m {{hab}} |
François Robere (talk | contribs) Post-post |
||
Line 310: | Line 310: | ||
::::{{replyto|François Robere}} it doesn't matter whether the information is available elsewhere online, or whether you think you've seen everything or not (chances are you haven't), there is simply no reason or excuse to out or harass anyone. Our policies are clear, if you engage in these behaviours you will be blocked and/or banned. Whether you are otherwise a good, bad or indifferent content editor is irrelevant. I recommend you start listening to what you are being told here - defending and/or justifying outing and harassment (which you are a hairs breadth away from doing) will not end well. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC) |
::::{{replyto|François Robere}} it doesn't matter whether the information is available elsewhere online, or whether you think you've seen everything or not (chances are you haven't), there is simply no reason or excuse to out or harass anyone. Our policies are clear, if you engage in these behaviours you will be blocked and/or banned. Whether you are otherwise a good, bad or indifferent content editor is irrelevant. I recommend you start listening to what you are being told here - defending and/or justifying outing and harassment (which you are a hairs breadth away from doing) will not end well. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::: So for example, does that ↑ constitute harassment? I feel threatened. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 15:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC) |
::::: So for example, does that ↑ constitute harassment? I feel threatened. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 15:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::: <small>(After unclogging a drainpipe)</small> You got nothin' on me. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 15:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{ec}} I keep saying people should not confuse [[WP:FRINGE]] with [[WP:HOAX]]. Hoaxes happen when somebody intentionally adds information they know are not true to Wikipedia. Fringe concepts like [[Flat Earth]] are added because a small minority believes they are truth. Icewhiz identified a fringe theory that was unduly promoted in a number of articles and removed it. Good job, but it sadly is not 'a longest-standing hoax on Wikipedia'. It is just an error, and errors like that are dime a dozen. In the last few weeks I've removed similar errors from several other articles on Polish WWII history, for example the claim that the war started with the [[bombing of Wielun]], another fringe theory that also was present in a number of articles both on Polish and English Wikipedias. If we asked on MILHIST about similar incidents we could probably write a book about hundreds of similar fringe theories people have been and are still removing. The only good moral here is that we still have only 1-2% of GA/FA content, and all the rest, with tons of unsourced stuff, or sourced to low quality sources, may contain similar 'surprises'. Finding such errors is good, going to Twitter, doxing one's wiki-opponents and their families and so on is not, and defending people who resort to such issues is not a great way to improve one's wiki reputation. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 14:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC) |
::::{{ec}} I keep saying people should not confuse [[WP:FRINGE]] with [[WP:HOAX]]. Hoaxes happen when somebody intentionally adds information they know are not true to Wikipedia. Fringe concepts like [[Flat Earth]] are added because a small minority believes they are truth. Icewhiz identified a fringe theory that was unduly promoted in a number of articles and removed it. Good job, but it sadly is not 'a longest-standing hoax on Wikipedia'. It is just an error, and errors like that are dime a dozen. In the last few weeks I've removed similar errors from several other articles on Polish WWII history, for example the claim that the war started with the [[bombing of Wielun]], another fringe theory that also was present in a number of articles both on Polish and English Wikipedias. If we asked on MILHIST about similar incidents we could probably write a book about hundreds of similar fringe theories people have been and are still removing. The only good moral here is that we still have only 1-2% of GA/FA content, and all the rest, with tons of unsourced stuff, or sourced to low quality sources, may contain similar 'surprises'. Finding such errors is good, going to Twitter, doxing one's wiki-opponents and their families and so on is not, and defending people who resort to such issues is not a great way to improve one's wiki reputation. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 14:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::::{{u|Piotrus}}, Well, when the error arises out of myth, it would seem functionally indistinct from hoax. Either there was a gas chamber killing ~400 a day for years and years or not -- if someone believes there is a gas chamber that did not exist, they believe a hoax, and may act on a hoax. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 15:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC) |
::::::{{u|Piotrus}}, Well, when the error arises out of myth, it would seem functionally indistinct from hoax. Either there was a gas chamber killing ~400 a day for years and years or not -- if someone believes there is a gas chamber that did not exist, they believe a hoax, and may act on a hoax. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 15:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:56, 4 October 2019
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.
- Now, the community shall restore his administratorship. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- I highly doubt so, see Floq's RfA being a prime example of how divisive any involvement with WP:FRAM can be, and now that Fram has been desysop-ed by the committee, the chances for the community to not trust the judgement of their elected body are slim, especially after so many of us demanded the oversight of the case to be handed down to the committee, at the very least. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks to Arbcom for dealing with this very difficult case. I doubt that there's much fun to be had being an arbitrator at any time, but I think this case was particularly harrowing, and for you to work through the issues with such diligence was far more than we can expect of volunteers. I particularly want to thank Gorilla Warfare, Worm That Turned, SilkTork, Joe Roe and Mkdw for their engagement with the community during the process.-gadfium 19:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm glad the WMF and the Arbitration Committee has come to a peaceful solution in the end. This incident is finally over. Hopefully things will improve from here on. INeedSupport :V 19:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure they have, I'm not sure it is and I'm not sure they will. :( Leaky caldron (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Our best hope is for everyone to remain calm and judge the RFA on it’s merits. I prefer to look at this case as glass half full. Fram was unbanned and now the community gets to decide. Jehochman Talk 20:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- You think some of the less informed in the community will look past a WMF ban and Arbcom desysop without a strong statement from Arb that it was wrong? Seems naive. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think that when a plurality of more informed members support and explain why, the others will see the logic. This desysop isn't damaging in my opinion because the only verifiable reason given was that Fram once said "Fuck ArbCom". I think a lot of people have felt that way at one time or another. It all depends upon how Fram comes across in the questions and his interaction with other editors. If he does a good job, I think he can pass. Jehochman Talk 21:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- You think some of the less informed in the community will look past a WMF ban and Arbcom desysop without a strong statement from Arb that it was wrong? Seems naive. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- On one hand I guess this is what we asked for, but FFS this is a stupid precedence to be set. That you can be desysopped but not provided the evidence as to why and expected to improve is asinine to me. Here's hoping that the RFA isn't the shitfest waste of time that some people expect it to be. Valeince (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Very shameful. This is a new low for Arbcom. I will not thank the arbitrators for their “hard work” on this case, except those voting against the desysop. This was lazy at best, as some of the arbs didn’t bother to look at any of the evidence until after the PD was posted. These Arbs are going to be remembered, and not in a good way. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think you are being too harsh. This case started very much on the wrong foot and despite that they got it at least half right and the desysop only passed by a narrow margin. They're humans and are allowed to make mistakes. It's now in the community's hands and we have the chance to fix it if we want to. All will be best served if we come together and try to create a less toxic atmosphere (despite the serious bumbling that brought about this case and created a very toxic situation). Jehochman Talk 21:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks from me for handling this complex and difficult case, as well as for the Committee's decisive intervention during the WP:FRAM mess which led to a breakthrough. I imagine that it caused considerable stress for all the Committee members, and I'm grateful once again that people volunteer for this role. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm trying very hard to do as Jehochman says. And I do want to thank the (remaining) Arbs for working through what was clearly an incredibly difficult set of conditions. I mean that. But I am nonetheless unhappy with the final product. (And the workshop contained some spot-on suggestions from Newyorkbrad, so nobody can say that the Committee really needed to write the final decision in the way that they did.) But look at the findings of fact in the final decision. In FoF 6, you say: "
In addition, the evidence reveals instances in which Fram has made mistakes as an administrator, including the overturned blocks of Martinevans and GorillaWarfare, but does not constitute misuse of administrative tools.
" And then you desysop nonetheless. OK, giving the benefit of the doubt, I recognize that there are multiple FoFs about Fram's conduct, based on different subsets of the evidence, and what I just quoted was from the one about community evidence. Maybe the tools weren't misused, but the demeanor of how Fram interacted with other users was the basis of the desysop. FoFs 7 and 8 maybe provide some documentation of that. But FoF 12, which is ultimately the rationale for the desysop, is very vague about the exact reasons, just some sort of evidence that "accumulated
" and mostly "cannot be disclosed to either Fram or the community
". Now we know from FoF 9 that there "was no evidence of off-wiki misconduct in either the Office provided case materials, or the community provided evidence
", so we know that all of Fram's conduct that led to the desysop can be found in publicly accessible diffs. So that leaves us with 2 diffs in FoF 7, which hardly look like a sufficient justification, combined with some secret "accumulation" of complaints about how other editors felt.
