Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Proposed decision

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

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 9 active arbitrators. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	5
2–3	4
4–5	3

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Request the Foundation to undo the ban and attached consequences

1) Having studied the document prepared by T&S, the Committee are of the view that while there are understandable concerns regarding Fram's conduct toward Foundation staff and users of a website legally owned by the Foundation, that these concerns do not amount to a violation of the Foundation's Terms of Use, and therefore the site ban and attached consequences (desysopping) are not valid, and will request that the Foundation undo that ban and attached consequences. The Committee, however, do feel that Fram's conduct may have breached policies and guidelines of the Wikipedia's self-governing community, and will continue to look into that matter using such evidence that has been supplied.

Support:

1. SilkTork (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

   I don't like a lot of the wording - but I support the thrust of the "request that they undo their actions" while our deliberations are ongoing Worm^TT(talk) 09:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

   Per WTT GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Procedural oppose. A motion needs an absolute majority to pass but it shouldn't pass with as little as one vote either. I think the temporary injunction means this motion is no longer necessary. Mkdw ^talk 20:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I'm going to abstain on this now that we've had confirmation from WMF (not their Board or Jimmy) that we can handle this as a community action. As such, and as we've come so far, I far prefer bringing 1a forward than requesting the Foundation to overturn. If they were to, that would make this case moot - I would be voting to shut it down, not examine the rest of Fram's behaviour. Worm^TT(talk) 10:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
2. The WMF have confirmed that we can overturn the ban. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

I feel we need to clearly remove the Foundation's ban and desysop from our considerations, and look ourselves at Fram's conduct independent of the Foundation's actions, and purely in the light of our community's policies and expectations. We don't need a second case. Remove the Foundation from this case, and we can deal with Fram's conduct in this case. It would also resolve what I feel the community want to hear about the Foundation's action, but split it away from ArbCom's final decision regarding Fram's conduct. SilkTork (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Remedy 1a takes effect immediately

Enacted on 16:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

1) Remedy 1a of this decision and its supporting principles and findings are passing, and so Fram shall be unbanned immediately, without awaiting the close of the case. The remainder of the decision remains pending. As the status of Fram's sysop rights has not been decided, Fram is not to be resysopped during this interim period.

Support:

1. Remedy 1a has been passing for some time now, and there's been no movement on it recently (unlike the 2x remedies). Fram should not have to sit around without being able to edit if they so please, while we finish up the desysop/resysop decision. Furthermore, unbanning them will allow them to participate at the PD talk, rather than at their Meta talk page as they have been doing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
2. I was thinking this earlier, and was going to post a similar motion, so I support this with no hesitation. SilkTork (talk) 03:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC) Now second choice to Motion 1.2 below. SilkTork (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC) I am more in favour of the Committee dealing with the Foundation ban and attached desysopping by motion, and freeing up the rest of the case just to deal with community concerns regarding Fram (albeit if some of the evidence from the community has come to us via T&S). However, I support the principle of this that Fram should be unbanned now rather than wait for us (particularly me) to finish dithering about. SilkTork (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

   @SilkTork: I have indented your comment one because I have somewhat substantially adjusted this wording, and I would like to make sure you see it and sign off on it before your support is counted. Can you please restore the numbering when you get a chance to look at this? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

3. The WMF have confirmed that we can use our normal procedures in this case. I absolutely support this injunction now. Worm^TT(talk) 07:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
4. As Worm That Turned mentioned, we have been waiting to hear back from the WMF about whether we could proceed with this injunction prior to the conclusion of the case. It was not clear whether we could undo the WMF Office action and if Fram could resume editing without violating his WMF Office ban. Now that the WMF has affirmed that we may proceed, I have no issue with supporting. Mkdw ^talk 15:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Per Mkdw (belatedly). Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Temporarily. I am sorry that Fram is having to wait quite so long banned - which was a specific requirement of the board statement. I discussed with Carcharoth on the talk page the practicalities of unbanning. We are out of our jurisdiction here, and whilst User:Jimbo Wales and individual board members have supported us in overturning the ban if that is our decision - I don't want Fram to fall afoul of a premise we have been assuming would be fine. The committee has sent an explicit request to the Foundation to declare if we can simply unban. I mean to kick up a stink if we can't - but I'd rather we were all on the same page before actually implementing. Worm^TT(talk) 08:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Thank you to Newyorkbrad for the proposed wording. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I've moved this here and tweaked the wording per Xaosflux's feedback, with the end goal of avoiding officially "passing" a remedy without also passing the supporting principles and findings. Rather than have a handful of prematurely-passed proposals, I've changed this to just note that they are passing and ask that the unban be enacted as we await the rest of the decisions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

User conduct

1) Editors on the English Wikipedia are expected to abide by the site's policies and guidelines. When an editor seriously or repeatedly violates these expectations, sanctions may be imposed, in accordance with policy, by an uninvolved administrator, by community consensus after discussion on a noticeboard, or by the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are also expected to abide by the applicable policies and guidelines and to exercise good judgement, especially in connection with major administrator actions such as blocking a good-faith editor, and for failure to do so may be subject to sanctions including desysopping by the Committee.

Support:

1. Worm^TT(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. – Joe (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
6. Katie^talk 14:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
8. Mkdw ^talk 19:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
9. AGK ■ 10:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Wikimedia Foundation role

2) The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), sometimes referred to as the "Office," is the legal owner of the English Wikipedia website and infrastructure. Working through professional staff, many of whom also have experience as volunteer editors and community members, the Office plays an important and necessary role in administering the site. Historically, however, the Office has not intervened directly in day-to-day English Wikipedia project governance, and in particular has not handled user-conduct complaints involving on-wiki conduct, except in narrow circumstances that are unsuited for resolution by community volunteers. In the past, the Arbitration Committee has expressly asked that the Office handle certain narrow categories of misconduct complaints, but not that it take on a broader supervisory role regarding on-wiki day-to-day user or administrator conduct.

Support:

1. Worm^TT(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. – Joe (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
6. Katie^talk 14:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
8. Mkdw ^talk 19:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
9. Moreover, the WMF have poorly articulated whether (and why, and how) they are seeking to change this role. AGK ■ 10:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Civility

3) Editors are expected to show reasonable courtesy to one another, even during contentious situations and disagreements. See Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Support:

1. Worm^TT(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. – Joe (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
6. Katie^talk 14:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
8. Mkdw ^talk 19:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
9. And where they temporarily forget this principle, to try making amends. I rarely see "sorry" written in a conversation on Wikipedia. AGK ■ 10:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Harassment

4) Editors must not harass other editors either on or off Wikipedia. Although some types of misconduct will clearly constitute harassment and warrant sanctions, in other cases whether harassment has occurred may be more borderline or subjective. The views and feelings of editors who believe in good faith that they are being or have been harassed are to be respected and fully considered, whether or not it is ultimately concluded that harassment actually occurred. Because the word "harassment" spans a wide variety of types of behavior, and because this word as used off-wiki can carry serious legal and human-resources overtones, at times it may be better to describe allegedly problematic on-wiki behavior such as "wikihounding" with more specific terminology.

Support:

1. Worm^TT(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. – Joe (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
6. Katie^talk 14:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
8. Mkdw ^talk 19:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
9. AGK ■ 10:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Following another editor's contributions

5) It is important, though it can sometimes be difficult, to distinguish between an editor's reviewing and, as appropriate, correcting or commenting on the edits of a fellow editor making problematic edits, which is acceptable and in some cases even necessary, and the practice referred to as "wikihounding" or "wikistalking," which constitutes a form of harassment and is prohibited. See Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. While the line separating proper from improper behavior in this area may not always be sharply defined, relevant factors include whether the subject editor's contributions are actually viewed as problematic by multiple users or the community; whether the concerned editor raises concerns appropriately on talkpages or noticeboards and explains why the edits are problematic; and ultimately, whether the concerns raised reasonably appear to be motivated by good-faith, substantiated concerns about the quality of the encyclopedia, rather than personal animus against a particular editor.

Support:

1. Worm^TT(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. – Joe (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
6. Katie^talk 14:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
8. Mkdw ^talk 19:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
9. AGK ■ 10:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Administrators' pursuit of issues

6) Administrators should bear in mind that they have many colleagues. If an administrator finds themself in repeated disagreement with another good-faith but allegedly problematic editor, or if other editors disagree with the administrator's actions regarding that editor, it may be better practice for the administrator to request input or review from others, such as by posting on the appropriate noticeboard, rather than continue to address the issue unilaterally. This can be true even if the administrator may not formally be "involved" in a dispute with that editor. Whether to handle a matter oneself or seek broader input can be a judgment call as in more clear-cut instances, an individual administrator may be justified in addressing the problem decisively on their own. The question to be asked can be whether bringing more voices into the discussion will enhance the chances of a fair and well-informed resolution that will be respected as such by the affected editor and by others. A corollary is that this approach can work only if other admins and experienced editors are prepared to invest the time and effort needed to review a situation and provide input when asked to do so.

Support:

1. This is certainly a factor in this case. Worm^TT(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. – Joe (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
6. Katie^talk 14:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
8. Mkdw ^talk 19:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
9. AGK ■ 10:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Administrator conduct

7) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators, and consistent or egregious poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator tools. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors. (WP:ADMINCOND)

Support:

1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Worm^TT(talk) 07:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Mkdw ^talk 20:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
4. SilkTork (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
6. Katie^talk 12:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proportionality of sanctions

8) No matter who is the sanctioning authority, any sanctions imposed on an editor or administrator for misconduct should be proportionate to the nature and severity of the conduct. Relevant factors to consider may also include how recently the misconduct took place, how clear it is that the behavior constituted misconduct, whether the editor has expressed or carried out an intent to improve their conduct, and whether lesser sanctions have been employed without success in trying to resolve the problem. For example, a lengthy site-ban will usually not be the appropriate sanction for on-wiki conduct by an experienced, good-faith contributor who has never previously been blocked at all.

Support:

1. Worm^TT(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. – Joe (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
6. Katie^talk 14:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
8. Mkdw ^talk 19:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Oppose as written: the final sentence is dangerous territory, even in a statement of principle or as a generalisation. The community sometimes neglects to deal early on with a problematic user, which compounds the problem they pose. When we finally recognise the problem, it may call for apparently draconian action because lesser measures would fail to solve the problem. Excising the problematic behaviour of a contributor is difficult, especially when the contributor is one of our own. Principles like this are inhibitive. AGK ■ 10:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

AGK, I think the "usually" allows for the occasion when a lengthy site ban might be appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Purpose of sanctions

9) Users are sanctioned to stop disruptive conduct, usually in the hope that they will adjust their behaviour in response and continue to contribute to the project. Sanctions may be lifted on appeal if the committee is satisfied that the disruptive conduct will not be repeated. Where a sanction removes the administrator right, the user may regain it after demonstrating that they again have the community's trust through a successful request for adminship. In order for a user to adjust their behaviour, it must be clear what conduct led to the sanction.

Support:

1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
2. A point that is very relevant in these circumstances Worm^TT(talk) 07:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Katie^talk 14:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
4. I would quibble that in order for a user to learn from the sanction they must make an effort to understand why the behaviour was unacceptable. An WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude negates any attempt at making it clear what behaviour was unacceptable. However, the point that sanctions are designed to guide behaviour to a desired norm rather than as a mere punishment is made, and I support that. SilkTork (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
5. – Joe (talk) 06:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
6. SilkTork is right, the standard here is not that the person in question says "but I don't understand", but that there's been a reasonable effort to communicate. Opabinia regalis (talk)
7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
8. Mkdw ^talk 16:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I support the sentiment but not the current wording. We're not here to pass judgement on people ("poor behaviour", "unacceptable") or teach grown-ups how to behave. We're here to build an encyclopaedia. ArbCom's role in that is to stop disputes and conduct that get in the way of that. I'd suggest rewording:

Users are sanctioned to stop disruptive conduct, usually in the hope that they will adjust their behaviour in response and continue to contribute to the project. Sanctions may be lifted on appeal if the committee is satisfied that the disruptive conduct will not be repeated. Where a sanction removes the administrator right, the user may regain it after demonstrating that they again have the community's trust through a successful request for adminship. In order for a user to adjust their behaviour, it must be clear what conduct led to the sanction.

– Joe (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy with that suggestion, and have made the change. @Worm That Turned, KrakatoaKatie, and SilkTork:, are you good with this reword? GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

No problems from me. Worm^TT(talk) 07:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Age of evidence

10) The arbitration policy does not place strict limits on the age of evidence that may be submitted in an arbitration case, although the Arbitration Committee will sometimes preemptively limit the scope of a case to a specific period of time. The Committee may choose to disregard or give less weight to evidence that is not recent.

