Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by L235 (talk | contribs) at 23:01, 26 October 2016 (→‎Fram: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter: count). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut


Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Fram   24 October 2016 0/7/1
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 8 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Fram

Initiated by Cwmhiraeth (talk) at 10:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • [diff of notification Fram]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Peace proposal [1]

Statement by Cwmhiraeth

Fram has been an editor with Wikipedia since 2005 and an administrator since 2007. Fram does much useful work on Wikipedia, including quality control at DYK, which is where we have mostly interacted. Fram has a great eye for detail and has the ability to spot errors that other editors have missed.

Nevertheless, I consider Fram to be a net liability to Wikipedia because of the negative effects he has on other editors. Fram targets certain editors, bullies them, harasses them and sometimes hounds them, following them around and undermining their contributions. He undertakes campaigns with the apparent aim of driving away productive contributors. Additionally, at DYK, Fram examines the hooks at a late stage in the process, often when they are already on the main page, has a habit of "pulling" them and calling the nominator, reviewer and promoter publicly to account, denigrating and humiliating them for their failings. This could be termed community harassment!

If ArbCom accepts this case, I propose to provide evidence by way of diffs and quotations on the following matters:

  1. Fram has harassed Nvvchar at DYK with a series of attacks culminating in this one,[2]. Nvvchar then stated that he would stop nominating articles to DYK. Fram then hounded him by multiple individual reassessments and removal of GA status of articles he had brought to GA, and caused him to retire from Wikipedia. The last three GAs downgraded in this way were in a period of 24 hours, and three hours after the third one was downgraded, Nvvchar quit as an editor. Ironically, these events were in the same week that he received an "editor of the Week" award [3]. I have an email from Nvvchar stating his reasons for retiring which I propose to submit to the committee as evidence if this case is accepted.
  2. Fram has harassed me, first at my editor's review in 2014 [4], and more recently, Fram has been harassing me on the DYK discussion page,[5] [6], called me a liar [7] and sought to have me sanctioned at the "The Rambling Man" arbitration case despite the fact that I was not a party to the proceedings.[8] [9]
  3. I have identified nine other editors that Fram has harassed, and there may be more. I will be submitting evidence to support these allegations and I would hope that any aggrieved editors would provide their own evidence if this case goes ahead. I do not intend to name these editors now because I don't want them to become parties to the proceedings.
  4. Fram uses the process of GA reassessments as a tool to demoralise his targets. He disregards the proper process as outlined here. He does not consider whether the article meets the good article criteria. He takes no notice of the instruction "The goal should not be to delist the article, but to restore it back to its former good article quality" nor fix any problem he notices. Even when problems disclosed by Fram are fixed, he delists the article anyway.[10] Nor does Fram attempt to close the review correctly, leaving others to clear up the mess,[11] and there are some 16 current reassessments being undertaken by Fram that have been in limbo since March 2016.
  5. At the DYK discussion page, Fram has created an atmosphere of blame and recrimination. Some editors who are still active elsewhere on Wikipedia have chosen to no longer help behind the scenes at DYK. I can provide evidence to confirm this and hope that these editors would provide evidence themselves if this case is accepted.[12] [13]

If ArbCom accept this case, I would urge the committee to restrict its scope to examining the behaviour and activities of Fram and not any wider issues.

I believe that Fram's conduct has fallen well below the standards expected of an administrator. My purpose in making this request for arbitration is to ensure that Fram behaves more appropriately in future and desists from harassing and hounding other editors. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see by what you are all saying that you are closing ranks around Fram and are more likely to sanction me than Fram. I still believe that Fram's conduct has fallen well below the standards expected of an administrator. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I note the responses of Opabinia regalis and Softlavender and others, and accept that this complaint is going nowhere. I also accept that Fram has the interests of Wikipedia at heart. I am surprised however that ArbCom seems so unconcerned at the harassment and hounding of an editor to the extent that he was driven away from Wikipedia. That seemed a shameful event to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fram

