Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

[el84]

And if none of the remedies regarding the bit pass ... ?

The answer to that might be just shut everything down?

I was wondering if it was failing to load for anyone but me...

[Xade]

Ah, thanks for clarifying. Thanks for the welcome messages too!

[Kumioko]

So, the outcome is set.

1a Fram's 1 year ban is vacated 7 0 0 PASSING ·
1b Fram's 1 year ban is disproportionate 7 0 0 PASSING ·
1c Fram's 1 year ban is justified 0 7 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
2a Fram's sysop userright is reinstated 2 5 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass

Fram's extra life was used.

I don't like Fram, but I think it would be great if he submits an RFA upon completion of this case and gets reelected. Even if it's close, which it likely would be, it would be an almost certain pass due to the number of people in the community that were pissed about this case.

[Xade]

So, the outcome is set.

1a Fram's 1 year ban is vacated 7 0 0 PASSING ·
1b Fram's 1 year ban is disproportionate 7 0 0 PASSING ·
1c Fram's 1 year ban is justified 0 7 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
2a Fram's sysop userright is reinstated 2 5 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass

Fram's extra life was used.

I don't like Fram, but I think it would be great if he submits an RFA upon completion of this case and gets reelected. Even if it's close, which it likely would be, it would be an almost certain pass due to the number of people in the community that were pissed about this case.

The irony and resulting drama and confusion would be very enjoyable.

[Vigilant]

So, the outcome is set.

1a Fram's 1 year ban is vacated 7 0 0 PASSING ·
1b Fram's 1 year ban is disproportionate 7 0 0 PASSING ·
1c Fram's 1 year ban is justified 0 7 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
2a Fram's sysop userright is reinstated 2 5 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass

Fram's extra life was used.

I don't like Fram, but I think it would be great if he submits an RFA upon completion of this case and gets reelected. Even if it's close, which it likely would be, it would be an almost certain pass due to the number of people in the community that were pissed about this case.

The irony and resulting drama and confusion would be very enjoyable.

WO really is getting their money's worth from this shit show.

[Vigilant]

This seems cheeky

I thought you weren't supposed to remove other people's comments...

[Kumioko]

This seems cheeky

I thought you weren't supposed to remove other people's comments...

What on earth makes Jehochman think that he can do that? Come talk to me like EllenCT is a little kid? This is ludicrous and I hope she reverts it and tells him to quote Floquenbeam, "Fuck off!".

[mendaliv]

On the plus side, not only did that stupid word limit restriction fail, but the arb who proposed it actually apologized for doing so.

I give OR a lot of credit for her post on that, though I'd have liked to debate it more and perhaps bring her around to an oppose. OR is one of the few arbs who, while I regularly disagree with her, I find agreeable enough that it doesn't bother me. I wish the same could be said for other arbs.

Overall, disappointed but not surprised at where this is going. The obvious course in my mind was to throw out everything T&S did as out of process and only consider real evidence submitted by the community as they do in every other proceeding.

The real stupidity of the PD is that the FoFs don't really find any facts, at least not such that any action would be justifiable. They're more or less just finding conclusions. This is one of the many reasons why I believe arbitration needs to be done professionally, either by an independent hearings officer (that is a lawyer), or by staff attorneys working in the background for the Committee (like with licensing boards that are filled by stakeholders).

Has anyone else observed the fuckery on the PD talk page? GuyMacon has decided, all by his lonesome, to enforce absolute conformity in section headings. He's not even a clerk or anything, he seems to have just made up a rule and tried to force it.

I've been going back and forth on Guy Macon lately. A month ago he was squarely in the "boob" category, more recently he's been making sense. I want to assume that he's doing that at the PD talk page to enforce the clerks' foolishness by taking it to the nth degree.

[Capeo]

This seems cheeky

I thought you weren't supposed to remove other people's comments...

Jehochman is a fucking basketcase. His opinions about the situation flip regularly without any rhyme or reason and he’s clearly oblivious about any of the history involved yet he’s continually injected himself anywhere he can. Also, fuck Guy Macon for being such a sycophant on Jimbo’s page. On Fram’s meta page he offered to put the potential COI’s front and center, yet on Jimbo’s page he’s begging Jimbo to let him to TP ban EllenCT for bringing up the same COI.

