User talk:SA 13 Bro

From TestWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


@Testingthisthing:: 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 13 Bro (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.--QueerEcofeminist (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@QueerEcofeminist: That is one way to look at it. However, since Fram was a case of an active toxic editor from their own project, the correlation of an upsurge of inactive editors coming from other projects and the fundementality of the recent events of enwiki infers improbability. It's true that the local processes are unable to deal with cases involving incivility and harassment especially those primarily with a background contextual to gender, sexuality or other factors. As seen in the discussion page, the community places greater priority on upholding community processes rather than protecting victims of harassment. I believe they are more concerned with defending an experienced admin with whom they've been more familiar. If a regular non-admin had performed the actions of Fram or said what he said that led to the ban, the banning of that editor would not even be challenged or brought up at the relevant noticeboards. It would be treated as a run-of-the-mill case. But because this happened to a long-term admin, everyone is losing their minds over it. I think this kind of discrimination is extremely unhealthy to Wikipedia and it would eventually cause the editors who are aware of the environment there to either stay away from the politics or entirely, Wikipedia. This is a problem that absolutely requires the WMF's intervention. A precedent like this is what could actually instill awareness into the regular users who assume servantship to the disgraceful dictatorship of discriminative admins of Wikipedia. Yet they're trying so hard to shut it down. I agree 100% with your fourth point. Administrators, by principle and the five pillars, are not supposed to establish some kind of supremacy over the commoners of Wikipedia but they are doing so anyway because they know very well that no one can stop them. Take them to ANI and another uninvolved admin would close it as 'no action'. The most recent example to demonstrate this hypocrisy is Brownhairedgirl who had been belittling, insulting and personally attacking editors but was not sanctioned. If a regular non-admin editor had behaved like her, they would be immediately blocked for an indefinite period (take Legacypac for example, whose use of the word 'bitch' gained him an indef, for which many have argued as being excessive but it was never overturned), for violation of the non-personal attacks policy and for being w:WP:NOTHERE. I also agree with your final point and believe the WMF should continue to intervene and not bow down to the community which is ruled and controlled by dictatorial admins who believe they can abuse the system without consequence. Testingthisthing (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I nowadays are no longer very active on Wikipedia and other WMF projects site to patrol the recent changes like last year or 2 years ago, due to my occupation in real-life. As I can illustrate about my point of view is Wikipedia are the worldwide encyclopedia big community project which accommodated various kind of editors, and also have a thousand kind of difference admins. Some are prejudice on Fram that familiarize about his bad civility issue very well and against on his behavior, and some are biased on the office action that implemented the ban on Fram about his long-term incivility issue and indisposed an drama on Wikipedia, this may let the arbitrators currently are incompetent to handle the Fram case. Fram has over a decade of period to serve his volunteer profession on Wikipedia, he get respected by quite a vast of veteran editors in community are not rare. I can seen that Fram didn't receive the through from T&S, hence whether Fram got harassing other users in the past ago potentially are interrogation mark, only the global authority T&S and the local authority ArbCom who knew about it. SA 13 Bro (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
It seems blatant that Fram had been harassing many editors as seen in the histories of the pages from various namespaces. I don't know if it was intentional or whether he thought that kind of behavior merely resembled a flex of administrative authority, or he thought it wasn't a problem at all. But one thing is clear, he has successfully managed to drive away many editors off the project. The commoners of Wikipedia may just brush it off and call it "pointing out troublesome behavior" but it has been disproven in the many discussions on and off wiki. The fact some people don't think Fram's abhorrent conduct is problematic is really concerning and is taking the 'pedia backward. Editors do not deserve to be treated abusively or get told to "fuck off". The T&S, being unfamilliar with the norms of the community, thought taking an action against a long-standing admin like that would not gain that much attention. However, from the community response, it seems clear the kind of toxicity and obnoxiousness Fram has displayed is very highly tolerated in the community and especially by admins who consider him a friend. This has set a precedent that no experienced admin can get punished for insults and personal attacks, which establishes an us-vs-them atmosphere that is obviously not a good sign of what should be a collaborative project. Testingthisthing (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@QueerEcofeminist: So does the Fram has harassed you in the past ago or not? Since you had fighting with one and tell the fact to office staff. SA 13 Bro (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@SA 13 Bro: One correction here, I did not face any direct harassment from Fram, what I said above is different, I said I have personally seen that above mentioned user has been abusive to many and block logs like mediawiki block logs say it clearly.
