"Fram Gate" in Arbcom

[Graaf Statler]

Keep in mind they are our best soldiers in the field. The way they destroy there complete project and change it in the ultimate trollopedia we can never, never improve.
These guys are complete mad. Not only they collect themself the firewood, they pile it up, they walk kilometers with jerrycans with gasoline, buy gas lighters form there own money and at the end they lighten the whole god dammed fire pile what will burn down to the ground and even deeper themself.

With love from the H.T.D. mouvement.

[CrowsNest]

The whole saga in a nutshell.....

Evaluation of Office-provided case materials
6) The Office provided case materials to the Arbitration Committee, upon which they based their conduct warnings and ban. The materials were partially redacted, notably removing the initial complaints as well as other information within the file. These unredacted materials show a pattern of borderline harassment against multiple individuals, through hounding the individuals and excessively highlighting their failures. In the period after receiving their second private conduct warning, Fram was abusive towards the Committee as a whole and specific members. The Office subsequently enacted a 1-year ban and desysopped Fram.

The Foundation insists Fram was a harasser, and acted accordingly.

The hoi poloi insist he was just a policy enforcer, and riotously insisted it.

ArbCom can see he was a harasser even under their own definition (WP:HARASS), but they're afraid of the hoi poloi, who have a tendency to harass people who make unpopular but correct calls, so they've taken the coward's way out and determined he was only guilty of borderline harassment.

Kind of sums up what being on ArbCom is all about. Finding a way to present whatever version of the truth they think the hostile and aggressive community will live with. Vitriolic objections are expected of course, they're aiming instead to avoid riotous behaviour. They can handle being disliked, they just don't like being lynched.

This case was a chance for ArbCom to give a wake up call to the community, to show the guts that real leadership requires. You can't keep claiming black is white and expect to get away with it, expecting ArbCom to go along with it, like there is any formulation of the actual evidence that shows Fram really was just a policy enforcer. People outside Wikipedia, people who have no reason to look favourably on harassers, just aren't that stupid.

[Graaf Statler]

I first took a cold Belgium beer because I am astonished. This person, Fram has done anything, anything to hurt the reputation of Laura Hale, based on really NOTHING other than these GLAM projects in general are not very succesfull. But you can't blame her for that.

And his spreading of rumours about Guido what looked so plausible and again based on nothing. It was almost imposible om de waarheid boven tafel te krijgen, to find the true. It was all so so refined, it costed me years to find that true! What is of course Guido will never ever hurt any child, it was all persoonsbeschadiging en vuige roddel.

And that Mies, the son of a bitch whit his I would receive Guido in my house what many others never should do. So mean, so refined, so insinuating, it makes me really feel sick!

jij zou een dubbele trap onder je hol moeten hebben, Mies, één van mij en nog één van Guido!

[Carrite]

The Foundation insists Fram was a harasser, and acted accordingly.

..........without providing the original complaint(s) to the oversight body to which it refered the case, even though they are bound by Non-Disclosure Agreements.

The hoi poloi insist he was just a policy enforcer, and riotously insisted it.

........since that is the readily discoverable evidence, based upon LH's explicit talk page warnings to Fram, Fram's passing on of the specific warnings issued to him in secret by WMF, and LH's documented marital relationship to chair of the WMF Board of Directors.

Other alternative evidence has not emerged.

ArbCom can see he was a harasser even under their own definition (WP:HARASS)...

Aside from the fact that they don't feel that it was harassment rising to the level of a year long ban, but rather that it might be perceived as harassment by those on the receiving end.

(spin, spin, spin, spin)

RfB

[Graaf Statler]

Timmy, why don't you and your friends not start your own Wiki project? Why highjacking WMF wiki's including the Dutch Wiki?

[Graaf Statler]

I mean, the content and the software are not owned by WMF, only the infrastructure. Just take it, walk away with it and be free and happy.

[CrowsNest]

words

Dude, You can come here claiming shit when you can do basic uncontroversial stuff like admit Eric Corbett should have been banned years ago according to your own goddamned policies, admit the only reason he wasn't is because lying your ass off and ignoring evidence is considered an admirable trait in the Wikipedia community, and admit you wouldn't know a damn thing about what Fram actually did when he was claiming to be enforcing policy if it wasn't for help from people who were actually watching at the time, rather than goofing off at Wikipediocracy.

The fuck do you even actually know about Fram, to be coming here talking like you do? Seriously. The community supposedly scoured the whole site for its own evidence, and they still somehow managed to miss his feud with Dr. Blofeld and the resulting AN/I thread, even though that's the exact fucking thing I kicked his thread off with over here. You're a bunch of fucking amateurs, you don't talk from a position of authority based on actually knowing anything, you open your mouths and shit just falls out.

The Blofeld copyright feud is actually obliquely referred to in evidence from an earlier report, but only as just a single diff of incivility (2.4). Which naturally meant Fram was allowed to just blow it off because he apologised the day after. You know why he apologised of course, because he realized he was in deep shit because he was committing the ultimate sin of harassing an establishment figure. A whole fucking ArbCom case, the entire site's eyes on it supposedly, and you still couldn't (wouldn't) see patterns that were easily found from the evidence provided. How hard is it to follow a few links and read a few words? Too hard, apparently.

