Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Motion: India-Pakistan

Original announcement

Update from the Arbitration Committee

Original announcement

• Many thanks for the update and for now leading this process; that is a helpful clarification of where things are. I would like ArbCom to finish their review of all the evidence in private and then issue a statement on their conclusions re sanction – E.g. "the evidence is materially compelling" or "the evidence is not sufficiently compelling" (and all inbetween). Discuss in general terms gaps/issues versus current community norms. ArbCom should then ask for community input on next steps; the better the ArbCom statement, there more helpful the community can be. Britishfinance (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• (ec) I would be personally fine with ArbCom soliciting evidence and then holding closed proceedings, but I am likely in a minority.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • +1. I can't see how this works any other way (ultimately, this is the template for the handling of future such harassment cases, which must involve privacy). Britishfinance (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • +1. revealing the identities of the complainants (via diffs etc) will very likely lead to harassment; closed proceedings are entirely appropriate to protect their identities. I trust ARBCOM to deal fairly. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• Would really need a scoping statement to give the best feedback here. Is this limited to determination of remedies? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  Understandable; we wanted to solicit input from the community while we are deliberating on this ourselves, and we have not yet determined a scope. Can you clarify what you mean by "is this limited to determination of remedies"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  @GorillaWarfare: generally a case results in some outputs: Principles, Findings of Fact, and Remedies. Do you intend to run an entire shadow case wherein all of those outputs are generated anew, accept the P/FoF from T&S and only review the Remedies, treat this as a ban appeal, etc? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  Oh, thank you, that's clearer. We intend to run a case, not treat this as a ban appeal. As for the rest, we have not yet determined the format. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)I think Xaosflux is asking whether the Committee will merely be determining Fram's penalty, or whether there will be FoFs aimed at determining whether there is culpability (and whether there is culpability of other individuals). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'm surprised the Committee is not deemed trustworthy enough and needs to be submitted with redacted evidence. But perhaps that is an aside. El_C 19:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not surprised at all. Whoever submitted their complaints to T and S did so under the understanding that their submissions were confidential. As much as Arbcom are under the official wiki secrets act, I would think sharing confidential info with them without permission would have been legally dubious. Whether T and S reached out to anyone to ask permission that the info could be passed on is another question, to which I don't think we have an answer.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  Were there any specific promise(s) of confidentiality which would exclude the presumption the of ordinary sharing of confidential information between T&S and Arbcom? Or any other reasons to believe in the legal dubiosity you posit? EllenCT (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  I would personally like to know the exact circumstances under which promises of confidentiality are made to T&S complainants. If it's just that the Privacy Policy applies, then there's likely no legal need to make further redactions when passing that information along to the Committee, just based on a reasonable reading of the Privacy Policy. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  There can have been no such promises because there was no contact information for them. The only way to figure out how to reach them from the T&S page on Meta, as of a couple weeks ago at least, was to click through to their individual identities, some of which also suggested generic email to the Foundation. EllenCT (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  I disagree with Mendaliv that it matters whether or not an explicit guarantee was given. If the WMF interpreted the privacy policy to mean that they cannot share complaints to T&S outside the foundation it's quite likely others have done so as well. No matter whether some reading may say they could, and if even their lawyer says they would be legally compliant, it would still be wrong for them to do so. The solution if their is disagreement on what is required is not to nitpick the legalese but to clarify the wording so the confusion does not arise. If it's felt that the confidentiality prevents action taken against Fram then so be it, it's far better solution than to violate someones confidentiality. Note that I make no comment on whether this clarification should be in allowing the info to be shared or not.

  I'm also somewhat confused by EllenCT's comment. If by their own admission, they have no idea how T&S were contacted then I don't see how they know "there can have been no such promises". If someone contacted the WMF because of concerns about harassment but said their wanted assurances their identity would be kept confidential, and frankly I wouldn't exactly be surprised even if trust and safety widely publicised their contact info people especially those inexperienced with wikipedia simply contacted some generic wikipedia email since that's simply how the would works, then promises were made. If someone contacted the WMF to ask about how they can report harassment and the WMF told them that they can either report it to the community or report it to T&S and that if they report it to T&S their report would be confidential then promises were made. If someone contacted the WMF and the WMF told them the same except not saying anything about confidentiality and then when the person contacted T&S to ask about the process, and at the end of the email T&S said "Rest assured, all reports are confidential." then promises were made.

  If someone somehow got in contact with T&S and initially not promises were made, and then part way in the process the person said "I just read about person X had to move and are under police protection after receiving rape and death threats because they someone pissed of the wrong people on the internet even though they did nothing wrong. I'm starting to have concerns for my safety if this is made public, I'm not sure if we should continue if you can't guarantee my confidentiality." then even in this case, promises were made.

  And I think it's reasonable to argue it should apply to anything said before the promise too. I could go on and on with many many possible examples where promises could have been made. Again I make no comment on whether the foundation should have given such promises simply that if they were made they should be kept whatever the legal situation and even if it means nothing happens to Fram.

  One clarification, last time I brought this up I believe I said something along the lines of the person refusing to allow their info to be release. Actually, if promises were made explicitly or implicitly (e.g. via the privacy policy), the only solution IMO is for an agreement to release the details or as said no action if it's felt that it can't be as long as the info is kept private. If the person is no longer replying or otherwise cannot be contacted or simply doesn't say anything when asked if their details can be released, their details must still be kept confidential.

  I'd also note that while I agree that T&S failed in their duty in not providing a simple contact on their page, it doesn't seem that surprising that someone found a way to to contact them and the idea they were impossible to contact frankly makes zero sense. I wrote a longer reply on this but this reply is already long. See User talk:Nil_Einne#On contacting T&S if you are interested in the many ways I found to contact T&S which I'm fairly sure existed before this controversy.

  Nil Einne (talk) 07:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  @EllenCT:, you are mistaken about the contact details. On meta if you do a search for harassment you are taken straight to the harassment page, which outlines steps you can take if you are being harassed. One of these is to contact T&S, and they provide an email address to use. Along with that, they state that any reports with be treated confidentially, as they explain that "[y]our contact to Trust and Safety is kept confidential, so no details about your experience will be shared publicly or with the person you are reporting". - Bilby (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Bilby: thank you. Unless the complainants were also complaining about Arbcom, that doesn't change the presumption that such communications are very probably likely to be shared with Arbcom members. Is one of the accused an Arbitrator? EllenCT (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  For me, that would be an unusual presumption. In situations where I have worked with similar groups, confidentiality is normally taken to mean that they won't share it with others, and when they do it is normally only within the organisation and only to those with a direct responsibility to manage the issue. When working with personally sensistive information, I tend to err on the side of being overly restrictive.- Bilby (talk) 04:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Bilby: what proportion of the complainants in this case do you suppose are likely to share your presumption that information sent to T&S would not be shared with Arbitrators? EllenCT (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

  Given I don't know who the proponents are in this case, I have no idea. But then I don't know who in this case would expect it to be shared, either. - Bilby (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

  I am more surprised, not to say alarmed, that there is apparently evidence that can be superficially but effectively redacted. I don't see how this makes sense other than being third-party denunciations (not consistent with the spirit of the WMF's communications so far, I believe) or personal communications. If it is the latter, then presumably the Arbcom is not allowed to confront Fram, the supposed author with it. So that a complete fabrication would leave Fram without defence because he wouldn't even know what to defend against. (If you show me a threatening email that I supposedly wrote someone, I can at least point out that it comes from a Hotmail account and that I never used Hotmail. Or that it uses a formulation that is completely atypical for me. Or that I was in intensive care at the time. Or that the email contains a single obvious typo, and if you resolve it without ABF, it becomes completely innocuous. Or that it was banter, in response to a very similar email from the supposed victim.)

  If that is where we are headed, then it is a serious problem. There are temporary Wikipedia users who must be dealt with in such a way. I think I have experienced a few of them myself in the far past. Sometimes even established users. But if relatively minor infractions that don't deserve more than a year's block are handled in this way, then this opens the doors wide for abuse. I really hope that T&S weren't stupid enough to open this particular box that would completely undermine all admins. It would create a class of editors who are really unblockable because they are believed to be ruthless enough to manufacture complaints supported by fake evidence.

  Let's hope I am just too pessimistic. Hans Adler 19:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  After GorillaWarfare's explanation of the redactions: Yes, it appears I was to pessimistic. Sounds like essentially just regular denunciation based on on-wiki behaviour. Nothing Arbcom can't deal with (mostly) in public. Hans Adler 19:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• My take: Please open a full case so that additional non-sensitive evidence from nonparties can be submitted for consideration in a public forum. This would, of course, be tempered by the requirement that the T&S Report be kept as confidential as required, and a very big warning box that any inappropriate public discussion of sensitive issues would probably be met with a block and revdel/oversight. This would both be evidence of misconduct that is non-sensitive, as well as evidence of good conduct, which would be useful for assessment of aggravating or mitigating factors.
  But either way I think that as long as the gates are open for a discussion of Fram the scope shouldn't be limited to the contents of that report. Furthermore, I think it's important that a workshop phase be available for the community to suggest appropriate Principles language as well as put forward Remedies suggestions that may be more creative than a one-year siteban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Since you asked for feedback on how to achieve a balance between transparency and protecting parties (including Fram?) from harassment, I believe Arbcom should proceed as they usually would under similar circumstances without deference to T&S. Since identifying information has been redacted, more transparency than not should be expected. Fram should be allowed to freely and publicly participate in his own defense, and the community should also be able to participate in all phases, to the extent possible.- MrX 🖋 19:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Question; how can the committee make a decision if the harassment claims are legitimate if the names of the accusers are redacted? You can't approach them to clarify if something is not supported by evidence. Does that mean you have to take all the evidence supplied by T&S at face value? That was a common criticism during the Framgate discussion, that the evidence wasn't looked into enough, and wasn't put into context and taken at face value. Valeince (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  That is a very interesting question. What exact format does the redacted info have? The usual way to present information on Wikipedia is via diffs, but of course those are impossible to redact,at least from those with oversight permissions.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  We have been provided with a PDF report of T&S' investigation, with redaction applied via blacked-out phrases and sections. The WMF told us that they specifically wanted to show us where they were redacting information, rather than just removing it entirely with no note, which I personally find useful—it is valuable to know what we don't know. There are plenty of diffs provided where possible, though obviously I don't know how many have been removed in the blacked-out sections; much of the redaction involves who reported the behavior, not the behavior itself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  I think that's a good question, though it's a fairly mild problem. At some level, misconduct is misconduct, even if the recipient of that misconduct has unclean hands (which I'm not saying is the case). The Committee's job is to give a fair reading to the evidence and if it supports a finding of misconduct, they should act on it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Good. This is what should have happened in the first place. talk to !dave 19:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• I thank ArbCom for the update, and reiterate that I trust the committee to deal with this as they see fit and will support their decision whatever it is. As for redactions in the evidence, it's not an issue of trust, but of what permission those who submitted the evidence gave (and that can not be violated). It's sounding to me that there is little redaction of evidence content, just redaction of personal identification. What we need now is to support for ArbCom as our elected representatives. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  it's not an issue of trust, but of what permission those who submitted the evidence gave Well, as I say above, it's probable that the issue is more what the Privacy Policy requires, particularly the "To Protect You, Ourselves & Others" section. Namely, We, or particular users with certain administrative rights as described below, may need to share your Personal Information if it is reasonably believed to be necessary to enforce or investigate potential violations of our Terms of Use, this Privacy Policy, or any Wikimedia Foundation or user community-based policies. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  I think "we have agreed that the report is sufficiently detailed and minimally redacted such that we can open a case on Fram" is good enough. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• I have outlined my suggestions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Headbomb_(WMF_and_Fram), which I will quote here for convenience

