"Fram Gate" in Arbcom

[Graaf Statler]

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 50#p246570

He Mies en Guido, althans ik neem aan dat jullie Vigilant en Fram zijn en anders AUB alsnog ff ontkennen, want ik heb dat wel vaak genoeg gevraagd Kwek Kwek, zijn jullie nou nog niet uitgekut en getrollt?
T'is absolute een kinky zonnebril Mies maar man, man man, zouden jullie niet eens iets zinnigs met je leven gaan doen? Een beetje Laura Hall stangen wordt zooooo saaaaaiiii namelijk.
'T lijkt me namelijk heel erg sterk dat er nog iemand intrapt verder weet je.
En vooral jij Mies ga eens echt aan de bak en jij ook Guido met je Jehova Trollosage in plaatse van een soort Eurocrap gang uit te hangen en overal de sfeer te verkutten.

[CrowsNest]

Nothing surprising there, just a list of widely known incidents where Fram mostly thinks he was right, but third parties (as distinct from the people he was targeting for policy 'enforcement') often viewed as problematic, at the very least unbecoming of an Administrator, but which the community and ArbCom seemed content to keep ignoring, or brushing off as isolated incidents, rather than a sign of a serious issue of a pattern of Administrator conduct.

This was not a surprise, to those not subscribing to the theory Fram was just being harassed himself by his own victims.......

.....As it happened, few individuals came forward about their personal dealings with Fram, instead people highlighted instances they had seen Fram's actions towards others. .... WormTT(talk) 08:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Fram has offered little in the way of contrition for the things he cannot in any way defend, preferring instead to focus on what he can remove from the set of whatever 'a fair, accurate summary of what I actually did wrong" is meant to actually contain.

Rather hilariously, he seems to have misunderstood the Arbitration process - Arbs aren't meant to pre-approve what evidence is and is not submitted, so long as it is in scope. Indeed, he seems to have benefited from them doing precisely that under cover of this anonymisation process......

Information which was significantly out of date has been removed, as has anything which has been significantly dealt with elsewhere.

Elsewhere? Where, exactly? His mommy?

If the goal is to stick as closely to the usual process as possible, the actual process is that the /Evidence gets published, and now everyone gets to post what they think about it in the /Workshop. Nowhere in the Arb policy does it say they are first meant to take out duplicate material, or remove the so called "chaff" from the "wheat", or most disturbingly of all, deciding what to publish based on whether it is actually "evidence of anything problematic".

He's of course is still telling this story about how he's improved, which is rather undercut by this evidence - an improvement on telling people to fuck off, would be to stop telling people to fuck off, no? He's making a mistake relying on this evidence to show he has improved, since we already know his outburst at ArbCom wasn't the only bad thing he did in May, a month in which he went quite crazy. That will be in the T&S dossier and their own internal discussions, so if they ignore it in the case, management will notice.

But yes, looking even more obvious that Hale was not the RAT, it must have been one of these third parties who filed this evidence (for example, Ritchie!), and Hale's retirement was simply the natural reaction to being pursued by hell hounds, unleashed as part of a harassment campaign coordinated between the hate site Wikipediocracy and the toxic en.wiki Administrators who hang out there, specifically Black Kite.

[CrowsNest]

People raising issues with my behaviour is totally acceptable: people reposting "issues" with my behaviour which have already repeatedly been shown to be false claims should get a boomerang from ArbCom though. Fram (talk) 09:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

It's been reposted at the invitation of ArbCom, you utter fool.

This is what is going to fuck Fram right in the ass - not very many of these incidents really did actually end with someone conclusively saying Fram is completely innocent. What usually happens is blame is apportioned on both sides, and so the discussion fizzles out after thirty rounds of Fram still arguing he is right.

A perfect example is Fram accusing Ymblanter of personal attacks....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... al_attacks

What was the formal finding of fact there? Who was right?

That dispute reached AN/I, with Ymblanter stating.......

Fram developed an unfortunate habit of interpreting my statements and then saying I have said something I did not.

What was the formal closure?

Closing with no action as an uninvolved administrator who has no clue what either side of the Wikidata debate thinks. There is already a consensus here that no action should be taken, and keeping this open longer will generate more heat than light. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Is that clearance of Fram? Well, since it is known en.wiki doesn't really consider incivility, even by an Administrator, to be a serious issue, we can't call that an exoneration at all. Closing as no action is certainly an odd outcome if the report was shown to have been completely false.

The basic charge from T&S is presumably that Fram doesn't treat these disputes the way an Administrator should, he turns them into outright personal feuds, never letting go of the bone, something that for whatever reason the local en.wiki Wikipedia Administrators have little problem with, but which the person on the receiving end often sees as highly aggressive, hostile, and with a pretty clear aim, to force them off the project, if they cannot accept Fram is completely and totally right.

