Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. 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 rude or hostile, 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). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
The Arbitration Committee has directed that discussion on this page must be sectioned. Unless you are an arbitrator or clerk, create a section for your comments and comment only in your own section. For the Arbitration Committee, – GoldenRing (talk) 11:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC) |
Case management update:
|
Per the Arbitration Committee, the Workshop portion of this case will be carried out as a standard Workshop. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 22:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Are the proposed findings of fact expected to be limited solely to Fram's actions, or will findings of facts of the form "In Situation A, both Fram and Editor X made errors of judgment" be allowed? Or even "In Situation B, Fram's conduct was acceptable and Editor Y's was not?" 28bytes (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I won't clutter the workshop page by commenting on each of the Proposed Principles and Findings of Facts that Newyorkbrad has offered, but I wholeheartedly endorse all of it. Excellent work, NYB. 28bytes (talk) 04:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
We are dealing more and more with a case not of harassment by Fram, but harassment of Fram.diff — Adhemar (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
It appears to me that NYB has it right on all counts. - Dank (push to talk) 03:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I also agree with all of NYBs posts in the workshop. I would like however to see a dry evaluation of the T&S document in the FoFs and Remedy (even if all Arbs have to recuse on a vote of it). --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I have now added these FoFs and Remedies as per my post suggestion above. I have shamelessly rewritten User:Newyorkbrad's suggested FoFs and Remedies for that, thanks for the suggestions NYB.
I am looking forward to comments. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I am also strongly in agreement with NYB for what we've seen so far, but I am hoping, as per my recent comments on Evidence Talk, someone will please ask Jan if he can say what he means by the community "cannot ... know all the facts" of the case, and whether we can simply see all the diffs and/or wikilinks in the private 70 page dossier. EllenCT (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Please adopt NYB's proposed decision and let's move on. This sad affair has been a shambles from start to finish. Please end it already. It has taken much too long for common sense to take hold. Jehochman Talk 12:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
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.Is that the relevant description? I don't see in there an accusation of anything sanctionable. Having "long-term disputes" by itself isn't sanction-able. Maybe Fram was right, and those he was disputing with were wrong and corrupt, but they were in power and had friends, so they arranged for Fram to be banned. This stinks like hell. I recommend you open the windows for fresh air. Just tell WMF that you are obligated to overturn their sanctions unless they are willing to let you release enough information to show that a ban is justified. Jehochman Talk 14:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I am surprised by ArbCom's willingness to continue to case despite posting no substantial evidence, and skipping over the most substantial evidence that's already been discussed numerous times on wiki and which was included in my request for arbitration. In my opinion this case is about getting into a conflict with "the wrong person". The heart of the case can be understood by looking at three links:
I am sure that DYK reviewers will be extra-alert to the possibility of problems with any further articles she nominates
This is a budget request for two Wikimedians (Raystorm and LauraHale) to attend the 2013 IPC Alpine Skiiing World Championships at La Molina, Spain.
You were asked in September 2017 to disengage in admin actions related to me. You were asked in September 2017 to stop commenting on my talk page and you are being asked again in February 2018.
...please contact James Alexander, Patrick Earley, Jan Eissfeldt or Sydney Poore, members of the WMF's Support and Safety team.
Here's the final straw: [2] That, my friends, is frustration boiling over, not a personal attack. It's frustration boiling over after an editor feels that they've been unfairly persecuted. We experienced editors have seen this happen many times. The target of harassment becomes frustrated and finally explodes.
This conflict appears to have blossomed from a bona fide disagreement about the importance of competing priorities: content quality versus community building and inclusiveness. We've long had that debate. Both views have merit and this debate should be resolved by open, civilize discussion, rather than by political clout. Fram appears to have been severely overmatched in terms of clout. I feel that Fram may have crossed the line between legitimate inspection of another editor's work and paying excessive attention to them. However, this line is fuzzy and different people might have different opinions. In general, we need to be more tolerant of different people, and different opinions. That's the heart of WP:AGF.
Before you ban me, I have had no access to confidential information nor have I given a promise of confidentiality to anybody related to this information. Moreover, I have not used my admin access to find these links. Any editor could find them. A member of ArbCom answered a question I emailed them to say that I am allow to post any public diffs I find, such as these. Jehochman Talk 13:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll just say that I endorse Newyorkbrad's proposals. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I think the Committee could do far worse now than to adopt the proposals made by Newyorkbrad with extremely minimal changes, regardless of the contents of the T&S document. — Rastus Vernon (talk) 04:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly endorse NYB's suggestions. I also find Jehochman's arguments persuasive, and there may need to be a finding of fact about the T&S document. It probably shows that Fram has made enemies of several people well connected to the WMF (be it developers, chapter officials, or users with private connections to high-ranking WMF people). This easily lends itself to allegations of corruption. If the T&S document is considered part of the evidence, there will need to be findings of fact that confirm or deny whether such internal improprieties seem to have taken place. —Kusma (t·c) 06:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I am very supportive of the divided FoFs (public vs. confidential evidence) as detailed by NYB and Dirk Beetstra. This will allow ArbCom to identify where the evidence that supports each FoF comes from, and is really the only way that a part-public/part-private case can be worked through. There may need to be scope for a combined FoF or three if the public evidence tips the confidential evidence over the line, but that seems unlikely given the pretty weak public evidence. Just flagging this as a possibility really. Great work to both. I don't agree with Jehochman's suggestion, my thinking is that, as part of the outcomes, ArbCom should be re-asserting its primacy over WMF on conduct issues (excepting those specific areas they have been responsible for prior to the Fram ban). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
It is probably time to issue my statement, since I am worried about the developments. I did not plan to participate in this case, I did not submit anything to T&S or ArbCom, but since I was heavily involved in arguments with and around Fram in late 2017 and early 2018, my statements understandably appear in the community-submitted evidence. I am at this point happy with the decision proposed by NYB. I do not think Fram has done anything to deserve a ban (definitely not a one-year unappealable ban without previous blocks and with talk page and e-mail blocked). I do not think they must be desysopped now, though I would have argued for desysop 18 months ago (and I actually did). I was a vocal critic of the T&S decision and was actually named by Fram as one of the users they have confidence in concerning the decision. I think Fram's behavior improved in the last year, and in many disputes they were involved in the past they were procedurally correct anyway. However, I also fully agree with the "ugly habit" comment (again, referring not to the current behavior, but to the 2017-18 behavior), and I believe that the evidence presented by the community substantiates this comment. This behavior is not ok, and I know this first-hand after having been on the receiving side. I am glad to see the proposal "Fram reminded"; I would prefer "warned" or "admonished", but this is a technical issue, and I can live with reminded. However, I am worried to see suggestions from many users that the community evidence contains nothing at all, and the case must be dropped. No, it must not be dropped. There was misconduct, and even if this misconduct did not rise to the level of ban or desysop, it should be reflected in the final decision. If it does not make it there, we are back to the initial situation. Community tried to resolve this (and there is plenty of material in the community-presented evidence), but it could not. This means that if this time nothing happens, the next time I encounter such behavior from any user (hopefully not Fram), I will go straight to T&S. At least they did something and did not drop the case.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I just posted some comments on the evidence talkpage that could equally well have gone here. Rather than either risk their being missed, or duplicate them, I'll just post this cross-reference to here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I heartily and completely endorse the comments by Jehochman. This is, and has always been, about Laura Hale, Fram, and by extension, Maria Sefidari. Let us please direct the case to that and we will find resolution. Additionally it is likely Fram was targeted in part due to their outspoken criticism of WMF actions (alluded to in the statement regarding the T&S discussion). Mr Ernie (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Please make copies for following commenters.