Support:

1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
2. This is probably my fault as I set a community expectation as the last 3 years (expecting lots of people with old grudges to turn up). That didn't happen. Importantly, there is no "statute of limitations" on Wikipedia, though if a problem is not a "current" problem (for a reasonable definition of current), then we should not be concerned about it. Worm^TT(talk) 07:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Katie^talk 14:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Mkdw ^talk 20:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
5. SilkTork (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
6. I agree that bringing up old grudges is not fair, but if you were doing something problematic 10 years ago and you're still doing it today, the 'old' evidence is still very relevant. – Joe (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
7. This is a reasonable description. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
8. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Private evidence

11) The arbitration policy allows people to submit evidence privately in an arbitration case when there are compelling reasons for it not to be submitted publicly. When the Arbitration Committee admits privately-submitted evidence, existing policy requires a private hearing, where parties are "notified of the private hearing and be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them before a decision is made."

Support:

1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Yes. We have no problem with private evidence. That's not what happened here - we have private evidence which cannot be shared with the party. That's problematic. Worm^TT(talk) 07:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Katie^talk 14:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Per Worm That Turned. Mkdw ^talk 20:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
5. The document itself is private in terms of what it has selected and from whom. However, much of what is in the T&S document does not deal with private matters - it relates to public incidents on en.wiki. I have had an ongoing problem with knowing what we can and can't say about the incidents referenced in the document, most of which are already known to the community and to Fram. However, even mentioning the number of incidents feels problematic, let alone mentioning the incidents directly and the people involved. SilkTork (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
6. Noting that if we're going to have more private hearings in the future, we really need better guidance from the community on what constitutes a "reasonable opportunity to respond". Also per WTT and SilkTork, the fact that we had evidence that was not just private but partially redacted and strictly bound by a legal agreement with the WMF was hugely difficult in this case. That's something I hope we will never have to deal with again. – Joe (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
7. This is a true statement of what the policy says, but I actually don't think our local processes for private evidence are the issue here. We should clarify them for when people bring complaints to us, but the challenge of evaluating this particular set of evidence is the complexity of its provenance. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
8. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Consideration of evidence

12) When deciding what evidence to consider, the severity of the behavior is an important factor. If evidence is old or, in this exceptional case, not allowed to be examined in its entirety or discussed with the accused party, it should be considered only if it demonstrates severe abusive behavior. Conversely, if the behavior in question is not severe abusive behavior, evidence from long ago should be disregarded or given lesser weight unless it is as background to a pattern of misbehavior that has continued recently, and evidence that cannot be examined in full or shared with the accused party should be disregarded.

Support:

1. This one was a bit tricky, because "privately-submitted evidence that cannot be discussed with the accused party" is not a situation that is covered in current policy. This was the standard I applied when considering the evidence, but that specific portion is not drawn from policy. I think it's important we are clear which evidence we considered, for which sanctions, and why we chose to consider that specific subset of evidence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Ok, I see where you are coming from on this, to the extent that I support. We will act on certain evidence (and "severely abusive" covers most of those situations) where the party cannot be told about the incident. Even then, we will generally tell the party what happened, and would not accept being hamstrung by lack of information. In the most severe of cases - where the party can not be told what they've done (say, for example, in law enforcement issues) - well, that falls to the Foundation to sort out and should be referred there. Worm^TT(talk) 07:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Per Mkdw's comment below, this should be decided at a community RFC sooner rather than later. As of now, however, this is where we need to be. Katie^talk 17:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
4. After some consideration I can support this wording, but this should be confirmed by the community at an RfC rather than setting a precedent. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I am here in Oppose because the incidents are not private or secret, and they did happen. We are not discussing them in public because they are in the T&S document, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen. Also, as this is a wiki and an open community in which we tend to work our way collaboratively toward solutions following the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law, we should not dismiss the concerns of a section of a community because of a legal technicality. Such legal technicalities really only apply in law courts belonging to tightly structured societies (and the tighter the society the less flexible the law) - our society is fluid precisely because it is a self-governing, egalitarian, open community wiki. Laws regarding evidence are designed to prevent inappropriate decisions based on inappropriate evidence. This evidence pointed to real incidents which we could look at on wikipedia and make up our own minds about. The evidence was not inappropriate - it was the decision by the Foundation to ban Fram that was inappropriate. And we've already dealt with that. We now need to make a decision as to how best deal with the real concerns raised by the real people pointing to the real incidents. After all, we are not talking about evidence or points of view which are selective and so can be manipulated, but evidence that refers to incidents on en.wiki that are a matter of public record, which allows us to see the whole picture. Added to which, we now have on this page the statement from 2018 in which Fram said: "the way I addressed some issues and people was over the top, unnecessarily unfriendly and unconstructive", so we don't need to ignore all the evidence which points to Fram being "unnecessarily unfriendly and unconstructive" (which is the bulk of the evidence) because Fram has gone on record agreeing with the conclusions. SilkTork (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
2. I agree with the calls for an RfC on private evidence, but in the mean time I don't think we should say anything definitive about it. – Joe (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Marking AGK as inactive on this principle per his talk page. He can strike this if he has time to vote. Worm^TT(talk) 12:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
2. I am also going to abstain rather than oppose as I do not want to hold the case up any further. My feelings remain the same as worded below and I think it would be best for these decisions to be made by the community at RFC with respect to confidential evidence. Mkdw ^talk 16:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Per email request, Opabinia would like to be marked as abstaining. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC) Confirming this - thanks GW! Opabinia externa (talk) 08:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

I have edited this a bit, per feedback on the PD talk. I am trying to convey, with this in combination with my other additions, that I would consider older evidence or this private, unshareable evidence if it was demonstrating some sort of heinous behavior on Fram's part (think off-wiki stalking or something like that). But if that were the case, I would have voted ato uphold (or perhaps extend) the site ban. However, it did not. Since it did not, we should not be using it (the kind of evidence that we normally would not accept) just because we have it laying around, and we should not use it to support a more minor sanction such as a desysop. I am explicitly not trying to imply that the older/private evidence contained evidence of some heinous action like this on Fram's part; it did not. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I see where you're going. My concern is that by this standard, T&S should never have given their report to us in the first place, because we couldn't consider it in this case at all. So, what was the point? We wanted to take a look, but because it didn't say what we feared it might say, we're going to disregard it entirely? We either consider evidence or we don't. It's a bad look and a worse precedent. I could be wrong or might misunderstand – convince me. Katie^talk 15:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow—if the T&S support had contained the kind of behavior I describe, I think we would have used it to uphold the ban. But since it didn't contain that, we are using it to overturn the ban. We agreed to use an unprecedented type of evidence in order to review the ban action, and that's what we've done. But to use this evidence to tack on additional sanctions seems inappropriate to me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I guess I'm looking for more clarity. Could we maybe change the second sentence to '...should be disregarded or given lesser weight' or something like that? We're going to be considering the evidence, is what I'm saying, private or not, and I think what I'm trying to get to (as are you) is what kind of weight we give to that evidence. Katie^talk 16:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I understand. Personally I think it should just be disregarded—would you be ok with a change from "not considered" to "disregarded"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

That would work for me. Thanks. :-) Katie^talk 16:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Great, I've made the change. I did include "given lesser weight" for the matter of old evidence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Awesome – I'm on board. Thanks again. Katie^talk 17:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I also see where you are going with this principle. The current situation is very irregular and there are some misconceptions being discussed on the case talk page. Neither ArbCom nor T&S expressly requested for the report on Fram to be handed to us. It was something pushed through by the WMF Board in response to the community and our open letter (something oddly not pinned at WP:FRAM). We asked on behalf of the community for local matters to be decided here. I am sure the WMF Board felt handing the report to us was a step towards that but it burdened our processes considerably because we were required to keep almost everything about it confidential. It was effectively just sent to us along with the reminder that we are already signed to a non-disclosure agreement (as part of ArbCom). With all that in mind, a part of me feels that this is something that needs to be decided at the community RFC about how to conduct private hearings. So, while I personally support this principle in how private evidence should be handled, especially if the accused will be unable to respond to the evidence, the community will ultimately need to ratify the procedure. Any support of this principle would need to be temporary until the policy and procedure on private hearings and private evidence is properly established. Mkdw ^talk 17:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I've tried to describe how I went about things in this FoF, but you're right that it's not meant to be anything we emulate in the future. It needs to be explicitly addressed in the RfC so there is a policy we can turn to in the case of private evidence going forward. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

My difficulty here is that the incidents are not private or secret, and they did happen. We are not discussing them in public because they are in the T&S document, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen. It seems odd to say that if an incident is referred to in the document it cannot be mentioned and therefore cannot be considered. I think the circle we need to square is how we can discuss these incidents with Fram, rather than dismiss them because they were given to us in a document with restrictions. Who mentioned the incidents to T&S, and what T&S said about the incidents is private, and essentially is not important. What is relevant and important is the incidents themselves. SilkTork (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Minor editing point: the last sentence isn't quite clear on whether "evidence that cannot be examined" part applies only "if the behavior in question is not severe abusive behavior", or if it's a separate clause.

I'm not sure I agree with this as a general statement. The material in the T&S report was not material that couldn't have been public and couldn't have reasonably been shared in more detail with Fram. That doesn't mean there will never be any future circumstances where sharing details or identities would be inappropriate. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Fram

1) Fram is a long-time active editor and administrator on the English Wikipedia. They have been a high-profile administrator and a party to various disputes over the years, but had never been blocked prior to the events that prompted this case ([1]). The Arbitration Committee declined several times to accept requests for arbitration filed against them (2018, 2016) and, where they were involved in cases, have not produced findings against them. The WMF Office sent a "conduct warning" to Fram in April 2018, and a reminder of that warning in March 2019. The Committee has seen copies of the warnings sent to Fram, as well as Fram's response.

Support:

1. Worm^TT(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. – Joe (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
6. Katie^talk 14:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
8. Mkdw ^talk 19:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
9. AGK ■ 10:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Fram had pledged to improve their behavior

2) In March 2018, Fram pledged to improve their behavior in a comment at an arbitration case request, quoted in part: "I obviously need to dial things back a few notches and rethink some of my approaches. I still think that my underlying motivations were right and my concerns about policy violations generally correct..., but the way I addressed some issues and people was over the top, unnecessarily unfriendly and unconstructive. I'll do my best to work on these things and to again become the 'blunt but fair' admin (and editor) I usually was until relatively recently."([2])

Support:

1. I had initially included in this that around the same time as this pledge (one month later), Fram received the conduct warning from the Wikimedia Foundation, but I removed it to avoid repeating ourselves from FoF 1. This is of course speculation on my part, but given all the process and sign-offs required around office actions I would expect that the warning was not sent for behavior that occurred after the pledge, and so we can consider the two events approximately simultaneous. I think in combination they provide a good starting point at which we should expect to see a better standard of behavior from Fram; they were warned for their behavior, and acknowledged their behavior had been poor. I do not mean to excuse poor behavior that is older than this, but I think it's important to decide a time frame where behavior qualifies as "recent". Old behavior can be examined as part of an ongoing pattern of poor behavior, but it should not result in a sanction unless there is also sufficient recent behavior to justify one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
2. This pledge was important to me as it came soon after my message to Fram, and I believed it - referring to it in a later finding in the GiantSnowman case. In light of the statement by Fram, and based on the document that I have read, I would personally go so far to say that the conduct warning in April 2018 should not have been sent - and had the WMF not sent that warning at that point, we would not be in this position now. His "second" warning would have been his first, he may have actually course corrected, rather than ignored it. That in turn, may have altered his behaviour subsequent to the second warning. I'm speculating of course - but I see far less need for the warning in light of diff from Fram - although this appears to be overlooked by T&S. I will be adding a Finding on this presently. Worm^TT(talk) 07:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
3. SilkTork (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Right there in pixels, which is what makes their statements at Meta about not changing their behavior relevant to me. Katie^talk 15:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
5. – Joe (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
6. Fram did "pledge" to improve his behavior in 2018. There were some real clangers after that, but he did improve somewhat. (It may then be notable that he did do some introspection then, but based on the state of his meta talk page, is choosing not to repeat that particular behavior publicly.) I absolutely agree with WTT above that the evidence in the T&S report does not really substantiate the need for WMF involvement at that time. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
7. Per Katie. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
8. Mkdw ^talk 16:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Office ban of Fram

3) On June 10, 2019, the WMF Office announced that Fram was banned from the English Wikipedia for a period of one year, effective immediately, as a non-appealable Office action. No detailed public rationale was provided for the action at that time and the Office has explained that a full explanation cannot be provided as non-public information was involved. As part of the same Office action, Fram's administrator status on English Wikipedia was revoked. Unlike almost all "Office action" bans in the past, the ban was limited in duration and did not affect Fram's participation on other Wikimedia Foundation projects such as Commons and Meta.

