Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
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.

Word limit on comments (outside of Arbcom proceedings)
If the Arbcom wishes to place an increased emphasis on civility, that goal is not furthered by artificial word count limits. In many cases, Fram correctly views the position of another participant in a discussion as wrong. Rather than curtly pointing out the error, a more polite approach would be to provide reasons, examples and perhaps a more wordy phrasing. Regardless of Fram's writing style, this would be a dangerous precedent to set, because once the word count limit is applied more broadly, talk page, ANI and other discussions would go from being a collegial discussion to a telegraphic tweet war. We do not want that, and civility involves the potential of wordiness, including phrases like "with all due respect..." and "I hear what you are saying but..." and "I understand your position to be X, but Y is a better view." Perhaps the ArbCom should impose a minimum word count requirement rather than a maximum in order to assure more polite modes of communication. However, since there are no findings of fact related to Fram's word count conduct, I am not in a position to judge what was intended. Thank you for your consideration. Hlevy2 (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redacted Materials and Objectve Standards
FoF6 says, "These unredacted materials show a pattern..." If Arbcom never saw the unredacted materials, you probably mean "These redacted materials...." I am also troubled by evaluating redacted materials where the name of the complainant is withheld. It is impossible to find "harassment" without evaluating the conduct of both parties and whether the wikihounding was centered on related matters or following an editor to unrelated matters. If BLP are involved, then Fram and other admins are held to a higher standard to act quickly to prevent harm to third parties. Also, if the editor or subject matter is the subject of special enforcement, discretionary sanctions, or other restrictions, that would be relevant, although potentially hidden by redacting the names. Finally, all FoFs should be framed in terms of the Arbcom looking at the facts objectively, rather than from the subjective point of view of the unnamed party feeling harassed. The finding of facts and principles should be consistent and emphasize an objective standard for evaluating an admin who tries to solve the problems created by a chronically problematic editor. Many thanks. Hlevy2 (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To your first sentence: the unredacted portion of the partially-redacted materials shows this pattern. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remedies 2b and 2c - clarification?

These sections seem to make slightly different findings of facts (which don't belong here anyway), but isn't the remedy the same (confirmation of desysop, allowing RfA)? Or does 2b say that a Fram RFA should start immediately at the close of the case, and 2c says Fram is free to start an RfA at a time of his choice? —Kusma (t·c) 15:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that my comments on the case page answer your question, but the idea was 2b is "refer desysop to full community " - effectively enforced reconfirmation RfA, whereas 2c is "confirm desysop, allow RfA". 2b doesn't require immediate RfA - Fram would be free to start it at the time of his choice, if ever. Worm^TT(talk) 08:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: I don't see that as a fundamental difference, as we do not have a "community desysop" procedure that Fram could be referred to. —Kusma (t·c) 09:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of ArbCom's authority
I believe it would be a lot better for ArbCom to fully own the outcome of this case and to demonstrate independence from the WMF. By not resysopping while some are admitting they would not support an ArbCom desyop (see SilkTork here), ArbCom is endorsing the T&S decision as "correct", no matter whether this is called 2b or 2c. Shouldn't WTT's argument "If we take the WMF out of the equation, a ban would likely not have happened - therefore the correct decision is to vacate the ban completely" also be applied here to mean "If we take the WMF out of the equation, a desysop would likely not have happened - therefore the correct decision is to vacate the desysop completely"? If it is not, then ArbCom should say clearly state that they are desyopping and be more precise in their reasoning (if it is for "behavior that is unpleasant, uncollegial, and arrogant" then a lot more admins need to be desysopped). —Kusma (t·c) 09:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closure for Framgate and another WP:RFA
Independent of the question whether a desysop and RFA is fair to Fram, ArbCom should consider what is likely to happen in any future RfA. The community does not really know whether Fram has been desysopped for a cause the community finds convincing or because of (insert WP:ABF here). It is highly likely that the issues dodged by T&S not revealing anything will resurface again during RFA. Is it really wise to start another community discussion of this while keeping most of the underlying issues swept under the rug? —Kusma (t·c) 09:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Learning from this case: When does hounding start?
It is rather sad that we don't get any more concrete guidance on what is and isn't hounding out of this case, so we can learn how to be better admins and editors. Did Fram hound LH? Did Fram hound Cwm? Did Fram hound Jaguar? Did Kusma hound Jaguar? On a more constructive note, how can we support admins when they find issues in an editor's contributions so they don't get hit with unfounded accusations of hounding? Can we turn scrutiny of an editor's contributions into something more collegial than adversarial? —Kusma (t·c) 09:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some good questions on WP:HOUNDING. The wording "This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor", is probably not useful, and could be tightened up. The aim of following someone who is editing inappropriately may not be to cause distress, but to make and keep them aware of their inappropriate edits, but if repeatedly making someone aware of their errors is not making them change their editing pattern, then continuing to make them aware is now becoming counter-productive and simply turning nasty. Any issue which cannot be resolved by one individual (admin or otherwise) within a reasonable space of time should be brought to the attention of others, otherwise it can appear to be hounding (willfully causing distress) rather than usefully attempting to address the problem. SilkTork (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Hlevy2's section

• It's a horrible idea no matter how you slice it. Enforcement will be a nightmare, especially when it comes to litigating what constitutes an "issue". Lawyers lick their lips at something so pregnant with fact issues, because this is something that will net you lots of billable hours. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Kusma's section

My take is that 2c is an endorsement of the desysop, while 2b is a "no decision" on the desysop. Think of reviews of umpire decisions in sporting events: 2b is saying "umpire's call" or "ruling on the field stands", 2c is saying "decision confirmed". You're right though, the difference is something that belongs in a FoF. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You've got to be kidding me. This page has had posts for weeks without this sectioned discussion enforcement. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mendaliv: Welcome to the proposed decision phase of the case. Sectioned discussion on the talk page for this phase is the norm. My apologies for not enforcing it for nearly an hour after the PD was posted; I was in a meeting and didn't get the email. GoldenRing (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from HLevy2's section

• I agree; this is a pointless restriction that will do little or nothing to improve things, and in some cases may make things worse. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The last part of this comment by SilkTork is a very good idea. "Could we do this PD in two stages? Agree to unblock him in stage one. Then get him involved here to discuss workable solutions in stage two that would lead to a resysopping." That takes care of several problems that have been evident in the way the committee has handled this case so far. Unblocking Fram now, then opening an new workshop phase and inviting Fram and other community members to participate in seeking solutions to the underlying issues; perhaps as part of the RFC referred to in Remedy 4 (since the underlying issues have as much to do with the broader community as with Fram personally) would benefit everyone. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, two things. First off, the Committee should not punt on whether Fram's desysop was warranted or not. Either uphold it and formally desysop him, or find it wasn't warranted and overturn it. Second, principle 2 ("Wikimedia Foundation role") contains a factual error when it says The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), sometimes referred to as the "Office," is the legal owner of the English Wikipedia website and infrastructure. While the Foundation does indeed own the physical infrastructure, contributors own both the social infrastructure and content, and each author owns their own contributions to it. The ToU have always been clear that, while contributors agree to license their content under a free license, they retain their ownership and copyright interest of that content. The WMF does not own Wikipedia, just the servers it currently runs on. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, I hope I've made my thoughts clear on the pd page on why I'd prefer to pass it to the community. From a process point of view, Fram hasn't had a fair shake. Yet, reconfirmation RfAs can allow the community vote individually on their own standards. If they haven't seen actual evidence of misdemeanor, they can chose to ignore it. Arbcom doesn't have that luxury, we've seen it, but should not be taking it into account under our processes. Worm^TT(talk) 08:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WTT, thanks for the clarification. I do understand the very difficult position ArbCom has been put in with this matter. However, the factual problem with the principle in question is still a more major problem. Essentially, several arbitrators are saying that WMF "own" Wikipedia, when they don't, and shouldn't. They just own some hardware. Saying WMF owns the actual website would be a fundamental change to our licensing policies; as of today, while contributors agree to irrevocably license their contributions under a free license, they do still own them. WMF does not own the site, it owns some computers. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A remedy restricting Fram's participation on noticeboards seems off the mark to me. It both hampers discussion and doesn't get at the heart of the matter. If the problem is that Fram is being overzealous in their investigation and enforcement of behavioral problems with specific editors, why not simply prevent them from taking multiple admin actions against the same user? If that's not enough; require Fram to disengage from any long-term behavioral issue they find, and to instead bring any such to the community's attention? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: since this seems to be the intent of your proposal, I'm wondering why you're not trying to enforce it in its most direct form, ie "Fram is required to disengage from any long-term behavioral issue they detect, and to bring it to the community's attention", or equivalent. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FoF #4 (Community-provided evidence) says The Committee was not authorized to post, and therefore did not post, the case materials provided by the Office or a summary of that evidence. Separate from the issue of public posting of evidence, I think it is important to state explicitly whether Fram was given any opportunity to respond to this evidence.

FoF #6 (Evaluation of Office-provided case materials) is unclear on the issue of whether any of the alleged "borderline harassment" occurred after the "second private conduct warning". The phrasing suggests not, and that the ban was enacted because the abuse of the Committee was seen as a violation of the warnings, but it is not stated explicitly. I understand that the Committee is treading a fine line here in terms of revealing the content of the Office document, but I think this point cuts to the heart of the case because it bears directly on whether this was an issue that the Committee can and should handle.

Remedies #1b (Fram's 1 year ban is disproportionate), #1c (Fram's 1 year ban is justified), and #2c (Removal of sysop user-rights) are implicitly supported by FoF #6 (Evaluation of Office-provided case materials). This is important to note for a number of reasons:

1. As I understand it, Fram has had no opportunity to respond to the underlying evidence.
2. Per ARBPOL, basing decisions on such secret evidence is arguably outside the remit of the Committee.
3. At least one arbitrator has indicated (as part of a support) that the summary provided in FoF #6 is overstated.
4. Another arbitrator supporting FoF #6 has indicated that the public evidence should be given greater weight.

Remedy 3 (Fram restricted) seems unsupported by any finding of fact, or any evidence I have seen. In my experience, arbitrary restrictions of this type often lead to "gotcha" enforcement that does not serve the project. I'd rather see Fram reminded or even admonished about specifics.

Bovlb (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We weren't allowed to give Fram anything more than the brief summary of the T&S evidence posted on the evidence page. I believe we've stated this publicly multiple times during the case. They responded to the summary in the evidence phase.

If your point 3 is referring to me, I don't think the summary is overstated. I think that terms like "harassment" and "abuse" are contextual and subjective. Personally I think they are little too strong in this case, but I can understand why others might see it differently, and more importantly some targets of Fram's behaviour did consider it as harassment. – Joe (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: Thanks for responding.

I believe we've stated this publicly multiple times during the case. — No doubt, but I meant that it is important to state this explicitly in the FoFs, analogous to #4's the Committee posted a summary of the community-provided evidence, as well as Fram's reply to that evidence.

I don't think the summary is overstated — You are, of course, the ultimate arbiter of what you meant to say, but I feel that phrases like "I would not call", "I don't consider", and "a little too strong" support the idea that the summary is overstated, in the sense that it is stated too strongly or is exaggerated.

Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the "borderline harassment" that occurred after the second conduct warning - I believe the argument is that Fram's actions towards the committee and members in that period constituted similar behaviours - however, I don't recall any actions towards other users in that period, I'd have to double check. Worm^TT(talk) 08:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would the Committee explicitly cite the evidence on the basis of which they support the de-sysop of Fram? This can be used as the (incredibly low) new bar for which cases regarding admin behavior can be brought before the committee. I've in mind half a dozen or so admins who should expect to be de-sysop'd quite quickly. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As always, remedies follow from the principles and FoFs. Speaking for myself, I'd highlight principle 1, 5 & 6 and FoF 1, 5 & 6 as the reason for supporting remedy 2b/c.