Don't care much about following the daily brouhaha that this case will have, but I strongly urge WP:ARBCOM to

• Not invent policy. If it is found lacking, urge the community to either update or create it.
• Identify when and where things are in uncharted waters, and where guidance from the community would be needed. In particular, guidance on how the community would like ARBCOM to deal with harassment cases and confidential/anonymous evidence. Perhaps a dedicated harassment@arbcom email would facilitate the submission of anonymous/confidential evidence.
• If a ban (or some alternate sanction/remedy) is ultimately warranted, identify which areas of policy have been violated, whether WP:UNCIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:HOUNDING, WP:HARASSMENT, WP:OUTING, etc.
• Get as much as you can from T&S (and Fram), including any written warnings they have issued to Fram. If you can get Fram's responses too.
• Dig deep. Both in complainer's and in Fram's history. Invite, through T&S and through Smallbones, complainers to contact you directly with their experiences and testimonies. But take your time.
• When you have identified areas of concerns, give Fram the opportunity to reply to those concerns [formulated in a way that protects confidentiality].
• Make things as public as they can be. Keep anonymous/confidential complainers anonymous/confidential. Do not even think of leaking or hinting at who they might be through 'unofficial channels'. Review your mailing lists and see who is on them, and make them up to date.
• While completing your own investigations, keep us posted. Don't offer T&S-like platitudes. While we don't need the nitty gritty details, keep up apprised of what has been done, how much is left to done, and what is next on your plate, and how long you estimate that next step to take.
• WP:AGF of both sides, but WP:SUICIDEPACT is also a thing.
• Review On the Nature of Shitstorms, making the WMF/T&S → ARBCOM substitution, particularly the bit pertaining to "[cocking] up the response so badly that both [your] competence and legitimacy is no longer accepted by default by a sizeable amount of the community." I'll add that, IMO, ARBCOM gets a bit more leeway than the WMF here, since we have elected you and have empowered you to make rulings in complex situations. If you're dealing in a case of #2 (debatable) vs #1 (clear, unambiguous), feel free to use a standard of 'more likely than not' weighted in the light of prior warnings and repeat behaviour [if applicable]. However, if this is the standard used, use it in light of WP:1Q.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• I view the scope of any case(s) about Fram arising from this to address three things. (1) Fram's own behaviour. (2) The community's behaviour (and especially what happened due to T&S Streisanding everything). (3) Our harassment policies' weaknesses. Nobody is going to be coming out of this smelling like a rose, but it's better we get all of this out of the way at once, with preference to (1) and (3) as those are the ones that can most effectively be answered (and there's still an open case request on (2), more or less, unless the Fram case gets the Signpost case merged into it, which I see as unlikely). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 19:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree. I believe that the only scope for this case should be Fram's own behavior and the behavior of those whom Fram is accussed of harassing. The community is not, and should not be, the focus of the case, as it is totally outside the Committee's remit -- even as expanded for this case by the Board. Nor should the Committee delve too deeply into the policy issue, which are the province of the community. Fram's behavior must be judged under the existing policies. Certainly, the Committee can, if it wishes, advise the community as to its conclusions based on the Fram case about how the harassment policy or its enforcement should be changed, but that is ancilliary to the case itself, and not part and parcel of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Many thanks for the update, I too would assume the redaction would just be names, –Davey2010^Talk 19:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• I didn't follow many of the encounters Fram had with others too closely, but my impression was he was correct much more often than not. Hence with maybe some of the more involved interactions, the antecedents have to be examined (i.e. other editors' behaviour) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  Absolutely. My guess is that the key problem is that T&S have no idea how this wiki actually works and what is expected of them, and have interpreted some interactions without properly evaluating the background. Because they don't even know how to do it, and because they used to do a 'similar' job for Facebook or whatever and were actively discouraged from wasting their time by researching things too thoroughly. Hans Adler 19:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  Dig deep. Both in complainer's and in Fram's history

I don't know how many times diffs have been brushed off as 'stale' evidence because they precede the immediate action for a sanction by several months. If Fram's history from the year dot is to be placed under the microscope, does that not set a precedent for all future cases of ostensible harassment? I thought this T&S action took place as Fram was on a learning curve to improve behavior others found aggressive. Shouldn't the relevant evidence be limited to Fram's editing after his first warning in, was it, March 2018? Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd rather have a full review of everything covering as wide a range as warranted. For instance, if an interaction ban was issued following behaviour that spanned 2015-2018, then ARBCOM should look at that and see if the interaction ban was warranted by Wikipiedian norms in the first place (e.g. for repeated violations of WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA). If it was, that makes subsequent violations of that ban, and subsequent warnings relevant. It if the ban wasn't warranted, then any follow up warning related to that ban are invalid and the associated complaints should be dismissed. Look at each complain, each incident, get context, assume good faith from both sides, and see if there was a sanctionable behavioral issue, or if it's just people getting annoyed that they aren't getting their way, or incompatible personalities clashing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• I know we all appreciate the update, and thank you for that. Please continue to act as publicly as possible. Thank you. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  While I know you cannot tell us the specifics of what you got from T&S, I would think you could tell us generally, for example, is it entirely diffs, or are there statements, or analyses? When a document is privileged and not subject to release, information about what sort of document it is, is usually not privileged. And yes, I have read what GW said. And I'm also curious to know if Fram will get a copy. I'd like to see a reason if he is not, after all, the material has been redacted by T&S. In fact, not releasing it publicly should be justified.

  As for the case itself, I would try to ignore the natural tendency to show you can be "tough on harassment" and be fair. And please make sure that it isn't just about Fram. Don't increase the incentive to go to T&S casually. Of the people I have seen involved in this so far, they don't seem to be entirely without fault.

  On that subject, people are alleging outing because other websites are mentioning names. I think you need to say if there are any ground rules about such things, if certain names cannot be mentioned without bring the wrath of someone down on the person submitting the evidence.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• I assume Fram will be provided with a full copy of the material Arbcom have received in order they can adequately defend themselves? I know it's too much to ask that T&S would comply with basic human rights taken as granted in modern civilization by providing Fram with a full unredacted copy of the allegations against them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• @GorillaWarfare: is there anything in the redacted evidence which you believe Fram should not see or which you believe is cause to forbid Fram from participating in their own defense? EllenCT (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I'm not comfortable answering that quite yet; partly because I don't want to be seen as answering for the Committee when we have not yet come to any decisions on that point, and partly because I am still in the process of rigorously reviewing the evidence (after reading through it once to get the gist of it and determine if it was sufficiently informative). However, we are actively considering this point in our conversations about how to proceed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  I think that this part of the process is going to be crucial, that if Fram cannot be shown either the T&S redacted report or one further redacted by Arbcom but providing refutable (or not) evidence then this must be part of the considerations of the Committee and the findings in the case. While Arbcom does not set precedent or make rules, it must be apparent to any editor or potential complainer what they may expect in future should complaints of harrasment be made either via Arbcom or T&S. I would further suggest that T & S be provided with Arbcom detailed deliberations on this matter so that they can judge how to better consider any future approach to them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  I'm with you up until the point where it's suggested WMF/T&S be given access to deliberations. It's very likely that in the future T&S will be functioning like a public prosecutions office (as they certainly are in this case). Giving unequal information or special insight into the way the Committee functions is invading a bit on the separation of powers necessary to keep this entire system fair. Same deal with ex parte communications with WMF/T&S: When there's a proceeding going on, there shouldn't be communications hidden from one party. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  Given the Board's response and subsequent notices, I am prepared to foolishly hope that T&S will take on board the need to have context within their own deliberations. If it becomes evident that they act only, per your comment, as a prosecutive function then the Arbcom and EN:WP need to consider their options. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• I, too, hope that Fram can be provided with the redacted material. I think that the Committee has a lot of good will from the community right now, so you should deal with the issues of harassment privately as much as possible, rather than have a lot of high-temperature on public case pages; editors who want to submit additional evidence can be invited to submit it privately. I think it's appropriate for the scope to include who, if anyone, harassed whom, and what to do about it. I would also like to see a statement in the case findings about ArbCom's ability to deal with the evidence, as opposed to needing to have T&S do it, especially in regard to ArbCom's capacity to assess the legitimacy of complaints. The scope should not include anything that was in the scope of "Reversal of office actions", and it's probably (?) best to leave the Signpost out of it. Separately, I encourage you to continue your plans for some sort of community input about policy on civility and harassment. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Is it really possible to evaluate Fram's behavior when you don't have the behaviors of the other parties involved to tell you if Fram's actions were justified or not? Or am I misunderstanding the nature of the redactions? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  I agree that this is problematic. Moreover, what I really find problematic is that on issues such as confidentiality, it seems like there is a bargaining inequality between WMF and the Committee that may give rise to undue influence. I would strongly suggest that the Committee seek out independent legal counsel to serve as a staff attorney given the serious legal implications of everything happening here. If we want to provide a fair, transparent process that also protects the privacy of complainants and victims, it would behoove the Committee to utilize its own legal counsel (rather than WMF's counsel, which represents WMF and not the Committee) to both ensure WMF's expectations are compatible with the Committee's purposes, and that there is full compliance with any applicable NDAs. If there is a need for money to do this, I suggest that the Committee seek a grant from WMF for this purpose. But in any event, it would be a very good idea to have a staff attorney for this matter. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• There are 5 issues. First/ there should be no difficulty with arb com holding a closed case to deal with confidential information. We did it when I was an arb, it's been done at other times also. I think the community will accept this--I think we all realize that this is the only possible way of dealing with some types of problems. But the information has to be available to the person accused also as well as the committee, or how can anyone possibly defend themselves against erroneous accusations. (There have in fact been cases where there was undoubted harassment, the subject of harassment was sure about who was doing it, but some of the committee was not convinced the identification was correct, and therefore, properly, no action was taken) Second/ if there is information that T&S refuses to share completely with the committee, that information cannot be considered. It amounts to judging on the basis of some else's say-so. It's up to T&S to convince the complainant(s) to let the committee have the information, they need to be convinced it's the only way they can get satisfaction. Third/ The commitee needs to be willing to consider cases of continuing misbehavior even if no one incident by itself would justify a sanction. The committee can do this on the basis of its own rules--it decides itself what to consider. It is because it has refused to do so in the past that this situation has arisen. Fourth/ the committee can deal with "unblockables" -- that is what it is here for in the first place and it just has to resolve to do its job. Finally/ there is a danger that if the committee refuses to judge on the basis of evidence it does not have in full, T&S will say again that only it is capable of doing justice. But as we've seen, its idea of justice has not always included the basic ethical principles of fairness. If they do say this, we're back to the beginning. I hope T&S will be more sensisble than that. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • the information has to be available to the person accused ... or how can anyone possibly defend themselves against erroneous accusations Yes and, as discussed before, ARBPOL requires it. Bovlb (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Does this mean that the four Arbs who were considering resigning won't do so? Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• I'm glad this is happening, but want to put on the record I believe this is a sensitive case and ArbCom should not feel obligated to be fully transparent all the way to the point of closing proceedings if that's necessary to protect those with an interest in the case. SportingFlyer T·C 00:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• Question: The announcement says "The Committee have received from Trust & Safety (T&S) their detailed report on Fram, with names and identifying information redacted." Why redacted? Isn't the whole point of Arbcom that we as a community trust them to not reveal personal information? Has Arbcom ever shown even the slightest hint of violating this trust?