[Vigilant]

This seems cheeky

I thought you weren't supposed to remove other people's comments...

Jehochman is a fucking basketcase. His opinions about the situation flip regularly without any rhyme or reason and he’s clearly oblivious about any of the history involved yet he’s continually injected himself anywhere he can. Also, fuck Guy Macon for being such a sycophant on Jimbo’s page. On Fram’s meta page he offered to put the potential COI’s front and center, yet on Jimbo’s page he’s begging Jimbo to let him to TP ban EllenCT for bringing up the same COI.

Jehochman should try mansplaining it to Ellen.

[Vigilant]

Well ARBCOM,

You've well and truly shit the bed here.

[Vigilant]

Is there something in the ARBCOM water?

I'm not aware of anyone on the Committee who is afraid of T&S. While there are aspects of the relationship between ArbCom and T&S that has been a little frosty since we asked to handle this case ourselves, the staff have remained professional and polite. The treatment we get from the community may be aggressive at times, but that from T&S is not. Which is sort of ironic considering we are arranging to undo an Office Action and in so doing assert the community's independence, something that the community want, but T&S would find embarrassing. SilkTork (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Trust and Safety are EMPLOYEES.
They get paid to do this.

Teh Communitah are doing this work on their own nickel.
Since they get no remuneration for a labor of love, why on earth should they put up with your shit while wearing a smile?

Further, this entire situation was Trust and Safety's fault.
And then ARBCOM exacerbated it.

And, you've taken THREE FUCKING MONTHS to do jack shit.

You might think these things through before shitting out whatever is lined up behind your piehole.

[10920]

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.

It's outrageous because they don't have anything that warrants a desysop on their hands and Fram should never have been desysopped in the first place. Things should go back to the way they were and if someone wants to make a case for Fram to be desysopped, that should be a new case.

ArbCom is being blatantly spineless here.

[10920]

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?

I'd peg odds at about 4-to-1 against Fram being retooled within the next few months.

RFA is a "minority rules" system and there's a strong minority opposed to Fram for all the reasons listed.

RfB

There usually won't be consensus for or against, so the status quo remains.

They certainly would not find consensus to remove his tools but they wouldn't find consensus to restore them either, and this doesn't just go for Fram. It goes for ArbCom's desysoppings this year in general. One could call it inertia.

Whatever ArbCom says typically sticks so in their refusal to grow a spine, they're in effect desysopping Fram without cause and preventing him from regaining the bit.

[mendaliv]

This seems cheeky

I thought you weren't supposed to remove other people's comments...

Jehochman is a fucking basketcase. His opinions about the situation flip regularly without any rhyme or reason and he’s clearly oblivious about any of the history involved yet he’s continually injected himself anywhere he can. Also, fuck Guy Macon for being such a sycophant on Jimbo’s page. On Fram’s meta page he offered to put the potential COI’s front and center, yet on Jimbo’s page he’s begging Jimbo to let him to TP ban EllenCT for bringing up the same COI.

Jehochman and Guy Macon regularly trade second place in the "Golden Boob" award runnings. BU Rob13 is probably still in the lead though, despite being vanished.

[Randy from Boise]

Sorry, please remind me of whom exactly MMAR is? (I don't have enough time to read the full thread)

You can use the WPO search function to find his posts here or visit the website Wikipedia Sucks to see the Crow in action. Previous names were MMAR, Slacker, and CrowsNest. It's all the same person although he will officially neither confirm nor deny.

Imagine the great Vigilant as a sociopath with a grudge against everyone and everything.

That's close.

RfB

[eagle]

The appearance of impropriety[edit]
Jimbo, as I am generally in agreement with Newyorkbrad's comments on the Fram proposed decision but doubt that the Committee will be able to refrain from imposing a sanction against Fram on the basis of private evidence, I no longer believe that Raystorm can serve as the Chair of the Board of Trustees without bringing the Foundation further into disrepute. Are there any reasons to the contrary? EllenCT (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I am unaware of any relevant evidence having anything to do with Raystorm. My understanding is that she has appropriately recused herself from this matter from the beginning. If you are aware of evidence to suggest such a strong judgment, my talk page is not the appropriate venue to bring that forward.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I have explained my reasoning at meta:User talk:Fram#Opabinia knows better. (T-H-L)
Is it appropriate to ask your opinion of the evidence that Laura Hale was being paid to edit by the subjects of articles she was authoring? EllenCT (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Commenting on the issue of Raystorm-Laura COI and it's non-disclosure.

One of the trustee (supposedly) feels that sometimes it may be necessary for individuals in higher positions of authority to not disclose their COIs publicly, lest the subjects at the other end of the conflict (which may be some article or user or anything else) be subject to more-than-normal scrutiny. In case of conflicted-users, such over-scrutiny can be harmful and prohibit maturing as one of the many normal 'pedians. He/She is inclined to refract and reason the absence of public COI disclosures in this part. case through such a view-port.

I am yet to get an answer on whether he/she feels that the aforementioned view-port also allows for such persons-in-higher-positions to actively engage for their conflicted subjects over ANI threads or other venues where their editorial actions are scrutinized, in the garbs of a neutral bystander.

@JW:-Feel free to move this to a venue, that you deem appropriate. But, COI related issues of Trustees are quite vital issues and they need to be discussed. ∯WBGconverse 18:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I see zero evidence that Raystorm did anything wrong or was even aware of any of this before T&S banned Fram. One might argue that it is possible that certain people who work for Raystorm did certain things because they assumed without asking that she would have wanted them to do those things, but that isn't evidence.
EllenCT, you are way out of line calling for Raystorm's resignation without providing a shred of evidence that Raystorm did anything wrong. You should either apologize and retract or post some actual evidence.
Jimbo, have we reached to point where EllenCT should be asked to stay off of your talk page? Would it be helpful if I were to put together an annotated list of diffs showing EllenCT's contibutions to this page? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I have not called for anyone's resignation, but I don't believe anyone married (and therefore by law the same financial entity with concurrent liabilities and obligations) as a contributor paid to edit on articles about their clientele can can serve as the Chair instead of merely a member of the Board of Trustees without clearly bringing the Foundation further into disrepute. EllenCT (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
What's wrong with being married? I'm married, and I feel fine about serving on a board and even being a chair (though I'd rather be a chaise lounge). Jehochman Talk 22:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I have edited my previous comment by inserting the italicized portion to clarify. EllenCT (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Huh? Who’s married and who’s getting paid to edit by clients? This is all sonunclear. Jehochman Talk 22:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I bet that Mr. Wales is doing his research right now before deciding whether to respond.

Here, Raystorm invited LauraHale to move to Madrid in January 2013. They quickly filed a WMF grant application to cover their travels to a Paralympic Alpine Skiing competition without disclosing their relationship. The application claimed that they did not want to ask the Australian or Spanish Paralympic Committees to fund their travels because that would create a COI. Raystorm then participated in the first round of 2013 IEG funding before joining the WMF Board in summer 2013. The travel grant application also stated that LH was about to meet with the Spanish Paralympic Committee, seeking to establish a Wikpedian-in-Residence there. LauraHale then established a private off-wiki website using Wikibase to store information about disabled athletes. She then organized the Wikibase User Group and sought recognition for it, while Raystorm served with the Affiliations Committee. Raystorm did not publicly disclose her marriage to LauraHale.

We have seen similar conflicts before with then-Executive Director Lila Tretikov and Wil Sinclair (who were not married, but were living together raising a child). Wil became active on WO and later founded a separate website called "Off-Wiki". WMF Board members and senior volunteers became highly alarmed, and some even called on Lila to walk out on Wil.

[eagle]

These unredacted materials show a pattern of borderline harassment against multiple individuals, through hounding the individuals and excessively highlighting their failures.

Most lawyers (or other people who deal with redacted materials) think of two versions of the same document: the redacted copy and the unredacted copy. In most court cases, the judge has access to the unredacted copy, and has the ability to order redactions removed or to reach decisions based upon the best evidence -- the full, unredacted version. Here, Arbcom has not been given access to the unredacted copy, but creates the impression that it has access with this sentence. GorillaWarfare clarified that the sentence is referring to the unredacted material in the redacted copy, but since all the material in the redacted copy is not removed, this makes no sense. EllenCT also picked up on this.

Also, I don't understand what "excessively highlighting their failures" means. I always thought that in a collaborate editing environment, everyone keeps improving the text until it is correct. The number of times that is reasonable is equal to the number of times that it takes to correct the problem. If Editor A makes the mistake 5 times and Editor B call this to her attention, and then Editor A stops, five is the reasonable number. But if Editor A keeps making the same mistake a dozen of times in a dozen different articles, a much larger number of corrections, and perhaps a trip to ANI is reasonable. Under Finding of Fact #6, any WP:CCI would by definition be "hounding" of the editor.

[mendaliv]

These unredacted materials show a pattern of borderline harassment against multiple individuals, through hounding the individuals and excessively highlighting their failures.

Most lawyers (or other people who deal with redacted materials) think of two versions of the same document: the redacted copy and the unredacted copy. In most court cases, the judge has access to the unredacted copy, and has the ability to order redactions removed or to reach decisions based upon the best evidence -- the full, unredacted version. Here, Arbcom has not been given access to the unredacted copy, but creates the impression that it has access with this sentence. GorillaWarfare clarified that the sentence is referring to the unredacted material in the redacted copy, but since all the material in the redacted copy is not removed, this makes no sense. EllenCT also picked up on this.

Also, I don't understand what "excessively highlighting their failures" means. I always thought that in a collaborate editing environment, everyone keeps improving the text until it is correct. The number of times that is reasonable is equal to the number of times that it takes to correct the problem. If Editor A makes the mistake 5 times and Editor B call this to her attention, and then Editor A stops, five is the reasonable number. But if Editor A keeps making the same mistake a dozen of times in a dozen different articles, a much larger number of corrections, and perhaps a trip to ANI is reasonable. Under Finding of Fact #6, any WP:CCI would by definition be "hounding" of the editor.

On the plus side it's effectively a finding that anyone who complained about Fram's "hounding" is a failure.

[mendaliv]

Imagine if Fram came back and ran for ArbCom.

[SLW80]

JBHunley opens the floodgates.
linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =914224101[/link]

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

I about jumped out of my chair in joy when I read that. Awesome takedown, and presentation of evidence even I hadn't seen.

[mendaliv]

EllenCT has now taken Jehochman’s removal to ANI. And almost immediately got a finger-wagging for not talking it out with him while her comment stayed reverted.

[Osborne]

Jehochman should try mansplaining it to Ellen.

And he did, with a hint of paternalizing.

Ellen, you need to find a better place to address these concerns because the way you’re going about it is going to get you into trouble that I don’t want to see happen to you. I recommend you gather your thoughts and write to Doc James who is our representative on the board. Jehochman Talk 07:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Then changed his mind and retreated, as usual:

I undid my disputed edit because I’m going to be offline for most of the day today and don’t have time to discuss it further until possibly tonight or tomorrow.

And it still took him 10 whole minutes to undo it.
Slimy bastard.

[Carcharoth]

I guess after the case closes (though don't discount an arb throwing up more nuanced remedies to see if they can pass), the ball is in Fram's court. I wonder what their approach will be once the ban is vacated? Storm back on-wiki and start (continue) complaining vociferously about the result? Or a calmer approach?

I would like to see them run at RfA, and/or run for ArbCom, but the timing and rationale needs to be prepared and well-thought out. Fram's personality type is such that they will likely say the wrong thing somewhere in an RfA or be sucked into an argument where they get irate or brusque and the RfA will tank at that point. They need to have enough self control to decide a strategy and stick to it (I doubt I could in their shoes, it must be very frustrating, especially being limited to posting at meta).

One possibility is to wait until the year would have passed (edit quietly and/or take a break), and politely request return of the bit in the appropriate venue, and not get drawn into commenting on what happened with respect to the ban and the case. That could be far less drama than an immediate RfA.

[Jans Hammer]

I guess after the case closes (though don't discount an arb throwing up more nuanced remedies to see if they can pass), the ball is in Fram's court. I wonder what their approach will be once the ban is vacated? Storm back on-wiki and start (continue) complaining vociferously about the result? Or a calmer approach?

I would like to see them run at RfA, and/or run for ArbCom, but the timing and rationale needs to be prepared and well-thought out. Fram's personality type is such that they will likely say the wrong thing somewhere in an RfA or be sucked into an argument where they get irate or brusque and the RfA will tank at that point. They need to have enough self control to decide a strategy and stick to it (I doubt I could in their shoes, it must be very frustrating, especially being limited to posting at meta).

One possibility is to wait until the year would have passed (edit quietly and/or take a break), and politely request return of the bit in the appropriate venue, and not get drawn into commenting on what happened with respect to the ban and the case. That could be far less drama than an immediate RfA.

With the exposé / evidence / truth about Laura Hale now finally emerging I think will be impossible for him to rein himself in.

[mendaliv]

I guess after the case closes (though don't discount an arb throwing up more nuanced remedies to see if they can pass), the ball is in Fram's court. I wonder what their approach will be once the ban is vacated? Storm back on-wiki and start (continue) complaining vociferously about the result? Or a calmer approach?

I would like to see them run at RfA, and/or run for ArbCom, but the timing and rationale needs to be prepared and well-thought out. Fram's personality type is such that they will likely say the wrong thing somewhere in an RfA or be sucked into an argument where they get irate or brusque and the RfA will tank at that point. They need to have enough self control to decide a strategy and stick to it (I doubt I could in their shoes, it must be very frustrating, especially being limited to posting at meta).

One possibility is to wait until the year would have passed (edit quietly and/or take a break), and politely request return of the bit in the appropriate venue, and not get drawn into commenting on what happened with respect to the ban and the case. That could be far less drama than an immediate RfA.

I think there's a good chance of an immediate RfA working if he takes it seriously and makes a rule of not replying to anything other than questions (and perhaps having someone screen his answers before he posts them). The Floq RfA suggests it's time for a lot of controversial candidates to pass. It would also be a good idea for people in his corner to have prepared retorts to expected objections/oppositions, especially from arbs.

Basically my strategy would be to make the entire RfA about community opposition to the WMF and restoration of the status quo prior to the Committee failing to live up to their duties. Emphasize on the positives of his record: Experienced admin, anti-paid editing. Minimize the negatives: Controversy follows admins who work in controversial areas.

But Fram's not been really following a litigation strategy thus far, so I don't think he's about to follow a campaign strategy in seeking RfA. He might still pass by the skin of his teeth if he goes straight for it and harnesses everyone's frustration with the WMF, and packages it as "sending a message".

[Carcharoth]

Yeah, some people are political, some are not.

[Vigilant]

Ellen, you need to find a better place to address these concerns because the way you’re going about it is going to get you into trouble that I don’t want to see happen to you. I recommend you gather your thoughts and write to Doc James who is our representative on the board. Jehochman Talk 07:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Does he do this for ANY male editors?

He got my hackles up.

How about mind your own damn business?

[Vigilant]

I guess after the case closes (though don't discount an arb throwing up more nuanced remedies to see if they can pass), the ball is in Fram's court. I wonder what their approach will be once the ban is vacated? Storm back on-wiki and start (continue) complaining vociferously about the result? Or a calmer approach?

I would like to see them run at RfA, and/or run for ArbCom, but the timing and rationale needs to be prepared and well-thought out. Fram's personality type is such that they will likely say the wrong thing somewhere in an RfA or be sucked into an argument where they get irate or brusque and the RfA will tank at that point. They need to have enough self control to decide a strategy and stick to it (I doubt I could in their shoes, it must be very frustrating, especially being limited to posting at meta).

One possibility is to wait until the year would have passed (edit quietly and/or take a break), and politely request return of the bit in the appropriate venue, and not get drawn into commenting on what happened with respect to the ban and the case. That could be far less drama than an immediate RfA.

Come back, immediately run the RfA, "Fram: Quality is job one." or "Fram: This is our wiki"
Then run for ARBCOM.
Then run for BoD.

[Moral Hazard]

Ellen, you need to find a better place to address these concerns because the way you’re going about it is going to get you into trouble that I don’t want to see happen to you. I recommend you gather your thoughts and write to Doc James who is our representative on the board. Jehochman Talk 07:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Does he do this for ANY male editors?

Many serial killers have a problem with women: For such editors, the only victims who escape have been male.

Many serial Wikipedia-editors apparently have a problem with women.

[Vigilant]

Ellen, you need to find a better place to address these concerns because the way you’re going about it is going to get you into trouble that I don’t want to see happen to you. I recommend you gather your thoughts and write to Doc James who is our representative on the board. Jehochman Talk 07:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Does he do this for ANY male editors?

Many serial killers have a problem with women: For such editors, the only victims who escape have been male.

Many serial Wikipedia-editors apparently have a problem with women.

I notice a correlation with short guys too.


Names to faces
Jonathan Hochman

Imagine that smirking chimp telling you these things...


Here's one of his webpages.
Run this google search "* site:www.ims-expertservices.com"
He's an expert at everything...

Also, his 'office' at
4400 Bayou Boulevard, Suite 4 Pensacola, FL 32503
is actually a condo right across from a massage parlor.

There's some grasping insecurity going on with this guy.

[Carcharoth]

Some insight from an arb into the contents of the T&S document here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ode=source

The WMF document was composed of several complaints from several users which reported the same sort of stuff. It was the cumulation of these reports over a number of years, coupled with Fram's attacks on ArbCom which led to the ban.

[Ryuichi]

I find it helps if I pronounce "Jehochman" as ʤəʊk mæn.

[Vigilant]

I find it helps if I pronounce "Jehochman" as ʤəʊk mæn.

I always went with JerkMan

[Vigilant]

So the request appears to be that User:EllenCT provide evidence that Fram dealt with paid editing? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure what she’s complaining about simultaneously in multiple venues. When I tried to corral it she ran to ANI instead of following my request to discuss it here. Hopefully she will provide more details before continuing to spread aspersions. Jehochman Talk 10:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, Doc,
If you were paying attention to the biggest ARBCOM case in recent history, one that includes the Chair, you might have seen the evidence already.

And Hochman needs to be fucking slapped for his tone.

[Vigilant]

EllenCT's talk page

Casting aspersions without evidence

Please go around and add evidentiary links to your “paid editing by Laura Hale” comments. If you don’t have evidence of what you are alleging , please remove the comments. Jehochman Talk 09:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I included [130] at the top of the evidence I linked to. EllenCT (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about what paid editing you’re referring to? I think a lot of observers are unclear. Also, if you are satisfied that I restored your comment please say so at ANI so others don’t waste their time troubleshooting a resolved issue. I’m or airplane WiFi. My connectivity may be sporadic today. Jehochman Talk 10:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

What a preening, smug little shit.

Wasn't hounding a part of this ARBCOM case?

[Vigilant]

What happens if none of the section 2 admin bit remedies pass?

[mendaliv]

What happens if none of the section 2 admin bit remedies pass?

Then he doesn’t get his admin bit back.

[Vigilant]

What happens if none of the section 2 admin bit remedies pass?

Then he doesn’t get his admin bit back.

He didn't leave under a cloud, it wasn't pulled in any recognized process.

Seems like he should be free to request and get it back from any crat.

[Vigilant]

Who made this annoying prat the general counsel of everything?

10:57, 7 September 2019 diff hist +167‎ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ →‎3rd party talk section blanking: sorry
10:53, 7 September 2019 diff hist +303‎ User talk:Jehochman ‎ →‎Yes?: here we go current
10:47, 7 September 2019 diff hist +425‎ User talk:EllenCT ‎ →‎Casting aspersions without evidence: ok
10:44, 7 September 2019 diff hist +492‎ User talk:Katherine (WMF) ‎ →‎Silence: thoughts
10:34, 7 September 2019 diff hist +364‎ User talk:Jehochman ‎ →‎Yes?: thanks, doc
10:28, 7 September 2019 diff hist 0‎ User talk:Worm That Turned ‎ →‎curious: whoops current
10:27, 7 September 2019 diff hist +130‎ User talk:Worm That Turned ‎ →‎curious: for porn
10:02, 7 September 2019 diff hist +128‎ User talk:Worm That Turned ‎ →‎curious: maybe this explains it
09:47, 7 September 2019 diff hist +321‎ User talk:EllenCT ‎ →‎Casting aspersions without evidence: new section
09:46, 7 September 2019 diff hist +1‎ User talk:Jimbo Wales ‎ →‎Paid editing: paid, not pod. Ironic typo for a Wales’ page
09:43, 7 September 2019 diff hist +1,239‎ User talk:Katherine (WMF) ‎ →‎Paid editing by Laura Hale and redactions of complaints against Fram: revert my disputed removal - I do not endorse this line of questioning about off wiki matters here
09:35, 7 September 2019 diff hist +349‎ User talk:Jimbo Wales ‎ →‎Paid editing: it’s not clear
09:33, 7 September 2019 diff hist +335‎ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ →‎3rd party talk section blanking: ok
07:58, 7 September 2019 diff hist +300‎ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ →‎3rd party talk section blanking: clue
07:56, 7 September 2019 diff hist +388‎ User talk:Jehochman ‎ →‎Yes?: suggestion

[Osborne]

Seems like he should be free to request and get it back from any crat.

I understand your hatred of WMF and LH, but why do you love Fram? We are here to hate abusive admins, not to advocate them. What's your reason?

[Vigilant]

Seems like he should be free to request and get it back from any crat.

I understand your hatred of WMF and LH, but why do you love Fram? We are here to hate abusive admins, not to advocate them. What's your reason?

Love Fram?
You've read that wrong.

I abhor the seemingly endless unfair processes foisted on people by the WMF.
I abhor the hypocrisy of the Laura Hales and Maria Sefidari Huicis.
I abhor manipulative sociopaths like Laura Hale.
I enjoy watching the hapless ARBCOM get their teeth kicked in.
I enjoy watching the anthill at en.wp get stirred up as the minions are shown just how fucked up things are.

There are far worse monsters than Fram in this fairy tale we're reading.

[Osborne]

There are far worse monsters than Fram in this fairy tale we're reading.

So why do you want to re-sysop any monster?

[Vigilant]

There are far worse monsters than Fram in this fairy tale we're reading.

So why do you want to re-sysop any monster?

Because the process by which he was handled was fucked.
You don't allow decisions like that to stand or you set the stage for far more bad decisions in the future.

Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean they don't deserve to be treated fairly.

[Osborne]

You don't allow decisions like that to stand or you set the stage for far more bad decisions in the future.
Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean they don't deserve to be treated fairly.

The process was unfair, and the ban unjustified. The de-sysop was fair. A dozen other admins deserve the same fate.
Re-sysoping a monster won't fix the process, just give his ego more fuel.

[Vigilant]

You don't allow decisions like that to stand or you set the stage for far more bad decisions in the future.
Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean they don't deserve to be treated fairly.

The process was unfair, and the ban unjustified. The de-sysop was fair. A dozen other admins deserve the same fate.
Re-sysoping a monster won't fix the process, just give his ego more fuel.

The de-sysop was NOT fair.
Under the current expectations for admins, there's no way Fram would lose the tools in a public case. Period. End of story.


If you want to change the rules and make admins more accountable, I'm all in.
But, you don't get to change the rules in the dark and then hold someone 'accountable' for the new rules judging their the past actions.

That's wrong and should always be called out, regardless of who it is.


Add in the Laura Hale and Maria Sefidari Huici self dealing and now there's no chance that Fram should be punished here.

[mendaliv]

You don't allow decisions like that to stand or you set the stage for far more bad decisions in the future.
Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean they don't deserve to be treated fairly.

The process was unfair, and the ban unjustified. The de-sysop was fair. A dozen other admins deserve the same fate.
Re-sysoping a monster won't fix the process, just give his ego more fuel.

Consistent use of the right process is almost always more important than the end result in individual cases. This is something Wikipedia has struggled with (and, in many cases, against) since its beginnings. Part of the growing pains the site has gone through over the last decade have been because of ongoing resistance to making the system more process-based (but also, a significant amount of those pains have been because the people who have been crafting the processes have neither the training nor the aptitude for it).

The process by which the desysop occurred was the same by which the ban occurred. The process was improper. Therefore, neither action was justified. And it will fix the process when the people who put themselves in charge of enforcing the process realize that doing it wrong will be worse than doing nothing. They'll suddenly, like a police department that gets burned because of a bad Mirandization ruining a high-profile case, be doing all the right things, because they don't want to get that embarrassed again.

[Osborne]

The de-sysop was NOT fair. Under the current expectations for admins, there's no way Fram would lose the tools in a public case.

It WAS fair and by the policies. WP:ADMINCOND applies primarily. As an editor, he would have been indeffed much sooner. If the ArbCom accepts one of the previous rejected cases, very likely he would have been desysoped. The expectations written in the policies do not allow this behavior.
What you are talking about is the actual practice, that makes it almost impossible to bring these issues to the attention of the community and ArbCom. No need to change the rules, just the practice of giving exemption for long-time editors, and threatening editors who dare to report issues.

[Vigilant]

You don't allow decisions like that to stand or you set the stage for far more bad decisions in the future.
Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean they don't deserve to be treated fairly.

The process was unfair, and the ban unjustified. The de-sysop was fair. A dozen other admins deserve the same fate.
Re-sysoping a monster won't fix the process, just give his ego more fuel.

Consistent use of the right process is almost always more important than the end result in individual cases. This is something Wikipedia has struggled with (and, in many cases, against) since its beginnings. Part of the growing pains the site has gone through over the last decade have been because of ongoing resistance to making the system more process-based (but also, a significant amount of those pains have been because the people who have been crafting the processes have neither the training nor the aptitude for it).

The process by which the desysop occurred was the same by which the ban occurred. The process was improper. Therefore, neither action was justified. And it will fix the process when the people who put themselves in charge of enforcing the process realize that doing it wrong will be worse than doing nothing. They'll suddenly, like a police department that gets burned because of a bad Mirandization ruining a high-profile case, be doing all the right things, because they don't want to get that embarrassed again.

Besides the moral and ethical concerns here, there's a practical benefit to fair process.

13 years ago, Tony Sidaway, one of the original bad admins, banned me without process or appeal for trying to protect en.wp from a deranged net.kook, Jeffrey Vernon Merkey.

How'd that decision work out for them?

People treated unfairly react poorly.

[Vigilant]

The de-sysop was NOT fair. Under the current expectations for admins, there's no way Fram would lose the tools in a public case.

It WAS fair and by the policies. WP:ADMINCOND applies primarily. As an editor, he would have been indeffed much sooner. If the ArbCom accepts one of the previous rejected cases, very likely he would have been desysoped. The expectations written in the policies do not allow this behavior.
What you are talking about is the actual practice, that makes it almost impossible to bring these issues to the attention of the community and ArbCom. No need to change the rules, just the practice of giving exemption for long-time editors, and threatening editors who dare to report issues.

Then ARBCOM should vacate the Trust and Safety decision and immediately open a public desysoping case for Fram using the rules that have been in place for a while.

I suspect that the reason they won't is because all of the Laura Hale and Maria Sefidari Huici stuff will become front and center.
Laura Hale editing, extremely poorly, a vast swath of BLPs for athletes, making terrible mistakes left and right... FOR MONEY.
Maria Sefidari Huici repeatedly ran interference for Laura Hale.
They are both suspected of improper behavior with regards to funding and grants.
There was an unreported conflict of interest that Teh Communitah should have been informed of with both of them active against Fram.
There is a high likelihood of improper access to and behavior of WMF staff in this case.

I welcome a public case.
In fact, if I were Fram, I would insist on it.
I'd start the case myself.

I'd title it Fram and Laura Hale, et al.


I'd also be very interested in what a lawyer with a background in corporate ethics would say about this 'arrangement'.