Support:

1. Worm^TT(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. – Joe (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
6. Katie^talk 14:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
8. Mkdw ^talk 19:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
9. AGK ■ 10:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Events following the ban

4) The Office's one-year ban of Fram led to extensive discussion within the English Wikipedia community. While a variety of views were expressed, a consensus emerged that the English Wikipedia community wishes to retain its role, including the role of the community-elected Arbitration Committee where necessary, in regulating user conduct on this wiki, rather than have the Office undertake that role in cases that can be handled through existing on-wiki or ArbCom processes. In an open letter, the Committee directly expressed to the Office a similar view. In response, the WMF Board and Katherine Maher, on behalf of the Foundation agreed to provide case materials to facilitate the Committee's review of the scope and length of Fram's ban.

Support:

1. Worm^TT(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. – Joe (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
6. Katie^talk 14:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
8. Mkdw ^talk 19:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
9. AGK ■ 10:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

The Arbitration Committee accepted a case outside of policy

5) The Arbitration Committee agreed to accept the Fram case to review the WMF Office action, despite the unprecedented requirement that the Committee review partially-redacted case materials compiled by the Trust & Safety team that could not be shared with Fram. Hearing a case in which a party cannot review the evidence submitted against them is outside of the existing arbitration policy.

Support:

1. I think it's important to note that we made this decision in the midst of a major crisis in the English Wikipedia community. As a group that is already set up to handle confidential material, resolve complaints against administrators, and impose sanctions including bans and desysops, if the decision was going to be handed back to the community by the Wikimedia Foundation we were the only logical group to take it. But it is important to note that handling evidence that we cannot review in full, and admitting evidence that we cannot discuss with its subject, is not a scenario covered by existing policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
2. This is important to note. We are outside our jurisdiction here, and would be within our rights to just throw the case out all together. That's the "out" which I don't believe we can take because it would re-ignite the community crisis. Worm^TT(talk) 07:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. This is too strong for me. I would not have accepted a case outside of policy. WP:ARBPOL currently says:

   Private hearings

   In exceptional circumstances, typically where significant privacy, harassment or legal issues are involved, the Committee may hold a hearing in private. The parties will be notified of the private hearing and be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them before a decision is made.

   This policy is ambiguous and incomplete, especially in regard to what constitutes a "reasonable opportunity to respond". And I definitely don't want to hold another private hearing until the process has been worked out more fully by the community. But fundamentally we were within our remit and did the best we could with the existing policy and unusual circumstances involved. – Joe (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

2. 'Never again' is a little too strong for me, and that's how I read this. Everybody's got a plan until they get punched in the mouth, and we don't know from where or from who the next punch will come. Katie^talk 15:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

   @KrakatoaKatie: I thought about proposing some kind of "never again" remedy, but landed approximately where you did on the matter. This finding just acknowledges that this particular case was outside of policy, it makes no promises that we'll never do it again. I certainly hope we won't—it's not a habit I want to get into, and I'm hoping that remedy 6 will result in new policy that will cover cases like this—but I also don't want to make promises. We didn't foresee this coming, so I'm not going to make a promise that we will see every other curveball that might be tossed our way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

3. I'm afraid I don't see the point of this. As in a couple of preceding principles, the issue here really isn't what our local bureaucratese says about things - the central issue in this case is that our local bureaucratese didn't get to say anything about this, because decisions were made not to use local processes. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Per OR - the problem isn't that we accepted this case, it's that the WMF unexpectedly decided to step in and handle the situation by their processes rather than ours, then handed us the case when they experienced significant backlash from the community. Our acceptance of the case in these circumstances was to bring it back within enwiki's local processes to the extent that that was possible under the extremely unusual circumstances of the situation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Per Joe. Mkdw ^talk 16:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I'd prefer to just deal with and dismiss the Foundation's involvement in this case with the motion, and then concentrate on looking at Fram's conduct with the evidence we have. There is stuff that we are aware of that is in neither the document nor the community evidence that we should be considering, such as Fram's revert of an arb though full protection. We can bring such evidence here if we need to, as it all relates to public activity on Wikipedia, without making reference to where the evidence came from - ourselves, Foundation or community. What matters is the incidents themselves, not who reported them. The evidence doesn't become falser or truer depending on who provides it. If Fram becomes unblocked, Fram can take part in discussions here about any diffs we provide which indicate concerns regarding conduct, and Fram can provide rationales or admit there was a lapse of civility or self-control, as appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

   SilkTork, the revert through full protection was not a terribly big deal. Yes, I agree Fram should not have done it and should have been told so, but the worst that would have happened out of that spat would be Fram banned from the case. It's a minor process thing, and I would not be considering it as an "admin conduct issue" - largely because I hate bureaucracy and I'm not going to go crazy enforcing it. Worm^TT(talk) 09:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

   My point is not that it is evidence of actual misconduct, but that it is evidence of possible misconduct such that it needs looking into. My own feelings on the matter are that such incidents in themselves are borderline, but are certainly not best practise. I have spoken with Fram about this and other such incidents and am satisfied with Fram's intentions, but question the methods. I hope to post later today a remedy which hopes to address these methods, and which if passed I feel means we could close this case without a desysop. However, I am content to hold off the remedy proposal if the rest of the Committee needs time to further consider Fram's conduct or bring diffs here rather than refer to the document which neither the community nor Fram can see. SilkTork (talk) 10:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

   The revert of an arb through full protection was not included in our summary evidence. As I have said in my reply to you below, I can't get behind the idea of digging around for our own evidence during the proposed decision phase, because it robs Fram (and other community members) of the proper opportunity to respond to it. I know you've been engaging with Fram on their Meta talk page, but that discussion is not an adequate replacement for the evidence phase of a case. Furthermore it gives the impression that you are making this decision based off additional evidence (many of the incidents you are discussing there are not mentioned in FoFs, and some have not been mentioned in the summary evidence provided to Fram and the community), and Fram's responses to your comments on that evidence, which isn't right. The evidence phase is over, and having a one-arb ad hoc second evidence phase over at Fram's Meta talk isn't the way to go about this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

   My thinking here is that we can go by the letter of the law, or we can go by the spirit of the law. As this is a wiki and an open community we tend to work our way collaboratively toward solutions, noting down procedures that we feel have worked, and adjusting the wording of those procedures in an open and collaborative manner when we feel that the wording is hindering the intention. So we bend the words to the intention, not the intention to the words. WP:IAR sort of encapsulates that (though we should perhaps be Improving All Rules rather than Ignoring them). If the wording of a policy prevents us from dealing with this case appropriately and fairly then let us ignore (or improve) the policy rather than ignore the concerns. My discussion with Fram was me as an individual arb, not as a representative of ArbCom, getting to grips with my own issues with the case, hearing Fram's point of view, and seeing if there was a remedy we could devise that would allow Fram to address the concerns of those in the community who have felt that Fram's approach to problem solving can be too intense and chilling. The discussions broke down, and that is likely to my fault as much (or more) than Fram's. But I don't regret the attempt, nor do I feel it was inappropriate. All I regret was that we were not able to conclude the discussions satisfactorily. SilkTork (talk) 09:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

The site ban was the central issue in this case

6) The majority of the discussion around the Fram case centered on the one year site ban, and this is what the Arbitration Committee specifically was asked to review: "We support ArbCom reviewing this ban. We have asked T&S to work with the English Wikipedia ArbCom to review this case. We encourage Arbcom to assess the length and scope of Fram’s ban, based on the case materials that can be released to the committee." (board statement) The WMF's removal of Fram's sysop rights was auxiliary to the ban action and not itself a sanction: "The removal of administrator access is intended as enforcement of the temporary partial Foundation ban placed on Fram. It is the community’s decision what to do with Fram’s administrator access upon the expiration of the Office Action ban." (WMFOffice statement).

Only after the Fram proposed decision was posted did discussion of Fram's sysop rights receive much attention. The original framing of the case around the site ban may also have influenced what kind of evidence was submitted during the community evidence phase of the case, as behavior that warrants a desysop is often much different than behavior that warrants a site ban.

Support:

1. This is important to note, especially when it comes to deciding whether the exceptional evidence should be considered in the context of a desysop decision. We agreed to consider the Office-provided evidence to review the decision of the site ban, and so that is what we should do. But when we decide whether to impose sanctions of our own (as upholding the desysop would effectively be doing), we should not consider evidence that cannot be shared with Fram. I think it's also important to consider that the framing of the case may have influenced which evidence was submitted. This case was opened with the essential question "Should Fram have been banned or not?" and questions around their sysop status were not much of a consideration at that point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
2. True, but the community would not stand for an administrator who was banned for a year. The desysop is important to consider. Worm^TT(talk) 07:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Good point. – Joe (talk) 12:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
4. There may have been people who felt that Fram's behavior warranted a desysop but not a ban, and those people may have self-selected out of submitting evidence because most of the attention was on the ban. That's a fair point. Counterfactuals like this wouldn't normally be much of a FoF, I think, but in this case we do want to make sure the decision covers all major topics. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I feel the central issue is the desysopping. We deal with the Foundation siteban by motion so it expires, and then focus our attention on "It is the community’s decision what to do with Fram’s administrator access upon the expiration of the Office Action ban." SilkTork (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
2. SilkTork makes a good point about the case scope. We're looking at interactions. While the site ban may have been the precipitating incident, we're supposed to be looking at Fram's behavior in totality. Katie^talk 12:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
3. When something is "considered" does not seem like a particularly important issue especially while the matter is still being considered. It is also debatable as to when desysop was being given "attention" as it had been discussed as early as August 20 on the workshop and desysop remedies appeared on the first draft of the proposed remedies on September 2. If the unanimous consensus emerged that a site-ban was to be vacated, other options such as admonishments, restrictions, and desysop would all be evaluated. The case was more than just to overturn or not T&S' action. We asked for the matter to be decided locally which includes deciding for ourselves what to do about Fram's conduct, if anything. Mkdw ^talk 17:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
4. The case scope was explicitly about evaluating Fram's behavior in general, not simply a yes/no question of whether or not the WMF ban was to be overturned. Like Mkdw, I see no reason we shouldn't be able to consider other measures even if we overturn the ban. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Abstain:

As above. I feel we should deal with our assessment of the Foundation's ban in the motion, request the Foundation unban Fram and restore the admin tools, and then we proceed with the case as normal, looking into if Fram has broken our community guidelines such that a desysop is appropriate, and for what length if appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The framing is an issue, but I don't want to read too much into the mindset of those who submitted evidence. I think it goes without saying, however, that those who felt Fram deserved a siteban also felt they shouldn't be an admin. Katie^talk 15:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC) Moved to oppose. Katie^talk 12:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

1. Marking AGK as inactive on this remedy per this. There's little left for him to vote on, but this one is at deadlock without him. Worm^TT(talk) 12:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

SilkTork I think you are completely off with "the central issue is the desysopping". The entire situation was clearly always about the ban - the reason all the focus is on the desysopping is because that's what Arbcom would have done with equivalent evidence. Worm^TT(talk) 10:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Worm That Turned The case scope is: "The committee accepts that it should open a full case to investigate the interactions of Fram with other editors over the past three years." So after we investigate and find that Fram was pushing the boundaries of admincond in such a way that sections of the community were concerned (not just those that Fram was dealing with, but others observing what was happening), we reach decision as to what to do. We've already decided that site-banning is not appropriate, so we look at other solutions which would include desysopping. That's my take on it. But I accept that there are many layers of grey! SilkTork (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it, this means the FOF did not receive an absolute majority to be able to pass. Mkdw ^talk 16:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Community-provided evidence

7) In addition to receiving the information provided by the Office on a confidential basis, the Arbitration Committee invited members of the community to submit relevant evidence directly to the Committee by e-mail. On August 19, 2019, the Committee posted a summary of the community-provided evidence, as well as Fram's reply to that evidence. The Committee was not authorized to post, and therefore did not post to Fram or the community at large, the case materials provided by the Office or a summary of that evidence.

Support:

1. Throughout the process, I have attempted to be consistent with the idea that I would weigh the community evidence higher than the Office evidence. Worm^TT(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

   Per Bovlb on the talk page, I've added "to Fram or the community at large". Please revert if any arb has an issue with the addition. Worm^TT(talk) 08:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

2. – Joe (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
6. Katie^talk 14:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
8. AGK ■ 10:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
9. Mkdw ^talk 16:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Evaluation of community-provided evidence

8) 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 constitute misuse of administrative tools.