In that regard, the last remark nails him.....

Clearly a lot of editors in that long Discussion thread are frustrated and irritable, and are discussing editors instead of content. (For some reason Wikidata seems to polarize people and arouse argumentativeness, perhaps because it is still a work-in-progress and there is no universal agreement yet on all of the basics.) All of those doing so need to step back and chill and then return to discussing only content and policies and guidelines, not other editors. If you disagree with someone, there's also no actual need to repeat yourself numerous times, in my opinion. While I don't think it was a great idea for Fram to go to Ymblanter's talkpage (he should probably stay off of Ymblanter's talkpage), I don't see any intentional incivility or gross misrepresentation on his part. As it is, an uninvolved party had to hat some of the ad hominem arguments in that RfC Discussion thread. So I think the soluton is for everyone to henceforth refrain from mentioning other editors and stick to discussing content and policy and guidelines. Don't even use the word "you". Contrary to what someone said above, it is possible to get one's point across civilly if one's arguments are cogent enough. It may be the case that that RfC and its subthreads/subparts are trying to accomplish too much. Possibly some of the subparts will have to be hashed out again in another discussion for further refinement. Softlavender (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter did ultimately resign as an Administrator in January, and it was clearly because of this ugly dispute with Fram, so if I were him, I'd be seriously concerned at the complete and total lack of a definitive statement to be found anywhere from the powers that be, that says Fram bears absolutely no responsibility, not even in part, for that outcome.

[CrowsNest]

NewYorkBrad has cracked the case......

The evidence provided by the community, as summarized on the evidence page, reveals instances of incivility or lack of decorum on Fram's part, but does not reflect any conduct for which a site-ban would be a proportionate response.

The evidence provided by the community, as summarized on the evidence page, reveals instances in which Fram has made mistakes as an administrator, including the overturned blocks of Martinevans and GorillaWarfare, but does not reflect any conduct for which desysopping would be a proportionate response.

It is part of a huge proposal that, as seen above, basically just repeats previous ArbCom cases, with some lip service about how victims should be believed, but not really if the harasser is just being a Wikipedian, and some waffle about how harassment is such a vague term it should not be used (ignoring the fact WP:HARASS is very specific). He basically says the Foundation should just fuck off and leave en.wiki to keep doing what it does, with absolutely zero acceptance of their clearly stated reason for the ban (the failure of Arbcom to properly apply existing policy, in this case clearly WP:HARASS and WP:ADMIN).

Brad has served in many previous ArbComs, and is as of this week still pretending Eric Corbett is a non-issue (that he still is an issue is hugely down to Brad's personal interpretation of the cost/benefit of toxic users while on ArbCom), but he is currently just a wiki bum, with a supposedly high powdered day job as a real life lawyer. Or so his Wikipedia biography, built around press coverage around his prominent role as some kind of Head of Wikipedia's Supreme Court, claims.

The community was provided with the evidence at 07:35 on 19 August. Brad posted these findings at 22.33.

Draw your own conclusions.

[CrowsNest]

I mean, this is just fucking hilarious.....

Editors must not harass other editors either on or off Wikipedia. Although some types of misconduct will clearly constitute harassment and warrant sanctions, in other cases whether harassment has occurred may be more borderline or subjective. The views and feelings of editors who believe in good faith that they are being or have been harassed are to be respected and fully considered, whether or not it is ultimately concluded that harassment actually occurred. Because the word "harassment" spans a wide variety of types of behavior, and because this word as used off-wiki can carry serious legal and human-resources overtones, at times it may be better to describe allegedly problematic on-wiki behavior such as "wikihounding" with more specific terminology.

It has taken this guy just one day, perhaps just one evening if he was at work, to state very boldly that not one person named in the evidence has a legitimate grounds to feel WP:HARASSED (he linked the policy). That's clearly not enough time to give these people proper consideration, bearing in mind he wants us to believe he has just done in that short time, what used to make him weeks when he was an Arbitrator. He gives no reasons either, calls out no specific examples nor cites any specific policy wording to explain how all these cases are supposedly mere hounding and not harassment, it is just a basic, blind assertion. The inherent disrespect there is blindingly obvious.

I think he drafted this even before he has seen the evidence, and he will have just skimmed that to confirm it wasn't anything he had not already seen, and in large part dismissed when he was an Arbitrator charged with ensuring Administrators don't WP:HARASS users.

The ultimate disrespect is not taking a single second to consider the entire reason the ban came down was that to someone who hasn't historically been giving free passes for this behaviour, would, with fresh eyes, read the text of WP:HARASS, read the evidence, and conclude the victim's feelings are valid, and they did have a legitimate grievance.