Not to be pedantic, but we are also talking about whether to resysop Fram. They've already been desysopped by the WMF and we're now asked to consider whether to overturn that action. I've seen enough evidence of incivility that I'm not comfortable doing that without confirmation they have the community's support via an RfA. I'd have a higher bar for desysopping on ArbCom's initiative. – Joe (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The well is too poisoned in this case for Fram's reconfirmation RFA to have any chance at succeeding. ArbCom needs to make the statement that the WMF desysop was not valid, and that it is up to the community to make the case Fram should not be an admin. You can't say the 1 year ban was unwarranted and vacate it, but uphold the WMF desysop. If Fram runs a reconfirmation RFA there would be many oppose votes saying the WMF removed the tools and that's good enough for them. If you want to proceed with upholding the desysop then please explicitly cite the behaviors from the evidence phase that support such an action. Citing a few generic FoF's isn't good enough. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ernie, there are some very broad strokes in that comment - The WMF removed the tools as part of a ban, which has since been vacated. They've made very little song and dance about the tools, and have seemed far more concerned about the ban in general. At the same time, having spent far more time reading discussions around this issue than I'd like, I've seen a general feeling from the community that the issue was far more about the process than the outcome. There have certainly been some editors who believe Fram to be an excellent admin, but equally there have been many who do not. The community should be able to make this final decision we saw it with Floqenbeam - the community has it's ability to make a considered decision, and it shouldn't be left to a few individuals. Worm^TT(talk) 08:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If 2c passes The behaviour shown in the case materials, combined with the overturned decisions mentioned in the community evidence, fall below the standards expected for an administrator., then you need to show Fram, and perhaps the community at large, this material. It is fundamentally unfair and irresponsible to include this if you as Arbcom are not able to fully investigate (due to the redactions) and if Fram is not shown this to aid in self-improvement in case he ever wants to do RFA again. This is a critical flaw in this proceeding. If you are not willing to fight that this material should be released, you should not be citing it anywhere in a decision. Again, you yourselves, due to the redactions, have no idea what the context or surrounding events are! T&S obviously built that dossier not to use as a neutral piece of work, but to support their view that Fram should be sanctioned! Mr Ernie (talk) 11:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork you said If someone is to be desysopped for something, whatever it is, they would need to show understanding of the reasons for the desysop but in remedy 2c the committee cites the case materials as a reason for the desysop (see my comment just above). Since this will not be revealed, Fram is by definition unable to understand the reason for the desystop. Indeed many in an RFA would cite such unseen evidence as an oppose vote, saying if it's good enough for the WMF it's good enough for me, and Fram would have no way to respond. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The elephant in the room here is that Fram is abrasive. He is generally correct in identifying causes for concern, but is too strident in dealing with them. There is evidence presented in this case to indicate that, and it's not exactly a secret. The WMF document is simply more of the same. There is nothing in it that is any different to what people who know Fram already know about Fram. And if people don't know, they can look at the Evidence page and follow the links to get a feel for people's views on Fram. The case request in 2016 has these statements: "Fram targets certain editors, bullies them, harasses them and sometimes hounds them, following them around and undermining their contributions."; "I have clashed with Fram, and remain of the view that he can be abrasive and I wish he could moderate his behaviour and attitudes at times whilst staying true to his strong and laudable views on quality."; "Fram's responses were less than polite, to be sure, but as I've said before in this venue we are not here to elevate polite discourse over encyclopedic accuracy."; "Like me, Fram can be short and brusque, but I really have to confess I have never seen his conduct fall down to such a degree that an ArcBom hearing is warranted."; "Fram could probably use a bit more diplomacy at times, but most of what is being called harrassment above seems to simply be on-point criticism." The case request was declined. This year in the GiantSnowman case I opposed a finding that Fram had "unnecessarily personalised this dispute with other users" by saying: "if someone is a little strident when uncovering admin abuse, I am a little more forgiving. Punchy, personalised language is not acceptable, but can sometimes be understandable when put into context". The links lead to other links which give examples of Fram's language. I'm just giving a flavour of the opinions about Fram, which Fram and others are aware of. Borderline stuff. Fram is usually right. But people are aware that he can be abrasive, and have communicated that to him. Many of us who are aware of it have overlooked it or even forgiven it. Accepted it as a necessary evil. Whatever. The WMF document was composed of several complaints from several users which reported the same sort of stuff. It was the cumulation of these reports over a number of years, coupled with Fram's attacks on ArbCom which led to the ban. The evidence is onwiki regarding conduct, and Fram himself is aware of this, so I don't think there is anything secret or unknown, and people can use the available evidence to make their own evaluation of Fram, and to ask him questions. It is the borderline nature of Fram's conduct, and that it is within Fram and the community's scope to dial back some of the intensity of Fram's conduct, which leads me to feel a RfA is the best way to look into reinstating Fram's admin tools. SilkTork (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's really disappointing to see the Arbs ignore well-reasoned comments by many contributors here and push ahead with this bull-headed approach to desysop Fram. The community resoundingly told the WMF that their involvement in this type o was unwelcome, yet here you are partially endorsing it. It is a shame that nobody is willing to at least put some diffs in the desysop remedy. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare please cite the diffs or evidence in your remedy for taking over the desysop that leads you to that decision. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The remedies follow the principles and findings; remedy 2d is based on principles 1 and 3–7, as well as finding 6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not good enough. Please put the diffs in the decision that lead to a desysop. Your finding of fact #5 says they don’t exist. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is Remedy 3 (Fram restricted) meant to be 500 words per issue, or 500 words per issue per venue? It seems to me that both readings create perverse incentives - if the former, it encourages a malfeasant editor to stonewall Fram on user or article talk until he's out of words, so that he can't escalate to ANI; if the latter, it encourages Fram to escalate prematurely. Plus, either way, there'll be admins lining up to include the mandatory {{ANI-notice}} as counting against the 500-word user talk limit, not to mention the abhorrent and unreadable practice commonly seen at WP:ARC of keeping under 500 words by removing previous statements. —Cryptic 18:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerks: please do not change this section into a "Statement by Fut.Perf"

Where has this horrible fashion sprung from, of enforcing comments in personal section format? This is a talk page, not a statements page. We talk here. That's the way this community chooses to provide feedback on things, by talking them out, in threaded dialogue. I can see no advantage in enforcing this exceptional format, other than as yet another demonstration of power by the arbs and their clerks. If the committee doesn't want to hear the community talk, they'd better say so up front. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Future Perfect at Sunrise, I appreciate your concerns about the format. I also saw a comment above by Mendaliv about sectioned discussion, and it's clear that there's some frustration about the change, so I hope I can be somewhat helpful in my explanation.

Proposed decision talk pages are normally sectioned in almost every case. The reason it wasn't before here is that there wasn't a proposed decision. Arbitration pages exist to help the committee reach a fair, well-informed decision; in that process, community comments are highly valuable and deeply appreciated. We also know that these disputes can cause tempers to run hot; almost by definition, arbitration cases are centered on disputes that the community has been unable to resolve. The sole purpose of the PD talk is to provide comments to arbs to help them reach the best resolution possible; true debates serve no good purpose here. Non-arbs aren't your audience – I wager you'd agree that arguing with and convincing non-arbs on this talk page of your positions doesn't do you all that much good, since it's the arbs who'll be voting on this. And over many years of doing this, the committee has found that the most helpful comments for the arbs do not come in the form of threaded discussion. Is it possible to have unproductive heated arguments with sectioned discussion? Sure, but in our experience, it's much harder.

I think I speak for the clerks and the committee when I say that we don't give a damn about "power". It's an internet website, for Pete's sake; you must have a really low opinion of us if you think this is the only way we can get some sort of power rush. The arbitrators and clerks I've had the joy of working with over the last four and a half years have been good people, dedicated people, who do this difficult job because they believe in it. From what I can see, the job of an arbitrator is deeply unpleasant and the members of the committee do it because they think the work is important; anyone who wanted to do it to feel power wouldn't last a moment in the position.

Please know that out of respect for your request, I will not be changing your section title name. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here now reading this page because I value the input of everyone. As Arbs our role is to make a final, binding decision. How we reach that decision is up to the individual Arb, but I don't think any of us reach a decision without taking the community's views into account. And we may change or amend a decision based on comments made by others: other Arbs, other community members, parties to the case. Having sectioned comments works better. As Kevin says, having a threaded discussion which can dissolve into an argument is not helpful. Folks can comment on each others' comments within their own section, so there's no censorship going on, just a method of organising feedback that has proved to work well. I hope that satisfies your query. Also, I hope as we move forward on the civility front, such comments as "yet another demonstration of power by the arbs and their clerks" will be universally found to be unacceptable. SilkTork (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Echo SBlade that the Committee should not punt on whether Fram's desysop was warranted or not. Either uphold it and formally desysop him, or find it wasn't warranted and overturn it. Joe's reply in the regard to Ernie is awful. ∯WBG^converse 19:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Happy to note relevant progress, despite wherever individuals arbitrators stand. Thanks, GW! ∯WBG^converse 16:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey incisive arb, can you try a bit harder to write coherent non-legalese English? The other user then feels the need to answer each aspect in turn, which creates this bizarre paradigm where making ten times the noise about something than was deserved is, coming from Fram, something other than counter-productive and unprofessional - LOL. ∯WBG^converse 14:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a serious point here that the restriction does not deserve support, then I was unconvinced by it. AGK ■ 16:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sole serious point is that we have an incisive arbitrator who cannot write coherent non-legalese English. And going by a Meta-t/p and my thanks log, at-least two others seem to agree. ∯WBG^converse 17:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate much of what the committee is doing here, and in particular the vacating of the siteban. I really think the committee is making a grave mistake in not also vacating the desysop, especially as it has acknowledged that the public evidence does not support a desysop. Without that public evidence, the committee is forced to desysop on the basis of private evidence which apparently comprises only actions Fram has taken on-wiki and which therefore should be reviewable by the community. Endorsing a desysop of this type is, I am sure the committee can see, deeply divisive and will serve to entrench that division further. After months of acrimony, punting this to an RfA, which is guaranteed to ramp up the division and discord, will only have a corrosive effect on the community. As DGG says, many of us would be forced into a "support" position simply as a means of registering our unhappiness at what's been done to Fram, regardless of any legitimate concerns we might have about temperament. An RfA of that sort is not going to bring any closure to our division, it's only going to inflame it.
• I urge the committee to:
  • Vacate the desysop as you are vacating the siteban.
  • Set firm expectations about what specific behavior you want Fram to avoid.
  • Specify that if those expectations are not met, a future case regarding Fram's administrative conduct will be opened, with all that implies.
• If the "prevention, not punishment" mantra is to be taken seriously, the goal for this case should be Fram making positive contributions as an editor and administrator without any accompanying problems. The committee is in an ideal position to help that happen, to provide closure to this unpleasant episode, and move past (rather than embrace) T&S actions that were tainted by secret evidence and conflicts of interest. Please don't let this opportunity pass by. Please don't put the community through a divisive RfA that will revive all these secret evidence discussions that most of us would like to put in the rear-view mirror. 28bytes (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The continued massaging of the findings of fact to match the desired outcome is making me lose faith in the integrity of this process. 28bytes (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the option of a Topic Ban from addressing other users' qualities and behaviour. Almond Plate (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (@Jbhunley) It seems very unlikely that the person you mention filed a complaint. There are far more prominent candidates, none of which have been mentioned even once in this entire case. Almond Plate (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• (@Jbhunley) It's not what has been communicated that tells the tale, but what hasn't been communicated. Since I believe that T&S and ArbCom have kept silent for good reasons I won't say anything more, but it didn't take much research. Almond Plate (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The behaviour shown in the case materials, combined with the overturned decisions mentioned in the community evidence, fall below the standards expected for an administrator. Accordingly, the committee declines to reinstate Fram's sysop userright." And two committee members already support this one.

So let me get this straight, evidence that neither Fram nor we can see or respond to shows problems, while evidence that we can see and respond to shows negligible problems, and committee members support punishment based on the evidence that we can't see or respond to? This amounts to basing the punishment entirely on secret evidence. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• LOL @SilkTork. "Anyone who claims we enjoy the arbitrary exercise of power will be promptly punished".—Chowbok ☠ 21:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• We're far too concerned about civility here and not enough about corruption.—Chowbok ☠ 14:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much to say about the case, but I read these all the time and I think the sectioning enhances community voices rather than silencing them. This way I don't have to search through a (typically interminable) discussion with a thousand indents, mostly paired with tangents, to figure out what one person actually thinks, or to refer to it after the discussion has taken place. Threaded discussion is vulnerable to distraction and derailing, and favors the loudest voices. If you want to hear from a wide sample, it helps when everyone has their own slot. Seren_Dept 21:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the Committee remains limited in what can be disclosed from the Office-provided evidence. However, some of that evidence is the basis on which some arbitrators are voting to uphold Fram's desysopping. In general, except in extreme circumstances not present here, the Committee would not desysop an administrator without his or her having received some form of prior warning that his or her conduct was problematic.

