"Fram Gate" in Arbcom

[Graaf Statler]

AND YOU ARE A STUPIDE FUCK TOO, TIMMY BOY, ALSO HOL VAN BOVEN.

In short, both you and vig are a bunch of stupide fuck's timmy.

Your lovely fake side admin.

[Graaf Statler]

You talk like a imbecile here, what for the hell are you doing here, Timmy boy? Why don't you just fuck off to WO, to your just as stupide frends Vig and Mev as you are?

[CrowsNest]

Sort your life out Timmy. Use your words. And by that, I mean put them into sentences that makes sense as a reply in the context of the conversation.

You quoted GW. Why? Other than the fact that on any given day, she's gonna sound smarter than you ever do.

[Carrite]

Well, from [[commons:User talk:Fram]] we have the text of what Fram says is a communication from T&S in March 2019:


"However, in the hopes of avoiding any future issues and in the spirit of Laura’s own request on her talk page, we would like to ask that you refrain from making changes to content that she produces, in any way (directly or indirectly), from this point on. This includes but is not limited to direct editing of it, tagging, nominating for deletion, etc. If you happen to find issues with Laura’s content, we suggest that you instead leave it for others to review and handle as they see fit. This approach will allow you to continue to do good work while reducing the potential for conflict between you and Laura.

"We hope for your cooperation with the above request, so as to avoid any sanctions from our end in the future. To be clear, we are not placing an interaction ban between you and Laura at this time. We ask that her request to stay away from her and the content she creates be respected, so that there is no need for any form of intervention or punitive actions from our end.

"This decision has come following extensive review of your conduct on that project and is an escalation to the Foundation’s past efforts to encourage course correction, including a conduct warning issued to you on April 2018 and a conduct warning reminder issued to you on March 2019. "



Now, maybe Fram is lying but I'll take him at his word. Especially since no one has challenged it in all this time. Jbh Talk 5:59 pm, Today (UTC−7)

(ignores, spins, diverts)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =914224101

[Carrite]

Fram

This is a request to stay off my talk page, in the same style as you request it of other editors. Other admins have requested that you stop posting on my talk page before. They have requested you stop taking action in regards to me, especially given your problematic actions as they relate to your inability to be impartial where I am concerned. You have claimed that DYKs I did were related to Gibraltarpedia, when they were clearly not, and you never retracted this. You completely out of process deleted article drafts from my user space citing gross BLP violations, which other admins said were not this after viewing the deleted content. You defended these actions, did not admit your errors, and did not retract this. These are two examples, of several, where you have acted in bad faith with me. Enough. Stay off my talk page Fram.

You were asked in September 2017 to disengage in admin actions related to me. You were asked in September 2017 to stop commenting on my talk page and you are being asked again in February 2018. If you have a problem with my work, then you need to talk to another admin and have them handle the problem. It should not be you. If you have questions about my edits, please direct them at admins and other users like SlimVirgin, Pigsonthewing, SkyHarbor, Orderinchaos and Victuallers.

If you are nominating any of the content I created for deletion or userifying any pages or redirecting any pages, these notifications need to be posted on the talk pages of the aforementioned admins so they may deal with your notifications. They can assess your admin actions, and if they believe any actions need to be taken on my part to change my editing behavior following any return, these admins can be the ones to communicate that message to me: NOT YOU.

If these admins are not able to work with you regarding my work to your personal satisfaction, please contact James Alexander, Patrick Earley, Jan Eissfeldt or Sydney Poore, members of the WMF's Support and Safety team.

LauraHale

Bolding by me for bad readers. —t.d.

(sputters, insults, ignores, diverts)

https://web.archive.org/web/20190409054 ... :LauraHale

[Carrite]

As I wrote in my comment accompanying my vote in FoF 6, most of Fram's behavior that was mentioned in evidence fell "firmly within that grey area of hostility that Wikipedia has struggled to handle for as long as I've been here." There were occasional instances that were severe (the attacks against ArbCom as one example), but the majority of the issue is that on multiple occasions Fram has identified editors whose contributions they have felt were substandard, and then over a significant period of time followed (see principle 5) those editors and scrutinized their contributions extremely closely, often bluntly and sometimes quite rudely. Although correcting the errors of other editors is a key part of Wikipedia's culture, editors are expected to do so carefully and constructively. If an editor believes that another editor with whom they have clashed is displaying a pattern of substandard contributions, they should involve neutral parties to address that concern rather than hounding that editor (principle 6).

