Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
Expected standards of behavior
You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).
Consequences of inappropriate behavior
Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Motions and requests by the parties
Template
1)
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Template
2)
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Template
3)
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed temporary injunctions
Template
1)
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Template
2)
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Template
3)
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Template
4)
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Questions to the parties
Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.
Proposed final decision
Proposals by Newyorkbrad
Proposed principles
User conduct
1) Editors on the English Wikipedia are expected to abide by the site's policies and guidelines. When an editor seriously or repeatedly violates these expectations, sanctions may be imposed, in accordance with policy, by an uninvolved administrator, by community consensus after discussion on a noticeboard, or by the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are also expected to abide by the applicable policies and guidelines and to exercise good judgment, especially in connection with major administrator actions such as blocking a good-faith editor, and for failure to do so may be subject to sanctions including desysopping by the Committee.
Support, with proposed amendment (to be inserted after the first sentence): “There is policy and procedure in place that prescribes how violations are dealt with. The English Wikipedia community values truth-finding, fair hearing, and due process, and these values are reflected in our policy and procedures.” See also proposed additional remedy. — Adhemar (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Amend At the end, add 'and any sanctions that apply to other users', or something to that effect. It should be absolutely clear that desysopping is not the only sanction that can be applied to misbehaving administrators. Preferably, I would like to see that administrators are held to a higher standard. Question: is the Committee the only power that can desysop an administrator, or can the community do this as well? Almond Plate (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2) The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), sometimes referred to as the "Office," is the legal owner of the English Wikipedia website and infrastructure. Working through professional staff, many of whom also have experience as volunteer editors and community members, the Office plays an important and necessary role in administering the site. Historically, however, the Office has not intervened directly in day-to-day English Wikipedia project governance, and in particular has not handled user-conduct complaints involving on-wiki conduct, except in narrow circumstances that are unsuited for resolution by community volunteers. In the past, the Arbitration Committee has expressly asked that the Office handle certain narrow categories of misconduct complaints, but not that it take on a broader supervisory role regarding on-wiki day-to-day user or administrator conduct.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Firstly, can I thank NYB for putting together this workshop PD, I certainly appreciate it, and I can see a lot of it going into the actual PD - I think this decision is one that his trademark verbosity won't hurt at all. I think this point is important - I for one have been very vocal about the WMF taking on certain parts of arbcom's role, but I have no knowledge of any request from Arbcom that led to this action by WMF, nor any statement by the WMF to Arbcom that we need to handle this sort of case or they would. WormTT(talk) 10:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Amend There is no real statement here, and I think that there should be. I suggest adding: "It is expected that the WMF discusses the merits of a change in their supervisory role with the Committee and the community before implementing it." Almond Plate (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've always thought that "leading by example" had a symbiotic relationship with "being treated fairly". The more of one will get you more of the other, and conversely presumably. ——SerialNumber5412918:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Harassment
4) Editors must not harass other editors either on or off Wikipedia. Although some types of misconduct will clearly constitute harassment and warrant sanctions, in other cases whether harassment has occurred may be more borderline or subjective. The views and feelings of editors who believe in good faith that they are being or have been harassed are to be respected and fully considered, whether or not it is ultimately concluded that harassment actually occurred. Because the word "harassment" spans a wide variety of types of behavior, and because this word as used off-wiki can carry serious legal and human-resources overtones, at times it may be better to describe allegedly problematic on-wiki behavior such as "wikihounding" with more specific terminology.
Comment by Arbitrators:
We do have a problem with the concept of harassment, which means different things to different people. I'm not sure wikihounding is necessarily the right term, and have been considering whether "bullying" might be a better term. WormTT(talk) 10:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "haranguing" would help? "Harassment" and "bullying" all imply that you are doing it merely for the sake of being a jerk, while a lot of the complaints about Fram (and more generally when people complain about harassment) is that they are addressing valid issues in an unduly aggressive manner. "Haranguing" may be neutral enough about motive to cover such cases as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the line between hounding and bullying is often a fine one. In general, I tend to think of tone and intent when looking at a post. Considering that intent isn't really something we can successfully quantify, that leaves us tone. I believe that it is possible to evaluate and perhaps even teach proper tone in writing. Perhaps if you're able to define "tone" in this section, it will help you in finding a better resolution. — Ched (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Following another editor's contributions
5) It is important, though it can sometimes be difficult, to distinguish between an editor's reviewing and as appropriate correcting or commenting on the edits of a fellow editor making problematic edits, which is acceptable and in some cases even necessary, and the practice referred to as "wikihounding" or "wikistalking," which constitutes a form of harassment and is prohibited. See Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. While the line separating proper from improper behavior in this area may not always be sharply defined, relevant factors include whether the subject editor's contributions are actually viewed as problematic by multiple users or the community; whether the concerned editor raises concerns appropriately on talkpages or noticeboards and explains why the edits are problematic; and ultimately, whether the concerns raised reasonably appear to be motivated by good-faith, substantiated concerns about the quality of the encyclopedia, rather than personal animus against a particular editor.
The above proposal does not recognize the importance of "related matters." Reading through the complaints, it appears that Fram noticed a pattern where a number of biographies were produced with the subjects having identical birthdates. Because the editor produced all of the articles in rapid succession with much in common, Fram's review (and asking for a verification of the birthdates) should not be viewed as wikihounding. So, please consider adding "can objectively be viewed as related" to the paragraph as one extra factor. Hlevy2 (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators' pursuit of issues
6) Administrators should bear in mind that they have many colleagues. If an administrator finds himself or herself in repeated disagreement with another good-faith but allegedly problematic editor, or if other editors disagree with the administrator's actions regarding that editor, it may be better practice for the administrator to request input or review from others, such as by posting on the appropriate noticeboard, rather than continue to address the issue unilaterally. This can be true even if the administrator may not formally be "involved" in a dispute with that editor. Whether to handle a matter oneself or seek broader input can be a judgment call as in more clear-cut instances, an individual administrator may be justified in addressing the problem decisively on his or her own. The question to be asked can be whether bringing more voices into the discussion will enhance the chances of a fair and well-informed resolution that will be respected as such by the affected editor and by others. A corollary is that this approach can work only if other admins and experienced editors are prepared to invest the time and effort needed to review a situation and provide input when asked to do so.
A second corollary is that we are not talking here about an WP:UNBLOCKABLE subject editor, whose strategy is indeed to make administrators who can objectively judge their behavior to drop the matter (for example by claiming that they are involved) and to leave it to their friends.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
7) No matter who is the sanctioning authority, the sanctions, if any, imposed on an editor or administrator for misconduct should be proportionate to the nature and severity of the conduct. Relevant factors to consider may also include how recently the misconduct took place, how clear it is that the behavior constituted misconduct, whether the editor has expressed or carried out an intent to improve his or her conduct, and whether lesser sanctions have been employed without success in trying to resolve the problem. For example, a lengthy site-ban will usually not be the appropriate sanction for on-wiki conduct by an experienced, good-faith contributor who has never previously been blocked at all.
1) Fram is a long-time active editor and administrator on the English Wikipedia. He has been a high-profile administrator and a party to various disputes over the years, but has never been blocked, and the Arbitration Committee declined several times to accept requests for arbitration filed by or against him. He reportedly received a previous conduct warning and a subsequent reminder from the WMF Office, the contents of which are non-public and the seriousness of which is unknown.
This sounds like two findings of fact. If have thought the previous WMF warnings are quite pertinent to their subsequent decision to ban Fram, and deserve consideration alone. Other than the WMF and Fram, I assume nobody else has solid evidence of what this was. — Amakuru (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: I could probably have split many of the proposed principles and findings into two or more paragraphs, but I wanted to keep my section of this page to a reasonable length. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fram has acknowledged having received a conduct warning in April 2018, and being warned in March 2019 about two correct edits he made in October 2018 (and he revealed whichedits). diff — Adhemar (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, those warnings should be given their due weight and nothing more: being warned for something that occured five months earlier is not something that would be considered acceptable or case-worthy on-wiki. ——SerialNumber5412908:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Office ban of Fram
2) On June 10, 2019, the WMF Office announced that Fram was banned from the English Wikipedia for a period of one year, effective immediately, as a non-appealable Office action. No detailed public rationale was provided for the action at that time and the Office has explained that a full explanation cannot be provided as non-public information was involved. As part of the same Office action, Fram's administrator status on English Wikipedia was revoked. Unlike almost all "Office action" bans in the past, the ban was limited in duration and did not affect Fram's participation on other Wikimedia Foundation projects such as Commons and Meta.
