User talk:SilkTork

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Edmund Blair Leighton - A flaw in the title.jpg

I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. Barack Obama

To remove the sandbox link add #pt-sandbox { display: none; } (or li#pt-sandbox {display: none;} for MonoBook users) to your common.css page.

To prevent the "Your edit was saved" message add .postedit { display: none; } to your personal CSS.

To prevent site notices add #siteNotice { display:none; } to your personal CSS.

To prevent the MediaViewer follow these instructions

Use {{Reflist|30em}} instead of {{Reflist|2}}

What's broken?[edit]

Hi SilkTork, noticed you had to do this - can you elaborate on what is broken, as it must be broken for everyone else then? — xaosflux Talk 16:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't see the editnotice (Group notice / Page notice) on article space anymore. I wondered if it was me. I found it useful to put in language notices in the page notice, such as at Beer: [1], but now if I go to articles I can't edit page notice anymore - the link is no longer there (unless there is already a page notice, as there is with Beer). See [2], etc. SilkTork (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


Please lift the protection of Jaguar from 2011. -- (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I have responded on the talkpage: Talk:Jaguar#Lift_semi-protection?. SilkTork (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


do you define 'power'? Why do you associate an uncivil connotation to it? Per your definition of 'power', do you believe that clerks/Committee don't have any 'power'? What is a civil substitute for 'power'?

I also hope that as we move forward on the civility front, comments and edit summaries like over here will be found to be universally unacceptable. WBGconverse 04:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the question. I think as a community we all need to work on being aware of what we say. That includes me. SilkTork (talk) 08:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
If you choose to not answer my query, you can do away with the token thanks as well. Bye. WBGconverse 09:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I thought I was responding. Can you make clear what it is you're asking of me, and I will endeavour to address your concern appropriately. SilkTork (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, the first paragraph of my post reads:- How do you define power? Why do you associate an uncivil connotation to it? Per your definition of 'power', do you believe that clerks/Committee don't have any 'power'? What is a civil substitute for 'power'?
I see a lot many questions in that query, which arose of your statement hours back (vide Also, I hope as we move forward on the civility front, such comments as "yet another demonstration of power by the arbs and their clerks" will be universally found to be unacceptable) that inserted the word power within scare quotes and deemed a factual assertion contained in a hyperbolic form (in my opinion) as universally unacceptable! WBGconverse 10:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
It appeared to me (and, to be honest, still does) that you were being rhetorical. It appeared that you wished to let me know that you disagreed with me. I'm OK with you disagreeing with me. I do take on board criticisms. But I'm not sure what else I can do here as the questions still look rhetorical to me, such that I am not sure where to start with any meaningful answer. Certainly not one that could be dealt with in a reasonable space of time. But I'll try to address what I think is your point. Casual moans at volunteers who are simply correcting an agreed format is not collegial, especially when that moan is couched in terms to suggest that the volunteers are not doing in for a valid reason, but just to demonstrate their power with implications of authoritarianism. I dislike it when people unfairly moan and criticise the clerks for doing their job. We let such moans slip by frequently, but it creates an unpleasant atmosphere of low level incivility that is the background noise to being a clerk, and can be quite tiring and demotivating. I'd like to see the day when we are all a bit more considerate and supportive of each other, and we make it clear that such background moaning is not acceptable. In soccer the players frequently moan at and berate the ref. This doesn't happen in rugby or American football. Different expectations. I'd like Wikipedia to be more like a rugby pitch and less like a soccer pitch. SilkTork (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
This is the second comment you've made recently (that I know of) where you've expressed that your dream is that someday the users won't be allowed to disrespect the admins. It's a disturbing attitude for an admin to have.—Chowbok 03:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I would like it if we all respected each other regardless of what tools we have, including IP users. Every account here is a real person who can be hurt by a dismissive or rude comment. SilkTork (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Chowbok - And a widespread 'disturbing attitude' is that admins are fair game to be insulted because generally they are not allowed to respond if they are attacked. Of course they deserve respect - just as much as any other user. I've never known SilkTork to demand 'special' treatment for admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
I don't think anyone should be insulted, but SilkTork is saying that admins shouldn't even be criticized. He even used the word "criticise" in his example above. And his casual association of being "rude" with being "dismissive" is also concerning. It sure seems like anything short of absolute deference is objectionable.
I mean, he didn't even argue with my summary of his attitude. It may sound nice to say "we should all respect each other", but in practice that means that any questioning of an editor or admin's behavior or motivation could be considered "disrespect" and therefore verboten. It's chilling coming from an admin, especially one on ArbCom.—Chowbok 14:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
It is perfectly possible to criticise, question, and comment on others' behaviour with respect. Doing so is normal in any collegial environment. I really hope you're exaggerating to make a point, Chowbok, because "it's okay to disrespect people" would be a disturbing attitude from someone who has been a part of this community for as long as you have. – Joe (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Why is "people should be allowed to be disrespectful" an objectionable statement, but "people should be punished for questioning the motives of admins" is not? And why doesn't anybody see the irony in an admin wanting to use his power to forcibly quiet somebody who suggests he's abusing his power?—Chowbok 17:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your detailed thoughts, though not necessarily agreeing with everything. So, thanks, at the beginning.
People in power need to be criticized and vociferous dissent shall be encouraged, however misplaced they are, unless that degenerates into some form of gross abuse and/or crosses other bright lines. To me, it's a necessary counterbalance to the powers yielded in certain sections of the community.
History has shown us that some of the most corrupt folks who wielded power across different domains indeed often feel that the peasants were generating a lot of random noise about everything, which adversely affected their supposedly momentous devotion and dedication to the job. The end-results of such behavior were seldom good for the peasants and so, no, I don't buy such arguments.
We are one of the most civil environments among Internet sites and striving towards some more radical proposal equating to hosting an all-site tea party might be highly counter-productive. For one, within the past week, I came across one of your clerk's highly hostile and authoritarian (but supposedly civil, since he was polite and did not abuse me) behavior over here. There are a hundred and one ways to be in-civil and not indulging in background moaning or being a bit hyperbolic might fall in about a hundred of them. WBGconverse 15:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I think I have lost the thread of this. Where have I talked about not criticising admins? And where have I talked about punishing people's motives? If someone can point me to this, I will reflect on what I said. SilkTork (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