What bothers me is the possibility that T&S may have painted a picture that would be seen to be inaccurate if only Arbcom could look at the actual diffs of the behavior and look at the edit history of the redacted individuals and see the context of the behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Yep, this was discussed earlier on FRAMBAN with respect to "exculpatory evidence" and whether T&S would forward that. My gut instinct is that they probably aren't legally obligated to do so, but I also think that if someone in the legal department signs off on the disclosure package knowing that there's exculpatory evidence, and knowing that the goal here is to present a picture of an impartial process, that person in the legal department may be subject to discipline by a relevant state bar, and anyone in legal who knows what went down may be under an obligation to report it if it is an ethical violation. Cold comfort to us, getting stuck with a corrupted process. That's honestly why I think the Committee needs a staff lawyer to advise it as to legalities and to negotiate with WMF directly to ensure that the Committee knows what's being disclosed, knows what's not being disclosed, and knows why particular nondisclosures have occurred. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Can the committee comment on how much, if any, of the info involves stuff that did not occur on wikipedia? And how much of it was either rev deleted or suppressed? While I would agree it is concerning if exculpatory evidence is withheld, for any evidence relating to stuff that happened on wikipedia the effect is lessened. Ultimately if this was an arbcom case that did not involved T&S someone would have to uncover that evidence. (Again this does not justify T&S withholding any exculpatory evidence, but we should recognise that the way our community works in normal cases ultimately someone has to uncover it.) As I understand it, arbcom is able to see most of the diffs. There may be some hidden, but since they are hidden that means they can't be considered. The fact that they are not able to see who raised them to T&S, nor who made any comments relating to them should not IMO be that significant. From what I understand, it's currently intended that this case is primarily akin to a normal arbcom case so the evidence will be looked at and arbcom together with the parties will try to understand who did what why and how that fits in our policies, guidelines and norms. The key difference seems to be if it is held in private with only Fram and arbcom receiving the evidence and therefore only them able to uncover exculpatory evidence. While arbcom cases are sometimes held in private, it's unclear to me if this ever involves cases where most or all of the actual behaviour of concern is on wiki if that is indeed the case here. Some people here aren't going to be happy with any case largely conducted in private, but I think the disagreement/anger is going to be a lot more if the main reason for it is to protect the person who's Fram's on wiki actions were against or the complainant. (Who don't have to be related in any way. I mean the person complaining could completely hate the person they're alleging Fram harassed for all we know.) Rather than because the complaint involved stuff outside wikipedia (email, forums, social media, etc or real life identities and such). Nil Einne (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We were concerned about the redaction making it impossible for us to hold a case, which is why we waited until we could review the material to determine if we would. This statement was intended to clarify that we are satisfied that the material is minimally redacted and that we are comfortable moving forward. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Well parts of the arbcom mailing list archives were leaked about 8 years back [2] so I would say yes they have failed in the past. I think things have come a long way since then although I believe even after 2011 there were some stuff discussed on the 'wikipedia watcher' type sites which made me think someone had been sharing stuff they shouldn't have. Still even that was a while ago. I don't know whether any of the details leaked could be clearly said to violate someone's confidentiality, but from an outsider, it's hard to split hairs when stuff like that happens. However as I mentioned above, as far as I'm concerned it's a moot point if promises were made and the WMF cannot convince whoever it is to allow them to reveal the entire details to arbcom whatever the wisdom of such promises in the first place. Nil Einne (talk) 07:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• What are you going to do if people in the community figure out who the accusers are likely to be through a careful inspection of the public record? Are we all under a gag order? Jehochman ^Talk 01:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  No, the community is of course not under a gag order. As mentioned in the statement, we are carefully considering how to move forward with this case so that we can balance transparency and privacy. But in general I would at least personally ask that if anyone thinks they know who an accuser is, they not contribute to the attempts at outing and harassment of alleged accusers that we've already seen. It's completely unacceptable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you, Gorilla. Jehochman ^Talk 01:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

AC update: random break

• Keep as much private as you can, please. All I personally think we should know after a closed proceeding are: (1) Was it bad? (2) How many people were hurt? (3) What policy was broken? (4) What action is to be taken? I also don't think Fram necessarily needs to see any evidence that could identify his accuser(s). Act with caution, but you all have a huge mandate from this community to take care of what is necessary. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  On the contrary, I believe it's the responsibility of the Committee to make as much public as it can in order to carry out its mandate to end disruption to the community. Secrecy is corrosive to the very nature of a fair hearing. While this community accepts that some information may be withheld in the interests of encouraging the free reporting of misconduct, as well as mitigating additional harm to victims of misconduct, excessive secrecy invites speculation. We saw this with how WMF bungled this matter initially. Members of this community effectively carried out a purge of people that might have cause to complain about Fram. Wrongful as such conduct may be, it goes part and parcel with excess secrecy. People presume, not without good reason, that overly secret processes have an element of corruption. And, again, while permitting victims the right to go back about their lives is a strong public policy reason to avoid disclosing names and some details, we must remember that this is not about righting the wrong done—this is not a proceeding to enact a punishment. Instead, it is about protecting the community from disruption going forward. In such cases, the amount of information withheld must always be the bare minimum necessary to protect that privacy interest, and not a drop more. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  (I'd appreciate a ping for future responses btw) Mendaliv, what's the point of arbcom if they can't even be allowed to do the task they've been assigned to? I wasn't much of an editor in the last elections, but why on Earth did this community vote these folks in if not for their judgement? Also, if the community had that reaction after not having information, it's only a wonder what they'd do if given more. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  You may not have seen them, @MJL: and obviously you can't view them now as they have been removed, but there has been considerable nastiness expressed by unregistered users against Fram at certain pages. I doubt if that will decrease if the committee acts opaquely. There's a lot of nastiness on all sides of this thing. Don't pretend otherwise.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Wehwalt: [Thank you for the ping] I don't doubt it. Fram undoubtedly received an unfair and toxic amount of abuse. I just don't see how a public forum will only make things better. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• I just want to express my support for ArbCom and its deliberations regarding this case. I personally think that the case should be conducted in private, unless ArbCom can assure itself that it will in no way contribute to outing of any complainant by conducting all or part of the case in public. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• Personally I completely support a private case but I think it's clear a quite a lot of people aren't going to be happy with that. I mean quite a few are always uncomfortable with the idea, but the history here means a private case is going to be even more controversial. Especially as I said above if the privacy is not because of off - wiki stuff but only because of concerns of or for the complainant or whoever was allegedly harassed or whatever. Nil Einne (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• I am comfortable enough with the decision to allow ArbCom to deal with this matter freely, and with the assistance of being given access to the report that I am no longer considering resigning.

In regards to the update (and we hope to keep the community regularly informed of our progress - or otherwise - on this matter), we are still looking at how best to conduct a case. We are looking at a case on Fram, rather than reviewing T&S's report or the resulting ban. Matters relating to Office Actions, etc, need to be discussed, though that is a separate issue from ArbCom looking into Fram's conduct on Wikipedia. The wider issue of Office Actions and the ongoing relationship between enwiki and WMF are probably best done in an open discussion involving the community and WMF. The Committee have not discussed that much, as our priority has been focused on the Fram issue, however it is probable that would be in RfC format. An official update on that will be issued when we have discussed it.

What we are looking for from the community at the moment is ideas on how best to hold a case on Fram. When ready we can receive evidence in private. We can hold the case entirely in private. However, public evidence is very useful as then the community can see and discuss the sorts of behaviour that lead to concerns, and lessons can be learned as to when to identify that lines have been crossed. However, people may be unwilling to provide public evidence. It may also be inappropriate for people to be pointing out others whom they feel may have been harassed, as that could be putting a spotlight on people who may find such attention unwelcome. So, ideas on how to balance transparency with protection are welcome. Transparency so that lessons can be learned, so that Fram can respond, so that the community is involved in the process, and so all interested parties on and off enwiki can see the rationales for whatever decisions are made; and protection from potential harassment so that people can feel comfortable with providing evidence. SilkTork (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Please use the WMF report as a roadmap to find relevant diffs. We would not need to see the report because the diffs are public and could be presented in public. Community members could add to that body of public evidence and then Fram could respond to concerns and explain the context of his actions. Any off-wiki evidence, such as emails, would need to be submitted in private, except for evidence copied from other official WikiMedia sites. Wikipedia’s banned users have already figured out most of what happened and are discussing their theories widely. Trying to obscure the identity of other parties is mostly moot by now. Rather than sacrificing transparency and stifling free discussion, we should watch carefully for any further harassment and stop it. On the other hand some try to wield claims of being harassed as a weapon. We should be on the lookout for that dynamic and stop it too. Overall this is going to be a tough case, but for best results we need the public evidence to be presented in public. Jehochman ^Talk 09:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to make this explicit in other words to be sure it doesn't get lost: If the diffs in the redacted PDF are stripped of any comments, replaced by better ones where appropriate, reorganised and supplemented with more diffs supplied privately and/or publicly by the community, Arbcom should be able to publish the resulting list of diffs without outing whoever was redacted. Hans Adler 09:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I think we must to accept the old system does not work for harassment cases; if the Fram affair has shown anything, it is that existing on-Wiki processes for such cases do not work, and clearly editors are !voting with their feet and going direct to WMF to intercede. Trying to get detailed diffs of the evidence (even if redacted), is not going to work. We need ArbCom, which are elected senior editors of WP, to come to a closed-session view based on the evidence. If we can't trust ArbCom to do that, then we should accept that on-Wiki is not going to be capable of handling harassment cases, and WMF will instead become the forum (e.g. harrassed editors will, correctly, appeal to WMF that they cannot use on-Wiki for fear of disclosure and further harassment).

However, if ArbCom finds their closed-session review raises questions regarding policy/community views, then they can ask the community for their views on such questions in a targeted manner that does not disclose information. I think that is the best way to proceed here. ArbCom's statements/questions during this case will become the "learning examples" that ArbCom rightly seeks to create (as it does with normal cases); however, trying to do this by using transparency is not going to work for harassment cases, and it is critical here that ArbCom show it can handle such cases. Britishfinance (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is getting really long and hard to follow. I recommend you move to a more structured format, such as a case request. 😀 Jehochman ^Talk 09:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

