Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fram 2

[Carrite]

Fram tapped out at 6:43 am PDT, a couple hours into the second day of the seven-day process.

Final score: 108 — 122 — 14 (47%)

RfB

[Guido den Broeder]

Drmies: this breaks down into two issues.
The first is the unban of a twice banned editor by ArbCom in 2017. The unban was done in private, not announced to the community through normal channels, and the arbs did not even provide a statement about who supported, opposed, or abstained in this discussion (when asked, some arbs declared their personal vote). When it became more broadly known that the editor had been unbanned, a third ban swiftly followed, based not only on the history (including socking after the second ban), but also on the edits since the unban. When I discussed this situation during the ArbCom elections in the questions section for arbs seeking reelection, I not only described the actions of this editor, but also applied a comprehensive label to it, which had to be oversighted. (Drmies claims that I "made a ton of edits that had to be oversighted", but in reality only two I think, not really a ton). It boils down to an editor who has declared themselves the prince of a micronation (not recognised by anyone of course), who edited upon their return two topics: articles about his micronation or competing ones, and articles about young girl models who got " criticism regarding the sexualization of children in advertising. " (to quote one of the involved articles) or got noted as " an example of sexualisation of an under-age model." (to quote another of the articles). They also worked together with one of these models in a movie where they were an "executive producer", and wrote sexualized fiction about the same girl on the website of their micronation. All of this should have been sufficient to set of major alarm bells. But I should have left it at that and not written down the logical conclusion of all this. (…) Fram (talk) 07:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Fram: I'm trying to piece together what the context for Drmies' first oversighted diff was given what you said here, and I guess I have a rather pointed question. During or soon after another editor's successful unblock appeal, did you call the unblocked editor a pedophile resulting in the diff being suppressed as potentially libelous information? Wug·a·po·des​ 09:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
No, it was after they were rebanned again, not when they were unbanned. I will not repeat the label I used, but basically, yes, that was the context: I described the edit pattern of a banned editor, and applied a label to that pattern, and I shouldn't have applied the label (I just want to point out that it was a label describing a, let's call it a mindset; I at no point ascribed criminal actions to the editor). Fram (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Still totally obsessed with me, continuously lying and defaming, even revealing oversighted commentary, as he goes on and on. Fram has learned absolutely nothing from his ban and desysop. Surely by now it should be clear to everyone that he is a mental case who should not be allowed anywhere near the internet.

They used an inflammatory label invoking the legal-adjacent policy Wikipedia:Child protection. Bilorv (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. That is why T&S got involved, and rightly so. Fram and his buddy Only in death put a child at risk, and he is doing it again today.

[JuiceBeetle]

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=10758&start=200#p251858

Xeno calling it a day. On the back of the Fram RFA failure??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard#Desysop_request_(Xeno)

[JuiceBeetle]

Carrite wrote a voluminous summary on WPO, worth reposting:
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=10758&start=200#p251861

If you think of Arbcom as "the discipline committee of an unincorporated voluntary association"† with specific purview over administrative behavior, and not the Wikipedia Supreme Court,‡ this process is easier to understand. Fram at Arbcom wasn't a court case, it was a discipline hearing — except there was no hearing, it was Star Chamber bullshit based on the redacted secret evidence of secret complainants.

The correct solution was that Arbcom should have taken this complaint, looked it over to assure there was nothing serious in the way of off-wiki harassment that was part of it, then quickly set aside WMF's allegedly "unappealable" sanctions and started a proper case against him for his on-wiki conduct.

But they had to think fast, figure that out, come to unanimous agreement among themselves, and act fast at a moment during which Wikipedia's walls were shaking and little chips from the ceiling were flying. They made a big, big mistake of trying to do this as a secret case because they thought was the best way out — it would keep WMF happy and make sure that the authority to make a final decision stayed with them (i.e. that they would win the big battle, the fight over WMF's new SuperControl™ power over user behavior).

Once the case went to them — fully, not to review, but to decide — that meant that WMF had surrendered. Game over.

