Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests
Latest comment: 6 years ago by 2001:4898:80E8:F:3E68:8888:4A91:A1CB in topic Statement by 2001:4898:80E8:F:3E68:8888:4A91:A1CB(Second Fram case)
| Wikipedia:Resolving disputes contains the official policy on dispute resolution for English Wikipedia. Arbitration is generally the last step for user conduct-related disputes that cannot be resolved through discussion on noticeboards or by asking the community its opinion on the matter.
This page is the central ___location for discussing the various requests for arbitration processes. Requesting that a case be taken up here isn't likely to help you, but editors active in the dispute resolution community should be able to assist. |
| Arbitration talk page archives |
|---|
| WT:RFAR archives (2004–2009) |
| Various archives (2004–2011) |
| Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009–) |
| WT:RFAR subpages |
| Archive of prior proceedings |
Case title WJBscribe (probably trivial, but would be good to resolve this)
AGK retitled the case here from "Restoration of admin permissions to Floquenbeam by WJBscribe" to "WJBscribe". I noticed it when WJBscribe brought this re-titling up in their statement.
I have a short query – is the case title "WJBscribe" appropriate here? Is this purely about WJBscribe or can we retitle this to something that describes the scenario better? Thanks, Lourdes 02:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Would definitely support reverting this back to the original "Restoration ...", as Hammersoft (talk · contribs) has pointed out in the past about anchoring. Banedon (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- I doubt this is going to be changed now. But it is worth noting that naming the case is one of the things the arbs agree on just before a case is actually opened; I'm sure they'll be aware of this discussion if and when it comes to that. GoldenRing (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- I would favour titling it "Office Actions" and making that the central core of the discussion. I would think most folks on Wikipedia accept that there are some actions by the Foundation that would be appropriate, but at this stage it is unclear what those actions are, how they should be communicated, and who should be responsible for sanctions for anyone reversing an office action. I'm not clear in my mind that it should be ArbCom who are responsible for upholding an office action that ArbCom have not been given any insight into. I'm not clear in my mind that ArbCom have the remit from the community to be the police dogs for the Foundation. Police officers, maybe, but not mindless police dogs. SilkTork (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Not that police dogs are mindless - they are actually quite intelligent. I was thinking more in terms of blind obedience. SilkTork (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- If an Arbcom member thinks their elected 'job' is to behave like Wikipedia Police, then they should make an explicit statement rather than hedge around it. That way, the community can decide if they are mentally suitable to continue to be a trusted member of Arbcom. --Fæ (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Not that police dogs are mindless - they are actually quite intelligent. I was thinking more in terms of blind obedience. SilkTork (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- I would favour titling it "Office Actions" and making that the central core of the discussion. I would think most folks on Wikipedia accept that there are some actions by the Foundation that would be appropriate, but at this stage it is unclear what those actions are, how they should be communicated, and who should be responsible for sanctions for anyone reversing an office action. I'm not clear in my mind that it should be ArbCom who are responsible for upholding an office action that ArbCom have not been given any insight into. I'm not clear in my mind that ArbCom have the remit from the community to be the police dogs for the Foundation. Police officers, maybe, but not mindless police dogs. SilkTork (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I support SilkTork's suggestion. Office or Office Actions would be a good title, given that it was actions by WP:OFFICE that led to this request. Mjroots (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Bradv, AGK, can you action this please now? I agree with SilkTork's suggestion. Thanks, Lourdes 07:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
RE: Statement by Promethean
Rather tangential Promethean but, WP:OFFICE explicitly does authorize others to enforce Office actions, it explicitly does not make such enforcement mandatory though, while it does make obstruction an issue (it's not the only policy to do so, in that regard). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Correct and incorrect: WP:OFFICE allows other people to assist with enforcing an action. For instance, a WP:OA may result in a user being banned and other Administrators may assist with banning sock accounts related to the WP:OA banned user. However, reading the policy, the only people empowered to determine whether or not a sanction is warranted for a reversal of a WP:OA, and what that may be, is the Foundation. «l|Promethean|l» (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Quote Wikimedia administrators and others who have the technical power to revert or edit office actions are strongly cautioned against doing so. Unauthorized modifications to office actions will not only be reverted, but may lead to sanctions by the Foundation, such as revocation of the rights of the individual involved. When in doubt, community members should consult the Foundation member of staff that performed the office action, or their line manager
