Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Fram		5 February 2018	0/0/0

[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

Clarification and Amendment requests

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)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Fram

Initiated by Gatoclass (talk) at 05:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Gatoclass (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Fram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [diff of notification Fram]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Link 1
• Link 2

Statement by Gatoclass

I regret having to bring a new issue before the committee when you already have a case to deal with, however, some things just cannot be ignored. This case is not about dispute resolution but about administrator conduct.

This debacle began with the following discussion at WT:DYK. Without going into the details, I added a hook for the Carolwood Pacific Railroad article to a prep to replace a hook that got pulled,[1] then, after completing my usual checks, loaded that prep into the queue (a protected page).[2] Unbenownst to me, The Rambling Man had made a change to the hook for the article[3] in the interim, so I ended up loading a malformed hook into the queue. Thinking it was me who made the mistake, I went back to check the article itself, confirmed the original hook to my satisfaction, and restored it.[4] Fram then pulled the hook, a completely unnecessary action given that the issue was already under discussion. This caused some difficulty because by pulling it from a protected page, I couldn't reload it without Fram's consent even though TRM had already agreed that the hook, and my change to the article to make it unambiguously conform to the hook,[5] were fine.[6]

Unfortunately, Fram had already logged off, apparently immediately after pulling the hook, so we were unable to resolve the situation at the time. This action has been typical of Fram's impetuousness at DYK for years, disrupting the process and then disappearing so that others have to clean up his mess. (I would also like to note in passing the gratuitous hostility aimed at me from both Fram and TRM in the above linked thread, typical of what I have had to endure from these two users since they first began taking an interest in DYK some years ago).

Fram disappeared for a couple of days, so the nomination was held up until he returned. When he did, instead of simply checking the change to the article I had made and confirming (or perhaps contesting) it, he launched an extraordinary personal attack, in which, to summarize, he made the outrageously bad faith presumption that I had behaved atrociously.[7] He also accused me in the same post of continu[ing] to trample all normal editing rules to get what he wants. I must point out that his charge that I had behaved atrociously was a readily demonstrable falsehood. Had he taken even a moment to check the actual article, he would instantly have seen that the reference from which I sourced the change I made to the article (already agreed to by TRM) was not offline as Fram falsely claimed but is online and easily checkable.[8]

At that point, I decided to respond by abandoning any hope of getting the original hook passed given Fram's usual disinterest in cooperation, and verified the ALT hook instead, at the same time registering my protest at his comments and a repudiation of his charges.[9] (Had I not done so, of course it would have given the appearance of assent to his falsehoods, which would clearly have been unconscionable. And that apparent assent would have remained on the nomination page in perpetuity). A few hours later, he hypocritically deleted my repudiation as a "personal attack", at the same time also undoing my verification of the ALT hook with no explanation.[10]

I decided at that point that the only possible counter was to delete his earlier post as a personal attack (rendering my repudiation redundant)[11] and just restore my original verification.[12]

I hoped that would be the end of the matter, but no. To my utter astonishment, on logging on this morning, I found he had restored his original attack and falsehoods, adding a facetious taunt in the edit summary.[13]

So to summarize the most important points:

• He pulled a hook from a protected queue and then disappeared for days when a few minutes discussion would have resolved the matter, an abnegation of his responsibility to remain accountable and respond promptly and civilly to queries about his admin actions under WP:ADMINACCT (something, I might add, he has done countless times before at DYK).

• When he finally returned, he responded with an outrageous bad faith assumption, personal attack and falsehood, an egregious breach of his commitments under ADMINACCT.

• He struck down my hook verification with no explanation and failed to respond to the underlying issue, leaving the nomination in limbo for days on end and causing considerable anxiety to the nominator, extremely poor behaviour for an administrator.

• After hypocritically deleting my repudiation of his charges as a "personal attack", leaving me no option but to similarly delete his, he then restored his attack, an act of both studied malice and extremely poor judgement.

Now, as to why any administrator would behave so maliciously and recklessly, I find it difficult to imagine, but I suspect he felt he could get away with this insult because I would be too cowed to take this to ARBCOM after my own judgement as an administrator was recently called into question at an AN/I thread about an unrelated matter that Fram started about me.[14] (The thread closed with a strong consensus against me, but in my defence I felt I barely had time to present any defence of my actions before it was closed, and most respondents were responding not to my arguments, but to the strawman arguments used by Fram to initiate the thread).

I also suspect that because I've long ignored Fram's problematic behaviour at DYK, he's become emboldened and thinks he can get away with anything. Well, I'm sorry, I'm a pretty patient guy who would prefer to do anything but get involved in Wikidrama, but even I have my limits.

With regard to this request, I am hopeful it can be dealt with by a simple motion rather than a full case, because if it goes to a case, it's inevitable that the issue behind the AN/I thread will come up, along with everybody's behaviour in recent weeks at DYK. It would all in my opinion just be a huge time-wasting shemozzle, out of which little would probably come but, perhaps, a couple of minor sanctions. But of course, it's up to the Committee to make that call. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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.

Fram: Clerk notes

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

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

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)