Now it was a simple discipline case on a defective basis. Many people did not participate who otherwise would have. But they looked into Fram's edit history and his track record and they knew about Fram beforehand. Everyone knew about Fram beforehand. He's an asshole, but he's an asshole that produces. They felt the pressure to do something, because failing to do anything meant that WMF would be back with its SuperControl™ powers the next time any most favored gameplayers demanded it.

They decided to pull Fram's toolbox (same rationale as The Ramblin' Man case, for failure to meet behavioral norms expected of an administrator) and to punt the football to the community. Was that fair? No, because the procedure was broken. But at that point it became a simple RFA, subject to regular RFA procedures. And that was an impossible hill to climb — NOT because of Laura Hale (she played no part, nor did their interaction). It's just: Fram is a dick and he's not going to get through an RFA until he proves he has stopped being a dick.

People can change. [wpuser]Sarek Of Vulcan[/wpuser] is a great example. He was a dick. He turned it around. [wpuser]TenPoundHammer[/wpuser] was a complete jerk. He changed.

But Fram? He's not even at the level of being self-aware. Maybe that self-awareness starts here.

As for Arbcom and their processes — I sure hope they've learned something from this mess...

RfB
†- © Copyright Kelly Martin, Wikipediocracy, Feb. 1, 2015
‡- Mainstream media horseshit

[JuiceBeetle]

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=10758&p=251896#p251886

I suspect arbcom should have accepted a Fram case and desysopped for cause years ago. We got there in the end.

Of course the WMF made a dogs breakfast of the whole thing; don't think me a fan of them. Of course the process was a mess. It doesn't follow, to me, that we should make an arsehole an administrator because he was desysopped in a bad process. If this was Fram's first RfA and FRAMGATE had never happened, the proportions would be more like 75-25 than the current 50-50, on the basis that most of the opposes are on the basis that an arsehole shouldn't be an admin, while half the supports are there to spite the WMF and would probably oppose if FRAMGATE wasn't in the picture. Why should I support someone I don't think should be an admin because someone else who I don't think should be adminning did something stupid to them?

[CrowsNest]

I missed it?

Apologies for not having participated fully in this thread.

Basically my home internet service was down for 36 hours, and dealing with Kumioko's bullshit took up all the time that was available to me on manoeuvres.

Now that it is over, the motivation for catching up on it all and offering an analysis has all but disappeared.

I haven't even read the shite that just have been sprayed all over Wikipediocracy, which they must be hugely relieved about, because I can already see from the reports that it was cringeworthy as fuck.

I hope the people responsible think it was worth it, WASTING MY VALUABLE FUCKING TIME ON BULLSHIT. Hey, I have an idea that might help you with a cost-benefit analysis, why not have a look at what Kumioko offered to this thread, and have a think about what I could have done in the same time he probably spent puking it up......

Some people just don't have a goddamned clue. I'm not fucking playing here. This matters to me.

[JuiceBeetle]

I missed it?

Yeah, we missed you

I haven't even read the shite that just have been sprayed all over Wikipediocracy, which they must be hugely relieved about, because I can already see from the reports that it was cringeworthy as fuck.

It is. See the juiciest bits in "Paddo Vigilant" said... topic. For entertainment. Not much else there worth mentioning, besides Tim's comment, maybe a few recent comments.

[CrowsNest]

Why the fuck is his withdrawal statement suppressed?

[JuiceBeetle]

Good catch, Crow!

It seems Wugapodes' comment is the start of the suppression https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Fram_2&offset=2019092709&action=history

"did you call the unblocked editor a pedophile" (archive)
was replaced by
"did you <redacted>"

Well, that was effin important to revdel, and screw up the whole history. Congratulations, pretentious, "non-bureaucratic" admins Primefac (OS-buro).

[CrowsNest]

The gutshot.....

The WMF were wrong to temporarily ban Fram, but Arbcom were also wrong to decline Fram-related cases before that. The wrongs together were the perfect storm to cause a near-endless series of tiresome temper tantrums from much of our community, with almost no introspection on the fundamental issues that lead us to this situation: we are failing to deal with systematically aggressive behaviour by experienced editors. This is partly why we bleed so many newbies and why so many long-term editors storm off forever. Alas, we have failed to take this opportunity to reflect on our community, with many editors in this RfA doubling down on their toxic temperaments