Support:

1. Worm^TT(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. – Joe (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

   SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

3. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Katie^talk 14:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
5. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

   To be clear about my support for this finding as re-worded, it states that there was no tool misuse, and that the community-submitted evidence did not support a site ban; I still agree with those points. It does not state that there were no ADMINCOND issues (rather the opposite - it mentions the fact that the community evidence showed that Fram's conduct was uncivil). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. The community evidence documented a great deal of disruptive and harmful conduct. While I agree that the community (or this committee) would not site-ban any user who had conducted themselves in that way, this finding is too lenient with Fram and I oppose it on that basis. AGK ■ 11:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Contrary to those supporting, I believe the evidence we received from the community does not adequately support the view that Fram's conduct was consistent in keeping with ADMINCOND. A lot of discussion has been focused on effectively granting Fram leniency or an exemption for their long-term behaviour because is Fram is an experienced editor. Until the community clearly provides for long-term editors to be held to a different standard with respect to civility and conduct, and enshrines it in policy, then in my view the evidence from this case demonstrates Fram has not been compliant with ADMINCOND. It is possible this needs to be voted on in its own FOF. I certainly recognize that our dispute resolution processes, including ArbCom where a lot of the blame rests, has not previously or adequately reviewed Fram's long-term conduct. Accordingly, Fram has never been previously blocked or sanctioned. These are failings about our inability and ineffectiveness in dealing with private complaints and long-term civility and not about whether Fram has been complaint with ADMINCOND or not. Mkdw ^talk 17:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

   I think I ticked yes to this one without giving the wording sufficient thought because I am concerned that Fram has not followed ADMINCOND, as I indicate below at Removal of sysop user-rights. I will revisit if the wording is adjusted. SilkTork (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

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? @Worm That Turned, SilkTork, Opabinia regalis, KrakatoaKatie, Premeditated Chaos, and AGK: – Joe (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Or perhaps just reword it to be more precise, e.g. but does not consitute misuse of administrative tools. – Joe (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd be good with that rewording. Katie^talk 23:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Contrary to some of the talk page comments, this is a question of getting the wording right, not some kind of weird conspiracy.

But, doesn't the revised wording of "doesn't constitute admin misconduct" have the same problem as the original? Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: Unless we're talking about something else, my suggestion was does not constitute misuse of administrative tools, i.e. it does not make any comment on other conduct. – Joe (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, brain fart. That sounds good to me. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

No problems with the updates, though I do not believe we would have desysopped for the evidence provided by the community - which was the thrust of the finding. Worm^TT(talk) 09:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm comfortable that the new wording allows for a sanction under failing to abide closely enough to WP:ADMINCOND, including a desysop, if Committee members feel such a sanction is appropriate, so I'm withdrawing my oppose. However, I'm still reflecting on the implications on this finding which refers just to the community evidence, so not quite sure where I'm going to place myself. If we support this we are supporting desysopping based only on T&S evidence. The T&S evidence refers to misconduct prior to the warning, plus the outbursts towards ArbCom. We can't desysop someone for behaviour prior to a warning (unless that misconduct is being considered alongside recent misconduct, as part of a cumulative approach to misconduct, which is the approach I thought we were taking). So in effect we would be desysopping Fram for saying Fuckyou ArbCom. Are we considering that the Fuck You Arbcom outburst was evidence of Fram returning to the behaviour he was warned against? I think I need to examine the community evidence again more closely to see if my views align more closely with AGK and Mkdw, in which case we may need a new FoF on the community evidence, or more closely with those who support this, in which case I will return to support this finding, and then rethink any desysopping proposals. SilkTork (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@SilkTork: It wouldn't be a desysop for saying "Fuck ArbCom". It would be a desysop for all the previous conduct, with the outbursts towards GiantSnowman and ArbCom serving only as evidence that Fram's 2018 pledge to remain civil was not adhered to.

Also pinging @AGK and Mkdw: to check whether you can reconsider this after the change of wording. – Joe (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Joe. I hear what you are saying, though after thinking on it, I'm not sure that the thrust of this finding logically points to a reading that Fram may have violated admincond, let alone that he did. The thrust of the finding appears to be saying that the community evidence did not reveal any conduct for which Fram should be site banned or desysopped. I'm also a little scrambled in my head at the moment at the separation of incidents into how they were notified to us. Essentially the incidents are occasions of concern by the community regardless of how they arrived on our desk (email, paper, or en.wiki). SilkTork (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Evaluation of community-provided evidence (2)

9) Out of the evidence that was allowed to be made public to Fram and the community, there were two incidents following Fram's pledge to improve their behavior and the WMF conduct warning in which Fram was disrespectful or uncivil ([3], [4]).

There is also evidence that some members of the community have ongoing concerns with Fram's behavior (some expressed in past discussions examined as evidence: [5], [6], [7], [8]; and some expressed in conversations following the Office action, for example: [9], [10]).

Support:

1. I've intentionally not numbered this #a and #b with the previous finding, because these are not intended to be mutually exclusive. I've included the portion about community members' concern over Fram's behavior because it is a possible indicator that we are working with a fairly incomplete set of evidence around problematic but not siteban-worthy behavior. The first set of comments occurred right around when Fram made their pledge, and so it's possible that the concerning behavior stopped then, but there have been community comments at WP:FRAM and elsewhere that indicate ongoing concerns. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
2. I've taken a little time to go over the diffs and accept this finding. The only diff I'm not sure of is the first one to Giant Snowman - that wasn't raised directly in this case (that I can see). The rest are direct diffs from pages that have been raised. Worm^TT(talk) 09:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
3. – Joe (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Yes. SilkTork (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Katie^talk 13:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
7. Mkdw ^talk 17:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
8. Support in principle, although I'm not putting a particular amount of weight on "fuck ArbCom". My issue is Fram's behavior as a whole, not just one blow-up. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

@Worm That Turned: I guess it depends how you define "raised directly". It was linked in the finding of fact that accompanied the GiantSnowman remedy about Fram that the Committee didn't pass, which we linked at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Evidence#Arbcom declined. I personally think that's direct enough, but YMMV. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I've swapped out the last diff because of concerns that it in turn linked to a comment by a banned user. The final set of diffs here is just to back up the fact that there are people who have recently been concerned with Fram's behavior; you could pick one of many diffs from all the conversations at WP:FRAM. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Evaluation of Office-provided case materials

10) The Office provided case materials to the Arbitration Committee, upon which they based their conduct warnings and ban. The materials were partially redacted, notably removing the initial complaints as well as other information within the file. The unredacted parts of the materials show a pattern of borderline harassment against multiple individuals, through hounding the individuals and excessively highlighting their failures. In the period after receiving their second private conduct warning, Fram was abusive towards the Committee as a whole and specific members. The Office subsequently enacted a 1-year ban and desysopped Fram.

Support:

1. There was an awful lot of raw information in the document, but this is a good high level summary. Worm^TT(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. As noted in the principles, "harassment" and "abuse" carry a deal of subjectivity. Personally I would not call the conduct in the T&S report harassment, rather incivility or possibly wikihounding, and I don't consider his comments towards arbs/ArbCom abusive, at least in the context of the dismally low standard of civility which the community currently appears to consider appropriate when offering 'feedback' to the committee. But semantics aside, I can support the substance of this finding of fact: that Fram sometimes takes his criticism of other editors too far, that multiple people have experienced this as harassment, and that he consistently fails to assume good faith in ArbCom and other 'authorities' within the movement. – Joe (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Fram's criticisms of others would tend to start from a position of Fram observing conduct he found inappropriate, and then escalate in frustration when he felt that the response to his observations were not acceptable. Such escalations would inevitably prove to be counter-productive. Fram's motives would generally be good, but by indulging his frustrations to the extent of becoming hostile, he was creating a chilling atmosphere in which it was difficult for the criticised person to feel confident they could improve. Fram is not alone on Wikipedia in indulging his frustrations - indeed, this is a known civility issue. Our community is notably understanding of the stresses involved in creating an online encyclopedia. Indeed, I think only those who have been closely involved in content creation, such as the bulk of the Wikipedia editing community, can fully understand such stresses. As such the community has historically been tolerant toward those who indulge their frustrations as a result of editing stress, especially when those who indulge their frustrations are otherwise hugely beneficial to the project. However, such community tolerance needs to be adjusted so we don't allow otherwise well meaning and respected editors to sound off and harass other editors simply because they are frustrated at the lack of progress to their criticisms. It should not have been the Foundation who spoke to Fram, it should have been us the community reaching out in a collegial manner to advise him to cool it a bit. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. If the general behavior of Fram described in the document was the cut-and-dried, egregious behavior that typically comes to mind when you think of "harassment" (outing, off-wiki stalking, hateful comments, etc.), they would have long ago have been ejected from the community. But most of the behavior was firmly within that grey area of hostility that Wikipedia has struggled to handle for as long as I've been here. It is not behavior that is well covered by policy, nor is it easy behavior to address with "partial sanctions" (a term I'm using here to describe sanctions short of blocks and sitebans, such as topic and interaction bans) to remove the person from areas where it's occurring. I will also note that much of this behavior falls even within the grey areas of what could be called "hounding". GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
5. The document describes behavior that is unpleasant, uncollegial, and arrogant. It's often been said that Fram's obvious commitment to accuracy mitigates these characteristics, but there's good reason to believe that this kind of behavior is counterproductive even on its own terms; people don't learn well when they're stressed, fearful, defensive, or distracted. GW is right that this is difficult behavior to address with ordinary sanctions, but honestly I think a few interaction bans would've been effective had the relevant material been raised through community processes. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
6. The WMF document isn't pretty. It's full of belligerent, arrogant, in-your-face conduct by a long-time administrator. Fram should know better than to treat people, any people, like this. That said, I agree with GW that it's not cut-and-dried "harassment" of the kind normally associated with that word, and I agree with SilkTork that we have to adjust our expectations and tolerance regarding this kind of behavior. Katie^talk 14:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
7. There's not much to say about this finding that hasn't been said already. SilkTork hit the nail on the head when he wrote that the community needs to step up and handle this kind of behavior, especially when it comes from well-regarded content creators. Civility is not optional; it is the fourth pillar. It is absolutely possible to disagree with others and even criticize their conduct without being belligerent about it, and it's time for our tolerance of prominent editors treating others badly to end. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
8. AGK ■ 10:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
9. I do not have anything to add that has not already been said, particularly GW's comment. Mkdw ^talk 16:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I've changed "these unredacted" to "the unredacted parts of" per multiple comments on the talk page. If any arb has an issue, please say. Worm^TT(talk) 08:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate that, it was clearly a bit confusing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Review of first conduct warning

11) In light of Fram's pledge to improve his behaviour (FoF 2), which was included in the case materials under this diff, the conduct warning in April 2018 was premature and should not have been sent at that point.