"I dislike it when people unfairly moan [at] ... the clerks for doing their job. We let such moans slip by frequently ... I'd like to see the day when ... we make it clear that such background moaning is not acceptable."
"I hope as we move forward ... such comments as 'yet another demonstration of power by the arbs and their clerks' will be universally found to be unacceptable."
Both of those remarks pretty clearly reveal your desire for repression of commentary on admin behavior. Unless "unacceptable" just means you want everybody to frown and grumble at the perpetrator rather than actual consequences, but somehow I doubt that.—Chowbok 13:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I said Clerks not admins. While most Clerks are admins, not all are, and it's a defined role to help run the ArbCom pages. The Clerks follow and are bound by Procedures which have been previously discussed and agreed upon. If anyone has an issue with the way the Clerks are carrying out those procedures, or wish to raise queries about the procedures themselves, then a more efficient and collegial approach would be to use Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks, stating their concerns in a factual and neutral manner. If someone has an issue with the procedures outlined at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Procedures#Statement_and_evidence_management, they can discuss their concerns there, or perhaps start a RfC, and do so without adding personal slurs such as that the Clerks are demonstrating their "power". The Clerks enjoy no power or status - I daresay the majority of the community are unaware of who they are, or what they do. They simply do administrative tasks, such as set up and maintain the ArbCom pages, and post notices. There are technical aspects to their role which are tricky and need to be learned, and they have to be careful in what they say and do. They monitor themselves carefully. I have enormous respect for what they do, and I dislike it when people feel they can freely moan at them and insult them as they carry out the procedures they have been asked to do. SilkTork (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I dunno, ST. (Some) clerks have the power to block, to remove statements from case pages, to prevent an editor from participating in a case except by email, etc.; they're not just automatons carrying out procedure. They have, and exercise, their own discretion, which can significantly affect the editing experience of another editor. That said, of course I agree that criticism should be expressed respectfully (and I myself have failed to do this many times) but I wouldn't agree that clerks "simply do administrative tasks". Levivich 06:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The reality is that the Clerks monitor each other, and if they are in doubt if an action is compatible with the procedures and instructions from the Arbs, they will ask. Not to say errors of judgement don't occur, but the general principle is that they carry out administrative tasks on behalf of the Committee. Are you conflating the Clerks with Arbitration Enforcement? Some Wikipedians may do both roles, which could blur the boundaries to casual observers. SilkTork (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Except for cases of a) clear personal attacks upon another editor in an arbitration case or case request or 2) statements that go beyond the specified word limits or are placed in the wrong section in a sectioned discussion, I would say that clerks rarely take action without checking in with each other on our email list which arbitrators are also members of and they regularly chime in on discussions.
I think most clerks are very aware of actions taken by other clerks and we act as a check and balance on each other. As SilkTork states, we are bound by the clerk procedures that were created by the community. In the very few times that I'm aware of that a clerk has acted in an overly assertive or aggressive manner, they were usually a trainee clerk and they didn't remain a clerk for long. We are truly the janitors of the arbitration pages. Apply for a position today! Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