- It's not really possible for the community at large to look at that and understand the reasons for the desysop. And that matters. There will apparently be an RfA, and editors discuss above how it might turn out. And as noted, there will be a lot of editors who are not familiar with all the details, but who will see that ArbCom desysoped for some reason, and who are likely to oppose based on that. I'm pessimistic about the ability of "more informed members" to provide guidance, because we don't really know the reasons either, and can only speculate″ and opine. This isn't about how the RfA turns out. It's about fairness. And the final decision is going to make fairness nearly impossible. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- There will be an RFA and that may resolve it. If not, a new ArbCom will be elected shortly and then Fram can appeal the decision based on the fact that this screwy decision poisoned the well at his RFA. There's a clear series of steps going forward, and will be helpful to all, including Fram, if we try to be optimistic (rather than negative, which can become toxic, and discourage participation at RFA). Jehochman Talk 23:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- I used to be optimistic that Hillary Clinton would beat Donald Trump. It's hard to predict the outcome. So I'm disinclined to be optimistic here, as much as I would like to be. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- This is kind of an interesting hypothetical... I'm not really sure what an appeal of a desysop vote (or a "decline to resysop" vote..) would really result in—
I don't think anyone has ever been resysopped via appeal to the Committee; usually that decision is explicitly left to the community at RfA. But then again, this is hardly comparable to any situation we've been in before. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)- GorillaWarfare, Coffee was resysoped by motion in 2009, but that was a decade ago. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- I stand corrected! GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Note though that the arbitration committee explicitly gave the option for Coffee to apply to the committee to have administrative privileges restored. isaacl (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- GW, if Fram is voted down because of things people find in the record, so be it. If he fails to pass because of opposes that say, in effect, “per ArbCom”, I think he’d have grounds to appeal. This was a weird case because 70 pages of evidence could not be shared. ArbCom suggested that RFA could make an independent determination. In the alternative, I suppose bureaucrats could choose to discount any such “per ArbCom” votes (because ArbCom never disclosed the evidence, and the proceeding was utterly irregular and outside policy). Jehochman Talk 02:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- That seems to imply that the bureaucrats don't trust Arbcom, and consider it appropriate to encourage other editors to do the same. I note in particular finding of fact 12 where ArbCom concluded unanimously that "Fram's conduct was not consistent with WP:ADMINCOND" on the basis of the public and private evidence available to them. In my view, it would be entirely legitimate for editors to vote against returning the admin tools on that basis, and I intend to do so if an RfA eventuates in the near term. Other editors are, of course, very welcome to take other views, but I don't think that we should encourage ArbCom findings to be dismissed. The situation with the WMF's evidence is unsatisfactory for a bunch of reasons, but I trust the Committee to have evaluated it sensibly and they state it wasn't the only basis for their decision here. Nick-D (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- So in this hypothetical scenario: the ArbCom case ends with Fram needing to go to RfA to get adminship again, Fram decides to go through RfA, they do not pass, and then after having gone through the RfA they appeal the decision in which the ArbCom decided they must go through RfA to regain adminship? And ArbCom decides to reverse the decision that Fram must go to RfA to regain adminship after they've already done so, thus overriding the community decision at RfA, based on the fact that too many people referred to the ArbCom's concerns about Fram's behavior in private evidence? I guess I can't really see the logic in this, but I also suppose this can all just wait until if that hypothetical becomes reality. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- My view is that a future iteration of ArbCom would be well within their rights to review what took place here and overturn any and all aspects of this, depending on what the review uncovers. This would apply regardless of whether an RfA is run or not. Some people will (like Nick-D) trust ArbCom to have made the right decision. I am not so sure about that (having been an arbitrator, I know a committee can collectively reach the wrong decision). Whether there would need to be a public explanation of why the decision was overturned (if it was) is another matter! A complicating factor would be the presence between years of arbitrators that participated in the case (unless those whose terms are expiring stand again, there will be four that carry over to next year: you (GW), AGK, Joe Roe, and Mkdw). Carcharoth (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- I see a problem with a future appeal to ArbCom. Some of the Arbs said in this case that they would reject any case request that would ask to relitigate this case. That was in the context of Fram being accused by someone else of having done the same kinds of behavior as before, after a successful RfA, and it was intended to reaffirm that the community's decision in the RfA would be respected by ArbCom. But if ArbCom is going to respect an RfA that is successful, can they comfortably override the community if the RfA is unsuccessful? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Carcharoth:
...(having been an arbitrator, I know a committee can collectively reach the wrong decision).
It is worth noting too, they can also collectively reach the right decision. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC) - @Carcharoth: You presumably also know, as a former arbitrator, that any decision would have been the 'wrong' one to somebody. I have no patience for those going around lauding arbs they agreed with on particular points and threatening those they didn't. We reached this decision collectively, as a committee. – Joe (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Joe Roe, who, till date, has lauded some arbitrators and threatened others? This venue is not the best choice for you to engage in overblown rhetoric. ∯WBGconverse 10:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- [1] isaacl (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Isaacl, what’s the threat? That people are going to remember which of these arbs made a bad call? I hope people do. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- I won't have made that post but there's nothing threatening in it. Unless and until the arbitrators feel entitled to be thanked for their deliberations or be remembered in a good way, both of which are quite concerning.∯WBGconverse 17:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- [1] isaacl (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Joe Roe I fully understand that all of the committee votes to close, even those who did vote against the desysopping. I fully agree that you are collectively accountable for that decision. --Dirk Beetstra T<C 14:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate? Are you saying that if somebody on the committee was really against the desysop, he/she could have refused to vote to close? How would that have worked? Not trying to start an argument here, I'm genuinely curious.—Chowbok ☠ 00:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Chowbok: Well, there were at some point 3 oppose to close !votes. That would have made it impossible to get a net 4 closes. That simply means that there is no consensus to close. How would that have worked? I don't know. Possible a longer drawn out dramah? They could also just have refused to support the close, in which case that would have been a voice of protest, but we would have gotten to a close at least. To me, a support to close is an endorsement of the result of the case. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Beetstra and Chowbok: In my experience the arbitrators' voting to close a case is just an administrative step meaning that all the drafting and voting is finished so it's time to wrap the case up. I voted to close plenty of cases in which I disagreed with all or part of the decision, but once I've made my arguments and the other arbitrators disagreed, it was time to move on. Voting to close is definitely not an endorsement of the decision, and I'm sure that no one would want to move to a system in which, if the vote on a decision was 6-to-3, the minority would permanently oppose closing and the decision would never take effect. (To invoke the inevitable if flawed U.S. Supreme Court comparison, the Justices dissenting from a 5-4 decision don't refuse to show up for work to prevent the decision from being released, which in theory they could do since a statutory quorum for the Supreme Court is six.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Chowbok and Newyorkbrad: I know, it would be unprecedented. I agree with the sentiment that most Arbs would see it as 'I have nothing more to add, lets wrap up the case'. But if an arb would have more to add, if the arb would feel strong that there is something 'not right', they would hence not vote that way. If there were arbs that were feeling strongly that something was just 'not right' (in line with some of the feelings of the community ...) they could just keep the case open. Those that seemingly disagreed with this outcome here did apparently not feel that way, 'endorsing' the outcome even if they disagreed.
- I do feel that disappointment in Arb here now, in my opinion ArbCom should be the final stop to disruption where the community cannot stop the disruption, here ArbCom seems to have thrown a disrupted state at the community without clear indication: 'now you figure it out what you want to do'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- I disagreed with the outcome, but I noted in my close vote that I had made my points and the other arbs had decided to still support the desysop. The other two oppose votes had already switched to support (they were holdovers to stop the case from being prematurely closed when it was first suggested). Though I may disagree with my colleagues, I acknowledge that as a Committee we will not always be unanimous, and that sometimes my opinions are not shared. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Beetstra and Chowbok: In my experience the arbitrators' voting to close a case is just an administrative step meaning that all the drafting and voting is finished so it's time to wrap the case up. I voted to close plenty of cases in which I disagreed with all or part of the decision, but once I've made my arguments and the other arbitrators disagreed, it was time to move on. Voting to close is definitely not an endorsement of the decision, and I'm sure that no one would want to move to a system in which, if the vote on a decision was 6-to-3, the minority would permanently oppose closing and the decision would never take effect. (To invoke the inevitable if flawed U.S. Supreme Court comparison, the Justices dissenting from a 5-4 decision don't refuse to show up for work to prevent the decision from being released, which in theory they could do since a statutory quorum for the Supreme Court is six.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Chowbok: Well, there were at some point 3 oppose to close !votes. That would have made it impossible to get a net 4 closes. That simply means that there is no consensus to close. How would that have worked? I don't know. Possible a longer drawn out dramah? They could also just have refused to support the close, in which case that would have been a voice of protest, but we would have gotten to a close at least. To me, a support to close is an endorsement of the result of the case. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate? Are you saying that if somebody on the committee was really against the desysop, he/she could have refused to vote to close? How would that have worked? Not trying to start an argument here, I'm genuinely curious.—Chowbok ☠ 00:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Joe Roe, who, till date, has lauded some arbitrators and threatened others? This venue is not the best choice for you to engage in overblown rhetoric. ∯WBGconverse 10:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- My view is that a future iteration of ArbCom would be well within their rights to review what took place here and overturn any and all aspects of this, depending on what the review uncovers. This would apply regardless of whether an RfA is run or not. Some people will (like Nick-D) trust ArbCom to have made the right decision. I am not so sure about that (having been an arbitrator, I know a committee can collectively reach the wrong decision). Whether there would need to be a public explanation of why the decision was overturned (if it was) is another matter! A complicating factor would be the presence between years of arbitrators that participated in the case (unless those whose terms are expiring stand again, there will be four that carry over to next year: you (GW), AGK, Joe Roe, and Mkdw). Carcharoth (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare, Coffee was resysoped by motion in 2009, but that was a decade ago. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- There will be an RFA and that may resolve it. If not, a new ArbCom will be elected shortly and then Fram can appeal the decision based on the fact that this screwy decision poisoned the well at his RFA. There's a clear series of steps going forward, and will be helpful to all, including Fram, if we try to be optimistic (rather than negative, which can become toxic, and discourage participation at RFA). Jehochman Talk 23:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks from me too, per NickD. This can't have been easy, and it's unfortunate that the politics with T&S meant it had to be handled in this bizarre way, with the anonymous evidence, but that was our of ArbCom's hands. I hope that will not be repeated and that we quickly move to an understanding on how ArbCom and T&S talk to each other. Although the WMF handled it badly, the saga also brought out the worst in a lot of others too. I obviously haven't seen the evidence the committee saw, but I trust that they used their skill and judgement in concluding the way they did. I would recommend against any RFA for at least six months, to allow the dust to settle and also for Fram to give us an exemplary record on which to judge him as we move onwards. — Amakuru (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- And from me, though I associate myself with the comments of Tryptofish, with whom I have many times disagreed over the years, but never found lacking in clue. Reliance on secret evidence that somehow is actually public does nothing to restore confidence in ArbCom. It is difficult to see how they will have sufficient community standing to lead in a RFC on how such evidence should be used, as we are led to believe will happen.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- I wish I could ask those who engineered the start of this massive waste of time, given the subsequent mess, resignations, and nearly complete reversal of decision, if it was worth it. This is my most earnest wish. 50.35.82.234 (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks from me. A very tough ask, and plenty of detractors. Given the imperfect nature of this whole business (largely caused by T&S not staying in their lane) I think the outcome is acceptable. I look forward to Fram submitting a RfA for re-sysop. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- I just wanted to say thanks to every single Arbcom member who dealt with this mess and tried to resolve it the best they could - WMF created one huge mess and essentially left it for Arbcom to deal with/fix so I do thank them for their hard work in trying to resolve and fix this,