Comment by Arbitrators:
The intent was to keep this case around Fram specifically, but I cannot see how we cannot include something about what happened. WormTT(talk) 10:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we know whether cutting off e-mail was a deliberate decision by anyone, as opposed to just a default setting on the block-user screen. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like "and the Office has explained that". "explained that" implied that they are right,. just as "asserted that" implies that they are wrong. Said? Responded? Claimed? Proclaimed Ex Cathedra? Also, can we replace "the WMF Office" with "WMF Trust & Safety"? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Events following the ban
3) The Office's one-year ban of Fram led to extensive discussion within the English Wikipedia community. While a variety of views were expressed, a consensus emerged that the English Wikipedia community wishes to retain its role, including the role of the community-elected Arbitration Committee where necessary, in regulating user conduct on this wiki, rather than have the Office undertake that role in cases that can be handled through existing on-wiki or ArbCom processes. In an open letter, the Committee directly expressed to the Office a similar view. After much discussion, the Office, making an exception to the rule that Office actions are not generally appealable, agreed to provide the Arbitration Committee with access to much of the evidence relied upon in imposing the ban and to allow the Committee to review the ban, including the ability to overturn the ban if warranted. The ban was continued in place pending the results of the Committee's review.
Comment by Arbitrators:
The intent was to keep this case around Fram specifically, but I cannot see how we cannot include something about what happened. WormTT(talk) 10:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "making an exception to the rule that Office actions are not generally appealable" intended to be "despite its view that...". Nemo19:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Community-provided evidence
4) In addition to receiving the information provided by the Office on a confidential basis, the Arbitration Committee invited members of the community to submit relevant evidence directly to the Committee by e-mail. On August 19, 2019, the Committee posted a summary of the community-provided evidence, as well as Fram's reply to that evidence. The Committee was not authorized to post, and therefore did not post, the evidence provided by the Office or a summary of that evidence. However, it can reasonably be inferred that there would be a significant degree of overlap between the two categories of evidence.
Comment by Arbitrators:
I will say that that final sentence would not go into the final decision. For one thing, the arbitrators know how much overlap there is and where the two differ. For another, there is far more detail in the T&S document too. The rest looks good. WormTT(talk) 10:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of NewYorkBrad’s proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, except for the last sentence here in his proposed finding of fact 4 (and a bit in proposed finding of fact 1). Given the continued secrecy around the 70-page T&S document, I don’t see how any conclusion can reasonably be drawn (by anyone other than those who have read the T&S document) with respect to the size of the overlap of the T&S document and the community-provided evidence, one way or the other. — Adhemar (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Evaluation of community-provided evidence: Fram's editing
5) The evidence provided by the community, as summarized on the evidence page, reveals instances of incivility or lack of decorum on Fram's part, but does not reflect any conduct for which a site-ban would be a proportionate response.
Comment by Arbitrators:
I think WMF has less remedies open to them and the old adage "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" may be true. I'm confident that if everything had been handled by the committee (assuming a perfect world where the committee could have handled it all - which we're not actually in) - more tailored options could have been considered. WormTT(talk) 10:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Evaluation of community-provided evidence: Fram's adminship
6) The evidence provided by the community, as summarized on the evidence page, reveals instances in which Fram has made mistakes as an administrator, including the overturned blocks of Martinevans and GorillaWarfare, but does not reflect any conduct for which desysopping would be a proportionate response.
Comment by Arbitrators:
I'm of two minds on this. The actions in and of themselves were not egregious, however, when combined with the idea that we expect our administrators to have higher standard than other editors, I'm not willing to rule out a desysop. WormTT(talk) 10:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Newyorkbrad: why is does not reflect any conduct for which desysopping would be a proportionate response presented as a finding of fact? Surely that is a matter of opinion. You may be believe that, but others could differ. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: Most findings of fact embody some degree of the drafter's opinion, if not in the facts themselves, then certainly in the selection of which ones to include and emphasize. In this case, I went with a summary finding because of the nature of the on-wiki evidence, and because my conclusion was that the evidence as presented does not warrant substantial sanctions. Thus I didn't think it necessary (and I didn't have the time or want to take the space) to list each item of the evidence and make a finding individually, but proposed this summary instead. If anyone disagrees with me, and thinks that a specific item or category of evidence establishes serious misconduct warranting a sanction, then (within the limits of the confidentiality restriction) I would imagine they would propose a more specific finding regarding that item. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
not willing to rule out a desysop - Welcome to another round of resource-wasting.
It's too obvious that nothing other than some form of mild admonishment is going to fly; I urge you to stop wasting (yours' and ours') time and instead move to the core locus of adjudging the T&S evidence. This case has always been about it despite some attempts at broadening the horizon. ∯WBGconverse14:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but I can think only of one reason why the community evidence would be sufficient for a ban/desysop. It would require a signifficant amount of not assuming good faith. --Dirk BeetstraTC18:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Evaluation of community-provided evidence: no off-wiki misconduct
7) An arbitrator reported in posting the summary of the community-provided evidence that "we did not see any evidence of off-wiki abuse."
8) Beyond the specifics of Fram's case, there is a broadly shared view that Wikipedia/Wikimedia processes for raising and addressing harassment-related issues warrant continued review and potential improvement. However, there is a consensus that on-wiki issues on English Wikipedia should generally remain within the purview of the English Wikipedia volunteer community, including this Committee, unless there are specific reasons that the Office should address a particular concern or type of concern.
I've sent severe cases of harassment to T&S and they are often powerless to help. The ought to focus on the most severe cases and work on solutions, including legal action and technical upgrades that would reduce harassment. Some of the worst cases are cross-wiki involving multilingual users who contribute to several Wikipedias that have few or no local admins. There are places where T&S is needed and welcomed. They should avoid horning in where they aren't needed, and aren't as competent as local admin corps. JehochmanTalk03:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed remedies
Fram's editing privileges
1) This proposal is based on the ArbCom's posted summary of the community-submitted evidence only
The ban of Fram from the English Wikipedia is not sufficiently supported by the evidence posted on-wiki on August 19, 2019.
Comment by Arbitrators:
As I see it, we have 4 routes with the ban. 1) Overturn completely, 2) time served, 3) status quo, 4) indefinite. Whichever is chosen, I think we would need a good explanation in the findings, and certainly as written above, 1 or 2 seem like the right options. However, as you say, this does not factor in the T&S document. WormTT(talk) 10:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Worm That Turned, (Re: time served.) Even “time served”, which is already 10 weeks and will be 13 weeks by September, seems excessive based on the the evidence posted. If the decision ends up being that a ban is/was in fact merited, let it be a 1-month or a 2-month ban but no longer (along with an apology for the remainder of the actual time served). — (Re: this proposed remedy.) Support — Adhemar (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Worm, I think you can use the T&S document as a treasure map for the Committee to independently find relevant evidence. You can't rely on a redacted document for any sort of serious decision making. JehochmanTalk03:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fram's administrator privileges
2) This proposal is based on the ArbCom's posted summary of the community-submitted evidence only
The removal of Fram's adminship is not sufficiently supported by the evidence posted on-wiki on August 19, 2019.
3) Fram is reminded, upon any return to editing or adminship:
(A) That all editors, particularly administrators, should avoid uncivil comments toward other editors;
(B) That administrators should exercise caution in blocking good-faith contributors, and when in doubt, should consult with other administrators before doing so; and
(C) That administrators should consider the desirability of not handling long-term user-conduct issues unilaterally, and should consider consulting with others before repeatedly criticizing or taking multiple administrator actions against the same good-faith editor.
4) The English Wikipedia community and all members of the broader Wikimedia community, including the WMF professional staff, are urged to continue to discuss how the values of the Wikimedia movement—which include developing a high-quality free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of mutual respect and collaboration among editors—can best be achieved for the benefit of all Wikipedia editors and readers.
At an early stage, we were discussing a possibility that ArbCom recommeds and possibly supervises a broad RfC on wiki conduct / harassment issues, which may or may not be in conjunction with the discussion of WMF-imposed code of conduct. It would be a good point to add here.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Proposals by Beetstra
Proposed principles
Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
T&S-provided evidence
1) The Office provided a 70 page document containing confidential information about the conduct of Fram to the Arbitration Committee.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed.
I propose this FoF and the FoFs and Remedies below as to provide a clear track of where decisions are based on (and I suggest them in addition to above set of Principles, Findings of Fact and Remedies by Newyorkbrad. I fully understand (and I am find with the fact) that all arbitrators have to recuse on these as per their non-confidentiality agreement (but that then transparently shows that). In the end, however, the question will remain (especially when the now community provided evidence is deemed not sanction-worthy by the arbitrators) whether ArbCom chooses to maintain the T&S ban (as per WP:OFFICE policy), or chose to override it (as per Jimbo Wales). --Dirk BeetstraTC07:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Evaluation of T&S-provided evidence: Fram's editing (1)
2) The evidence, provided under a confidentiality agreement by T&S, reveals instances of incivility or lack of decorum on Fram's part, but does not reflect any conduct for which a site-ban would be a proportionate response.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Ah, I see what you're getting at with this. I've been particularly reluctant to simply sign off or overturn the T&S decision. Having read the document, I understand why they made the decisions they did. However, that doesn't mean that Arbcom would have made the same decision when presented with the same evidence. I think a straight vote on the evaluation of the t&S evidence might be a very good idea, though the onus would be on the committee members to not reveal anything that we could not. WormTT(talk) 10:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Evaluation of T&S-provided evidence: Fram's editing (2)
3) The evidence, provided under a confidentiality agreement by T&S, reveals instances of incivility or lack of decorum on Fram's part, reflects conduct for which a site-ban would be a proportionate response.
Evaluation of T&S-provided evidence (admonishment)
10) The evidence, provided under a confidentiality agreement by T&S, does not reveal conduct for which an admonishment would be a proportionate response.
None of the evidence provided in the evidence phase of this case is later than this date (evidence with latest date is an AN/I discussion was closed on 22:45, 31 January 2019).
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Fram's editing privileges
1) This proposal is based on the T&S-submitted evidence only
The ban of Fram from the English Wikipedia is sufficiently supported by the evidence provided under a confidentiality agreement by T&S.
3bis) The Wikimedia Foundation and its Trust & Security team are reminded that while our policies and guidelines are not carved in stone and may well be improved going forward, simply replacing them with dictatorial impositions of seamingly arbitrary, unappealable sanctions, unsupported by arguments, without fair hearing or due process, for undisclosed allegations which are never explained to the accused and against which the accused can therefor not defend themself, is not conducive to the creation of a welcoming, non-toxic environment.
The wording is open for improvement, if found too strong (or too weak) (or otherwise).
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. (Even though the text supposes that the Wikimedia Foundation and its Trust & Security care about creating of a welcoming, non-toxic environment, which is something I am no longer entirely sure of.) — Adhemar (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like the sentiment here, but I would suggest an alternative approach: The PD could have a FofF that states that ArbCom issued a letter to WMF, with a brief summary of it. That way, there is no need to craft a new way of saying this. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposal for an additional finding of fact and my proposal for an additional remedy are not mutually exclusive. (I really feel an extra telling-off aimed at WMF in the remedy part is warranted.) — Adhemar (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Love the basic idea of "WMF reminded". Hate the current wording, which seems overly inflammatory. Also, is there any evidence that this should be "WMF reminded" rather than "WMF Trust & Security reminded"? Was anyone else at the WMF involved in this? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1) The Wiki is designed to keep a permanent public record of all interactions between editors. Sanctions for on-wiki behavior are determined on the basis of this public record, which is always open to critical scrutiny by the community. A fundamental principle of fairness demands that critical scrutiny applies to all parties in a dispute, including complainants. While persons who consider themselves victims of aggressive behaviour by others may have an understandable desire to minimize their own public exposure for fear of a possibly unfair backlash, the Wikipedia community generally cannot and will not provide them with a way of pursuing their complaints without opening their own conduct up to public scrutiny. Exceptions from this are only possible for particularly serious forms of abuse, such as those that meet the criteria for edit suppression, or interactions that have happened off-wiki or have serious repercussions on somebody's off-wiki life.
Comment by Arbitrators:
I think there is something to this. Whilst I probably wouldn't phrase it this way, the general principle of "this is how the wiki is set up and is part of the fundamental basis for how the community works" does sit well with me. WormTT(talk) 18:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
If nothing else comes of this case this principle needs to be addressed, not only as a case 'principle' but as a fully articulated ArbCom policy. The use of 'secret' evidence has caused much drama in several ArbCom decisions over the years. A clearly articulated policy on what must be secret, what can be privately communicated to involved parties and what is public is necessary. The lack of such a policy -- that is consistently followed -- leads to a lack of confidence in dispute resolution and an erosion of ArbCom's moral authority. It also leaves huge holes both for abuse of process and the perception of abuse of process.
We, the community, can not define ArbCom's relationship with T&S but ArbCom can. First, by articulating/negotiating a policy on jurisdiction (Which we all assumed was already done and where on-wiki behavior was solidly and only in the community's purview); then by articulating a policy on evidence and an "accused's" right to reply to accusations, if any; finally, by refusing to allow T&S to be used as an 'end-run' around on-wiki dispute resolution -- this can be as simple as telling T&S that such a situation is ripe for abuse and harassment in its own right, to flooding them with all of the conduct disputes. What can not be done, without causing a lot of damage, is to be in a position of having to review T&S overreach piecemeal. Fight the fight now.
