User talk:SA 13 Bro

w:WP:Fram

 * I don't think that Fram should be unbanned right now, since he had some certain history of long-term bad civility records. On MediaWiki his block log is a good place for verification, when I has viewed 28bytes had post the question on 31 July, later I also went to MediaWiki have a refer of looks on his talk page and is clear for it, but I don't deem that Fram had harassing other users in the past ago unless got evidence to proof on it. IMO about Fram should get some certain period of Wikibreak and reform away his bad civility behavior, I can pretty sure that T&S office staffs won't ban any users in random way as what wrote here, don't know what TRM mind are thinking about. When a user has incivility manner such as making personal attack toward other editor due to content dispute, and the user email complaint to T&S, the office staffs usually will email a conduct warning notice to the incivility manner editor first, unless that user persistently in disruptive behavior, then the T&S may discretion for the ban on that editor. SA 13 Bro (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The MediaWiki block log shows a great pattern of problematic behavior by Fram. I thought it was just a one-off incident that led to the one-year ban by WMF but it looks like the decision is not that terrible after all. Unless the Arbitration Committee is biased by preferring to not take action for incivility by admins, I think they're going to endorse the WMF ban. According to the message left on Fram's talk page, Worm That Turned stated Fram might have a week to review the evidence sent to him through email and after that, the proposed decision would be posted publicly. From that message, it seems the ArbCom is going to endorse the ban. If they aren't then there would be no reason for them to request Fram to 'review' the evidence since they could just close the case as 'no action'. The outcome from this whole saga is net negative because it caused the alleged victims to vanish and/or retire. One Arb has resigned and I'm guessing it's very much to do with the Fram saga or the recent Richie333's case. Basically, I think if the WMF wanted to properly deal with this case, they should've gone with a global lock instead of a enwiki block, because that way the community and/or attention-seeking admins literally cannot reverse them and the discussion would just die out after a couple of days. Also, the WMF could've just noted in the edit summary that Fram was banned for ambiguous reasons, stressing its seriousness but not precisely what it's about. That way the community would not argue too much. I think Fram's behavior on enwiki had been really troubling and intimidating. His approach to discussions is aggressive and causes the other editor to feel belittled. Not only is his behavior troubling, his conduct had not been suitable as an admin. The WMF's intervention was not only necessary but very much needed. The community is incompetent at understanding important things like that. All they care about is having the final word but there's more to things than just that. Do you not think Fram's behavior is troubling? Testingthisthing (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not completely familiarize about Fram case on English Wikipedia, although I am aware his long-term bad civility behavior on MediaWiki, but I do agree that steward Ajraddatz on WMF has stated here regarding the community are incompetent to handle the incivility case, or else it won't let WMF to deal the Fram case and get sanctioned by the office action, since ArbCom are the authority who in charge and self governing the community, maybe you can try for waiting someone else to join the discussions. SA</b> 1</b>3</b> B</b>r</b>o</b> (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Are you more active on MediaWiki than the English Wikipedia? I invited two-three more users to this page to join in on our discussion. I think it is detrimental to Wikipedia in the long term if something like this isn't resolved or fixed. The stewards really can't do anything, they're like a rubber stamp and their authorities are typically limited to non-self-governing Wikis. Many of them like Revi, Ajraddatz, etc, try to act as if they have control over the English Wikipedia, regularly and unnecessarily reminding people that they are stewards in unrelated discussions as a show of power but that's about all they could do. The Arbitration Committee on the other hand is assigned with quasi-governing enwiki, although as written in the criteria they have limited powers such as resolving disputes and hearing appeals from banned users. The way I see it, the only reason Framah became a thing was because Fram is a long-term and highly-respected admin. If he was some random nobody who only started editing two years ago, no one would even pop the question on why he got banned in the first place. The community is using the reason of self-governance as a reason to why the ban is illegitimate. However, they are incompetent and do not get the fact that WMF has total control over the WMF. I understand if they lose volunteers Wikipedia will collapse but again that is a matter of diva-ish behavior within members of the community rather than a problem with the WMF's handling of things. This is one of the cases where the community has seriously shown a lack of competence. They literally caused both the harasser and the harassed to abandon or get kicked out of the project and still have the audacity to suggest they're capable in handling incivility and harassment. It is a total disgrace. What do you think about that? Testingthisthing (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding Ban on Fram,
 * I think such bans should be implemented across projects, to prevent an upsurge of such users from other projects where they are not even active.
 * I strongly believe that, local communities and process fail many a times to deal with incivility cases, specially gender based or sexuality based violences/incivilities/not being nice etc etc. And they have been abusive to a range of the user's from diverse social locations. So it's not a single incident or single group which faced abuse from them triggered this office ban, but several such instances piling on resulted in this ban.
 * I have personally seen that above mentioned user has been abusive to many and block logs like mediawiki block logs say it clearly.
 * It's not new to any project like wikimedia project that after reaching to some stage/position of power from where they won't be removed easily. Many tend to be dictatorial, I have been fighting with one and to tell the fact including office staff everyone is useless in our case now. Because of shitty backlash this case of Fram ban has recieved, we have lost the last chances of fetching justice for our small communities. As now onwards office has reworked their policies of intervention.
 * So all of this together, we should not unban Fram ever. in fact community needs to investigate more and give confidence to them who were forced to file a complaint anonymously. They would come in public and no such case should happen again. In other words, everyone should be able to make use of these promising structures which we showcase to tell how we are inclusive and all that shit.