  • "Fram has harassed Nvvchar at DYK with a series of attacks culminating in this one,[2]" which links to Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 125#Analysis of the current lead hook and article (pulled from Main Page). Responses include Gatoclass, "I agree that nominations from this user need extra scrutiny." The Rambling Man "This is awful.", and Ritchie333 "I fear the time is approaching to dish out some topic bans" (referencing another Nvvchar DYK he didn't pass). If checking articles that appear on the Main Page and pointing out the many problems too many of the DYK articles from one specific editor have, is "harassment" and "a series of attacks", then so be it. I care about the quality of what appears on the Main Page first and foremost. That this means that some editors should be kept away from DYK (or other processes), after having found too many problems and no improvement, is sad but logical.
  • "Fram has harassed me, first at my editor's review in 2014 [4]" How was that "harassment"? Wikipedia:Editor review/Cwmhiraeth contains my criticism of some DYKs and GAs written by Cwmhiraeth, based on factual errors in them, like with the "GA" Tropaeolum where Cwmhiraeth invented a history for it. Her response to factual criticism: "@Fram: I note what you say above. Tell me, Fram, do you have a Wikipediocracy account, and if so, what is your username (or whatever they call it there)?". That's the only real example of harassment in that Editor Review, I think. A bit later, she states "Cyclopia is beginning to understand but I am afraid you just don't get it, Fram. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC) ", to which came the replies "Get what? That you basically make stuff up? No we get that now. Its become fairly obvious. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)" and "Yeah, agreed. I don't know what am I "beginning to understand", but Fram's work is excellently thorough in his review. --cyclopiaspeak! 22:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)" Instead of an example of me "harassing", this is a perfect example of Cwmhiraeth dealing with criticism.
  • "I have identified nine other editors that Fram has harassed, and there may be more. I will be submitting evidence to support these allegations and I would hope that any aggrieved editors would provide their own evidence if this case goes ahead. I do not intend to name these editors now because I don't want them to become parties to the proceedings." Are these the ones you mentioned in your preparations for this case, User:Cwmhiraeth/sandbox3? Editors like Russavia and Kumioko? Right, that will strengthen your case immensely...
  • "Fram uses the process of GA reassessments as a tool to demoralise his targets. He disregards the proper process as outlined here. He does not consider whether the article meets the good article criteria. He takes no notice of the instruction "The goal should not be to delist the article, but to restore it back to its former good article quality" nor fix any problem he notices. " If I delist an article hours after promotion, then that means that it never had good article quality and both nominator and reviewer were wrong to think otherwise (see e.g. this GA delisting I did last week). I have speedy delisted articles which were recently incorrectly promoted, and put up articles for review which had been listed as GA for a longer time, even when I believed that the GA promotion was wrong at that time as well (e.g. the ones still in limbo: apparently I have given the people involved too much time to correct the problems then...). The only GA removal you actually object to is an article from you which was delisted in 2014.
  • "At the DYK discussion page, Fram has created an atmosphere of blame and recrimination." Not really, no. I (and others) have created a much-needed atmosphere of fact-checking and accuracy, in all openness. Only with some people, like Cwmhiraeth, who regularly react very badly when a hook they were involved with is pulled, is there a problem and does the atmosphere occasionally get unpleasant.

If Arbcom wants me to, I can further dissect the "evidence" by Cwmhiraeth line by line, but I think the above is sufficient to indicate on which flimsy grounds the "case" is built, and how it all seems to ge back to a grudge Cwmhiraeth seems to have carried since 2014, with the editor review and GA removal. My record at DYK is there for all to see: I remove all hooks which are problematic (usually factually incorrect), never mind who was involved with them (I usually only check the names of the people involved at the time I ping them). Fram (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi

Regarding any previously attempted dspute resolution, I note that a fundamental criterion of the committee accepting a case is 'If you have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute.' This has clearly not happened; certainly not in a formal arena, and, Fram posits, not sincerely in an informal one. As such, I see no way in for the committee to accept this case. Muffled Pocketed 11:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdChem

  • This is another of the cases which ArbCom invited by taking the Hardy case, and has similarities to the TRM case.
  • I have clashed with Fram, and remain of the view that he can be abrasive and I wish he could moderate his behaviour and attitudes at times whilst staying true to his strong and laudable views on quality.
  • TRM's approach since his resignation has shown a remarkable change at DYK, and I am surprised though very pleased by how he is engaging now. I would rather not see Fram dragged through an ArbCom case to produce a change in perspective, but I fear that without any change he will ultimately end up before ArbCom answering a 'conduct unbecoming' case.
  • Fram, if I may address you directly, you do a lot of good work, your goals are shared even by some you have criticised, and I hope that you can reflect on how your approach is at times counter-productive as you have upset or annoyed or even alienated natural allies who would agree with you much of the time. Please, can you see a way to pursue your goals for quality while reserving your contempt for the trolls who truly deserve it? Someone disagreeing with you is not necessarily someone who you can't work collaboratively with most of the time.
  • ArbCom members, taking the Hardy case was unwise, refusing to recognise that when it was obvious was a mistake, please don't repeat it. Fram is impolite / uncivil at times, which is a problem, but hopefully he can avoid it ever becoming one for you to resolve. I advise (for whatever that is worth) that this be declined in the hope that he can moderate himself and grow in stature as an admin. EdChem (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

Admins can pull things from the main page. Realizing they have that power, it would be helpful if they could grok the full responsibility and just matter-of-factly, and as gently as is courteous say why, and thereafter not rise to the bait when someone whose work they are in fact criticizing gets testy. The admin can set the tone, they have the power, so someone disagreeing with the admin, ultimately does not change anything. They should know and expect up-front, and be sensitive enough to relate that they know, they are delivering bad news to someone. And if in fact some user needs to be banned or restricted, take it to AN for community judgement, after the work of less formal means fails, but don't let it fester repeatedly at the project pages, as to a targeted user.

But a case? Now? Let's hope and give some time for the recent closed cases to have their intended salutary effect -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And since I am here, to the wiki gods, please let the Project see that if it elected some kind of board of overseers for the main page projects and the main page, all this, and more, could get worked out in a less tense, regularized manner. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Opabina: Minimized in the first instance is already happening, what's needed is better attention to addressing the inevitable failures we know will occur, just as they do in every conceivable publication. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by bystander Mangoe

I haven't had much in the way of direct interaction with Fram, but being active on DYK at intervals, I am well aware of his dogged efforts at trying to improve the quality of its entries and to keep inaccuracies from being broadcast on Wikipedia's front page, and I commend him for taking the trouble. Looking at the examples proffered, what I see is that Fram was basically in the right (and on some very basic principles such as use of reliable sources and accurately relating what they say. Fram's responses were less than polite, to be sure, but as I've said before in this venue we are not here to elevate polite discourse over encyclopedic accuracy. The solution here is to take Fram's criticisms of the material seriously, since his criticisms are almost invariably borne out. Mangoe (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iridescent

I'm not going to get involved in any depth—I don't think it's any secret that I think DYK is a trainwreck and any attempts to fix it by micromanaging the conduct of individual editors is deckchair-rearranging in its purest form, although given the sheer cluelessness of the initial request I wouldn't be averse to the committee accepting this case simply to send a message by sanctioning the OP. Since the main thrust of the claim seems to be an insinuation that Fram was somehow bullying Nvvchar by checking his work for errors, I'm just going to point the committee towards Talk:London in the 1960s#Removed material, in which I went through one of Nvvchar's articles line-by-line (and an article on a well-documented topic in a major English-speaking country, not some obscure stub for which quality sources don't exist), and ended up removing around 50% of the text as unsalvageable. (These weren't nit-picky niggles over wording either; these were a mix of outright fabrications, at least one instance of a "fact" cited to a work of fiction, and ludicrous errors such as claiming the Canary Islands are in the Thames.) I've no idea what the rest of his output was like, but assuming that page was representative Fram deserves a commendation for being willing to go through cleaning it up, not any kind of sanction. I'll also point out that it's less than two weeks since y'all passed The community is also reminded that they may issue topic bans without the involvement of the Arbitration Committee if consensus shows a user has repeatedly submitted poor content [to DYK]. ‑ Iridescent 15:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by repeatedly admonished and shamed The Rambling Man

Fram does a job which will never get any plaudits. Ensuring the integrity of the main page is something for which few (if any) barnstars are awarded. I know that Fram (like me) doesn't do the fact-checking and fault-finding for reward, but simply to ensure that Wikipedia does not become an embarrassment with the sheer volume of errors, particularly from the DYK section. Like me, Fram can be short and brusque, but I really have to confess I have never seen his conduct fall down to such a degree that an ArcBom hearing is warranted. For the avoidance of doubt, Fram and I have had disagreements (Ironically over the the way DYK should be apologising for the number of errors it promotes, e.g. with a Corrections section on the main page!), but I see nothing but more months of unproductive drama coming from this should it be accepted. I'm glad to see common sense being applied by those Arbs who have already commented, and would encourage the complainant to utilise the full spectrum of alternative dispute resolution methods before returning here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Bang on. The DYK project has become bloated and overly bureaucratic, while attempting to maintain some pretence that it's there to encourage new editors. Along the way it's become a "free pass" to the main page, nominations will, eventually, always get onto the main page, there are a handful that don't and as such, it's a playground for those involved in WikiCup, for those who just want to see their name in lights, and this inevitably results in (via a quid pro quo review basis) a limited quality output, and a rushed one at that. The way in which it is populated and governed needs serious attention. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Softlavender

I'm uninvolved, and this is simply a note to Cwmhiraeth:

  • I've had at least one fairly contentious and somewhat lengthy disagreement with Fram recently, and that also seemed to me to spill over into some apparent ill-will elsewhere (I'm noting these interactions simply to attest to my neutrality here), but on the whole and throughout time I recognize Fram as one of the good guys who has the best interests of Wikipedia in mind and who does the best he can in good faith. Disagreeing with someone, or them disagreeing with you, does not alter fundamental all-around good-faith efforts and careful use of admin tools.
  • I'm a very longterm prolific editor all around Wikipedia, including on all the drama boards, and I've seen and am generally very astutely aware of when admins (including ArbCom) close ranks (it's one of my genuine pet peeves on Wikipedia). This is absolutely not the case here. You simply do not have an ArbCom-level case here, and have done nothing to resolve whatever issues you are bringing up. You really need to take in the feedback you are getting.
  • Hopefully Fram will dial it down a notch in his interactions with you, the same way that TRM has dialed it down a notch on main-page interactions. That said, if your (or others') material is incorrect, your (or others') material is incorrect, and things are necessarily done quickly re: the main page, and after or in the middle of numerous problems and frustrations some editors do not have much time for the niceties. That's just par for the course for main-page issues, moreso than it is for the rest of Wikipedia, which operates the same way -- people cut to the chase and do not spare the feelings of others. I advise accepting this as part of life on Wikipedia, sticking to facts and completely ignoring personal comments, and completely avoiding all references to other editors, including Fram. Content and policy, not editors. It may also be advisable to avoid DYK and other main-page segments if the area upsets you. There are much more important and gratifying things to do on Wikipedia.

Softlavender (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ritchie333

I think OR has hit the nail on the head; we need to find a way of improving DYK (or even scrapping it altogether) in order to reduce the possibility of erroneous hooks or nominations going even so far as prep. This could be either increasing the passing requirements, putting a time limit on nominations or requiring a consensus of reviewers to promote (the world doesn't end when FA, FL or AfD discussions don't go the nominator's way because of a lack of interest, so what would be different here?) I am particularly disappointed that Template:Did you know nominations/Élizabeth Teissier passed, when frankly it should have just been given up as a bad job months ago. I also agree with EdChem, who echoes my thoughts pretty accurately. Anyway, back to the case; Fram and Cwmhiraeth just aren't going to get on with each other, so they might as well give each other a wide berth. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Coffee Crumbs

Unless we pass WP:SLIGHTLYBRUSQUE, I don't see any reason for this to be here. Fram could probably use a bit more diplomacy at times, but most of what is being called harrassment above seems to simply be on-point criticism. And very bad form, near-boomerang level, to bring up "Nine Editors I've Decided Are Also Being Harrassed" but then announce that you don't want to drag them into it, when you already did by presenting their situations as super-secret mystery evidence against Fram in order to get this case heard. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

The lead example is [14]. That is not an attack, it is a necessarily forthright statement of a serious problem. The article should never have been on the front page, the sourcing was atrocious and much of the text flat wrong. No diffs are provided for the GA reviews, but if they contained similar errors then this is not WP:HOUNDING, it's straightforward janitorial work. Being liked and collecting many badges does not make an editor's contributions immune from criticism, especially if they are using vanity press books as sources.

Following "process" is also not obligatory, see WP:IAR, especially noting that most "process" is not rules at all, just cruft built up over time.

So, the case as stated seems to me to be fatally flawed, and this would likely have been exposed if any meaningful prior dispute resolution had been attempted. I see no evidence that this has happened. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

The audaciousness of this case astounds me. For example, here is a thread regarding a potential DYK that I flagged as having serious BLP issues that Cwmhiraeth had passed. This almost completely unsourced BLP violation was how the article looked at the time. Cwmhiraeth's response? "So come along all you good folk, you have had your fun criticising reviewers, why don't you go and review one or two hooks yourselves?" At least the nominator held their hand up and admitted they had missed the problems. Cwmhiraeth needs to remove the beam in their eye before complaining about the mote in others. Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Fram: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/7/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Decline. As has been pointed out, it doesn't meet our criteria for acceptance of the case. I've read the GA review also, which isn't a convincing reason to bring Fram here, and I note Cwmhiraeth's question about Wikipedocracy does Cwmhiraeth no credit. Doug Weller talk 11:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • recuse as I have been peripherally involved with this issue, broadly construed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline as unripe for arbitration. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline but quite frankly I was tempted to accept for boomerang purposes. We ended up with a fairly narrow scope for the TRM case, which touched on some of the same ground related to DYK and review processes, and this request has a bit of a scent of trying to re-run the same case against Fram. Before we go any further, I strongly, strongly, strongly recommend that people consider a broader version of the final remedy from the TRM case and have a serious discussion about how to improve the efficiency of content review so errors are minimized in the first instance and caught sooner when they do occur, which is far more likely to be productive than repeat cases about people not offering serious criticisms nicely enough. Opabinia regalis (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cwmhiraeth: I understand people might be frustrated when they file a case and see it heading for a decline. But choosing to interpret people's reactions as "closing ranks" rather than taking the feedback you're receiving and considering your own contributions to the issue is unlikely to lead to a resolution. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. And what OR says about "closing ranks". There is just not enough of a case here. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline Just as I said on TRM, the whole ITN/DYK area would be better grounds for a case. Like OR said though, try the remedy we passed, if that doesn't work we'll do the whole area. I completely oppose a case on an administrator in the DYK/ITN areas. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=746359373"