"Fram Gate" in Arbcom

[Guido den Broeder]

If you look closely, you will find that Fram always goes after users whose point of view differs from his. In Wikipedia terms, he consistently violates conflict of interest policy as an administrator.

[Graaf Statler]

Yeh, but the worst of all is he use very sick methodes. His tactic is hurting people, hurting there reputation, trying to hit them even in there daily life.

With lies, with threatening, with blackmail, with gaslighting, Hij trekt alles uit de kast. He smears people there reputation in a dirty way. He is very good in fake evidences, he is able out of nothing to make anyone what he wants.
And it seems me he has a powerful position on WP and clever trolls accounts support him. (isn't it, Mies?)
He is the father of lies and the wikipedians have given him every change to be that.

But now he is right in the spot of of scrutiny. Because of course no one except his comrades believe him anymore and not even them.

SPOT ON!

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

[CrowsNest]

Fram is either properly thick, or supremely arrogant. How does he not see what SilkTork is getting at?

What I am looking for in this discussion is where you went through the options, legitimately dismissed them, and arrived at the conclusion that you reverting was the best option. SilkTork (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

* It is hardly a legitimate act to ignore the role of the clerks because you decided from their performance in another matter, that they are incompetent.

* It is hardly a legitimate act to edit through full protection because you didn't want to bother AN/I with a matter you thought would be uncontroversial (IAR does not cover him here, because the default has to be to assume editing through full protection would be controversial, and only the absence of complaints after the fact if IAR was your intent, would show it was not).

* It is hardly a legitimate act to decline to consult ArbCom over your plans to fuck with an ArbCom page over the wishes of an Arbitrator simply because you didn't "feel welcome" on the ArbCom noticeboard. The fuck even is that bullshit?

To cap it all off, after he's done making all those excuses for why he didn't choose a legitimate option as his way forward if he really couldn't just leave damn well alone, he stone cold admits the only reason he acted alone to edit through protection to fuck with ArbCom pages over the wishes of an Arbitrator, was actually because of his arrogant Hero Complex, wherein he simply couldn't stand aside and watch as "arbs were overreaching their rights left and right". Mental.

They're giving Fram every chance, but because he is what he is, an obtuse arrogant stubborn verbose fool, whose mastery of policy isn't all that, he's ignoring them and just ploughing on with his time worn tactics. Just can't help himself. It is a lengthier post, but it comes from the same place his "fuck ArbCom" rant did. He just is what he is, he's unlikely to ever change, so there's no point even wasting time giving him specific pointers. It's his entire approach that is wrong, his whole mindeset, his hard baked arrogance. He needs therapy, not guidance. How he ever became an Administrator, lacking as he does the basic qualities required, is the real question.

Wikipediocracy have got themselves into a similar pickle. Ordinarily you could assume they might not have seen this exchange for what it is, because, well, they're just that thick, and this sort of stuff is too complex for their tiny brains. But now, given their deep dive into QAnon territory, you're equally entitled to assume they are aware of it, they're just not saying it, because they're so desperate for Fram to win. They'll say any old shit to shore up his case, and damn the consequences (namely the ease with which I can show they have absolutely no business portraying themselves as Wikipedia critics, much less credible independent ones).

Hey Jake.

DO YOU WANT TO GET OFF YET?



!1!!!!SCREAM IF YOU WANT TO GO FASTER!!!!1!

I really hope Fram's RfA fails and he seeks refuge on Planet Stupid, because you just know I'm going to bury him. I'll do it just for fun.

[CrowsNest]

What tickles me, is the conspiracy theorists aren't even all that good at finding evidence that supports their own theory. While we continue to laugh at these pretty persistent claims that all Fram did since April 2018 is tell ArbCom to fuck off, here's a very hilarious thing he was doing in the month before he was banned.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =895286579

That puts Planet Goofball in a tough spot. That's another great datapoint adding to their case that Fram was banned because he kept spitting in the eyes of powerful people, people who would rather Wikipedia shed its reputation as Asshole Central. But to admit it exists, well, they have to admit they're either currently lying about how much of an asshole Fram was really being during this time when he claims he had promised the community he would tone it down a bit, or they have to admit they don't really have a clue what Fram was doing in that time, neither having looked nor cared to look (I found it in five minutes), and so any claim he wasn't doing something during that time, is obvious horseshit.

I don't envy the goofballs, but I guess the great thing about being a goofball, is you probable live your life not really caring that the rest of the world thinks you're a fucking retard.

I guess they could add it to the theory, but claim it isn't evidence of Fram being an asshole, rather just enforcing policy the way the community supposedly wants, and an assholish act is just the sad consequence that can't be helped. I'm fine with that, because it supports the non-crazy interpretation of the explanation for his ban, in every way. No tin foil hats required.

