Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m →On desysop: fmt |
→Comments by WJBscribe: Baffled |
||
Line 488:
::It also seems to me that to the extent we have "individuals who are outspoken, impatient, quick to criticise and blame" but who produce and maintain first rate content, they should still be treasured and supported. I don't really have much time for the hypothetical opposite category, i.e. individuals who produce problematic content but are on the face of it "cooperative, collegial, and helpful". WMF appear dead set on protecting the latter. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 12:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
:::{{u|WJBscribe}}, you misunderstand the examples in evidence. Fram says to problem users just what any other admin would. The problems lie in how Fram says it. What is hugely frustrating in this situation is that recognising Fram's faults runs the risk of siding with the WMF. Ultimately, the committee needs to find a way of addressing the missteps that both parties have committed. <span class="nowrap">[[User:AGK|<span style="color:black;">'''AGK'''</span>]][[User talk:AGK#top|<span style="color: black;"> ■</span>]]</span> 17:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand the refusal to post the evidence (by which I mean <u>diffs</u>) that Arbcom relies upon to justify a desysop. It doesn't matter whether ArbCom identified them because they were in the T&S report or investigated and discovered them themselves. We now know that all alleged misconduct identified took place <u>on wiki</u> so the evidence itself is not private. It doesn't matter that the report/underlying complaints are confidential. You can't turn public edits to Wikipedia into private evidence by making them the subject of a confidential report. Why can we not have a FOF along the lines of, "'''''Additional evidence''' In addition to the community-provided evidence, Committee also relies upon [DIFFS/DESCRIPTION/ANALYSIS]. The Committee is not at liberty to disclose whether this additional evidence was referred to in the Office-provided case materials or was identified independently by the Committee.''" That way everyone can see why a desysop is being proposed. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 14:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
==Comments by EllenCT==
| |||