Here, as correctly noted in the decision, Fram never received a formal warning from this Committee, although in a couple of instances there were comments by individual arbitrators suggesting a change of approach. Fram did receive the "conduct warnings" from the Office. In 2018, Fram suggested a willingness to reflect on the input he had received. Without having seen the Office-provided evidence, I would be hard-pressed to see a case for desysopping unless Fram engaged in serious misconduct after his having received these inputs rather than before. This is particularly so because while I have had my own disagreements with Fram and have not always appreciated the tone of his "voice" expressed to me and others, his goal throughout all of these matters has plainly been to ensure the quality of the encyclopedia we are working to create and maintain.

I anticipate the response that the community can decide whether Fram retains our confidence as an administrator by resubmitting himself to a new RfA. However, since non-arbitrators still do not and will not have access to all the evidence, this will be a problematic exercise. In addition, I anticipate that a new RfA for Fram would be bitterly divisive for the community. Among other concerns, I anticipate that the RfA discussion would likely become another platform for further wiki-political and wiki-constitutional issues that, while it was important that we discuss and come to consensus on in June and July, are largely played out at this time.

Unless there has been serious administrator misconduct by Fram in relatively recent times, which based on the public information I am frankly not seeing, I suggest that a reminder remedy such as the one in my workshop proposals would be a more proportionate result than confirmation of the desysop. It also bears emphasis that Fram has already been prevented from both editing and adminning for three months, which in and of itself is a substantial sanction, which will have occurred and cannot be undone whether or not the Committee ultimately agrees or disagrees with it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just gotta say that any 'time served' votes won't line up with the evidence that has been shown to the community, which is kind of the whole point of this. Arkon (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to sleep on it before offering some more substantive comments, but I'll just point out something minor for now. Partway through the FofFs, the header font size changes. It should be made consistent throughout the whole decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish, fixed. – bradv🍁 21:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to begin with a thank-you to the Committee for what must have been hard work, and by saying that I am pleased by a lot of what I see in the PD. I particularly appreciate the clear statement that there was no evidence of off-wiki misbehavior, and the plan for an RfC. I also see that the emerging voting patterns negate any need for me to comment on some of the things that aren't going to pass.

So I'm going to focus on the issue of the desysop. And I agree with a lot of the other editors on this talk page that you need to restore the sysop bit and not have a new RfA. There are a multitude of reasons why a new RfA would be a terrible outcome of this decision.

• It is wishful thinking to predict that the community will conduct a thoughtful and balanced evaluation. Floquenbeam had to go to Crat Chat, and that was an easy case compared to what this would be (and he did it of his own choosing). You will be dividing the community and creating an ugly situation, just when the resolution of this case ought to be bringing us to some much-needed calm.
• As SchroCat so rightly points out below, it makes no sense to say that there is not enough evidence for a desysop, but you are going to let the desysop stand. If you go down that road, you will be ignoring the longstanding expectation that ArbCom remedies flow out of the principles and findings of fact, rather than contradict them.
• There's a serious problem with how you are explaining how the evidence relates to a desysop remedy. You say that there is no evidence of things off-wiki that the community does not know about. You say that the evidence submitted by the community does not justify a desysop. You have said that you will not privilege the T&S document above the community process here, that it would be treated as information from the prosecution, rather than as established findings of fact. And yet – you say that when you read the T&S document, you come away feeling that there has been a pattern of conduct that is sub-par for an admin. The only way I can make sense of that is that you are basing this on an emotional response to what T&S wrote and gave to you, and not on the findings of fact in the PD. You need to give yourselves some more emotional distance before you make a final decision.
• If you care about what the community wants, and you do, and you are right to do so, then let's really look at the facts about that. Before the T&S overreach, the community had Fram as an admin. There had been complaints, and there had been some case requests, but the bottom line is that he wasn't desysopped at the time of the T&S intervention. (It comes across as though you are, after reading the T&S document, deciding that the sum-total of everything that we already knew before has suddenly grown larger that it was before.) In the controversy over the T&S action, some Crats supported overturning the desysop and some opposed. That's not a consensus. And it's wrong to say that whatever was the last action (before wheel-warring would have happened) should be the default situation. One thing that clearly does have consensus, in the community and on the Committee, is that T&S acted out-of-process. As such, you need to vacate what T&S did. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Tryptofish, I'm not with you on the last point. The question – the only one – has got to be "Should Fram stay an admin?" You know that ArbCom is a dispute resolution body, and not a court. If we think the right outcome for Wikipedia is to desysop Fram, then we should give effect to that outcome. We should not avert the best outcome because it is opposed by others (unpopular) or would follow from an objectionable process (a miscarriage of justice). AGK ■ 17:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will echo other commenters above to say remedy 3 is not warranted, unfeasible and would not solve what it intends to. It also seems to not be supported by any Finding of Facts, so unclear how it crept in. There are more people out there who post more annoying wall of text than Fram had ever. I think what would be better than this is a remedy similar in design to Remedy #1.2 of GiantSnowman. The remedy should limit how far Fram can pursue an editor for infraction. For instance, it could say Fram could only do that once or twice, whereafter he must brought the attention of other admins to the issue for them to independently determine appropriate way forward. – Ammarpad (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have had that in mind since quite early on, and am still wondering if I should propose such a remedy. However, what is giving me pause is that in this situation Fram is already desysopped, so we are not essentially in a position of deciding to vote to desysop him, we are in a position of deciding to vote to resysop him. If this were a regular case, given the evidence before us, I would not choose to desysop, and would look for a nuanced solution, such as the GiantSnowman one. However, in these circumstances, I feel an open dialogue between the community and Fram as regards his ongoing behaviour is probably the most appropriate solution. In a RfA I would support Fram if he could demonstrate that he has taken on board concerns about how strident and relentless he can be at times, and would be willing to back off. One incident which I'd like, in an RfA, to discuss with Fram, is when he used his admin tool to edit through full protection on an ArbCom page and revert a sitting Arbitrator [1]. I'd like to get his thinking on why he thought that was acceptable, rather than raising his concern with the Arb in question or with the Clerks. I think an RfA would give the community and Fram a more open opportunity than an Arb case to work through issues like that. People would be free to question, quite neutrally and directly, rather than the more awkward system here of presenting evidence. Presenting evidence implies we are looking to either damn or praise Fram. Asking questions is more in line with finding out what Fram himself was thinking. I think ArbCom cases could involve more actual dialogue between ArbCom and the involved parties than it does at present. SilkTork (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While not ideal, the decision forming is good enough to serve. Thank you, arbitrators, for your time, and sorry for any inconvenience I caused you along the way. Jehochman ^Talk 20:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as one of the people who went on strike over this, I am dismayed that the committee isn't leaning further in the direction of "undo everything the office did and call it a day". This wasn't a day in court for Fram, it is a second secret trial with invisible evidence. This isn't supposed to be how our processes work, with secret rules that nobody knows, evidence nobody can see, and no chance to face one's accusers. These are considered fundamental rights in any sort of proceeding with real interest in justice, and I strongly feel arbcom should basically declare a mistrial in this case and re-instate Fram.

I'd like to be clear that this isn't about Fram and how much we all love him, it's about the right way and the wrong way to do things. Don't be afraid of T&S, I think they got the message that they made a serious error here, don't compound it by following their lead. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could one of the arbs or clerks clarify if Guy Macon's self-appointed clerking actions to enforce absolute conformity in section headers has any basis in policy or even reality? And if not, can he please be asked to cut it the fuck out and to undo his edits?

I have spoken to Guy. SilkTork (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of anyone on the Committee who is afraid of T&S. While there are aspects of the relationship between ArbCom and T&S that has been a little frosty since we asked to handle this case ourselves, the staff have remained professional and polite. The treatment we get from the community may be aggressive at times, but that from T&S is not. Which is sort of ironic considering we are arranging to undo an Office Action and in so doing assert the community's independence, something that the community want, but T&S would find embarrassing. SilkTork (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, to be accurate, I think that most of the frostiness has come from our side. When the Office ban first landed, the committee basically asked them what the fuck are you playing at? and I am not sure our faith has ever regenerated. AGK ■ 17:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: without his or her having received some form of prior warning that his or her conduct was problematic

If you don't consider (at a minimum) three ANI threads and three Arbitration requests to be an indication that there might be problematic behavior that needs to be addressed, then I'm inclined to think this represents a failing of ArbCom to be corrected, and not a noble precedent to be upheld. We can't treat our users as nuanced decision makers when they are faced with every-day issues, and yet treat them in problematic situations as brain dead robots who need punch cards filled out in sextuplet with a big glowing rubber stamp in order to realize there is some error. That defies common sense. There is no user for whom, in their fourth ANI thread, the most experienced among us jumps to their defense, saying that they were never explicitly admonished in the previous three, that further disruption would result in a TBAN, therefore TBANs should be off the table.

If you don't consider all of this mess as fair warning that there may be some problematic behavior that doesn't seem to have made an impact either: When is it not necessary to correct problematic edits someone else makes? Oh right, when they "feel" harassed, boohoo.

"Boo hoo" ... Boo hoo indeed. That's disgusting, and none of us ought to be in the business of defending it. If overly bureaucratic processes are defending it, then overly bureaucratic processes are the problem, and if we can't fix it then the Foundation should step in more and not less to fix a problem we apparently cannot. GMG^talk 23:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not the hill I would have chosen but as good as any I guess

Like everyone else here I do not want to cause Laura Hale unnecessary distress and like others I did not want to present counter-evidence to the portion of the T&S material which resulted in Frams warnings re her. I had hoped that ArbCom would not fall back to using the 'unknowable' to sanction and desysop a long serving and good faith editor. Since the voting is showing that the 'secret' evidence is being used to support a finding of 'desysop and time served' I want to ask ArbCom if they have independently validated the claims? Examined the motivations of the editor who, by all publicly known evidence, got the T&S investigation going? I hate to be able to focus only on a single person but it is reasonable to say she is, even if not primary, central to this case. (Out of politeness, sensitivity and brevity I'll skip that but I can put together as much evidence as you want to support this.)

A cursory examination, the minimum which ArbCom should have done, shows:

• Per meta:WikiWomenCamp/FAQ/Biographies/Laura Hale "She is the Wikipedian in Residence for the History of the Paralympic Movement in Australia project" Since her user page has been deleted I can not quote the time she says she ceased working as a WiR but I think it was 2012 +/- a year or so.
• Per the tender on Wikiversity as a Copy Writer she was budgeted $100.00/hr for "Wiki authoring, editing, uploading and formatting".

This matters because much of the conflict between her and Fram revolved around her editing of Paralympic athletes. We saw in the linked evidence that Fram suspected her of being a COI/PAID editor; asked her about it; and she said she was not. Whether this was true at the time is dificult to prove but there is direct evidence (Since she disclosed this relationship on-wiki this is not WP:OUTING unless you really want it to be) that Laura Hale continued to edit Wikipedia on behalf of the Australian Paralympic Committee. In fact their 2017-2018 Annual Report ^[2] says quite clearly, on p.54 under 'Knowledge Services':

• "Wikipedia articles about every member of the 2018 Australian Paralympic Team and 2018 Australian Commonwealth Games Team. Wikipedia articles created through the Australian Paralympic History Project continue to be collectively viewed around 120,000 times every month. This rate was exceeded considerably during the PyeongChang 2018 Paralympic Games and Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games"
• "Patricia Ollerenshaw, Greg Blood, Ross Mallett, Laura Hale and Graham Pearce remain major individual contributors to the Project."^{emp. mine}

Now, there has been much gnashing of teeth and rending of cloths that these secret bans can be abused by paid editors to bully anyone who challenges them. That was probably seen as hyperbole by most yet here we have, at least the very strong appearance, of this not being something that might happen but rather something that has happened.

Maybe those complaints to were not about protecting a $100/hr job but it sure looks like it and because of the structure of this process both the community and ArbCom have not been allowed the opportunity to find out. Regrettably some of ArbCom are basing their decisions on this un-examined and un-questioned evidence. That is not right so I am now putting this issue up for the community and ArbCom to examine.