[CrowsNest]

If you were strictly applying WP:BLP and WP:ASPERSIONS, what percentage of the proposed decision talk page would have to binned?

Not that it is a surprise that these policies have always been considered optional to the Wikipedians, and that the higher ups have always been too scared to take on the mob and actually see the policies enforced, but for it to be happening so blatantly, in this of all cases? Priceless.

There is no governance system in Wikipedia. None. Where would you even lodge a complaint about such widespread and clearly officially sanctioned misconduct?

If these policies have legal implications, and we have no recourse to the legal owners of the website to get this shit show rectified, well, there is only far more pain and screaming and existential angst in the futures of the Wikipedians.

You will face the consequences. History isn't kind on things that can be described as institutionalized acceptance of unethical practices. This is no faux outrage, no cultural war. This is right versus wrong, good versus bad, Union versus Confederacy.

HTD.

[CrowsNest]

The symbolism of the timestamp of this comment will not have been lost on Brits.

If I can either get a complete understanding of Fram's thinking and agree with it, or make Fram aware of why there is concern about that incident and agree to avoid such behaviour in future - perhaps with restrictions in place to aid such avoidance, then I will withdraw my support for a desysop. SilkTork (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The last post is being sounded for Fram.

And yet he doesn't want to heed the warning of history, he has instead resolved to opt for the Charge of the Light Brigade......

FPaS
Can I echo the questions / comments by Future Perfect at Sunrise made here? I'ld like an answer to these questions as well, as it indeed all stinks. Fram (talk) 07:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

For those who don't know FPaS, his post is merely more of the same desperate tail chasing moon barking straw clutching stuff which entirely ignores the bigger picture of what everyone's statements put together paints regarding what happened and why. Desperate stuff that is most often seen from Fram himself, the sad case that he is.

This stage of the case has long passed the point of farce. If the exercise is to determine if Fram or the community can be of any use in helping ArbCom determinine an outcome that is fair and reasonable, the result are in. All you got was a bunch of rabid crazy. Which should have been no surprise, given earlier stages.

It needs to be put out of his misery, and post the decision you already have. Unban Fram not because he is innocent or was mistreated, but because what he is, is in large part the community's fault. And hope people don't look too deeply into what role ArbCom plays in giving the community leadership and guidance. Don't let him have his Admin rights back, on the obvious basis that no ArbCom can ever be seen to condone an Administrator being that bad no matter how they learned of it, and hope nobody takes too much notice of what share of the responsibility ArbCom has for not acting on what they were told when they could have acted upon it (right up to the point of the duly minuted conference call). Remand the possible reinstatement of Fram back to the community, and hope people don't look too closely into the reasons why the Foundation stepped in in the first place, or why they handed back consideration of his status to ArbCom. Hold an RfC on harassment and then sit on your hands as its conclusions are ignored as much as all previous statements on such serious matters have been, in the face of such obvious misconduct of huge numbers of editors, in this very case.

For all the stress and general bullshit, unsurprisingly, ArbCom are dodging pretty much all of the shit that was rightly due them, for their part in this controversy becoming a scandal.

Autonomous local government in action. It is always someone else's fault.

[CrowsNest]

Further to a few posts back.....

Stick a fork in Fram, he is DONE.