[CrowsNest]

Lest we forget, Brad tabled a proposal very early on in this controversy, that would have seen Fram unblocked if he simply agreed to a no fault implied interaction ban with anyone the Foundation deemed he had problematic interactions with, and promised to "improve his decorum a little bit".

It seems in drafting his proposal, he was so keen to rule out a site ban or a desysopping, that even though he is prepared to admit Fram has been incivil and made mistakes in how he has handled specific users, he has quite forgotten his previous desire to offer remedy for those things.

Nope, it's essentially now just a wrist slap. Not even that, being framed as a reminder seems to be so that nobody attributes any fault to Fram for not being mindful of his responsibility to be civil, not make rash blocks, and not act like a one man police force.

Fram being Fram, he will file such reminders where the Sun doesn't shine. Just tell him when he can back on the beat, that's the only thing he will be wanting to know.

[CrowsNest]

Unsurprisingly, things are still stuck at the same impasse that led to Floquenbeam breaking shit.

On the one hand, allegedly based on community evidence he barely even had time to read properly, former Arbitrator NewYorkBrad has written some generic bollocks to support this idea Fram has done nothing wrong worth writing home about.

On the other, Worm is forced to admit the confidential 70 page T&S dossier, summarizing at least twelve different confidential complaints, that reveals a picture of Fram that has already previously been accurately summarized by one Wikipedia Administrator........

Fram has an ugly habit of railroading good-faith but somewhat troubled editors like this by taking a legitimate but relativley minor issue, then subjecting an editor to levels of scrutiny nobody could withstand, then blowing the issues out of all proportion, all the while badgering the editor incessantly so that they feel they can't breathe without Fram coming down on them like a ton of bricks. Of course, I do not wish to make light of copyright issues, but the solution in this case was clearly discussion and education, not enforcement and blocks. If Fram can't or won't discuss and educate, they should bring the matter to a noticeboard where other editors can assist. Yes, he may be within the letter of WP:INVOLVED, but the spirit is surely that if it isn't an emergency, there are ~1200 admins who can share the load. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

....is pretty accurate.

The way forward is clearly to focus on whether or not what Fram did after January 2019, specifically his many bad acts in May, mean that the resolution of the incident report that prompted Harry's comment, namely "Fram has indicated that they will accept the criticism in good faith and will use the feedback to improve as an admin.", and the resulting inaction of the community and arbcom to ensure he did, shows that T&S were justified in exercising their very clear and totally legit right to step in when the community is making a mockery of the minimal standards inherent in their agreement to the T&S, from which all their local policies derive their authority.

It is obvious Brad et all are only interested in preventing a repeat incursion of a foreign power, and if they have to pretend like they don't even see the Fram Harry described, and they don't even see Fram's inability to properly and seriously improve their standards, they will.

[JuiceBeetle]

Beetstra, who has retired, and disabled his link spam detecting bot early in the Fram drama, is back to "lose it":

Fram was blocked by T&S without explanation. We don't know why, but they must be wrong.

Logic in a mental wikipedians mind: "We don't know why, but they must be wrong."

[Graaf Statler]

Beetstra, who has retired, and disabled his link spam detecting bot early in the Fram drama, is back to "lose it":

Fram was blocked by T&S without explanation. We don't know why, but they must be wrong.

Logic in a mental wikipedians mind: "We don't know why, but they must be wrong."

EUROCRAP!!!

[CrowsNest]

.......If we held an incivility sweepstakes, though, I don't think Fram would be among the top ten offenders; it would certainly be fine if he were to use the word "fuck" less often, but inducing him to do that cannot be the main factor behind all this sturm und drang.......Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Who else but Brad would say this?

Top ten? FRAM IS AN ADMINISTRATOR. He shouldn't even be in the top 100.

Brad really is the chief architect of the erosion of civility on English Wikipedia. I was leafing through the old ArbCom cases involving Eric Corbett, who really is a top ten offender, and it's just one long exercise in appeasement from Brad. He long ago abandoned arguing that his approach has worked, hence his one line joke submission to the latest Corbett Case request, and he is pretty much all in on the idea that if you can't reform a toxic editor, you might as well just keep them anyway.

This guy is gonna stand for the Committee in December, if only to continue that farce. Suggesting Fram is not a problem because he's not a top ten offender, is an insult to everyone's intelligence. But Brad has been doing this for years now, he literally doesn't give a fuck how insulting he comes across as. I think he thinks his status as the Elder of Teh Wiki means his comments are received and believed without question. Wikipedia is the state it is in, because all too often, they are.