Just spotted this and wanted to say I'm sorry to hear that you intend to resign. I feel more than a modicum of guilt as I suggested you ran and really didn't expect this year to turn out how it did. Hopefully you'll be able to get back to doing the stuff you do enjoy. WormTT(talk) 11:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure that how the year turned out would have made a big difference to how much I enjoyed it. It's the time, energy and interest in doing the job that is perhaps lacking in me. During my "break" I started to get back into editing in a small way and then reviewing GAs*, and that's more my thing. I also like closing discussions and helping to settle disputes. I can do all those better outside the Committee than in, and do them in my own time without any expectation that I should be working harder. Also, I'm really not suited to the secret conversations. I like openness. *I have two reviews still open, and I am hoping to get back to them soon. Anyway, feel absolutely no guilt Worm, I enjoyed working with you again. And hope to do so again at some point in the future that doesn't involve ArbCom! :-) SilkTork (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Glad to hear it. I'm doing my best to get through a GA myself, with a very patient reviewer who has left me a lot of leeway due to Arbcom drain. I'm not sure I'd risk doing another one while on Arbcom, you just don't know when the floodgates are likely to open. WormTT(talk) 14:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Also sorry you're resigning, and I think you're doing excellent work right now. –xenotalk 16:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm also sorry to hear it. I always really appreciated your perspective in our discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Piling up sorry, I am impressed about your interaction with Fram on meta, even if we met there coming from two directions. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I also saw your note about resigning...there has been a big drain on ArbCom this year. I hope you can hold on until the next election in two months but I understand if you want to leave before that. It's a time-consuming role to have on Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 16:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Ditto. Your resignation will be a big loss to the committee; you bring a fresh perspective that is too often underrepresented, for example what you recently wrote here. Sorry to hear about this. Levivich 16:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Acknowledging that I have seen the above. Have to dash off now - real life is very busy at the moment! SilkTork (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry to see you go, too, and I wish you all the best. You have been excellent in responding to editors at the Fram PD talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I too am sorry to see you go. I wish you the best with your future endeavours and hope to see you around. Face-smile.svg --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

'interface page'[edit]

Hi ST, I was taken with your comment "What I would like, and I have suggested it a few times, is the Foundation to have an interface page here on Wikipedia". You're entirely right that MetaWiki = Alpha Centauri for most of us, but if there is a centralised page here that the WMF can post their notifications, there can be much less in the way of complaints about decisions being taken outside out consciousness. Given the last three months of disruption that has shaken this place, would this be a good time for you, as a sitting Arb, to make the recommendation directly to the WMF again? - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

No. I am resigning after the Fram case. And I remain inactive on all other ArbCom matters. I raised the matter with Katherine Maher, and she was interested and passed on my suggestion to a developer, who slightly misunderstood my suggestion to mean something on MetaWiki, and I responded very badly, souring that relationship. I am actually very emotional and angry about this whole thing and it is difficult for me to remain calm and polite. I was unable to join in any of the phone conversations with T&S because I could not trust myself not to say something inappropriate or damaging. At least with the keyboard there is the chance of pausing to reflect before sending. Also, I would rather not use my position as an arb. I think it has to come from the community as a body. But as an ex-arb (as I would be) I would support any effort by the community to create such an interface. I think it would be helpful (perhaps essential) if Jimbo and the Board got involved to add their weight. SilkTork (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the well-rounded explanation, and I completely understand your position. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


I wanted to say again that I appreciate what you're doing, and how hard you're trying to be fair and diligent. I don't know if that came across correctly in what I said on the PD talk page, so I wanted to reiterate it, and to say that I hope you don't feel bullied. It's not fair what's been put on you and on Arbcom in regards to this case, and out of all of the arbs, I think your efforts have been the most fair. I just don't think that this case should be allowed to result in anything, since it was such an overreach and so badly bungled.

In law, there's something called fruit of the poisonous tree. Since there was no real probable cause with which to go after Fram with this ban, at least none that would pass any real life grand jury, then everything that comes after must be disregarded. That's an imperfect way of saying things, no doubt, but it's the closest thing I have to explain why I think everything should be vacated in order to move forward. If a case is to be brought after, let it be brought fairly and straight-forwardly by established procedure and within the public eye. Sunlight really is the best disinfectant.

I hope that explains. It's not you that I'm frustrated with, and I think you're doing the best you can with a really ugly situation. I know it's gotta be harrowing to have so much attention focused on you from an unsettled, upset community. I just wish that none of this had happened, and that I -- and others -- didn't feel like we can't sign our names without T&S or WMF maybe putting a target on our backs.

Best of luck. Thank you for your efforts. 2601:18E:8200:28B8:70CE:AFEC:A683:7C5D (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


Would you, or another encouragist, be willing to be an admin mentor to Fram? Would Fram be open to mentoring? I suspect the answer to these two simple questions would reveal a path forward. Jehochman Talk 02:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a good and helpful question. Unfortunately I stopped mentoring after Mattisse. Also, I'm not sure that mentoring is the appropriate solution in this case. I think what is needed is perhaps just a minor shift in Fram's approach. Fram is intelligent and capable enough to make that adjustment if Fram takes on board that the adjustment is needed. All that would be needed then is a formal statement of that in the case, and I'm done. What exactly that assessment is, and how to word it, I don't quite know yet. Though I think it may involve Fram consulting a little more (I'd like to ask Fram more about that, as it may be that Fram already generally consults and notifies) or offering assistance and/or encouragement a little more. Though I don't think we can force someone to offer encouragement. I think it needs to be something that Fram buys into and does voluntarily - albeit with some formal wording in the case, such as "Fram agrees...." However, it cannot be a blanket statement such as "Fram agrees to offer assistance as well as criticism when approaching problematic users...." because some problematic users are clearly vandals, and I wouldn't want to saddle Fram with having to be nice to vandals. But if, for example, someone is adding copyright material to Wikipedia, wording such as "I note you are adding copyright material to Wikipedia, this is against policy per WP:COPYVIO; would you like some assistance in identifying when material is copyrighted?" Rather than "You are adding copyrighted material, please stop." SilkTork (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
It may be wording such as "Fram agrees to abide by WP:ADMINCOND, leading by example by offering assistance where possible and appropriate; directing problematic users to the appropriate policies and guidelines; and bring the matter to the attention of another admin when a problematic user has not amended their ways after appropriate assistance has been given." SilkTork (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
There is a huge difference if Fram were to say that he's done nothing wrong versus if Fram recognizes problems and in his own words says how he intends to improve going forward. Maybe it would help to let a Fram choose the wording of his statement and then quote his undertaking into a finding if the Committee accepts it. Jehochman Talk 13:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You have mail[edit]

I don't have it. It's possible that if it had ArbCom in the title it may have been filtered out. SilkTork (talk) 08:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm... the 'email self' copy did not show up for me either. I will resend it. Jbh Talk 11:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Sent. Jbh Talk 13:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Jbhunley Sorry to wade in here but I thought I may as well mention that I too have been having peculiar issues with the Special:EmailUser portal. Own copies do not always show up, emails to me taking half an hour or more to show past the notification onwiki that they arrived, etc. I made a post on VPT but those who responded did not experience it. Glad (I guess) to hear I'm not alone Face-tongue.svg. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
@TheSandDoctor: Thanks, I had have noticed that too (well with the one email sent to me recently. Ping/talk notices seem to be prompt though.) which is why I did not worry when it did not immediately pop up in my inbox. In this case though it was operator error, I hit send but did not click again on the confirmation screen... it was 3am :) Jbh Talk 14:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


It was good to meet you today. The user Redrose64 was suggesting you talk to about a meetup nearer to you is Geni. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 16:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks! SilkTork (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Did you notice the Oxford Blue get sweeter as you drank it? SilkTork (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I did. The second pint though must have been the end of the barrel as there was about a quarter of an inch of sediment that I chose not to drink! Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


Please see this letter. Jbh Talk 06:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I've now seen it. It is natural that people are conflating the Foundation's actions with ArbCom's own deliberations on Fram's conduct. As a member of the Committee I have been finding it difficult to separate the two. I have been thinking for a while of posting a motion, the gist of the wording of which I have just posted on the PD talkpage. Meanwhile, it might be more appropriate for you to move your post to the WP:Fram page as it appears to be more appropriate there than on the ArbCom page. SilkTork (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually, the point I am arguing is that the Foundation has constrained Arbcom unnecessaryly by designating the document in whole as non public personal information and by requiring restrictions on dealing with it which are greater than required by the confidentiality agreement. Essentially, purposefully or not, they seem to have used the agreement as an instrument of intimidation to force compliance beyond its actual requirements. The purpose of the letter is/was to trigger a neutral review of their position.

I have seen your proposal to simply throw out the T&S material. I agree that is a proper way to address the issue and getting Fram onwiki for the rest of the case is definitely the way to go. In my opinion FWIW etc.

I understand the thought behind moving it to the FRAM page however, it really is part and parcel with my chain of reasoning in my arguments in the case. I think it is important, at least for me, to keep the documentation of that intact in one place.

From what I have read about the Ombudsman commission since, it really is more an investigative committee for the board with respect to chevkuser/oversight rather than being a properly constituted and authorized Ombudsman. This is rather disappointing to learn. Wikipedia needs a fair arbiter with respect to the Foundation. Jbh Talk 19:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Noted. SilkTork (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
On reflection I will move it over over to WP:FRAM along with s copy of my request on Jimbo talk and replace the letter in the PD with a diff pointing. That will serve my need to keep a central reference and reduce the length of PD talk. Jbh Talk 17:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Motion to close (GW)[edit]

I understand that you've made up your mind on the outcome of this case, but it would be nice if you could at least see the case through to its completion. There are already few enough of us active on this case, and the more eyes on the proposals the better in my view. There are still a handful of them that I see you haven't voted on—are you willing to do so (or at least formally abstain)? I'll also note that I temporarily indented your support vote on the motion to pass remedy 1a because I turned it into an injunction, and in doing so, modified the wording enough that I was not comfortable assuming you still support it. I've pinged you on that specific remedy, but since I'm here leaving this comment I figured I'd mention it as well. Thank you again for all your work on the Committee this year. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look GW. Not tonight, but in the morning. I didn't mean my actions to signify that I was dismissing what you had done. Rather that I was done, and wanted to signify that clearly as I was aware I had been holding up the close of the case. SilkTork (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Great, thank you! Definitely no need to do it tonight—just wanted to know if you planned to vote or not. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Motion to close[edit]

I've been following with interest the conversation between you and Fram on meta, so this was very disappointing to see. Especially since GorillaWarfare had just finished what appears to be a great deal of work on the case which I would hope all of the arbs would take the time to read and vote on. I understand your frustration at not being able to get Fram to agree to your proposals on his meta talk page (perhaps you saw that I had made suggestions there myself) but I really hope that this case will not be closed prematurely due to that frustration. 28bytes (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

28bytes Ah. Yes, I understand your point. This is the situation. I been inactive on ArbCom for a while. At first it was just a break, but as it went on I realised that I am not really suited to or comfortable being a Committee member. I made myself active just for this case as I had been involved from the start, and it seemed inappropriate to abandon it before it was completed, especially as Committee numbers had already dwindled. I have worked through the case, and dithered, holding up the final decision, then GW joined me in the dithering, so at least there was the two of us. If we hadn't dithered, the case would have closed a few days ago with Fram desysopped. I have now finished dithering, and I can see there is nothing more for me to do. So I have indicated clearly on the case that I have finished dithering, and I have informed the Committee and the Clerks that I have resigned, though the resignation won't take effect until the case is closed. My vote to close won't actually close the case - there needs to be a net four, so that is just my indication that I have finished and won't be holding up matters any more. If you feel that I should go back and formally withdraw my vote to close, I have no problem doing so. Though I wonder if that might give the wrong impression - that it may suggest I am still dithering? SilkTork (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Fram may be in a bad place of frustration because he’s just suffered a 3 month long unjust ban. It may not be the best time to discuss him changing. I think he should be unbanned and then these matters can be discussed. Patience is rarely a bad plan, as long as some of us are willing to try. Jehochman Talk 17:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Jehochman My understanding is that there are a number of people who have suffered in all of this, not just Fram. And it is the consideration of all the people involved, including some who are tangentially involved - ie, that have not been the focus of Fram's attention, but have felt the chill of it leach away some of the good will on this project, that figures in my decision to support a desysop. I did not think at the start of this case that I would go for a desysop. I have never had an issue with Fram, and what I saw I didn't feel was that concerning (though I was a little concerned at the revert through protection that I have mentioned a few times because there was the option of talking with the arb or raising the matter with the Clerks, and it seemed that Fram went for the hottest option). Anyway, I was surprised at the start of this year to become aware of the level of hostility some feel toward Fram. But the more I looked into Fram's activity, the more I could see why people were concerned. Now, the silly thing is that it really wouldn't take much to alter Fram's approach to one which the community would see as satisfactory, and which may well prove to be more productive in the long run. But we can't force Fram to take that approach. There is no remedy that could be worded that would be effective at AE. It needs Fram's support and understanding. Without that support - without Fram's willingness to change, then there is unlikely to be change. I could be wrong. Fram may go through a successful RfA, and decide to take on board the concerns raised. On the other hand, Fram may go through a successful RfA and feel that the community support the existing Fram, so there is no need to change. Who knows? We'll have to wait and see. But the worse that is going to happen to Fram if the case closes with a desysop, is to go through a RfA. We have already voted to unban. It's just waiting now for that to be made formal. SilkTork (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
That's fair, and you've been willing to reconsider your position based on evidence, which is good. Thank you for your service. You've gone above and beyond what I expected. Jehochman Talk 21:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Late, perhaps, I am always uneasy when it comes to "level of hostility some feel toward" any user, because I have seen those feelings making blind for facts and reason. For example, I saw the dialogue with LouisAlain, and saw nothing wrong in it. Did you see any diff there which would give rise to questioning Fram's capability as an admin? I mean diff, not someone else's interpretation of a diff. I didn't follow on meta, am on vacation, and would like to see this closed, finally. - Please, out of this context, any admin please resolve Psalm 100 if it still has a revdel tag. More on ANI where I went with a request for the first time in 10 years (not counting that I requested talk page access for someone accused in 2015). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
No I didn't Gerda. It was raised as a recent concern at ANI, and it appeared to me that repeatedly pointing out errors to the same person without offering appropriate help, and/or using a tone that was more disapproving than helpful, was not optimal. It is not an abuse of the admin privilege to point out errors. However, there is a clinical almost disapproving way of doing something and there is a gentle supportive way of doing the very same thing. It's like holding out your hand to a child and saying "take my hand". But the way it is said - harshly, coldly, or warmly, can make a huge difference to the way the child feels and responds. Said too harshly, and the child may become scared and run off. Said warmly and the child will take the hand in a trusting manner. Same action, same words, different tone.
Having said that. Fram explained the situation, that assistance had been offered to LouisAlain by others, and that mentoring had been tried, and LouisAlain continued to make errors. While we do encourage others to be bold, and not be afraid of making mistakes because "any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted easily, usually painlessly", we also expect people to WP:LISTEN to advice/concerns and make appropriate amendments to their editing. If people are unable to listen and respond appropriately to advice/concerns then they lack the WP:COMPETENCE required to edit here. So I accepted Fram's point. SilkTork (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the thoughtful response. Musing: LouisAlain is a dear friend of mine, has been for many years. He has the competence to have translated all Bach cantatas missing in French from English to French which won my heart for ever. He has no competence to notice if an article he translates from German is a copyvio, but neither have I. Fram has it, and told us, which