Much of it is general stupidity, after all, it's hard, remembering stuff. Other times, you're clearly covering for an asshole. Where, for example, is the stuff about Elisa? You talked about that on Wikipediocracy, so don't pretend like you don't know. Classic example of Fram being an asshole, to the exact pattern being described in the PD now, and in Harry's infamous quote, an incident magically forgotten about, even by the so called Wikipedia investigators, who coincidentally don't think he did anything wrong and it's all a conspiracy.

In fact, now I remember you were aware of the Blofeld feud, because you were talking absolute crap over at Wikipediocracy about how supposedly these old copyright violations don't pose a liability.

What, did you think if you didn't submit evidence of every major feud he's had, then it didn't happen? You did exactly that, and that's how I can now stand here and call you out for it. I knew there would be a fucking shit-ton of evidence about this maniac that was conveniently forgotten about, because it's one of the biggest loopholes in your whole stupid system of arbitration.

The fuck do you ever say that actually comes true, actually? While you're acting as if it does.

When people read what I've got to say, they can be rest assured from the accuracy of my predictions, I know you shitbirds better than you know yourselves........

Fram has an uncanny knack of escaping any kind of actual consequences for his particular style of adminship, so don't count your chickens yet.

There will be no scandal, because there was no conspiracy. But you fucking whiny little bitches are just gonna keep mentioning it, because at this point, you're nothing but a bunch of gamergate freakshows, wanting to blame everyone else for why the world thinks you're assholes.

I'm never going to get tired of mentioning the fact the ArbCom case about Fram didn't even uncover all of the incidents he was involved with, and even missed incidents that were right there, waiting to be discovered, in the fucking links you were provided with in the community compiled evidence.

So you can prattle on all you want about how it was Laura and her missus. First rule for a conspiracy theory nut job like yourself - always make sure you have properly studied and can effectively debunk the version of truth the serious researchers have uncovered, that you necessarily have to disprove in order to get people to believe your bullshit (if you ever have a hope in hell of this nonsense breaking out of the bubble of the Wikipediocracy hate factory). The people who don't overlook or even hide evidence just because it doesn't fit the desired narrative.

This is the part where you claim I've been ignoring your mountains of evidence for your conspiracy theory, at which point I say shut up fool, I've been following along, posting query after query, only to be continually ignored. And despite all that, you've got the brass neck to come posting it here, like it is actually a viable theory?

Beyond amateur stuff this.

[CrowsNest]

Per WP:ADMINCOND "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others." I do feel that Fram lost sight of that "respectful, civil manner" enough times that the community should decide if they have confidence that he will adjust his behavior going forward. SilkTork (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Come on now. NewYorkBrad has already said Fram has surely learned his lesson, so why even bother with such a farce?

You all know Brad, he's the Arbitrator who kept insisting Eric Corbett deserved one more chance. He had earned one more chance.

Has Brad even bothered to acknowledge all the shit Fram did in May, which is of course well after the time Fram says he had looked inward and resolved to do better? Someone actually posted a summary of all the shit he did, just in that one month, somewhere during this farce. Yet another thing that apparently never made it into the /Evidence file.

Funny how they keep just losing stuff, right?

[CrowsNest]

This is the real Fram......

When is it not necessary to correct problematic edits someone else makes? Oh right, when they "feel" harassed, boohoo

........

Remember, people, if you want someone removed, just claim that you "feel" harassed when your constant problematic editing is pointed out repeatedly and correctly by the same editor.

That moment of self-reflection he keeps harking back to, was fake, an act of performance art, something all smart editors know to do when they are really about to face a serious sanction. The real Fram is this guy, the one who doesn't, never has and probably never will accept he has ever done anything except follow policy.

He's even now claiming credit for taking Laura Hale to a noticeboard. Since that's the only part of Fram's work that Wikipediocracy have investigated, I look forward to their quick press release correcting the record. Because as was recently pointed out on this forum, it was someone else who brought his half-assed proposal of a DYK topic ban to the Admin noticeboard on his behalf, and when the community rejected his concerns because his complaint seemed half-baked and entirely personal, he was annoyed precisely because it hadn't been him who filed it. The implication being he had all this evidence he would have put in it, that backed up his claims, even though he had plenty of time to do so while it was live. Instead, he preferred to use that time doing what he is known for - basically insinuating anyone who disagrees with his conclusions, even his Administrative colleagues, was a fool intent on destroying Wikipedia. As far as I know, he never did file any such report.

[Carrite]

(yammer on...)

If the general behavior of Fram described in the document was the cut-and-dried, egregious behavior that typically comes to mind when you think of "harassment" (outing, off-wiki stalking, hateful comments, etc.), they would have long ago have been ejected from the community. But most of the behavior was firmly within that grey area of hostility that Wikipedia has struggled to handle for as long as I've been here. It is not behavior that is well covered by policy, nor is it easy behavior to address with "partial sanctions" (a term I'm using here to describe sanctions short of blocks and sitebans, such as topic and interaction bans) to remove the person from areas where it's occurring. GorillaWarfare (talk) 4:51 pm, Today (UTC−7)

(diverts and obfuscates some more...)