Support:

1. I can follow point a->b->c in the the WMF logic, however - I personally believe that the decision to send that first conduct warning so soon after Fram's pledge was a mistake. It is clear that someone deciding to do something on their own is going to be more effective than being told to do so, especially in the Wikipedia environment, and I would have expected the WMF to hold on any conduct warning to see what happened based on that message. I do not see any such consideration in the document, so perhaps they missed it - but the case request itself was taken into account. If there was a point of failure, I believe it was an over-reaction with that first conduct warning. This is, of course, putting aside my personal thoughts about WMF conduct warnings - I don't like them as a concept, but accept they are within the WMF remit. Worm^TT(talk) 08:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
2. I agree with WTT here that the material provided does not support a need for WMF intervention as of the 2018 conduct warning. This has been bothering me since I first read the T&S report. Had it been raised through normal community processes, there was plenty there to support an interaction ban - so I feel slightly differently than WTT; I think we could have told Fram what to do, and actually had the social infrastructure to support and enforce it. (Or, had we known about the problem, could have waited to see whether this "pledge" worked and intervened if it didn't.) If the WMF had a problem with the way community processes operated as of 2018 - especially to the point that they were thinking of stepping in themselves! - they could certainly have shared that information with us at the time, even if they wished to keep the specific complaint prompting their concerns private. I disagree that this is somehow not appropriate for us to review or opine on, though of course we are restricted to reviewing the information in the redacted T&S document, so it remains possible, albeit unlikely IMO, that there is additional context that would illuminate this decision. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Like it or not, the WMF (specifically T&S) issue conduct warnings in parallel to community dispute resolution processes, using rules and procedures that we don't (fully) know about. ArbCom isn't invited or qualified to review their decisions. – Joe (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
2. We are not here to investigate and review the WMF. We have been provided very little insight into their decision making process or the rationales for how and why they acted. Even if we had been provided this information, our mandate is local governance. The case would be considerably expanded outside our remit. In rare but not unprecedented move, we provided the WMF with an open letter asking for the decision about Fram to be held here on the English Wikipedia. We have been given that authorization and we should confine this case to exactly the matter on hand. Mkdw ^talk 15:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Per Mkdw. I don't know what their process is or is not, and therefore I'm not qualified to say what was and wasn't premature. Katie^talk 15:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Per Mkdw. I agree that they probably should have seen the pledge and held off on the warning, but we are not really in a position to be telling T&S how to issue their warnings. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Per Mkdw. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I would prefer to leave the Foundation out of this, and simply concentrate on Fram's conduct as we are aware of it. With GW's finding of Fram's pledge to dial back incivility, I don't see that we even need to now refer to the WMF warning. We can decide ourselves if Fram has lived up to this pledge in the incidents we are aware of this year in the GiantSnowman case, the Rama case, the LouisAlain ANI incident, the pushback against ArbCom, etc. And these can all diffed and discussed because they are a matter of public record. No need for secret evidence or referring to the Foundation document. Just stuff that we are already aware of. SilkTork (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

   SilkTork, This case was to review the ban on Fram by T&S. That was the scope. We turned down community requested cases on Fram. Twisting this case to be a community case on Fram at this late stage would be highly unfair. Worm^TT(talk) 10:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

   I do not agree that we were given the authority to review T&S by the WMF Board. As I said above, we were authorized make a local decision about Fram by taking over matter. We did not ask, nor were we asked to investigate T&S and whether they conducted themselves appropriately. It is outside our purview. Mkdw ^talk 15:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

   Mkdw, we were asked to review the ban. The ban was predicated on the warning. The warning was incorrect. Stating that should be part of the review. Worm^TT(talk) 15:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

   @SilkTork: I can't get behind the idea of digging around on our own for diffs or going off of "stuff we are already aware of". The evidence phase of the case exists so that evidence can be presented to ArbCom (not dug up by ArbCom), and so that the accused party has an opportunity to respond to it. A big issue in this case is that Fram has not been able to view and respond to some of the private evidence. If we go around finding new evidence, even if it's public, there is no evidence phase open during which Fram could respond—we'd just be whacking things on the PD with no discussion. That is why I've suggested opening a new case, so that there can be a proper evidence phase where public evidence is presented, as well as be discussed by Fram and others. Unless you are suggesting we backtrack and re-open the evidence and workshop phases of this case (which can't possibly be less messy than opening a subsequent case), this is unfair to Fram. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

Wordsmithing welcome. Worm^TT(talk) 08:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

No off-wiki misconduct

12) There was no evidence of off-wiki misconduct in either the Office provided case materials, or the community provided evidence.

Support:

1. Worm^TT(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. This is important to point out, as until now it has generally been safe to assume that office actions do involve off- or cross-wiki matters. – Joe (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
5. This is important, as Joe says. It certainly was my assumption. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
6. It was my assumption as well, and I was surprised that there was no off-wiki evidence in the document. None. Katie^talk 14:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
8. AGK ■ 10:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
9. Mkdw ^talk 16:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Remaining issues

13) Beyond the specifics of Fram's case, there is a broadly shared view that Wikipedia/Wikimedia processes for raising and addressing harassment-related issues warrant continued review and potential improvement. However, there is a consensus that on-wiki issues on English Wikipedia should generally remain within the purview of the English Wikipedia volunteer community, including this Committee, unless there are specific reasons that the Office should address a particular concern or type of concern.

Support:

1. It's worth noting that in my opinion "attacks against the committee" - which makes it more difficult for the committee to act - does not constitute a specific reason for the Office to act. Worm^TT(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. – Joe (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. I will echo WTT that it is both difficult and awkward for the Arbitration Committee to handle issues involving attacks on the Committee itself, but that has historically not prevented the ArbCom from handling cases in which some of the named parties have attacked the Committee or its members. It would perhaps be worthwhile to include discussion on how best to handle this particular issue in the RfC that will (assuming the remedy passes) follow this case. "Specific reasons" in this finding of fact is somewhat vague, but the on-wiki issues that the English Wikipedia (and the ArbCom specifically) leaves to the Office primarily include legal threats, child protection issues, and threats of harm. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
5. What WTT and GW said. Awkwardness is not sufficient justification to bypass community processes. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
6. We're people too, we arbitrators, but we got ourselves into this mess to make hard choices, and usually there are people who disagree with some or all of those choices. I said somewhere else that it's okay to say what you want about the group and we individuals as long as you do it respectfully. I agree with WTT that an attack on a committee member or the committee as a group isn't by itself a suitable excuse for the Office to get involved. Katie^talk 14:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
8. We probably need to start hearing complaints about our own actions in a more structured manner, by creating a formal appeals process. "Attacks against the committee" are, at their heart, Wikipedia users asking us to do something differently. Methodically handling the requests of such users gives all stakeholders a predictable, transparent process for effecting change – which takes the heat out of situations and turns "attacks" into "discussion". People are so harsh because it seems like the only way of getting an arbitrator to listen. AGK ■ 11:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
9. I would say "ideally", but I think we as a community, and within it the Arbitration Committee, need to carefully reflect and examine that we have not be effective at adequately dealing with cases of long-term abuse, harassment, and incivility with respect to "unblockables". Until these issues are addressed, our ability to self-govern will always be precarious and with it the possibility of intervention on the horizon. I do not believe the status quo is sustainable, despite significant opposition for change, if we truly want to ensure self-governance remains on the English Wikipedia. Mkdw ^talk 16:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Community consultation

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

Support:

1. Worm^TT(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. – Joe (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
6. Katie^talk 14:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
8. Accurate. AGK ■ 11:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
9. Mkdw ^talk 16:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I have removed "early" has the "community consultation on partial and temporary office actions/09 2019" has not yet opened. Mkdw ^talk 20:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Fram's conduct as an administrator

15) The Arbitration Committee has received public and privately submitted evidence about Fram's conduct, including the Office provided case materials and a number of individual submissions. The accumulated evidence (public and private) supports the view that Fram's conduct was not consistent with WP:ADMINCOND. Due to confidentiality restrictions, especially with respect to the T&S report, a significant and substantive portion of the evidence submitted cannot be disclosed to either Fram or the community at large as would typically be expected in a standard Arbitration proceeding.

Support:

1. The committee has two major remaining questions: (1) whether the collective evidence demonstrates Fram's conduct was not consistent with ADMINCOND [FOF]; (2) whether Fram should be desysopped [proposed remedy]. Each have their own considerations. If the answer is yes to the first question (the FOF), then each member of the committee must decide for themselves about how to answer the second question (the proposed remedy). To weight whether the committee should accept private evidence when considering case remedies, even if the evidence must remain entirely confidential; or whether no action may be taken against an individual unless the evidence is made public. Either option deprives an involved party of a completely fair process. Private hearings on the English Wikipedia are poorly defined, but it is my conclusion that the intention of private hearings was for the elected members of the arbitration committee to be able to consider confidential evidence. Until we have a system in place that will prevent individuals from further attacks by protecting their privacy and where individuals accused of misconduct have an opportunity to defend themselves, this will be a critical and enduring problem. Remedy 2d has been the subject of much debate and polarizing discussion. I realize it is an unpopular position among many, but I believe it is for ArbCom to consider the conduct of administrators in private and public hearings, and for the community to decide when and to whom the administrative tools may be granted. In doing so, no decision is ever permanent or exclusively made by one group or another. As I have mentioned elsewhere, I would fully respect the community's decision to grant Fram the tools again and decline a case request that would seek to re-litigate the same case. Mkdw ^talk 20:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
2. I recognize that no one is happy here. Contrary to the feelings I get from some of the comments, I am not taking the easy way out, nor did I decide to vote to desysop based on the phases of the moon or some other casual or capricious method. I hold this position about desysopping because I do not feel Fram's conduct, as outlined in the totality of the evidence we have received, meets ADMINCOND. I believe that requires me to vote for a desysop. If that makes me unpopular, so be it. Y'all put me here to do what I thought was right and correct. I feel it is right and correct to have another RFA, if that is what Fram wishes to do. Further to what Mkdw said about process, the job of the next committee and the work of the community for the next several months must be to hammer out a process for handling private information while allowing persons whom complaints have been against to defend themselves. If this doesn't happen and right soon, mark my words that the WMF will find a way to do it for us. Katie^talk 20:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
3. My support for a desysop has never come from one or two diffs alone, but from the totality of the evidence received about Fram's behavior. Although I think FoF 10 did a reasonable job of describing that there was significant evidence received of Fram's negative conduct ("a pattern of borderline harassment against multiple individuals, through hounding the individuals and excessively highlighting their failures"), the wording of this finding more clearly identifies that behavior as a failure of ADMINCOND, and therefore as the basis for a desysop remedy. I'm grateful to Mkdw for taking the time to write it, and I agree with both him and Katie that as a community, we need to work together to create our own processes for dealing with these situations before the WMF decides to step in and do it for us. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
4. I agree with this, but per principles 9 and 12 I do not support desysopping someone based on evidence we cannot share with them, and the evidence we were able to make public does not alone justify a desysop. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
5. I think there is enough public available evidence (diffs cited in this decision) to support a desysop given the high expectations we have of administrator conduct. But it should be not there is also a considerable weight of private evidence supporting the same conclusion. – Joe (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
6. There is nothing in this finding that I oppose, so I find myself here. It is true that Fram has fallen below standards I would expect from an administrator - there were instances in both the community evidence and the case materials where this was shown. However, the community evidence (i.e. the stuff we could show Fram) did not show anything that would go beyond an admonishment. The case materials, which we cannot show Fram or the community, show a pattern of haranguing and excessive focus on minor issues - effectively bullying high profile wikipedians - as well as thumbing his nose at Arbcom, arbitrators and Foundation staff. However as we cannot share these materials with Fram or the community - I would not be prepared to do anything more than admonish Fram for them. This finding changes nothing for me, despite my support. Worm^TT(talk) 07:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

   I've changed "70 page T&S document" to "Office provided case materials" - they are synonymous, but throughout the decision that's how we've been referring to things - and are terms clearly defined earlier in the decision. Hope that's fine. Worm^TT(talk) 08:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC) Upon reflection, I've changed the title too. Worm^TT(talk) 09:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

7. This is accurate. It's also worth saying that the T&S document outlines events that took place on Wikipedia and so are not secret. Fram's conduct is available for anyone to look at and examine for themselves. Where we perhaps have let down the community and Fram is in not being able to compile incidents together and explain them in a meaningful manner. We have been constrained in this partly by the restraints placed on us regarding the T&S document where we were unsure what we could refer to - even of the number of incidents and reports in the document, let alone the details, and partly by an understanding that ArbCom can only make decisions based on evidence mentioned during the evidence phase. We have also been hampered in making a clear decision by the difficulty in discussing these matters with Fram. This has been an unsatisfactory and frustrating case where because of these circumstances any decision is fraught, even deciding to dismiss the case and start again fresh. In retrospect, having gone through it, the better approach might have been for ArbCom not to hold a case on Fram straightaway, but to void the Foundation ban and accompanying desysop, and once that was done, hold a case from scratch, calling then for evidence, which could be examined and questioned by everyone as it was being developed. However, that is not the route we took. So we are faced with having to make a decision based on the less than ideal circumstances before us, and I understand GW's decision not to vote for a formal desysop because of these inadequate circumstances. I personally edge over to a desysop because I am persuaded that there is available evidence that Fram has missed some of the essential purpose of WP:ADMINCOND, and that Fram felt unable to give a reassurance that they would pay closer attention to the purpose of WP:ADMINCOND, which would have gone a long way to assuage concerns and to preventing future tension. I'm also comfortable that any desysop decision here can be immediately reversed by the community via a RFA if that is what the community wish, and so is the least potentially unsatisfactory outcome of this case. As we know, it is far easier to sysop someone than it is to desysop. SilkTork (talk) 09:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I guess I just don't really see the point of this? I opposed the desysop already. If this case goes on any longer, the current theme of Fram's talk page posts may well talk even me out of that, but I don't think more FoF proposals along the same lines as the existing ones is going to change my view. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Fram's 1 year ban is vacated

1a) The Committee decides that Fram's ban was not required, and therefore vacates it.

