Fram

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats Oh my!
User avatar
singora
Sucks
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:48 am

Re: Fram

Post by singora » Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:41 am

ericbarbour wrote:Fram is BAD NEWS. Period.

He's a sick little loser who's been granted volunteer moderator status on a shit website.

Would the CEO of a reputable company sign up as volunteer moderator on Wikipedia?

Would a company owner (and employer) sign up?

Would a man worth calling a man sign up?

In all cases the answer is "NO".

Only the crap signs up.

This is why you end up with dogshit like FRAM and those other hopeless inadequates, NeilN and Floq.

EDIT. Note to the above. In very many cases the trash that moderates Wikipedia is exactly the sort of trash that should NEVER be allowed to moderate websites. Some of it is the most useless, incompetent garbage that God ever put breath into.

User avatar
AndrewForson
Sucks Critic
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 7:56 am

Re: Fram

Post by AndrewForson » Fri Aug 31, 2018 3:15 pm

Fram blocks GorillaWarfare for rampant incivility just as if she were an ordinary user, not a boss. Hilarity ensues.

You have to admit, the MMORPG occasionally throws up some entertaining spectacles.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Fram

Post by CrowsNest » Fri Aug 31, 2018 6:33 pm

Fram is long overdue an ArbCom case, and that is a perfect example why. How many times does he have to so publicly and spectacularly screw up? And it is always simply on basic matters of lacking good judgement. Not that people haven't tried.

The only reason that won't happpen, is everybody else violated policy too, Gorilla Warfare, Fuzheado and Drmies. So publicising that fact would violate the golden rule of Wikipedia. Don't let anyone know how bad we all are. We, the supposed experienced editors. It was embarrassing all round.

If this is GW's way of fighting misogyny on Wikipedia, it's kind of sad. She was better positioned to act as an actual Arbitrator (I just wish she would admit she only stood down having realised it was pointless). If she requests an Arbitration case, come what may for her, then we could at least be sure she was acting on principle. I suspect she will not.

User avatar
AndrewForson
Sucks Critic
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 7:56 am

Re: Fram

Post by AndrewForson » Fri Aug 31, 2018 7:19 pm

I think GW going to Arbcom to complain that she had been treated as if she were a mere person might be a little too obvious.

User avatar
Dysklyver
Sucks Critic
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:14 am
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Fram

Post by Dysklyver » Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:06 pm

Fram is evil, he/she/it (maybe a martian?) once tried to have me topic banned from AfD for no good reason, and is currently systemically banning all content writers on mostly invented grounds of copyvios.

Really a shame, Fram should probably be deported to a prison asteroid or cast adrift in space, certainly removal from this planet is a must.
De facto globally banned on all Wikimedia sites. Editor of The Wiki Cabal. find me on the Wiki Treehouse Discord.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Fram

Post by CrowsNest » Sat Sep 01, 2018 1:38 am

Fram is only doing what his peers have let him get away with for years. If they think he's doing wrong, if they think his approach damages the community and the encyclopedia, if they think he is to be held to a higher standard, they have a funny way of showing it.

What connects the likes of John, Guy Chapman, Drmies, Bishonen & Fram? They all know the weakness of the system. They all know that on Wikipedia, you're under no real obligation to follow the rules, and condemnation, even the harshest criticism, means fuck all to people who are so arrogant they genuinely believe there's nothing they can do which would not be in Wikipedia's best interest.

All that scares these peoole, is the prospect of another power user spending the time to sort through their records and lay out a watertight case that they are indeed a complete joke, that they make a mockery of the whole idea Administrators are supposed to be what it says on the tin. They know that simply doesn't happen.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Fram

Post by CrowsNest » Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:05 am

Are Fram's days numbered? From the Giant Snowman Arbitration Case Proposed Decision.......
While raising some legitimate concerns, Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has also:

1. unnecessarily personalised this dispute with other users; eg with GiantSnowman, with Drmies, and with UninvitedCompany

2. assumed bad intent on the part of other users; eg with GiantSnowman

3. transferred concerns about one user to another, running the risk of demonising the former; eg about GiantSnowman with Mattythewhite.

