This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Rambling Man (talk | contribs) at 21:50, 8 February 2018 (→Statement by The Rambling Man: sure sure, but let's not forget current trends). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ARC

Requests for arbitration

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

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are 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

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Link 1
• Link 2

Statement by Gatoclass

I've been asked to trim my evidence, my apologies I thought the word limit was 1000 words not 500. But I honestly don't know if I can shorten this post without losing the integrity of the narrative. Trimmed, but does it even make sense now? (Original here).

This case is not about dispute resolution but about administrator conduct.

This debacle began with the following discussion at WT:DYK. I added a hook to a prep to replace a hook that got pulled, then, after completing my usual checks, loaded that prep into the queue. Unbenownst to me, The Rambling Man had made a change to the hook, 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. Fram then pulled the hook, a completely unnecessary action given that the issue was already under discussion. I couldn't reload it without Fram's consent because the queue is a protected page, even though TRM had already agreed that the hook, and my change to the article to make it unambiguously conform to the hook, were fine.

Fram logged off shortly thereafter, so we were unable to resolve the situation. When he finally returned, instead of just checking my edit for accuracy, he launched an extraordinary personal attack, in which he made the outrageously bad faith presumption that I had behaved atrociously. He also accused me of continu to trample all normal editing rules to get what he wants. His charge that I had behaved atrociously was a demonstrable falsehood. Had he taken even a moment to check the actual article, he would have seen that the reference from which I sourced the change I made to the article was not offline as Fram falsely claimed but is online and easily checkable.

Abandoning hope of getting the original hook passed given Fram's disengagement, I verified the ALT hook instead, at the same time repudiating his charges. 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.

I decided instead to delete his earlier post as a personal attack and just redo my verification.

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.

So to summarize:

• 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 Gatoclass (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: I see. So you think it's perfectly fine for an administrator to unload on another user, calling their actions atrocious, without even bothering to first examine those actions? And then returning to restore the charge? Well that might be acceptable conduct for an admin in your world, but it isn't in mine. Gatoclass (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Fram:. Firstly Fram, it's my understanding that confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried applies to dispute resolution cases, not to cases involving administrator conduct. On reflection, perhaps I could have tried to resolve this matter in discussion with you before opening this case. Given that you spent much of the last week or two waving ADMINACCT in my face, however, the sheer hypocrisy of you breezily presuming that I had engaged in atrocious behaviour - and then restoring this outrageous bad faith assumption after I deleted it - while at the same time depriving me even of the right to publicly repudiate the charge - made ADMINACCT my first and only thought. Regardless of any procedural issue, I nonetheless maintain that your actions with regard to this matter represent a clear case of conduct unbecoming of an admin, as you posted to me on my talk page only days ago.

Secondly, regarding the time that elapsed after your hook pull - yes, you made a couple more comments - but you don't actually engage. You don't attempt to resolve the issue. Your comments on the DYK discussion talk page after you pulled the hook are nothing but a series of accusations and self-justifications. It's impossible to ever get you to engage constructively to solve an issue. At least TRM - the other issues I have with his conduct aside - will generally show some willingness to help resolve an issue - as he did in this case. I'm afraid I cannot recall a single instance where I've ever seen you do the same.

As for your criticism of my actions in not letting other deal with the nomination - the reason I stayed with it is because I know from experience that once administrators have squabbled over a nomination, it can linger there for weeks if not months as nobody wants to get involved. I stuck with trying to get the hook nominated only for the benefit of the nominator because I could see he was getting very anxious over the fate of his nom, not in order to get what I want as you charged, whatever it was you imagined that might have been. Gatoclass (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Fram: Fram, people can read the entire thread and decide for themselves whether your contribution was constructive or not. Gatoclass (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