One test of whether whatever procedure ArbCom cobbles together can be considered fair will be if the twenty-odd admins and others who have resigned as a matter of principle rush the gangway to get back on board. I voted for quite a number of them at some point in their wiki-careers and am still inclined to take their judgment seriously.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe. But, though I applaud the progress that has been made (especially that momentous open letter from ArbCom to the board, for which I have nothing but respect), and I trust ArbCom enough to support their judgment in the Fram case whichever way they decide, I will not be asking for my admin bit back - and that will not be a reflection on the Fram result, or on ArbCom in any way. It's because we are going through a change in the way the various bodies work and communicate, there are going to be changes made in the way we handle aggressive behaviour, there's a new "Universal code of conduct" in the pipeline, and the old regime under which I ran for admin is being replaced/upgraded/whatever. So I'm going to sit back and see how it pans out before I can decide whether I want to be an admin under the evolving new regime, and if I decide I want to, I'll need to ask the community if they want me to do so too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that, and all you have done. I add that my comment above was not intended as negative reflection on the judgment of ArbCom, lest anyone took it as a backhanded knock. I too am waiting and seeing what this will develop into.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• I think MJL and some others above are right to call for ArbCom to work in private on this one. There have been too many people sniffing for tidbits of information that they can then pontificate about. That's harmful. Providing ArbCom can assure us they have looked at the redacted confidential evidence they have been supplied with; are aware of any material they have not been given access to; have challenged or sought clarification from WMF where necessary, and are confident they've not been given a Dodgy Dossier, then we should fully trust them to act in camera on our behalf. Yes, they should be totally open, frank and public about how they formed their conclusions, but too much revealing of material supplied in confidence risks considerable damage and loss of trust in any future cases of harassment (much in the same way that some victims of crimes in the real world - such as rape - are discouraged from coming forward because they fear how the system treats them and the public humiliation of aggressive court questioning and the media speculation and shaming that may follow.) How ArbCom handles this matter will have an impact well beyond one person and their current accusers; it will affect all users in all future cases of alleged harassment on en-wiki and affect its relationship with WMF, one way or the other. If we trust ArbCom, and they can assure us they trust the material supplied to them by WMF, then we must trust ArbCom to act on our behalf in matters of great sensitivity and privacy. We surely don't then need a couple of hundred individual barrack-room lawyers, judges and jurys rolled into one, all offering their own personal verdict on guilt or innocence and keeping the argument raging. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  Frankly, Nick, it sounds like your conditions and qualifications on the community's acceptance of a result here swallow any likely result. Without disclosure of information we as a community can't really know how good this dossier is and whether it does or doesn't include exculpatory evidence—i.e., whether it's a compilation of evidence to justify an outcome or whether it's an actual investigative report. And without the Committee having access to a staff lawyer to advise negotiations with the WMF, I highly, highly doubt any "challenges" to nondisclosures will be effective. Moreover, as SilkTork has made clear, this is probably not going to just be a review of the WMF ban—this is going to be a full-blown Fram case. So, no, we'll have our case. This community needs this case. One of the key reasons why adjudications of this sort must be done publicly is so the community affected can heal. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Nick Moyes: [Thank you for the ping] You are exactly right (not my favorite choice of metaphors, but true enough nonetheless). If arbcom conducts a public case as suggested by Mendaliv, it's only going to do more harm than good. Re-litigating this matter but with suddenly more info is just going to have the knives come back out at one another again. Like I said above, we elected arbcom because of their judgement and capacity for decision making. Fram is an adult, and he most certainly doesn't need arbcom treating him as if this is some Parent-Teacher meeting gone horribly wrong. Seriously, though. We had users doxxed and badgered over this. It'll likely happen again if arbcom shares any more information that can potentially identify a victim. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• ARBCOM policy - private hearings seems to obligate Fram being able to see at least the full redacted version "be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them before a decision is made". While ARBPOL are certainly required to act within the ToS limits set on them, they are also required to be within our set policy. Other levels of privacy/publicness are up for debate, and it's great that ARBCOM (who have done well in this brouhaha) have asked for some wider opinions. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  I would generally agree with this from a fundamental fairness perspective. I don't exactly agree that the current ARBPOL requires full disclosure; instead it requires a "reasonable opportunity to respond". That may require full disclosure, but might not always: It just requires what's enough to create that reasonable opportunity. I would say that the way the policy is written is couched in procedural due process language; "opportunity to respond" sounds an awful lot like "opportunity to be heard", which is normally coupled with "notice" (as in notice of what one's being charged with). As an aside, I think it's highly likely WMF's disclosure packet was produced with the possibility of disclosure in mind, even if it was sent with conditions attached. In other words, if there is damaging or exculpatory information that would additionally harm the complainant, I think it's unlikely that WMF included it. All indications I've seen thus far are that the Committee have received a report or digest rather than actual evidence. I would be happy to be proved wrong on that count, however. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Mendaliv: - I don't believe that it requires full disclosure of everything theoretically gatherable, but something close to the redacted copy provided to ARBCOM, which sounds like it's all the evidence, with some anoymisation. That would be the bare minimum that I feel could be provided. The anonymity doesn't split in a very "granular" way - it's quite hard to allow Fram to respond in an informed manner (general responding is no better than being asked to say you're a good guy) to each incident without providing those incidents. And purely in relation to your aside, I suspect you're right. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is in an online encyclopedia, thus is is fundamental that it is not a court of law, and not a quasi court and Wikipedia:There is no justice. Only you whom are entrusted with the information you are entrusted with can even begin to decide what is "reasonable", given the trade-offs which are inherent in your exercise of prudence and discretion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• I am speaking only for myself here, not for the Committee. I am still digesting the T&S report, however I'm finding it fair and balanced, showing a more subtle and nuanced understanding of the situation here on Wikipedia than I had assumed from the action of imposing the ban. My respect for those conducting the review has increased. Putting aside WMF's decision to act independently rather than consult fully with ArbCom, the findings seemed to chime with our own recognised difficulty in dealing with users who significantly assist the project, but are disruptively uncivil while doing so. The incivility may be borderline, but the accumulation and at times the intensity of such incivility may be very problematic not just for the target, but for the greater morale of the community.

I like a case in which questions are asked of the "accused" because for me it is important to see if that person understands the concerns, and is willing and able to adjust their behaviour to avoid future concerns. It also helps when accusations can be put into the context of the rationale of the "accused". While there is evidence in the report, it is not "our" evidence. The people who provided the evidence did so to T&S, not to ArbCom. We cannot ask them for more details. Nor can we ask Fram to comment on the evidence as it is not our material. My feeling is that we need evidence we can handle and critically examine - this could come from the same people who wrote to T&S or new people or both. So, we need a case. And we need a way to collect evidence and to get findings from that evidence which will be helpful to the whole community in assessing how to deal with harassment and incivility moving forward. If we hold the case entirely in private, and we sanction Fram, we are effectively merely punishing a user, and the community learns nothing. If we don't sanction Fram, and the community has not seen why, then the community learns nothing, and possibly becomes more distrusting of T&S.

I have some ideas - such as taking evidence initially in private, and then if it is robust enough, asking the provider if it can be moved to the case pages here on enwiki. But we need more ideas. SilkTork (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

While there is evidence in the report, it is not "our" evidence. The people who provided the evidence did so to T&S, not to ArbCom. We cannot ask them for more details. Nor can we ask Fram to comment on the evidence as it is not our material. If you can’t let Fram address the evidence in any way, it’s not reasonable to even use it in your analysis. WMF/T&S are acting as prosecutor here. Don’t let the lack of an on-wiki style of argumentation fool you. Any materials produced by WMF should be treated as materials produced for the purposes of this prosecution, and not as evidence. No matter how balanced it reads. I particularly want to know how much is argumentation and analysis rather than documentation (you seem to indicate that this is present). Such material is not evidence, but argument. If you go the route of adjudicating on one-sided prosecution materials while allowing no effective way to address those materials, you’re denying Fram any hearing at all. This is why I’ve said the Committee needs a staff attorney. You need to know the legalities involved in what you can disclose to Fram, because I can just about guarantee you are able to give more than you think. (n.b., I am not trying to get a job/volunteer here, I’m just pointing out that you need independent legal counsel) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Mendaliv, Your idea of lawyering up a volunteer committee, who is deciding whether a volunteer, should volunteer, here, (which is all they are deciding), sounds like a good recipe for the destruction of Wikipedia volunteerism. By policy and consensus, we don't settle things by law, that's the spirit of no legal threats, if anyone wants recourse to the law on Wikipedia, they have excluded themselves from Wikipedia.

Inappropriate

WMF is not "prosecuting", they looked at materials and decided exclusion was prudent, now the ctte has to decide, or go a different way, but it will not be by way of law. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC) What an utterly disgraceful, offensive comment. Please leave your prejudices at the door. And drop the WP:NOTLAW red herring: It’s old and moldy and frankly patently false to anybody who takes an objective look at our processes, especially those before the Committee. The advice of an attorney (which WMF has and is absolutely using in producing this document) is invaluable in actually making this process fair and equitable. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Mendaliv, Since your provocative emotional words are wholly unimpressive, as is your sense of proportion, and analysis, you could not be more wrong. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC) That sentence is completely devoid of meaning and coherence despite being syntactically correct. Are you okay? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Emotional words: "utterly disgraceful, offensive", "prejudices" - none of those make sense, here, and are most unimpressive; your comments have lost all sense of proposition, as practically every other Arbcom case, says explicitly in agreement with policy and consensus, it is not a court nor quasi-court; your analysis requiring volunteers to lawyer-up is in a word, dumb. Your last comment asking about me personally, demonstrates your commenting is off-the-rails. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC) practically every other Arbcom case, says explicitly in agreement with policy and consensus, it is not a court nor quasi-court How interesting. Because there's precedent saying that the Committee isn't an adjudicative body, it's not an adjudicative body? your analysis requiring volunteers to lawyer-up I neither "required" it nor did I advise volunteers to "lawyer-up" (as though they're being interrogated by the police). I said the Committee needs a staff attorney to handle the legalities of disclosure and nondisclosure. If you don't think that's a legal matter requiring expert advice, I might have a few bridges for you to invest in. By the way, can you please try to compose yourself and write your comment out elsewhere before posting it? Your continuous revisions are causing constant edit conflicts. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC) You might find "precedent" interesting, but who cares. What matters is that practically every other case in accordance with policy and consensus, says its not a court, nor quasi-court. It's just too bad, if you do not like consensus policy that has repeatedly been upheld. You can keep your bridge, because it's plain the attorney thing is a no go.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Please do not make assumptions about either the report or our thinking on it, and especially do not make demands of us that we reveal any aspects of the report. We are very limited in what we can say, but our intention is to keep the community informed. If people respond to what we say in an aggressive manner then that makes it more difficult to share. I have hatted the part of the above conversation that went too far. Here we are talking about moving forward with how to deal with incivility, hostility and harassment, and we start to see the sort of poor behaviour that leads to concerns about Wikipedia being a toxic community. Please do not speak here on this noticeboard in a tone or language that you would not use in a job interview. We all know how to behave, it's just that we think we can get away with it here. Well, let's stop that, eh? Criticise yes, but in a less aggressive manner. SilkTork (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Ouch. I am uncomfortable with any process where the basis of the initial complaint cannot be conveyed to the accused party. Without the accused being able to determine whether the complaint is of a historical matter, or recent, on-going or any two of the three it would be difficult to provide evidence to indicate whether behaviour has changed or steps taken to elliviate the concerns. Fram has posted at the onset that he had complied with an iban, so it should be necessary to indicate whether the issue of complaint is subsequent, for instance. Ultimately, Fram has his own history to review and will be aware of which actions he has made that might be pertinent - nothing in the evidence should be new to him. I hope that if he cannot be given that opportunity, then any finding must make it clear that he was not provided with it and how much weight was then given to that evidence. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

You actually tee up another issue: Failure to disclose details generally permits the community to reify Fram even if he is indeed dirty. As part of the Committee’s community protection mandate—and remember, you’re engaged in prospective protection not retrospective correction—it is necessary that if Fram is a harasser, stalker, etc. that people on-wiki be made aware so they can avoid him. A mere declaration that you think WMF’s analysis (whether or not it contains evidence) is sufficient to sanction Fram is not enough. Additionally, failure to disclose completely destroys any interpretive value of the decision. People need to know where the line is drawn. It may seem obvious to the arbs, but since they’re the people who decide where the line is drawn, it’s a little different. This is another failing of WP:NOTLAW etc.; the false claim that Committee decisions have no precidental value. While it’s true that we don’t have a stare decisis system, it’s also true that where a set of facts cause a particular outcome in one case, like facts will cause a like outcome in another case. This is also a function of the Committee’s community protection mandate. The excessive secrecy we seem to be approaching is not acceptable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable with any process where the basis of the initial complaint cannot be conveyed to the accused party. Our intention is to investigate the conduct of Fram rather than review the T&S report. Advice on how to deal with the content of the report is useful, and will be taken on board, though what we mainly want help with is how to handle new evidence. SilkTork (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I am grateful SilkTork for the clarification, and in return would suggest that Arbcom very carefully considers not passing over any interactions that may appear familiar from information received from elsewhere but rather look further into the totality of the exchanges (or lack of). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thinking of SilkTork’s comment above, the Committee could request private submission of evidence, then conduct an in camera review. Whatever relevant evidence is suitable for public viewing could then be posted. The WMF report isn’t evidence because there’s no way to question those who provided the material. However, it can be used as a map to find evidence and to identify incidents to scrutinize. Jehochman ^Talk 13:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  The WMF report isn’t evidence because there’s no way to question those who provided the material. However, it can be used as a map to find evidence and to identify incidents to scrutinize. This is smart. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• I wish you success in finding a good format for this. As to the scope, one question is how far back evidence should be collected/considered. Fram has claimed that his behaviour has improved, which could be confirmed or denied, but would require digging through the edits of several years. Or you could just look at the last year or so, where the most aggressive posts seem to be directed at arbs/admins/WMF/other powerful people (who still shouldn't be harassed, of course). In all cases, some context will be necessary to correctly judge each situation, and I don't know whether you'll be able to obtain enough understanding of the context without some crowd involvement (as a full open case could bring) and certainly not without involving the defendant. Please keep us posted on your thinking on how to proceed. —Kusma (t·c) 16:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you. We haven't yet considered how far back to go. And, yes, we are aware that Fram directed his attention toward ArbCom recently. The "fuck ArbCom" comment has been talked about on WP:Fram. SilkTork (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2019 (

