Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Workshop

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: GoldenRing (Talk) & L235 (Talk) & Cthomas3 (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Committee as a whole

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.

Workshop Phase

Per the Arbitration Committee, the Workshop portion of this case will be carried out as a standard Workshop. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Per the Arbitration Committee, the Workshop portion of this case is now closed. CThomas³ (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by 28bytes

Scope question

Are the proposed findings of fact expected to be limited solely to Fram's actions, or will findings of facts of the form "In Situation A, both Fram and Editor X made errors of judgment" be allowed? Or even "In Situation B, Fram's conduct was acceptable and Editor Y's was not?" 28bytes (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

If the committee adopts Newyorkbrad's proposed principles and findings of fact (which I hope you do) then my scope question becomes moot. I agree that it would be more productive at this point to address the evidence as a whole as NYB does rather than dive into the weeds and wrangle over each individual line item. 28bytes (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

NYB's proposed decision

I won't clutter the workshop page by commenting on each of the Proposed Principles and Findings of Facts that Newyorkbrad has offered, but I wholeheartedly endorse all of it. Excellent work, NYB. 28bytes (talk) 04:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Adhemar

Remark in response to 28bytes’ scope question

If other people’s Fram-related behaviour can be called out in the findings of fact, I guess it won’t take long before proposals will appear that judge WMF’s (T&S’s, Katherine Maher’s, …) conduct inacceptable. (Edit: Not much of a prediction since I ended up proposing a remedy judging WMF myself.) And justly so, based on what we (and Fram) now know to be the allegations (10 weeks after the beginning of the ban). So, unless the supposedly-still-forthcoming summary of the 70-page T&S report will contain other and graver allegations against Fram (against which Fram should then finally be able to defend himself) Future Perfect at Sunrise has a point in observing: We are dealing more and more with a case not of harassment by Fram, but harassment of Fram. diff — Adhemar (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

NYB's proposed decision

I applaud NewYorBrad’s excellent work, and propose the changes:

• Delete the final sentence “However, it can reasonably be inferred that there would be a significant degree of overlap between the two categories of evidence.” in proposed finding of fact 4, as I don’t see how any conclusion can be drawn regarding the overlap.
• Add 2 sentences about the values of “truth-finding, fair hearing, and due process” in proposed principle 1.
• Add an additional remedy between proposed remedies 3 and 4, with a WP:BOOMERANG-of-sorts reminder to WMF.
• (Added:) Also, I would delete the phrase “, the contents of which are non-public and the seriousness of which is unknown” in proposed finding of fact 1 since Fram has acknowledged the warnings and summarised the content thereof.

— Adhemar (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Some speculation

I am going to speculate in this section. I realise I don’t know everything: I haven’t seen the 70-page T&S report, obviously; neither have I read the deleted Signpost article. I might be wrong about a lot of this.

I speculate that in the last three years, there was at least one case of on-wiki behaviour by Fram that has made someone or some people uncomfortable, in which Fram could have behaved better; that looks, at least at first glance, way more serious than any of the community-gathered evidence. I speculate that that case, amongst other allegations, was included the T&S report, reported by the person(s) who felt uncomfortable. I don’t know if there was any malice in Fram’s behaviour (I doubt that); and I don’t know if Fram was “correct” (which he often is). After all, even T&S conceded (according to Fram) back in March 2019, when T&S reminded Fram about 2 of his October 2018 edits, that those edits were correct and not intended to intimidate. That didn’t stop T&S from slamming Fram with a one-sided interaction ban, without any regard for Wikipedia policy and procedure, without fair hearing or due process.

I speculate that, when ArbCom decided to gather community-provided evidence, ArbCom hoped someone would stumble on that or a similar case (as it is indeed recorded in undeleted Wiki history), and report it. That way, ArbCom would have been in a position to ask Fram his defense on this case, without disclosing any of the communications that the person(s) who felt uncomfortable provided in confidence to T&S. I speculate that ArbCom hoped for the significant degree of overlap between the two categories of evidence that Newyorkbrad reasonably inferred, but that it failed to materialise.

I speculate that some users indeed did stumble on that case (or one of those cases) or a similar case, but all of the users who stumbled upon such edits choose not to report it. As a result, ArbCom felt unable to communicate to Fram about that case (those cases), and Fram has not been able to defend his actions in that/those instance(s).