- I will just add for the record I'm not at all happy with the desysop but I've said all of what I wanted to say on the PD page - IMHO all of WMFs actions should've been reversed, That's all I'll say on that. –Davey2010Talk 08:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- While I understand concerns that some people will vote oppose because ArbCom did not resysop Fram, I also understand concerns that some people will vote support because they disagree with the Foundation banning anyone on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if these two groups will balance each other out, so what we are left with is an RfA based purely on Fram, but I hope so. It's also worth saying that Fram preferred the option of going to a RfA than having to make a pledge to ArbCom to abide by Admincond. SilkTork (talk) 09:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- I hope bureaucrats will discount both types of irrational votes: protest votes (“to hell with WMF”) and blind followers (“all hail ArbCom”). The votes that matter most are those based on the merits, where the voter ties their opinion to their own analysis of the facts. Jehochman Talk 10:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- He'd probably be better off getting his bits back by being elected to ArbCom. More likely a successful result.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- That would be...awkward. Jehochman Talk 11:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- The facts are clear that as an administrator Fram has caused a lot more heat than light (the last thing we want from our administrators, and his immediate attempt to apply for admin will again apply further heat and disruption) and suggestions from experienced contributors than he should run for arbcom just shows how broken the neutrality of the community is and explains exactly why the foundation felt it was time to step in and assist. Arbcom has supported the removal of his advanced permissions and it it time for Fram to take a back seat and reduce disruption of the project. Govindaharihari (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- @SilkTork: my reading of what transpired between you and Fram on Fram's meta talk page is different to yours. People can read for themselves the very long back-and-forth that took place at meta:User talk:Fram#Looking for a solution, or they can skip to the final section at meta:User talk:Fram#Areas of concern where I believe you made your 'pledge' offer. Fram's reply to that is here. If you look carefully at what Fram is saying, it is clear that he has become frustrated with the whole process, the mis-steps being taken at the proposed decision page, and the fact that Fram was not really being allowed to take part in the case (Fram was only later unblocked to take part right at the end of the case). Now, you and Fram did (sort of) reconcile at the very end of that section, but Fram's frustration was understandable there. What is not acceptable is the way you (SilkTork), the one in a position of power here, remember, reacted and have since been portraying Fram's reaction ("he refused to engage and didn't want to make a pledge"). That is misleading in so many ways. My reading of it is that Fram got frustrated with the discussion, then calmed down later. And that Fram is perfectly willing to make a pledge of that nature, but to the community, not to a body (ArbCom) that while they had done well to take control back (of sorts) from T&S, were still not handling the case very well. And the comment that you (SilkTork) made that Fram "preferred the option of going to a RfA" is simply wrong. If you had been following what Fram said, you can see that he clearly stated here that "I would prefer the crats to deal with it. An RfA would be a second choice only, but then as soon as possible.". Maybe you could correct what you have said above, SilkTork? Carcharoth (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
This is neither the time nor the place to relitigate Fram's behavior. If they open an RfA I'm sure your comments will be welcomed there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Is the T&S dossier included in the ArbCom-L archives now? If not, will it be made available to the 2020 committee if they are required to revisit this case? –xenotalk 13:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, the document is in our archives and therefore will be available to any future arbitrators added to the mailing list. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- At the very least, if an RFA is opened for Fram, I hope we will be informed of it. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- As someone who has been asking the simple, fundamental question, over and over again, as to whether or not there was "harassment", I find the relevant FoF to be pathetic. "Hounding", per your own invocation of enwiki policy, is the practice of following users around in order to cause "irritation, annoyance, or distress", causing "disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no constructive reason". This is a simple concept. Following somebody around just to troll them, or give them a hard time, or to disrupt the project, is harassment, of course, otherwise known as "hounding". Very simple. Yet, in spite of this clear-cut definition, the committee's "finding of fact" was that Fram engaged in "borderline harassment", because he was "excessively highlighting their failures". Strange. If Fram was following users for no reason, then that's harassment. Apparently that's not what the evidence showed, because you could not say that he engaged in harassment, which many people have accusing him of solely based on the existence of the ban for harassment. If Fram was following users because they were problematic, and the issue was that he was "excessively highlighting their failures", then that's not "hounding", that's, presumably, working in the best interest of the project but being too uncivil about it. Sure, you could call that 'borderline harassment' in an informal sense, and I'm sure a user with connections would complain to their friends in the office that they're being harassed, but it really isn't harassment as defined by our standards, at all, is it? And look at the atrocious "harassment" section on the evidence page. Fram harassed Ymblanter? Based on that out of context quote in which Fram is actually paraphrasing an inappropriate comment made by Ymblanter. Fram harassed Gatoclass? Based on those diffs, Fram objected to Gatoclass making an inappropriate threat, then objected to Gatoclass personally attacking him, then mistakenly criticized Gatoclass of changing an article to match a DYK hook, and struck his comment once his mistake was pointed out. Then of course we have the harassment of Laura Hale, based on his...appropriately filing complaints about legitimate problems in the appropriate forum? Sigh. You guys have nothing. You're just covering for the WMF. That's what this looks like. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Now is probably the wrong time, but at some future point it would be entirely appropriate to ask ArbCom for clarification on these points. They are reasonable people and would I am sure be quite willing to clarify those aspects of the case if well-argued points were put forward to show that clarification is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- I understand why there is confusion, and will happily offer my point of view. Harassment is a difficult term as it covers everything from hounding on-wiki to turning up unexpectedly at someone's house. The former may be regarded as harassment, while the latter would likely be a breach of the law. Fram was never anywhere near the latter. However, he did follow individuals around on wiki, causing "irritation, annoyance, or distress" and "disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally" - You'll note I left off the "for no constructive reason".
In my view, there was always a constructive reason - I do not believe Fram acted in malice. However, what the committee focussed on was "excessively highlighting their failures" - that's where we pushed into the harassment territory - and why I supported the "borderline harassment" term. Civility was a factor, but so were the highlighting of minutae, the excessive focus on little details, the regular issues raised. This happened to multiple different users. I won't go into the community evidence, as I have said enough on that on the workshop - but there is more to the case than just what we were provided with by the community. We were hamstrung by the WMF, but I do not believe we were covering for them. WormTT(talk) 10:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)- Is it possible that the committee (whose members differ on the interpretation of things such as WP:ADMINCOND and the degree to which Fram's behaviour improved after the conduct warning) disagree on the extent to which this is 'harassment'? More importantly, are committee members going beyond their remit in interpreting Wikipedia policies? The community (that wrote the policies and guidelines) might not agree with how you (ArbCom) are interpreting the policies. Does excessively highlighting someone's failures count as harassment under policies as they stood at the time (and even now)? It is nearly impossible to discuss these things in a meaningful way without examples. Where is the line drawn between excessive and not excessive? Who draws that line? And how is Fram supposed to know in future what is excessive and what is not excessive? Carcharoth (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- I wouldn't like to talk to my colleagues opinions, but reading their comments on the materials provided by T&S in the proposed decision does answer a lot of your questions. I do believe that excessively highlighting failure counts as harassment, by the very definition of "excessively". But you are right, it is near impossible to discuss this in any meaningful way without examples, and I cannot give them. I've made my feeling clear how that should have affected the decision but the case is done. I'm happy to discuss further at my talk page, but I don't think prolonging discussion here is particularly helpful. WormTT(talk) 10:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Carcharoth: These are great questions and I believe we touched on them in the decision. FoF 4 attempted to find the definition of harassment in enwiki and policy and didn't find one. Instead, we found some related but not exactly equivalent terms. But "harassment" is mentioned (but not defined) in the ToU and this was the grounds given for Fram's ban. Presumably, T&S have another yet another definition, but we don't know what that is. All this made it difficult to answer the question of whether Fram "harassed" anyone and therefore whether T&S' grounds for the ban was valid. If you read the PD there was a range of views on this point and I think that is a major reason that ban was unanimously overturned.
- If we're going to show the WMF that we can deal with their concerns about 'community health' and ToU-enforcement locally, we as a project need to put some serious effort into developing a working definition and policy around harassment.
- However, it's important to point out that we didn't desysop Fram for harassment. We did so because they failed to meet local enwiki policy (specifically WP:ADMINCOND). – Joe (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Herein lies a core issue I have with this whole thing. Put yourself in my shoes as a largely uninvolved person trying to decide if I should vote in Fram's upcoming RFA. If what you say is true and has not substantially improved since the conduct warning, I would like to know about it to make an informed vote. Right now my sense of fairness obliges me to give Fram the benefit of any doubt, as he has been mistreated so badly and there isn't convincing evidence to the contrary, but I'd like to actually know what I'm about to vote for. Magisch talk to me 10:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- My preference was for a "no-fault" RfA - I know it's almost impossible, but try to look at Fram's admin rights as if he were choosing to run a reconfirmation RfA - allowing the community to show what reasons they have for and against him being an admin. None of this cloak and dagger nonsense. WormTT(talk) 10:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Is it possible that the committee (whose members differ on the interpretation of things such as WP:ADMINCOND and the degree to which Fram's behaviour improved after the conduct warning) disagree on the extent to which this is 'harassment'? More importantly, are committee members going beyond their remit in interpreting Wikipedia policies? The community (that wrote the policies and guidelines) might not agree with how you (ArbCom) are interpreting the policies. Does excessively highlighting someone's failures count as harassment under policies as they stood at the time (and even now)? It is nearly impossible to discuss these things in a meaningful way without examples. Where is the line drawn between excessive and not excessive? Who draws that line? And how is Fram supposed to know in future what is excessive and what is not excessive? Carcharoth (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, I would like to thank the Arbitration Committee for all its hard work on this case. We know both the case and situation were unusual, and we appreciate Arbcom's dedication and approaching this with thought and nuance. We also appreciate Arbcom recognizing that it is permitted to hear and adjudicate private cases when such a case type is necessary.