- That seems like an odd thing to quote. As I already said, Office does indeed go against obstruction but it does also authorize others to enforce (even given your quibbling about helping to enforce), and no Office is not the only policy to go against obstruction. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I'm quoting the part of the page that specifically deals with Administrators reversing OA's - Which is what this case is about. The sections to which you refer aren't relevant to the case, because this case is not about 'voluntarily assisting WMFOffice with the enforcement of an action', such as the example I gave above. In other cases where we use phrases like "... by a Bureaucrat" or "... by the Arbitration Committee" on policy pages, we are essentially indicating that whatever is being referred to is the exclusive power or responsibility of the function or roles nominated. Hence, the reasonable interpretation of WP:OFFICE is that only the Foundation determines sanctions for reversal of WP:OA's, which makes perfect sense. Given that these WP:OA's can have legal ramifications, of course the Foundation wants to be the only party that decides whether or not an Administrator is desysop'ed or banned in light of an unauthorized reversal. «l|Promethean|l» (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Everyone here at Arbcom and Bureaucrats and Admins is always acting as a volunteer The part about others enforcing is relevant because contrary to policy, you denied that the policy does authorize others to volunteer to enforce. The policy in fact authorizes others and protects them in doing so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Volunteer editor != Foundation; This is a pretty fundamental lesson when it comes to contributing to Wikipedia. But in any case, I'm not going to continue arguing with someone who can't interpret policy correctly. Even the examples given along side what you quoted specifically relate to things like, "Banning socks" etc. Furthermore, the guidance, when viewed in the context that you mean it, is incompatible with the following aspect of the policy "Post-action monitoring: The Foundation does not monitor the projects for breaches to the office actions it has enforced. It relies on the Wikimedia community’s help in keeping the communities safe and thriving by reporting such breaches to the Support & Safety team, who will review them on a case by case basis and take appropriate actions." - Oh look; See a breach, talk to the Trust and Safety team and THEY decide what to do. Finally, my statement is put there for the benefit of the Arbitration Committee, who will review all the policies and either agree with what has been said, or not. Your continued debating on the policy definition is an irrelevance, as is mine.«l|Promethean|l» (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)- Look, all editors value the opportunity to put statements forward to the Arbitration Committee on matters that they care about. These statements will encompass their arguments for or against a case being accepted, based on their understanding of policy and the details and nuances of the case. It’s perfectly acceptable for you to not agree with someone’s interpretation; Everyone is welcome to participate if they have a meaningful contribution to make.. But the right way to express that disagreement isn’t by singling out people’s statements on the talk page, or in your own statement, and then arguing back and forth ad nauseum. Doing that is a perfect way to make us both look like arseholes. Instead, might I invite you to make your own statement, where you can put forward your stance and beliefs as to whether or not arbcom should take on this case? Thanks «l|Promethean|l» (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- If you read the case page, you would already know the answer to your question. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- This is why I asked two weeks ago if there would be clerking to chase off the flood of comments. Apparently no one took me seriously. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- If you read the case page, you would already know the answer to your question. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Everyone here at Arbcom and Bureaucrats and Admins is always acting as a volunteer The part about others enforcing is relevant because contrary to policy, you denied that the policy does authorize others to volunteer to enforce. The policy in fact authorizes others and protects them in doing so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I'm quoting the part of the page that specifically deals with Administrators reversing OA's - Which is what this case is about. The sections to which you refer aren't relevant to the case, because this case is not about 'voluntarily assisting WMFOffice with the enforcement of an action', such as the example I gave above. In other cases where we use phrases like "... by a Bureaucrat" or "... by the Arbitration Committee" on policy pages, we are essentially indicating that whatever is being referred to is the exclusive power or responsibility of the function or roles nominated. Hence, the reasonable interpretation of WP:OFFICE is that only the Foundation determines sanctions for reversal of WP:OA's, which makes perfect sense. Given that these WP:OA's can have legal ramifications, of course the Foundation wants to be the only party that decides whether or not an Administrator is desysop'ed or banned in light of an unauthorized reversal. «l|Promethean|l» (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- That seems like an odd thing to quote. As I already said, Office does indeed go against obstruction but it does also authorize others to enforce (even given your quibbling about helping to enforce), and no Office is not the only policy to go against obstruction. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Quote Wikimedia administrators and others who have the technical power to revert or edit office actions are strongly cautioned against doing so. Unauthorized modifications to office actions will not only be reverted, but may lead to sanctions by the Foundation, such as revocation of the rights of the individual involved. When in doubt, community members should consult the Foundation member of staff that performed the office action, or their line manager
Thank you
That at least 4 arbcom members have accepted the case is a positive step to resolving this dispute. Thank you. Buffs (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- I wonder where AGK is? ——SerialNumber54129 20:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, SN. I am here. Our mailing list discussion is now at hundreds of entries long. Most of my time is going into that venue and specifically into trying to arrive at a consensus with colleagues. I will enter a vote once I feel sure about what I think the committee should do next. AGK ■ 21:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Ahoy, AGK! Could you help us get clarity? A whole bunch of us want to know if one or more ArbCom members sent this matter to WMF and if so why? Or was this a case of WMF invading your turf? It will really help to know. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 21:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- The Arbitration Committee is not going to identify the complainant in this case anymore than the WMF will. This is an inappropriate request. – bradv🍁 22:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Straw man argument. I didn’t ask for the complainant to be identified. I asked the arbitrators to confirm that none of them filed the request with WMF. I am entitled to know if my elected representatives have betrayed the trust placed in them. Jehochman Talk 03:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- That's not a straw man argument, it's a direct response to the question. The arbitrators are not going to confirm or deny any guesses about the identity of the complainant, and asking them to do so is inappropriate. – bradv🍁 03:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Straw man argument. I didn’t ask for the complainant to be identified. I asked the arbitrators to confirm that none of them filed the request with WMF. I am entitled to know if my elected representatives have betrayed the trust placed in them. Jehochman Talk 03:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- The Arbitration Committee is not going to identify the complainant in this case anymore than the WMF will. This is an inappropriate request. – bradv🍁 22:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Ahoy, AGK! Could you help us get clarity? A whole bunch of us want to know if one or more ArbCom members sent this matter to WMF and if so why? Or was this a case of WMF invading your turf? It will really help to know. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 21:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, SN. I am here. Our mailing list discussion is now at hundreds of entries long. Most of my time is going into that venue and specifically into trying to arrive at a consensus with colleagues. I will enter a vote once I feel sure about what I think the committee should do next. AGK ■ 21:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- Stop bearing the straw man. If an Arbitrator filed the request with WMF we are entitled to know which of our elected representatives is betraying our interests. That’s all I want to know. If it was some other random editor who complained, I absolutely don’t care who they are and have not even an atom of resentment against them. They can remain anonymous. Jehochman Talk 03:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- I am reading very carefully what you write, and you are suggesting that if an arb filed the request that would be a betrayal of the interests of the community. First off, I'm not sure how that would constitute a betrayal, and secondly, you are not going to get an answer to this question. Even if the arbitrators knew who filed the request, releasing that information would be a betrayal of confidentiality. – bradv🍁 03:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Stop bearing the straw man. If an Arbitrator filed the request with WMF we are entitled to know which of our elected representatives is betraying our interests. That’s all I want to know. If it was some other random editor who complained, I absolutely don’t care who they are and have not even an atom of resentment against them. They can remain anonymous. Jehochman Talk 03:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I don’t want anybody to break confidences. If an Arbitrator asked WMF to do in Fram because ArbCom didn’t want to do what was needed themselves, I will be quite disappointed. My hope is that if such a thing happened, the individual(s) will come forward and admit what they did. Arbitrators are elected to do a job. We trust them because we chose them. I have no idea if Fram did something wrong. ArbCom should have a public or private case to determine that. Jehochman Talk 04:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- BU Rob13, any inputs from you would be helpful. Given your statement while resigning and given Bradv capitulating above to Jehochman's question (hilarious actually; Jehochman asked for whether ArbCom sent the complaint, and Brad seems to have basically replied "yes, but we won't say who" – I could be wrong in my reading...), I think at least the back chatter needs to stop. Lourdes 07:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- What? Brad is at most saying that, no information on complainants so that others will not harass them no matter who they are, will be given out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Okay. In other words, we would neither confirm nor deny that any ArbCom member(s) started this. If this is the route the ArbCom wishes to follow, it is acceptable to me, as the writing on the wall is becoming clearer now. Lourdes 09:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Lourdes, wouldn't sharing that information by someone else than whoever filed the report (be it an ArbCom member or someone else) violate the Access to nonpublic personal data policy? --MrClog (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- If somebody initiated the report with WMF, that person is free to say what they did. There are signs (but not proof) suggesting one or more arbitrators being involved in filing the complaint. I'd like them to refute that or confirm it. As I've said, if the complainant(s) was/were a non-arbitrator, just say so and I will not inquire further. If ArbCom has no idea who filed the complaint, just say so. Brad, I'm sorry I didn't recognize you were an arbitrator. Thank you for your service. It's a difficult job. Jehochman Talk 12:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Jehochman, I'm not an arbitrator, I'm a clerk. It's a much easier job. Lourdes, I'm not sure how you got that from what I said, but it's a misreading. – bradv🍁 12:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'm chuckling. If you are a good and faithful clerk you will be rewarded with an arbitratorship. No good deeds go unpunished. Jehochman Talk 12:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Jehochman, I'm not an arbitrator, I'm a clerk. It's a much easier job. Lourdes, I'm not sure how you got that from what I said, but it's a misreading. – bradv🍁 12:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- If somebody initiated the report with WMF, that person is free to say what they did. There are signs (but not proof) suggesting one or more arbitrators being involved in filing the complaint. I'd like them to refute that or confirm it. As I've said, if the complainant(s) was/were a non-arbitrator, just say so and I will not inquire further. If ArbCom has no idea who filed the complaint, just say so. Brad, I'm sorry I didn't recognize you were an arbitrator. Thank you for your service. It's a difficult job. Jehochman Talk 12:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Lourdes, wouldn't sharing that information by someone else than whoever filed the report (be it an ArbCom member or someone else) violate the Access to nonpublic personal data policy? --MrClog (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Okay. In other words, we would neither confirm nor deny that any ArbCom member(s) started this. If this is the route the ArbCom wishes to follow, it is acceptable to me, as the writing on the wall is becoming clearer now. Lourdes 09:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- What? Brad is at most saying that, no information on complainants so that others will not harass them no matter who they are, will be given out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- MrClog, if Arbcom has clean hands (I still believe that's the case), then to ensure community trust is not lost in them, would you not have expected the following response by brad to Jehochman's question whether anyone from Arbcom had filed the complaint: "Thanks for asking the question. No, none of us present or recently resigned filed the complaint. As this involves ____ issues, we shall not be revealing any details of the complainant,"... instead of what brad said without probably thinking twice or checking with other Arbs. I am sure he is being advised appropriately now; but the harm is done and most of the community frequenting this desk are not spring chickens. Lourdes 01:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I’ve found evidence on wiki that justifies the ban. I’m perplexed why ArbCom didn’t handle this themselves. I think it’s because WMF wants to debut their super secret process when a complaint can be made anonymously and the victim’s identity will not be revealed. This has two huge problems:
- It’s blatantly unfair to the accused. He is assume guilty and unable to defend.
- WMF can’t guarantee privacy of the victim because the perpetrator knows who the victim is and will definitely leak that information to retaliate. They can leak it off wiki. They can leak it to to other trolls and abusers. This promise of privacy is false and should not be given.
Anybody who wants to talk with me about it, please email me. Jehochman Talk 01:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
"I’m perplexed why ArbCom didn’t handle this themselves."