I speculate that LH was not among the complainers whose complaints to T&S are bundled in the T&S report. At least not this time around. I speculate that it was a complaint of hers back in March 2019 that led to the reminder. Nevertheless, I speculate that LH’s close relation to a prominent WMF-person really did contribute to WMF’s decision handle specifically the Fram-cases with total disregard for Wikipedia policy and procedure and values, twice. (I speculate that the involved WMF staff thought to get away with it, and even expected to be applauded for it.) (Even if all of this is true, none of this justifies the vitriol backlash against LH.)

Speculation aside, the arbitrators now have a decision to make, before the actual decision of this case. Do they decide this case solely based on the community-provided evidence, or do they take into account more serious allegations on which Fram has not been able to defend himself? I wouldn’t be surprised if there were arbitrators who are in dubio on this. I could totally understand that. However, I strongly feel that T&S’s total disregard for the values of fair hearing or due process should not be repeated by ArbCom. I urge arbitrators to decide this case solely based on the community-provided evidence, as that’s the only evidence on which Fram has had the chance to defend himself. — Adhemar (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dank

It appears to me that NYB has it right on all counts. - Dank (push to talk) 03:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Unwatching. - Dank (push to talk) 22:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Beetstra

I also agree with all of NYBs posts in the workshop. I would like however to see a dry evaluation of the T&S document in the FoFs and Remedy (even if all Arbs have to recuse on a vote of it). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I have now added these FoFs and Remedies as per my post suggestion above. I have shamelessly rewritten User:Newyorkbrad's suggested FoFs and Remedies for that, thanks for the suggestions NYB.

I want to restate here that I fully understand that all arbs may have to recuse on answering the specific FoFs, but I think it is then transparent that that is the case, and the community knows that the evidence is like that. But in the end, ArbCom, per Jimbo's comment (and especially when the community supplied evidence is not sufficient for a ban or a desysop!), will have to answer to the question whether they want to keep or override the T&S-ban and T&S-desysop nonetheless.

I am looking forward to comments. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Ymblanter: I stand completely with your remark. I've had my own disagreements with Fram in the past. I don't recall any remarks from Fram however that I felt were harah, wrong, etc. I do see in the evidence some points, including the evidenced encounter with you, that .. could have been put differently by Fram. (but there is certainly evidnce that is forgiven). An official reminder to Fram might indeed be in place (but I am not ArbCom), and maybe there are things in the T&S document that should have been handled differently as well, but that is then all of it. I do however feel that the ban and desysop has to be stopped now (by motion, perhaps?), so that Fram can contribute in the remainder of this case. (Ymblanter: even if I think that the representation of the evidence concerning you is wrong, that is not a piece of evidence that should be swept under the rug). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Xaosflux: Not explicitly needed (if A warrants a reminder and B an admonishment it is clear that A+B can never be a ban+desysop), and I firmly believe that the distinction is needed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: as in 'warning' + 'warning' deserves an admonishment overall. But then we would now have to add all possibilities and create combinations for all? -+W=W; -+A=A; W+W=A; W+W=DS; W+A=A; A+W=A; A+A=SA; A+A=DS; .... seems a bit impractical especially since we have no clue about the T&S evidence and how ArbCom decdes to evaluate the observation that there is no evidence presented by the community after the ArbCom warning to Fram did not pass ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

And obviously the fun will come if the community side is a warning, while T&S comes to 1-year ban+desysop ... a middle way or keeping the highest? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I would indeed consider mainly 'additive' as well. My idea of 'fun' was mainly if there is a total and utter disconnect between the decision based on on-wiki secret T&S evidence, and the decision based on visible community supplied on-wiki evidence. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• @WereSpielChequers: Re diff: More importantly, you or I could have the same behaviour and suddenly find ourselves under the same banhammer. That we can't police Fram is irrelevant (WMF will do that for us), and that they can't improve is not relevant to WMF (though, obviously to Fram themselves and, IMHO, to the encyclopedia). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by EllenCT

I am also strongly in agreement with NYB for what we've seen so far, but I am hoping, as per my recent comments on Evidence Talk, someone will please ask Jan if he can say what he means by the community "cannot ... know all the facts" of the case, and whether we can simply see all the diffs and/or wikilinks in the private 70 page dossier. EllenCT (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Moved from #Comments by Ken Arromdee