- The Wikimedia Foundation looks forward to the coming RFC on the topic of "how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future". We also invite community members to participate in the upcoming community consultation on the topic of partial and temporary office actions, which will be launching next Monday on Meta. Best regards --Jan (WMF) (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Jan (WMF): Will Fram be receiving an apology? WJBscribe (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'd be more interested in a RfC on the topic of how the WMF handles blatant conflicts of interest.—Chowbok ☠ 19:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Mildly, the WMF's actions in this case have been a net negative for everyone including Fram, the complainants, the community and Arbcom. Rather than offering thanks after the fact, perhaps the WMF might spend a little more time reflecting on What could have been done differently. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps I missed it, but not only have I not seen any sort of apology - but I haven't seen any indication that either T&S or the WMF intend to do anything differently. If they have, please link me up. — Ched (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- 🦗 🦗 🦗 *crickets* Jehochman Talk 12:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- ^^^ This. They were quick enough to block someone outside of process, going out of scope, stomping on the community, where is the remorse? The vow to do better? The statement that recognizes how incredibly poorly they acted? The acknowledgement of the negative effect on Wikipedia? The half hearted non-apology apology, even? KillerChihuahua 13:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- I have an institutional memory covering more than 10 years, and I can not recollect WMF screwing up and later apologizing for screwing up. Not a single time coming to my memory. They could reverse the decision without apologizing, or the person who made the decision can change the job, and then the decision could die by itself, but I do not remember any apologies beyond the small talk.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- There are lots of situations around here where an apology would help but none is on offer. So that's not unusual in a Wikipedia context not just with the foundation. That said while my respect for several WMF staffers went up during this incident - for instance I went from being neutral to positive about Katherine for the ways she rapidly did apologize and then attempt to fix her actions that made things worse at first - Jan was not one of those staffers. If he's not prepared to accept responsibility for his actions in creating and then making this situation worse, fair enough, but then the Foundation should send along a different messenger who would have credibility with the community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- I have an institutional memory covering more than 10 years, and I can not recollect WMF screwing up and later apologizing for screwing up. Not a single time coming to my memory. They could reverse the decision without apologizing, or the person who made the decision can change the job, and then the decision could die by itself, but I do not remember any apologies beyond the small talk.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps I missed it, but not only have I not seen any sort of apology - but I haven't seen any indication that either T&S or the WMF intend to do anything differently. If they have, please link me up. — Ched (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Mildly, the WMF's actions in this case have been a net negative for everyone including Fram, the complainants, the community and Arbcom. Rather than offering thanks after the fact, perhaps the WMF might spend a little more time reflecting on What could have been done differently. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'd be more willing to believe this was a one-off "oopsie we fucked up moment", Jan, if you didn't have a history of attempting to bypass local control of things (see also superprotect on de.wp) and if your behaviour during this whole situation wasn't so obstructive as to make a cover-up seem obvious, especially in light of the findings-of-fact in the ArbCom case. I earnestly believe you should resign your position in favour of someone who is willing to talk to the communities rather than at them. You have lost all credibility with, and all credulity from, en.wp. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Fram was railroaded! 19:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
So when is the RfC being organised and by whom? Carcharoth (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- It is being organized by the Arbitration Committee. We will hopefully start it fairly soon. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
His new RFA has been opened. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- And closed. So much for the predictions that the RfA would be a thoughtful discussion in which editors unfamiliar with the case would listen to editors who are. I appreciate that, in fact, there were plenty of good reasons given by those who opposed. And I guess that some people can probably rationalize what happened by saying that ArbCom did a good job of assessing community consensus, and that the community ratified ArbCom's remedy. But I think that what really happened was something else. ArbCom intended to give the ultimate decision to the community, to evaluate Fram's qualifications and make a community-wide decision. What happened instead is that large numbers of editors opposed by saying that if ArbCom had found reason to require a new RfA, then there must have been a sufficiently serious problem to justify opposition. Final score: T&S 1, Fairness 0. But there actually is one genuinely good aspect to the outcome. The rational for T&S usurping enforcement of civility has become a lot weaker. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- No offense but you are sounding like a conspiracy theorist ... here're two alternative explanations: 1) People genuinely believe Fram is temperamentally unsuited to be an admin. Note this reason was given by many of the oppose votes. 2) People believed Arbcom, who were after all elected by community consensus. In the same way if scientists say climate change is happening, one does not have to become a climate scientist to say "OK, I believe them". Also as long as we're in the business of questioning the motives of the voters, here're a few theories: 1) Only the people who spend too much time on the drama boards believe Fram should be given the mop. That's why the RfA started with a majority support, such that when Drmies posted his reason to oppose he said "The RfA is likely to pass", before inclining towards "oppose". 2) The same people who gave Fram the false impression that the community approves of his actions are now attempting to rationalize why his RfA could fail. Surely the community must've been misled, because no rational person will oppose his RfA. Final score: misinformation 1, rationality 0.
If you found any of this offensive, that's the same thing I feel when reading your comment. Banedon (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)- I said: "I appreciate that, in fact, there were plenty of good reasons given by those who opposed." I meant that. The reason that I posted what I did, is that it goes to how ArbCom carries out certain procedures, in this case the construction of a Proposed Decision. I've been saying through a lot of the case that it was necessary for ArbCom to make clear, via the Findings of Fact, what the exact reason was for the desysop. By convention, the Remedies are supposed to grow out of the Findings of Fact, which in turn are supposed to grow out of the Principles. It did not happen here. And that is directly relevant to the RfA, because the community (not to mention Fram) is entitled to know, explicitly, what the reason was for the desysop, so that the community can decide for ourselves what we think of that reason. A little higher in this discussion, I also said: "This isn't about how the RfA turns out. It's about fairness." My purpose is not to disparage other editors who participated in the RfA, nor even to disagree with them. And I certainly do not think them irrational. But I do think that they were badly served by how ArbCom wrote the decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- Fram has been told the reasons for his desysop - they're there in the "Evaluation of Community Evidence (2)" and "Evaluation of Office-provided case materials", as well as the less specific "Fram's conduct as an administrator". What he hasn't been given is diff based evidence supporting those reasons. Now, I understand your point of view that without that evidence it is unfair to desysop - indeed, I voted that way in the decision, but there will come a point that we have to accept this outcome. It does not establish precedent, it was done out of process due to the circumstances and I don't believe anyone wants us to do this again. WormTT(talk) 08:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- I said: "I appreciate that, in fact, there were plenty of good reasons given by those who opposed." I meant that. The reason that I posted what I did, is that it goes to how ArbCom carries out certain procedures, in this case the construction of a Proposed Decision. I've been saying through a lot of the case that it was necessary for ArbCom to make clear, via the Findings of Fact, what the exact reason was for the desysop. By convention, the Remedies are supposed to grow out of the Findings of Fact, which in turn are supposed to grow out of the Principles. It did not happen here. And that is directly relevant to the RfA, because the community (not to mention Fram) is entitled to know, explicitly, what the reason was for the desysop, so that the community can decide for ourselves what we think of that reason. A little higher in this discussion, I also said: "This isn't about how the RfA turns out. It's about fairness." My purpose is not to disparage other editors who participated in the RfA, nor even to disagree with them. And I certainly do not think them irrational. But I do think that they were badly served by how ArbCom wrote the decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, You say ArbCom intended to give the ultimate decision to the community, to evaluate Fram's qualifications and make a community-wide decision - but I don't believe that's the case. Only one arbitrator supported that option (me, on a no-fault basis). The majority of the committee decided to "take over the decision to remove Fram's administrator tools". I may not have agreed with that option, but it's what happened. The "regain by RfA" is standard to any desysop by the committee. WormTT(talk) 08:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- I appreciate that, and I'm really not trying to give anyone a hard time – and by this point, I think we all just want to move on, and I sure do. I think we can all agree that there is no precedent established by it, and that no one wants a situation like this one again. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Worm That Turned. Would you elaborate on "The majority of the committee decided to "take over the decision to remove Fram's administrator tools".". I do not want to think the beginning actions of the WMA or T&S was faulty. There was a complaint that needed attention. I do feel it went down-hill with the "we are the ultimate authority --and all have to abide or else" mentality, as well as the blatant arrogance of at least one member. I feel that deciding ArbCom could not be trusted was a mistake, and I feel ArbCom making any decision possibly based on the fact that "big brother" was looking on and attempting any "compromise" over fairness would be just stacking up mistakes. The man that started this whole community stated we were not to have secret trials but there was one so that was a big mistake. Now the statement above (take over the decision) gives me the impression that ArbCom "took over" a decision that was ultimately the responsibility of the community. Would you please clarify the wording? I do not want to be mistaken in thinking ArbCom (a majority anyway) might have done the same thing to the community that T&S did to ArbCom and the community. I would hope ArbCom would not entertain the thought of advancing one wrong-doing by redirecting it to yet another one nor, do I want Fram to be totally exonerated if there is fault. The dilemma is T&S said he is guilty, ArbCom (a majority) sort of kind of agrees, so he must be guilty but we (the community) has to just take it for granted because there is a complete gag order so it must remain secret. Because of the secrecy I am going to side with Fram and hope he is not guilty --and that is just not fair either. Anyway, my concern is the implications that ArbCom may have usurped authority they do not possess. Otr500 (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- What? What benefit could arise from pursuing this case now, after the walls of text already expended? The WMF T&S team were overruled—that's about all that can be expected since we don't do heads-on-pikes. There is no way WTT can "clarify" the very simple wording in the remedy. A formal remedy like that cannot be expanded on or otherwise clarified unless by motion of Arbcom. WTT might give personal opinions but that is not the point. Everyone has personal opinions and there has been plenty of time for them to be aired. It is well established that Arbcom is the body which can evaluate private evidence—that's why we elected them (among their other duties). Do you want access to that private evidence? Or perhaps you want the fact that Arbcom can evaluate private evidence overturned? Neither of those is going to happen. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Otr500: Hope you don't mind me answering, even though you pinged WTT. By "took over" we mean that we took on the decision to desysop as our own. The options we picked between were: restore Fram's sysop rights, leave Fram desysoped and take no action (thus leaving the WMF action in place), or "take over" the desysop (decide that we were going to desysop Fram as an ArbCom action). We chose the former. I personally opposed the second one because the desysop was a WMF housekeeping action accompanying the ban, and since we lifted the ban it would not have made sense to leave the desysop in place.
- Regarding your point
Anyway, my concern is the implications that ArbCom may have usurped authority they do not possess.