Although I believe Fram's behavior has been unacceptable (both the attacks and the excessive scrutiny), the community in general has not taken a strong stance against editors who maintain plausible deniability that they are not intentionally harassing other editors, but are only focused on improving the encyclopedia. This is particularly true for administrators, editors who have been active for a long time, and those whose own contributions are exceptional—Fram fit within all three of these categories.

The community (including the Arbitration Committee) has also generally allowed more leeway when it comes to attacks against groups, particularly groups with more "power" than the editor making the attack (in this case, the Arbitration Committee).

As it currently exists, the section of harassment policy that discusses hounding leaves plenty of room for Fram's behavior—the concerns they raised were not always without "good cause", and (as evidenced by the extensive discussion that has happened at WP:FRAM and elsewhere) it is not without question that Fram was engaging in these behaviors with the intention of causing distress. Policy also makes no room for the distinct possibility that there is a discrepancy between whether a target of these discussions experiences distress and whether the instigator intends to cause it.

Even was it agreed that Fram was hounding editors, it is unlikely that this behavior would have led to a lengthy ban (either of one year or of three months). More likely it would have been addressed with interaction bans, or possibly a topic ban from the area(s) of conflict. While I do not agree that these types of sanctions tend to put a stop to the root behavior, they are the standard. I suspect that the Wikimedia Foundation also disagreed that these sanctions are useful in addressing the cause of the issue, and, like myself, wished to see the English Wikipedia take a stronger stance on harassment and other behaviors that can drive editors away from the project. However, imposing the ban themselves was not an appropriate or effective way to move forward, and neither would it be appropriate for the Arbitration Committee to do so (or for me to vote that we do).

It is the community as a whole that accepts these kinds of behaviors, and it cannot be just one body (the WMF or the Arbitration Committee) that decides they are unacceptable and acts against them. If the community does not wish to allow editors, even those who have made great contributions to this project or edited for years, to drive off other editors with plausibly productive but intensely critical focus, then the community must take a stance against this behavior in policy and in support for said policy's enforcement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 6:48 pm, [5 Sept 2019] (UTC−7)

Double negatives, read slowly. Bolded to aid bad readers. —t.d.

(averts eyes, chatters mindlessly, hyperventilates, collapses)

https://web.archive.org/save/https://en ... d_decision

[Graaf Statler]

Yes, nice, but why this text dumping in our sweet little Sucks home, Timmy? Is the toilet at your WO house broken so you think I am coming over to shit in your house? Or are you just in the mood for a rubber stamp Banned Troll?
But why don't you just ask for on if you like such a avatar so much? I am sure Comrade Eric is absolute willing to give you one.

[Graaf Statler]

By the way, what is wrong with this postings and with Laura in general? First of all she has a excellent tast only to fuck with woman if I see what a tremendous male shitheads exist and second is the GLAM system a chapter thing. A not very succesfull formula, I agree.

But can you blame her for therefor? No of course not! The woman did obesely her best. And she was complete framed by Fram in a very unfair way, and said in her posting she was seeking for help in form of the Trolling& Sucking department. But did they helped her?
No, because you Eurocrap&Co guys fucked her complete with her clothes on instate of helping her, bunch of sexists and basterds.

Of course we can read here Timmy boy, but not your and your friends there unsubstantiated crap and rants. Yes, we read them, and hang them in the sucks toilet as toilet paper.

[CrowsNest]

Timmy, I still have no clue what your attempted point is. If you came here to defend the Laura Hale conspiracy theory, start first with reading all the posts I've written debunking it, which if you did you would realize I've seen all those posts before.

[CrowsNest]

ArbCom signing their own death warrant. Hilarious that they don't see it.

They've made it plain they recognize the seriousness of the evidence the Foundation compiled against him......