Support:
Proposed. Many types of personality make up our community, and one user may be more forthright than another. This is no bad thing. However, Fram appears to have gotten carried away with holding GiantSnowman to account:

i. Fram appeared to adopt a "them and us" attitude about other users. I am unsure how Fram truly regarded the users whose view of GiantSnowman's conduct differed from theirs. However, edits such as these give the impression that if you were not on Fram's side then your view was worthless and your credibility questionable ("apart from Drmies, whose judgment or impartiality I seriously doubt."; "If your attitude prevails, it won't be long until we are here again, with more newbies scared off and more time wasted.")

ii. Whatever our findings about GiantSnowman's judgment, nobody contends that they acted out of anything but a genuine desire to improve Wikipedia. This comment by Fram indicates an assumption that GiantSnowman treats Wikipedia like a personal fiefdom. Such comments involve regarding other users in a manner that is incompatible with a collegial environment.

iii. At first, Fram appeared to me like a neutral party with serious concerns about another administrator's conduct. The impression of neutrality became difficult to endorse when Fram turned their attention to other users editing the same topic area as GiantSnowman. There was no basis for lumping those two users together and the passing reference to GiantSnowman was not appropriate.

The community does not condone this manner of interacting, and the hostility underpinning it seemed without excuse or explanation. As far as I can see, Fram simply found an ANI thread and proceeded to take absolutely no prisoners with GiantSnowman or any user who got in the way. This was an unhelpful distraction for a community that, at the best of times, can struggle to hold effective and focussed discussions about administrator conduct. AGK ■ 20:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
For those not used to Wikipedia officialdom, that is pretty harsh criticism, rarely seen when it is not simply a black and white issue of obvious rule breaking. The level of detail offered will be because these are issues of nuance and subjectivity, not black and white misconduct.

Fram is unlikely to escape here without suffering serious harm, perhaps even the ultimate sanction for an Administrator, the humiliation of being busted down to ordinary editor, since to my knowledge it would be quite easy to demonstrate Fram has been warned previously for being way too aggressive and bad faith in how he pursues his targets. While he usually dials it down a bit, it isn't usually long before he's back to his former self.

It rarely happens, and it is sad to see Fram could be the victim, but we may yet witness here a rare example of the WP:BOOMERANG actually affecting an Administrator. This is good for HTD, since for all his faults, Fram was at least effective in doing what most Administrators are too afraid to do, which is, ironically, holding each other to account, showing no fear or favour.

Basically, with Fram not doing what he does at AN/I, and Sandstein not doing what he does at AE, then those Administrators who are basically just gang leaders, with their clear favourites and their open contempt for basic policy, will have free reign. Or rather, even more than they already do. Queen Bishonen, for example. For good reason, plenty of the really worst performing Administrators, the real scum, people like Black Kite, have longed for the day when Fram could be taken out. As is typical, they were always too afraid to do it themselves, being all mouth and no trousers, precisely because they feared the BOOMERANG.

If he does get defrocked, it is open for debate whether he would stick around and take up the mantle of citizen-cop. My feeling is he would at least give it a go, before ultimately losing interest since citizen cops are easily ignored by the real Wikipedia cops, especially those with such a massive black mark on their record. For all his whining, you don't see similarly defrocked The Rambling Man actually reporting anyone, do you? He may just retreat into a niche, something like copyright, where he can cultivate a relationship with a go to Administrator to swing the axe when necessary. He definitively needs the thrill of the chase, but not necessarily the need to be the one pulling the trigger.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Fram

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:21 pm

Lolwut?
Under Office action policy, Fram has been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation from editing the English Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Please address any questions to ca@wikimedia.org.
17:41, 10 June 2019 WMFOffice talk contribs blocked Fram talk contribs with an expiration time of 1 year (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page)
I mean the logical place to start would be to examine all the disputes Fram has been in during the last few months, assuming the WMF reacted with its traditional speed on whatever the complaint was. Right, now, ideas for whittling those 100 odd disputes down to the one that may have caused this?

I wonder, would this have been a Global Ban before Abd filed his lawsuit? Have they already changed their procedure? Nothing wrong with giving no reason if the reason is probably confidential (usually would be for an Office ban), and a year long ban implies he has not been cut off and can appeal, we just won't see it.

