Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

[The Garbage Scow]

When was T&S formed and at whose behest? My recollections of WMFOffice from the Danny Wool years is that Office actions were done mainly to protect the WMF from potential legal and PR issues.

[Poetlister]

I think it is clear that "real crimes" is not meant to be taken literally, but it implies that there's more to the story and that some people claim to have knowledge of it.

It's certainly difficult to imagine that any crime has been committed, and if it had been then surely there would be a total and permanent ban. It goes without saying that there is more to this than the WMF has said, but it does not follow that "some people" really know the truth.

[Poetlister]

Recall the greatest shock of modern times
those golden victories
those scarlet crimes!

That of course refers to the French Revolution. We've almost had the equivalent on-Wiki of the storming of the Bastille and releasing the prisoners!

[Bezdomni]

Recall the greatest shock of modern times
those golden victories
those scarlet crimes!

Still no fish & still no verses
in shoes too tight, the mob it curses...
a call to the people of France.
First the sewers, then the knife,
drum the tub and play the fife...
Charlotte Corday has made you dance!
ps... did WiR really tweet a line from Brook's Marat/Sade?

[DanMurphy]

Recall the greatest shock of modern times
those golden victories
those scarlet crimes!

Still no fish & still no verses
in shoes too tight, the mob it curses...
a call to the people of France.
First the sewers, then the knife,
drum the tub and play the fife...
Charlotte Corday has made you dance!
ps... did WiR really tweet a line from Brook's Marat/Sade?

No. That part was my comment.

[Bezdomni]

Yeah, that's what I was afraid of...

So is Fram Marat?

(more seriously, thanks, I'd never seen it...)

[The Adversary]

This whole thing reminds me of the the Sarah Stierch story, with LauraHale (T-C-L) as the "new" Sarah Stierch

Here is something I wrote back then:

I was so reminded of an episode ages ago, when I first started University. And that was before Sarah S. had been born; there were not that many female students, not to mention female professors.

The University wanted to change this, so they invited all the female students for what was basically a pep-talk. They had invited one of the (very) few female professors to give a speech. She was English lit. prof, if I remember correctly. She started by giving us some numbers. At that time professors in our country were basically counted in two classes, lets call them Prof I and Prof II.
The female professor: "Of all Prof I in the country, only 2% are female. And of all Prof II only 3 % are female!" Then she continued, very indignant: "So, that means that of all the Prof I and II in the country, only 5% are female!"

I swear: you could see all the science students in the hall: we jumped about 1/2 meter up in our chairs, and then tried desperately to wipe that look of horror off our faces when we landed.

My thoughts then were absolute blasphemy: not only were there too few female professors…there was also one too many.

When I looked at the writing of Sarah S. I had the same feeling: not only have Wikipedia too few female editors, it also has some too many….

Though actually Missvain (T-C-L) seem more amenable to input about her writing, and not hysterically demanding interaction bans on anybody criticising her. Good for her!

[Poetlister]

Yeah, that's what I was afraid of...

So is Fram Marat?

If so, who is the Marquis de Sade? (Incidentally, de Sade had been in the Bastille but was moved elsewhere just before it was stormed.)

[Beeblebrox]

When was T&S formed and at whose behest? My recollections of WMFOffice from the Danny Wool years is that Office actions were done mainly to protect the WMF from potential legal and PR issues.

Until now, that had seemed to be the case. This is, as far as I am aware, unprecedented. Unless there is something really, really awful that Fram did that nobody can or will talk about, they've never taken such a step before. This sort fo thing is usually reserved for serial harassers, stalkers, and pedophiles, not just people who mouth off a bit too much. That's supposed to be Arbcom's remit, and that is what has a lot of people up in arms.

Although I don't believe I have ever been in any sort of direct conflict with Fram, I have observed them to be very argumentative and overly harsh, which is not great in a collaborative environment but I think we ca all think of people of whom that could be said who have not been subject to an unappealable black-box ban.

The fist office bans made me quite happy. The committee had been begging the foundation to take on at least some of the worst-of-the-worst abusers for some time, not wanting the legal exposure of, for example, banning someone who we had reason to believe was a pedophile. They needed to go, but arbcom bans need to have some sort of explanation, and nobody was willing to put their name on it. So a ban from on high that was total, unappealable, and never, ever publicly explained is exactly the correct action in that circumstance. In this one, not so much.

(As to your other question I don't really know but I seem to recall the Board maybe asking for it? Like 4-5 years ago?)

[Kumioko]

When was T&S formed and at whose behest? My recollections of WMFOffice from the Danny Wool years is that Office actions were done mainly to protect the WMF from potential legal and PR issues.