is helpful! - LouisAlain said somewhere on his talk that he passed 60, and I could imagine that he would not be fond of being compared to a child. We foreign-language editors - even if we lack language skills - have some degree of pride when we contribute what we can. I have am "improve articles by LouisAlain" corner, and you (y'all) are welcome to help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Most people would not like being compared to a child, which is why I didn't do that. I was using what we call a simile to make a general point about how attitude and tone can have an impact on what is being said or done. I also noted when looking into LouisAlain that he had created a number of articles, and was being thanked for them with barnstars and DYKs. I took Fram's point that there was no violations of admin conduct in Fram's approaches to LouisAlain, but that does not mean I didn't feel that your friendly approach wasn't the better one. Quite the reverse. (If there is any part of this that you feel is saying anything negative about you or anyone else, please ask me to clarify BEFORE making the assumption that I am being disrespectful). SilkTork (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I thank you for the reply, especially for having noticed that LouisAlain has created hundreds of articles without problems. - The other topic: hHaving seen an article tagged which is core content for Judaism and Christianity (not some obscure German hymn I ometimes write about), and regulars templated in the matter lets me undertand even better what you say about tone. More on my talk, in case of interest, look for September 2019" (of course) the second. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I may well take a look. At the moment I am aware that there are two GAN reviews I have not completed, plus an article or two of my own I wish to finish tidying up before submitting for GAN, so they will be my priority once the Fram case is closed. SilkTork (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
No more look needed, it seems, . some stepped in while I was out. - Let me say more precisely that I didn't mean you by saying "blind for facts and reason", but whoever misunderstood the situation with LouisAlain and "complained". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, SilkTork. I completely understand your desire to be done with the whole thing. One of the frustrating things for me is that there is no shortage of smart, thoughtful people on the committee, so it seems like a lost opportunity that the committee cannot craft a short list of restrictions, or at least expectations, that Fram is expected to meet, in lieu of a desysop. (Especially in lieu of a desysop not supported by findings of fact.) I was encouraged by the proposals you were making on meta, as they seemed to be good foundations for those restrictions or expectations, and I was disheartened that that process seemed to get aborted due to Fram's (not unreasonable) wariness. I would really like to see a thoughtful solution to this that would give Fram guidance and direction instead of punishment or sanctions. 28bytes (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I have given thought to a remedy that could be written without Fram's support, but I don't think such a thing could be enforceable. I'm sad that the discussions broke down. Fram didn't quite understand my concern about naming people in a manner that indicated they might be implicated in the T&S ban, and that misunderstanding saddened and worried me, particularly as there has been at times a vindictive mood around this whole affair that has impacted real people, so identifying people who might become targets was something I wanted to steer away from.
I really would have liked Fram to get on board with the remedy. That's not to say the rest of the Committee would have supported them, but at least Fram and I could have given it our best shot.
While Fram is more high profile, I felt that GiantSnowman's actions were more an affront to admin conduct. Oddly, because they were more obviously crossing the line they were easier to address. It's the almost indefinable nature of Fram's approach to problem solving that is difficult to tackle, both for us and for Fram. I welcomed Fram's engagement and his candour in the discussion, and I felt some of Fram's summaries were very good, such that I accepted Fram's position, though at times I felt there was a defensive attitude that could possibly be inhibiting self-reflection. I remain at the end of this fairly neutral on the whole affair, though incline toward the desysop because without Fram's commitment to address concerns, I suspect there will be tension in the future. SilkTork (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
(For my own curiosity), does Fram's recent post over Meta 'bout committing to being more civil in his future interactions/criticisms meet any part of your own set of expectations around ADMINCOND, that would have been enough for you to switch to the camp of re-sysop-ing him?
Obviously, a thought-exercise in vain, since we have got a majority of arbitrators who are already fixed in their stances but will like to hear your opinion:-)
And, thanks for your service for all this while; you will be missed. You were, to me, among the best arbitrators of this lot and a sane voice of reason, even among polarized disagreements. WBGconverse 08:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I assume you mean "in the future I'll restrict my criticism to harsh, direct, precise, but more civil comments"? Well, not completely, because Fram has rarely been incivil, and where he has, he has recognised that and accepted that was inappropriate (and, to be fair, such uncivil outbursts are not uncommon in the community); the main concerns regarding Fram relate to Fram being "harsh, direct, precise" (albeit in a civil manner) a little too much and too often such that the person receiving such comments are not able to appropriately respond. What I was looking for was a difference in tone and attitude rather than to stop being rude or offensive (though I had wording for the uncivil comments as well): my suggested wording was: "Fram agrees to abide by WP:ADMINCOND, leading by example by offering assistance where possible and appropriate; directing problematic users to the appropriate policies and guidelines; and bringing the matter to the attention of another admin (or admins) when a problematic user has not amended their ways after appropriate assistance has been given." SilkTork (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)