, the ArbCom does possess the authority to desysop an administrator (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope and responsibilities); in fact it is the only way on the English Wikipedia an administrator may be desysopped (outside of stewards removing tools in an emergency situation). GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- @ User:Johnuniq: The benefit is because there is supposedly no precedent set so we can hopefully not repeat bad history. I don't care about "walls of text". My comments were derived from a statement time and dated 08:35, 30 September 2019, that I did not understand. I don't want access to private information, I don't want T&S telling us that we cannot figure out how to govern ourselves as a community, and I want ArbCom to be aboveboard and as transparent as possible. The need to "evaluate private evidence" requires that some information remain "private" but not that secret trials should ever be entertained. Since this has already happened with a horrible outcome we need to make sure it doesn't happen again. One thing I have figured out, that would likely only be opposed by a tree, is that the community cannot be expected to have zero information because of secrecy (as in trials), total gag orders, and then be expected to make some decision that would either be erroneous or a rubber-stamp. If someone is going to be hung in private don't ask the community to support or justify it. Anyone that supports secret trials would be scary to me. I think that is why we are where we are now and there is distrust.
- Worm That Turned. Would you elaborate on "The majority of the committee decided to "take over the decision to remove Fram's administrator tools".". I do not want to think the beginning actions of the WMA or T&S was faulty. There was a complaint that needed attention. I do feel it went down-hill with the "we are the ultimate authority --and all have to abide or else" mentality, as well as the blatant arrogance of at least one member. I feel that deciding ArbCom could not be trusted was a mistake, and I feel ArbCom making any decision possibly based on the fact that "big brother" was looking on and attempting any "compromise" over fairness would be just stacking up mistakes. The man that started this whole community stated we were not to have secret trials but there was one so that was a big mistake. Now the statement above (take over the decision) gives me the impression that ArbCom "took over" a decision that was ultimately the responsibility of the community. Would you please clarify the wording? I do not want to be mistaken in thinking ArbCom (a majority anyway) might have done the same thing to the community that T&S did to ArbCom and the community. I would hope ArbCom would not entertain the thought of advancing one wrong-doing by redirecting it to yet another one nor, do I want Fram to be totally exonerated if there is fault. The dilemma is T&S said he is guilty, ArbCom (a majority) sort of kind of agrees, so he must be guilty but we (the community) has to just take it for granted because there is a complete gag order so it must remain secret. Because of the secrecy I am going to side with Fram and hope he is not guilty --and that is just not fair either. Anyway, my concern is the implications that ArbCom may have usurped authority they do not possess. Otr500 (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- I appreciate that, and I'm really not trying to give anyone a hard time – and by this point, I think we all just want to move on, and I sure do. I think we can all agree that there is no precedent established by it, and that no one wants a situation like this one again. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- No offense but you are sounding like a conspiracy theorist ... here're two alternative explanations: 1) People genuinely believe Fram is temperamentally unsuited to be an admin. Note this reason was given by many of the oppose votes. 2) People believed Arbcom, who were after all elected by community consensus. In the same way if scientists say climate change is happening, one does not have to become a climate scientist to say "OK, I believe them". Also as long as we're in the business of questioning the motives of the voters, here're a few theories: 1) Only the people who spend too much time on the drama boards believe Fram should be given the mop. That's why the RfA started with a majority support, such that when Drmies posted his reason to oppose he said "The RfA is likely to pass", before inclining towards "oppose". 2) The same people who gave Fram the false impression that the community approves of his actions are now attempting to rationalize why his RfA could fail. Surely the community must've been misled, because no rational person will oppose his RfA. Final score: misinformation 1, rationality 0.
- @ GorillaWarfare: Thanks for your reply. I understand about the decision. Right, wrong, or indifferent I am glad ArbCom took some action as leaving the WMF (or T&S) action in place was not a good option. Sometimes something that can seem so plain can be mistaken. The concern of usurping power was because I saw where Tryptofish made comments, "ArbCom intended to give the ultimate decision to the community, to evaluate Fram's qualifications and make a community-wide decision.", then the comments by WTT. Considering those statements I was finding it hard to believe ArbCom might consider their actions not accountable by the community, if that was the decision. As for as I have seen the "community", barring some legalities, still hold the rights to consensus on aspects concerning Wikipedia. That is why the comments also by WTT "My preference was for a "no-fault" RfA - I know it's almost impossible, but try to look at Fram's admin rights as if he were choosing to run a reconfirmation RfA - allowing the community to show what reasons they have for and against him being an admin. None of this cloak and dagger nonsense.", made sense but would have been sort of unfair to the community. The ban was overturned but the accused was still found guilty of something. Some may support this all the way until they are the ones being pursued.
- By-the-way, this is likely not over yet (I hope so) as the drama has not unfolded from what I read above, unless Fram decides to let it lie or maybe run for ArbCom. That was a preposterous suggestion but stranger things have happened. I am glad ArbCom took the case on. If I have something against any ArbCom member it would not be because of this case. The community demanded that WMF let "us" police ourselves so even if I were to disagree with the findings I supported the move to let ArbCom handle it. Otr500 (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- Otr500, I'm not sure why you think that the committee does not consider their actions accountable to the community - we are of course accountable there, most obviously at the annual elections. My comment above about a reconfirmation RfA was in a direct response to someone asking how they should vote. They had the choice of believing Arbcom's statements or not - or indeed completely putting that out of their mind and evaluating the candidate, which is what I was recommending. Otherwise, I agree with GW's assessment of the situation. Can I recommend looking at the meta RfC to raise some of these points? Arbcom will be also raising an RfC soon also. WormTT(talk) 07:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Otr500: Are you aware that there was a reconfirmation RfA which was closed early with 108 supports for reconfirmation, and 122 opposes? Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- All of you shall be collectively ashamed for not having the willingness (or competency) to even minimally engage the multitude of folks, including but not limited to administrators and functionaries, who had raised questions about multiple aspects of the PD over the t/p. ∯WBGconverse 19:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Quite many comments below, in light of which I am inquiring as to whether @Premeditated Chaos, AGK, Worm That Turned, Opabinia regalis, Joe Roe, and KrakatoaKatie: are aware of ARBCOND criterion 1 and 2. ∯WBGconverse 07:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to say I share WBG's disappointment that several arbitrators, despite being active elsewhere, declined to answer questions and pings on the talk page. If you're too busy, then you shouldn't have been closing the case. If the issue is one you consider trivial, then at least have the courtesy to say that. If you've already discussed it elsewhere, then have the courtesy to say that. I hope I'm proved wrong, but I'm fairly certain that the language you used has made some of our most contentious areas more prone to unscholarly historical revisionism. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- You know, I feel like the Committee used FRAM to their advantage; specifically, everyone was paying attention to the Fram case, so they slipped out this contentious decision without many noticing... | abequinnfourteen 23:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Agreeing with WBG - how embarrassing for all of you. Talk about "checked out". - DoubleCross (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- I concur that from my perspective, the ArbCom seems to have ignored most comments on the talk. Sure, it's one thing to consider it all a peanut gallery, but I wonder, what is the purpose of having a talk page open to non-parties or anyone if all we get is an occasional clerk clarification of a technicality, or the 'this is passed on and discussed on arbcom email list', with no follow up. Still, it is possible this will be sufficient to solve the issue, with all the other issues (sources/non-parties) resolving itself. Let's hope for that, since I think this is what the ArbCom did... and hey, if it doesn't work out, it will be the problem for the 2020/2021 Arbitrators, not the current ones, right? :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- The funny part is that the arbcom talk pages are sectioned so that editors can talk to arbitrators and not to each other. So much for that. – Levivich 13:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- I share the same concerns as everyone above, and WBG worded the issue at hand extremely well. It’s disconcerting that ArbCom didn’t address the concerns about the PD on the talk page and opted to ramrod through this case instead. What an embarrassment. OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- I share the concerns of my fellow editors, and have voiced them here. François Robere (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't participate in these case and usually don't edit the area but I agree with the opinion of other editors here --Shrike (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Notification that per this policy, I lodged an appeal - diff. Icewhiz (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Resignation of SilkTork
- Sorry to see this. Thanks for your service on ArbCom during a difficult period, SilkTork. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry to hear this, and thanks SilkTork for your excellent work on the committee.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for your service, SilkTork. As a bit of a side note, for 2020 only four current arbitrators (AGK, Mkdw, GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe) will remain on the committee. Assuming that the size of the Arbitration Committee increases to 15 arbitrators in 2020 (see this ongoing RfC), this leaves at most eleven vacant seats up for election in WP:ACE2019.
This feels like an unprecedented number.To provide some context, in WP:ACE2018 thirteen candidates stood for election, exactly eleven of which achieved at least 50% support. (Under current rules, only candidates with >50% support can be appointed.) If we ran the same election this year, that means all eleven of those candidates would be appointed. Mz7 (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)- It's not an unprecedented number. In 2010 we elected 12. In 2014, we elected 10. The average over the last 10 years is 8.6. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, you're right—I stand corrected. I guess it simply feels large compared to the most recent few elections. Mz7 (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- It's entirely possible that we'll have more vacancies than we have candidates. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, you're right—I stand corrected. I guess it simply feels large compared to the most recent few elections. Mz7 (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- It's not an unprecedented number. In 2010 we elected 12. In 2014, we elected 10. The average over the last 10 years is 8.6. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Damn, I wanted to vote for you in the upcoming AC election. Sorry to see you leave the Committee. Many thanks for all your work. El_C 15:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for your work on the Committee, SilkTork. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, SilkTork. All the best. Buffs (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- I've just said this in more detail at his talk page, but I too thank you very much for the work that you have done. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the hard work, especially in the atmosphere of criticism. Nice of you to put so much into this project. Seren_Dept 18:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Jiminy Crickets, they’re dropping like flies! EEng 11:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- And the flies are dropping like crickets. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the thanks, though I don't feel very positive about my participation on ArbCom this year. I think I could have done better, and I certainly wish I had. SilkTork (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- I know the feeling. You all have had a rough time this year - My term ended just in time. ): Snyway, let me join in the thanks for your service during an unusually difficult year. Doug Weller talk 19:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not certain as how to feel about this. In my 2012 Arbcom case, you opposed my 1-year banishment & supported suspending my 1-year ban. However when I messed up in 2013, you immediately supported my 1-year ban. Anyways, it's kinda interesting - with your resignation & NYB's pending retirement, every arbitrator in my (2012) Arbcom case, will no longer be on Arbcom. In a way, I've outlasted all of you, while proving some of you right & most of you wrong, that I was able to reform myself. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- It's not about you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- Bugger. This ArbCom business takes a huge toll. I think it would be good to increase the number of arbs and grab a subset for any specific case. We are burning through our best people at a ridiculous rate. Guy (help!) 23:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- In real life many cases are heard by a single arbitrator. Bigger cases may have a panel of three arbitrators. I've never seen more. We need to streamline our process. Jehochman Talk 01:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Couldn't agree more. We can have a roster of 15 arbs, but cases should be heard and decided by panels of 3, appealable to the full committee. – Levivich 14:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think the discussion about quorum is an important one and something I never thought we would need to consider. On the last case, there was a motion technically passing with only one vote which was for support. I voted against in the last few hours to ensure it would not pass by "absolute majority", but it raises the question as to whether something during an arbitration proceeding could pass with as little as a single person voting. Mkdw talk 14:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- The question is which ones of this year's cases do you think would not have been appealed? As a practical issue, in the real world, arbitrators are accredited and have a track record; if they fail to rule impartially then they will have difficulty getting hired in future. This helps ensure equitable decisions. isaacl (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- GS, Alex Shih, Enigma, possibly Rama, mostly because I think those admin would have accepted the outcome even if they didn't agree with it, though of course I could be wrong in each case, and I can't speak for them. But I don't think that's "the" question, I think there are other, possibly better questions, like... if it were a 3-arb panel: (1) ...would the cases have had more engagement between arbs and parties, and thus more buy-in from parties to the final decision, reducing the chances of appeal (and/or bitterness)? (2) ...which cases would have had a different, possibly better, result, if it were heard by only 3 arbs? (3) ...how much faster would the cases have been resolved? (4) ...how many more disputes could have been brought to and resolved by arbitration? Frankly I don't see why Arbcom couldn't just establish, as a "procedure" of Arbitration, a quorum of 3, and thereby give themselves the flexibility to try this out and hear some appropriate future case with a 3-arb panel. Just pilot it and see how it goes. I'd say pilot it with PIA–if there are 3 arbs who really want to sink their teeth into it, let them. The other arbs can focus on other things. Worst-case, someone can appeal to the full current Arbcom or next year's Arbcom. – Levivich 16:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Honestly, no, I don't think there would be more buy-in. The disputants have entrenched positions that led them to arbitration. I don't believe there would be better results, as I think they may vary depending on which arbitrators were on the panel, which means I don't think the cases would be resolved faster, as they would have led to appeals and the entire committee being involved anyway. And I don't think people are inhibited from filing a request by the arbitration committee workload.
- I personally don't have an issue with trying new things (I always say, try something, evaluate, adjust, and try again). I suspect though that the community at large would be reluctant to go along with small panels. isaacl (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- With a large enough ArbCom, they could just split off and alternatively declare themselves unavailable for cases - especially when there are simultaneous cases. We have been hearing that we need a "bigger" arbcom - but I'm not seeing it help with case workload if every single member is expected to participate in every single case. — xaosflux Talk 17:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- I've lost track of all the discussions that have been going on, but I think that someone (maybe SilkTork, as it happens) suggested somewhere that we abandon the two-year terms and tranches, and instead have those elected serve for an indeterminate amount of time, subject to activity minimums (sort of like CuOs). That way, Arbs could dip in and out of activity. I like that idea, because I think it would decrease the burnout we are seeing. And it would fit well with having a smaller quorum for each case. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, it could also mean ARBS hang around indefinitely, and are minimally active. I think the idea of lowering quorum has a lot of merit, but it need not be coupled to indefinite terms of office; We could, for instance, elect 9 arbitrators every year, but only require 9 to sit on a single case; this allows room for inactivity, but will avoid the problem we have with our other advanced permissions, which is that editors hang on to them even if they don't really use them any longer. I'm not casting aspersions here; it's a natural reaction; but for arbitrators, especially, it would be a problem. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- That's why I mentioned minimum activity requirements. Not really that different from what we do now with CU and OS. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- With respect, I think it's a bad idea. The only mechanism that people have for voicing dissent with how an arbitrator handles their duties is through the election process. Make it a lifetime appointment, and you erase that. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Not to mention, it will become the standard for arbitrator candidates to be asked "Are you willing to commit to a lifetime appointment?" which will greatly reduce the eligible candidate pool, as I can't think of anyone who would willingly take on such a Sisyphean task, even if it's assumed or expected that they'll drop in and out of activity.--WaltCip (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- With respect, I think it's a bad idea. The only mechanism that people have for voicing dissent with how an arbitrator handles their duties is through the election process. Make it a lifetime appointment, and you erase that. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- That's why I mentioned minimum activity requirements. Not really that different from what we do now with CU and OS. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, it could also mean ARBS hang around indefinitely, and are minimally active. I think the idea of lowering quorum has a lot of merit, but it need not be coupled to indefinite terms of office; We could, for instance, elect 9 arbitrators every year, but only require 9 to sit on a single case; this allows room for inactivity, but will avoid the problem we have with our other advanced permissions, which is that editors hang on to them even if they don't really use them any longer. I'm not casting aspersions here; it's a natural reaction; but for arbitrators, especially, it would be a problem. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- I've lost track of all the discussions that have been going on, but I think that someone (maybe SilkTork, as it happens) suggested somewhere that we abandon the two-year terms and tranches, and instead have those elected serve for an indeterminate amount of time, subject to activity minimums (sort of like CuOs). That way, Arbs could dip in and out of activity. I like that idea, because I think it would decrease the burnout we are seeing. And it would fit well with having a smaller quorum for each case. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- With a large enough ArbCom, they could just split off and alternatively declare themselves unavailable for cases - especially when there are simultaneous cases. We have been hearing that we need a "bigger" arbcom - but I'm not seeing it help with case workload if every single member is expected to participate in every single case. — xaosflux Talk 17:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- GS, Alex Shih, Enigma, possibly Rama, mostly because I think those admin would have accepted the outcome even if they didn't agree with it, though of course I could be wrong in each case, and I can't speak for them. But I don't think that's "the" question, I think there are other, possibly better questions, like... if it were a 3-arb panel: (1) ...would the cases have had more engagement between arbs and parties, and thus more buy-in from parties to the final decision, reducing the chances of appeal (and/or bitterness)? (2) ...which cases would have had a different, possibly better, result, if it were heard by only 3 arbs? (3) ...how much faster would the cases have been resolved? (4) ...how many more disputes could have been brought to and resolved by arbitration? Frankly I don't see why Arbcom couldn't just establish, as a "procedure" of Arbitration, a quorum of 3, and thereby give themselves the flexibility to try this out and hear some appropriate future case with a 3-arb panel. Just pilot it and see how it goes. I'd say pilot it with PIA–if there are 3 arbs who really want to sink their teeth into it, let them. The other arbs can focus on other things. Worst-case, someone can appeal to the full current Arbcom or next year's Arbcom. – Levivich 16:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Couldn't agree more. We can have a roster of 15 arbs, but cases should be heard and decided by panels of 3, appealable to the full committee. – Levivich 14:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- In real life many cases are heard by a single arbitrator. Bigger cases may have a panel of three arbitrators. I've never seen more. We need to streamline our process. Jehochman Talk 01:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Silk's post in this thread has stayed with me all day as it just makes me sad. It makes me sad that someone who has given as much as Silk has to the project leaves feeling so down about their own performance which I would say was always satisfactory and at times excellent. I hope with time he can move closer to my appraisal of his performance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- I feel embarassed to admit that many, many years ago I had a slight disagreement with SilkTork, over a minor content issue but I rapidly understood what a huge positive he is to Wikipedia. He has his own reasons for abandoning Arbcom, but it will be a net loss for the committee. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- I thank you for being a sensible, balanced and eloquent person. And I understand and respect your decision to resign. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think you should un-resign and have a go at helping to reform Arbcom and the rest of our dispute resolution system "from within", because you know better than a lot of us what we need to do to make sure other editors don't go through what you and the other Arbs have been going through this year. Judges have something called "semi-retired" status, just sayin'... – Levivich 16:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
CheckUser and Oversight appointments 2019
- While I appreciate efficiency, six days seems like a pretty slim window to get the word out and get the best qualified applicants. Hopefully there is something other than just this announcement here to draw attention to the process. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- It's on T:CENT now. While the self-nom period does seem a bit short, I do think that many of the people who would be interested in appointment were already aware of the process's existence. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- We wanted to shorten the process and give ourselves a little more internal discussion time. It was our experience last year that the candidates who returned applications were the ones who applied early in the window. We contact all those who received applications but haven't returned them by the 24-hour mark before the window closes, and we can grant a short extension if there are extenuating circumstances. Katietalk 19:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'd encourage any experienced administrator who is remotely considering applying to reach out to a functionary you know to ask about it if you have any concerns. Most of us are willing to tell you truthfully what the needs are and answer any concerns you have. I'd also warn anyone who has their real identity known that if you plan on being active with the CheckUser tool, this may put you more at a risk. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- I see the original announcement, I see this discussion, but I don't see any place I can make it known that I'd like to offer myself for consideration. Where do potential candidates go to introduce themselves? It was just by accident that I saw this discussion. I did not see any announcement pop up over my watchlist like what happens when there's an RFA. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Anachronist: see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2019 CUOS appointments. There's instructions under "Appointment process"; essentially, you nominate yourself via email to ARBCOM, and they send you some questions to answer, also by email. After some scrutiny from ARBCOM, your nomination may be published for public comment, after which ARBCOM makes decisions. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. After looking at what is needed, I am not sure I can manage the time commitment at this point in my life. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Anachronist: see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2019 CUOS appointments. There's instructions under "Appointment process"; essentially, you nominate yourself via email to ARBCOM, and they send you some questions to answer, also by email. After some scrutiny from ARBCOM, your nomination may be published for public comment, after which ARBCOM makes decisions. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- I see the original announcement, I see this discussion, but I don't see any place I can make it known that I'd like to offer myself for consideration. Where do potential candidates go to introduce themselves? It was just by accident that I saw this discussion. I did not see any announcement pop up over my watchlist like what happens when there's an RFA. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz banned
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ugh, that's awful. Multiple editors... Sigh... starship.paint (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- It could be that. Or he could've made the elementary mistake of criticising WP on WO... ——SerialNumber54129 14:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm assuming WP -> Wikipedia, but no clue what WO stands for. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipediocracy, but they can't possibly be banning editors here for what they say there. If so, there is a long list of editors to be banned, starting with those involved in doxxing editors. – Levivich 15:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm assuming WP -> Wikipedia, but no clue what WO stands for. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129: - don't plenty of other editors do that? starship.paint (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Eh... if this is what I think it is, then that is a worthy ban. starship.paint (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Diminishing returns. Mkdw talk 17:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Damn, that sucks. I considered Icewhiz A great editor and a friend. I thought he would be a good candidate for admin and I always appreciated his commentary. It stings to see that sig crossed out.... 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 15:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hopefully he can clean up and appeal this in the near future. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 15:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Money emoji: - unfortunately, I think there really is no coming back from this one. starship.paint (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Starship.paint, Actually, I think there can be, although it will take time. Take Soap for example; He was desyopped and banned for off site harassment (apparently related to IRC) and was later unbanned by arbcom. I think there is hope for him, if he apologizes and waits for a bit. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 15:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Money emoji: - thanks for sharing that. Unfortunately, since Icewhiz denied the allegations, there probably won't be an apology. starship.paint (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Starship.paint, Actually, I think there can be, although it will take time. Take Soap for example; He was desyopped and banned for off site harassment (apparently related to IRC) and was later unbanned by arbcom. I think there is hope for him, if he apologizes and waits for a bit. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 15:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Money emoji: - unfortunately, I think there really is no coming back from this one. starship.paint (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Colour me unsurprised. We should have topic banned and IBANned him at ANI ages ago, that might possibly have talked him down from the Reichstag. This was already a likely flame-out when the case closed. Not the platonic ideal of an arbitration case, but no real chance of any other outcome, and we really could have handled it ourselves, and maybe saved a contributor and some drama. Oh well. Guy (help!) 16:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- On a general level, how does the ArbCom determine that off-wiki stuff isn't joe jobbing? What is convincing enough? Of course appeals exist, but it would be pretty embarassing for the ArbCom to first accounce this and then repeal it. And how do you prove that you aren't some account on another website? Though I wouldn't be too surprised if Icewhiz did this. He seemeed pretty upset at how things were in the antisemitism/Poland topic area. But joe jobbing is a concern since someone already pretended to be one Polish editor on a neo-Nazi website to make false flag attacks on an AE admin. --Pudeo (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- The possibility of joe jobbing was something we discussed and ultimately concluded was unlikely. As Joe said above, the private nature of the evidence means we are unfortunately not able to discuss in further detail what the evidence was and how we arrived at our conclusion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Did the alleged "harassment" include
inappropriate or unwanted public or private communication, following, or any form of stalking
per WP:HARASS#Off-wiki harassment? - How does ArbCom relate anonymous accounts across domains not under WMF control?
- Has ArbCom consulted IT specialists as part of its investigation?
- Has ArbCom consulted T&S?
- Has any part of the evidence been given to Icewhiz?
- Seeing as ArbCom failed to address on-Wiki harassment for three months, then blocked an editor for alleged off-Wiki behavior just two days after he filed an appeal to Jimbo, can you see how this could be construed negatively? François Robere (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Seeing as ArbCom failed to address on-Wiki harassment for three months
Since I'm the only other party in this case, this claim appears to be directed at me. It is false, nothing like that happened, there's no FoFs to that effect, and making such an accusation constitutes a WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS. Please strike it. Volunteer Marek 19:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)- You aren't the only one against whom evidence was presented, and there were other FoFs like "incivility" and "hounding".[2][3]
- Also, commenting on Icewhiz is a violation of your I-ban. François Robere (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- I am solely commenting on YOUR false assertion above, regarding a case I was involved in. If you didn't mean me, then please be clear about that. And please specify what this "three months of harassment" was. Volunteer Marek 20:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- First of all, "the other party" inevitably refers to Icewhiz, so it is a violation. Second, if you don't know for sure who my comment is about, then calling it "false" in all caps is a PA. Third, you yourself made some severe accusations against Icewhiz, so for the off chance I'm actually referring to him here, you should've been more careful. Lastly, "name calling" and "hounding" (per the FoF's) are "harassment", at least in layman's terms. François Robere (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Here's some of what those FoFs were based on, VM: "...his fucked up POV of 'Poles are a bunch of anti semites'...displays some weird obsession with shitting on Poland", "...1) Fuck. You. ...a sleazy weasel...horribly and utterly sleazy, dishonest and scummy... this fucking asshole needs to be banned. Now.", "...you fucking sleazeball." There's also the Xx236 stuff, which is now at ANI. – Levivich 21:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- I am solely commenting on YOUR false assertion above, regarding a case I was involved in. If you didn't mean me, then please be clear about that. And please specify what this "three months of harassment" was. Volunteer Marek 20:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, behaviourally, no, no and hew as given the opportunity to comment, and finally yes, we are aware. Icewhiz's appeal to Jimbo was started very soon after we contacted him for comment about the issues. I don't believe that was a coincidence. Jimbo is welcome to review all evidence, I hope he does. WormTT(talk) 19:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Just to make sure - by "communication" we mean emails, phone calls etc. - messages directed at one or more persons with the intent of eliciting a response from them - not some general commentary on a public forum, eg. a social network. Is that correct?
- Have you consulted any behavioral experts? Has any independent authorship analysis taken place?
- -
- -
- Yes, but has any of the evidence been given to him, or was he asked to defend himself "blindfolded"?
- How soon after you contacted Icewhiz did he post his appeal? François Robere (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Communication (like what we are doing right now) is not restricted to "emails, phone calls, etc." Every social media platform and most other websites where discussions take place, such as Wikipedia, have a way to directly message someone as well as target a public comment at someone. I will give you an example, @François Robere: just as we know your public comment here are directed at the Arbitration Committee (a specific group of people). Nowhere on Wikipedia are we required to consult with "behavioral experts" when implementing and enacting local policy. We block vandals based upon behaviour. We block sock puppets based upon behaviour. And we block disruptive editors who harass other editors on or off-wiki based upon behaviour. Mkdw talk 21:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, but "harassment" suggests repeated personal communications, not general, public commentary - that would be PA, and even that's a stretch. Unless you can show that a comment was directed at particular person - as it is here - rather than just about them - as it is there - then that's not "harassment".
- As for expertise - blocking vandals or disruptive editors doesn't require special expertise; identifying one person's writing with another's does. And here we have several problems: First of all, even experts find it hard - and there are countless examples in literature, forensics, bible studies, history, and others - and you say you can do it with certainty in ten days and 140 characters? By all means, tell me how. Second, we have a concrete example of how poorly this method works right there in SPI: checkusers make mistakes. Last but not least, if you're engaging ArbCom in linguistic analysis, then you're diving head first into content, and that's beyond ArbCom's mandate. François Robere (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Off-wiki harassment falls within our jurisdiction. While I am sure the world of professional forensic analysis has varying degrees of sophistication, we do not adhere or require those same standards here on the English Wikipedia. Comparing behavioural evidence is a common practice on the English Wikipedia with respect to editors abusively using multiple accounts or reviewing evidence with respect to harassment. I am sure there are many advantages to a more comprehensive system that relies on professionals to handle harassment and conduct related issues affecting our community, but that same community has made it clear that local governance from within our volunteer community is an essential priority for the project. Wikipedia at its very core is volunteer built and we won't be departing from that culture anytime soon. Mkdw talk 23:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- When we block sock puppets and vandals based on behavior, that's done with an on-wiki, public behavioral analysis. Icewhiz has posted the emails at Commons [4]. Arbcom's first email to Icewhiz was 3 sentences long, included no diffs or links or any evidence whatsoever, just a question whether the two accounts were the same. Icewhiz replied with a denial. Arbcom's second email was informing him he'd been sitebanned: two sentences. Total communication from Arbcom to Icewhiz: 5 sentences. Two emails, less than 48 hours. Way to go, Arbcom, way to–once again–sanction someone without letting them confront the evidence against them, and then passing it off to the community as if it was some in-depth investigation wherein the accused's right to defend themselves were protected. You just up and decided, based on an anonymous report, to siteban someone. There is no way you could have ruled out a joe job. – Levivich 23:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- So basically what you're saying is we don't need RS, because it's a community-written encyclopedia? François Robere (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Off-wiki harassment falls within our jurisdiction. While I am sure the world of professional forensic analysis has varying degrees of sophistication, we do not adhere or require those same standards here on the English Wikipedia. Comparing behavioural evidence is a common practice on the English Wikipedia with respect to editors abusively using multiple accounts or reviewing evidence with respect to harassment. I am sure there are many advantages to a more comprehensive system that relies on professionals to handle harassment and conduct related issues affecting our community, but that same community has made it clear that local governance from within our volunteer community is an essential priority for the project. Wikipedia at its very core is volunteer built and we won't be departing from that culture anytime soon. Mkdw talk 23:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Communication (like what we are doing right now) is not restricted to "emails, phone calls, etc." Every social media platform and most other websites where discussions take place, such as Wikipedia, have a way to directly message someone as well as target a public comment at someone. I will give you an example, @François Robere: just as we know your public comment here are directed at the Arbitration Committee (a specific group of people). Nowhere on Wikipedia are we required to consult with "behavioral experts" when implementing and enacting local policy. We block vandals based upon behaviour. We block sock puppets based upon behaviour. And we block disruptive editors who harass other editors on or off-wiki based upon behaviour. Mkdw talk 21:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Did the alleged "harassment" include
- The possibility of joe jobbing was something we discussed and ultimately concluded was unlikely. As Joe said above, the private nature of the evidence means we are unfortunately not able to discuss in further detail what the evidence was and how we arrived at our conclusion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Having briefly reviewed the evidence here, and having consulted with ArbCom, I was advised by a member of ArbCom to post my thoughts, which are that I'm completely persuaded by the reasons for this indefinite block and I don't intend to intervene ... I stand ready whenever necessary to exercise my (theoretical?) reserve powers to call an election if I see a power-mad ArbCom going off the rails. We are very very far from that situation today.starship.paint (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Smallbones and Valereee: - thought you should know about this whole issue if you haven't. starship.paint (talk) 02:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Small text for Smallbones? Just kidding. I have been following from Jimbo's talk page and might even comment there, but just wondering: why ping me? Icewhiz had a "coauthored" submission for this month's Signpost, and it's on permanent hold right now. It looks like we made the right decision and I don't see any reason to change it now. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Smallbones: - I pinged you precisely because of that submission, I thought this situation would be very related to your decision to publish or not. starship.paint (talk) 03:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Small text for Smallbones? Just kidding. I have been following from Jimbo's talk page and might even comment there, but just wondering: why ping me? Icewhiz had a "coauthored" submission for this month's Signpost, and it's on permanent hold right now. It looks like we made the right decision and I don't see any reason to change it now. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hopefully it isn't out of order for me to say this, but I'm fairly confident that I was one of the targets of this harassment. Obviously, I can't and won't link to the material in question. I've no interest in celebrating or grave-dancing or anything of that sort, although I do understand why this decision was made... provided that Icewhiz was in fact responsible for the harassment in question. It's just really saddening to see how much this community has disintegrated over the course of the past six months. I don't know if ArbCom got this right, but I do know that they will receive intense criticism either way. Of course, ranting about ArbCom has been a long-standing pastime in which many, if not most, established editors have indulged at some point, but the general atmosphere of anger is far more intense than I remember it having been in the past. I hope that the clouds will lift soon. Lepricavark (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- As an addendum, I'd like to make it absolutely clear that I had no involvement in bringing this to ArbCom. I didn't give the harassment a second thought and I certainly don't feel as though I've been victimized. Of course, other individuals who were targeted might feel differently. Lepricavark (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- This exact outcome perfectly demonstrates why the committee must take extended precautions to protect the privacy of individual who report being the victims of harassment when sending any evidence to the other involved party. Lately (in at least three recent instances), whatever seems to be sent to the individual frequently ends up being posted publicly on-wiki, on another wiki, or on another website. No greater argument highlights the fact that the committee should presume that whatever is sent to another party will become public. We have also clearly seen that when the identity of the individual who made the report becomes public, they are frequently subject to further harassment and hounding (both on and off-wiki). It has been something an increasing number of editors have expressed a concern about when contacting us. Mkdw talk 03:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- The opportunity and likelihood for injustice is something we need to accept. Would we prefer to say that some editors who are being harassed should experience injustice or some editors who are being accused of harassment are going to experience injustice. There is no right answer but I personally applaud the committee for erring on the side of those being harassed. I do not think this committee will use that word except in cases where it is justified and so while I understand the unfairness of secret evidence I think this committee is making the right decision about how to balance these competing needs and desires. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Just so I understand it correctly - is Arbcom now policing Twitter, attempting to link Twitter accounts to Wikipedians, and then banning those Wikipedians? If so, I will be sure to report it the next time the WiR, WM DC, or other known Wikipedians using twitter accounts canvass, misrepresent the truth, or tweet something inappropriate. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- We are enforcing Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment when we receive credible private reports about it, as ArbCom has for many years. – Joe (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- And here is the other side of the coin: "chilling" of due criticism, frustration and further disintegration of the community. The numbers of editors, active editors and newly-registered editors of the English Wikipedia seem to have stabilized at around half of what they were at their peak,[5][6][7] and the number of admins is the lowest it's been since 2005.[8] Measures of diversity and inclusiveness across Wikipedia projects are low, with 71% of editors reporting being bullied or harassed on Wikipedia in the last year (with the leading reasons for harassment being ethnicity and gender - surprise surprise [9]),[10] and around a quarter of editors saying they don't enjoy their time contributing (that's an improvement - it used to be a third).[11] And our arbs are saying that instead of improving the organization - redefining policy, providing training (something I've suggested before [12][13]) and involving outside experts where the need arises - we should continue with the sort of "jungle law" that we've had thus far; and why? Because "we're a community, and that's how we do things", which is sort of like saying we don't need RS because we can write articles on our own. Okay... François Robere (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- If editors feel bullied or harassed on-wiki, or see evidence of this on another editor, it is up to them to take action to report it, particularly if it is away from highly visible pages; otherwise it will never be fixed. Nor should we pretend that a case like this is the only type of similar harassment going on outside WP, it was just a very visible one on a popular site critical of WP in general; for every visible case like this, there's probably dozens that are unnoticed or in less visible places (and with the additional issue of connecting a WP editor to an external profile). This is not ArbCom's problem to fix, it is educating users where to turn if they feel they have been harassed, including what private channels they can use if they don't want to make that a public matter. --Masem (t) 13:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
If editors feel bullied or harassed on-wiki... it is up to them to take action to report it
Oh, and you think we didn't? We went to ANI and AE a dozen times,[14] and they didn't do anything. I don't even know how many times I messaged individual admins asking them to react to PA and ASPERSIONS, and they did nothing. On my very talk page I asked a clerk to exercise his discretionary powers, after a rather bizarre block he forced on Icewhiz[15] and he ignored me.[16] Editors are not dumb - in a large percentage of cases the system simply isn't working.it was just a very visible one on a popular site critical of WP in general
It's not a "site" (there's no site-wide editorial policy), but "people"; and the fact that so many of them criticize Wikipedia in outside platforms - platforms that, unlike Wikipedia, don't have limitations on free speech - should stand out to you as a giant sign that something is broken in Wikipedia itself. François Robere (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)- I would like to be very clear that this ban was not placed because someone was critical of Wikipedia or Wikipedians—it was placed because of pretty serious harassment. Again, because of the private nature of this case, we cannot speak more to the who/where/what around this incident—speculating like this is unhelpful, and in this speculation you are beginning to make statements that sound like they are excusing the behavior. Criticism of Wikipedia and Wikipedians is acceptable; harassment is not; please do not conflate the two. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- If editors feel bullied or harassed on-wiki, or see evidence of this on another editor, it is up to them to take action to report it, particularly if it is away from highly visible pages; otherwise it will never be fixed. Nor should we pretend that a case like this is the only type of similar harassment going on outside WP, it was just a very visible one on a popular site critical of WP in general; for every visible case like this, there's probably dozens that are unnoticed or in less visible places (and with the additional issue of connecting a WP editor to an external profile). This is not ArbCom's problem to fix, it is educating users where to turn if they feel they have been harassed, including what private channels they can use if they don't want to make that a public matter. --Masem (t) 13:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Actually it was PA,[17] but what do I know? I just use the dictionary.
- As for the "twitter": whether I agree or disagree with what some random person on Twitter says - and I certainly disagree with some - has little bearing on whether they'll continue "twitting", so I made a point of not getting upset about it. What I am concerned with, and what I may be able to influence, is how officers of this community exercise their duties (there's room for improvement); what is it in Wikipedia that pushes so many editors to communicate and "vent" off-Wiki (a bunch of reasons, including - yes - the inability to criticize others on-Wiki [18]); and most importantly - what convinced two major historians that:
Everything that is related to negative treatment of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust is now being distorted and manipulated – with the goal of promoting a false narrative and sowing confusion on English Wikipedia.
— Jan Grabowski, Prof. of History at the University of Ottawa[1]Holocaust revisionism in Wikipedia deserves to be studied in its own right.
— Havi Dreifuss, Prof. of History at Tel Aviv University and head of Yad Vashem's Center for Research on the Holocaust in Poland[1]- Icewhiz was right, you see, and ArbCom had a chance to fix it. But instead:
[ArbCom's] decision... all but gives the Polish revisionists free rein on English Wikipedia.[1]
- Maybe instead of chasing anonymous twitters and T&S's tail ArbCom could start making a change here? François Robere (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- Again, what do you expect them to actually do? Tere's no magic "harassment" alarm that brings Arbcom running whenever someone makes a disparaging statement towards another editor. No one expects ArbCom to patrol every talk page looking for signs of bullying and harassment (I would assuming if an ArbCom member did happen to see one in the course of normal editing, they would take that up). Arbcom can do nothing to fix this, at least the expectations you seem to be asking them to do.
- And the reason that we have chosen to prevent editors from complaining about other editors as persons is to try to maintain a civil discourse in consensus discussions. Complaining about an editor's contributions or their behavior on wikipedia is appropriate and necessary to deal with those that are abusing WP. But there's the bright line that as soon as you direct criticism towards the person behind the keyboard and not what they do on WP, that's a problem as that leads to the road of incivility. Does that mean editors will go elsewhere to vent about other editors? 100% yes, which is why off-wiki harassment and personal attacks related to wiki editing are considered actionable here too. We expect editors to respect each other, on and off-wiki. Hence why Arbcom treats these types of alerts with the same severity as on-wiki attacks. --Masem (t) 13:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Not the place to be rehashing these arguments. Mkdw talk 20:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Icewhiz ban was long overdue,incredibly battleground behaviour,very thinly veiled xenophobia,attempts to ban sources just because they were Polish,constant conflicts with numerous Polish editors,manipulating sources, the current wikistalking is one of the worst I have seen, beyond despicable.It's a shame this decision wasn't made earlier-it would save us from a lot of damage on Wikipedia.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Mkdw: Re: this - you realize that we already raised the issues with Molobo's editing at ArbCom, and they didn't even comment.[23][24][25][26] What else would you like us to do? François Robere (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- You have limited options to re-present the same arguments from a case that has already gone before the committee and a decision has been made. There is no unlimited appeal process. You may consider WP:AFTERARB. Mkdw talk 20:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- If you have issues with my editing please resolve them through the normal dispute resoultion process.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Mkdw: Re: this - you realize that we already raised the issues with Molobo's editing at ArbCom, and they didn't even comment.[23][24][25][26] What else would you like us to do? François Robere (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- Looks as though User:Icewhiz may have a claim for mitigation. It appears he has busted a serious long-standing Wikipedia hoax (since 2004) related to false claims about the Holocaust in Warsaw, Poland. See an article in Haaretz dated today (4 October 2019).[2] I should declare an interest as Icewhix has been an ally of mine in the past.
- Philip Cross (talk) 10:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Philip Cross: I don't think anybody is disputing that Icewhiz did some good work, but that in no way excuses or mitigates harassing, outing, and threatening fellow editors off-wiki. – Joe (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion that was deteriorating quickly. Mkdw talk 15:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
References
|