How you all choose to address these things may require a formal discussion between ArbCom and the Community followed by or concurrent with a discussion with T&S, but address them you must. I once used the phrase "mordant hurricane of shit" to describe a particular on-wiki conflict. Well, that metaphorical hurricane will be as a fresh summer breeze if the respective roles of the community, ArbCom and T&S are not defined to prevent stove-piping and T&S is allowed to be used indiscriminately as a both a bludgeon and a shield for entirely on-wiki conflicts. Jbh Talk16:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Transparency of sanctions
2) Barring highly exceptional situations of the most serious forms of abusive behavior, such as those that involve a tangible danger to a victim in real life or that may have real-world legal repercussions, it is never appropriate to impose sanctions on an editor for on-wiki misbehavior without telling them what they are being sanctioned for.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
No justification for secrecy
1) The committee is not aware of any charges against Fram that would justify secrecy of evidence under the principles of transparency set out above. Beyond making this determination, any evidence submitted to the committee on conditions of secrecy in this case cannot form the basis of any further consideration by the committee and cannot justify sanctions.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Throughout there has been a basic "fact" that wikipedia has no way of private reporting of on-wiki harassment and that is what all the fuss stems from. i think the community needs a firm discussion on whether that basic fact is correct and what, if anything, should be done about it. WormTT(talk) 18:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
The intro of this FoF does not matter, there is an NDA, so even if it is something 'stupid', that alone is a justification for the secrecy. I do however fully agree with the latter part of this: this cannot justify sanctions. --Dirk BeetstraTC06:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the NDA is certainly justification for secrecy of the document as such – but there is still no justification for keeping it secret while continuing to treat it as evidence. That's the point. Fut.Perf.☼07:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. A lot of heat has been generated over how unfair the secret evidence is to Fram; i.e. that the problem with secret evidence is that it is unfair to the accused. Which it is. Which in turn means the proper formulation is actually what you provide here: the problem with secret evidence is that it will often have to be disregarded in the interest of fairness and due to lack of the necessary checks and balances. I would encourage you to propose the formulation in the second clause of your sentence as an alternative: it's succinct, to the point, and unambivalent. --Xover (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence might be accurate, given that there is no evidence of off-wiki abuse. But the second sentence can not be justified, because we simply can not know what evidence might be submitted. It's entirely possible for there to be a future case where such evidence does justify sanctions, and it can not be ruled out in advance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding "in this case" to the sentence, to avoid the misunderstanding that this should be a hard-and-fast rule for all future situations. Fut.Perf.☼07:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would change "evidence" to "allegations." By being secretly obtained from secret parties, any "evidence" obtained by T&S in this manner ought not to be dignified by referring to it as evidence as it's missing key fundamental characteristics of admissable evidence. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Worm That Turned: How does Wikipedia have "no way of private reporting of on-wiki harassment"? Of course it has. When I got blackmail phone calls at my real-life work address, when I got death threats, when I got outing attacks, I reported them privately, through all these years. Everybody can report harassment in private, which is as it should be. But here I'm talking about real harassment. What Wikipedia doesn't have, and should never have, is secret reporting – or rather: sanctioning based on secret reports – in cases that are not harassment but bog-standard instances of unfriendly/confrontational/incivil/annoying behaviour. Let's please not continue this inflation and devaluation of the term "harassment". Of course, real harassment, where there are serious real-life issues for the victim, can and should be dealt with in private. But that's exactly the point of these proposals: Nothing in the Fram case indicates that anything in his history was anywhere near that. Fut.Perf.☼18:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Proposals by Mendaliv
Proposed principles
The function of arbitration
1) The Arbitration Committee is an adjudicative dispute resolution process. Its primary purpose is to provide binding resolution of disputes between parties, which the community has failed to resolve.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
No action can be the correct action
2) It cannot be said that the community or the Committee has failed to take appropriate action to resolve a dispute when it takes no action. Some disputes do not require action, and a determination that no action is required is no more or less subject to review by other processes than an affirmative action with which one of the disputants disagrees.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Fundamental fairness
3) In order for the Arbitration Committee to function, normally evidence must be made public. In rare instances, certain facts may need to be kept private, which may include the identity of a complainant. These, however, must be limited to evidentiary facts and not the ultimate facts upon which a finding of fact or remedy relies. Where privacy concerns or an external commitment (e.g., a non-disclosure agreement imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation) prohibit the disclosure of ultimate facts, fundamental fairness requires that those ultimate facts form no part of a Committee decision.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Structure of Committee decisions
4) Committee decisions are normally composed of four sections: (A) Principles, which are statements either of Wikipedia policy or reasonable interpretations thereof, which includes the Arbitration Policy. (B) Findings of fact, which include statements of ultimate fact and the factual background necessary to support those statements. (C) Remedies, which include sanctions upon editors or topic areas, and which must clearly be derived from the Principles and Findings of fact. (D) Enforcement, which includes the specific sanctions authorized to give effect to the stated Remedies. In order for the Committee to avoid prohibited policymaking, it is essential to the validity of Remedies that they be supported by explicit and specific Principles and Findings of fact.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee
5) The Arbitration Committee, by policy, lacks jurisdiction over the Wikimedia Foundation and any of its actions. However, the Committee recognizes that this portion of policy is intended more to be a form of sovereign immunity rather than a jurisdictional limitation in the legal sense. Thus, under current policy, when the Wikimedia Foundation waives this limitation, the Committee may adjudicate disputes involving the Wikimedia Foundation or its actions.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Template
6) {text of Proposed principle}
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Template
7) {text of Proposed principle}
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Waiver of immunity
1) The Committee finds that the Wikimedia Foundation has waived its immunity regarding the banning of Fram, and that as a result, the Committee has the jurisdiction to review this case.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Trust and Safety evidence
2) The Trust and Safety department of the Wikimedia Foundation submitted a document to the Arbitration Committee, subject to a nondisclosure agreement, in connection with this case. The Committee understands the nondisclosure agreement to prohibit the publication of this document, in whole or in part, as well as any abstracting of the information contained therein.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Exclusion of evidence
3) Because the Committee is prohibited from making statements of ultimate fact based upon the Trust and Safety document, this document and none of the information contained therein forms any part of this decision.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Insufficiency of evidence
4) Based on the evidence in the record, the Committee finds that the Wikimedia Foundation acted inappropriately and excessively in banning Fram from English Wikipedia.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Template
5) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Template
6) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Alternative proposal set
This is an alternative proposal set consisting of Principles and Findings of Fact that don't exactly work with the others suggested above and probably should be considered as a group.
Principle: Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee (1)
1) The Arbitration Policy establishes the Arbitration Committee as an adjudicative body of limited jurisdiction. Matters falling outside this limited jurisdiction may not be addressed by the Committee. Critically, the Arbitration Policy expressly excludes actions of the Wikimedia Foundation from its jurisdiction. This means that such actions may not be considered and the Committee may not make rulings upon them. The Committee may take notice of the fact that an Office Action has taken place under certain circumstances, but may not pass judgment on such conduct.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. See WP:ARBPOL#Jurisdiction: The Committee has no jurisdiction over: (i) official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff . . . . and The Committee may take notice of conduct outside its jurisdiction when making decisions about conduct on the English Wikipedia if such outside conduct impacts or has the potential to impact adversely upon the English Wikipedia or its editors. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Squarely within the Arbitration Policy, however, and at the core of the Committee's customary responsibilities, is reviewing disputes arising from allegedly poor user conduct. Fram stands accused, albeit in an unusual fashion, of behavior problematically as an editor and an administrator on this wiki. The fact that the accusation comes from the WMF makes the case unusual, and required the complex interchanges with the WMF that have taken place over the past two months, but the ultimate issue before the Committee now is of the type that our arbitrators have been resolving for the past fifteen years, and that the community was dissatisfied that anyone other than the arbitrators would presume to resolve on our behalf. (See also my comments on the next proposal.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely, the case may continue as a review of Fram's conduct. I haven't proposed a general no-action outcome here. What can't continue is the review of the WMF ban, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Committee. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Principle: Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee (2)
2) The use of the term "jurisdiction" in the Arbitration Policy establishes that this is a jurisdictional limitation, and as such cannot be waived by the Committee, parties to proceedings, or the Wikimedia Foundation. Official acts of the Wikimedia Foundation and its employees may not be handled by the Arbitration Committee as long as the Arbitration Policy excludes them from its jurisdiction.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. The conflict between "mandatory" and "jurisdictional" provisions is a long and storied one. While much of the lessons governing this come from the law, the principles are not unique to it and are absolutely not an untoward invasion of legal concepts into the governance of the encyclopedia. Jurisdiction simply means power, and as long as the Committee is a body created and organized under the Arbitration Policy, it has to follow that policy. I understand that WP:IAR could be seen as preaching an opposing doctrine, but the modern understanding of IAR is that it's supposed to be a gap-filler when dealing with rules that create absurd outcomes. The fact is that most if not all of the top-level policies on Wikipedia are not and should not be capable of an IAR reading; we don't close RfAs with IAR outcomes ignoring the consensus, we don't close deletion discussions with IAR outcomes ignoring the consensus, and we certainly wouldn't regard as valid an IAR modification to the Arbitration Policy (which has a very specific ratification and amendment mechanism). The point here is that the Committee isn't free to waive its own jurisdictional policies because they're inconvenient. As I've said before, to do so here would be a slap in the face to all the people who have made case requests on genuinely important subjects but have been told that their request wasn't for a matter that the community has failed to resolve. And in any event, where the Arbitration Policy says the Committee has no jurisdiction, anything and everything it rules on outside that jurisdiction is an illegitimate ruling that should have no force or effect. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All of this is far too legalistic in both terminology and substance. Mendaliv, you and I could have a fascinating discussion about the Wikipedia equivalents of the differences between waivable personal jurisdiction defenses and non-waivable subject-matter jurisdiction defenses, whether the defense of sovereign immunity is better conceived as jurisdictional or merits-based in nature, the disctinctions (increasingly emphasized by the U.S. Supreme Court) between jurisdictional and claims-processing rules, and so on, but none of that is going to help the arbitrators decide this case or help most non-arbitrators provide their views on how the case should best be decided. And it is simply too late in the day for the ArbCom to announce that it lacks the authority to decide this matter, after the literally hundreds of volunteer hours spent in urging the WMF office to allow the ArbCom to decide it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Committee could choose to violate the Arbitration Policy if it wants to continue this improper review. I am under no illusions that under a postmodernist view of adjudication, the Arbitration Policy becomes entirely optional and superfluous. But, I believe it would be a horrific mistake for the Committee to make that sort of power-grab. Will they amend the Arbitration Policy without the required amendment process? Or begin simply writing policy by fiat?[a] I say no: the words of the policy matter. "Jurisdiction" has a meaning that is different from "rule". I agree that one might view this as a recognition of sovereign immunity, but the structure and wording of the policy makes it clear that it's a jurisdictional limitation. As to whether it's closer to waivable personal jurisdiction (PJ) or non-waivable subject-matter jurisdiction (SMJ), the wording of the policy makes it clear that it's SMJ: The actions are outside the jurisdiction, whether made by WMF or their agents. The Committee could probably still hale any WMF employee, officer, or director into a case as a party if it wishes under this policy, but any aspects of the case concerning their official actions would fall outside the Committee's jurisdiction.[b] And the reason SMJ isn't waivable isn't just convention or legalistic reasoning, it's logic: If there's no power to decide this type of case, then the decision is an abuse of power no matter how good or fair it is, or how much the parties wanted it to be decided there. it is simply too late in the day for the ArbCom to announce that it lacks the authority to decide this matter This is hardly a new concern or an 11th hour objection: Worm That Turned voiced concerns with this back in mid-June (as did I). I'll admit, jurisdiction isn't an easy topic, and it's certainly not as fun as the merits for most people, but it's not something we can just make magically go away. It's not intellectually honest, and is a slap in the face to every single person who brought a problem to this Committee in the past and was told that it wasn't within the Committee's authority to hear, or wasn't ripe, or any number of other reasons for refusing to hear it. Changing the rules based on the importance of the parties or the amount of anger directed at any particular person is not the way to resolve disputes on any level. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
^I have argued elsewhere that this has already happened numerous times.
