"Fram Gate" in Arbcom

[Guido den Broeder]

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)

Add to that the redacted materials, which you haven't taken into account.

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)

Some people didn't get a chance to 'learn', but were indeffed without warning, which you, Opabinia regalis, could have prevented.

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)

Nope. The correct decision would be to deal with the people that would prevent a ban.

[Carrite]

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.

Y'know, I've been reading this thead from the start to see what you're on about (except for the blissfully shut-off Sancho squat) and so far i am finding this...

Weirdly at Wikipediocracy they still think it's all about Laura Hale, despite the stream of information provided by WTT that indicates otherwise.

That's your deep research, your debunking?!?!

Pull the other one!

You have infinite flexibility with your past statements and beliefs, I will say that. Have you ever thought of bleaching your hair blonde and running for office?

RfB

[Carrite]

Incoming, incoming...

What's wrong with the official one? After a detailed investigation en.wiki was found to be failing in its duty to enforce minimal standards of expected behaviour as described by the Terms ("harassment") and their own local policies (WP:HARASS), so the Foundation exercised their right in local policy (WP:OFFICE) and the Terms (12. Termination) to ban him, partly to stop the specific problem and partly to send a message to en.wiki volunteers (i.e. you) to get their shit together, and extremely generously didn't apply a full global ban, in light of his service and because the issues were only affecting en.wiki.

Seriously, try and pick a single hole in that.

1. Who started the new T&S bureaucracy's investigation running as part of its newly claimed purview to police user social-interaction on-wiki?

2. Allowing for the fact that Fram is a dick, how likely is it that he would be either the most egregious civility offender or the completely random test case for exercise of newly crafted bureaucratic blocking powers?

3. Why, after having everything except the names of the mystery insiders complaining directly to WMF, was the entire Arbcom so underwhelmed with the merits of the case?

4. Is it not more likely that an astroturfed campaign was made to take out the individual whom Laura Hale had directly threatened with T&S action on her User Talk than any self-serving T&S rationale (ultimately not backed by evidence) that Fram was somehow the acme of uncivil evil?

This is pretty clearly a case of well-connected insiders using a new alternative discipline mechanism against their on-wiki enemies (defending the product of a six-figure paid editing gig!) and an out of touch bureaucratic body overreaching and winding up with their nose tweaked.

Spin away, doctor! I'll bring the rock salt and we can make ice cream...

RfB

[CrowsNest]

Y'know, I've been reading this thead from the start to see what you're on about (except for the blissfully shut-off Sancho squat) and so far i am finding this...

Weirdly at Wikipediocracy they still think it's all about Laura Hale, despite the stream of information provided by WTT that indicates otherwise.

That's your deep research, your debunking?!?!

Pull the other one!

I'm not going to spoon feed you. Check the Vigilant thread, most of the garbage is coming from him, so the debunking probably went there. We do do other things here either than fact check you Muppets.

[CrowsNest]

1. Who started the new T&S bureaucracy's investigation running as part of its newly claimed purview to police user social-interaction on-wiki?

Pick a name. Are you seriously denying there were at least ten people who might have done it? I've floated names, from editors to Admins to Arbs, and given reasons why they would have done it, far more convincing reasons than wanting to trigger a grand conspiracy.

2. Allowing for the fact that Fram is a dick, how likely is it that he would be either the most egregious civility offender or the completely random test case for exercise of newly crafted bureaucratic blocking powers?

He was probably the worst offender in the Admin corps, certainly in terms of the damage he was doing. A prolific editor who was a repeat offender. He wasn't randomly picked, but people can be picked for execution, to send a messag, without it being a conspiracy. It's your sheer blindness to how bad he was, that is most hilarious about all this.

3. Why, after having everything except the names of the mystery insiders complaining directly to WMF, was the entire Arbcom so underwhelmed with the merits of the case?

Because they knew there was no smoking gun, they can read. While you fucksticks were running around like headless chickens, they realized the intended message was that ArbCom had failed in not taking a Case against Fram, and T&S had acted to rectify that mistake.

4. Is it not more likely that an astroturfed campaign was made to take out the individual whom Laura Hale had directly threatened with T&S action on her User Talk than any self-serving T&S rationale (ultimately not backed by evidence) that Fram was somehow the acme of uncivil evil?

No, not in the slightest. The timeline is all wrong for a start. The evidence supports T&S' openly stated motives, you're just refusing to see it. This has all been debunked, and you can tell the analysis is correct, because it's been met with stony silence by the pushers of this nonsense theory.

This is pretty clearly a case of well-connected insiders using a new alternative discipline mechanism against their on-wiki enemies (defending the product of a six-figure paid editing gig!) and an out of touch bureaucratic body overreaching and winding up with their nose tweaked.

Yeah yeah, and 9/11 was pretty clearly an inside job to the sort of fuckwit who goes in for these things.

This was no new alternative process, it is a small variation on the widely accepted global ban system. It has been used time and again, and you fuckers never once opened your pie holes about how it violated your supposed autonomous self-governance. I mean, you do get that the only reason Fram wasn't globally banned, was as a generosoty? You have read the policy, right? I mean, I had assumed, but the way you talk about it, it's a valid question.

[CrowsNest]

He's having a fucking proper meltdown.......