The Board of Trustees resolved that, "Arbcom and T&S may need ways to allow Fram to participate in the proceedings." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Workshop#Fram unblocked to participate in this case. EllenCT (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Jehochman

Please adopt NYB's proposed decision and let's move on. This sad affair has been a shambles from start to finish. Please end it already. It has taken much too long for common sense to take hold. Jehochman ^Talk 12:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, NYB's proposed decision does not take into account the T&S document. Worm^TT(talk) 12:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's stop beating around the bush, shall we? What grave damning thing is in that document? Just give us a general description please. Jehochman ^Talk 14:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, I've made it perfectly clear that I cannot give more information about what is contained in the T&S document, I've been as forthcoming as I can be. There is a clear statement about the document which is on the evidence page. I've also stated that I understand T&S's decision to ban, based upon it - whether Arbcom would have made the same decision with the same evidence, I don't know. Worm^TT(talk) 14:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The report detailed long-term disputes with several community members, Arbcom as a body and its membership, and Foundation staff members. We did not see any evidence of off-wiki abuse. Is that the relevant description? I don't see in there an accusation of anything sanctionable. Having "long-term disputes" by itself isn't sanction-able. Maybe Fram was right, and those he was disputing with were wrong and corrupt, but they were in power and had friends, so they arranged for Fram to be banned. This stinks like hell. I recommend you open the windows for fresh air. Just tell WMF that you are obligated to overturn their sanctions unless they are willing to let you release enough information to show that a ban is justified. Jehochman ^Talk 14:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

My summary of this case

I am surprised by ArbCom's willingness to continue to case despite posting no substantial evidence, and skipping over the most substantial evidence that's already been discussed numerous times on wiki and which was included in my request for arbitration. In my opinion this case is about getting into a conflict with "the wrong person". The heart of the case can be understood by looking at three links:

1. The beginning I am sure that DYK reviewers will be extra-alert to the possibility of problems with any further articles she nominates
2. The middle This is a budget request for two Wikimedians (Raystorm and LauraHale) to attend the 2013 IPC Alpine Skiiing World Championships at La Molina, Spain.

   Raystorm was elected chair of the WMF Board on July 19th, 2018. [1]

3. The end You were asked in September 2017 to disengage in admin actions related to me. You were asked in September 2017 to stop commenting on my talk page and you are being asked again in February 2018. ...please contact James Alexander, Patrick Earley, Jan Eissfeldt or Sydney Poore, members of the WMF's Support and Safety team.

Here's the final straw: [2] That, my friends, is frustration boiling over, not a personal attack. It's frustration boiling over after an editor feels that they've been unfairly persecuted. We experienced editors have seen this happen many times. The target of harassment becomes frustrated and finally explodes.

This conflict appears to have blossomed from a bona fide disagreement about the importance of competing priorities: content quality versus community building and inclusiveness. We've long had that debate. Both views have merit and this debate should be resolved by open, civilize discussion, rather than by political clout. Fram appears to have been severely overmatched in terms of clout. I feel that Fram may have crossed the line between legitimate inspection of another editor's work and paying excessive attention to them. However, this line is fuzzy and different people might have different opinions. In general, we need to be more tolerant of different people, and different opinions. That's the heart of WP:AGF.

Before you ban me, I have had no access to confidential information nor have I given a promise of confidentiality to anybody related to this information. Moreover, I have not used my admin access to find these links. Any editor could find them. A member of ArbCom answered a question I emailed them to say that I am allow to post any public diffs I find, such as these. Jehochman ^Talk 13:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Warnings

Somewhere the decision needs to document how many warnings Fram received previously. Multiple prior warnings can justify a sanction when the behavior might otherwise have received a first warning. This can be a useful way to avoid disclosing the confidential complaints in T&S report. If the complaint resulted in a warning, then all you need to say is that a warning was given. If you are going to have any sanction (time served, or more than time served) you will only need to reveal the final infraction, if it occurred on wiki, that triggers the sanction. It has to be something substantial after the last warning. Jehochman ^Talk 13:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: what do you say? Jehochman ^Talk 14:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Tryptofish

I'll just say that I endorse Newyorkbrad's proposals. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Rastus Vernon

I think the Committee could do far worse now than to adopt the proposals made by Newyorkbrad with extremely minimal changes, regardless of the contents of the T&S document. — Rastus Vernon (talk) 04:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