  Yeah, that diff is ugly. Have you thought about unblocking Fram and asking him to go back through his last few months of project space contributions and refactor any uncivil comments? Whether he agrees to do that, and how well he does it, would indicate how things might improve. The goal should be to arrange for the user to avoid problematic interactions, not to ban him. A ban happens when there’s no hope of reform. I don’t think we are nearly to that point. Jehochman ^Talk 17:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  I wholeheartedly support asking Fram to refactor all of their uncivil comments in the past six months, and provide exemplars of the improvements claimed, such as those times when he wanted to say something uncivil but was polite, provided that he may in the course of such research refactor any comments earlier than six months which he so chooses. I ask that the edits provided do not exceed the established word count, although the accused may have multiple workshop pages of any length to enumerate lists which may help with the editing task, or keep such lists privately, or both. EllenCT (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  Just to try to keep this focused, we're currently asking for feedback on how to hold the case. We're not currently soliciting evidence or workshop proposals. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  Do you have any word from the Chair of the Foundation Board on whether her recusal was to avoid appearances or impropriety? I recommend that you ask. I recommend that Fram be allowed to participate in the case, with a presumption of innocence until the conclusion of the penalty phase of the case. Has anyone in the Foundation told you whether the complainants might not presume that their communications would be shared in full with Arbcom? If you want to serve the community and improve your chances for reelection, then please don't be afraid to forgo a full case in favor of a resolution admonishing the Foundation for claiming that Fram's criticism of you gave you a conflict of interest, and then taking it on themselves, and for letting a superprotect proponent operate in a position of community trust, and gross negligence, and direct harm to your reputations as dispute resolution volunteers. The evidence that the Foundation has tended to bring the Arbitration Committee and with it the community into disrepute is strong. EllenCT (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  Comments on WMF or the report are off-topic. This is not the place for that. Please use WP:Fram for that. SilkTork (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  I refactored your {{out}} to keep Tazerdadog from appearing to responding to you below. My questions were asked in response to the Committee's announcement that, "The format and scope are yet to be decided, as we are trying to find the appropriate balance between being transparent with our proceedings, and protecting any parties from harassment. We would like to invite open feedback on how best to achieve this balance." Which particular comments are off-topic? I have asked the questions at WP:Fram#Necessary and sufficient conditions for preventing harassment. EllenCT (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• If there's nothing in T&S's evidence that shows that it will be actively harmful to do so, can you guys consider a motion to unban Fram pending the case? I think it's highly unlikely that he will be other than a model Wikipedian until this is resolved, and I'd rather not start from a presumption of guilt. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  The Board's statement says "We support ArbCom reviewing this ban ... While the review is ongoing, Fram’s ban will remain in effect, although Arbcom and T&S may need ways to allow Fram to participate in the proceedings." My intention is to work with T&S and WMF, not against them, and I think that is shared by the rest of the Committee, so I would not support a motion to unban Fram. SilkTork (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  @SilkTork and EllenCT: - presumably something like having him able to write content on his meta user page and have a clerk copy it across or email response would both be reasonably rapid and resolve the issue. We start already in the evidence stage so panther-like reactions aren't as critical. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think what I'm going to say really measures up to a subsection of its own, but I have some suggestions, working off of the ideas of MJL and Mendaliv, below. I'll come at this in terms of holding the entire case in private, rather than having a regular on-wiki case. I'm doing it that way for two reasons. First, there will have to be an awful lot of evidence that will be private, and second, if Fram remains banned and cannot post on case pages, then it's better just not to have case pages at all. I agree with other editors that, because of the redactions, the material from T&S should be treated as information from the prosecution rather than as evidence. I think the scope should be about Fram's conduct taken as a whole, as opposed to being only what T&S sent. Whether anyone else's conduct would also be examined really depends on what you find, but it should be limited to only the users who interacted directly with Fram (and not anything about WMF staff or the Signpost). I think ArbCom, when ready, should post the scope of the case on-wiki and request that editors submit any evidence they wish privately; if the scope changes as the examination of evidence proceeds, that should be announced on-site. I think you should provide updates as best you can on-site. In particular, the community will very much want to know, in a "yes-or-no" way, whether there was any conduct off-wiki. I agree with other editors that conduct should be evaluated based on existing en-wiki policies, and that Fram should be able to provide rebuttals privately (and obviously, if any other users come under scrutiny, they should have equivalent opportunities for rebuttal). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• I don't have any particularly profound suggestions for how this case is handled, but would like to offer two ideas. Firstly, I think that it's really important that there be a procedure for editors who may not have contacted T&S to submit complaints - the fact that several editors were willing to raise serious concerns with the Signpost illustrates that there are people who need to be heard and the case should not be limited to whatever motivated the T&S action. Secondly, given the general drama around this case there needs to be a way of discouraging evidence which isn't relevant to the case, or is basically commentary rather than first-hand experiences - there's a very high risk of yet more victim blaming and drama if this isn't avoided. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
• I like everything about the way this event has evolved so far, similar to what Jimbo had hoped for, if I read him right. I am just happy that ArbCom is involved and I trust their judgment will be good or great, and notwithstanding that, Its also cool that so many editors with so much experience are chipping in with their thoughts and ideas. Bravo ! Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• I understand the rationale for not encouraging third-party commentary. However, I think that editors who have interacted with Fram without experiencing problems should be given the opportunity to state this. Also some fraction of Fram's actions in the timeframe relate to quality control at DYK and main-page errors in general, and I don't know how familiar the current Arbs are with how these processes work in practice. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
• GorillaWarfare and SilkTork, I am addressing my questions here to you as the two Arbitrators who appear to be commenting here, but I am certainly open to responses from any members of ArbCom. I am considering offering thoughts on the conduct of a case, but first want to check whether my impressions are accurate (to the extent that you can comment, in any case). I'm going both from my impressions of Fram and from comments made by editors here, at WP:FRAM, and in a variety of other places. My impressions are:
  1. The evidence is mostly or exclusively available on-wiki, with diffs of Fram raising issues with other editors, pointing out repetitions of editing that (in Fram's view) is problematic in some way, likely with increasingly strident / critical uncivil language. Some may be revdel'd (or even oversighted) but those are still on-wiki and ArbCom-accessible
  2. That such actions could be seen as diligence from Fram's perspective and harassment from the targeted editor's perspective
  3. That some of these incidents have led to T&S reports and ArbCom should not and will not reveal which those were or who they involved
  4. That any off-wiki aspects of those reports will be handled privately in any case, but recognised for its significance in the finsal decision
  5. That there are no purely off-wiki areas to consider, beyond perhaps emails between Fram and the OFFICE. The SignPost incident will be taken as out of scope of this review of Fram
  6. That ArbCom wants to conduct of starting-from-a-blank-page review of Fram that includes the above examples (plus others) without revealing which are / are not in the T&S document
  7. That the review will look at the circumstances / provocations / actions of targeted editors at least as far as considering whether Fram's responses and actions were proprtionate / understandable / justified / over the top / outrageous / etc
  8. That admin tool abuse will be examined if found but that allegations of harassment can be supported by actions any editor could take
  9. That staying public as far as possible is desirable both from ARBPOL and community-reassurance perspectives
  10. That how the OFFICE processes led to its decisions and actions, including potential influence from the board chair or others, is outside the scope as the T&S document is not being reviewed, but is only providing a pointer to evidence to be reviewed de novo in the case
  11. That Fram will be allowed / supported to publicly respond to publicly-presented evidence
  12. That preventing speculation about which incidents were reported to T&S or included in their report, and also actions against any hypothesised report makers is a priority

Am I right that this is what is sought? Is there anything else? Because I think that can be achieved with a modified case structure and keeping things mostly public... but there's no point in my posting my thoughts on how it might be achieved if I'm way off on what might be achieved. EdChem (talk) 03:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that looks about right. Right here and now we are planning an ArbCom case on Fram. In order to do that we need evidence, and we need to analyse that evidence. Advice from the community on how to do that is what we are after. At a time yet to be decided there will be a RfC on matters related to WMF and to harassment on enwiki. But right now, it's an ArbCom case on Fram. SilkTork (talk) 06:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork, thanks for that information. One issue that I would suggest working out in advance is exactly how Fram will participate in the case. He clearly needs to have an opportunity to reply to accusations against him. It would be difficult for him to do so on public case pages if he remains banned. If editors are posting on public case pages, but Fram's replies are not, it would get messy. To have him banned, but to have Arbs or clerks copying his replies to the case pages would be strange (superficially like proxying). --Tryptofish (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Optional proceedings from MJL

In response to GorillaWarfare, SilkTork, company's request for some community input on how best to proceed, I've written this up. Here's how I would prefer to see things as a community member that's relatively new here:

• Arbcom could open a case by motion similar to how they initiated Eastern European mailing list. At the start, only Fram would be listed as a party, but users could optionally request via the clerk mailing list to be named as parties if they so wish to do so.

Just ignore this bit

The motion should probably specify: The scope of the case which is solely in relation to Fram's conduct as it relates to alleged harassment, hostility, and incivility; How the case proceedings will be held (suggestions below); A reminder that the arbcom does not have jurisdiction over official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff, that it has discretion to and may modify any of its procedures so long as it remains in its remit of duties, and that it treats all communications sent to it as private; That the committee is opening the case a private hearing rather through traditional means; There will be case specific enforcement procedures as well as appeals or modifications.