Support:

1. Fram's conduct has been problematic in many respects, but on balance I do not think either ArbCom or the community would have banned them under the same circumstances. The problem was not so much what they were doing (they are almost always right in their criticism of other editor's conduct, and the project needs people willing to scrutinise those in positions of trust) but how they were going about it. In other words, Fram definitely needs to soften their approach, but unless and until it's shown that they're not going to do that, a ban would be punitive rather than preventative. – Joe (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. The problem here has not been Fram in isolation, it has been the community in allowing a committed and well meaning editor to behave rudely and aggressively. Fram is not the only editor who has felt justified in speaking harshly to others, and has not faced the whole community expressing their disapproval. Every editor on this community who supports hostility as a method of dealing with concerns, is responsible for what happened to Fram. Fram should not be punished for the environment we created which allowed him to feel he was justified in his aggression. SilkTork (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. As I wrote in my comment accompanying my vote in FoF 6, most of Fram's behavior that was mentioned in evidence fell "firmly within that grey area of hostility that Wikipedia has struggled to handle for as long as I've been here." There were occasional instances that were severe (the attacks against ArbCom as one example), but the majority of the issue is that on multiple occasions Fram has identified editors whose contributions they have felt were substandard, and then over a significant period of time followed (see principle 5) those editors and scrutinized their contributions extremely closely, often bluntly and sometimes quite rudely. Although correcting the errors of other editors is a key part of Wikipedia's culture, editors are expected to do so carefully and constructively. If an editor believes that another editor with whom they have clashed is displaying a pattern of substandard contributions, they should involve neutral parties to address that concern rather than hounding that editor (principle 6).
   Although I believe Fram's behavior has been unacceptable (both the attacks and the excessive scrutiny), the community in general has not taken a strong stance against editors who maintain plausible deniability that they are not intentionally harassing other editors, but are only focused on improving the encyclopedia. This is particularly true for administrators, editors who have been active for a long time, and those whose own contributions are exceptional—Fram fit within all three of these categories.
   The community (including the Arbitration Committee) has also generally allowed more leeway when it comes to attacks against groups, particularly groups with more "power" than the editor making the attack (in this case, the Arbitration Committee).
   As it currently exists, the section of harassment policy that discusses hounding leaves plenty of room for Fram's behavior—the concerns they raised were not always without "good cause", and (as evidenced by the extensive discussion that has happened at WP:FRAM and elsewhere) it is not without question that Fram was engaging in these behaviors with the intention of causing distress. Policy also makes no room for the distinct possibility that there is a discrepancy between whether a target of these discussions experiences distress and whether the instigator intends to cause it.
   Even was it agreed that Fram was hounding editors, it is unlikely that this behavior would have led to a lengthy ban (either of one year or of three months). More likely it would have been addressed with interaction bans, or possibly a topic ban from the area(s) of conflict—very likely it would have resulted in a desysop. While I do not agree that "partial sanctions" (interaction/topic bans) tend to put a stop to this kind root behavior (they rather are more like playing whack-a-mole when the behavior comes to a head), they are the standard. I suspect that the Wikimedia Foundation also disagreed that these sanctions are useful in addressing the cause of the issue, and, like myself, wished to see the English Wikipedia take a stronger stance on harassment and other behaviors that can drive editors away from the project. However, imposing the ban themselves was not an appropriate or effective way to move forward, and neither would it be appropriate for the Arbitration Committee to do so (or for me to vote that we do).
   It is the community as a whole that accepts these kinds of behaviors, and it cannot be just one body (the WMF or the Arbitration Committee) that decides they are unacceptable and acts against them. If the community does not wish to allow editors, even those who have made great contributions to this project or edited for years, to drive off other editors with plausibly productive but intensely critical focus, then the community must take a stance against this behavior in policy and in support for said policy's enforcement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
4. I find myself agreeing strongly with almost every word GW has written. 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. First choice. Worm^TT(talk) 07:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
5. GW's post is very thoughtful. I agree that I almost certainly would not have supported banning Fram based on the evidence available if it had come to us in a normal community process, so I have to support vacating the attempt to impose that sanction from outside those processes. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
6. I don't think a ban would have had any support if this had come to us, so I can't support keeping the sanction in place, but it's not a get out of jail free card, at least not from me. Katie^talk 14:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
7. Per GW and Katie - this does not mean I believe Fram's conduct has been acceptable, but if WMF hadn't stepped in, it's unlikely this would have been resolved with a ban. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
8. Fram should not have been banned. AGK ■ 11:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
9. I had a longer statement prepared but GW has eloquently expressed my position on the matter. The only thing I will add is that T&S involved themselves at the direct request and urging of individuals in the community who felt harassed, hounded, bullied, and attacked. These individuals strongly believed that ArbCom and the English Wikipedia was either incapable or unwilling to address these issues relating long-term harassment and incivility. We do not have a strong track record, especially as of late, of adequately protecting individuals, who have come forward with complaints about being harassed and attacked, from being attacked further. In the interest of moving forward, the community has made it clear that self-governance is a top priority for our project and therefore vacating the ban to take over responsibility for the situation. I hope we can address these outstanding issues in the future and prove we are equal to the task. Mkdw ^talk 18:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Fram's 1 year ban is disproportionate

1b) The Committee decides that Fram's ban of 1 year was disproportionate, and therefore removes it with time served.

Support:

1. This is currently where I sit, however I do not currently oppose the other options. Worm^TT(talk) 14:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

   Moving to second choice, having read GW's comments. Worm^TT(talk) 07:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

2. Second choice after 1a. – Joe (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Second choice after 1a. SilkTork (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Second choice, per my comment at 1a. Although the siteban was a disproportionate sanction, some sanction to end the behavior would have been appropriate, as would a desysop. I don't think a three-month ban would've been my first choice, but given that Fram has now been banned for that period and desysopped I would rather we move forward with the unban, take over the desysop, and require another RfA than spend time trying to settle on an additional sanction that would be representative of current policy, actually address the issue at hand, and not be punitive. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Seemingly-unnecessary second-choice vote. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
6. Second choice after 1a. Katie^talk 14:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
7. Second choice, although 1a looks like it will unanimously pass. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Refer to my comment on Remedy 1a. Banning Fram was wrong in the first place. AGK ■ 11:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Voted for 1a. Mkdw ^talk 18:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

Fram's 1 year ban is justified

1c) The Committee decides that Fram's ban of 1 year was justified and shall remain in force.

Support:

Oppose:

1. Per my comments under 1a. – Joe (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. SilkTork (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Per my comments at 1a. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
4. I've said before that I don't believe in time limited bans, so would have voted against this one either way. Had I felt it was justified, I would be proposing an indefinite ban. Worm^TT(talk) 07:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
6. Per WTT. Katie^talk 14:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
7. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
8. AGK ■ 11:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Voted for 1a. Mkdw ^talk 18:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

Fram's sysop userright is reinstated

2a) The Committee decides that the removal of Fram's sysop userright was not needed, and therefore returns it to him.

Support:

1. Second choice, per my comment under 2c. Worm^TT(talk) 08:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Honestly, I am really weakly in support here. Especially after reading Fram's comments on meta since the PD was posted - yes, under the circumstances it's understandable to be upset and angry, but that did weaken my feelings here. I'm always surprised at how infrequently people in this community take advantage of golden opportunities to be the bigger person. It doesn't even have to be out of altruism, or a desire for warm fuzzy feelings. If you respond graciously to being wronged, and acknowledge your own part in the situation, people are more likely to respect you, and your ability to persuade the community of your views will improve. The right tactical approach here is "You know, I really care deeply about this project; I hoped to use my research skills to improve the accuracy of our content, and I never meant to cause anyone any distress. I regret that I had that effect and now commit to changing my behavior in the future by [fill in the blank] so that we can continue to improve the quality of our content in a less stressful way." That would be a convincing demonstration that the interest really was in quality and not in Being Right, and an acknowledgment that there are less unpleasant ways of pursuing the same positive goal. The wrong response is "here are many many paragraphs about why I was right about everything and everyone else is wrong wrong wrong." But. Buuuuuuut. If this had all come to us as a normal case, I really doubt I would have supported a desysop. So I can't convince myself to get on board the "new RfA" train now. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Second choice, per my comment in 2e. The removal of Fram's userright appears to have been a housekeeping action more than anything, so I don't think it's a matter of whether it's needed or not so much as whether we want to desysop or return the userright as we restore things to the status quo. Still, supporting this as the outcome is functionally the same. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Per my comment under 2c. – Joe (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

   I'm not sure about the wording (but I have not been involved in shaping the PD, so unaware of the thinking behind it) as it might be seen as odd to siteban an admin but allow them to keep their admin tools, but regardless of the wording, I think the question of Fram's admin status should be decided by the community when he returns to Wikipedia and is able to respond to questions and assure the community that he will tone down his frustration, and if someone is not responding how he would like, that he gets at least one other admin to look into the issue. SilkTork (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

2. Also per my comments at 2c. Katie^talk 14:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

   I don't really know where to put this vote—I oppose this because the WMF should not have removed Fram's userright, and I also oppose us choosing to not take over the desysop. However, it is my second choice to option 2d. Although I think removing Fram's sysop rights is the correct outcome, I do not support "declining to reinstate" the userrights removed by the Wikimedia Foundation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

3. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Mkdw ^talk 16:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
5. With the same remarks as I made on 2c & 2d. AGK ■ 13:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. SilkTork (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

I'm still re-thinking my way through this, so I'm not coming down in favour of any option at the moment. SilkTork (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Trust of the community (resysop)

2b) The Committee declines to unilaterally reinstate Fram's sysop userright, preferring to trust that decision to the community at an WP:RfA. Fram may request the user-right through an WP:RfA at any time on his return.

Support:

1. This is where I currently sit. Worm^TT(talk) 14:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

   I'm going to re-affirm this vote here. My opinions on Fram's behaviour are not relevant here, because Fram hasn't had a fair shake, no chance to see the full evidence (all he has now is a summary that we've put together). I would quite happily pass this to the community for a re-confirmation RfA, where Fram can explain himself and the community can make up their minds based on what's happened in this case and their own opinions of Fram, but I cannot support an effective arbcom desysop (and therefore prejudging any subsequent RfA) based largely of evidence that Fram could not see. My second choice has to be returning the user-right. Worm^TT(talk) 08:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

   This is what I thought I was voting for at 2c, but now that the wording has been clarified, this is my position. I don't think ArbCom has the authority from the community to either desysop or resysop Fram. I will repeat here what I said at 2c that Fram has infringed WP:ADMINCOND "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others." I do feel that Fram lost sight of that "respectful, civil manner" enough times that the community should decide if they have confidence that he will adjust his behavior going forward. I think it's either this, or we find a solution which encourages Fram to seek assistance from fellow admins to deal with problematic users/issues before he loses patience. SilkTork (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC) I'm currently at 2d, and absent a workable remedy that is where I think I'll stay. SilkTork (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

   First choice. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC) Struck, in favor of 2d. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. In favour of 2c 2d – the effect of the two remedies are the same, but I don't think it's the committee's place to tell Fram they have to go through a new RfA. They may prefer not to. – Joe (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

   In favour of 2c. SilkTork (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

2. Prefer 2c, which is less ambiguous. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC) Per my comments at 2d. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC) Going to stop using specific numbers at this point so I don't have to strike this if a new but functionally similar remedy is proposed. I oppose us not restoring Fram's sysop userright. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Agree, prefer 2c. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Also prefer 2c. Katie^talk 14:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
5. The conduct issues were remanded to ArbCom and we should resolve them entirely. Punting this back to the community would not be right. AGK ■ 11:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
6. In favour of 2d. Mkdw ^talk 16:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
7. In favor of 2d. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

I think Kusma's question on the talk page is worth addressing—is this meant to be interpreted to mean that we would open a discussion at RfA immediately after the case closed? It would be quite odd to do so if Fram had no interest in regaining their admin rights. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Kusma and any others, the idea of this remedy was that the decision on whether Fram should remain an administrator should remain with the community. Therefore the matter should be referred there, without prejudice of a statement about admin behaviour from Arbcom. Fram should be able to chose when he can run through the RfA process, it need not be immediate, or happen at all should they not chose to. Worm^TT(talk) 07:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I think if the wording were along the lines suggested by Barkeep49: "ArbCom wishes to entrust the decision about whether to restore Fram as an administrator to the community", then I could get behind this. How about The Committee declines to unilaterally reinstate Fram's sysop userright, preferring to trust that decision to the community at an WP:RfA. Fram may request the user-right through an WP:RfA at any time on his return.. SilkTork (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork, I'd certainly support that rewording, it's the point I was hoping to make. And since I'm the only arb currently in the support column, feel free to reword Worm^TT(talk) 12:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the switch Worm^TT(talk) 14:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Removal of sysop user-rights