How much trust do you have in a redacted document which was produced by an arm of the Foundation whose Board Chairman has been alleged to have a personal COI with the complaining individual. Especially when that individual may have been making $100/hr for years from the work Fram was calling into question. I am glad I am not in your shoes but, if LH has indeed been being paid by the APC to edit up until 2018 or further, then the case should, at a minimum, be decided entirely on the public evidence and the appearance of potential improper use of T&S for personal financial gain should be taken up by the Foundation Board.

To be clear; I am not presenting this in an attempt to tarnish reputations or harass. Nor am I drawing any inferences or conclusions. I have no intention of presenting any material about linked accounts, even those disclosed on-wiki. Jbh ^Talk 00:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Almond Plate: Well, from commons:User talk:Fram we have the text of what Fram says is a communication from T&S in March 2019:

  ""However, in the hopes of avoiding any future issues and in the spirit of Laura’s own request on her talk page, we would like to ask that you refrain from making changes to content that she produces, in any way (directly or indirectly), from this point on. This includes but is not limited to direct editing of it, tagging, nominating for deletion, etc. If you happen to find issues with Laura’s content, we suggest that you instead leave it for others to review and handle as they see fit. This approach will allow you to continue to do good work while reducing the potential for conflict between you and Laura.

  We hope for your cooperation with the above request, so as to avoid any sanctions from our end in the future. To be clear, we are not placing an interaction ban between you and Laura at this time. We ask that her request to stay away from her and the content she creates be respected, so that there is no need for any form of intervention or punitive actions from our end.

  Then from T&S, evidently after the ban was placed.

  "This decision has come following extensive review of your conduct on that project and is an escalation to the Foundation’s past efforts to encourage course correction, including a conduct warning issued to you on April 2018 and a conduct warning reminder issued to you on March 2019. ""

  Now, maybe Fram is lying but I'll take him at his word. Especially since no one has challenged it in all this time. Jbh ^Talk 00:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @SilkTork: When you say that you do not think that ArbCom can find to either desysop or resysop Fram I believe, strongly, that you are making a fundamental error of analysis. If ArbCom can not find to desysop then, per en.wp's policies regarding administrators, Fram still has the trust of the community and is still an admin, full stop. To find otherwise is to unequivocally say that T&S can desysop an en.wp admin based on secret evidence and by doing so, at a minimum, force an RfA.

  There is a considerable record of my opinions on ADMINCOND and ADMINACCOUNT -- and it comes firmly on a preference to desysop -- but this very committee has declined to desysop without repeated and egregious misbehavior or tool misuse. I would love to see that view change but this is not the context in which to make such a change. Not as some special pleading easy out to a tough decision and especially not in a way that gives a precedent for T&S removing the bit based on their own 'unknowable' reasons.

  I urge all of you to consider what desysoping based on being "abrasive" will mean. ArbCom has jealously held to being the sole body with the right to desysop. Are you now going to give that same right to T&S? (That would be bad) Will you apply these same strict requirements for ADMINCOND to further requests to desysop? (Maybe that would be good) Regardless of how you decide please know what you decide will set a precedent that will likely be hard to undo. Jbh ^Talk 16:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: this relates to your 2b equally. Jbh ^Talk 16:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this...

The current proposed decision is creating a new precedent for desysop on English Wikipedia. One based on, essentially, repeatedly pointing out errors in an "abrasive" manner regardless of the nature of the errors. I can think of several current admins, all of which do good work to whom this description can be applied. Many of them are bulwarks against paid editing and whose removal would increase the profitability of paid editing schemes.

I do not know the going rate for a paid editor so I'll take as a baseline the $110,000.00 of the tender I linked to above. I am sure many paid editing companies make more than that in a year so spending $5000-$10000 to get rid of a troublesome admin or two may be seen as a good investment. That would pay for 50-100 hours of a pretty skilled worker to troll through someone's history and make a great case to present to ArbCom or, better, Trust & Safety. It will not matter that the issues are 'stale' or 'have already been discussed by the community'. Hell that is what this desysop is based on.

So, expect someone to register something like desysop.me and start offering their services as an anti-admin hit squad or maybe open a 'bounty board' on Patreon -- you know "Subscribe and save" or "We desysop on lay away".

Prior to this we had solid controls that could prevent this kind of thing -- public evidence and a common (if flawed) understanding of what was worthy of desysop etc. With this you take that away and if you do not know that there is a profit motive to, in general not saying this motive here, to remove those who are hardest on paid editing then you have not been paying attention. Same if you do not know those same people could be made to look to have a long history of being "abrasive" or "excessively pointing out flaws".

Laugh if you will but where there is a potential for profit someone will open a business. Jbh ^Talk 13:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A less drastic header re proposal to remove a FoF

Currently passing Finding of Fact

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. In addition, the evidence 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 Joe Roe

The part does not reflect any conduct for which desysopping would be a proportionate response goes beyond a finding of fact and into a remedy, contradicting remedies 2b-d (which several of the supports here have also voted for). Can we take it out? @Worm That Turned, SilkTork, Opabinia regalis, KrakatoaKatie, Premeditated Chaos, and AGK: – Joe (talk) 10:20 am, Today (UTC−4)

Now, I got roundly and rightly hammered for expressing contempt for an arb in an earlier case, so I will not do that here. I will say that, the statement quoted above is perverse, shows utter and shocking contempt for our processes and community. Now, perhaps, Joe Roe did not think this through... that he wants to alter facts to be able to justify a sanction. So Joe Roe, would you please explain WTF you are thinking here? No, it does not go into a remedy. It is a fact than none of the public evidence presented would have resulted in a desysop. Hell, most if not all was presented in a RfArb that was turned down.

Reality based adjutication means you modify the sanctions to fit the facts not the other way around.

Really, I have respect for you people being an Arb has got to suck a lot of the time. However, if we can no longer expect ArbCom to operate under its own rules and instead start massaging facts, even one of you, then... well you know my vocabulary and writing style well enough to come up with what I would say and I can avoid opprobrium by not having to write it. Jbh ^Talk 15:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to change the wording of a finding of fact. I don't see how the hyperbole is helpful. We do it all the time, even when the existing version has support. Obviously, I want to do so because I don't agree that it is a "fact" that it would be disproportionate to desysop Fram. At first I supported it because I thought it meant that Fram's tool use alone was not enough grounds for a desysop. After reading some comments here, it occurred to me that might not be the case, or at least that it wasn't clearly so. – Joe (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe:Thank you for your explanation. However it reads like you asked to remove the whole FoF and you pinged all of the support arbs to do that. I see the change you just made I guess I can see how you read it as you did and how I could have misread your "it" as referring to the whole FoF as opposed to the blocks only but but does not reflect any conduct for which desysopping would be a proportionate response" is still a factual conclusion. The problem is that none of the public evidence supports a desysop, not based on current norms, We desysop for abuse of tools and, indeed those two reversed blocks were not abuses.

Do you see the issue? If the tool use is not grounds for desysop and most of ArbCom agrees and the other evidence is manifestly not stuff we desysop for then the proper conclusion, based on public evidence is not to desysop and therefore Arbcom must explicitly desysop on 'secret' evidence. By removing the explicit finding that the public evidence does not support dysysop you allow for the implication that it does. If ArbCom is to desysop of secret evidence then they must (and I hate musting but must I must) not give themselves the out of removing a FoF, in part or whole, where they say the evidence does not support it... not when it had enough votes to pass. Jbh ^Talk 16:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We never delete whole FoFs; they either pass and are included in the final decision, or they don't.

I don't agree with your premise that only tool misuse is grounds for desysop. There are a number of other grounds and the arbitration policy gives us a broad remit to consider any "requests [...] for removal of administrative tools". Most notably, consistently failing to meet WP:ADMINCOND or WP:ADMINACCT are explicitly mentioned as grounds for a desysop by ArbCom in the admin policy. Several arbs have explicitly cited this policy in their reasoning for supporting a desysop (and I alluded to it).

The evidence of Fram not meeting WP:ADMINCOND is public. One of the reasons I suggested removing or clarifying that phrase is precisely to avoid the misunderstanding that we are basing the decision to desysop on private evidence. Hopefully the other arbs have seen this conversation, because it's made me more sure that the current wording is confusing. – Joe (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• COI?

I would encourage Arbcom to pay careful attention to the comments by Jbhunley. I was struggling with how to phrase pretty much the same thing, and he put it better than I could. These are issues that really need to be addressed. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Factual error?

The proposed decision says:

"Whilst this case was ongoing, the Office drafted a "Community consultation on partial and temporary office actions". The full consultation is expected in early September 2019."

But meta:Talk:Office actions/Community consultation on partial and temporary office actions/draft#End of the pre-conversation phase says:

"the consultation will not start until the Fram case being currently reviewed by the En.WP ArbCom is closed."

While it is likely that Arbcom will close the Fram case in early September, we are not 100% sure that it won't close in late September, and we certainly have no way of predicting how long the WMF will delay after the close. Better to use the exact wording the WMF used rather than making assumptions. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon, I took the date from the main page, which stated "This draft will be open for comments until 30th August 2019. At that point the Foundation will finalize the content of the draft in preparation for launching the actual consultation, likely in in early September 2019." The importance was more to highlight the consultation as part of the decision. Worm^TT(talk) 12:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom needs to fully vacate this office action, which would included resysyopping Fram. I understand that Arbs have already said there was more to the private evidence than Fram’s conflict with Laura Hale, but the simple fact is the WMF’s first secret action was stepping in to defend Laura Hale, whose editing was decidedly substandard, and who was repeatedly evasive about if she was being compensated for editing. On top of that is the massive personal COI between Laura Hale and Maria Sefidari (aka Raystorm; aka WMF chairman of the board) that’s existed for years though never disclosed anywhere onwiki, even when Raystorm was telling Fram to leave Laura Hale alone onwiki. The admission of this COI is offwiki, so I won’t link to here, but I find it hard to believe ArbCom is unaware of it.

So we have the first flexing of the WMF’s new enforcement mechanism being used to create a secret one-way IBan favoring an editor that has a personal undisclosed COI with the chairman of the WMF board. An editor that was already shown to have another personal undisclosed COI in an Arb case by the way, yet somehow avoided any sanctions back then. The optics are dismal. No matter whatever else was in the T&S dossier, their first action regarding Fram was to protect Laura Hale, not anyone else who had contacted them. Just vacate all of this and remove this residue of problematic COIs and nepotism that the WMF clearly disregarded. If you feel that Fram’s incivility is problematic, and I wouldn’t disagree, then a “final chance” admonishment could be in order. As NYB points out, there have been no formal ArbCom warnings against Fram to date and I certainly don’t see a case for desysop based on anything brought to ArbCom prior to now. Fram’s going to be on the shortest of short leashes at this point. Capeo (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add, while echoing some of what others have said, that I understand the thinking about having Fram engage any community concerns directly through an RFA (if they so chose to) but it's hard to conceive such an RFA as being anything other than a contentious mess. The RFA would only tangentially be about Fram. What it will actually be is a referendum on the WMF's actions, with Supports and Opposes divided by those who think the WMF overstepped their bounds and those who think the WMF needs to do more. It will be a CIVILITY RFC in all but name, with Fram stuck in the middle, and that's not fair to Fram. Fram and the community aren't even equipped to properly engage in this discussion because its impetus is largely evidence that neither has access too. Just return everything back to the way it was prior to the T&S action with a stern warning to Fram, being as specific as possible, about the behavior ArbCom has an issue with. Capeo (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A large part of what I have an issue about is the community mores that have led Fram and us to this situation, and I don't think ArbCom wagging a finger at Fram is going to change that. I don't think ArbCom have the mandate from the community to make the decision on the community's behalf. It's too borderline. I don't think we have the authority here to either desysop or resysop Fram.

I hear what you are saying about a Fram RfA likely to be about the WMF action, and I fully understand and expect that. But I don't think that will exclusively be the case. I have some faith in this community to ask Fram some searching questions, and to give Fram an opportunity to reflect and respond. I also expect, given the level of feeling in the community regarding the WMF action, that the majority of protest votes would be against the WMF rather than in support.

One approach I proposed to the Committee some time ago, but it was felt inappropriate, is that the community could get involved in deciding the outcome of this case via SecurePoll. That is no longer viable, as the case has now finished, and if that was to work, the community would needed to have taken a closer part in workshopping the PD. But that principle is still present in there being a RfA. The upside is that the community and Fram would be able to engage in open dialogue. The downside is that all votes would be public, which tends to sway opinion one way or the other.

Having said all that, I could change my vote for a RfA if a satisfactory alternative remedy is found. SilkTork (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So ArbCom does have the authority to overturn an office ban but it doesn’t have the authority to overturn the office desysop that was part and parcel with the ban? Can you see why people may be confused by such seemingly contradictory statements like that one and others on the PD page? To your point, I fail to see what the community has to do with this because Fram’s office sanctions weren’t pursued or applied by the community. That’s why we’re here. This wasn’t a community sanction.

More problematic is having issues with community mores being a mitigating factor. Multiple Arbs have said even the totality of evidence wouldn’t have likely lead to Fram being desysopped, due to what the community currently finds as acceptable behavior, but then followed with some form of lamentation that maybe it should. That’s fine to have as an opinion. Hell, it’s a sentiment I agree with in many cases but, to be blunt, that isn’t ArbCom’s remit. ArbCom is supposed to adjudicate on how things are, not on how they wished it was. Either an Arb believes Fram would’ve been desysopped or not. What they shouldn’t do is use Fram as a weathervane to test if the wind is blowing in the direction they’d hope it is. That’s just ridiculously unfair.

There are so many contradictory statements in the PD votes that I can’t blame Fram for being bewildered and angry on his meta TP. He’s correct in saying that he has adjusted his behavior in the last few years yet none of this is acknowledged in the PD. The blatant exception being his harsh criticism of ArbCom. He’s also correct in saying that he’s always brought his issues with an editor’s behavior to a community forum. I also can’t blame him for feeling blindsided by Arbs expressing rather oblique opinions about how they wish things were when there has been almost no direct engagement with Fram about their concerns throughout this whole ordeal. I see you are personally doing that now, which is commendable, but if ArbCom would’ve (publicly) raised there concerns with Fram’s behavior before posting the PD then there may have been a binding remedy agreed upon... or the conversation could’ve lead to ArbCom definitively, and publicly, concluding Fram’s desysop is warranted if he was obstinate and unreceptive. The potentially best outcome, Fram publicly committing to adjust his behavior by being receptive to ArbComs concerns, and including that in a remedy, wouldn’t be “finger wagging.” It would’ve been a binding resolution to a situation extraordinary on WP until now.

All that said, that would’ve been one path, but it’s not even the one I personally agree with. I’m of the opinion that if any aspect of this unprecedented and intrusive office action is to be found faulty then it needs to be overturned in its totality, including the desysop. Capeo (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see all the evidence and so I am comfortable trusting the people we've elected, who can see all the evidence, to make a judicious decision. But I am confused by the reasoning that seems to be on offer from Joe, SilkTork, and GW around whether to restore Fram's bit. If I understand it correctly the thinking seems to be "We wouldn't have removed sysop from Fram, but we also don't feel comfortable restoring it." If that's correct, I'm coming up short of understanding it. By way of hypothetical: Crat A IAR desysops Sysop Z, Crat B reverses as out of order, and Crat C IAR restores and that is the status quo when it gets to ArbCom. Would we really get an outcome in regards to Admin Z of, "Well Crat A and C shouldn't have desysopped. But we're troubled by some stuff Admin Z did so we're not going to give the bit back." I just have hard time believing that is what ArbCom would say. If the intent of those arbs, however, is to let the community decide the issue, well fair enough. I would suggest the committee own it in a statement along the lines of "Given the widespread interest and attention in this case, ArbCom wishes to entrust the decision about whether to restore Fram as an administrator to the community in the same way that the WMF entrusted the Committee to evaluate the ban and deysopping." This seems in keeping with proposed Principle 2 and proposed Finding of Fact 3 and is admittedly basically proposed remedy 2b. If the feeling, on the other hand, is that Fram deserves to lose the sysop toolkit based on the totality of evidence well I will trust the committee. And if the feeling is that some sort of admonishment and review is right, then do that. I see nothing in the Board's or Katherine's statements that would indicate they're standing behind the desysopping in a different manner than the 1 year ban. Alternatively we (and maybe they) could think of the desysopping as part of the 1 year ban and thus fair game for ArbCom to decide. This is ArbCom's action and ArbCom, in the spirit of self governance that I and so many others wanted, will own that decision one way or another. As such, I hope they own a decision that they're proud of. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could go along with something like "ArbCom wishes to entrust the decision about whether to restore Fram as an administrator to the community." My comment on the PD page was "the community should decide if they have confidence that he will adjust his behavior going forward" which, I think, is saying the same thing.

My thinking here is that the "behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others" aspect of WP:ADMINCOND aligns with WP:CIVIL's "Participate in a respectful and considerate way." This is a community ethos. We the community create the working environment and atmosphere here. We are all responsible for that. A body such as WMF or ArbCom cannot enforce a community spirit. The community needs to do that. And not just in this one case, but all the time, every day. It can be difficult even for naturally polite people to not get involved in making rude comments in an environment which tolerates such behaviour. We are social animals, and most of us tend to follow the same trends in clothing, food, music, and manners of speaking. Fram is a committed, hard working and skillful editor who I want back as an admin. But I want him back with the community's support, and with the community, not ArbCom or WMF, indicating that they want Fram to tone down his criticisms. SilkTork (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would just suggest that the comments that accompany votes are helpful in the moment but don't create the actual record and reasoning of ArbCom's decision. If ArbCom is asking the community to decide whether it trusts Fram, I would suggest that go in the actual language (a 2d perhaps) rather than just in the commentary. If it's right there people will find reasons to argue about its intent (it's Wikipedia so people will good faith disagree about everything) but it will still be clearer than any of the current statements. Assuming that really is what ArbCom's intent is. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen that 2b's language had been changed. That obviously also works. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I can trust them to use the secret evidence" is, I think, misplaced trust. Not because they are untrustworthy, but because the very nature of secret evidence means that neither the subject nor the wider community is able to find flaws with it or point out context, and whether they can do so can make a vast difference in whether shaky evidence goes through, regardless of how honest the people evaluating the secret evidence are. Ken Arromdee (talk) 10:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I want to thank ArbCom for what they are doing here. In very difficult circumstances, you have made, I think, an extremely good job of this. I also hope that those who had been slagging off ArbCom as stooges of WMF/T&S, as following secret instructions from WMF, and as only intending to support the T&S actions are taking note.

Saying all that, I share the concerns of NYB and others regarding the desysop. Even if you think Fram has violated the requirements on admin behaviour sufficiently to lose admin rights, the desysop was done entirely outside of accepted processes, and I think it should be reversed for that simple reason. Should Fram's behaviour not be up to admin standards, I think that's something for the community/ArbCom to decide in the future.

Finally, I'm very disturbed by what JBH said above, and it does raise the question of impropriety by WMF/T&S - who absolutely needed to be 100% squeaky clean in all of this. Given the close contacts described, given the very specific warning given to Fram (which *was* centralised on Laura Hale, no matter what other complaints were made by others), I can't help feeling there's a good case for the involvement of WMF/T&S in the disciplinary action on Fram to be entirely vacated - the only exception I can think of is if there had been egregious and/or off-wiki harassment/hounding/whatever by Fram, which you say there was not. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add one other thing, that I think the T&S actions have severely damaged the trust the en.wiki community might previously have had in the team. I think that's a shame, because what they do in general is very necessary and the individual members of the team are all good folk (at least, those I know of from their wider activity). Though this case can not offer judgments on T&S, I hope the T&S team will reflect on what's happened here and consider whether they have suffered from a failure of leadership that has resulted in a case of authoritarian overreach. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: While I understand the sentiment, I don't think remedy 2b makes any sense. It leaves the desysop in place and means Fram must run an RfA to get it back - exactly the same as 2c. If you genuinely want to hand the sysop question over to the community, I think you should restore the status quo ante and leave it to the community to decide whether to bring a desysop case, in line with standard accepted processes. Oh, and if the desysop was not voluntary on Fram's request, it's not a reconfirmation RfA. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee, Reconfirmation RfAs do happen though - and the community is often willing to give a little leeway to them, knowing that the Administrator has made enemies. This is a place where consensus can work, that we have a process that will allow the community to have a proper say on Fram as administrator, not on the T&S action.

The fact is that the community had a chance to bring any evidence during this case, but declined to - largely because they just wanted to watch and see what happened. I doubt the committee would accept a replacement case in the near future regarding desysop - under a double jeopardy thinking.

I can see I'm shouting against the storm on this issue though - so I'll leave it as is. Worm^TT(talk) 09:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: Yes, I know reconfirmation RfAs happen, but this would not be one - not if Fram has already been desysoped and forced to run again. And if the community did not bring up any evidence to support desysop this time, then give Fram the admin bit back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: (sorry for another ping). I think the key point here is that Fram did not lose the admin bit through any community-accepted process and that wrong should be righted, regardless of Fram's suitability as an admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Responding to the idea of resysop after 1-year - that would be endorsing T&S's right to impose such a sanction in the first place, and we have no community-accepted process that gives them that right. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Just updating my thoughts on sysop. I think ArbCom should approach it as they did the ban. If ArbCom would have desysopped as a result of the presented evidence, then leave Fram desysopped. If you would not have desysopped, then I think you should resysop. That way, if Fram comes out of it desysopped it will have been by the legitimate process of an active ArbCom decision, not by the illegitimate process of T&S action passively accepted by ArbCom. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that ArbCom has had a difficult task here. They were handed a plane that was already on fire and asked to land it. I don't envy the arbs and I thank them for taking on this task and many other thankless tasks and doing them as well as they can.

I share the concerns expressed by many here that ArbCom could stand to address the issue of Fram's sysop status more explicitly and clearly. Fram currently doesn't have the bit because User:Maxim and User:Primefac decided to re-remove it on June 26 after User:WJBscribe had restored it on June 25. What would ArbCom be doing now if pro-bit crats had instead prevailed in that little back-and-forth? Shouldn't the result be the same either way? You have full authority to decide the outcome of the case. Haukur (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If Fram still had the admin tool set we would be looking at a different scenario and would devise a different solution. Speaking for myself, I am responding to the situation we have in front of us, and given the circumstances, I feel it's in the best interest of the community moving forward if the community had an open dialogue with Fram regarding the admin tool set. I am realist enough to expect that a Fram RfA would result in a lot of Support votes in protest at what the Foundation have done, but I also have faith that a significant portion of the community would ask Fram pertinent questions as to how he would conduct himself moving forward, and that such questions from the community, which he values, would carry more weight with him than opinions or diktats imposed by bodies such as WMF or ArbCom. SilkTork (talk) 09:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gadfium's idea of granting Fram the bit back after one year has passed from the T&S action is interesting. I guess that would be the "ruling on the field stands" result, to borrow User:Mendaliv's formulation. If a permanent desysop was never anyone's plan that would be a weird outcome now. Haukur (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm late to re-enter this party, but am puzzled by this. It seems unrelated to any Finding of Fact, and as such appears bizarrely random. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And may I second, very strongly, the comments of WJBScribe, below. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the SilkTork who just said My thinking here is that the "behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others" aspect of WP:ADMINCOND aligns with WP:CIVIL's "Participate in a respectful and considerate way." This is a community ethos. We the community create the working environment and atmosphere here. We are all responsible for that. A body such as WMF or ArbCom cannot enforce a community spirit. The community needs to do that. And not just in this one case, but all the time, every day. any relation to the SilkTork who turned up on my talkpage four months ago ranting and swearing like a drunken sailor on the grounds that I'd mentioned his name without his permission? ‑ Iridescent 09:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears at this time that arbs are reluctant to restore admin rights to Fram, but Worm suggested in proposed remedies 2c that Fram might have been resysopped immediately after the WMF ban expired had this case not proceeded. I suggest an alternative remedy of Fram being resysopped one year after the WMF action. There is precedent for an automatic resysop after a fixed time, some years ago with Slim Virgin.-gadfium 09:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot state for certain what would have happened if Fram had sat out the block. I believe the T&S intention was to return the user-rights, but the community generally takes a dim view of blocked administrators. That said... I hadn't thought of the 1 year desysop idea, I certainly could support it. Worm^TT(talk) 09:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather Fram were resysopped shortly after returning to Wikipedia, and after a discussion with the community via a RfA. I'm not in favour of a fixed length of time for a desysop - that feels like punishment without meaning. If someone is to be desysopped for something, whatever it is, they would need to show understanding of the reasons for the desysop, and commit to not doing so moving forward before being resysopped. And I'm not in favour of making Fram or the community wait any longer before sorting this out. SilkTork (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis:, I am pretty sure in Proposed remedies 2c you meant "second choice after 2".--Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. If someone's contributions to this project are problematic - say because they are poorly written, inaccurate, or fail to address our policies - our administrators should feel confident in challenging that person. Dealing with good faith but misguided contributors is a tricky area many admins shy away from. If there is no improvement in the underlying editing, they should feel comfortable continuing to challenge such contributors. I would expect to see a progressive escalation of the feedback/warnings being provided. If the problem contributor "doesn't get it", the problem may well have to be explained in blunt terms. If the problem contributor is made uncomfortable contributing as a result, so be it. I do not think that administrators should have to hold back from correctly challenging others because doing so might cause "distress". The integrity of the encyclopedia ought to be more important than giving everyone contributing a warm fuzzy feeling. If it had been shown that Fram had "hounded" (I use the term loosely) a good productive contributor with unfair or unjustified criticism of their editing, I could support sanctions. But that is not the case contained in any finding of fact. The high water mark is apparently "excessively highlighting their failures" (my emphasis). For Fram to be desysopped (let us not pretend ArbCom isn't doing that whether 2(b) or 2(c) passes) for defending the best interests of this project too much / too strongly (?) is a sad day and I imagine will have a chilling effect on how other administrators deal with problematic contributors going forwards. WJBscribe (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've got to the heart of the problem. There is a contributor who is not following guidelines. Scenario One: They are informed, then warned then threatened then blocked. Scenario Two. They are informed, then instructed, then guided - they either get it and stay, or they don't and are blocked. My feeling is that the project might benefit more from going down the instructed and guided route rather than the warned and threatened. There will be differences of opinion regarding which approach to take - with some feeling (quite rightly) that warning and threatening is quicker and easier. But the quicker and easier route is not always the most beneficial to the project in the long run. Thankfully, Wikipedia is composed of individuals with different skills and approaches. If an individual has found a contributor who is doing something inappropriate, has pointed it out to no good effect, and the individual is now unwilling or unable to provide the time and patience required to teach the contributor how to improve, then my preference is that they hand the matter over to someone else rather than continue to harangue the contributor to no good effect other than to drive that contributor away. We are a community of many individuals. We also are a surprisingly compassionate, patient and understanding community - I reject the view of the WMF that our community is toxic. There are some individuals who are outspoken, impatient, quick to criticise and blame, etc. But the bulk of the working community are cooperative, collegial, and helpful. Let's make use of all aspects of the community. If anyone finds themselves stressed because another contributor is not getting it, then ask someone else to take a look. SilkTork (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that there exists a sizeable pool of admins willing to take over difficult conversations with problem users once the administrator first dealing with the problem starts to worry that they have been dealing with it for too long and are at risk of being accused of "hounding". And I worry that this desysop will serve to reduce that pool in any event.

It also seems to me that to the extent we have "individuals who are outspoken, impatient, quick to criticise and blame" but who produce and maintain first rate content, they should still be treasured and supported. I don't really have much time for the hypothetical opposite category, i.e. individuals who produce problematic content but are on the face of it "cooperative, collegial, and helpful". WMF appear dead set on protecting the latter. WJBscribe (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WJBscribe, you misunderstand the examples in evidence. Fram says to problem users just what any other admin would. The problems lie in how Fram says it. What is hugely frustrating in this situation is that recognising Fram's faults runs the risk of siding with the WMF. Ultimately, the committee needs to find a way of addressing the missteps that both parties have committed. AGK ■ 17:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Does "unredacted materials show" mean that T&S provided the committee with an unredacted version of the 70 page report?
2. Have the arbitrators read the #Comment by Jbhunley? EllenCT (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   EllenCT, No, "unredacted materials" refer to the non-redacted portion of the materials. As for the comment, yes, I've read it, but it's based on the notion that this is all about one individual, and that the individual complained. We do not know who complained, and the document discusses multiple cases. Worm^TT(talk) 12:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: You don't believe Fram's statement that T&S emails to him specifically mentioned Laura? EllenCT (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EllenCT, did I say that? I said we didn't know who complained and it's not all about one individual. Worm^TT(talk) 12:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: "We do not know who complained" -- I guess you mean we don't know everyone who complained. It's absolutely not about one person, but nobody is going to be an editor let alone an admin for more than a few years without having more than one person upset at them. Don't you think it's a little too convenient that T&S insisted on redacting against you after you've been qualified by the WMF to receive confidential personal information?

My question about whether any of the complainants had any expectation that T&S confidentiality would extend to preventing Arbcom from reading their complaints was answered in such a way as to suggest that the only way they could have is if they were also complaining about an arbitrator. And my question as to whether T&S would un-redact the dossier on those grounds -- was that ever passed along to T&S? EllenCT (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EllenCT, the initial complaints are redacted, so we simply cannot know.

I will say that I understand enough about data privacy to accept the reasons for their redaction, there is no presumption that emails sent to T&S would be passed to Arbcom, even if we are qualified to receive confidential personal information.

The fact that we aren't and won't be provided full information, though, is yet another reason this whole case should be considered out of Arbcom jurisdiction, as I (and Mendaliv) have stated more than once. However, it is what it is. I see no likelihood that T&S will provide us with an un-redacted copy of the document. Worm^TT(talk) 13:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: What matters is whether any of them had a presumption that the complaints would not be shared. meta:Office actions#General information sets forth the standard for balancing privacy against transparency: "We are committed to be transparent wherever possible, but not at the risk of placing Wikimedia users ... in danger." There is absolutely no reason for the redactions.

Did Arbcom ever ask for an un-redacted version of the dossier? If so, what was the reply? EllenCT (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Katherine Maher to order T&S to provide an unredacted copy of the complaints to Arbcom. EllenCT (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EllenCT, they have already decided not to do that. AGK ■ 17:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: That kind of a decision isn't final. What are the pros and cons of persistence in asking for reconsideration? If they fail to provide the ability to discern whether Fram's otherwise less than desirable behavior helped stem the tide of paid conflicted interest editing, then that's a black mark on their reputation, not yours. But that doesn't mean that persistence in asking them to maintain the quality of their reputation is not a good idea. The idea that they would refuse to trust community volunteers with whom they are charged with providing support for the trust the community places in them is an absurd assault against the reputations of every employee of the Foundation, the entire functionary corps, and a sizable part of the community. EllenCT (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has the committee considered, or does the committee consider in finding its remedies the potential chilling effect that desysoping a long standing admin based on what looks to us like two instances of minor misplaced tone and a pattern of being arguably a tad overzealous will have? As others have mentioned, from all previous cases I've read and come across where desysopping was even seriously considered, the level of misconduct raised far above what was shown here. In voting for these remedies, are you just looking at the case at hand (and setting new policy for what is now desysoppable) or considering the broader impact also, and does ArbCom have a mandate to enact policy change on this magnitude by de-facto changing the rules around admin conduct massively? Magisch ^{talk to me} 11:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Magischzwei, I agree that we need to tread carefully. Wikipedia relies on volunteer efforts and if our administrators need to treat every user delicately, they will soon give up. The question is one of proportion. I do not agree with you that Fram has done nothing faultable. In fact there is a significant body of evidence (and multiple prior rounds of on-wiki dispute resolution) demonstrating that we have a problems in Fram. Those problems did not deserve a secretly-discussed surprise siteban, of course. AGK ■ 17:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of thoughts for now.

• It is clear from the extensive comments being made by arbitrators under 'Evaluation of Office-provided case materials' that more time has been spent on this private evidence, and more weight is being assigned to this by arbitrators than to the public evidence. The comments being made here by arbitrators about non-public evidence will be quoted and used by people who will oppose a new request by Fram at RfA for adminship. In other words, these comments by arbitrators will prejudice that process. Please consider this when deciding which desysop/reinstatement options to support. Though I would support complete reinstatement, as a middle ground I echo the suggestion of a 1-year desysop (but you will need a principle first that rejects the initial desysop by the WMF Office as disproportionate) or even reinstatement followed by probation and/or a later review after one year, or reinstatement followed by a reconfirmation RfA (to gauge whether the community trusts Fram to be an admin).
• If you reinstate Fram as an admin and make clear that you (not the WMF Office) are keeping Fram on probation, then Fram will have to change their approach or be brought back to ArbCom. Anything less leaves Fram as the victim of the community's (alleged) inability to deal with this sort of behaviour. Why should Fram pay the price, when it is (supposedly) the community that failed here?
• I also echo the need under 'remaining issues' to address the conduct of the editors that Fram made his critical focus. Unless you empower the community (admins and editors) to deal with users who make consistently poor quality contributions, then you will have created an imbalance and undermined one of the necessary checks that maintain the quality of the encyclopedia.
• Finally, can I ask arbitrators who are willing to speak up, to say where people should raise COI concerns with respect to WMF Board members and whether this aspect of the matter factored into their decision making.

Carcharoth (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth, On the final point, I would expect COI concerns to be taken to the board members in question, or board as a whole. Perhaps a direct question to T&S about the conflict. I am aware of what you refer to, however as I do not know the initial complainants, I've had to take the information provided at face value. I hope that's reflected in my comments and the decision I've come to. Worm^TT(talk) 11:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth: (1) the committee has expressly found that the private (Office-provided) evidence was weak and did not warrant a siteban. Can you explain your concern in more detail please? (2) The suggestion of a probation is a good one. (3) Other users on this page have raised a similar concern. However, I do not think we have set a troubling standard in this decision such that administrators cannot seem to deal effectively and decisively with misconduct. The issue is squarely with Fram's manner and treatment of other users, not with Fram's judgement in addressing those users in the first place. (4) We have nothing to do with WMF governance. I was always unconvinced by the allegations of a conspiracy against Fram. AGK ■ 17:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Fram has made mistakes as an administrator ... but does not reflect any conduct for which desysopping would be a proportionate response": Five supports so far.
• "The behaviour shown ... fall below the standards expected for an administrator. Accordingly, the committee declines to reinstate Fram's sysop userright": Five supports so far.

I'm still trying to parse the logic here. The community has not indicated that they have lost faith with Fram as an administrator, and T&S's out-of-process power grab should be declared null and void on this point - ie there should be a remedy that states "Fram's removal of sysop user-rights is vacated". If ArbCom think that there is evidence that Fram should have the mop removed, then run it through a separate process away from the toxic influence of T&S's intervention. - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A reminder to the committee: there is nothing in T&S's remit to allow them to remove the bit from an adminitrator. That is a right held by the community. Until and unless the commmunity decides to remove the bit, then the T&S action needs to "be vacated". Your action in not pushing back on the T&S power grab is to aid in their toxic intervention into the community's remit. When they start pushing further and further into our area of operations, you will be the ones who encouraged it on your watch. Just remember: the community has not removed Fram's bit. If you decide you want to remove it, don't hide behind T&S's skirts with the action: vacate their decision and do it yourselves. You seem to be taking a rather distasteful back way to do something you want to do. - SchroCat (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like any member of ArbCom if Fram has made any action as an administrator since April 2018 which would lead you to desysop him if a case was presented. If possible, please provide diffs. - SchroCat (talk) 10:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd seen it all. Despite all Arbs having supported Finding 5 ("Evaluation of community-provided evidence"), Joe Roe makes this request:

The part does not reflect any conduct for which desysopping would be a proportionate response goes beyond a finding of fact and into a remedy, contradicting remedies 2b-d (which several of the supports here have also voted for). Can we take it out?

So, despite there is no evidence to support a desysoping, the finding gets removed in order to retain a desysoping by a body that had no power to demand it in the first place. Even Kafka or Boris Johnson would be blushing in shame at that twisting of process! - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, I opposed that finding but I think there has been an error of drafting rather than logic. Correcting the wording is a good thing. AGK ■ 17:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, I don't there is an error of wording. It's the approach, logic and background here. You need a Finding to say that "T&S do not have the authority to overturn the community's decision to grant Sysop rights to any individual. The removal of Fram's sysop user-rights is therefore vacated". You then can make your (committee) decision Removal of sysop user-rights (2) to take ownership of the decision - preferably with sufficient public evidence to back it up. That would take a lot of the pressure off, as it would show people here and at WMF that the "right" answer can be arrived at if our processes are followed. - SchroCat (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did T&S notify the original complainants that ArbCom was reviewing the case and invite them to anonymously submit public evidence to facilitate the process? -- ToE 16:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin, T&S should have extended such invitations on their own, but perhaps the better question here is to ask if anyone on the Committee informed T&S that greater weight would be given to public evidence and requested that they extend such invitations. Much of the outrage over this office action was from the secret nature of evidence, and it disappointing to see the Committee fail to vacate the entire action based on some private compilation of public on-wiki interactions which was not replicated in the public evidence. -- ToE 19:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking of England, the identities of most of T&S' complainants were not revealed so I don't think that is possible. In any event I am not sure that having a complainant "resubmit" evidence that we already have would affect our decision. AGK ■ 17:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AGK, and my appreciation to all the Arbs for working this contentious case. Identities were not revealed to the Committee, but presumably T&S has the means of communicating with them, and since the public evidence was sent via email, any resubmitted evidence would have been indistinguishable to the public from that submitted by an uninvolved editor scrutinizing Fram's edit history. At least some of the Arbs have indicated that the public evidence would carry more weight, and even if others weigh public and private evidence equally the community would have been better served had the public evidence overlapped the private. (Kudos to T&S if they did provide notice, but it not then they did a disservice to the community, the Committee, and the original complainants.) -- ToE 19:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like SchroCat, I cannot seem to parse the discrepancy between not rising to the level of de-sysop and yet somehow having administrator privileges removed at the same time. (I'll add more in a bit.) — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blasted outage. Anyway, going to keep this short for now: I also worry about the loss of nuance in our society, and about whether (should the choice ever come to a head) all the persons here would choose a slightly abrasive but extremely competent person, or an incompetent but cheerful one...

I am reminded that this is also a project, as well as a community, and that some folks are simply better suited for other venues, such as social media (which Wikipedia is not). — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 18:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few more notes: Jbhunley and Capeo speak truly; I would strongly advise the Committee to fully consider their remarks, and the ramifications of the current proposed decision. As it stands, the Committee may leave Fram's loss of privileges, or, on their own merits, choose to remove the "bit" (with, it seems for the moment, the chance to regain the bit through RfA); for my analysis here it does not matter who does it — though my dear colleagues Newyorkbrad and Capeo both lucidly discuss the ceding of power were the Committee to affirm the de-sysop, such is not the topic at hand for me — but, rather, that such an action does occur, with the chance to regain adminship through RfA.

We've seen something like this before; heck, the two usernames even begin with "F". Floquenbeam's RfA, which ran from 22 July to 29 July and was ultimately decided through a Bureaucrat discussion, was, I daresay, a precursor to what might happen if Fram must go through that hell once more. Very little, if any, of the voting concerned the merits of the candidate in question (and I say that as a "Support" voter); by and large, the voting quickly devolved into a mess of politicking, spats, and, well, didn't exactly showcase the finest principles of our community. Is that, exactly, what we want to see repeated, writ large, for Fram? I don't think that such a thing would be conducive to the candidate, the community, or, quite frankly, any of us commenting here. I don't want that; I sure hope no one wants that. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are, of course, correct; I did set that up as a dichotomy, didn't I? However, I meant my comments simply as a logical extension of the discussion involving WJBscribe above. Knowing only what I know (and relatively little at that), my preference, for projects at least, is someone a bit more caustic than someone unable to contribute (but perhaps I'm simply a misanthropic fool). — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trying the ping again: Valereee.

@Valereee: You're right, you know. Becoming an editor basically shouldn't be a crucible; ought not involve a little, well, a little "hazing"; and really should tend toward a genial, collaborative environment. And, in a pinch, I'd rather be incompetent and charming (which, though I say it who shouldn't, I am — rather incompetent, that is); but, sadly, well, there are two impediments. The first? Whether or not Wikipedia was started by a bunch of tough nuts to crack (and I do exclude Jimbo from this), it was certainly quickly colonized by them, and they have, for better or worse, become the backbone of the "old guard" and of Wikipedia; somewhat resistant to change, but always unwilling to be forced to change — oh, and they never break, but they are willing to bend somewhat when shown empirical evidence. (I don't mean that to be insulting, either, but it was the best characterization I could think up of in a few minutes.) They've continued to be the backbone of this website, and I do despair of a day when they're all gone. But they can be pretty harsh to newcomers, and that indubitably drives folks to despair, to rage, to leave. Alas, to the detriment of us all...

Ah, sorry. To continue, the second issue I see? Quite frankly (as all my courses are hammering into my brain), change takes time. At times, an inordinate amount of time. (And then there's the matter of relapses...) Especially in a decentralized, internationally-based, rather uncoordinated website like this one, lacking all the traditional hallmarks of online fora or social media websites, change, cultural and social change in particular, is exceedingly difficult.

So, I've managed to talk myself into a position where I wholly agree with you, Valereee, because I do: you're right that this community is rather daunting to newcomers. (Perhaps a few tweaks for automatic WP:RNO might help?) But I just don't believe this case is the proper vehicle for the continuation of our community discussion on cultural change.

Thank you for stimulating a lively "think" on this! — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lest I be misconstrued: I mean no disrespect when I refer to the old guard; it's the old guard that has made this site the high-quality work-in-progress it is, and I thank them heartily for it. I'm just using the best metaphors I can think of, and I apologize for any offense I've (accidentally) offered. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: You are, again, correct. Let's all find constructive ways to move forward. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 23:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Javert2113 it's a false dichotomy to say our choice is between a competent-but-abrasive editor and an incompetent-but-cheerful editor. We can't ever know how many potentially competent people the abrasive person has driven away because of their abrasiveness, or how many already competent people they've driven off because they poison the atmosphere with their abrasiveness. Is it zero, or is it dozens or hundreds or thousands? We can't know. --valereee (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Javert, and in a vacuum, so would I. But suppose our real choice -- could we only know it -- was between one competent-but abrasive editor vs. one incompetent-but-cheerful editor PLUS eighteen competent-but-intolerant-of-abrasiveness editors who stayed because no one was being an asshole in the general vicinity? That's what I'm trying to get at. I have a 24-yo daughter, she researches, writes, and fact-checks other people's writing for a living. She'd be a real asset here, but I'd never recommend it to her. I think it sucks that you have to be tough to edit wikipedia. --valereee (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Javert, and I definitely don't think we should be retroactively applying sanctions. I don't think any editor should be blamed for creating or supporting a particular atmosphere that we've decided isn't productive. We just need to move forward. --valereee (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, that is not really the question. Fram usually is trying to make the right point to other users, or get the right outcome from them. The problem is with Fram themselves, and how they conduct themselves around other users. Making this about the other party is wrong: this is about Fram. AGK ■ 17:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• To a considerable extent my views parallel those of WBG. It was mentioned above that several arbs have previously expressed doubts about whether Fram should retain admin rights, I was one of them. In the Giant Snowman case I remained active as an arb although I had not been re-elected because it had begun in 2018 during my tenure, and ins uch cases the practice has been to give the outgoing arbs the option of whether or not to remain active on the case. On the PD page of that case, I expressed reservations about Fram's conduct, and supported a motion to censure him. If I thought there had been any support from the rest of the committee for desysop, I would have made and supported such a motion also. In the light of everything since then, I continue to think my prior views were correct, and that the failure of the committee to endorse them is part of the reason for subsequent events.

Similarly in 2006 I was the one member of the committee who did not vote to hear the case against Fram. I merely abstained from voting seeing nobody else agreed with me, rather than voted to hear it--I was wrong to do so; I should have recorded my dissent.

• However, I totally disagree with the WMF ban and desysop in this case, because it was made in violation of the most basic principles of fairness. I find it remarkable that people some of whom I know and know to be well meaning individually came to do this collective, but it does show the nature of behavior in bureaucratic environments. Inadequate as our procedures are for low level disruption, they have never been as bad as this. I might have supported such an action in the spring of 2019 had it been brought to arb com then instead of "judged" by T&S, had I still been on arb com. I can only say "might", because I do not know the nature of additional complaints.

Regardless of the failure of the WMF to proceed in a principled manner, the community does have principles, and cannot endorse actions taken in such a manner. Thus the desysop by the WMF is , as far as we on the enWP are concerned, invalid and inapplicable. That they had the power to do this did not give the right to do it, and does not require us to accept it. The current state, as far as the enWP is concerned, is that Fram remains as sysop.

• Therefore, the committee should resysop Fram. I would normally endorse a reconfirmation RFA, but it is evident that one at this time would be divisive and unconstructive. There is no point to our saying the same things yet again. Though in a normal reconfirmation RfA for Fram I would otherwise probably not vote to endorse resysop, I would certainly do so in this case, as the best way to show my abhorrence of the manner of the desysop. I suggest that the committee should therefore re-sysop rather than endorse a new RfA. DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again at my last paragraph, I re-read GorillaWarfare's. proposed remedy 2d, that arb com desysop as if it were hearing the public matter de novo. I regard this as compatible with almost all of what I said. I basically works with the assumption he whether or not he is currently validly desysopped, and that the public evidence is sufficient to say that he should be. It's the opposite of my final conclusion, but it's a valid alternative. If I were on the committee, I think that upon reflection, I think it less combative than mine, more likely to settle the immediate issue, and therefore a better solution. During the period we were both on the committee, GW and I have sometimes disagreed, and GW has generally been right. DGG ( talk ) 09:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 13:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• DGG, yes. We can find against Fram without finding in favour of T&S, secret office actions, disdain for the community, or all the other difficult context that this case has come with. We have licence now to review Fram's ban and desysop; we should use it. AGK ■ 17:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: Thank you for providing greater insight into the contents of the document from Trust and Safety—namely, that its complaints are on par with similar ones made to the case request made in 2016. For ease of reference in future, can a statement on this be included in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Proposed decision § Evaluation of Office-provided case materials? isaacl (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, I want to acknowledge that ArbCom handled a difficult case here. Of course, they did not make everyone happy, & probably made some mistakes, but hopefully ArbCom accomplished part of its mission (as I see it): being the place where arguments come to die. With this, hopefully some part of this affair has come to an end.

But there is one issue I wish ArbCom had addressed: if, when, where & why the WMF can intervene in en.wikipedia's self-governance. Not so much to say the Foundation (either as a whole or in part) can intervene, or cannot, but how it should. A large amount of the outrage over their decision to ban Fram from en.wikipedia was over how they justified it. Trust & Safety refused to explain why they took this step when they took this step. When pressed for an explanation, they hid behind boilerplate explanations which failed to answer our questions. Moreover, when the head of the Foundation (viz., Katherine Maher) was asked to intervene, she ignored our requests until shamed on Twitter. Lastly, there remains suspicions that this action was prompted due to the personal interest of the chairman of the WMF board, which have not been dispelled. Of course we had good reason to be outraged!