• My thoughts for procedures would be a bit different than most. I'll admit that I am unorthodox. Due to this case's sensitive nature, my preference is for the following:

How evidence could theoretically be handled

All statements and evidence (including diffs) are be submitted via the clerk or arbcom mailing list. Anything that does not immediately have to do with this case nor have relevance to Fram's conduct as it relates to harassment and civility should probably be filtered out. As that phase occurs for two weeks, the committee's members should be free to reply with any questions they have to the individual submitter without reference to any evidence they received from any other individual (ie just questions of clarification and no cross-examination). If this period needs to be extended, so be it. After that phase ends, the committee could give Fram an equivalent amount of time for rebuttal (2 weeks by default and more if extended). This is where they would need to thread the needle carefully the most, so I would attach the most strings here. My personal solution: Before the rebuttal phase begins the committee should actively vote on what evidence they offer to Fram (so called "primary evidence") with the caveat that any evidence not submitted to Fram for rebuttal can only be considered as "secondary evidence" (ie. not weighed as heavily). Fram would of course be allowed to ask for clarification as to the nature of, and given able time to scrutinize, the evidence. Finally, the committee should consider politely cross-examine any individual who lists themselves as a party in private about the nature of their primary evidence (the evidence that Fram had the chance to review). If no one chooses to publicly list themselves as a party, then Fram gets the final word. References

• I'd only like to know the most boring of statistics/information while this is ongoing: number of users who submitted evidence, number of diffs sent to arbcom, amount of words used, etc. Also, key story points could be announced like: when the committee has closed the rebuttal phase, how many pieces of evidence it has chosen to accept as primary, if there are any concerns they have, and honestly just how arbcom is personally feeling about it all.
• What they decide and how much is revealed from there, I cannot even begin to consider.
• If any of this is unhelpful, I please ask it be removed as soon as possible by a clerk to save me from further embarrassment. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey this isn't bad. I don't agree with all of it but it's not bad. Don't be so hard on yourself. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Some good ideas there, thanks. More of this sort of thing folks. SilkTork (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Recommended proceedings by Mendaliv

Going along with MJL's idea, I'm going to lay out my recommended structure for proceedings:

• A master Fram case will be opened as a normal case, with the scope being "misconduct by Fram".
• Private evidence will be welcomed to the Committee list. It should be submitted to the list rather than individual arbs. Private evidence will be anonymized, and any narratives abstracted to protect anonymity. Such anonymized evidence will be either posted or sufficiently described on the Evidence page.
• The WMF dossier may be used for the following purposes: (1) finding evidence which will be handled according to the above provision, and standard policy, for private evidence; (2) victim impact assessment, if necessary; and (3) establishing the need to open a case.
• The WMF dossier may not be used as evidence unless Fram is allowed to rebut its contents. This does not require disclosing the exact contents in a way that would violate your NDAs. If your NDAs actually prohibit even the disclosure of abstracted/digested contents of the dossier—please seek outside legal counsel to determine this—then it may not be used as evidence.
• Participants will be strictly warned that outing, casting aspersions, etc. in the case and elsewhere on Wikipedia will be met with severe sanction. Because the scope is Fram rather than Fram and others, it should not be necessary to bring evidence concerning third parties, especially targets of harassment. Matters such as unclean hands, etc. may be relevant for a sanction phase in finding mitigating factors, but should not be relevant for determining whether Fram did or did not engage in misconduct.
• Participants will also be reminded that, as the Committee may not enact policy, in the case of harassment, it is bound by the definitions used by the harassment policy and reasonable interpretations of that policy. Therefore (and presaging what at least one Principle will concern) evidence of harassment which does not meet that definition will not be considered for the establishment of a finding of harassment. Such conduct, however, may be relevant in finding aggravating factors.
• A standard workshop period will follow evidence, along with a standard proposed decision period.
• For any long-tail remedies, such as civility probation, that would remain in place after Fram's return, the Committee should provide clear standards for determining the penalty for violations, rather than providing a boilerplate "initially up to one month, and increasing thereafter"; I have noticed cases at AE where the only sanction lengths under consideration are one month or no sanction, and the sanction length is chosen without any clear explanation for why that and no other length is appropriate. The Committee should provide a list of factors that admins enforcing the sanction must consider and articulate when making the sanction, such as how the chosen sanction meets the preventive goal of the remedy, the severity of the violation, harm or disruption caused by the violation, acts in mitigation (such as immediatel;y self-reverting), acts in aggravation (such as stated contempt for the sanction), etc. Moreover, given the goal of sanctions is preventive rather than punitive, it follows that the only acceptable sanction strength and length is the minimum to accomplish the preventive goal.
• Participation in the Committee's private deliberations by WMF, the board, or individual board members should be prohibited, and attempts to participate in or influence the Committee's decisions should be treated as ex parte communications and should be provided immediately to Fram and the Community as much as possible.

My summary of this concept: It's a standard case with a private evidence component and extensive protections given the sensitivity of some information and the fact that an absence of WMF influence needs to be ensured. Thank you for your consideration. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: Much of this presumes that the Committee will permit the private submission of on-wiki evidence. I think that itself is being treated, probably improperly, as a foregone conclusion in the discussion above and elsewhere. If evidence is on-wiki, there should be a compelling reason to keep it private. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• I would suggest adding whoever you would normally add as parties under the circumstances. You do not know who the complainant(s) is/are and I would not worry about it. Just take the evidence people submit and make findings as normal, acting against whoever the evidence shows needs to be found against. Since you do not know identities, there is no question of retaliation or breach of confidence. Just let the chips fall where they may. What else are you supposed to do?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • In fact, purposely not adding someone who one would expect to be added might be a clue as to them being one of the un-named complainants. Just treat everyone as they would normally be treated. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with the broad outlines suggested by Mendaliv (particularly the last point). In terms of adding party names, this could be left open for those who wish to publish publicly and have one "John Doe" party for all those that wish to comment anonymously directly to the committee.

  Anyone trying to guess the identity of any of the parties who may or may not have contacted ArbCom directly should receive a block for a fixed period (a variation of point 5 of the above) which could be a month? Six months? Whatever ArbCom feel appropriate to send the right message

  Fram really should be able to contribute freely to this case, including being able to answer to specific claims (even if this is in camera directly to ArbCom). He should be forewarned that any leaking of information or hinting about the identities of the other parties will be dealt with harshly (possibly by T&S). It's going to be difficult to accept any just outcome against Fram if he has not been able to defend himself. - SchroCat (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

  And it's all very well for ArbCom to say, "Forbidden!" about the dossier, but ultimately your legitimacy rests in community acceptance and giving information as to the nature of its contents would be a help there. This doesn't have to be done at once, but should be done at some point. Is it entirely diffs from WMF-hosted sites? Are there reports? Statements? We don't necessarily have to know the contents (although you'd think scrubbed for one, scrubbed for all). Give it some discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

A Suggestion by LessHeard vanU

This case is different from every Arbcom case that I am aware of in that the catalyst is an action by the Office that bypassed the EN:WP community processes. Therefore there is not the trail of requests, supporting and opposing diffs, and commentary designed to sway the Committee in accepting or declining the case. It has of necessity been decided to accept the case, and now we have a request on how we proceed - a case of Arbs making the Request of (potential) interested parties. My suggestion then is that the Clerk conducts a review of the (look, it has been a long time and I may not have known the name of the app back then) major parties who interacted with Fram over whatever time frame the Committee decides is pertinent and request by pm that those editors put forward such diffs and comments that support their view of the conduct of Fram with them. These responses would preferably be public, but the option of responding anonymously should be offered. Refusing/ignoring the request would not be made public - so editors running the same app will not know who responded privately or not at all. I also think that admins - those with the buttons at the time over which Fram's actions are being reviewed - should further be approached with an aim of how those sysops considered his actions (mop wielders being more familiar with the stresses of admin work and the effect upon communications). There needs to be a manner in which those who believe Fram to be an effective admin to provide examples and rationales as well as those who are less impressed with his work/conduct. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Hear, hear! I wonder whether the Committee could try to appease the Foundation by limiting evidence under consideration only to that of the prosecution. An analogous situation would be the questionable impartiality of judges and defense attorneys who must go to work with prosecutors -- many of whom have larger budgets than the public defenders and the judges combined -- every day, day-in and day-out, when they will never see most of their defendants again in their life. At least in this case, Fram can not be locked into solitary confinement. EllenCT (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

It is standard in a case to hear evidence (positive and negative) from interested parties, and for such evidence to be analysed and summarised. Your difference here is that we should single out individuals to give evidence. I understand the thinking, though I suspect that those who would have evidence are already aware of what is going on, and if they are not willing to come forward voluntarily with their evidence I'm not entirely sure that an email from ArbCom would make them change their mind; indeed, such an email might be considered to be undue pressure. SilkTork (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Recommendations for the structure of proceedings from UninvitedCompany

1. The evidence/workshop/pd mechanism has never worked well and is particularly burdensome for cases that attract widespread attention. I would recommend that you follow this customary mechanism, but require non-parties to obtain permission to participate before posting. Limit the number of contributors to whom this permission will be given.
2. Emphasize the on-wiki evidence, as there is enough of it to warrant a response -- both in this case (IMO) and in harassment cases in general (in my experience). Build as strong a case as possible through FoFs supported entirely by diffs. The community is more accepting of private evidence when it makes an already strong case more egregious.
3. Share any evidence that may exist that is off-wiki but public. Even if a confidential source brought it to the committee's attention, you should be able to share it.
4. Ask the accused individual to share any emails they sent, offwiki posts they made, IRC logs, etc., that they believe may have been misunderstood or mischaracterized as harassment, along with any context they believe is exculpatory. Asking in a general way does not divulge any confidential source.
5. Ask Smallbones and T&S to encourage their sources to get in touch with you. When sources contact you, clarify and negotiate what you will and will not disclose publicy (see below).
6. Publicly summarize the nature of the confidential evidence as findings of fact. Your goals should be: a) to build public trust in the decision, b) to clarify by example what behavior is inappropriate, while c) leaving out details that would identify any one particular incident or reporter. While I have not seen the evidence in this case, it is usual for users with a pattern of harrassing offwiki behavior to have multiple, unrelated targets. Establish a general rule that any summary that could apply to three or more unrelated targets does not jeopardize the identity of a particular source, and make exceptions as necessary.
7. In both your private analysis and public comments, emphasize the objective reasonableness of the behavior/communications of the accused, rather than the effect on the accusor.
8. Establish and follow procedures to be sure that the confidential evidence is genuine, and summarize those procedures to build community trust. The precedent is important, since spoofed off-wiki material will be a problem in future cases once it is clear that it will result in sanctions.
9. Revocations of adminship for particular periods of time (30 days, 90 days, etc) are effective sanctions that have been underutilized in the past. They may be used alone or in combination with a block (possibly of shorter duration). Admonishments make those who go to the trouble to bring a case question whether it was worthwhile, and probationary restrictions (interaction bans, topic bans, restrictions on particular actions) are divisive and difficult to enforce when applied to administrators.
10. I would urge you to ask T&S to soften their confidentiality guarantee enough that they are better able to share evidence with selected members of the community in the future. The present formulation lacks balance.
11. Take technical measures to keep confidential information secure. Arbcom mailing lists have a large attack surface and have been compromised in the past. It would be naive to think it will never happen again.