These unredacted materials show a pattern of borderline harassment against multiple individuals, through hounding the individuals and excessively highlighting their failures.

this is a good high level summary. WormTT(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I can support the substance of this finding of fact: that Fram sometimes takes his criticism of other editors too far, that multiple people have experienced this as harassment, and that he consistently fails to assume good faith in ArbCom and other 'authorities' within the movement. – Joe (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Fram's criticisms of others would ..... escalate in frustration when he felt that the response to his observations were not acceptable. Such escalations would inevitably prove to be counter-productive. ...... indulging his frustrations to the extent of becoming hostile ...... SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

most of the behavior was firmly within that grey area of hostility ...... GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The document describes behavior that is unpleasant, uncollegial, and arrogant...... people don't learn well when they're stressed, fearful, defensive, or distracted. ....... Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

.......and yet they go on to say his ban was unjustified, already at 5-0, likely to end unanimous.

People not familiar with Wikipedia's toxic culture, will be amazed that one can follow the other.

Rather than own the decision however, the cowardly Arbitrators are being quite clear about who is to blame.....

I do not think either ArbCom or the community would have banned them under the same circumstances. ...... – Joe (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem here has not been Fram in isolation, it has been the community in allowing [an] editor to behave rudely and aggressively. ....... Every editor on this community who supports hostility as a method of dealing with concerns, is responsible for what happened to Fram. Fram should not be punished for the environment we created which allowed him to feel he was justified in his aggression. SilkTork (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

the community in general has not taken a strong stance against editors who maintain plausible deniability that they are not intentionally harassing other editors, but are only focused on improving the encyclopedia.........Even was it agreed that Fram was hounding editors, it is unlikely that this behavior would have led to a lengthy ban.......It is the community as a whole that accepts these kinds of behaviors, and it cannot be just one body (the WMF or the Arbitration Committee) that decides they are unacceptable and acts against them. ..... the community must take a stance against this behavior in policy and in support for said policy's enforcement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing strongly with almost every word GW has written. If we take the WMF out of the equation, a ban would likely not have happened - therefore the correct decision is to vacate the ban completely. First choice. WormTT(talk) 07:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

GW's post is very thoughtful. I agree that I almost certainly would not have supported banning Fram based on the evidence available if it had come to us in a normal community process, so I have to support vacating the attempt to impose that sanction from outside those processes. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Other than by including themselves by implication as part of the toxic tolerant "community", there is absolutely no recognition here that it is ArbCom's role to stick up for policy, to act decisively with strong leadership when they see the community giving free passes to valued editors for bogus reasons, and screw the consequences for victims or editor retention.

I told you this would happen. This is why they didn't release their mailing list and internal wiki documents pertaining to their role in handling Fram, before and after he was banned. There are on-wiki public statements from Arbs that basically admit they dropped the ball and chickened out of making a tough call - their own resource and communication issues as well as their palpable fear of the toxic community, meant the clear and pressing issue of what to do about Fram, whether to even have a Case, fell through the cracks.

There keep pretending like the Foundation acted independently, like ArbCom's own cowardice and indifference had no role to play in the WMF's decision to step in and start exerting some genuine authority in defence of users, where local governance had clearly failed.

There is a lie being told here that ArbCom made a conscious decision to never examine Fram's conduct, and they're covering up the truth that their own records would reveal, by trying to make it appear as if there was no appetite in the community for it to happen. There was, both from victims and their friends an allies, people horrified at what Fram was being allowed to get away with, just because he was an Administrator, and just because he was forcefully insistent that he was right.

It is the role of ArbCom to decisively resolve clear and pressing issues of a serious and long running nature, which they obviously were by their own belated reading of the evidence, including, and especially when, there is a vocal majority of the community trying to tell people there is nothing to see, just go about your business and ignore the blood and the screams.

It is rather pathetic how ArbCom are only actually begrudgingly accepting Fram had done enough to merit being stripped of his Administrative rights. Which begs the question, why did they fail to accept cases? It is well known, due to the Super Mario Effect, that under normal circumstances, without outside interference, a Case against Fram, where the Arbitrators admitted what they have admitted about what the evidence shows, would have concluded with him losing the tools. Admins always get a free hit for conduct that gets ordinary editors banned. The complete opposite of what "higher standard" implies.

This is no effective deterrent now in endorsing it, because it is quite obvious the toxic community are quite prepared to return Fram to the status of Administrator, the second he asks for it. There will not even be any attempt to extract from him formal promises about what he is and is not going to do, going forward.