Until now, that had seemed to be the case. This is, as far as I am aware, unprecedented. Unless there is something really, really awful that Fram did that nobody can or will talk about, they've never taken such a step before. This sort fo thing is usually reserved for serial harassers, stalkers, and pedophiles, not just people who mouth off a bit too much. That's supposed to be Arbcom's remit, and that is what has a lot of people up in arms.

Although I don't believe I have ever been in any sort of direct conflict with Fram, I have observed them to be very argumentative and overly harsh, which is not great in a collaborative environment but I think we ca all think of people of whom that could be said who have not been subject to an unappealable black-box ban.

The fist office bans made me quite happy. The committee had been begging the foundation to take on at least some of the worst-of-the-worst abusers for some time, not wanting the legal exposure of, for example, banning someone who we had reason to believe was a pedophile. They needed to go, but arbcom bans need to have some sort of explanation, and nobody was willing to put their name on it. So a ban from on high that was total, unappealable, and never, ever publicly explained is exactly the correct action in that circumstance. In this one, not so much.

(As to your other question I don't really know but I seem to recall the Board maybe asking for it? Like 4-5 years ago?)

I believe that the T& S group was created about 6 years ago based on a perceived need for the WMF to deal wither certain global issues.

I agree as well that the first few made sense and followed what the spirit of these bans should be about. Over time however they have become more and more often used as a means to silence critics, intimidate editors and just give the T&S branch something to do.

Having said that, I for one am glad that Fram is gone. It should have been global and indef.

[Giraffe Stapler]

This is, as far as I am aware, unprecedented. Unless there is something really, really awful that Fram did that nobody can or will talk about, they've never taken such a step before. This sort fo thing is usually reserved for serial harassers, stalkers, and pedophiles, not just people who mouth off a bit too much.

Well, they banned him for a limited time on a single project. That doesn't suggest really, really awful. Or even just really awful. Perhaps they are trying to send a message that they are getting serious about bullying and harassment, but if so they really need to make it known that Fram was banned for bullying and harassment.

[Kumioko]

This is, as far as I am aware, unprecedented. Unless there is something really, really awful that Fram did that nobody can or will talk about, they've never taken such a step before. This sort fo thing is usually reserved for serial harassers, stalkers, and pedophiles, not just people who mouth off a bit too much.

Well, they banned him for a limited time on a single project. That doesn't suggest really, really awful. Or even just really awful. Perhaps they are trying to send a message that they are getting serious about bullying and harassment, but if so they really need to make it known that Fram was banned for bullying and harassment.

The limited duration ban was only because he was an admin, if he hadn't been an admin it would certainly have been indefinite and global.

[Vigilant]

Looks like Jimmy and the WMF are going to try to run out the clock.

"Let's ignore the problem until everyone stops paying attention" is a strategy that's worked well for them in the past.

[Poetlister]

Well, they banned him for a limited time on a single project. That doesn't suggest really, really awful. Or even just really awful. Perhaps they are trying to send a message that they are getting serious about bullying and harassment, but if so they really need to make it known that Fram was banned for bullying and harassment.

It's the "single project" bit that's so baffling. Is he better behaved elsewhere? I think that if it had been a global ban, there would have been less fuss because it would not look so much like encroaching on EN-WP Arbcom.

[Randy from Boise]

Looks like Jimmy and the WMF are going to try to run out the clock.

"Let's ignore the problem until everyone stops paying attention" is a strategy that's worked well for them in the past.

It's actually JW's most common tactic: pacify with platitudes and run. That way he can be all things to all people, abrogating actual decision-making authority in the process, since no good comes of that.

I'm not sure that any of the above is clever enough to have a "strategy."

RfB

[BURob13]

This is, as far as I am aware, unprecedented. Unless there is something really, really awful that Fram did that nobody can or will talk about, they've never taken such a step before. This sort fo thing is usually reserved for serial harassers, stalkers, and pedophiles, not just people who mouth off a bit too much.

Well, they banned him for a limited time on a single project. That doesn't suggest really, really awful. Or even just really awful. Perhaps they are trying to send a message that they are getting serious about bullying and harassment, but if so they really need to make it known that Fram was banned for bullying and harassment.

The limited duration ban was only because he was an admin, if he hadn't been an admin it would certainly have been indefinite and global.

Highly unlikely, given the conduct.

The WMF has been looking to start handing out non-indefinite non-global bans as a new step in their "progression" of actions for a while. It's a kind of natural step in between "conduct warning" and "indefinite global ban without appeal".

[MrErnie]

This is, as far as I am aware, unprecedented. Unless there is something really, really awful that Fram did that nobody can or will talk about, they've never taken such a step before. This sort fo thing is usually reserved for serial harassers, stalkers, and pedophiles, not just people who mouth off a bit too much.

Well, they banned him for a limited time on a single project. That doesn't suggest really, really awful. Or even just really awful. Perhaps they are trying to send a message that they are getting serious about bullying and harassment, but if so they really need to make it known that Fram was banned for bullying and harassment.