UninvitedCompany 17:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Excellent ideas. Jehochman ^Talk 01:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Good ideas here. However, I believe that it is important to apply the "reasonableness" test when assessing behaviour, which is used in harassment policies in Australia (and no doubt elsewhere). What would a reasonable person anticipate would be the reaction to the identified behaviour? Would it be reasonable to anticipate that the person subjected to the behaviour would feel offended, humiliated or intimidated by it? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's important to have all the diffs out there. It is the only way the community can decide if what ArbCom did was fair. You might abbreviate the evidence period and so forth, but get everything in one place, including the edits of other editors. Opaque proceedings lead to arguments that the outcome was foreordained.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks everyone who's commented here! Your feedback has been really valuable, and I appreciate you taking the time to give it. We are still discussing how to move forward with opening the case, and will provide updates as we're able. For those who've asked, we are aware that Fram plans to be unavailable for the last two weeks of the month. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Echoing GW's thanks. We are still looking into how to conduct the case, while also dealing with appeals and other matters that come our way. Until the point we announce the case is open and the format we will use, we still welcome suggestions either here or sent by email (either to individual arbs or to the Committee as a whole). SilkTork (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Procedure recommendations by North8000

It's inevitable that this case will need to be held fully in secret from "the public". Fram needs to sworn to secrecy and then be privy to the relevant parts of the case. There is no behavior that was "solvable" by a block that justifies a measure of not even telling the accused what they are accused of. Have an Abcom member post general updates on what's happening so that we don't have weeks of knowing zero. North8000 (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Question for the Committee

Is the Committee of the view that at this point the responses from the Board, and various individuals have collectively satisfied the concerns raised by the Committee in your open letter of the 30th Ult.? I will qualify my question by acknowledging that there are a lot of ongoing discussions over the nuts and bolts. My query is intended to be in general terms "is the immediate crisis more or less over?" -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I am of the opinion that we at least have a way forward on this particular issue (Fram). The question of how the WMF, the Arbitration Committee, and the rest of the community will balance dealing with these kinds of issues in the future is still somewhat open in my mind, but the WMF has indicated they will not continue to make actions like this for now at least. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Similar to GW, also speaking just for myself. My concerns are not completely satisfied regarding Fram as there is still the question of what happens if ArbCom decide to unban Fram. T&S have not been clear on that point, though Jimbo has said he will back whatever decision the Committee makes. There may be a tussle, there may not. However, T&S have supplied us with their redacted report on Fram, which is a starting point. And there are aspects of the report that I find shows T&S understanding the nuances of Wikipedia's civility issues. So I am moderately optimistic. I think damage has been done to the relationship between enwiki/ArbCom and T&S that will take a while to heal, but I feel it will heal, and we should all take steps to ensure it heals and to help build a stronger, more open, and more egalitarian relationship moving forward. But building that relationship is a separate issue from dealing with Fram. As is the question of how we all deal with toxicity/harassment/civility moving forward. But it's all related. Behind all this "crisis" there are well meaning people. A lot of the anger and frustration appears to be generated because of lack of or poor communication. As a first step toward improving communication, we should all assume good faith, and also accept that even well meaning people can a) make mistakes and b) sometimes get emotional and say or do things they shouldn't. Clearly if a and/or b happens too often, then there is a serious issue, but providing lessons are learned, apologies issued, and steps taken to ensure it doesn't happen again, then we can all move on. SilkTork (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

And a third opinion... I personally believe the "crisis" is over. However, as GW and SilkTork both rightly point out, the repercussions of the crisis will be felt for a long time to come.

• On the actual Fram ban, T&S has provided us with a hefty document, in much more detail than I had expected and as SilkTork states, it includes a good understanding of the nuances of Wikipedia's discussions and issues. It's clear that T&S has had far more reports on the subject than I would have expected and although I do not know the reporters, this idea of a "single complainant", or even just two or three, is misleading. The committee is working on how to handle a case, we've got some suggestions above which are helpful, but this isn't an easy task.
• There's a framing of the debate regarding reporting of harassment which we simply do not have an answer to as a community at the moment, and some sort of discussion and decision on how to handle those sorts of cases going forward will need to happen.
• SilkTork alludes to the damage of the relationship between T&S and the committee, and I'm definitely feeling that too. We'll have to see what happens there.
• Finally, there's the question of WMF's actions going forward. Even if this is all cleared up, T&S has made it clear what direction they are hoping to head in - there appears to be an intent of course correction of some of the community's social norms. I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing, but we also need to do it the right way, with proper community engagement.

I hope that helps answer your question Ad Orientem. Worm^TT(talk) 10:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks are due to the committee for these informative replies. A big case file does not surprise me. If I were Jan I would have used the ample time between the beginning of the crisis and the board statement to beef up my case on Fram in whatever way I could. But maybe it's clear in some way that the file you have already existed as is in early June?

Fram has already been blocked for more than a month now. Between the summer holidays and the time to actually run the case we are presumably looking at something like three months of time served - a hefty penalty by our standards even if there is no further sentence. It would be surprising if T&S objected to that outcome. Haukur (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Haukur, it's taken a big battle to get this under ArbCom's control, and you have no idea what the evidence is. So how about we leave the decision entirely to them without bogging them down with uninformed recommendations? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll also add that I think making allegations that Jan would have been beefing up the case in whatever way he could is exactly the kind of bad faith that we could really do without right now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised by your replies - I probably should have taken more care in phrasing my previous comment. To clear things up: a) I didn't mean to make any recommendations at all to ArbCom, b) I didn't mean to make any "allegations" against Jan. He was asked to deliver a report on Fram to ArbCom and why wouldn't he make that as comprehensive and polished as possible? Especially since he could have seen that coming as a likely outcome for some weeks before it happened. That's what I would have tried to do in his shoes. Haukur (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Somebody with a good memory or the patience to go through the records may know of one, but I don't think ArbCom have handed out a site ban of less than six months. If I feel after conducting our own case, that there is sufficient evidence that Fram has persistently and maliciously hounded people out of proportion to whatever problems they were causing, then I would be supporting a one year ban. If I feel that Fram has only spoken to genuinely problematic users who refused to acknowledge they were causing a problem, and in so doing Fram went overboard with their attitude and/or language then I would be looking at a solution to prevent that happening again, but not looking for a site ban. I personally have a particular concern regarding Fram using the admin tool to edit an ArbCom page through full protection to revert an edit made by a sitting arb: [3]. I understand that Fram thought the arb's edit was incorrect because the page was locked for everyone, but the appropriate response would have been to raise a query with the clerks and/or with the arb in question. I wouldn't be looking for a site ban or a desysopp for that single incident, but I do find it suggestive of an attitude that is unnecessarily aggressive, confrontational, and not collegial. Anyway, while not ruling anything out, I think it unlikely that I would suggest or support a 3 month ban. SilkTork (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

If we're now materially discussing the case and presenting evidence then I'd like to say that I think the diff you brought up is defensible and in some ways reflects well on Fram. He has been accused of striking the vulnerable but here he is insisting that ArbCom play by its own rules. It's healthy that someone is willing to hold the powerful to account and we've lost something precious if we give out heavy penalties for that. Haukur (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Haukur: I'll note that we're probably not materially discussing the case nor presenting evidence, but I can't help to point out how odd I find your hottake here. That'd be like if I closed a conversation on my talk page with {{atopy}}, edited my own comments for grammar, and then another user reverting me saying That discussion is closed, and you aren't supposed to modify it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

In response to that, Arbcom has in recent years (and by recent, I mean probably the last decade) stopped giving out time-limited bans, instead moving towards indefinite bans, with a minimum appeal period. These are then lifted gradually, with restrictions based on the actions of the individual and their request to return. I happen to agree with that way of doing things, so I don't expect I would agree to any fixed term to a ban. General outcomes for an individual in these circumstances would be unban without conditions (possibly with a remark to time served), unban with restrictions or indefinite ban. Obviously, I'd need to actually evaluate the evidence to know which of these would be the right outcome. Worm^TT(talk) 14:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Just as a historical note, we did try out a fixed-term ban last year, which seems to have worked out OK. Of course single data points are hard to draw conclusions from. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis, Jeez, you lot do a case while I take a break, and look what happens... Worm^TT(talk) 07:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I have to say that every material post that ArbCom, and ArbCom members have made since their seminal note to the WMF, gives me confidence that they are fully engaged in this, and thinking through the nuances and implications around it. I'm am optimistic that real progress is being made by ArbCom; can't ask for more. Britishfinance (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks everybody. Based on the above, I have decided the immediate threat to the community's traditional autonomy has abated and it's safe to come out of the bunker. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Will Fram be informed as to what behaviour if any they need to change?

Apparently even Fram doesn't know why they were banned, and therefore what they should do differently if they return at the end of the ban. If we think of these bans pragmatically rather than in terms of fairness, then it isn't essential for someone with a permanent global ban to know exactly why they were globally banned. If we don't ever want them back there is even a perverse incentive to be unclear as to the specific ban reason, as not tipping them off as to what you are watching out for might make it easier to spot them returning via sockpuppets. But if Fram is given a fixed term suspension, or indeed an indefinite one, then it is essential that at least Fram knows what not to do when and if they return to editing. If it is a rule or code that the EN wikipedia community had not previously been enforcing then it would be helpful if we all knew what the new rules were.

I'm assuming the answer to this will be yes, as Arbcom are unlikely to make the same mistake as T&S. But I thought it worth asking as it highlights a key difference between the respective approaches of T&S and this community. I'd also point out that a potential response from Arbcom would be to announce whatever new rule or tighter interpretation of a rule that the WMF has decided to make Fram an example of. Make sure the community knows what the new standard is and grant Fram and everyone else a pardon for any past breaches of the new standard. ϢereSpielChequers 16:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

If we think of these bans pragmatically rather than in terms of fairness, then it isn't essential for someone with a permanent global ban to know exactly why they were globally banned. Amen. This mirrors one of the key points of Justice Holmes' prediction theory of law. We (collectively and individually) need to know where (as Holmes put it) "the axe will fall". This is especially true if we think of our sanctions as preventive rather than punitive: What better preventive measure is there than pointing out the situations and behaviors when action will take place? Think of it like putting a warning label on a piece of heavy equipment: "Crush zone"—that is, don't put your fingers there, or they'll get crushed. That doesn't mean we need "warning labels" to point out the principles of basic human decency, but it does mean that it's a good idea to explain why we're taking action. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

We are still working on the details of how to conduct the case, how to gather and analyse evidence, how to seek clarification and context from witnesses, and how to involve Fram, while allowing those involved the privacy and safety they would need in order to feel confident in talking to ArbCom (particularly after the speculation that occured on the WP:Fram page in which the private lives of two individuals were exposed and negatively discussed which will have had a chilling effect on others coming forward - emotions were running high, true, but we should make certain that we never allow such behaviour to occur again, as it has real life consequences for the people involved, and a damaging impact on Wikipedia moving forward). Anyway, as this will be an ArbCom case, there should be principles published from which lessons can be learned for everyone, not just Fram. We haven't started collecting evidence yet, so I don't know what those lessons will be, but I think we can all assume that they will be in the area of civility, and in identifying that blurry line between appropriate and inappropriate ways of raising and of dealing with concerns. ArbCom, though, can only refer to and utilise existing policies and guidelines, so I don't see us making new rules, just underscoring those we already have. It would be helpful if Wikipedia had a bright line, like 3RR, for civility, as that would be useful to everyone. SilkTork (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreeing with SilkTork about the general content of an ArbCom decision, and as they say we are still composing the systems to conduct a Fram case. I would add this much: ArbCom is a body of volunteers, elected with the job of issuing a binding decision upon other users. Being composed of the users we are "judging" makes it difficult to treat them unfairly. One infamous exception was in 2012: an arbitrator decided someone had "never been a Wikipedian". Such other-ing is thankfully rare.

Do we know what findings we will reach? Not yet. Matters that can be prejudged are rarely complex enough to come before ArbCom. Do we know what remedies we will issue? Not until the facts are established to our satisfaction. So do we know how much educating of Fram we will try engaging in? It is impossible for any committee member to say so. But I certainly agree that Fram should not feel blindsided and bewildered. Fram may not agree with the decision we will issue in the weeks ahead, but I expect through ArbCom's conduct that Fram will at least understand them. I would add that in my limited dealings with Fram, I have gotten the sense that they struggle even to understand the other side's point. Hopefully that characteristic is left at the door during this process. AGK ■ 10:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Your openness to dialogue here is much appreciated but by materially discussing the matter in this way and musing about putative negative characteristics of Fram you are giving a most unfortunate impression of prejudging the case. Fram is banned from replying but if you want to see a recent example of him accepting criticism and learning from a mistake here is one:

But no, as the block (and/or the block length) clearly doesn't have consensus, and I should have opted for either a warning or a short block instead. While some of the criticism above is unjustified ... that doesn't mean that I can simply ignore all of it. While there is a lot of freedom for admins in how to treat violations, it doesn't mean that we can do whatever we please, and if it turns out that some block was at odds with what most admins or editors would expect, then I should learn from it.