* Second thing is I did not file a complaint about fram.
* Third and important, because of this shitty backlash, now many users who are(on small wikis) facing similar problems because of such power freaks have no option with them, as the office has changed their policies. QueerEcofeminist (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Basically, I personally deem that Wikipedia shall be let T&S to handle and in charge of it in the future, since the community has demonstrated no competent to handle the long-term incivility behavior such as like the Fram case. I can perceive that there was quite an huge among of editors who highly hug on Fram and biased on the office action, or else it won't occurrence this sort of versus drama on Wikipedia. Wikipedia community project ambiance are quite complexity, which existent various kind of editors and admins than other projects site it is, and I can has the vouch that the T&S office staffs have some certain soreness to handle this sort of issue on Wikipedia. SA 13 Bro (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah they definitely should let T&S to handle things in the future... but looking at the current situation and all the resignations, they'd rather quit than let T&S take over. If that happens WP will lose editors to write and maintain articles which would eventually lead to the death of Wikipedia. Although the Foundation could replenish the void left by diva-ish editors by hiring actual writers, the atmosphere will then change forever. The only way to resolve this is if the WMF bring in pro-WMF admins to help silently shape up the hierarchy from within, slowly kicking out the toxic admins. Many commoners of Wikipedia usually have no minds of their own, they take the side of those who have more authority. Testingthisthing (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I went for some certain further look on the archives, this sock puppet user Rivselis is one of the pro-WMF in Wikipedia community who said that the T&S liability jobs are protecting the projects and all users on WMF to be safety, prevent users to get harassed and the projects to get harmed, which complied on the governmental legal constitution, that steward Ajra. on WMF and I also agree on this, Fram exactly having an long-term of problematic inflammatory behavior when I viewed on the discussion archives record. However there was an evidence case which WTT had summary out in not very long ago, hence not preclude that Fram may eventuality get the same sanctioning decision by the Arbcom in the coming event. SA 13 Bro (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
The Rivselis one is an interesting case. I just looked and saw that they are a 2006-registered account but was blocked for sock puppetry despite there being no enwiki checkuser data and it is based on the conclusion a steward has drawn. Stewards are not necessarily always correct and since they know their intervening brings zero to little scrutiny, they could forge data and draw a conclusion on something involving user behavior. TonyBallioni has been wielding his checkuser pistol so much for the most trivial reasons and I think people like him are actually problematic to the long-term essence of Wikipedia since he is one of those who literally eliminate good-faith users using the mask of CU, and he is going to keep doing that. I haven't bothered to go through the Fram ArbCom case pages because the ban would likely get overturned after a long period of the Committee pretending to exhaustively review each and every piece of evidence. I am certain the outcome is going to be based on the opinions of the Committee rather than the actual evidences suggesting if Fram actually deserves the ban or not. What do you think about the bias of admins getting special treatment compared to non-admins? Testingthisthing (talk) 07:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree that steward isn't necessarily always correct, since all stewards are also a volunteer. Regarding the CU privileges, yeah they must aware that IP's data occasionally may used by other users on the same certain days of time doesn't mean that other users could be possible sock puppet, the collateral has no such of completely in accurate record, and yes this may essentially affected those new comers who joining the project. If Fram ban eventually get overturned by the ArbCom it can be said that local are incompetent, you know admins on Wikipedia community generally have the certain reputation respect than other non-admins it is, certain of them don't deem that some admins could be rogue which may misuse their power to implement an poor judgement on any tasks, and some admins could have long-term of bad civility behavior just like Fram. Note that be an admins on any projects have no such big deal, just like you, me, and other else on here. SA 13 Bro (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


