Sums up this entire farce.....
Neither. Option 3: knowing that a violation of said ToU clause actually took place. WMF says he's banned under a ToU clause. Fine, until Fram says he didn't violate said clause, thus implying that it was a sort of backhanded way of getting rid of him for being too unpleasant or uncivil (which is not covered by said ToU clause). That's an implication of corruption. WMF will not deny Fram's implication. This is literally the only problem. They will not deny that it was an arbitrary and illegitimate invocation of a ToU clause. Neither of us can or will have proof positive either way. But the WMF will not deny the allegation. Can't you see why we have a problem with this? Their refusal to share details is understood. Their refusal to deny corruption makes the allegation seem true. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm baffled by your position, frankly. Perhaps you could help me. What would a hypothetically satisfactory statement from the WMF say? "That thing we said before - it's still true." Would that do it? ~ Rob13Talk 05:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
"We have reviewed the T&S investigation and we can confirm that Fram did indeed unequivocally violate the "Abuse and harassment" clause of the ToU, and thus was justifiably sanctioned under that clause. He was not blocked for incivility or personal attacks or any reason that is not articulated by the ToU clause we have already mentioned." That's it. That's all that needs to be confirmed. "That thing we said before" was "Fram was banned under the ToU, no further comment". That's meaningless when Fram alleges that he did not violate the ToU and that the ban was corrupt. There is no reason for the WMF to deny such claims if they are baseless. So deny it. That's all I'm looking for. If it's not true, deny it. They have not denied it. Why can they not deny it? I asked Doc James to deny it. He wouldn't deny it. If it's not true, deny it! That's my position. If you can't deny such a blatant accusation of wrongdoing, that's suspicious. Why stonewall and delay? Why be silent? If you've done nothing wrong, just deny the accusation. I don't think that's an unreasonable position, and the situation is exceedingly simple here. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Fram denies he violated the ToU, so a Wikipedia Administrator assumes, unless or until the WMF actuality denies it, that Fram has been the victim of corruption.
Absolutely insane. Again, this is a
Wikipedia Administrator. Supposedly possessing good judgement.
What he is saying doesn't even make sense as written, unsurprisingly. The "Harassing and Abusing Others" clause, to give it it's proper title, unsurprisingly covers incivility and personal attacks (the latter simply being a subset of the former). It is not possible to ban someone for harassment that doesn't imply incivility, because, in the en.wiki definition, harassment is a user doing one or more of the things in WP:CIVIL in a certain fashion.
If his intent here is to extract a specific declaration that Fram was banned for incivility that
rises to harassment as opposed to 'regular' incivility, he is wasting his time, because that already
is the implication of the clear statement that he was banned under the specify clause that prohibits harassment. I feel I have to repeat what was said here, because this nutbar so often fails to even keep his comments confined to what has actually happened.......
What we can say in this case is that the issues reported to us fell under section 4 of the terms of use, as noted above, specifically under the first provision entitled “harassing and abusing others.”
The truth is, no statement will ever satisfy lunatics like this. This coconut head genuinely believes it is more likely that multiple people in actual real life jobs working in an actual corporation have conspired against Fram, than it is that people outside the community could look at what Fram has done and conclude it satisfied this test.....
Repeated misconduct within a single Foundation-supported project, with considerable impact either on that project overall or on individual contributors who are active in that project.
....and indeed defend that against a legal challenge.
The most hilarious thing about this all? As far the WMF is concerned, as confirmed by their very expensive lawyers to an actual Court, they can legally ban people for any reason they like, including no reason at all.
So, if they really had wanted to get rid of Fram simply because he was "too unpleasant or uncivil" (and don't you love the implication from this Wikipedia Administrator that there is some level of local tolerance for such people), they could have done so, and simply said he is banned pursuant to Section 12.
It is actually more risky for the WMF to put an actual reason on record, if that reason is fraudulent.
Just like Abd, Fram has the ability to crowd fund a legal challenge, and have his day in court. I predict, privately cogniscent of his own guilt, he would rather take the short term hit, spend a bit of time colouring in at Commons, and return to en.wiki in eleven months and two week's time, fully restored as a Wikipedia Administrator, no doubt.