The really shifty thing would be if he has been treated leniently because of his past dedicated service. Even shittier would be if they have not thrown the book at him precisely because he is such a vocal critic of the WMF.

Come on Wikipediocracy, having dishonored yourselves so much to gain the trust and respect of the shit-eaters in the cult, this would be the time all that ass kissing pays off. Activate Agent Anroth and give us the 4-1-1. Or just send Tarantino on a bin raid. Whatever works best. You do you.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Fram

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:52 pm

The most obvious issue that comes to mind with Fram is his naked aggression and general over-zelousness when it comes to how he Administrates. But it would be weird for the WMF to deal with that silently, especially as ArbCom so recently declined to issue any formal condemnation (Giant Snowman case).

Then again, the end result of this is a period in wikijail and a humiliating removal from office.....
17:41, 10 June 2019 WMFOffice talk contribs changed group membership for Fram@enwiki from administrator to (none)
....so maybe they have communicated there intent quite well. :twisted:

So, if it stands, does the community grant him the tools back when he has completed his sentence? Depends on what he did........and if the WMF didn't tell anyone now, they might not confirm or deny Fram's version of events down the line. Dangerous game to be playing, since in that scenario I'd vote to re-sysop on GENERAL MOTHERFUCKING PRINCIPLE. If I were a participant in this circus of course, not a studier of the ways and means of the lab rats.

What say you, trapped rats? Oooh, we have the first squeaks......
Request for ArbCom to comment publicly on Fram's ban
Not sure where to put this; it isn't a case request. I don't think, anyway. I'd appreciate a clerk moving it to where it should go if it doesn't go here, or telling me where to move it to.

I do not need to know why Fram was banned; possibly privacy-related info that is none of my business. But I do think ArbCom needs to find out what is going on, and publicly state whether or not they agree with Fram's recent 1 year WMF office action ban from en.wiki (and en.wiki only), talk page access removal, and desysop. If you guys say this is OK, I'll defer to that (tho I suspect others might not). But I'm having a hard time imagining a situation where a 1 year local ban should be an office action, rather than something that ArbCom deals with. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
What the hell? There had better be a damn good explanation; Fram is arguably the best admin in Wikipedia's history, and while I can imagine problems so bad they warrant an emergency WP:OFFICE ban without discussion, I find it hard to imagine problems that are simultaneously so bad they warrant an emergency ban without discussion but simultaneously so unproblematic that the ban will auto-expire in a year. ‑ Iridescent 18:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Fram

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:08 pm

It appears this may be the precise nature of the sanction, the power to impose it being adopted in February having apparently gone unnoticed....

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? ... d=18840083

Partial Foundation ban
A partial Foundation ban is a Foundation complementary tool to a community site or topic ban. Accordingly, partial Foundation bans serve to exclude an individual from a single or a defined set of Foundation-supported projects, activities or platforms, either indefinitely or for a defined period of time, without excluding them from the entire Wikimedia ecosystem.

Partial Foundation bans may be implemented in cases of:

Repeated misconduct within a single Foundation-supported project, with considerable impact either on that project overall or on individual contributors who are active in that project.

Additional circumstances that may be considered for partial Foundation bans include:

-Lack of abusive conduct by the affected individual in any other Wikimedia Foundation supported projects.
-Record of positive contributions and overall good standing in other Wikimedia Foundation supported projects.

Partial Foundation bans help safeguard constructive contributions to and growth of smaller, technical, and/or emerging communities, where individual editors with problematic history on mature wikis sometimes become pillars without causing any issues.

Similar to the other bans listed above, partial bans are placed against an individual rather than against a specific account name or IP address by which that individual may be known.

They are final and non-negotiable.

In the event of a finite partial ban, the affected individual may resume activity, in line with local project policies and the Terms of Use, upon the ban’s expiration. Should the affected individual fail to demonstrate course correction upon their return, further office actions may be considered.
That's some serious shit.

Time for ArbCom to either explain why they dropped the ball on this so recently when given the chance to investigate Fram's conduct in the round and come to these same conclusions given the same inputs (local policy and the ToU), or resign en masse in protest at this obvious land grab.

Post Reply