Crap eagle wrote:To me, defining a standard of conduct is essential. I believe that if an administrator (or senior editor) detects a problem, it is appropriate to fully investigate the problem, educate the problematic user as to the nature of the problem, and then work out a corrective plan. That should not be deemed "harassment", but rather holistic training and compliance. For example, toxic user nominates an article for "good article" and the reviewer detects some close paraphrasing concerns. It would be appropriate for them to work together to clear up the concerns. However, the toxic user withdraws the "good article" nomination, and then quickly renominates it so that the user's landlord can be the reviewer, and the landlord immediately passes the article as a GA. Following through on the close paraphrasing issue would not be harassment in this context. The toxic user then nominates a series of articles for DYK that are problematic and do not meet the DYK criteria, although the individual reviewers do not take a sufficiently careful look so as to detect the problem. An admin who works in the DYK area sees the pattern should work to stop the replication of the problems without being deemed "harassment."
If all of this were "on-wiki", the accused and the toxic user would have to sort it all out in light of the user's track record of attacking anyone who corrects the user. However, if the toxic user can make "off-wiki" complaints to T&S alleging "harassment", there is no guarantee that the proper standard of conduct will be applied.
This is all-the-more true if the toxic user happens to be the wife of the WMF Board chair. So, I would expect the ArbCom to investigate how the Fram-toxic user interaction started: did they both work on DYK? How quickly did the toxic user acknowledge her deficiencies? Did the toxic user enter into an agreement to solve the problem and improve the editing (e.g., to have her wife review her translations of Spanish sources)? Objectively, did this solve the problem? Did the toxic user then "drop the stick" or go to T&S (dates are very relevant here)? Did the toxic user complain alone or organize off-wiki with others to launch further complaints against Fram?
If the toxic user filed an Arbcom case against Fram, all of these questions would be raised, and I don't understand how the current format will allow them to be publicly aired.
Jezus christ, Eagle. Are you the last troll how is left from the crap brigade who is still trying to push the Maria Sefidari, Laura Hale conspiracy although it is crystal clear to anyone it was just a set up of Fram, Jan Eissfeldt and Eurocrap S.A. to bring Maria Sefidari and Laura Hale in discredit?
A extreem stupide plan of course of the family Asperger and CO. Because, do you really believe after the stoned swinging monkey act of Vigilant and mendaliv there is still one person left who believe you or Trolling&Sucking?
Come on man with your "Hale Gate". Just hopping around on the drama boards and bullshiting the place is not any evidence other than you guys are just a bunch of trolls who desperate needs to be banned.
They should SanFanBan Fram complet and Trolling& Sucking and Socking and the Eurocrape brigade and allies too. And you of course also.
There are new camera recording images, I'll handel them to arbcom.