.......Of course, that's not really your question. Would I do it again? Probably not, things were heated and that may well have clouded my thinking somewhat. Posting it at the arbs noticeboard might well have been the better option. But in the end it was for me a minor thing, and apparently for most others except the reversed arb, who reacted quite badly to my revert and to the apparent refusal of the other arbs (or anyone else) to support him. Fram (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not accessing the Committee emails at the moment because I suspect that will be a time-sink if I do, so I may recall this incorrectly, but my (possibly imperfect) memory of that incident is that everyone on the Committee felt your revert was inappropriate. What happened is that we spent so much time deciding what to do that nothing got done. There wasn't anyone to blame for the eventual inaction, it was just one of those messy ArbCom moments. For me it somewhat underlined the drawback of having such conversations in camera. There wasn't a lack of support for the arb, simply a lack of action due to long drawn out discussion on what to do and who should do it. For my part I was privately considering requesting an ArbCom case on you, using that revert as the starting point. But I got tangled up thinking through the implications of an arb requesting a case on someone who had reverted another arb in an arbcom case. And also being aware that I only knew about the revert because it was raised on the ArbCom email list by an arb. Urgh! It didn't feel right. Sometimes, though something might be right, if the way to do it is wrong, then perhaps it shouldn't be done......One of the things I love about Wikipedia is that the community lay great importance on discussion and reaching consensus. And I feel proud of that. Which is why I am sad when you decide to take action rather than discuss and reach consensus. And your rationale has been that you didn't know that you should talk first or where to talk, and anyway nobody would have listened, and you couldn't wait, and the atmosphere at that time was tense with antagonism toward ArbCom. Now, I suspect that even if you spend some time reading back what I have written you will still believe you did the right thing. In my experience in dispute resolution it can be difficult to make someone see where they were wrong, because they are so convinced they are right. And in ArbCom cases this is even more so. It is a rare party in an ArbCom case who recognises that they were wrong. The reason they are a party in an ArbCom case is because intrinsically they feel they are right. They would not have been doing what they were doing if they did not believe 100% that they were right. ...... I also acknowledge that my feeling that you were wrong to do that revert might be the wrong view. Which is why I want to talk to you about it. One of us is wrong. I would have liked an ArbCom case to talk about it more closely, and to examine other conduct of yours. It might all be a little bit 50/50. Unfortunately because the Foundation did what they did, I doubt if we'll be able to have a proper community discussion about your conduct without it spilling over into Wikipedia v The Foundation. My hope that the community can settle the question of your adminship is looking increasingly unlikely, and I'm hearing what people are saying that such a RfA would be a mess. I think ArbCom need to either desysop you or not. SilkTork (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Finally we also get some real honesty about the utter dysfunction in ArbCom itself, that led to Fram not having his day in en.wiki court, but getting bundled into a black van.

Naturally, all this stuff isn't going to make it into the decision, but it is at least on the record now. His memory aside.

Naturally also, Wikipediocracy are going to keep jabbering on about their conspiracy theory and demand the 'dodgy dossier' be released, rather than actually demanding the release of the relevant portions of the ArbCom mailing list, which, as materials produced by community elected representatives in pursuit of their duties for and on behalf of the community, they are fully entitled to see. Unlike the dossier, it has to be the case there is surely nothing in them that cannot be released for reasons of privacy or safety, and of the two situations, this is the one where expectations of confidentiality can absolutely be set aside due to the suspicion that release would reveal serious systemic failings that need to be addressed urgently, for the public good.

Still worth noting that what is not being said here, is that ArbCom were given advance warning that a T&S investigation was in progress, and with this internal debate over Fram fresh in their memories, they still chose not to stand up and say HEY, HANDS OFF, THIS IS OUR JURISDICTION, and launch that mooted case, warts and all. Nope, they just sat back and let the Foundation bend en.wiki over and show them a good time. The ultimate case of washing your hands of a problem.

[CrowsNest]

Uh, say that again please......

.....Fram did not break the law, so there was no need for the Foundation to step in. ....... SilkTork (talk) 11:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

......because I think you might have some difficulty, some GREAT difficulty, defending the implication that the people the Foundation have banned before Fram, were banned because they broke the law.

I mean, fuuuuuck, do these people seriously need reminding that the Foundation's very expensive lawyer's recently filed a court submission admitting Office bans can be applied for any reason, including no reason at all.

Indeed, given the Foundation's ongoing efforts to portray editing Wikipedia as some kind of fundamental human right, I'd urge ArbCom and indeed every Wikipedia Administrator to consider if they might not be breaking International Law each time they ban a user without being able to demonstrate due process under the law? Not their wikilaw, but THE law.

Might have some difficulty given the U.S. attitude to International Law, but hey, I didn't come up with any of this shit, I'd be putting you all in a bag and chucking you in a lake. The law of Actions have Consequences.

[Guido den Broeder]

Indeed, given the Foundation's ongoing efforts to portray editing Wikipedia as some kind of fundamental human right, I'd urge ArbCom and indeed every Wikipedia Administrator to consider if they might not be breaking International Law each time they ban a user without being able to demonstrate due process under the law? Not their wikilaw, but THE law.

Hm, this doesn't look like due process, for instance.

Perfect edits, very civil, who happened to oppose a block of Incnis Mrsi with strong arguments, so the cabal needed to get rid of them. Made them wonder who I am, luckily I'm easy to contact.

[Graaf Statler]

Because of this edit, Guido.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =908118266

Of course of a template! God dame it, a template. These total lunatics draw conclusions based on nothing.

I have here explained what happend to Guido, asked him if my analysis where correct, no answer so I presume they are correct.
Supported with facts, sources, and I have explanation what was going on in Holland in that time. It is clear Guido is a absolute victim of the system and his own succes. There is not any evidence or indication there is anything wrong with Guido. Not any. His book is 85% finessed, judge if it is ready and not before!

Good edits, but no, Bam!!! The Tonytrollioni banhammer.
Lunatics, Guido, these are total lunatics.