I'm deeply sorry that I didn't grovel deeply enough to your liking. I am seeing more and more evidence that this ArbCom, for some reasons, is interested in only one thing, stifling criticism of this ArbCom. All else seems to be of secondary importance. I have no interest in being "the bigger person", and I have acknowledged my own part in the situation. I have not seen any arb acknowledging any of the many poor decisions, statements, twists and turns they made during this three month episode though. One should think that it is easier to be the "bigger person" when one isn't banned, desysop'ed, chased from your own talk page, and submitted to a farcical arb case, but apparently your comments are a one-way street, not something you should practice as you preach.

""You know, I really care deeply about this project; I hoped to use my research skills to improve the accuracy of our content, and I never meant to cause anyone any distress. I regret that I had that effect and now commit to changing my behavior in the future by [fill in the blank] so that we can continue to improve the quality of our content in a less stressful way."

I will not say this, I will never say this. If this is what you expect, then you might as well ban me. I will not change my behaviour in the future beyond what I said and did since March 2018. You know, after the three incivility incidents (i.e. one per year) which are now a crucial part of the evidence against me apparently. I know that some actions cause distress, but that doesn't mean that one should stop making these. Blocking causes distress. Starting ArbCom cases about an editor causes distress. Asking for sanctions at ANI causes distress.

What is important is that I didn't make these actions because they caused distress, but because they were necessary to uphold our basic policies. I don't regret that such actions caused distress, and I will not lie to make me look better in the eyes of Opabinia or anyone else, or to improve my chances of being unblocked and reinstated.

I don't regret it, but I don't enjoy it either. A police officer who stops a speeding driver shouldn't regret this, they shouldn't enjoy it either: they do it knowing that the distress it causes to the individual is a sorry but unavoidable byproduct of trying to uphold some basic laws.

"That would be a convincing demonstration that the interest really was in quality and not in Being Right, and an acknowledgment that there are less unpleasant ways of pursuing the same positive goal. "

If you are not convinced, after all these years and edits, that my interest really was in quality, then I can't help you. And no, often there are no "less unpleasant ways" to deal with long-term problematic edit patterns, unless you advice turning a blind eye.

"The wrong response is "here are many many paragraphs about why I was right about everything and everyone else is wrong wrong wrong."" Too bad, you just received another "wrong response" from me. Fram (talk) 09:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Other than spotting ArbCom are totally covering up their own part in his downfall, he's completely blind to the issues he has.

This is Wikipedia's fatal flaw. They are so hard up for willing idiots to be part of their project, that even though they accept and understand the sound logic of the necessity of having to let someone go if they just don't get it, when push comes to shove, they can't.

[Carrite]

He's having a fucking proper meltdown.......

Here's one thing we absolutely agree on, Mr. Crow, you and me: Fram is a dick.

RfB

[Graaf Statler]

Here's one thing we absolutely agree on, Mr. Crow, you and me: Fram is a dick.

If so, it's complete unclear what you where advocating here all the time Tim
You write in the WO basement in Wikimedian Folks Too Embarrassing for Public Viewing these Sucks peeps hate wikipedia so much, ever thought about it why that is?

A dick has to be expelled mister Timmy because it's a dick. Because he causes damage, create wolves, enemies, people what hate you so, so much they go after you with a a bat. And hit you, hit you hit you where they can. And that is the real danger of pampering dicks and idiots in your wiki house, mister Timmy.

[CrowsNest]

He's having a fucking proper meltdown.......

Here's one thing we absolutely agree on, Mr. Crow, you and me: Fram is a dick.

And yet here you are, living in this fantasy world where supposedly Wikipedia is meant to contain dicks, and a widespread criminal conspiracy that could destroy the entire movement, is a more convincing explanation for why the Foundation finally did something to extract the dicks, than the fact they were just sick of your dick loving bullshit.

Help me out here, Timmy. Which one of us is actively trying to destroy Wikipedia, really?

[CrowsNest]

Conspiracy theorists are hilarious.

Even the people who really want to believe this is a clandestine takevoer, are having trouble keeping track of what they're meant to be shouting at the moon.....

I've lost track a bit. These allegations that Laura Hale was editing for pay, are they new and only just come to light, or are they old hat? Would it warrant an arbitration case given the circumstances? Or was this known but just ignored at the time?

Come on guys, it's your theory, so help Charcy out. Properly.

Just post a timeline, who did what, when, and why, you utter fuckwits.

What are you afraid of? Doesn't it make sense? Surely it makes sense!

I've had the New York Times on hold for weeks now, and I'm telling you, as I did weeks ago, this is such an explosive story here, they are desperate to print it, they're just waiting to see something that makes sense. You missed the first obvious print deadline, surely you can cobble something together for the next obvious opportunity, the posting of the ArbCom case result?

-------

I love how they think I'm the stupid one. Do I look stupid? If I do, they sure do seem too chicken to come here and say it. Not even really saying it there, sort of just implying it, just an assertion. Anyone can do that.

Tarantino has sex with sheep! See. Easy peasy. Do I need to prove it? Well, depends. Does it sound like something he'd be into? Is he acting like someone who suspects I have the pictures? What other reason could there be? You know it makes sense, my flying monkeys.

I see you Timmy. Running your pie hole, with your usual lack of fact based reality. You know you're gonna get a beating, right? I'll fuck you up like Tarantino on a frisky little lamb in Springtime.

I gotta warn these people all the goddamned time? Really? They can't just remember what happens each and every time they try to mug me off?

Stupid. Ass. Motherfuckers.











What happened to this guy, eh.....

"COME AT ME 'BRO"

......he promised all kinds of frisky action. What a dissappointment. Timmy, I know you try, but come on, do you really think you're an acceptable substitute?