But (contra Jehochman) I back the proposals because they are good, not because I think the case should be resolved fast. For example, I have no problem with ArbCom spending one more week thinking about this only to decide to adopt Newyorkbrad's proposals. And I would hate if the arbitrators felt obligated to come up with something different just because of the additional time they made everyone wait. — Rastus Vernon (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Kusma

I wholeheartedly endorse NYB's suggestions. I also find Jehochman's arguments persuasive, and there may need to be a finding of fact about the T&S document. It probably shows that Fram has made enemies of several people well connected to the WMF (be it developers, chapter officials, or users with private connections to high-ranking WMF people). This easily lends itself to allegations of corruption. If the T&S document is considered part of the evidence, there will need to be findings of fact that confirm or deny whether such internal improprieties seem to have taken place. —Kusma (t·c) 06:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, it might be worth comparing the effect of Fram's actions on editor retention (how many highly competent people left because of Fram's actions?) with those of the Trust&Safety team here (how many highly competent people left because of their actions towards Fram?) to gain some perspective here. (None of this is properly covered in the evidence, but as long as we don't know whether the case is based on evidence or not, I feel encouraged to make things up as I go along). —Kusma (t·c) 09:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Peacemaker67

I am very supportive of the divided FoFs (public vs. confidential evidence) as detailed by NYB and Dirk Beetstra. This will allow ArbCom to identify where the evidence that supports each FoF comes from, and is really the only way that a part-public/part-private case can be worked through. There may need to be scope for a combined FoF or three if the public evidence tips the confidential evidence over the line, but that seems unlikely given the pretty weak public evidence. Just flagging this as a possibility really. Great work to both. I don't agree with Jehochman's suggestion, my thinking is that, as part of the outcomes, ArbCom should be re-asserting its primacy over WMF on conduct issues (excepting those specific areas they have been responsible for prior to the Fram ban). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not attracted to Mendaliv's alternate proposal set at all. It is clear from Jimbo's posts that ArbCom can determine what should happen with Fram, and overturn the decision of the WMF if the evidence indicates that they should. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Ymblanter

It is probably time to issue my statement, since I am worried about the developments. I did not plan to participate in this case, I did not submit anything to T&S or ArbCom, but since I was heavily involved in arguments with and around Fram in late 2017 and early 2018, my statements understandably appear in the community-submitted evidence. I am at this point happy with the decision proposed by NYB. I do not think Fram has done anything to deserve a ban (definitely not a one-year unappealable ban without previous blocks and with talk page and e-mail blocked). I do not think they must be desysopped now, though I would have argued for desysop 18 months ago (and I actually did). I was a vocal critic of the T&S decision and was actually named by Fram as one of the users they have confidence in concerning the decision. I think Fram's behavior improved in the last year, and in many disputes they were involved in the past they were procedurally correct anyway. However, I also fully agree with the "ugly habit" comment (again, referring not to the current behavior, but to the 2017-18 behavior), and I believe that the evidence presented by the community substantiates this comment. This behavior is not ok, and I know this first-hand after having been on the receiving side. I am glad to see the proposal "Fram reminded"; I would prefer "warned" or "admonished", but this is a technical issue, and I can live with reminded. However, I am worried to see suggestions from many users that the community evidence contains nothing at all, and the case must be dropped. No, it must not be dropped. There was misconduct, and even if this misconduct did not rise to the level of ban or desysop, it should be reflected in the final decision. If it does not make it there, we are back to the initial situation. Community tried to resolve this (and there is plenty of material in the community-presented evidence), but it could not. This means that if this time nothing happens, the next time I encounter such behavior from any user (hopefully not Fram), I will go straight to T&S. At least they did something and did not drop the case.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Thanks. I do not have a strong opinion on whether Fram should be unbanned now or after the final decision has been passed (in a month?). I defer to the opinion of ArbCom.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Newyorkbrad

I just posted some comments on the evidence talkpage that could equally well have gone here. Rather than either risk their being missed, or duplicate them, I'll just post this cross-reference to here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: When I drafted my proposals on Monday, I was focused on the posted summary of the community-submitted evidence because I hadn't (and of course still haven't) seen the WMF-submitted evidence. I didn't want to be in a position of proposing flatly that "the ban of Fram is vacated" given that fact. However, subsequent discussion (see my thread on the evidence talkpage) suggests that by this point we have an idea of at least the broad areas that the WMF raised as concerns, which overlap at least in general terms with the issues raised on-wiki. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Davey2010

Just to say I too endorse all of Newyorkbrad's proposals. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 20:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment by SN54129

I endorse Mr Ernie's comments here. ——SerialNumber54129 11:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Jbhunley

I am shocked by the poor quality of evidence which I have reviewed. It contains false light claims, misrepresentations, duplication and assertions in place of actual evidence. The point seems to be to illustrate some sort of pattern which would support sanctions but the evidence presented does not even support that Fram can be a jerk more often than anyone else. Not calling Fram a jerk here but that is really what the ban justification boiled down to -- that he has been a jerk (or something describable by stronger terms) to one or more people and that this is an on going, non-improving, unmitigated flaw in his behavior. Maybe that is true, maybe not, but the evidence presented does not even make a ban+desysop level case for that. Jbh ^Talk 19:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Xaosflux

Am I missing something in the workshop so far? I see some proposed items such as 4.1.2.6 and 4.1.3.2 by Newyorkbrad and 4.2.2.4/4.2.2.5/4.2.2.9/4.2.3.2 by Beetstra along the lines of "does this batch of evidence" support "this" item - but not anything for "does the totality of the evidence" support "x". — xaosflux ^Talk 13:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Beetstra: I was thinking more along the lines of if A would warrant an admonishment, and B would warrant a distinct admonishment that a more severe remedy than 2 admonishments may be necessary. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Beetstra: for the most part I would expect these could only be additive, doing a single atomic thing that warrants a ban wouldn't be countered because some other thing doesn't warrant a ban. Almost everything someone does doesn't warrant a ban. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Ken Arromdee

Since many of the proposed findings of fact are about procedure, is anyone going to do one about users being able to participate on-wiki in their own arbitration cases? Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Mendaliv

Moved from #Comments by Peacemaker67

It is clear from Jimbo's posts He has no actual authority to do anything. He's a board member, not the board, not the ED. If he has some undocumented authority to command the WMF to do things as though he is the owner, and all the other officers and directors are window dressing, that might be very interesting to certain state regulators, but shouldn't be interesting to us. ... and overturn the decision of the WMF if the evidence indicates that they should That isn't enough. For the Committee to actually be adjudicating this, they must have total control to unban Fram on any basis they want. The Foundation hasn't unbanned Fram at all. They hold the keys and the Board (not even the Foundation itself) has merely asked for the Committee's input. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Zeratul2k

Moved from #Comments by Peacemaker67

The board asked for the Committee's input, which to a layman (IANAL) would mean they were given at least SOME jurisdiction over this particular case. It kind of reads as a "go ahead and do your investigation, get me your decision, but it's up to me what I do with it". Taken like this (again, IANAL so I might be wrong but are we in a court, anyway?), discussing jurisdiction now wouldn't really be constructive, IMO. Thing is, they (T&S) backed themselves into a corner by taking such an action without realizing the consequences it would have. This case is nothing but an olive branch to the community and it remains to be seen whether they implement the Committee's decision. Not doing so would send a clear message that yes, their authority is not to be questioned, but would the community really benefit from them doing so? Will it re-ignite the controversy and cause more admins and bureaucrats to resign? Zeratul2k (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Moved from #Comments by Jbhunley

Seems to me the real issue here is the secret T&S report, those 70 pages of damning secret evidence, enough to justify such an action just by itself. This, of course, despite not containing any evidence of off-wiki abuse and everything on-wiki pointing to Fram sometimes being a jerk. If this is how low the bar is going to be brought, how many editors are going to get similar bans? Zeratul2k (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Guy Macon

Fram not being allowed to participate in this arbcom case is Yet Another Reason why T&S should have let Abcom handle these sort of cases. Arcom would normally unblock Fram with a restriction that editing outside of the case page will result in an instant block. But Arbcom can't do that in this case. In fact is isn't entirely clear whether Arbcom can overturn the ban at all. It may be that T&S has well and truly turned this case over for Arbcom to decide, but the possibility remains that T&S might only allow Arbcom to "decide" if Arcom agrees with the T&S decision but will overrule Arbcom if they don't get the answer they like. (If T&S has actually made a commitment to abiding by the Arbcom decision no matter what it is, please post a link to where they said that on my talk page and I will correct the above.) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Almond Plate

Initially I was inclined to say that ArbCom should have done some fact-finding themselves, but I think I now understand why they haven't (not formally, at least). The case that Adhemar is talking about would have come up and it shouldn't, for safety reasons. It may be disappointing to the community that they're not going to know everything but it is really much better this way. Almond Plate (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Ched

On the Evidence page in this section aka Harassment / Bullying, the second item is very misleading. It appears that the evidence is of Fram saying those two things directly to someone, and while he did say them it is actually Fram sayin ,attempting to quote Ymblanter, and mis-quoting her. with my interpretation, (my bolding) I think that this little nuance should be made clear. — Ched (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC) )(edited) Now, what Ymblanter actually said was a rely to User:Only in death on the MOS page here the post was:

• "Well, both communities felt confident enough to award me administrator privileges, something which I have not seen you to achieve with either of them. But, as I said, you are certainly entitled to have your opinion on the subject, even if it is completely uninformed and aggressive. This is ok with me. I am not even going to report you for a personal attacks. But I hope you will excuse me if I stop spending my time replying you.

Then at an AN/I report it was complicated with that interpretation of Fram's as such:

• • Fram replied with my interpretation, as I said on your talk page.

And Fram added his take of it by saying at AN/I

• direct Y quote: "Well, both communities felt confident enough to award me administrator privileges, something which I have not seen you to achieve with either of them." and
  • Fram says this =: I'm an admin, you are not.
• Y quote: "But, as I said, you are certainly entitled to have your opinion on the subject, even if it is completely uninformed and aggressive. This is ok with me." to which
  • Fram interprets to mean it =: you may have your own stupid opinion
• Y says: "I am not even going to report you for a personal attacks. But I hope you will excuse me if I stop spending my time replying you." which
  • Fram interperts as = I'm not going to reply to you any further.

the diff for this is at AN/I: here This is a very complex piece of evidence you're using, I think it's important to get the nuance to it explained clearly. Note that this conversation is spread over several venues which include WP:ANI, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, and User talk:Ymblanter here. I'm not saying this is better or worse than what you have on the evidence page, but if it's going to make it into the final product, it should be more accurate than it currently is. — Ched (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by WereSpielChequers

Hi Beetstra, yes I agree that we are both at risk of such an arbitrary ban. Perhaps I am more accepting of this than you, but my response to the recent series of messes has included resuming one old hobby and trying out a new one. If the WMF decide they don't want me around I won't be as upset as I would have been a couple of months ago. I believe that it should be relevant to the WMF that an editor given a temporary ban needs to know what they are alleged to have done before they are allowed to resume editing. It should also be relevant to the WMF that if the community is to be self policing then it helps to know what Fram is alleged to have done. I suppose I should also add that if the intent of the WMF is to change improve behaviour on EN wiki then punishing someone for a reason that has to remain secret is at best an own goal. That their victim had a few years ago warned a WMF staffer against issuing death threats on IRC channels may just be a coincidence. As may their more recent run in with an "unblockable" editor. But if those were coincidences, it was a poor choice for the first person they thought merited a fixed term single project ban. Outside of WMF accounts we have a very hard rule against role accounts, perhaps now would be a time to address that anomaly. There is precedent for Arbcom desysopping the volunteer account of a WMF staffer, I hope that if T&S make similar mistakes in future, Arbcom would remember that they have that option. ϢereSpielChequers 13:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mendaliv My reading of Arbcom's remit on this is that they can cancel, reduce, confirm or even increase Fram's sentence. What they can't do is say what Fram was accused of or by whom. However that is assuming that they are allowed to judge the evidence against Fram by the standards that Arbcom normally works to, if they have secretly been told to judge Fram by standards that don't normally apply here then all bets are off, and we will need to work out what trigger words we are and aren't allowed to use. If that's the case then I'd make the point that you can introduce a bunch of arcane and perverse rules such as wearing a hat when you want to make a point of order, accusing people of saying "terminological inexactitudes" rather than lies and even staying a swords distance apart when debating. But it may not make things more civil, just more arcane and offputting to newcomers. ϢereSpielChequers 15:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by {username}

Please make copies for following commenters.