I’m friends with SA Bro 13 and I was invited to talk. First things first. I am on the side of the WMF. It is clear that they have the power to do whatever they want, since they get money and pay for the upkeep and maintenance of the server. This includes doing things for any reason, including reasons of “ I dont’ have a reason” and “ I dont lke you.” However, they follow policy as to ensure a good reason is created and followed up on.

It was clear from few interactions of Fram that I concluded he was abusive, incivil, and generally rude. I had a feeling he would eventually get himself some punishment and reprimand, and I’m glad the bna is a office block.

Much of the community members responding to WP:FRAM are utterly lacking in the grasp of the community and the role of office. This especially appears to those who diva Resigned their administrator tools over at the bureaucrat noticeboard.

As for the pending Arbcom case, its not gonna turn out much or they are gonna spin out the case as a Fram being a victim case. They were never really useful and for the most part, are there to rubber stamp the abuses of the checkuser and oversight team. And they know that office won’t do much. I know because I have personal experience with quite a few members.

That being said, the entire fiasco is a mess and the community is incompetent Artix Kreiger (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Exactly what Artix has stated was right, certain admins resigned because of this sort of Fram case, which the community have demonstrated they are incompetent to handle the long-term incivility issue of Fram case on Wikipedia. As what I has stated at above that I think Wikipedia shall be let the T&S to in charge in the future, Fram is one of the admins on Wikipedia has no such of big deal, as just like we are on here. SA 13 Bro (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@SA 13 Bro:, although the stewards hold a greater degree of accountability, they often lean towards going by whimsical tendencies by falling back on their egos. Stewards try so hard to be "relevant" on enwiki and try to do things that are unnecessary relating to enwiki just to show off their authority. I get that the English Wikipedia is the main hub of all Wikis and that all other Wikis are boring and have nothing special for stewards to do but it is a self-governed one and they have their own policies and structure for doing things. So in this case, when a Steward gives CU information to a local CU, the likelihood of foul play or disobedience to policy is high. They really didn't need to intervene and show a local user who probably was a good-faith editor their temperament. They would've left it at the local level but because of a steward the 2006-registered account was given an indefinite block for sock puppetry. I think it's not fair at all. Whatever the outcome of the Fram ban, one half of the Wikipedia community will be upsetted. If Fram gets unbanned, there will be people who think the ArbCom is incompetent, and if Fram's ban is endorsed by the Committee, there will be people who think ArbCom was being puppetted by the WMF. There will never be a win-win scenario. I agree with you that admins have a higher reputation, mostly due to their being more technical capable than the average user and their egos boosted by the amount of people who supported their RfAs. However, there is a policy and the five pillar suggesting that all editors on Wikipedia are equal and no individual editor is greater than any other. I don't think it was meant only for non-admins, because if it was they'd have clarified as such. Just as how people claim Wikipedia is nothing without volunteers, dictatorial admins are nothing without the "lowly" non-admin editors who write and maintain articles. I think Wikipedia will be so much better if the rogue and condescending admins are suspended immediately upon bad behavior. I read that such an idea would cause great abuse, but I think it's only those dictatorial admins who would worry about such "abuse". It's not like other kinds of abuse are not happening presently. Rogue admins are protecting each other by shutting down those who criticize them. Do you not think this situation is really concerning? How do you suggest the community gets rid of rogue and condescending admins? @Artix Kreiger: I am also on the side of the WMF for this particular case, because mostly I believe, as you said, they have the total control over Wikipedia and sister projects. They pay taxes, they hold the servers, they control the system and everything about the site, they have the founder of Wikipedia working with them on the Board of Trustee, a few community-originated persons are also on the Board and they literally have the full authority over Wikipedia. Yet these bunch of 20-30 community people who lead and make proposals to other 300-500 people from the community consider themselves as the ruling party of Wikipedia. When they signed up for an account, they agreed to abide by the ToS but by doing all these public stunts they are violating it deliberately and blatantly. They show no remorse because they believe they're right in standing up against an office action taken against one of their long-term users. They are only fighting it because they know it could happen to them (rogue admins). I respect that the genuine members of the community want Wikipedia to be self-governed but there are difficult situations where the WMF needs to intervene and this was one of them. Fram is one of the most troublesome admin I've ever seen on Wikipedia. He took actions unilaterally and decided they were right without consensus. He has a "do as I say not do as I do"-attitude, through which he has shown extremely-abusive behavior to editors, but at the same time considers similar behavior against him as uncivil that he would proceed to take administrative actions against. He has exhibited great hypocrisy. Testingthisthing (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Since all stewards are also elected by global community consensus so the communities are also have the various kind of stewards just like local admins, and yes I do agree that some stewards may have their egos ideological, but stewards number of people aren't that much than local admins, or have the similar among of large number of people just like local admins existent it is, so the rogue issue aren't that so grave. If ArbCom eventually make the decision ban on Fram who deem that ArbCom are the puppet of WMF, then those users who deem that are the rogue type of editors on Wikipedia. It is preferable to let office for handling the rogue abusive admins just like the Fram case, Wikipedia ambiance are complexity, it is quite difficult for me to concern the situation too explicit. SA 13 Bro (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Although the number of stewards are not near as much as the amount of admins on the English Wikipedia, they possess a great deal of responsibility towards non-major Wikis. And sometimes I wonder if it's a good idea to keep that steward number small, because maybe more stewards could place more eyes on the abuse of other stewards. It is not a definite solution but a suggestion that definitely has cons such as abusive stewards protecting each other or lacking interest in scrutinizing actions. As for ArbCom, it could be true those types of editors are considered rogue if they refuse to accept the stance of the Committee especially when it favors the WMF. The idea that only either the WMF or the ArbCom could handle political business on Wikipedia is a black-or-white fallacy. There are other options that could be explored but no one has put forward any such views yet. The Arbitration Committee is a flawed system. It is basically the second WP:AN which offers nothing more than drama, incompetence and greater secrecy. Joe Roe is probably the only arbitrator who has a clue on handling issues like this, the rest are incompetent and shouldn't even be on there. They were elected for their experience on Wikipedia, but experience does not always translate to competence or intelligence. I would really love to see the Arbitration Committee abolished and replaced with a more efficient system with qualified individuals, or at least limit the scope of the Committee to something less. How do you view the Arbitration Commitee system? Testingthisthing (talk) 08:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)