2c) 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. Fram may request the user-right through an WP:RfA

Support:

I firmly believe that admins should be held to the highest standard of conduct. Enough doubt has been cast on Fram's conduct in this case that, at the least, another RfA is appropriate. – Joe (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC) Moved to 2d. – Joe (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:ADMINCOND "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others." I do feel that Fram lost sight of that "respectful, civil manner" enough times that the community should decide if they have confidence that he will adjust his behavior going forward. SilkTork (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Fram's behavior has not met the standards at WP:ADMINCOND, and so I am not in favor of returning their sysop userright without a new RfA. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

1. Second choice after 1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

   While I do not support a ban, Fram's conduct falls far below what we expect at ADMINCOND. If the community is okay with that, by all means, resysop him. Katie^talk 14:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC) Striking, moving to 2d. Katie^talk 23:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

   Second choice after 2b. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC) Struck, in favor of 2d. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

2. While they were hard-working with the bit, the evidence in this case clarified for me that Fram consistently fails to adhere to our community's expectations of how administrators should behave with other users. How we got to considering this question does not alter what is the correct outcome: we should not be leaving a sysop bit with Fram. AGK ■ 11:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I'm torn between 2a and 2c - which is the whole reason I created 2b. I do feel that Fram has overstepped the bounds of ADMINCOND, per the other arbs, however the process to have the bits removed was not followed. Fram was not able to comment on the WMF evidence, had he sat out the WMF ban, he may have been re-sysopped immediately. When it comes down to it, if we do not refer this to the community, then I believe my second choice is that we restore the user-right and allow the community to bring a proper case - should it be needed. Worm^TT(talk) 08:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose in favour of 2b. I am actually not in favour of either desysopping or resysopping Fram. I am in favour of a community discussion via RfA, which is what 2b is about. Based on the evidence before us and the community, Fram has infringed WP:ADMINCOND, however he has done this with good rather than malicious intent. Given Fram's hostile attitude toward ArbCom, I don't feel an admonishment from ArbCom would be that effective. And civility restrictions are contentious to enforce. I would rather Fram willingly agree to dial back his behaviour and seek assistance with problematic users/issues, and the best place I see for that - at the moment - is via a RfA. My reading of Fram is that he is honest and has good intentions, so if he says to the community that he will dial back his frustrations, I would believe him and vote for him. SilkTork (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
3. I do not support "declining to reinstate" Fram's sysop rights. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Per GW. If the matter has been referred to us, we should take responsibility. Mkdw ^talk 16:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
5. In favor of 2d. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Worm That Turned Following up on some questions from the talk page: Why is combined with the overturned decisions mentioned in the community evidence included when 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? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, FoF5 on its own was not proportionate, but in combination with FoF6, it could be used to justify the remedy. That said, I wrote the remedy to open discussion, and as I haven't supported myself, perhaps tweaking in conjunction with arbs who feel this is the right way forward may be a good idea. Worm^TT(talk) 17:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I feel that Fram's behavior as described in FoF6 is sufficient for a desysop, but do not wish to factor in the overturned admin actions. I'll add a new option for it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Removal of sysop user-rights (2)

2d) 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. They may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

Support:

Fram's behavior has not met the standards at WP:ADMINCOND, and is sufficiently severe that I think it is appropriate to remove Fram's admin tools. This whole business about whether we "decline to reinstate" the tools or decide to remove them ourselves seems strange—in my view, we either restore the status quo or we decide to take over the desysop decision as our own. We've agreed that the Wikimedia Foundation should not be in the business of placing these time-limited bans for reasons outside of the ones we allude to in P2 and FoF8, so we should not be upholding the accompanying desysop without ourselves agreeing it was necessary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

1. Per my comments on 2c. The effect is the same, so equal choice for me. AGK ■ 11:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
2. I firmly believe that admins should be held to the highest standard of conduct. Enough doubt has been cast on Fram's conduct in this case that, at the least, another RfA is appropriate. – Joe (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

   Moved from 2c. I agree that the overturned blocks are not really a problem, and having read the comments on the talk page about the WMF being out of process, also think that we should come down squarely on one side or the other. – Joe (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

3. Per my comments at #Evaluation of community-provided evidence. Mkdw ^talk 16:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
4. First choice, moved from 2c. After some list discussion and reading the talk page, I agree that we need to come down here instead of a simple decline to reinstate. My sentiment remains the same: if the community is okay with this behavior from an administrator, and Fram wants the mop back, by all means, go ahead and give it to them. Katie^talk 23:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
5. First choice, on review. I disagree with WTT that Fram has no way to know how to improve his behavior. He has received criticism (though not sanctions) for his attitude in the past and has made assurances that he will improve his civility, so he clearly has some understanding of what needs to change. The balance of evidence shows that he has not actually done so, to the point that he is in violation of ADMINCOND. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
6. I have been in discussion with Fram, and had some remedies available which addressed the concerns regarding Fram's conduct ( "Fram agrees to abide by WP:ADMINCOND, leading by example by offering assistance where possible and appropriate; directing problematic users to the appropriate policies and guidelines; and bringing the matter to the attention of another admin (or admins) when a problematic user has not amended their ways after appropriate assistance has been given." and "Fram agrees to abide by WP:ADMINCOND and "behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others", which includes - where appropriate - raising concerns before taking an admin action, and voicing any concerns, including toward those in authority or that Fram feels "should know better", in a tone and language appropriate for civil discussion.") Fram has declined to discuss the matter further. Such an uncooperative attitude does not bode well for the future, therefore I am placing myself here. And I will likely vote oppose at a future RfA unless Fram can give some assurance that they will address their behaviour. I am not comfortable with the wording, and would prefer this to be a regular desysop; however, I am not going to quibble further. I think we've exhausted all avenues, and so I will be voting to close this case. SilkTork (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I'm reluctantly opposing. I do agree with the first sentence - but as Fram has not been able to see the case materials, he is unable to respond to them. By respond, I mean he cannot improve his behaviour so as to reach a point where he can become an administrator again in the future. With the refer to the community - the community would either be able to return his user-right or be able to state what they would like from Fram before they can. If he were to run an RfA after this - assumptions would be made and no clear answer would be given. Fundamentally, I cannot accept a desysop for cause when Fram cannot be told fully what the cause is. Worm^TT(talk) 07:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
2. I agree with WTT (including with the reluctance). I don't think the evidence stacks up. I'd go for a probation/review along the lines of the one from the Giant Snowman case, that is explicit about what specific behaviors need to stop. To be honest I don't really get the idea that it would be too hard to measure whether Fram has posted more than 500 words on a subject or not, but 'one single post per issue' or some other variant would likely have the same effect of enforced disengagement. We do need a functioning remedy system for this class of problems, because Fram is not the first and won't be the last to find a genuine problem, obsess over it to the point of alienating people, and then defend his behavior with a lot of text about how being right justifies being a jerk. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
3. I oppose us not restoring Fram's sysop userright. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

• I am going to review community and T&S evidence again. SilkTork (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
• Without a doubt this whole situation has been contentious and controversial where very little about the process and circumstances have been ideal. Views on the matter are expected to vary greatly as not only evident from those who submitted evidence but by those who reviewed it as well. T&S, rightly or wrongly, resolved that a one-year ban and desysop was warranted. Others including myself have voted to vacate the the ban and for ArbCom to take over the desysop while re/sysop will be in the hands of Fram and the community. I respect Worm That Turned's position to entirely vacate everything out of concern for a fair due process. I am very conflicted over this decision because we do not have a fair due process for victims either. A lot of people wrote to T&S about Fram because they did not have faith in the current process to resolve the issue and they did not feel safe publicly coming forward with their complaints. This includes before Fram's ban and in the days and weeks following. It is an aspect that is impossible to ignore.

I cannot stress enough that this case will not be able to resolve many of the outstanding issues facing Wikipedia. The community will have to make some critically difficult decisions in the days ahead. There have been some incredibly important questions asked over the past three to four months, many of which have not yet been able to be answered. If we as a community want to continue to self-govern, then we will need to be able to demonstrate that we are capable of doing so responsibly. Our current process is failing a portion of our community and potentially at great cost to the project. This case will certainly not be the answer. Continuing along with the status quo will most likely be one of the fastest routes out of self-governance where the Wikimedia Foundation will be forced to intercede. Organizations are under substantial and increasing pressure to protect their employees and stakeholders, including volunteers, from various types and degrees of harassment and abuse. I do not think we have the answers yet on how to balance transparency; a fair process for all involved; the ability to protect the privacy of those involved; and to protect them from further attacks. I am not sure if we will and I dread the alternative that swings too far to one side. Mkdw ^talk 18:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Mkdw, It's not so much about the process, I can live with cutting through red tape, but if Fram cannot be told how to change - he cannot hope to improve.

I accept that we have an issue with people being harangued if they raise complaints - however full anonymity, even from the committee is clearly too far the other way. There is the issue of scrutiny of the complaint, which can go to the credibility of the complainant. These are important factors. Our entire system (and I mean beyond arbitration, to core wikipedia values) focuses on transparency and open discussion to ensure consensus and neutrality. If one side has the direct ear of the (for want of a better word) "judge" that immediately rings alarm bells - is it down to that "judge" to detect the bias? If the other side has cannot see what they are accused of, then how can they explain their actions? If they do not know who has complained, how can they put past disputes into context - and context matters.

It is essential that we stand up to harassment and abuse - but having worked on this case heavily and followed this situation for 3 months, I do not believe the secrecy is the answer. Worm^TT(talk) 10:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Fram's sysop userright is reinstated (2)

2e) Fram's sysop administrator tools were removed as a housekeeping action accompanying the WMF Office ban, and not as a separate sanction. If remedy 1a declaring that Fram's ban was not required passes, the sysop userright will also be restored.

Support:

1. There is not sufficient evidence (as described in FoF 9) for me to support a desysop at this time. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Second choice (as functionally the same as 2a). I'd still prefer this was a "no-fault" RfA, but I'm clearly of a minority on that. Worm^TT(talk) 07:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
3. This works for me too. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm starting to get lost in the logical threads here regarding Fram's admin status. I would much prefer if we dealt with the desysopping issue as a straightforward: do we desysop Fram or not? If we agree that the Foundation ban should be overturned, then the desysopping also gets overturned, otherwise we wrap ourselves in knots working out a variety of wordings to say that Fram should or not not be resysopped. I don't think anyone here on the Committee nor in the community feels that Fram is going to run amok with the tools. It is Fram's approach to problem solving that is the issue, and that approach will remain if Fram is an admin or not (unless the approach is addressed in this case). At the moment I feel we are letting Fram and the community down by not working toward an appropriate solution, instead we are scratching our heads over the exact wordings of a desyop or undesyop remedy. If we can't resolve it here, then an RfA is the next best thing. SilkTork (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
2. As I've stated above, we're looking at Fram's conduct in totality. I do not believe that conduct meets ADMINCOND. If Fram wants to go through RFA again, they may at any time. Katie^talk 12:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
3. The case was more than just a decision to vacate T&S' action. The English Wikipedia community requested for these matters to be decided locally. Desysop with the option for Fram to pursue another RFA is one of the major decisions being considerd. As such, I do not support an automatic restoration as it conflicts with other FOFs and remedies I am voting for. Mkdw ^talk 18:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
4. As per my comments at FoF 6, the scope of this case was never limited to simply overturning the ban or not, but to examine Fram's conduct and interactions with other users. There is nothing preventing us from considering other remedies such as desysopping. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Per above. We're not narrowly reviewing T&S' sanction here. We accepted a case looking at Fram's conduct. – Joe (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I would rather we dealt with this technically in the motion, and just get on and decide ourselves, independent from the Foundation, on Fram's conduct. SilkTork (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

I am placing this at 2e rather than perhaps the more logical 2b, simply because I don't want to confuse the comments where we have referred to the various 2x remedies. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Fram admonished

3) Fram is admonished for failing to exhibit the respectful, civil conduct expected by the administrator conduct portion of policy, and warned that future inappropriate conduct may result in their administrator privileges being revoked.

