's perfectly fine to run for office as a member of ArbCom on that platform. What I think is not very helpful is to undermine the authority of ArbCom while simultaneously rejecting (rightly, in my view) the idea that the WMF should step in to detailed internal user issues in the fashion of twitter/youtube staff moderation. You can have the one, or you can have the other.

This is on-point.

RfB

False dichotomy.

The board insisted that ARBCOM keep Fram banned during the case.
ARBCOM agreed and ran a show trial.

Gross conflicts of interest were never addressed.
Evidence and complainant motivations were never seriously examined.

Jimmy is trying to force a choice between two bad alternatives.

Here's a third way:
* WMF T&S to stay out of almost everything
* ARBCOM improved
* Basic process always applied: No secret evidence, Defendants always allowed to participate, No secret complainants

I think your "third way" is the objective of most Wikipedians and Arbcom itself.

It was a tense political situation and Arbcom didn't have full freedom of mobility. They took half a loaf, more or less put a halt to the T&S intervention. Fram died for your sins.

RfB

[Zoloft]

... Fram died for your sins.

RfB