And just with regard to rnddude's attempt to shift the blame partly to me for "an edit summary convey the wrong impression" - as if that could ever justify failing to look at the actual edit before launching such an attack - I did inform him that I had checked the article, right at the outset, I quote: With regard to the change, I'd already checked the source before promoting the hook so I knew the tunnel actually went under the garden, the hook is not wrong it is accurate. Which just underlines my point. HE NEVER LISTENS. Gatoclass (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Though I hadn't intended to respond further in this Request, I think perhaps I should respond to the comment by Robert McClenon below, who accuses me of using this process as a "cudgel" against Fram. While I concede that I erred in not first attempting to resolve this matter with Fram on his talk page - a result largely of my unfamiliarity with these processes, due to the great infrequency with which I engage with them - I might point out that it was only a few days ago that I feel Fram employed AN/I as a "cudgel" against me by initiating a thread with strawman arguments that distorted my position and thus led to a degree of humiliation for me. I might also point out that the given thread was only open for a couple of hours, giving me practically no time to state my own case. Where I do agree with Robert is that AN/I is no place for dealing with longstanding conduct issues at DYK, partly because some of those involved enjoy sufficient community support to make effective action at AN/I a non-starter as has been amply demonstrated in the past, and partly because AN/I is simply not designed to deal with such issues, which is the very reason that ARBCOM exists.

Regardless, I am content with the Committee's decision not to open a wider case at this point because, having only recently returned from a long sabbatical, I'm not sure I have enough recent evidence of problematic conduct at DYK to get an effective result (though there is certainly ample historical evidence). Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: firstly, when I said "sabbatical", I was referring to a sabbatical from DYK, not from the project as a whole. If I'm not mistaken, I barely participated at DYK over the last six months and only recently returned to assist when I saw a return to the 12-hour cycle to reduce the backlog was under discussion. Also, I have probably kept a lower than usual profile at DYK, and across the project as a whole, over the last couple of years due to off-Misplaced Pages issues. However, on my return, barely had I set foot in the DYK door again before you were back to your usual relentlessly hostile demeanour toward me, accusing me of being "extremely disruptive" when all you needed to do was politely request that I leave the prep sets unpromoted for a time to give you an opportunity to do some copyediting first.

Second, this very latest post of yours, accusing me of dirty tricks in merely suggesting that either you or I may eventually choose (or perhaps be obliged) to retire from DYK in order to avoid the ongoing unpleasantness is emblematic of your entrenched hostility toward me, whereby even the most innocuous of comments is somehow twisted into something reprehensible. Indeed, with this very post you are making my case for me, which is that I feel I can no longer participate at DYK without facing a relentless barrage of hostility from your quarter. Gatoclass (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

No TRM, I did not deny your request, in fact after that discussion, I reconsidered and decided (the confrontational manner in which you raised the matter notwithstanding) that your point was not unreasonable, as a result of which, I did in fact change my approach and waited until I saw that you had reviewed a set before promoting it (with one or two possible exceptions when the update was running late). Which is why, incidentally, I managed to catch a number of errors that you missed - which, I would suggest, also refutes your inference that I am one of those people who defend abject mediocrity and error-strewn issues. Gatoclass (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes TRM, I already conceded that I made an error in opening this request, and that, in sheer frustration with you and Fram over the last few weeks, I may have occasionally made statements that were better left unsaid. Having said that, I'd be more than happy to compare my record with yours any day of the week. Gatoclass (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Fram

(shortened to meet length requirements) I note that the links to previous dispute resolution are completely missing, probably because there hasn't been much attempts at any...

"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, were fine. "

TRM hadn't "already" agreed that the hook was fine. I pulled the hook on 15.52 on 26 January. You changed the article on 18.45, 26 Jan, or nearly three hours later. TRM agreed with your change on 19.27. So there is no indication at all that my pull was unnecessary, and nothing had "already" been changed or accepted at the time I pulled the hook.

"Instead of remaining to try and resolve the matter, Fram logged off shortly thereafter, 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 pulled the hook at 15.52. I first raised the issue at 14.06, replied at 15.06, noted the pull at 15.54, and then continued to discuss this at 16.12 and at 17.39. So I didn't "disappear" until two hours after my admin action, and after I had further participated in the discussion. Adminacct doesn't require admins to remain online indefinitely after they made some action.

During this discussion, Gatoclass proceeded to make some bad faith attacks against TRM: " The hook "plucked from nowhere" would actually be the one you decided to substitute at the last minute with no consultation whatever", coupled with "your thoroughly hypocritical accusations " (his comment at 17.22, 26 January). As I pointed out it my reply, TRM's "last minute substitute" was actually made a mere 14 minutes after the hook was moved to the prep area, i.e. as soon as possible, the exact opposite of what Gatoclass claimed. Gatoclass didn't retract or correct his statement, apparently happy at making baseless attacks to deflect attention from his incorrect actions.

"Fram disappeared for a couple of days, so the nomination was held up until he returned." I usually don't edit during the weekends (or very infrequently), but this is not required and not a problem. This DYK wasn't time sensitive, that it takes a few days shouldn't be a problem. Furthermore, anyone but you could have checked the DYK and promoted it (or rejected or...). Fram (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

If anyone wonders what Ymblanter is talking about, it refers to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive973#User:Fram and incivility, which they started last month but where no one agreed with them, after which they resigned their admin tools. Joining an ArbCom request they know nothing about (as they admit) in the hope to get the result they clearly didn't get at ANI a few weeks before seems like WP:FORUMshopping to me. Fram (talk) 08:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: you claim about me: " It's impossible to ever get you to engage constructively to solve an issue. " and "I'm afraid I cannot recall a single instance where I've ever seen you do ." Perhaps reread my opening statement about the hook which got pulled later on: "Lines and prep (now queue) 2, an unhappy marriage? The replacement hook is "... that the Carolwood Pacific Railroad, a ridable miniature railroad run by Walt Disney in his backyard, included a tunnel underneath his wife Lillian's intended to plant a flower garden?" which reads rather weirdly near the end. Add "spot" or remove "to plant a" perhaps? Even then it isn't the most elegant hook, but it would at least be an improvement of sorts... Fram (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)" I didn't pull this out of the blue or immediately, I suggested improvements, but you immediately started with a rather disingenious and attacking reply: "I'm not sure why you added that comment to this thread, but I already addressed that issue. " No, you reverted to your original hook (half an hour after my post), without addressing the actual issues, which caused the change to your hook in the first place. Fram (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

"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)." A few links to discussions where I did the same (you know, that thing I clearly didn't do here) would help. If I did it "countless" times, you should have no problem finding 3 links or so... Fram (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

So, no evidence for your statement. All you actually have is one discussion where I first made suggestions, then pulled a hook, and then stayed and answered for a few hours before starting my regular weekend break. And then the sorry situation which "Mr rnddude" below adequately dissected. Seems a bit meagre to base an ArbCom case on. Feels more like retaliation for Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive975#Chilling (though ridiculous) ArbCom threat by admin than anything else. Fram (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

First Gatoclass threatens to take TRM to ArbCom for not checking the hooks before they're posted. Now he actually does take Fram to ArbCom for not being online continuously to justify his actions. I really think that Gatoclass is demonstrating enough of a lack of understanding of Misplaced Pages policies that the Committee should evaluate whether he should continue to hold the bit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm also concerned by the level of personal attacks in the above request. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Mr rnddude

I'll just make a short statement on the events preceding this filing. While I certainly don't support abusing personal grudges, the more egregious of Fram's "personal attacks" was not prompted by bad faith, but by your own statement Gatoclass. Let me clarify by listing to you the sequence of events, and the two main failures along the way.

• Gatoclass leaves the summary tweak to conform with DYK hook for an edit they made to Carolwood Pacific Railroad.
• Now, if Fram had bothered to read the actual edit, and not just the summary, they would have been able to identify that this is not what had happened. Changing: ... built underneath the future spot for the garden. to: ... where the garden was eventually planted. does not affect the meaning.

• Failure 1: Gatoclass' edit summary conveys the wrong impression.
• Failure 2: Fram didn't bother to actual review the edit.

• In response to the perceived actions, Fram posts this accusatory statement. If Fram had been right about the preceding events, the allegation would have been justified. It is atrocious behaviour, particularly from an admin, to change the article to fit the hook. The hook must be sourced and verifiable to a reliable source. However, as it is, Gatoclass did not do this. Instead they merely tweaked the article wording.

This could have been headed off at the pass if Gatoclass had left an accurate, rather than misleading edit summary, or, if Fram had reviewed the actual substance of the edit. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply to Gatoclass: Nowhere have I said that I agree with or support Frams comments. Nor have I said they were acceptable. All I've said is that this was avoidable. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply to Gatoclass: I did not "shift the blame" to you, I pointed out two failings that could have rectified this situation. Point out where in my statement I have stated something that is not objectively true. Fram above actually reflects on their behaviour. It would be a good start if you demonstrated the ability to do the same. That's a feature of temperamentally suited admins. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Ymblanter

Statement removed as a clerk action. GoldenRing (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I fully agree with conclusions of @Gatoclass:, especially in their reply to Fram, which perfectly correspond to my own experience as well, and urge the Committee to accept the case to investigate long-standing issues with the behavior of Fram and to see whether their behavior is compatible with ADMINACT.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by OID

RE Worm: I'm pretty sure the function and setup of DYK that causes issues (its baked into its process flow) between editors who value quality and people chasing the recognition is beyond the scope of arbcom - arbcom cannot dictate changes to project/internal policy/process only editor interaction. If by 'wider look' at DYK you mean to include the error-prone editors who continually review or promote articles with problems, then its trivial to source a list of around 2-5 editors from the last year who if banned from DYK would result in a massive drop of reported errors with hooks - which ultimately is the cause of the conflict. If you are not going to actually consider banning editors from DYK who are responsible on a regular basis (either as writing editors, reviewing editors or promoting admins) then there is absolutely no point in taking any sort of look at DYK in depth. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

To explain a little further there are two main problems with how DYK works that ultimately cause conflict between editors, in order of importance:

1. DYK writers, reviewers promoters etc are bad at spotting errors even by their own guidelines. Where DYK guidelines are adhered to, they are tickbox exercises - if the hook is in the article and supported by a reference it will often be passed without any quality check on the rest of the article, and sometimes even without the reference itself being quality vetted. This is not a structural issue, this is an editor competence issue. Any case accepted on a wider look at DYK will have to look at editor competence in this area as it is the primary cause of conflict - people creating, reviewing and promoting error-ridden content that will appear on the main page unless someone else picks it up.

2. Once a DYK is on the main page, faults with the DYK are dealt with at ERRORS by admins as everything is protected. This often results in single admins having to correct what previously may have passed by 3 or 4 editors - who often get angry 'their' hook has been altered or corrected, or in the case of errors not quickly fixable, pulled from the main page. This is a structural issue of how DYK and main page content is displayed, and that admins are required to alter MP content. It is also a result of the 'ownership' issues certain DYK editors feel over 'their' content, as DYK is one of the few areas where editors get personal recognition - counter to the Misplaced Pages ethos. See intersecting problems with Wikicup. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by The Rambling Man

This is the second time Gatoclass has adopted the "kitchen sink" approach to dispute resolution in a very short time period. He first tried to see me off with threats of Arcbom about when I should and should not report errors at DYK, and now this. Neither time was there any actual evidence of any real attempts at dispute resolution before going to (or threatening) the final solution. As an admin, Gatoclass should know better than this, this case should be declined, and Gatoclass should be cautioned not to attempt to use Arbcom as the de facto dispute resolution method. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson's statement (as a point of information) contains quotes from a talk page made 10 months ago, yet just recently the rate of DYK nominations and accepted hooks was so high, the daily display rate had to be doubled, and we're seeing articles from the WiR project all over the project. So I'm not sure what how the comment is really relevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, Andrew D.'s empirical evidence is all very interesting but I used to participate a lot more at GAN and GAR than I do now, times change, appetites change. As noted, we had a backlog because we had so many hooks, and many of them were as a result of the WiR project. So it's clear that the problem referenced (from 10 months ago) is really historical in nature and of little interest in this case. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't planning to return to this sideshow, but since the complainant has returned with some more threats of revealing "ample" historical evidence of problematic conduct at DYK (e.g. reporting error after error after error, he himself said that he needed to correct "21 errors missed by TRM that I picked up - seven of them requiring hook pulls" in the matter of a few days. These are from sets which have been reviewed by someone and then promoted to a prep set by someone else. That's 21 errors in a time when only 8 hooks per day were being prepared. I hope the committee will consider the dirty trick threat of suggesting that either I go or he goes/stays; despite it being removed from here amongst a swath of outburst, it's an indicator as to the complainant's perspective right now which need serious attention. I would also remind the committee that the complainant threatened to take me to Arbcom just days before taking Fram to Arbcom, and continued to threaten me with such sanctions if I did not meet his interpretation of how to review DYK hooks. There's definitely something wrong at DYK, but it's not those of us who kick up a fuss about abject quality material going the main page. As for the complainant being satisfied the committee takes no further action relating to DYK because the complainant was on a "long sabbatical" recently, well they have been regularly editing since September last year, so I'm not even sure that's completely accurate. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Tsk, Gatoclass, you're the only one being a bully around here, threatening to take me to Arbcom. I just care about quality on the main page. I asked you to stop promoting so quickly and you denied the request. You seem to think it's "all about you", but it's "all about DYK". People who defend abject mediocrity and error-strewn issues going to the main page are in the wrong. People who work positively against consensus to slow things down and take more care and attention over prep sets and hook review are in the wrong. Time for at least one of us to move on I think. I'll keep checking errors, now far down my priority list thanks to you and you alone, and you can keep making frivolous Arbcom threats or reports every so often. Plus ca change. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Infer away, but as an admin your conduct is held to a higher level. Your rant which was removed from here, and your threats to bring me personally here, and your "kitchen sink" approach to this very case appear to shine a very strong and direct light on your ability to continue as an admin. I was content with Arbcom warning you off doing such again, but it appears you have not taken onboard either the feedback at ANI which was almost unanimously against your bullying tactics and you have not taken on the feedback here which is almost unanimously against your frivolous use of Arbcom as a first resort to dispute resolution. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Huh, it's got nothing to do with "my record". You're currently an admin yet your behaviour with this, the threats and the outbursts is certainly not what we expect from our admins. So sure, compare away, but don't be surprised when the bit disappears from you and you're reduced to "regular minion" status. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Andrew D.

Fram often seems too aggressive or intense and so a review of their activities would be appropriate. For example, their user page currently seems to be dedicated to an attack on the honesty of Jimmy Wales. There has been some friction between them but to maintain such a statement for years seems contrary to WP:POLEMIC.

DYK has become a battleground as a result of such activity by Fram and others. This has the effect of reducing participation, especially by women. For example, see this discussion at Women in Red which is otherwise a highly collaborative and productive project. There, a variety of respectable editors say things like "there has been a drastic fall in interest ... I stopped participating ... Frankly, I'd rather just write the articles and avoid all the conflict. ... I stopped participating in DYK for similar reasons ... I, too, avoid DYK as Byzantine & capricious ... I avoid DYK for the same reasons mentioned here. ... Editors feel as if they have to find something wrong ... Too much nitpicking ... More about personalities than anything else ... The nitpicking has gone beyond the pale ... This is not about errors. It's about grandstanding, the need to be noticed. And it's so out of control."

As a specific example, the editor SusunW, who was one of those commenting, did 122 DYK articles in 2015, 55 articles in 2016 and none since. They continue to produce good articles such as Nina Simonovich-Efimova but stay away from DYK now because "...DYK is clearly a different place than it was even a year ago. It seems that there has become this idea that any mistake is a crime. It's crazy...."

Andrew D. (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Dweller

This particular dispute, which is storm/teacuppy, seems to have come to arbitration unnecessarily.

I think the behaviours at DYK stem from the impossible task it sets itself, to provide excellent quality for the Main page from articles that by definition have not yet been properly scrutinised using hooks that don't undergo enough scrutiny. My comments at WP:ERRORS just a few hours ago are great examples... one out and out error, one badly missed opportunity to include a nicely spiced hook on Main page, both with related omission/error in the relevant article.

That said, I don't think it's Arbcom's role to tell DYK to amend their procedures to 'slow the heck down', which is the only practicable solution to this problem, other than abolishing it altogether - and I don't think the latter is a good idea, as I get the purpose of DYK. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies

I do not urge ArbCom to take up DYK. Sure there are aspects that are either problematic or problem-prone, but that is not a matter for arbitration. Haven't we called for a review of DYK and its procedures before? It's an important thing, with many stakeholders, including the readers--ArbCom is neither mandated nor qualified to handle it. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Masem

I feel Arbcom should not take this case, as I don't think community attempts to fix it have been fully tried. First, as pointed out, we just has the incident with TRM and Gatoclass last week, and I feel part of the complaint is riding bad blood off that, so tensions are a little high; we should be trying to evaluate this case without considering that event, and in that light, it just seems to be some mixed signals rather than anything overly wrong in behavior.

I have no idea if ArbCom has the ability, but it would be great if they could decline this case but issue a strong request by the community to evaluate the state of DYK and figure out ways to improve it, and if that fails to fix problems, then consider a full ArbCom case. --Masem (t) 21:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Jayron32

I'd urge the committee to dismiss this case as frivilous. Gatoclass seems to have it in his mind to run to ArbCom at the first sign of opposition or conflict; just last week he threatened to take file an ArbCom case against TRM for taking a break from a part of Misplaced Pages that was stressing him out; and when the discussion over that made it clear that wasn't warrented, he quickly fired off this case against Fram on spurious grounds. I can't see where this is a productive use of Arbcom's time. --Jayron32 02:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Softlavender

No matter who was in the right or who was in the wrong, no prior attempts at dispute resolution have been attempted. That's a no-go already. Furthermore, the filer (Gatoclass) was recently reported to ANI (by Fram) for bad-faith threatening of an ArbCom case over a DYK argument with TRM which also had no prior attempts at dispute resolution: , and the unanimous conclusion of multiple experienced editors and administrators four days ago was that Gatoclass was not justified to invoke ArbCom in addressing that conflict with TRM. Both of these actions (that ArbCom threat against TRM, and this frivolous ArbCom filing against Fram), are quite problematical coming from an administrator who ostensibly should know better. If ArbCom does take this case, I think it should revolve around Gatoclass's current suitability for adminship. As was mentioned four days ago in this thread on Gatoclass's talkpage, except for editing protected templates at DYK, his last admin action was over a year ago in December 2016, and the public logs show only a small handful of admin actions since the end of 2013. Softlavender (talk) 05:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Cwmhiraeth

The DYK project seeks to publicise newly created and expanded articles and encourage the editors working on them. These articles are often not perfect but they are what the encyclopaedia is all about. Fram seeks to improve the accuracy of the DYK hooks used on the main page and of the articles themselves, and this is an admirable objective. It is the way Fram goes about this that is problematic, treating other editors with contempt and riding roughshod over their views. Gatoclass is not the only editor treated in this way, and if the Committee were to accept this case, I would provide evidence of how Fram's actions have impacted on other editors to the detriment of Misplaced Pages. I would urge the Committee not to expand the scope of the case to include other aspects of the DYK project. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Lankiveil

I often find the way that Fram goes about their business to be extremely problematic. But even if they were twice as bad as they are, I wouldn't see a justification for going straight to Arbcom without at least trying to get the community to resolve the problem first. This request should be declined with no prejudice against a re-filing if community discussion is tried and failed. Lankiveil 11:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC).

Statement by Thryduulf (re Fram and DYK)

I've seen numerous complaints about Fram's behaviour in all sorts of venues over the past few years, but I'm not aware what (if any) dispute resolution has been attempted regarding it. Unless this is just a final straw breaking the camel's back (and evidence of other disputes would be required to demonstrate this) then I don't think this incident is a good basis on which to build such a case.

As for a DYK-based case, there seems to be appetite to look into it but there isn't consensus it seems on what form that should take and so I rather like NYB's suggestion to let things cool down from this current request and submit a new, sober request foucused on one of:

1. Fram's behaviour at DYK
2. The behaviour of editors generally at DYK and whether there are systematic/structural causes for this
3. A few key editors at DYK and their behaviour at DYK and more generally.

If there is any overlap between significant parties to the Infoboxes case and key editors in the DYK area then I would recommend against option 3 while that other case is ongoing (as it could very easily get very complicated and/or messy, and possibly cause headaches at AE and similar venues for years to come). Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010

Only a few weeks ago Gatoclass threatened TRM with an Arbcom case all over a petty dispute ..... and now unfortunately he has actually brought someone here all over a petty dispute .... Realistically I think a desysop is in order but that wont happen so the next best thing is for Arbcom to decline this. –Davey2010 13:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to add but FWIW I don't think DYK is problematic either - Sure things may get heated from time to time but doesn't every thread ?.... Anyway I don't see a need to for a case at all, Thanks, –Davey2010 13:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

On the one hand, the idea stated by several reasonable editors, including arbitrators, that this conflict between two administrators can be handled by “the community” is grossly misguided. “The community” has shown, over years, that it cannot handle conflicts involving mostly respected but divisive editors, or between respected editors who do not get along or do not like each other, because the community becomes divided and polarized, and community forums such as WP:ANI simply restate that division. The community is able to deal with trolls, flamers, and vandals. It is not able to deal with conflict between respected editors, let alone administrators. On the other hand, I agree that this case at this time does not need to be accepted by the ArbCom, and I agree that it is appropriate to decline this case. I would ask the ArbCom to be aware that they may have to take up a variant of this case in 2018, and to be ready for it when it is necessary (rather than saying, in essence, “We already told you to handle this”). I don’t think that “Trouts all around” is a sufficient declining phrase. The ArbCom should ask: first, does the conduct by User:Gatoclass warrant a formal warning; second, does the conduct by User:Fram warrant a formal warning; third, is the situation at DYK likely to require a quasi-judicial inquiry in the future? I do not see the case for a warning to Fram, but I may have missed something. I do see the case for a warning to Gatoclass for using ArbCom as a cudgel, after making a frivolous threat to The Rambling Man, and now filing a poorly substantiated case against another editor. I am not familiar enough with the workings of DYK to know whether a case will be necessary later this year.

I agree that ArbCom should decline this case at this time, but it should do so with at least a warning to Gatoclass. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (other editor)

Fram: Clerk notes

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

• Everyone is reminded that statements about other editors must be backed by evidence, and that the limit on statements is 500 words. GoldenRing (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Fram: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/9/1>-Fram-2018-02-05T06:47:00.000Z">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Recuse. Alex Shih (talk) 06:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)"> ">
• I'd like to see a few more statements, but since these sorts of disagreements have been going on for years, I am minded to look at a case around the wider DYK area. Worm(talk) 07:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

  I'm afraid I have to agree with my colleagues. The dispute here, and going back, between these two admins can be handled by the community. I believe that there are longer term issues with behaviour at DYK which could be looked at in a case, but this hasn't been brought with those issues in mind. Therefore I agree that this should be declined with no prejudice to future cases regarding DYK Worm(talk) 15:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Leaning toward declining. The dispute seems to have started with a couple of non-malicious miscommunications, and escalated due to unnecessary snark and name-calling. This should be avoided, not just for the parties' benefit, but to avoid discomfiting other editors who might feel caught in the cross-fire. That said, both parties are experienced, hard-working admins and they should be able to put this behind them. Fram has acknowledged, albeit in part of his statement now trimmed for length reasons, that he is not blameless here. But the requirement to try to resolve disputes before arbitration where possible applies to administrator-conduct cases as well as others (except perhaps in the case of an abuse so blatant as to be unresolvable, but this isn't that). Process improvements at DYK, if warranted, are not within our purview. I will hold my vote for awhile to see if anything else emerges, but thus far I don't see a case here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline the case as originally presented, i.e. as a case centered on the dispute(s) between Gatoclass and Fram. If Gatoclass or anyone else would like to raise a different case, e.g. against another editor or addressing the situation at DYK more generally, it would probably be better brought as a new request—and only after a few days have passed, to allow feelings to cool from this one. (To clarify, I am not recommending such a course of action, simply noting it as a possible one.) Also please note that I will recuse myself in any matter in which The Rambling Man is a key party, though I won't necessarily recuse in toto if he were just one of numerous parties. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• Decline After reviewing he comments and information given, I don't see the need for a case at this time with regard to the subjects mentioned. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• accept for a case focussed on behavior at DYK. That's what needs to be dealt with. Like the situation with infoboxes. DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
• Decline I'm also not convinced of the appropriateness of a DYK case at the present time. Like User:Drmies, I'd rather see the community handle it. Doug Weller talk 14:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Decline on what's presented here. Regrettable that two experienced editors got into this snarky dispute over a pretty run-of-the-mill editing question, but I can't see how an Arbcom case would make it any better. Gatoclass, Fram, suggest we agree on trouts all round in this specific case, and then we can all move along. Separately, DYK as a whole does seem to have become more toxic and argumentative lately, and per Andrew D. that bickering risks driving contributors away. Others have mentioned a wider case on editor conduct at DYK - maybe (only maybe) there's a place for this, but we're the end of the line: better that theat issue gets debated and hopefully resolved within the community before anything ends here. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• Decline, mostly per NYB. I wouldn't be necessarily opposed to a broader case about behavior at DYK, if it really is that bad, but the issue as presented here doesn't require ArbCom intervention. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• Decline for many reasons. First, I don't think Fram's conduct here warrants jumping the shark straight to an ArbCom case. If there's a pattern, it hasn't been presented. Second, I do not think this is a good jumping-off point for a case on the DYK topic area in general, which probably does warrant a deep look. ~ Rob₁₃ 06:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• Decline, largely per Rob. I admit this feels a little inconsistent with my having ultimately landed on the accept side of the "Civility in infobox discussions" case, which was posed similarly - that is, filed in acute frustration with a long-running issue against a single editor and eventually accepted with a broader scope. But this feels both less ripe and less amenable to expansion based on the existing request. For the specific dispute that prompted the filing, 'trouts all around' seems sufficient. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• Decline per Rob and OR. Mkdw 19:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)