Support:

1. Support as a second choice to remedy 4. If remedy four passes, this should not be counted as a support vote. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

   Also noting that if any of the desysop remedies pass, I will oppose this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

2. I think this is clear from both the public and private evidence. Worm^TT(talk) 07:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

   Noting that if a desysop passes, I oppose any admonishment. Worm^TT(talk) 16:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

3. Support only if Removal of sysop user-rights (2d) doesn't pass, otherwise decline. SilkTork (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Second choice to 2d. Katie^talk 12:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Second choice if 2d does not pass. Mkdw ^talk 18:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
6. Second choice to 2d if that doesn't pass. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
7. Second choice to 2d. – Joe (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Fram's sysop status examined

4) The two recent incidents in which Fram was uncivil do not meet the expectations of administrator behavior (FoF 9), but also are not sufficient to demonstrate a recent pattern of poor behavior. We recognize that the framing of this case around whether Fram should be site banned may have discouraged people from submitting evidence of poor but not site ban-worthy behavior. Following the closure of this case, we will open a new case specifically to examine Fram's behavior as an administrator. Evidence submitted privately as a part of this case will not be considered as a part of the new case, but may be resubmitted to the Committee following the standard admissibility of evidence portion of policy.

Support:

1. Support, but not without reservations. This situation has been ongoing for just over three months now, and has taken an enormous amount of the community's, ArbCom's, and Fram's time. I am sensitive to taking up even more of this time, but if the community has concerns over Fram's conduct as an administrator then it should be examined. I considered leaving this out and instead leaving it up to a community member to bring a case, but I worry that anyone who filed such a case might have to deal with backlash for doing so. So for now, mark me as a weak support, and I'd love to hear community feedback on this particular point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Open another case immediately? Oh, no - I can't support that. I could support a statement that the closure of this case does not prejudice any further cases on Fram, which may include information prior to this case - but even on that I'm... torn. Worm^TT(talk) 07:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
2. No. We're supposed to be doing that here already. Katie^talk 12:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
3. The evidence is what it is, we should get this over with now. – Joe (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
4. I get the idea behind this - we didn't get much evidence about adminship specifically, and didn't actively seek it out, and the nature of the process may have led people whose concern centered on adminship to step back because they expected the ban was the central point. But oh man, we don't need yet another case on this topic. Resysop him - again, with a probation if needed, though I haven't had time to write that up as a new proposal - and move on. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
5. No. This case was explicitly "a full case to investigate the interactions of Fram with other editors over the past three years". We have every right to be examining Fram's behavior under the lens of ADMINCOND in this case; we do not need to open a second case to be doing so. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
6. Per PMC. Mkdw ^talk 16:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I would prefer we deal with the Foundation part in the motion, and use THIS case to make a decision regarding Fram's conduct. SilkTork (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

I had included some additional wording to predefine the scope of the case, but I'm not sure we want to try to determine that here as a part of this case. If this passes, we certainly will want to spend some time considering the appropriate scope. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Fram restricted

5) Fram is indefinitely restricted to posts of 500 words or less in any venue – including AN, ANI, any noticeboard, any article talk page, any user talk page, and any arbitration page – on any single issue. They may appeal this restriction in one year.

Support:

1. This was my suggestion, spitballing while discussing the PD, so everybody on the talk page can aim their tomato-throwing at me. I still like it - Fram is often tireless in their pursuit of an issue once they've spotted it, and has habits of repeatedly pursuing the same complaint, of fluffing up complaints with very tiny nitpicks so they look voluminous when posted on the noticeboards, and of returning to the same users over and over again with new complaints. The purpose of this restriction is, they get a limited amount of the community's time to attract attention to any particular issue. If Fram successfully convinces others that there's a problem, good - they've done their job and can trust that it will be others' job to follow up. This disrupts the "dog with a bone" pattern that develops in some of Fram's interactions, and also gives the other editor an opportunity to see that more than one person had concerns and maybe they should take them seriously. If, on the other hand, Fram raises a concern and there's no interest, they have to drop it, period. (In response to a talk page question - I mean 500 words per issue, in all venues combined. If something gets to arbcom and there's more evidence to post, they're welcome to ask for an exception then. Otherwise, if 500 words doesn't get even one other person in the community interested enough to follow up, then maybe it just wasn't that important.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
2. This is good and strikes at one of the problems. Fram is not a particularly incisive user, but for that they compensate by making their criticism lengthy and vociferous. Fram's tends to express a single point of debate by trying to pose many sub-points and examples to the other user. 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. The community has been hearing far too much from Fram and I think this remedy would address that problem. I don't get my colleagues' opposition (other remedies have failed, therefore this one will?) and I can think of dozens of remedies we have imposed that addressed the specific problem with broad success. Colleagues are actually not really explaining why they think this remedy will be ineffective; I encourage them to address that. AGK ■ 11:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I see the logic here, but a) I've come to believe that highly 'bespoke' editing restrictions like this are more trouble to enforce than they're worth; and b) I don't think length has been the primary problem with Fram's comments. – Joe (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. SilkTork (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. It is not the length of Fram's comments that has been a problem here, and I have no doubt that they could be equally or more disruptive in fewer words if they so tried. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
4. I certainly see the benefits, but unfortunately this is unworkable per talk page comments. Worm^TT(talk) 08:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Reluctant oppose: save some tomatoes to throw at me, because I'm the one who put this into the PD. I thought it was worthy of discussion, but I can also see from the community's comments that it's unworkable. Still thinking on a solution to the dog with a bone issue. Katie^talk 14:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
6. Moral support, because I do think something needs to be done about Fram's relentless pursuit of things, but ultimately I come down where Joe does - trying to enforce this will create more disruption than it would prevent. The definition of a "single issue", particularly, is inevitably going to be contentious and I can envision paragraphs and paragraphs splitting hairs about it at ANI. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
7. Mkdw ^talk 16:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

This is a very interesting idea. I do believe doing so would stop many of the issues that were raised during this case. Worm^TT(talk) 14:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the "dog with a bone" issue, I'm thinking perhaps an admonishment similar to the GiantSnowman creation. However, if the committee is going to pass an effective desysop, there seems no need for it. Worm^TT(talk) 15:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I have been thinking along the lines of a GiantSnowman solution for a while, but I'd rather the solution came from Fram and/or the community. I could get behind a restriction on the amount of times Fram raises the same issue with an individual before seeking assistance, rather than the amount of words. But I would rather work that out with Fram here on Wikipedia. In the GiantSnowman case I worked with and discussed ideas with GiantSnowman for a while before proposing that solution. If we are to have a similar solution it would work better if we talked directly with Fram. Either we do that or the community do that. But simply imposing a restriction on him which he doesn't buy into will not work. 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. SilkTork (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork, This might work, if Fram were willing to work on some solution - though I'm not sure he sees that there is a problem. I don't, however, see a need to split the PD - Fram is about at meta:user talk:Fram - if you believe some sort of middle ground can be brokered, I would certainly vote against closing the case until that happens. Worm^TT(talk) 16:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@AGK: This could work in Fram voluntarily and consistently sticks to it. But that's a gamble and I think recent experience has shown us it's not a smart one. If they don't stick to it, somebody will have to count the words in all their comments (possibly across multiple venues), somebody will have to make a report at AE, and somebody will have to weigh the evidence and enforce it. Given Fram's personality and profile, all three stages are likely to involve long and acrimonious discussion. And if Fram consistently breaches the remedy, we will end up with repeated ARCAs and possibly another case (cf. The Rambling Man), or the community will give up on enforcing it, and it will become toothless (cf. Eric Corbett). I agree certain types of targeted sanctions (e.g. IBANs, TBANs, 1RRs) work, but only when they're simple, well known, and the consequences are clear. Complex and idiosyncratic personalised sanctions are an unfair drain on other editor's time and emotional energy. If their target's conduct is so disruptive that it needs to be micromanaged to that extent, they should just be blocked. – Joe (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment

6) A Request for Comment will be opened under the Arbitration space, and managed by the Arbitration Clerks. This RfC will focus on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future.

Support:

1. Worm^TT(talk) 14:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. SilkTork (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Katie^talk 14:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
6. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
7. AGK ■ 11:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
8. I'm a little uneasy about holding an RfC under the aegis of ArbCom. A vocal section of the community will question it's legitimacy simply because it's unusual and because it's ArbCom. However, it could work if the scope was restricted to how the committee handles harassment and how the committee handles private complaints (maybe this is what the remedy means and I'm overthinking things). We can and should have a normal RfC on the wider issues, and I'd be happy to help organise it as an individual editor. – Joe (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
9. Mkdw ^talk 16:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee. Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Comments:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 20:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC) by Bradv.

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	User conduct	9	0	0		·
2	Wikimedia Foundation role	9	0	0		·
3	Civility	9	0	0		·
4	Harassment	9	0	0		·
5	Following another editor's contributions	9	0	0		·
6	Administrators' pursuit of issues	9	0	0		·
7	Administrator conduct	7	0	0		·
8	Proportionality of sanctions	8	1	0		·
9	Purpose of sanctions	8	0	0		·
10	Age of evidence	8	0	0		·
11	Private evidence	8	0	0		·
12	Consideration of evidence	4	2	3		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Fram	9	0	0		·
2	Fram had pledged to improve their behavior	8	0	0		·
3	Office ban of Fram	9	0	0		·
4	Events following the ban	9	0	0		·
5	The Arbitration Committee accepted a case outside of policy	2	5	1		Cannot pass
6	The site ban was the central issue in this case	4	4	1		Cannot pass
7	Community-provided evidence	9	0	0		·
8	Evaluation of community-provided evidence	5	2	1		·
9	Evaluation of community-provided evidence (2)	8	0	0		·
10	Evaluation of Office-provided case materials	9	0	0		·
11	Review of first conduct warning	2	5	1		Cannot pass
12	No off-wiki misconduct	9	0	0		·
13	Remaining issues	9	0	0		·
14	Community consultation	9	0	0		·
15	Fram's conduct as an administrator	7	0	1		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1a	Fram's 1 year ban is vacated	9	0	0		·
1b	Fram's 1 year ban is disproportionate	7	1	1		·	Second choice to 1a
1c	Fram's 1 year ban is justified	0	8	1		Cannot pass
2a	Fram's sysop userright is reinstated	3	5	1		Cannot pass
2b	Trust of the community (resysop)	1	7	0		Cannot pass
2c	Removal of sysop user-rights	2	5	0		Cannot pass
2d	Removal of sysop user-rights (2)	6	3	0		·
2e	Fram's sysop userright is reinstated (2)	3	5	0		Cannot pass
3	Fram admonished	7	0	0		·	Second choice to 2d
4	Fram's sysop status examined	1	6	1		Cannot pass
5	Fram restricted	2	7	0		Cannot pass
6	Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment	9	0	0		·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
0	Enforcement of restrictions	0	0	0		·	Passes by default
0	Appeals and modifications	0	0	0		·	Passes by default

Notes

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The Clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, unless an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support

1. I can't see us making any further progress. SilkTork (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC) I was hasty. I will give more consideration to GW's proposals in the morning. SilkTork (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

   We've unbanned Fram, and an effective majority of the Committee have voted to let the community decide on Fram's admin status. The rest of this is just inadequate words for the situation we found ourselves in. Not a great moment for ArbCom nor Wikipedia. I don't think there's anyone to blame for this, neither Fram, the people Fram focused on, the folks at T&S, nor the Committee. I think everyone was doing what they felt was the right thing. But this has been an annus horribilis for Wikipedia, with a LOT of hurt. I hope that lessons can be learned, and we can move forward from this experience with a view to improving the relationship and understanding between en.wiki and WMF, and a view to improving sociability and helpfulness on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is built by real people not automatons, and real people make mistakes and need to be helped and encouraged, not told off or sworn at. SilkTork (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

2. Thanks to all those who commented on the talk page for helping us to shore up the reasoning. I think we're now ready to close. – Joe (talk) 07:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
3. I think this case is done. The only thing that is not passing is a principle, and reading the comments from Opabinia regalis and Mkdw - I'm not expecting it to pass. If they want to vote on it, then that would be good, but I'm happy to push towards a ticking clock and finishing this. I'm certainly not happy with the outcome, but I knew I never would be from the start. I see Fram is planning an RfA when the case is finished, so the community can deal with things as they see fit - hopefully giving him a fairer assessment as an administrator that we managed. Worm^TT(talk) 12:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Katie^talk 13:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Mkdw ^talk 16:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
6. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
7. I'm disappointed in the outcome of this case, but I won't stand in the way of it closing. Most (all?) arbitrators have been active here since I presented my findings and conclusions regarding the desysop, so if votes were going to change as a result of that they would have already. I guess the best thing to do at this point is close out the case so Fram can move forward with their RfA and we can shift our focus to the harassment RfC. I do hope the RfC will see a similar turnout to this case (and the other discussions around WP:FRAM). GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

There are still proposals on which many arbitrators have not yet voted. Closing the case now would be premature. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Placeholder for now. Mkdw ^talk 16:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Not yet. Katie^talk 16:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments