Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-09-30/Special report

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Signpost
← Back to Contents
View Latest Issue


Special report

Post-Framgate wrap-up

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Bri

The Arbitration Committee case examining the conduct of English Wikipedia administrator Fram concluded, with the Committee vacating Fram's ban by the Wikimedia Foundation, and assuming responsibility for the removal of Fram's administrator privileges. The intent to open a Request for Comments discussion on "how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future" was also announced. Subsequently, Fram filed a request for administrator privileges. A day later, after more than 200 editors expressed opinions with over half against Fram's reinstatement as an administrator, Fram withdrew the request.

Background

Framgate, as it was called by many – more formally, "Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram" – was a wide community response to an abrupt WMF office action on June 10, 2019 that effectively banned English Wikipedia administrator Fram. In its wake, many administrators resigned and others questioned the role of WMF in English Wikipedia governance, especially without the involvement of the Arbitration Committee. It ended with a détente: WMF turned the decision about Fram's future as an editor and as an administrator back over to the English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. An Arbitration Committee case was opened on July 24 to answer these questions about Fram, and the committee began discussing how to handle similar situations in the future.

Arbcom decision

On September 21, the Arbitration Committee (Arbcom) case stemming from the incident was closed. Findings reaffirmed usual policy considerations including civil behavior and administrator behavior, but hinted at supra-community responsibilities with a "Proportionality of sanctions" section and stated "Private evidence" requires a commensurate private hearing. Remedies applied were un-banning Fram, requiring a new RfA, and announcement of a future "Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment".

Re-RfA

On September 26, Fram moved a request for adminship out of user draft space. The application was co-nominated by five individuals (Chowbok, Fastily, Iridescent, Lourdes, Xeno) – all but one of whom are either administrators or bureaucrats.

In this RfA, as with pretty much every one before, especially persuasive arguments were echoed by other contributors with the comment "per so-and-so". Supporters cited "per Iridescent" more than any other participant's argument. His co-nomination provided praise for Fram and said "atrocious" behaviors that attracted censure in the past "have been virtually non-existent" since 2018 warnings. Editors opposed to returning administrative tools cited Drmies's oppose rationale, in which he highlighted actions that have been suppressed but are alleged to be labeled "Potentially libelous/defamatory", more than any other. Other editors additionally cited more mundane temperament and civility issues.

On September 27, a little more than 24 hours after it began, with the vote standing at 109 in support and 122 opposed, Fram withdrew the application, stating:[a]

There clearly is widespread concern about my behaviour and attitude (though also a heartwarming bunch of supports). I will continue to edit, take the applicable concerns to heart, and hope to reapply in a year (or later) with a better track record.

Footnote

  1. ^ Some portions of the RfA history have been suppressed


← Previous "Special report"
Next "Special report" →
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.
  • I'm having some trouble understanding what is meant in the part stated "Private evidence" requires a commensurate private hearing. It seems like some words are missing, but what words precisely I don't know. If the quoted text is indeed correctly written, then I would appreciate some further explanation by another person, thanks. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was my attempt to convey the gist of the case's principles section titled Private evidence, which reads "When the Arbitration Committee admits privately-submitted evidence, existing policy requires a private hearing..." ☆ Bri (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A related discussion about WMF involvement in community affairs has begun at here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is entirely inappropriate to use the term “voters” in the context of a consensus-driven process. I know that !voters is sometimes used, but that punctuation mark doesn’t in any way change the meaning of the word and I would have objected to its use as well. It’s not as if writers need to be concerned about how much space will be taken up to be accurate. As we tell small children, “use your words.” All of them, if clarity is the goal.~TPW 21:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's interesting that in all the words written about this matter, not once have I seen a writer for Signpost state succinctly why this editor was banned. Hints, yes; shorthand references, maybe, but a clear statement, no. Now I expect a rash of comments, some of them rude, about this posting, pointing me to examples of where I was wrong. Thanks in advance, because not only have I been wrong many times in my life, but I have also BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny you should mention that. The full report on why they were banned is in the Special Report of the June 2019 edition of The Signpost. Oh, if you aren't an administrator, you won't be able to follow the link. A can of worms is the question of whether the deletion has been properly applied. - Bri.public (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was properly deleted because it contained demonstrably false information + seriously unfounded attacks. It seems as if most people not associated with the Signpost agreed with the deletion and don't consider this a "can of worms" at all, but you are free to take it to WP:DRV, the admin's noticeboard, or ArbCom of course. If people really want to know why I was banned, they can of course read the ArbCom case, which makes it clear that the ban was not warranted, and the RfA, which makes it clear that despite this, my style of adminning / editing was not appreciated by many people and was too heavy-handed, uncivil at times, confrontational, ... Basically, there is plenty of material out there you can point to, instead of directing people to a properly deleted BLP violating attack piece. Fram (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smallbones is the author of the BLP-violating deleted Signpost page. My "non-responses" are because I don't want to have anything to do with Smallbones and his repeated misleading and inflamatory statements about the whole situation. I doubt that his question is really the best place to get an answer about this situtation, it certainly isn't a neutral, unbiased place to start. Fram (talk) 04:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for all postings. Best wishes. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So ... the WMF shook en.WP's sick power structure mightily and got a result. We're about to enter Chapter II. Tony (talk) 07:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No we're not. Actually the en.Wiki shook the WMF's sick power structure mightily, but "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose". Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An odd thing to write, when en.WP's power structure is as sick as a lake of vomit. Tony (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which's one of the main reasons behind the tolerance of your antics and abuse for such a long span of time. ∯WBGconverse 02:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to me, that's an excellent example of the sickness. Tony (talk) 07:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dear, wrong again: Its the cabal of the anti-admin brigade and their uncalled for acrimonious comments that are ' as sick as a lake of vomit'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both of you are well-known as abusers. I did not change this into a personal attack: you two did. The kind of behaviour that indicates total unsuitability for adminship. Tony (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Make sure we cover what matters to you — leave a suggestion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-09-30/Special_report&oldid=1193878763"