... Jehochman, I suspect they were contacted, had a choice but refused to act, failing which the aggrieved party approached higher authorities and took a value stand. But yea, all this is just a blind guess, so I would say you can disregard my assessment completely. Lourdes 05:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)- @Newyorkbrad: Re. this...what price now ;) ——SerialNumber54129 08:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- Jehochman, if you have evidence, you should send it privately to arbcom - after all, Fram is not currently banned under any community process, and if you're saying you have evidence that he should be after all, then we should fix that. Otherwise, let's not spread rumors and speculation and "I've got a secret!" stuff; we've already seen enough of that go wrong. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- (Adding: whoops, forgot to ping Jehochman.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- I will, but I'm yet to decide whether to post a public request or keep it private. I'm not doing anything hasty and will wait for feedback. Also, I think an ArbCom case may be useful because there are other editors involved who's conduct should be scrutinized. WMF has not been as thorough in their investigation as we would be. Jehochman Talk 12:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- Belated reply; feel free to refactor @Jehochman: For my own part, I did not ask the WMF to open a file on Fram. The committee was made aware after the WMF did so; the origin(s) were not identified. We were later notified that a sanction was forthcoming. I am sure that telling you both these things is not a breach of confidence.At the time, Fram had already been sanctioned (with a warning) by the WMF for nastiness and so the development did seemed uncontentious. Matters assumed a new proportion when the severity of the sanction became clear; we learned about that at virtually the same time you did. AGK ■ 20:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Statements
GoldenRing - do the statements from involved and uninvolved parties need separating? Did consider being bold and doing it myself but don't want to tread on any toes here. Mjroots (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: They are not normally so separated at this stage of proceedings. GoldenRing (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Fram's participation
Worm That Turned - If Fram is not to be a named party in this case, can ARBCOM at least give him permission to participate. I feel that it would be beneficial to have his input here. As I understand the situation, Fram is unblocked on en-Wiki, but OFFICE have stated that he will be blocked if he should edit. This amounts to a proxy BAN. For now, Fram should at least be allowd access to his own talk page and any pages directly connected with this case. Can this idea be put before ARBCOM and discussed by them please? Mjroots (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Fram is banned on the English Wikipedia, by the WMF Office, for the period of 1 year. They have been clear that if he were to violate that ban, he would be globally banned, indefinitely. The Arbitration Committee has no power to over-rule the WMF Office in this matter. Any such request should be directed to WMF. WormTT(talk) 20:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- OK, let's ask JEissfeldt (WMF). Can Fram be allowed to participate in this case, with the restrictions suggested above, and only for the duration of the case? No editing anywhere else on en-Wiki to be allowed. Mjroots (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Why would Fram's participation be productive or even relevant? The case is about WJB Scribe's restoring Floquenbeam admin privileges, and I don't see what Fram could say about that that might matter. Banedon (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Banedon: - No, the case, and the issue behind it, is much bigger than 'crat and admin actions in accordance with the IAR policy. I accept that OFFICE's action against Fram stands unless OFFICE decides to shorten the ban, and I'm not looking to get that overturned by ARBCOM, much as I and others may ideally want that, it's out of ARBCOM's jurisdiction. But one aspect is the way OFFICE have handled this, and their apparent lack of accountability and appealability. An issue I'd like to raise in the forthcoming case/RFC. It is for these reasons that Fram should be a named party and allowed to participate. Mjroots (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- No, the WMF is acting and providing information according to their policy. You might think things need not be private but that's not your decision, nor anyone else's. Or go work for the WMF and change their multi-level approval, etc. Or petition the board and the ED. But an Arbcom case is not the venue. By policy and common sense because the WMF has undeniable access to the system and determines the system's use, their action is beyond purview, although again you can petition their board and ED. One of the worst things we have seen in this is the heaping of abuse on a WMF employee just for stating the WMF policy, structure, process, and executive decision, shooting the messenger (worse, of course, was the abuse sustained by others where all there was, was speculation and a desire to trade in personal rumor). We should be ashamed for those, and realize how much they demonstrate our governance incapacity. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- Alanscottwalker This post by Jehochman may indicate that Fram has a case to answer. Whether or not Fram is at fault, the accused should be allowed to plead their case. Something which does not seem to have happened here. OFFICE are a named party in the case request, and should be a named party when the case is opened. As I said in my statment at ARC, even if ARBCOM cannot sanction OFFICE, they can certainly make recommendations to OFFICE. Mjroots (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- When we ban someone, it's not because we believe we have perfect justice, nor perfect process, it is because despite having human frailties of imperfect knowledge and reason, we think it, on balance, best to separate for a time from the website. That is all. Perhaps, you believe the people in the office are monsters or one of the more colorful references to twentieth century Godwin like things, shall we say, but not only is it bad faith, it seems preposterous and not only that, out of all proportion to a website. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- Regardless, the case isn't about Fram's conduct. Fram also doesn't have to answer to Arbcom for his conduct because a decision's already been made. I interpret unbanning Fram to take part in a case about his conduct as attempting to overturn the original ban - something you said you're not trying to do. Banedon (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- There is precedent for this. The very limited unban is similar in effect to when an editor is unblocked to be allowed to take part in a discussion at ANI. It was deliberately proposed with those limitations because I believe it would be useful to have input from Fram. Mjroots (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- Alanscottwalker This post by Jehochman may indicate that Fram has a case to answer. Whether or not Fram is at fault, the accused should be allowed to plead their case. Something which does not seem to have happened here. OFFICE are a named party in the case request, and should be a named party when the case is opened. As I said in my statment at ARC, even if ARBCOM cannot sanction OFFICE, they can certainly make recommendations to OFFICE. Mjroots (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- No, the WMF is acting and providing information according to their policy. You might think things need not be private but that's not your decision, nor anyone else's. Or go work for the WMF and change their multi-level approval, etc. Or petition the board and the ED. But an Arbcom case is not the venue. By policy and common sense because the WMF has undeniable access to the system and determines the system's use, their action is beyond purview, although again you can petition their board and ED. One of the worst things we have seen in this is the heaping of abuse on a WMF employee just for stating the WMF policy, structure, process, and executive decision, shooting the messenger (worse, of course, was the abuse sustained by others where all there was, was speculation and a desire to trade in personal rumor). We should be ashamed for those, and realize how much they demonstrate our governance incapacity. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Banedon: - No, the case, and the issue behind it, is much bigger than 'crat and admin actions in accordance with the IAR policy. I accept that OFFICE's action against Fram stands unless OFFICE decides to shorten the ban, and I'm not looking to get that overturned by ARBCOM, much as I and others may ideally want that, it's out of ARBCOM's jurisdiction. But one aspect is the way OFFICE have handled this, and their apparent lack of accountability and appealability. An issue I'd like to raise in the forthcoming case/RFC. It is for these reasons that Fram should be a named party and allowed to participate. Mjroots (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- Why would Fram's participation be productive or even relevant? The case is about WJB Scribe's restoring Floquenbeam admin privileges, and I don't see what Fram could say about that that might matter. Banedon (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- OK, let's ask JEissfeldt (WMF). Can Fram be allowed to participate in this case, with the restrictions suggested above, and only for the duration of the case? No editing anywhere else on en-Wiki to be allowed. Mjroots (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Injunction request
ok, there's a hell of a lot of +hat and -hat to and fro going on around this case request and the larger series of events that precipitated it - can ArbCom put out an injunction that all those with the ability to modify another's hats (admin tools, EFM, IAdmin, the lot) not undertake any such actions during the course of the current request if they have any association with the aforementioned events? Dax Bane 09:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- ^^^Second a moratorium on all WP:FRAM-related admin /BC actions. To quote the fella, "will everyone please stop getting shot?!" No rash actions will equal no rash reactions. ——SerialNumber54129 10:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- I've sent this to the Clerks-L mailing list for the committee to review. Regards, --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- I suppose I should add a flagging, here, in case arbs have not seen my two suggestions for a Temporary Injunction on the main case page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Question
How many votes are required for the case to go ahead? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hawkeye7, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Deciding of requests. --MrClog (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hmmm. There are ten active arbs, eight accepts and one recuse. Therefore... the case cannot proceed? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Statement by 2001:4898:80E8:F:3E68:8888:4A91:A1CB(Second Fram case)
Jehochman you found "evidence" we knew about weeks ago. Congratulations, you are several weeks behind everyone else. 2001:4898:80E8:F:3E68:8888:4A91:A1CB (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- Show me where all the diffs were posted. You all had speculation. I chased down the diffs for everyone to see. Sometimes the answer is hiding in plain sight. I am also pretty confident there's not much else publicly visible, beyond what I found. Jehochman Talk 18:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- People didn't post diffs because it was tedious at best. And even then, you dangled them in front of everyone like you found the golden goose. Everyone already knew about what you said. You didn't "find the answer in plain sight", you wasted everyone's time and created drama for no reason. Again, congratulations, you are SEVERAL weeks behind EVERYONE else. 2001:4898:80E8:F:3E68:8888:4A91:A1CB (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)