The limited duration ban was only because he was an admin, if he hadn't been an admin it would certainly have been indefinite and global.

Highly unlikely, given the conduct.

The WMF has been looking to start handing out non-indefinite non-global bans as a new step in their "progression" of actions for a while. It's a kind of natural step in between "conduct warning" and "indefinite global ban without appeal".

Cleaning up after sloppy editors is not bad conduct or harassment. It’s literally how Wikipedia works. Share some diffs if you have something that indicates otherwise.

[C&B]

This is, as far as I am aware, unprecedented. Unless there is something really, really awful that Fram did that nobody can or will talk about, they've never taken such a step before. This sort fo thing is usually reserved for serial harassers, stalkers, and pedophiles, not just people who mouth off a bit too much.

Well, they banned him for a limited time on a single project. That doesn't suggest really, really awful. Or even just really awful. Perhaps they are trying to send a message that they are getting serious about bullying and harassment, but if so they really need to make it known that Fram was banned for bullying and harassment.

The limited duration ban was only because he was an admin, if he hadn't been an admin it would certainly have been indefinite and global.

Highly unlikely, given the conduct.

The WMF has been looking to start handing out non-indefinite non-global bans as a new step in their "progression" of actions for a while. It's a kind of natural step in between "conduct warning" and "indefinite global ban without appeal".

How goes the retirement

[Vigilant]

This is, as far as I am aware, unprecedented. Unless there is something really, really awful that Fram did that nobody can or will talk about, they've never taken such a step before. This sort fo thing is usually reserved for serial harassers, stalkers, and pedophiles, not just people who mouth off a bit too much.

Well, they banned him for a limited time on a single project. That doesn't suggest really, really awful. Or even just really awful. Perhaps they are trying to send a message that they are getting serious about bullying and harassment, but if so they really need to make it known that Fram was banned for bullying and harassment.

The limited duration ban was only because he was an admin, if he hadn't been an admin it would certainly have been indefinite and global.

Highly unlikely, given the conduct.

The WMF has been looking to start handing out non-indefinite non-global bans as a new step in their "progression" of actions for a while. It's a kind of natural step in between "conduct warning" and "indefinite global ban without appeal".

A mean kid with a magnifying glass at an anthill.

[Mason]

I'm slow sometimes.

I've been closely following this mess all week and it only just now dawned on me whose report to T&S prompted them to pull the trigger on Fram.

The passionate posts about the sacredness and inviolability of Office actions, and the lashing out at the people who tried to overrule those actions, make a lot more sense when you realize they're coming from the person who caused those actions to happen.

[Guido den Broeder]

Unless there is something really, really awful that Fram did that nobody can or will talk about, they've never taken such a step before. This sort fo thing is usually reserved for serial harassers, stalkers, and pedophiles, not just people who mouth off a bit too much. That's supposed to be Arbcom's remit, and that is what has a lot of people up in arms.

If you don't know, then you haven't been paying attention for the last decade or so.

[BURob13]

This is, as far as I am aware, unprecedented. Unless there is something really, really awful that Fram did that nobody can or will talk about, they've never taken such a step before. This sort fo thing is usually reserved for serial harassers, stalkers, and pedophiles, not just people who mouth off a bit too much.

Well, they banned him for a limited time on a single project. That doesn't suggest really, really awful. Or even just really awful. Perhaps they are trying to send a message that they are getting serious about bullying and harassment, but if so they really need to make it known that Fram was banned for bullying and harassment.

The limited duration ban was only because he was an admin, if he hadn't been an admin it would certainly have been indefinite and global.

Highly unlikely, given the conduct.

The WMF has been looking to start handing out non-indefinite non-global bans as a new step in their "progression" of actions for a while. It's a kind of natural step in between "conduct warning" and "indefinite global ban without appeal".

How goes the retirement

Pretty well. Got around to filling out some tax documents, made a bunch of money this weekend, read a book.

As it turns out, typing up a couple paragraphs criticizing people is much less work than reading, investigating, and responding to about 50 emails a day.

[The Adversary]

How goes the retirement

Pretty well. Got around to filling out some tax documents, made a bunch of money this weekend, read a book.

As it turns out, typing up a couple paragraphs criticizing people is much less work than reading, investigating, and responding to about 50 emails a day.

Ok, BURob13 , since you don't want to answer this IP on en.wp:

"Were you the one who complained to the foundation about Fram’s harassment of arbitrators? "

(That IP is not me, btw: wrong country) ... I am asking the same question:

Were you the one who complained to the foundation about Fram’s harassment of arbitrators?

Recall, Raystorm (T-C-L) has totally denied it was her.

[BURob13]

I haven't believed it was Raystorm from the beginning, since there was no recent contact with Raystorm that I can see on-wiki.

That is a genuinely complicated question to answer, which is why I haven't answered it on-wiki. I don't want to say something that omits important details, but I legally cannot give full context to any answer.

Have I discussed Fram with the WMF T&S team? Yes. I can't particularly elaborate due to confidentiality. All I'll say is that the WMF routinely talks to ArbCom about who they're investigating. OR has said on-wiki that they even told ArbCom action was incoming on this one, though that was after I left the Committee. Fram's name came up at least once before then, but my NDA prevents me from explaining in what context.

Do I think any comments I made formed the entire basis of Fram's ban? Absolutely not. In fact, I don't think anyone's comments did, since the WMF's initial statement mentioned "reports", plural. I think this was a long-time coming based off of a long series of behaviors. The WMF's email to Fram that he reposted mentions a long pattern of behavior, not behavior directed at one person or enumerated in one report, and I take them at their word there.

EDIT: Also, I don't even know if the premise of your question is correct. Nothing that's public that I'm aware of states that anyone complained to the Foundation about Fram's treatment of arbitrators, specifically. Once the Foundation is reviewing a pattern of conduct, they investigate fully, as far as I know. My best guess is that the diff that they provided Fram is the one most divorced from the majority of their investigation and the original report, so as to best protect the reporter. Indeed, unless the reporter wants themselves to become known or something leaks, I doubt we'll ever know who reported Fram. They treat confidentiality of reporting seriously.

[The Adversary]

I haven't believed it was Raystorm from the beginning, since there was no recent contact with Raystorm that I can see on-wiki.

That is a genuinely complicated question to answer, which is why I haven't answered it on-wiki. I don't want to say something that omits important details, but I legally cannot give full context to any answer.

Have I discussed Fram with the WMF T&S team? Yes. I can't particularly elaborate due to confidentiality. All I'll say is that the WMF routinely talks to ArbCom about who they're investigating. OR has said on-wiki that they even told ArbCom action was incoming on this one, though that was after I left the Committee. Fram's name came up at least once before then, but my NDA prevents me from explaining in what context.

Do I think any comments I made formed the entire basis of Fram's ban? Absolutely not. In fact, I don't think anyone's comments did, since the WMF's initial statement mentioned "reports", plural. I think this was a long-time coming based off of a long series of behaviors. The WMF's email to Fram that he reposted mentions a long pattern of behavior, not behavior directed at one person or enumerated in one report, and I take them at their word there.

EDIT: Also, I don't even know if the premise of your question is correct. Nothing that's public that I'm aware of states that anyone complained to the Foundation about Fram's treatment of arbitrators, specifically. Once the Foundation is reviewing a pattern of conduct, they investigate fully, as far as I know. My best guess is that the diff that they provided Fram is the one most divorced from the majority of their investigation and the original report, so as to best protect the reporter. Indeed, unless the reporter wants themselves to become known or something leaks, I doubt we'll ever know who reported Fram. They treat confidentiality of reporting seriously.

Thank you for your answers.

Two questions:
1. Was there anything done off wiki (ie, not visible to us) that was reported about Fram to WMF T&S? (ie, emails, or off wiki contacts?)
2. Do you know of anyone else on arb.com/WMF who has discussed Fram with the WMF T&S team? (No need for names: just yes/no)

[Randy from Boise]

They treat confidentiality of reporting seriously.

Which means they can make up their own cases and pretend that they were community-generated with absolute impunity.

Did you ever think about that?

That maybe NOBODY "reported" Fram but they saw whose oxen were being gored by whom and that they've been ad libbing this entire piece of shit "case"???

After all, the grossly misnamed "Trust and Safety" department is like half a dozen people that have nothing better to do all day but go to meetings and plot their next move against their next enemy. They've gotta do SOMETHING to justify their existence...

RfB

[DanMurphy]

I don't want to say something that omits important details, but I legally cannot give full context to any answer.

I can't hear this dude because his mouth's full of shit.

[Randy from Boise]

I don't want to say something that omits important details, but I legally cannot give full context to any answer.

I can't hear this dude because his mouth's full of shit.

I can't for the life of me understand why he's not cashing WMF checks today, he's a perfect lab-grown specimen. Sure, maybe a bit too firstworldyciswhitemalepatriarchogenderfoe to really move up the table of ranks at Wikilandia, but certainly good enough to fill some function in the fast-growing bureaucracy.

Besides, we know he's a natural-born talent as a template editor, from the cradle.

RfB

[No Ledge]

Was there anything done off wiki (ie, not visible to us) that was reported about Fram to WMF T&S? (ie, emails, or off wiki contacts?)

Rob's probably not going to be able to answer that, unless an email was sent to him or ArbCom. I asked that question HERE – no answer from the Office yet, but I wasn't really expecting an answer before Monday at the earliest.

You guys should take it easy on Rob, he has my support in this.

Another suspect

Unfortunately, the community is currently blaming the Foundation for their own mess, in my opinion, which was caused by our abject failure to develop procedures to enforce civility ''without'' Foundation intervention. Here's a start for how to fix this. At the earliest opportunity, vote out arbitrators who do not think tackling civility issues is a productive use of their time, and replace them with arbitrators willing to handle such issues.

In my book, if wheel-warring on your own ArbCom electioneering page, when you are being personally attacked there, is worth an immediate desysop (I don't think it was fair to do this to F. Bauder) then certainly incivility towards the Arbitration Committee should merit an immediate desysop, as that is a more severe offense. Would Bauder have tolerated that incivility if he was on the Committee?

Really, the witch hunting should stop. There's been too much focus on searching for the accusers and digging up their pasts – and not enough attention to Fram's administrative history.

About your claim that Arbcom should have slapped me with blocks year ago: this might well be true, but then perhaps someone should have raised a decent case with ArbCom about this? It isn't that hard to get ArbCom to sanction misbehaving admins, I have raised (or contributed to) such cases a few times in the past. I can't help if it others don't use this avenue. linkhttps://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.p ... =354707147[/link]

I might take him up on this offer. If the community accepted the Office Action, that would be grave dancing, but as long as the community doesn't accept it, perhaps an investigation might help to gain more acceptance for the decision. Though there is the risk of surfacing an interaction where the "victim" doesn't want it surfaced. Anyhow, Fram has blocked extended-confirmed editors 50 times; those are editors with a long enough track record here that the ArbCom trusts them to edit in controversial topic areas. 50 isn't a particularly high number as it just puts him in a tie for 61st place in my ranking of administrators by initial-blocks of extended-confirmed users (I excluded re-blocks of already blocked editors, which typically change the duration of a block).

I'm contemplating a closer look at that block history. Would it be surprising if some of them complained to the Foundation?

[Guido den Broeder]

Fram typically lets someone else do the actual blocking. The count of blocks that he instigated is therefore much higher.

[Anroth]

I might take him up on this offer. If the community accepted the Office Action, that would be grave dancing, but as long as the community doesn't accept it, perhaps an investigation might help to gain more acceptance for the decision. Though there is the risk of surfacing an interaction where the "victim" doesn't want it surfaced.

Any attempt in the current climate is likely to be seen as retaliation against editors Fram has been in a dispute with and you would risk accusations of harrassment. Or just be reported anonymously to T&S....

[MrErnie]

I still can't get my head around this new definition of harassment. According to Rob, this diff, enforcing a clear policy, is harassment. How ridiculous is this? If I don't get my way editing in a controversial area I'm just going to say that I don't feel safe with editors harassing me, stalking through my contributions, and targeting me.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

I'm slow sometimes.

I've been closely following this mess all week and it only just now dawned on me whose report to T&S prompted them to pull the trigger on Fram.

The passionate posts about the sacredness and inviolability of Office actions, and the lashing out at the people who tried to overrule those actions, make a lot more sense when you realize they're coming from the person who caused those actions to happen.

Yep, coupled with the early insider knowledge of who at WMF has to sign off on what, etc, they're the "at least one other (speculative but, I think, realistic) possibility (which assumes the "Fuck Arbcom" post was the trigger)" that I spoke of last week. I'm surprised the suspicion wasn't raised a lot sooner.

[MrErnie]

New statement from Fram on commons - linkhttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User ... ne_week_on[/link].

One week on
So, one week on, where are we now?
• The much-anticipated 14 June board meeting has come and gone without anything resulting from it at all. Apparently Doc James (and Jimbo Wales?) are still discussing things with the WMF, so we'll wait a bit longer for that, I guess.
• Most people will have by now a pretty good idea of who was behind the final T&S complaint leading to this debacle, but without an actual confession we shouldn't speculate on who the complainant was.
• BU Rob13 makes some rather dubious claims in his latest post-retirement post to the discussion[4][5]. His "evidence" for his claim that "the fact that he followed me to multiple unrelated places to continue "confronting" me in a rather transparent exercise at wiki-stalking. That, itself, was harassment. " are five diffs:
o [6] this first one is well-known by now, and is a general statement about an ArbCom message
o the second one is another post to the same discussion and about the same subject, again about ArbCom in general.
o As is the third diff, again not about Bu Rob or directed directly towards him or in answer to him.
o The fourth is a discussion at BU Rob13s user talk page, hardly an "unrelated place".
o Which leaves us with the final diff, this one: this was an ArbCom case I was already involved in[7] and where I had all related pages added to my watchlist (evidence, workshop and proposed decision). I was rather surprised to see an arb edit through protection to ask a question on a page which isn't opened yet (at all, not for arbs, not for others) and where people weren't even allowed to respond. This was a clear misuse of the admin tools. I reverted this, after which Bu Rob threatened to block me (well, to get me blocked "as a clerk action"). I invited him to take it to ANI, which they never did, as they were probably aware that their own action was clearly against policy in the first place.
o Note that the page were I reverted BU Rob stated at the top "The workshop phase of this case does not open until 00:00 UTC May 8th. Edits made to this page before that date will be removed." (bold in original). The edit I reverted was made on the 5th, so way before the startdate given. Furthermore, that page says "Any user may edit this workshop page", unlike the proposed decision page which should only be edited by arbs and clerks. Probably the reason that no arb or clerk indicated any displeasure at all about my edit. Their statement that "If you do it again, you are highly likely to be blocked as a clerk action for violating the procedures of this case." was a complete fabrication, as no procedures of the case were violated by me, only by BU Rob...
So this means that the "evidence" that I "followed him to multiple unrelated places" etcetera boils down to one unrelated place where I was already active, causing his misuse of the admin tools to appear on my watchlist. If that is stalking or harassment, then BU Rob13 has a very low tolerance level. And of course, as an arb and admin he should know that we have plenty of options for dispute resolution which he could have tried if he really felt this to be harassment and stalking, and isn't just using it as some flimsy excuse to now take revenge. Since they didn't try any on-wiki avenue for dispute resolution at all, I assume they didn't immediately secrfetly jump to some higher authority, which would be rather, well, ironic (taking on a role as dispute resolver, but not trusting in the very procedures you are a candidate for). Fram (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit: The WP:FRAM page, talk page, and archives are currently at around 220,000 words. It's nearly 250,000 if you add the Arb case request. A little more words than East of Eden, nearly double Return of the King or The Two Towers, about the same as Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, or a little less than half of War and Peace.

[BURob13]

1. Was there anything done off wiki (ie, not visible to us) that was reported about Fram to WMF T&S? (ie, emails, or off wiki contacts?)
2. Do you know of anyone else on arb.com/WMF who has discussed Fram with the WMF T&S team? (No need for names: just yes/no)

1) I wouldn't be able to say that if I knew.
2) Yes. As noted before, the WMF tends to keep ArbCom as a whole (either via email or through our monthly calls) apprised of who they're investigating. Well, at least who they're investigating when those people have some connection to enwiki.

[BURob13]

I'm slow sometimes.

I've been closely following this mess all week and it only just now dawned on me whose report to T&S prompted them to pull the trigger on Fram.

The passionate posts about the sacredness and inviolability of Office actions, and the lashing out at the people who tried to overrule those actions, make a lot more sense when you realize they're coming from the person who caused those actions to happen.

Yep, coupled with the early insider knowledge of who at WMF has to sign off on what, etc, they're the "at least one other (speculative but, I think, realistic) possibility (which assumes the "Fuck Arbcom" post was the trigger)" that I spoke of last week. I'm surprised the suspicion wasn't raised a lot sooner.

Huh? I assume this is talking about me because I was the one who talked about the process for office actions?

I know who has to sign off on what because I've sat in a year and a half of phone calls with T&S as an arbitrator discussing their upcoming actions at various points in times, and in the case of one child protection incident, asking for an office action. I took that portion of my position seriously, and was in nearly every call even when they were in the middle of the night.

I'm downright surprised if anyone who knows me and my stances while on the Committee is shocked by my stance on this office action. I have very consistently said that enwiki has a civility/harassment problem. I suppose this is mostly behind-the-scenes, but I have championed action on a couple particularly egregious cases while on the Committee, probably being the arb most active in off-wiki harassment investigations during my tenure. If I seem more vigorous in my feelings toward the abuse of tools that occurred here than is typical, it's mostly because I feel ArbCom's lack of response is the sort of complete abdication of responsibility on this type of issue that led me to resign in the first place.

[Disgruntled haddock]

This isn’t much of a wheel war. For one thing, WMFOffice’s action is an Office action. Whether it’s an administrative action is debatable, and WP:WHEEL only applies to admin actions. In the alternative, if you think WMFOffice did make an admin action, then their response (or rather lack thereof) surely violates WP:ADMINACCT, no?

Or maybe tough cases make bad law, and blind adherence to WP:THE RULES is the wrong approach here, and so making WP:WHEEL central to one’s RFAR argument is a red herring. This is pretty much the canonical Wikipedia analogue of a national security case. The rules don’t apply here, but it doesn’t mean they won’t apply anywhere else.

[Vigilant]

well then, answer the question directly: did you make a complaint to T&S about Fram?

[Mason]

Anyone remember Billy Mitchell? Some folks figured out he had submitted his video game high scores under false pretenses. The press asked him if the accusations were true. His response: "This story is way, way more complicated than you could ever imagine."

Misusing a process set up to protect victims of actual harassment and stalking to settle scores with someone is contemptible.