^As an aside, I really think it's a misnomer to call PJ waivable anyway; far clearer is to consider it subjecting oneself to the jurisdiction of the relevant forum, in the same way that the concept of purposeful availment works. Rather than being waived in the same way a defense might be, it might more properly be said to be found in the plaintiff's favor, the defendant having entered and shown an intent to subject himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
Principle: Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee (3)
3) Incorporated into the Arbitration Policy are requirements that cases be within the appropriate scope of arbitration. Inherent in these requirements is the concept that the Committee may not adjudicate matters which are moot, and by extension, may not provide purely advisory decisions.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. This follows logically from the previous principles and the arbitration policy's statements on the scope of arbitration. When the Committee's decision would have no binding effect, it is an illegitimate use of the arbitration power. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mootness is not a relevant concept here. The sanctions against Fram remain in effect, but the Committee can lift them if it finds it appropriate to do so, or for that matter presumably it could increase them if it chose. There is also a name-clearing function that might potentially be served in whole or part. A matter is not moot where effective relief can be afforded to a party. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the Committee can lift them if it finds it appropriate to do so Well, no. They can say the WMF did wrong and WMF could either follow or ignore that advice. The gratuitous statement by Jimbo Wales (who speaks neither for the Board nor the ED) that whatever the Committee does will be followed doesn't fix this. There is nothing structural in the WMF's governance to mandate obedience to the Committee. To the extent there could be a name-clearing function, I think the WMF has killed any possibility of that by prohibiting any disclosure of any of the information T&S prepared in anticipation of this proceeding. But even that is questionable. The purpose of this Committee is to resolve disputes, not clear names. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Principle: Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee (4)
Proposed. This should be uncontroversial, but needs saying. Kompetenz-Kompetenz or "competence-competence" is a basic requirement for any adjudicative process to function properly. This does not mean that the Committee has the power to expand or contract its jurisdiction at will, but that it is capable of resolving challenges to its jurisdiction with reference to the governing policies. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Finding of Fact: The Wikimedia Foundation banned Fram
1) The Arbitration Committee takes notice of the fact that Fram has been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation. The fact of the Foundation's conduct in banning Fram "impacts [and] has the potential to impact adversely upon the English Wikipedia [and] its editors."
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. The quotation is from WP:ARBPOL#Jurisdiction. The Arbitration Policy authorizes the Committee to take "arbitral notice" of facts and conduct even though such conduct lies outside its jurisdiction under these circumstances. But taking notice is not the same as adjudicating the merits of that conduct. The fact of the ban may be used, for example, as evidence that a parallel siteban would have no protective effect (as WMF isn't going to lift Fram's ban). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Finding of Fact: The Office Action banning Fram is outside the Committee's jurisdiction
2) The Arbitration Committee finds that the Office Action under which the Foundation banned Fram is an official action of the Wikimedia Foundation and is therefore not within the Committee's jurisdiction. The statement by the Foundation that it authorizes a review of the propriety of its actions does not and cannot overcome this jurisdictional requirement. The Committee may not opine or rule on the propriety of Fram's ban by the Wikimedia Foundation.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. This is a logical extension of the principles. Fram's ban is an Office Action, and Office Actions are outside Committee jurisdiction. Therefore, the Committee may not rule on it. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See the principles above: There is no exception in the Arbitration Policy's jurisdictional limitations for "if Jimbo says it's okay" or "if the Foundation says it's okay". Neither Jimbo nor the Foundation have the authority to waive this Committee's policy, at least not without rewriting it entirely. See my points above re: a postmodern understanding of policy. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Finding of Fact: The request for review by the Wikimedia Foundation is a request for an advisory opinion
3) The Arbitration Committee finds that the Wikimedia Foundation's request that the Committee review the propriety of its ban of Fram is not a binding delegation of authority over the Office Action to the Committee, and is therefore a request for an advisory opinion. The express and implied conditions contained in the offer to the Committee do not effectively delegate authority, and therefore render any opinion this Committee would render nonbinding and purely advisory in nature. The Committee cannot render decisions that are advisory or moot.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. This is a logical extension of the principles. The actual offer from the Foundation to review the case—from the Foundation itself, not from a specific board member claiming to speak for the other board members or the Foundation itself—does not state that the result is binding. In fact, the procedural posture here—Fram is still banned—means that the Committee is sitting in review on an Office Action, which is outside the Committee's jurisdiction. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't perceive this as an advisory opinion situation, since the Committee is empowered to grant actual relief in the form of lifting or modifying the ban if it finds it appropriate to do so. Therefore, we don't need to go down the rabbit hole of whether the Committee's decisions can serve an advisory function; but I note that while the US federal courts may not grant advisory opinions eo nomine, many state supreme courts do so, as does the International Court of Justice among other tribunals. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
since the Committee is empowered to grant actual relief in the form of lifting or modifying the ban if it finds it appropriate to do so They aren't really. The operative portion of the Board statement is: We encourage Arbcom to assess the length and scope of Fram’s ban, based on the case materials that can be released to the committee. "Assess", "length", "scope", and "based on the case materials that can be released". Not "conduct an appeal", "make binding determinations as to the propriety of our official actions", and "if they so conclude, completely lift the ban". And that's presuming the Board has the authority to do this directly—I'm not as clear on my corporate law, but usual practice is for boards to issue policy and strategy that the ED implements under threat of being fired. The statement from Jimbo Wales elsewhere that he would ensure the outcome was implemented is both gratuitous and practically meaningless: He is not the Board and not the ED, at least not officially (there may be some unofficial total control or ownership of the Foundation of which I'm not aware, and if so, I would appreciate that being cleared up). That Jimbo has influence (regardless of its propriety) is not really meaningful. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I read it, Jimbo has explicitly stated that (in this case), ArbCom can overrule. (and barring legal reasons, there is no reason office bans cannot be overruled, barring again dictatorship). --Dirk BeetstraTC20:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't have the actual authority to state that. He's not the Board of Directors and he's not the ED. He is a board member, and he can advocate that WMF accept the Committee's advice about the ban, but he can't enforce it. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Finding of Fact: Evidence and information provided to the Committee on matters outside its jurisdiction will not be considered
4) The Arbitration Committee cannot utilize any evidence or information provided by the Wikimedia Foundation in this case, as the processing of this evidence and information (including but not limited to the separation of evidence from argument) and the adjudication of matters already subject to an Office Action call for conclusions that would be purely advisory in nature, and otherwise outside the jurisdiction of the Committee.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed. This is a logical extension of the principles. By using the evidence provided by T&S, the Committee would have no alternative but to opine on the propriety of the ban, thus violating its own jurisdictional limitations. And because any such opinion would be purely advisory in nature (see proposed FoF #3 above), it violates the same principle. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Proposals by User:Magischzwei
Proposed principles
Open evidence and opportunity to reform in arbitration
1) It is essential for the fairness and equity of the arbitration process that evidence and findings of fact are, if not public, substantially public such that the subject of any findings of fact or sanctions has clear, specific and actionable guidance to improve their behavior. Regardless of the remedy passed, all remedies encompass some form of opportunity-to-return, be it the expiry date of a timed ban, or the standard offer appeals opportunity of a indefinite ban. Any user must be aware of the substance and specific instances of misconduct they are being punished for if rehabilitation is to be a continued goal of dispute resolution on Enwiki.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
I hope it's not too presumptuous to suggest this here, but I haven't seen it brought up. This case and how it needed to be run has led to many challenges to how dispute resolution works on ENwiki, and I think it needs to be made clear that even if it needs to be this way, Fram has not been given and indeed can not be given a fair shot in these proceedings. Magischtalk to me10:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Due process in arbitration
2) Arbitration dispute resolution does not necessarily guarantee, but heavily strives for due process. A central component of due process in Arbitration is that there is no immunity for the reporter. In the case that a dispute or disruption is considered not one sided but mutual, evidence that precludes both sides of a mutual dispute to be addressed and actioned for their conduct should only be considered in extraordinary circumstances if at all. Such a case substantially precludes and violates the subject's interest in a fair examination and proper context, as well as the wider community's interest in discussing the outcome, making policy, and learning lessons for their own conduct from remedies and findings of fact.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposals by Tryptofish
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) The community is directed to conduct an in-depth community-wide discussion about what the civility policy should be in the aftermath of this case.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
I don't intend to write a full set of proposals, but I think that something like this needs to be in the remedies section. I recollect some earlier discussion in which some ArbCom members commented that there should be something like this, possibly involving an ArbCom-directed RfC, or something like that. In the wake of the conflict with T&S, I think that it is absolutely essential that we do something like this, with the en-wiki community, rather than T&S, taking the lead. So I recommend that this intention be put in writing in the decision of this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Proposals by User:Example 4
Proposed principles
Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Analysis and discussion of T&S document
Although the identity and related content of initial reports was redacted, we understood after review of the 70+ page Trust and Safety document that there were over a dozen reports to the Foundation. The report detailed long-term disputes with several community members, Arbcom as a body and its membership, and Foundation staff members. We did not see any evidence of off-wiki abuse.
Comment by Arbitrators:
The committee cannot reveal any details of the document, yet it was the reason for Fram's ban. However, I don't believe we're in superinjuction mode, I just think we need to be very careful. Dots will be traced - so I'm going to try not to give many. I don't believe there is any one diff in the T&S document that led to them sending conduct warnings or executing the ban. If there were it could, and would, have been dealt with by the community. Instead, the document establishes a pattern in the way Fram behaves towards people - one that has been picked up on Wikipedia (HJ Mitchell's "ugly habit" comment summarises it). That explains where the conduct warnings came from. As for the ban, I've already said that I understand why T&S made it, reading the document makes that clear. I'm afraid I have a busy day today, but I will be around later and I thought this a good place to set up the discussion that clearly needs to be had. WormTT(talk) 07:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
"And you use this as justification, even though it contains no evidence of this observation at all, and wasn't even correct in this particular case (where I had first tried to steer Martinevans in the right direction multiple times, then blocked them when nothing changed, and then left them completely alone until they decided to repost a copyright violation I had just deleted (made by another editor where Martinevans had no prior involvement in the situation)? I did not "badger the editor incessantly", I did not contact them at all between the end of the first block (February 2018) and the (too long) January 2019 block.
You can actually check such things, e.g. by using this, where you can see that the "incessant badgering" was some posts in April 2017 explaining the problem (to no avail), then some posts in February 2018 about the same issue (still to no avail), and then a block two weeks later, which largely solved the problem. "If Fram can't or won't discuss and educate", well, this was exactly what I did in this instance...
This is why we need to handle situations like this in the standard manner, with a normal evidence and workshop page, where people can see, check, discuss the actual allegations: instead we get a secret evidence page, but when that doesn't produce the results you like, you indicate that the T&S document will be the basis for your decision anyway, and that you also consider throwaway comments outside the actual case as evidence.
"the document establishes a pattern in the way Fram behaves towards people - one that has been picked up on Wikipedia": as shown above, if the evidence of such a "pattern" is as good as it was in the case of Martinevans, then this is again a clear indication that there is no case to answer (at least not a case of this magnitude), and that you (and T&S) are grasping at straws to justify the continuing ban and desysop.
People were free to send you (anonymously!) all the evidence they wanted to establish such a pattern of behaviour, and yet they failed to do so. And still your conclusion is that such a pattern exists, that it justifies the sanctions, but that sadly you cannot share it with the community. Fram (talk) 07:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given that they presumably anonymized their sources, I'm curious how you can tell that there were "over a dozen reports". If there were over a dozen separate reports by different complainants, how would you know? How can you tell the difference between that and just a single complainant or small number of complainants bringing up "over a dozen" distinct situations, or even just the T&S people themselves, in their "deep dive" into Fram's behaviour, digging up "over a dozen" situations on their own, without any complainant whatsoever? Are you quite sure about the "over a dozen complaints" part or was that just the impression the report was designed to leave you with? Fut.Perf.☼07:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell was right in his "ugly habit" comment - having now looked at a fair bit of Fram's excesses, I can clearly see a long-term behavioural problem which does need to be addressed. It might or might not be relevant, but I've worked in a similar situation where a user of a web site had a pattern of interacting badly with others, and in that case it was a mix of other users and site staff. After numerous attempts to get him to change his ways (including short-term exclusions from the site, and discussions in which he seemed to understand - when in a good mood, he was a really nice guy), we came to the reluctant conclusion that permanent exclusion was the only solution. Why am I telling you this? Just because I know through that experience that such cases do happen, where there's no single diff (or even a small set of diffs) that would justify exclusion, but where an overall pattern of behaviour is not acceptable. Not having seen the T&S document, I obviously can't say how similar the Fram case might be and I can't say what the solution is in this case, but such cases do need to be dealt with. How to deal with them is our challenge going forward. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, WTT. If we have 1/4 of a page of evidence coming from less than a dozen of editors from the community, and 70 pages coming from T&S from more than a dozen editors, then that evidence has been made to look like that. I insist, there is a big elephant in that document. There may be multiple cases, but if there are multiple cases (more than a dozen) then there would have been cases reported to you in your evidence phase that (accidentally) overlapped with one or more of those cases. Either those cases in the 70 page document are not deemed to be cases by the current community, and all of the editors who reported those cases in the T&S document now don't care or expected you to use the evidence in the 70 page document (very unlikely), or it is an elephant.
Moreover, if there is an 'ugly habit' behaviour over a long time, then explain to me why the community 'cannot' know, nor that we see extensive evidence of that, nor that you as ArbCom cannot summarize it as (e.g.) 'hounding of multiple editors' ... you cannot word the pattern of 'ugly habit'(s) into FoFs and provide evidence of that? If you cannot boil it down to a behavioral aspect that Fram can improve upon, then there must be a reason. --Dirk BeetstraTC07:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
explain to me why the community 'cannot' know I'll explain it quite simply: We can't know, at least not from the Committee, because the Committee permitted itself to be bound to a NDA. Nobody has the guts or the wherewithal to actually challenge the NDA in any real way, and from all appearances this was accepted as a fait accompli. You can't arbitrate like this. Even if certain evidentiary facts can be or need to be kept private, the ultimate facts upon which any sanctions are premised must be made public. Moreover, and this is a real weakness with the Committee over the years, there must be a logical flow from principles to FoFs to remedies. If you can't make FoFs that support any particular remedy, you must not make that remedy. This is like the nonsensical application of the GamerGate case remedies to areas outside the scope of any FoFs in that case. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand this correctly, you're essentially saying that none of the individual instances of conduct reported in the T&S document would be actionable, but you think the larger pattern is. Given that you have confirmed that Fram can not see this document, or be shown any of the cases contained therein, how could the committee possibly design an effective remedy? It seems to me that if you want to adhere to the principle of not being punishing for punishments sake but to shield the community from harm and lead to improvement, you're down to two options, namely full overturn of T&S sanctions and extending it to an indef block, as any other remedy can't work considering Fram can never be told what conduct exactly is considered problematic from him. Magischtalk to me08:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly the idea of a pattern of problematic conduct being so egregious as to require this sort of outside interference, but each individual instance not rising to the level of causing local sanctions (and in fact, there being no "smoking gun" itself, per WTT), raises serious, serious questions as to the propriety of the T&S action. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this analysis, Mendaliv. I can fully understand that there could be "a pattern of problematic conduct being .. egregious ..., but each individual instance not rising to the level of causing local sanctions', but acting on individual instances is hardly ever what we do. ArbCom does only act in this way if we are being presented with a pattern of problematic conduct being egregious. And if that is the case, then there is NO reason that we cannot be presented with that pattern, either form the 70 page document or by community submitted evidence. But I have difficulties to see such a pattern in the community supplied evidence, and if that was in the 70 page document then that does not explain why it is so secret (and has not been brought forward by the community in their evidence as well). --Dirk BeetstraTC05:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Worm That Turned: Do you really want to lower the bar for a desysop that far? If you do then here is what will happen: All of the admins who work in contentious areas and have made a errors of judgement, lost their temper or pursued long term abusers, paid/coi or just plain bad editors will have ArbCom or T&S cases against them because you all will have given all those bad actors a big old club.
Now I do not believe those brought up on "charges" would actually be desysopped -- mainly because it is pretty evident from all I have read this case is based, at least from T&S, on who is driving the complaint not the meat of the complaint -- but they will still be harassed, there will be a chilling effect, and the encyclopedia will suffer for it.
Face it, if you have not, there is no way to keep the sanctions in place if the material facts, which are already in the public domain, are kept secret -- not if you want to maintain the confidence of the a large and active portion of the community.
Last time I checked, and checked I have, the bar, in practice, for desysop is repeated egregious behavior and/or repeated or egregious abuse of the tools. Maybe it would be good for the bar to be lowered. I think it probably should be but this is not the situation to do it in because, like it or not, this will become a precedent. If not for ArbCom then for T&S. Jbh Talk15:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative Actions (1)
Earlier this year, Fram blocked Martinevans123, which was then quickly reversed as "excessive" by Floquenbeam: Log: [1] AN/I: [2]
The linked AN/I discussion was closed on 22:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC) by User:Swarm with "Closing as resolved. Consensus below endorses the block of Louis, as well as the overturning of the block of Martin, due to excessive length (though not due to illegitimacy of the block itself). Martin has already been unblocked accordingly. Fram has indicated that they will accept the criticism in good faith and will use the feedback to improve as an admin. Any followup conversations can take place on talk pages". --Dirk BeetstraTC10:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a duplicate of the issues in Administrative Actions (4) and is therefore, in effect, making two administrative misconduct claims out of a single event. The two, in fairness, need to be either consolidated into a single heading or a better explanation of why the events should be considered as two separate instances of administrative misconduct. Jbh Talk18:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative Actions (2)
August of last year, Fram's block of GorillaWarfare was criticized and then immediately reversed: [4]
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Discussion closed on 15:36, 31 August 2018 by User:Beeblebrox stating "The community has reviewed the situation. While opinion is not unanimous on all aspects of the situation, there is a fairly clear consensus that this was a bad block.". --Dirk BeetstraTC10:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how this can be used as evidence of a propensity to harass when GorillaWarfare had this to say in this very case:
"I see Fram's block of me as a fairly straightforward administrative action—obviously I didn't agree with his block, but it was resolved fairly amicably and wasn't a part of any larger ongoing conflict between Fram and I. In all honesty I'd forgotten it happened until it came up in the early days of the conversation surrounding the WMF action against Fram.[5]emp. mine
Based on the link provided this is problematic how? I see a block for disruptive editing which was not overturned. I also see a user who has been blocked for edit warring, disruptive editing, proxy editing and by ArbCom [7]. If this is somehow evidence of something it needs to be made clear what it is evidence of. Jbh Talk16:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation of the block, given in the linked text is
"I haven't blocked for the edit war on the article, I protected it. But edit warring to remove text which is perfectly acceptable on a talk page, with false claims of vandalism, and continuing after you have been asked to justify the previous removal and edit summary? That's not a case of "it takes two to tango", that's a case of one person blatantly ignoring multiple policies, and this less than a week after they had a similar "edit war" on that other user's talk page, then to reinstall text FS didn't want on his user talk page (which, again, is perfectly within policy for FS and clearly against policy for Mathsci). That you need two persons (or more) to edit war doesn't mean that both are right or both are wrong. Fram (talk) 7:13 am, 2 February 2018, Friday (1 year, 6 months, 19 days ago) (UTC−5)"
Fram threatens to block Martinevans for having YouTube links on his user page.[8]. He follows through. The block was seen as vindictive and transfer to ANI for a community discussion was recommended (Note past history with Martinevans)
This is an unfair summary of the events. The above should properly read, as the diff shows: "...block was seen as unfair by Martinevans ". The use of the word "vindictive"' is not called for based on the evidence linked. It is as loaded a word as "lie". As it stands, the statement implies that others saw it as vindictive rather than the subject of the block saying it is unfair. Also the use of the word "threaten" is excessive when "warn" is more appropriate.
Considering that another piece of evidence, above, says the block was good but only the length was excessive I strongly question the choice to include either, even if they are dismissed, because they unfairly give the impression of 'where there is smoke there is fire' by adding to the raw number of complaints.
So: Fram warned Martinevans about placing links to copyright material on his talk page and said he would be blocked if he did so again. Martinevans linked to copyvio material and Fram blocked him. Martinevans thought this was unfair and took the matter to AN. The consensus there was that the block was good but the term was overlong. Fram said they took on board the criticism.
Is there some further context that this was actually directed at some person or persons? If not it is just fucking padding of evidence. Well, it is literally padding of the fucking evidence anyway. </sarcasm> Jbh Talk16:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Fram starts with a page that has a typo (" f<noinclude> ") that consists of an added "f" character, removes the extra "f" with an edit comment of "F off", and the inquisitors don't see the obvious joke? Is this the level of care T&S takes when evaluating evidence? If Fram had been blocked by an admin the admin would have revealed that the block was partially because of this "F Off" and Fram could have responded. But T&S tried to block him without revealing this particular bit of bogus "evidence". If Fram had been blocked by an admin he could have asked an uninvolved admin to review the block. But T&S doesn't allow any independent reviews or appeals. No matter what else happens, T&S should be admonished for this. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Fram made three quick edits within a couple of minutes of each other. The link provided above makes it look like he changed a lot more that he actually did. Here is a diff of all three edits together: [11] So basically he replaced three instances of "<br>" with ":" and removed an added "f". Burn the witch! Farm turned me into a newt! (I got better...) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Result: There is consensus that there is a pattern of significant translation errors (not merely "typos") in articles that User:LauraHale has written on the basis of Spanish-language sources. The proposal to ban LauraHale from using Spanish-language sources did not receive a consensus, but there is general support in this discussion for an arrangement that would ensure that her translations don't reach main space until they have been validated by someone with appropriate knowledge of Spanish and English."[13]
and
"While there are clearly those who feel that LauraHale's article writing needs work, particularly when those articles are written with a view to being displayed on the main page, there is a sufficiently strong consensus in this discussion against a DYK topic ban at this time to make further discussion a generator of heat rather than of light. However, I would suggest that LauraHale reflects on the views expressed in the discussion – perhaps particularly the views expressed by those who oppose a topic ban but nevertheless consider that her work does need some improvement – and I am sure that in the meantime DYK reviewers will be extra-alert to the possibility of problems with any further articles she nominates, thus ensuring that main page DYK standards are not compromised by not having a topic ban."[14]
So, the evidence shows that certain LauraHale's edits were seen as problematic so complaingin about them, in and of itself, is not something the community would see as problematic. Is there other evidence that shows Framinappropriately challenging LH's edits or otherwise harassing her? If so is it objectively, by community standards of behavior, problematic or just felt to be problematic by the editor and/or her partisans. (We see that there can be a disagreement between partisans and community standards on many cases cf at this RfArb and there not necessarily be sanctionable, much less ban/desysop, behavior so I do not see this as an unreasonable question.)
Whether LH retired because of objectively problematic behavior is not the responsibility of the one(s) who challenged that behavior. Only if the pursuit and attempts to address said behavior violated community norms for dealing with such editors is there a sanctionable matter to be answered. Jbh Talk17:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... since when can a user dictate how and who can sanction them (above [15])? I assume there must be some context to this but it is not linked in the statement by LH nor is it provided in the evidence which has been allowed to be presented here. This statement on LH's talk page seems like something which would have a lot of documentation behind it -- probably several tens of pages -- but, based on what has been presented in this case (See my comments particularly on the false light and evidently irrelevant "evidence") it can be fairly assumed that such documentation would be of similar quality. If it were not, well, there would be some evidence of the claimed harassment on-wiki, and we know there has been no problematic off-wiki harassment by Fram. So... what is this evidence intended to establish? No reasonable expectation of privacy is broken by providing diffs to the context of LH's claims
"Other admins have requested that you stop posting on my talk page before. They have requested you stop taking action in regards to me, especially given your problematic actions as they relate to your inability to be impartial where I am concerned."ibid.
This is a direct and, as of now, unsupported claim. If it is to be used then: What admins said these things and what did they actually say?Jbh Talk17:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The quote as such does not appear in the diff. The two quotes are separate "I'm an admin, you are not", and "You may have your own stupid opinion". Both are clearly interpretations of the text of someone else, it is not Fram stating about himself "I am an admin, you are not", and it is not Fram who is stating that another party has their own 'stupid opinion'. --Dirk BeetstraTC08:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Surely I am looking at the diff, but I just feel that the current representation of this diff does not give the right impression. I'll leave it to ArbCom or others to evaluate the situation further around this. --Dirk BeetstraTC11:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly another false light piece of evidence. It is presented as if Fram said these things in the first person where he clearly, on reading the diff and as noted above, was paraphrasing -- whether accurately/fairly or not -- another editor.
It also implies that this interaction directly resulted in the resignation of Ymblanter. Fortunately he is taking part in this discussion and, if he is willing, can say if this is a fair summary of the results of his interactions with Fram in that time. (I do not doubt Fram's behavior towards him could have made him want to quit but, since he's here, it is better to have his statement of how it made him feel rather than the implication and resulting assumption we have as evidence now) Jbh Talk18:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This episode and the subsequent ANI discussion definitely contributed to my resignation as administrator since it resulted in a number of people telling me I should not be administrator, and some telling me I am a piece of shit. It was not the only episode leading to my resignation. In retrospect, I think there were some real reasons blown by Fram out of proportion, and some imaginary reasons, where I was not at fault at all, and there was my overreaction on a couple of occasions. Generally, I still recollect this relatively short period as one of the worst memories during my whole Wikipedia participation, and, to be honest, even now reading these linked discussions costs me a lot of effort. I do not support a ban or a desysop though, as I made clear in my statement at the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, my sympathy for what you went through, and let me emphasize that any comments I have made here are not to be construed as implying that you, Fram, or anyone else did or did not do anything wrong. My focus is on the quality of the T&S evidence and whether they made their case. Admins being abused is something we won't fix here, but it is something we need to fix, and soon. So, that being said, is there any place where you posted anything that T&S could reasonably interpret as supporting a conclusion of "Fram causes Ybmlanter to resign"? You don't have to answer this, but did you send any private evidence to T&S that claimed that Fram caused you to resign? How about that Fram contributed to your resigning (which is not actually what T&S claimed, but might have contributed to the "caused" claim)? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned yesterday at the talk page, and earlier at WP:FRAM, I never contacted T&S (or, for that matter, never sent evidence to ArbCom for this case). I even have no idea whether this episode was part of the T&S document, and, if it was, how it was presented. Concerning the first part of your question, I am pretty sure I never said "Fram caused me to resign" (and this statement would not be correct, and I never lie as a matter of principle). However I was pretty open why I resigned (though many users did not get it), and I might have said something which, with some digging, could lead someone to this conclusion. I am not currently willing to wade through my diffs of early 2018 to see what I exactly said. FPoS found that this material was verbatim posted at ANI in March 2018, but I can not recollect this fact now, and, if I remember correctly, I was at the time basically inactive.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's analyze what was actually written, shall we? (portions [in brackets] added by me):
I [Fram] quoted what you [Ymblanter] actually said above[...] [Direct quote from Ymblanter:] "Well, both communities felt confident enough to award me [Ymblanter] administrator privileges, something which I [Ymblanter] have not seen you [Only in death] to achieve with either of them." = ["=" clearly meaning "is the equivalent of saying that"] I [Ymblanter] am an admin, you [Only in death] are not.[16]
I [Fram] quoted what you [Ymblanter] actually said above[...] [Direct quote from Ymblanter:] "But, as I [Ymblanter] said, you [Only in death] are certainly entitled to have your [Only in death] opinion on the subject, even if it is completely uninformed and aggressive. This is ok with me [Ymblanter]." = ["=" clearly meaning "is the equivalent of saying that"] you [Only in death] may have your [Only in death] own stupid opinion.[17]
So again we see bogus evidence. Fram never wrote "I [Fram] am an admin, you [Ymblanter] are not. You [Ymblanter] may have your own stupid opinion". (BTW, Ymblanter is an admin, so saying that he isn't would be silly.)
Instead Fram characterized Ymblanter as saying the equivalent of "I [Ymblanter] am an admin, you' [Only in death] are not" and of saying the equivalent of "you [Only in death] may have your own stupid opinion."
Reading Ymblanter's original comment the Fram was quoting, it seems like a reasonable criticism. I certainly don't see a shred of evidence in the diff provided that "Fram causes Ybmlanter to resign". Wouldn't you think this would be something T&S would include diffs establishing? I'm just saying.
Again the real problem is not the bogus evidence. It is the bogus evidence that Fram was not allowed to see and which no independent eyes were allowed to review. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Past attempt to be dealt with by the community -- individual editors
Ritchie333 advising Fram to be more civil [22][23]
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
The diffs titled "Ritchie333 advising Fram to be more civil" have nothing to do with Ritchie333, and nothing with asking Fram to be more civil. The only editor in the thread asking Fram to moderate his behaviour is me, Kusma. The thread is a continuation of a dispute regarding the use of Wikidata in infoboxes that had sparked an edit war. Given that I was somewhat involved in the dispute (but not the edit war), Fram brushes off my suggestion to back off a bit as continuing to take sides in the content dispute, which is fair. I don't see how this is evidence of any serious problem (and it is seriously mistitled, as the diffs are edits of Fram). In case there is any doubt: I am not Ritchie333, and I don't think RexxS or Mike Peel are Ritchie333 either. —Kusma (t·c) 16:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This one rises above the level of bogus evidence into "find out who wrote this and take away his ability to block people" territory. An accusation of "Ritchie333 advising Fram to be more civil" should contain diffs of edits by Ritchie333.
In addition, since when is this a blockable offense? A while back someone advised me to be more civil. I told them that they were right, apologized, and tried to do better. Should I be blocked by T&S? Show of hands: who here has had someone advise them to be more civil? Anyone who hasn't? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