IMHO, the next time T&S, another department of the Foundation, or the entire Foundation decides it needs to intervene in the affairs of a project, they first prepare a proper rationale to explain why they had to take this extraordinary action. I believe that if they fail to take that step, their intervention will prove toxic to all of the volunteer communities. And I hope that the ArbCom will include a statement like this in their decision. -- llywrch (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be appropriate for the ArbCom to decide, on behalf of the entire community, how and when the Wikimedia Foundation should step in on these kinds of things. As we mentioned in FoF 9, the WMF will be holding a consultation on this soon, and members of the English Wikipedia as well as of other Wikimedia projects will be able to provide feedback there. That is how these broader policy and procedure questions should be resolved, not by edict from the Arbitration Committee of one language version of Wikipedia. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing all of the other motions that the ArbCom has approved concerning this decision, some not as important as others, I believe it would be appropriate for you to add something along the lines of "If T&S should intervene in Wikipedia governance, they need to provide a clear justification specifically for that extraordinary action." That body not only arrogated the community's ability to manage its own business, it violated ArbCom's own purview which it derives from Wikipedia's founder & one-time leader Jimmy Wales, a descent of power at least as respectable as the Foundation's in these matters. So the ArbCom can speak for itself. -- llywrch (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Llywrch, I get your point but, again, the committee is authorised to address specific problems facing the English Wikipedia from time to time. It is not generally in the business of advocating about what its own role ought to be in the future – or about any matters of governance, really. I concur with GorillaWarfare that the consultation may be a good venue for addressing the underlying policy on intra-Wikimedia authority. AGK ■ 17:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taking into account that the general opinion (Arbs included) seems to be that the ban should be vacated, I'm not going to comment on that (As I agree as well, so nothing new to add there). As for the remaining points, I'd like to express my support for GorillaWarfare's suggestion (2d). Those in a position of power SHOULD be held to a higher standard, simply because of the way they were chosen; they should stand as role models for the rest of the community and the evidence presented (along with a quick trip to Fram's user talk page on meta) does show that he can be a jerk sometimes. Even if the T&S action was completely inappropriate, I'm not comfortable with someone that behaves that way setting up an example for other editors. If he can behave like that and still have those bits, why couldn't I do the same? I guess what I'm trying to say is that I also agree with Valereee. Point 3 is a no-go and 4 is a necessity, IMO, so I'm not going to comment on those. Zeratul2k (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Thinking of England section

Whether or not they did, they wouldn't tell us (or probably ArbCom). [Note: I don't have a specific comment to make, yet.] — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ARBCOM has an almost impossible task. T&S, perhaps through inexperience in handling cases that, until now, have been handled by the community and ultimately through our highest elected organ, fatally tainted the evidence by refusing to provide the basics necessary for a fair process. A reset to status quo ante should be the first of the proposed remedies. The second should be probation for Fram as a sysop. When we have a sysop who works diligently to maintain and improve the quality of the encyclopedia, but who makes mistake, we should try to salvage that admin. Community help for a less than civil but valuable contributor is much easier than growing a new contributor to the same level of ability. Community help for a contributor who feels bullied is much easier than the process T&S created through overreach and lack of foresight.

After reset, Fram's actions and tone as a sysop will be closely followed by the community. There will be no need for secret evidence if T&S sticks to its original remit. Discussion and sanctions for the level of problematic behavior as shown by public information in this case can be fair and transparent. Without a full reset, distrust of T&S is likely to to complicate the forthcoming community consultation. — Neonorange (Phil) 09:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While there are minor points I disagree with here and there, I am basically content with the proposed FoFs and remedies adopted by the majority of Arbs at the time of this post. The issue of re-sysopping of Fram should be a matter for the community, whatever wording is used by ArbCom to get it to us for a decision. If Fram wishes to be resysopped, then RfA is available when and if they choose. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your points here. The decision to sysop someone has always been in the hands of the community via RFA and not the Arbitration Committee. Meanwhile, the committee should take full responsibility for the desysop now that T&S has passed the matter on. Fram has their own role in all of this to decide for themselves what they want. "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others". If being an administrators is something Fram wants, then it is something they can decide to pursue. Mkdw ^talk 16:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the prudent course of action would be simply to refuse to endorse the de-sysop which would give leave to Fram (if they so desire) to request the tools from the community in the manner they see fit (either a restoration request at BN, by advancing the argument that the original removal of user rights was out of process) or at RfA. To force RfA as the only restoration path is to endorse the removal by office action. If a majority feels Fram needs to go through RfA, they should take over the desysopping. –xeno^talk 12:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree with you here Xeno. The Arbitration Committee should take over responsibility for the situation. If the ban is vacated, then ArbCom should definitively decide the other matters as well. Self-governance was the core issue raised in our open letter to T&S which also means having to deal with our problems even if we had not done so effectively in the past. Mkdw ^talk 16:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Arbcom for taking on a difficult case and in true Wiki style showing that volunteers who are determined to get things right can often be more professional than those who are paid. But there are some things where you are not yet clear or you have shied away from.

Firstly re precedents. Of course Arbcom sets precedents, those precedents are important for the community and for future Arbcoms. One relates to secret evidence. There's a very basic step that was missed, the equivalent of the police asking "are you willing to press charges?". If complainants insist on secrecy then all you have is some intelligence, you can then go through that individual's edits and if you spot other problematic behaviour you or T&S can bring a case, a proper one where you can say what someone is considered to have done wrong, and crucially, what you want them to do differently when they are allowed to return. It would be helpful if Arbcom were to clearly state that the price of keeping evidence secret is that it is much less likely to be used as evidence, or at least remind all admins of WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE. Arbcom is loathe to punish admins with anything in between an admonishment and a desysop. This is part of the problem of Arbcom, and it would be healthier if you gave yourselves more precedents for sanctions that were intermediate between a desysop and an admonishment.

This brings me to T&S. There is precedent for Arbcom desysopping an admin who was also a WMF staffer. I'm not sure that this is merited in this case, if only because there are at least three admins who are in the T&S team and without seeing the secret evidence I don't know which of them contributed to this incident and to what extent. It may be that admonishments are more in order, or just a general reminder to all admins. But T&S and or all admins need to know understand and accept that banning or blocking someone for a fixed period, but not telling them or the community why, is "toxic" behaviour. There is also the whole business of punching down and the whiff of corruption that others have detailed. As for sugar coating things versus plain speaking, these are not easy things to get right. But if you sugar coat a warning to the extent of saying that it isn't an interaction ban, and then punish someone for breaching it as if it was an interaction ban, your communication is faulty, you needed an intervening step where you imposed an interaction ban. A key part of this farrago has been over a ban that was of excessive length. If Fram had been blocked for 24 hours it is unlikely that this would have become what it has, and it would be helpful for Arbcom to remind admins, especially those in T&S, to occasionally reread the blocking policy and specifically "While the duration of a block should vary with the circumstances, there are some broad standards: - incidents of disruptive behavior typically result in blocks of from a day to a few days, longer for persistent violations". On this site we are all warned that our contributions may be "ruthlessly edited", that includes to be frank, much more rampant deletionism than we have seen from Fram. It is hardwired into the site that if you find a problem you are encouraged to boldly deal with it and look for similar problems - when you click rollback you are taken to a screen with other edits by that same account or IP who you have just reverted. New Page Patrol is similarly designed to encourage people to look at other contributions by the person whose new article you have just tagged for deletion. I'm all for making this site a more inclusionist, collaborative one, but I'm conscious of the need to work with the grain rather than against it. If you want a change of policy such that some of Fram's deletion tags didn't result in deletion, try arguing for a policy change, don't harass or sanction the person who has been following and enforcing a policy you disagree with, doing so is itself toxic behaviour.

Lastly re Fram. As others have said, if a desysop was disproportionate then you should reverse it. I'd add that if a three month block was disproportionate then you could say that also - rather than time served, if you think that his "F*** Arbcom" merited a 24 hour block then now is the time to say so. As for the admin bit, Floq's RFA tells us that an RFA that revolves around secret allegations v alleged WMF corruption is unhealthy for the community, nor a fair way to judge an admin candidate. If you have specific behaviour changes that you want from Fram then I'd suggest you make that clear, and either restore Fram's bit now with a specific admonishment, or say that Fram can request the bit back from you (or perhaps the crats) in x months so people can check if the requested change has happened.

ϢereSpielChequers 13:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat along the lines of what @Xeno: said above, but please don't shift this to a future debate a WP:BN, or having to come back to ARCA. A very clear remedy of one of these would be best:

1. A very specific statement that the desysoping is voided, including the involuntary nature of it, even to the length of specifically endorsing that Fram may request restoration at BN or at RfA (their choice).
2. That the case has resulted in a desysop requiring a new RfA (which functionally requires no action) (Basically where 2d is going); with or without any sort of delay period before such may be requested.

— xaosflux ^Talk 14:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the "decline to reinstate" part that GorillaWarfare called out in 2c is what will lead to potential drama: yes the committee "didn't" do something, yes the committee said RfA "may" be used but it doesn't rule on if BN "may" be used and at the conclusion of this long event; last thing we need is another dispute at BN. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale given by Opabinia R. is 249 words. So double that. It's more than enough to establish a point. OR themselves might follow their own advice - they are frequently unnecessarily prolix in their adjudication opinions. 200 words should be enough for them. Lead by example. :) Leaky caldron (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FoF 5 says the evidence 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..

As Joe Roe has now pointed out The part "but does not reflect any conduct for which desysopping would be a proportionate response" goes beyond a finding of fact and into a remedy, and seemingly contradicting remedies 2b-d (which several of the supports here have also voted for). Can we take it out?

Do I read this correctly? There wasn't any evidence for which desysopping would be a proportionate response, but 2d says The behaviour shown in the case materials falls below the standards expected for an administrator. Accordingly, the committee takes over the decision to remove Fram's administrator tools. Joe has realised that the Committee is completely contradicting themselves, and now wants a FoF taken out because it is completely not in line with 2d (and for that matter 2b and 2c).

This is an utter shambles. Black Kite (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my discussion with Jbhunley above. I'm obviously not suggesting we remove an entire FoF, which would be completely out of process. I believe the FoF was intended to mean that none of the incidences of Fram making mistakes with the tools (i.e. the immediately preceding sentence) are grounds for a desysop. However, after reading the comments here I realised that the wording could be taken as meaning that a desysop is "not a proportionate response" to the case as a whole. This is obviously not what we think: the reason for desysopping just doesn't have anything to do with tool misuse. – Joe (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is very strong evidence out there that one of the editors that Fram has been accused of harassing (to be called X) is married to a member of the board of trustees of WMF (to be called Y). Y has spoken publicly in defense of X, arguing that X is being harassed, without disclosing this relationship. Given that Fram has been accused of harassing X, it seems plausible that Y was referring to Fram as a participant in the alleged harassment. Interestingly, in the ArbCom case involving X, another editor, to be called Z, failed to disclose their personal relationship (X and Z seems to have lived together and traveled together, the latter sometimes paid for by WMF). There are also allegations out there that X and Z received money from WMF to give away as a prize (in a form of a trip), but gave the prize to themselves, allegedly because there were no worthy participants. If true, that behavior also involves a fairly obvious conflict of interests. This raises several questions/issues:

• Given that there are two instances of people close to or in WMF neglecting to mention their conflict of interests, is there a culture of ignoring conflicts or interest (or worse) at WMF? Note that in my opinion, favoring those you are close to is part of the human condition and not a moral failing, but therefor also not something that can be easily avoided with diligence. This is why a common standard is to avoid even an appearance of impropriety, as even very good people can not be expected to police themselves effectively, when it comes to treating people they are close to (or those that people close to them are close to) equally to others.
• Are there other people involved in this process who also have a conflict of interest? Given that we already had two instances, it may be helpful to demand an explicit statement from everyone who votes or otherwise wields power, with a clear and serious penalty for not divulging a conflict of interest.
• Given that in both cases where people didn't disclose a conflict of interest, this benefited the same editor (X), is this editor so close to various people in power that they are unable to see X's flaws as an editor and/or fair treatment of X seems like harassment to them?
• Was Fram banned because some people are heavily (emotionally) invested in X being an editor and any threat to this, even due to a fair application of the rules, is seen unacceptable? If so, or if it is perceived to be so, punishing Fram may establish a culture of fear, where people will worry less about the fair application of the rules, but more about whether the people they interact with are close to people in power. To prevent this, it might be necessary to ensure that WMF doesn't get involved in cases where there is a conflict of interest with influential people at WMF and editors. If this cannot be ensured, it might be necessary to remove X as an editor, not because of impropriety on her part, but because conflicts of interest involving her threaten rule of law at Wikipedia.
• Given the less than ethical behavior by Y and Z & the rather unfair way in which this arbitration process is being performed (with fishing expeditions, secret evidence, etc), is it fair to make demands of Fram, including Kafkaesque demands that he stops with undisclosed behavior? Should there not first be an investigation in the background of these accusations and whether there is even a level playing ground in the first place?
• If this investigation can't be done in public, it might be helpful to seek out one or more highly respected, independent people to investigate the secret evidence, as well as the way in which T&S decided to ban Fram. This can include handing over the relevant (email) correspondence to this independent investigative committee. Aapjes (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]