Reminds me of the people who call 911 on "suspicious" people barbecuing in their own back yards or trying to go to a swimming pool.

[BURob13]

well then, answer the question directly: did you make a complaint to T&S about Fram?

I wouldn't say so, no. But it is more complicated than that, because the answer depends on what exactly you mean by a complaint.

In particular, did I give my opinion on Fram's conduct to T&S at one point? Yes, if you define that as a complaint, I did.

Did I initiate the conversation about Fram with T&S? No, and this is why I wouldn't consider my involvement to be a complaint.

Did I ever ask for any office actions on Fram? No. There were office actions I did ask for during my time on ArbCom, such as during a child protection case, but definitely not on Fram.

The baseline summary: I didn't seek any action against Fram, and I didn't comment on Fram when T&S wasn't already considering Fram's conduct based on reports they had received.

Moreover, I'm a bit confused why exactly anyone would consider my outrage over ArbCom's behavior as based on a hypothetical desire to see Fram banned, because Fram is banned, whether he's blocked or not. The unblock has no meaningful distinction. I'm concerned about ArbCom's posture toward civility/harassment and the community's attempted interference with office actions to prevent serious harassment. I'm not concerned about Fram. Why would I be? He's gone for a year.

[No Ledge]

I still can't get my head around this new definition of harassment. According to Rob, this diff, enforcing a clear policy, is harassment. How ridiculous is this? If I don't get my way editing in a controversial area I'm just going to say that I don't feel safe with editors harassing me, stalking through my contributions, and targeting me.

Despite what they believe, arbs are not above policy. "'''The workshop phase of this case does not open until 00:00 UTC May 8th. Edits made to this page before that date will be removed.'''"

This may have been an assumption of bad faith. Rather than assume that Rob intentionally violated a rule by posting before the page was officially open, it would have been better form to assume some minor negligence on his part for failing to check the time and date. Fram should have quietly asked an ArbCom clerk to remove it (that's what the Committee appoints clerks for, to maintain civility on their pages), and Fram should only have raised a fuss after a clerk refused his request, or a reasonable time for response passed and nobody responded after pinging multiple clerks.

To my knowledge, no arb has ever said "arbs are above policy" or that they should be.

[ReaperEternal]

When was T&S formed and at whose behest? My recollections of WMFOffice from the Danny Wool years is that Office actions were done mainly to protect the WMF from potential legal and PR issues.

I'll do my best to give a bit of history behind this. Please bear in mind that much of this is from 7 to 10+ years ago, so my memory of events is a bit hazy.

If we go far, far back in Wikipedia's history, before I ever edited, there were no means of reporting threats of violence. Accordingly, when a threat was made (iirc on a school page), admins didn't really know what to do, and eventually a checkuser disclosed IP address(es) to an administrator who then contacted local law enforcement.

After this, the WMF (or maybe it was just Philippe) set up an emergency email where people could report threats of violence, and the WMF would then contact local law enforcement. This also made it more likely that law enforcement would take the threat seriously, since it was being reported by the WMF instead of a "Wikipedia volunteer". Initially, I believe only Philippe got the messages, and I know he had it set up to ring his phone at any hour of the day or night--major respect from me for that.

After some unknown amount of time (possibly when Philippe left in 2015), the WMF finally realized that having one employee doing this unpaid was a bad idea, so a team was born to monitor the emergency email address. This team became known as the Trust & Safety team.

[BURob13]

I still can't get my head around this new definition of harassment. According to Rob, this diff, enforcing a clear policy, is harassment. How ridiculous is this? If I don't get my way editing in a controversial area I'm just going to say that I don't feel safe with editors harassing me, stalking through my contributions, and targeting me.

Despite what they believe, arbs are not above policy. "'''The workshop phase of this case does not open until 00:00 UTC May 8th. Edits made to this page before that date will be removed.'''"

This may have been an assumption of bad faith. Rather than assume that Rob intentionally violated a rule by posting before the page was officially open, it would have been better form to assume some minor negligence on his part for failing to check the time and date. Fram should have quietly asked an ArbCom clerk to remove it (that's what the Committee appoints clerks for, to maintain civility on their pages), and Fram should only have raised a fuss after a clerk refused his request, or a reasonable time for response passed and nobody responded after pinging multiple clerks.

To my knowledge, no arb has ever said "arbs are above policy" or that they should be.

That's not a policy. It's a clerk procedure that editors other than arbitrators and clerks cannot post on pages when they are closed. Clerks can continue to perform clerk actions on such pages. Arbitrators can continue to use such pages to ask questions, if need be. This is long-established practice.

I asked a question to a party in the section labeled "Questions to parties" (or something thereabout; not bothering to check exact wording). Fram followed me there and violated the procedures of the case to revert me, actively obstructing me from fulfilling my role as an arbitrator. In response to Fram's actions, I don't believe I ever even got an answer to my question, which was necessary to forming a decision on the case.

[Vigilant]

well then, answer the question directly: did you make a complaint to T&S about Fram?

I wouldn't say so, no. But it is more complicated than that, because the answer depends on what exactly you mean by a complaint.

In particular, did I give my opinion on Fram's conduct to T&S at one point? Yes, if you define that as a complaint, I did.

Did I initiate the conversation about Fram with T&S? No, and this is why I wouldn't consider my involvement to be a complaint.

Did I ever ask for any office actions on Fram? No. There were office actions I did ask for during my time on ArbCom, such as during a child protection case, but definitely not on Fram.

The baseline summary: I didn't seek any action against Fram, and I didn't comment on Fram when T&S wasn't already considering Fram's conduct based on reports they had received.

Moreover, I'm a bit confused why exactly anyone would consider my outrage over ArbCom's behavior as based on a hypothetical desire to see Fram banned, because Fram is banned, whether he's blocked or not. The unblock has no meaningful distinction. I'm concerned about ArbCom's posture toward civility/harassment and the community's attempted interference with office actions to prevent serious harassment. I'm not concerned about Fram. Why would I be? He's gone for a year.

Thanks for the answer.

I appreciate how fully you’ve disclosed your position. A breath of fresh air compared to many who land in our fetid basement.

[BURob13]

It's worth noting that every major website with community contributions has a Trust & Safety department these days. It's necessary.

Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Whatsapp, you name it, it has a Trust & Safety department or close equivalent.

[Vigilant]

It's worth noting that every major website with community contributions has a Trust & Safety department these days. It's necessary.

Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Whatsapp, you name it, it has a Trust & Safety department or close equivalent.

Yeah...

About that.

While there exists a department at the WMF named Trust and Safety, I think it’s clear to see that other social media companies staff their Trust and Safety departments with competent personnel who have proven real world experience in doing this work.

The manager of WMF’s “Trust and Safety” group was desysopped on de.wp for being a fuckhead.
Nobody in that “department” could land land a similar job in a real company.

They don’t have the experience, education, qualifications, or temperament for it.

Once again, like the engineering department, the WMF hires the dregs of whoever spends time on IRC.

[Vigilant]

I have another question, if the T&S team is going back in time to find violations of the civility rules, when do Brandon Harris(Jorm), David Gerard and Tony Sidaway get their walking papers?

[Boing! said Zebedee]

well then, answer the question directly: did you make a complaint to T&S about Fram?

I wouldn't say so, no. But it is more complicated than that, because the answer depends on what exactly you mean by a complaint.

In particular, did I give my opinion on Fram's conduct to T&S at one point? Yes, if you define that as a complaint, I did.

Did I initiate the conversation about Fram with T&S? No, and this is why I wouldn't consider my involvement to be a complaint.

Did I ever ask for any office actions on Fram? No. There were office actions I did ask for during my time on ArbCom, such as during a child protection case, but definitely not on Fram.

The baseline summary: I didn't seek any action against Fram, and I didn't comment on Fram when T&S wasn't already considering Fram's conduct based on reports they had received.

Moreover, I'm a bit confused why exactly anyone would consider my outrage over ArbCom's behavior as based on a hypothetical desire to see Fram banned, because Fram is banned, whether he's blocked or not. The unblock has no meaningful distinction. I'm concerned about ArbCom's posture toward civility/harassment and the community's attempted interference with office actions to prevent serious harassment. I'm not concerned about Fram. Why would I be? He's gone for a year.

I also thank you for that openness.

[Vigilant]

On the other hand, T&S has my full and unswerving support for the Giraffe Stapler SanFranBan.

That guy is nuts. Swivel eyed loon indeed.

[BURob13]

I appreciate how fully you’ve disclosed your position. A breath of fresh air compared to many who land in our fetid basement.

For what it's worth, I feel I've been fairly consistent in that too. When I don't say something, it's typically because my NDA prevents it. I've pretty regularly engaged with the community on enwiki and the critics here, even when we've disagreed.

I'm many things, but inconsistent is rarely one of them. My shtick is pretty clear and up-front.

I take hardline stances on admin abuse and accountability, aim for complete transparency in public Committee business, and take a very firm-handed approach to private Committee business with no compromises to the community, because I feel they don't have the requisite information to form meaningful opinions on private matters. I aggressively pursue investigations of administrators, functionaries, and editors that I feel should either not hold their positions or not be on the site due to abuse of tools/roles or a toxic presence that drives off other editors. That includes paid editors, especially. I often take stances based on long-term concerns about the role of ArbCom to act decisively where needed, with much of my rambling on-project focused on what may happen in the future given a particular action today.

Plenty of people don't agree with some or all of those stances, but I'm at least open about all of them. I hope I get some credit for that.