This is from an ANI thread on January 31, 2019. Haukur (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Haukurth, every arbitrator is well aware of what's happened over the past month, and have seen the file passed from T&S. Pragmatically, we have to accept that these are extraordinary circumstances - we cannot come into this matter with completely fresh eyes. That said, I believe the committee members are able to weigh up the evidence put forward (once decide on how that's going to happen) and produce a decision based upon that.

As for Fram accepting criticism, he made a comment before the first T&S warning at an Arbcom case request last year suggesting introspection, which I remember distinctly because I was the one who called for introspection three edits earlier. One of the questions I hope to have answered in any case is what steps Fram has taken to change his approaches and if there's any evidence of that. Of course, I'll make that clearer once we start accepting evidence. Worm^TT(talk) 11:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The speculation on WP:FRAM was directly caused by the secrecy. If you want this behaviour to never occur again, you must make sure that further bans or other surprise decisions have their reasons clearly communicated. You will have to choose between openness and inviting speculation. To protect people, please choose differently from what T&S did when they started this whole affair. —Kusma (t·c) 11:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Kusma, There were certainly failings on T&S's handling of the situation, but I don't think they shoulder the whole blame. There has been a culture in response to this ban of "Find the Victim so we can blame them", and an assumption that this is one or two reports combined with a lack of knowledge of the community norms. As I said above, the document is hefty, nuanced and there appears to have been a significant number of reports. Building a conspiracy theory around one potential involved party and then speculating on their personal lives, on and off wiki, passing this to the press and so on... well, I expect better of this community. Worm^TT(talk) 12:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with Kusma. - Dank (push to talk) 12:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I also stand with Kusma. As for the two vanished users, see Streisand effect. The circumstances of each was remarkable, and remarks followed.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Worm That Turned, fair enough. I don't really care who is to blame, I would like to ask you to make sure your ruling is comprehensible and makes it clear which rules (if any) were violated. Personally, I am still confused what the Fram ban tells me about how I should approach prolific good-faith volunteers whose competence isn't quite up to the task they have chosen to volunteer for. Many of the cases where I am aware of conflicts with Fram are of this type. The not so competent volunteer often feels that the admin checking on their edits is their personal opponent. This kind of situations is difficult to handle in a way that both protects the quality of the encyclopaedia and the dignity of the contributor. Very often they give up and leave after a while, or the conflict escalates or gets even more personalised and they end up blocked. My own actions have contributed to several people leaving. Does the Fram ban tell me I have been adminning wrong? —Kusma (t·c) 13:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Kusma, I think that question is a very diplomatic version of the concerns a large portion of the administrative community have, and this is where I believe T&S has failed. It's also a gap where I think the committee can step in - I feel strongly that any decision needs to be public, explain our thinking based on the information we have seen and what learnings that Fram and the wider community can take. That's irrespective of the remedies that may be applied.

On what sort of factors that might be looked at, there is a difference between say checking edits and monitoring edits over a sustained period (days? months? years?). There's a difference between highlighting concerns to the community processes, and sensationalising those concerns. Escalation speeds might be a factor. And that's before things like tone come into effect. The litmus test should be what a reasonable outside observer would believe is disproportionate attention. Worm^TT(talk) 13:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

What Kusma diplomatically explained above is exactly what I've felt each of the three times I wrote a featured article. You put effort into writing something, and then somebody comes along and tells you in shockingly voluminous and specific detail why your article is trash. This feels terrible, but if you get over it and ask questions, you find that the person is ready to help you make it better (almost always). I feel like there are situations where conflicts erupt where both sides are acting in good faith. I don't think the answer is to ban somebody. They might need coaching instead. Jehochman ^Talk 13:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, Coaching? Who would take on such a task? What repercussions would there be if the coaching was rejected? How would you define success? Back in the day I was known to be one of the project's foremost mentors, and coached a large number of individuals, offering to help new and old alike, troubled and confused. Unless the individual is looking for change, then coaching won't help and if the individual is looking for change, then coaching may be redundant. Worm^TT(talk) 14:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's say an admin is being too enthusiastic about enforcing Wikipedia's quality guidelines, and ends up making an editor feel harassed. If that editor complains, support can come in two forms. First, other people should start monitoring the editor to avoid personalizing the dispute. Maybe somebody else can help that editor without making them feel harassed. Second, the admin could be offered coaching to help them avoid getting into trouble for harassment. We can keep a list of people willing to offer coaching. Hopefully we can do a better job stopping problems before somebody has to be banned. Jehochman ^Talk 15:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a lot of merit in this, and I like this approach. I will say, though, that I have been a mentor (or coach), and it is not value for money. It can be time consuming, draining, and largely ineffective. I prefer putting solutions in place which allow a user to independently guide themselves toward appropriate behaviour. Interaction bans are an example of such a solution. The user/admin doesn't need to be coached or advised not to post to User:Foo's talkpage, they are aware themselves they must not do so, and acquire self control, a skill which they can transfer to other situations. SilkTork (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Clarity on the reason seems a key suggestion both for Fram & the communities benefit. Im keeping an open mind and will accept whatever the Arbs report after they review the evidence. But I just can't see Fram being the sort to Harass in the more egregious sense of the word. His incivility to the Arbs seems mostly a red herring, Ive never known him use abusive language except when he's punching up. I suspect some of the prolific content creators Fram looked at experienced his attention as harassment because it was too intense & sustained. If this is correct, then a problem at the heart of Framgate might be a miss-alignment between the WMF's definition of Harassment, and ours , which says it's specifically not harassment to track "a user's contributions for policy violations". If that's the case, then hopefully Fram can be released from him sanctions. And before acting against other editors for such a "violation", the WMF could either make their Harassment definition more explicit (in which case, at least IMO, it would be fine for it to take precedence), or work with us to change the communities', so we no longer exclude sustained tracking in our policy. Care would be needed so the quality control crew don't feel discouraged, and also that we don't create a situation where good quality creators find themselves being witch hunted by a whole pack of editors seeking out tiny mistakes, which would likely feel far worse even than excessive scrutiny from someone like Fram. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

WMF temporary bans

I noticed Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Announcement of forthcoming temporary and partial ban tool consultation at the Village Pump, in which WMF appear to be going ahead with the implementation of their partial bans via a community consultation - and which seems quite rushed to me, seeing as the Fram case hasn't completed yet. My understanding from the Fram case was that these bans were on hold, and that any new way forward would be developed in partnership with ArbCom. It does make it sound, to me, like WMF are planning to take over some aspect of community management after all and are not going to honour community autonomy, even after the fine words from Jimmy and the board. Is ArbCom a part of this? Has ArbCom been consulted? Has ArbCom been part of any timescale discussion? Or are WMF just carrying on with it under their own sole initiative, albeit with some community consultation? What do you think of this development? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines. I was thinking that in time the community would hold an RfC as a precursor to developing an acceptable situation (policy) where the WMF could step in and help us. I figured once we had developed something concrete that Arbcom would present some sort of "consultation" plan to them. It seem I've been looking at it backwards. It appears that the WMF has indeed declared ownership over all wiki related sites. Interesting, but I do wonder about the quality of article writing to come. — Ched :  ?  — 06:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we knew this was in the works - not the exact timeline, but this is about what I figured given time constraints on the WMF's end like Wikimania coming up. This is for the draft, the "real" consultation starts in September. I think this is a positive step - after all, it's not a foregone conclusion; one possible answer to the question of partial ban use is "this is not an appropriate tool for projects with mature local dispute resolution processes". Until recently, the description of partial bans said Partial Foundation bans help safeguard constructive contributions to and growth of smaller, technical, and/or emerging communities.

Separately, arbcom does have plans for an RfC on improvements to those local processes, but I think there's not a timeline for that yet. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Repeating here what I said there: T & S staff may have done a poor job or a good job with Fram; since the facts are still veiled in secrecy, the en-wiki community has no way of evaluating the question. So, if the WMF is asking for my opinion on whether they should do more of what they did in the Fram case: no, not until the Arbcom case has been resolved and I can judge the facts for myself. I don't see how any other answer is possible, and I'm surprised that they don't get that. - Dank (push to talk) 14:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we knew this was in the works But why there was no relation of this to the community once you were aware? I’m growing increasingly concerned about the level and nature of the ex parte communications between the Committee and WMF. It is the Committee’s duty to avoid not only impropriety but the appearance of impropriety, and the level of unjustifiable ex parte communication with WMF, which is functioning very much as a prosecutor in the Fram case, is the pinnacle of an appearance of impropriety. Please direct WMF to cease these contacts with the Committee except where absolutely necessary to transfer confidential evidence. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

No one needed any ex parte communication to know preparation for consultation was in the works, the provision to prepare for consultation was in the various announcements weeks ago. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Are you saying that WMF are not currently and have not during this case been communicating with the Committee either through its listservs or individually? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

What? It has for many years been publicly known that the committee is in contact regularly with the WMF in private settings. There is no reason to think publicly known long-term practice is not followed. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I am saying that such communication during this case, given the quasi-party status of the WMF, is improper ex parte communication. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

So, then all their communications with everyone in this case and in every other case, when done according to their public mandate to handle things privately, including communications with Fram, is "ex parte". Indeed everyone of the hundreds of e-mails they get is ex parte. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

No. Ex parte communications aren’t ex parte when the other party is informed of their contents promptly. There are unusual circumstances where they can be appropriate otherwise. In any event, because WMF are a quasi-party here (i.e., is acting in a prosecutorial function) they should not be secretly communicating with the Committee. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Everyone privately communicates with the committee all the time, that's why they have e-mail. If you wish to act in "defense", please e-mail them. -Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I would recommend reading what I wrote again. I don’t care about “everybody”. I care about certain parties that have the potential for exacting undue influence over the Committee. This is why rules against ex parte communications exist. If there are prompt disclosures of WMF communications to the Committee going forward, email may be appropriate. Again, I recommend reading what I wrote, and perhaps doing some outside reading about why ex parte communications are bad. I really don’t intend to participate in this case, and certainly not on the defense. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

No. Am I being to subtle, for you to hear? Ex parte a completely irrelevant concept here. The committee is not a court. It runs its private proceedings not as a court, at all, it runs them by e-mail and other private channels, you send them an email, and you can communicate with them about the case, too. Only someone who assumes bad faith can argue undue influence from anyone who communicates about this case with the committee. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Please try to understand that the Committee’s status as a non-court do not render its tasks non-adjudicative. Ex parte communications are bad regardless of what you call an adjudicative body. And please try to follow along, I am not talking about average Joes emailing the Committee, which may be proper. I am talking about a quasiparty—the Foundation—whispering in its ear as it decides a case they have already determined the “right outcome” for. This is improper. If there were any attorneys on the Committee I would warn them that this may be unprofessional and expose them to disciplinary action given the Committee is supposed to be an impartial, fair adjudicative body. And the idea that both parties can engage in improper ex parte communications does not fix anything—particularly here, given the WMF can just look at the listserv it hosts and see what’s being written. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Please try to follow along? Come on. It you who is not following. There is no reason whatsoever, unless you have a complete assumption of bad faith that the private communications of the committee are anything but handled appropriately. Without bad faith assumption there is no reason to think any committee member, will be "unduly" swayed by anyone, so called, whispering in their ear. They will read/listen to the communications, ask questions when they have them, and decide fairly within their privacy mandate -- they are elected to do just that and thus entrusted to do just that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Why should they have bad faith to do those things? I'm sure those at WMF believe they're doing the right thing by trying to convince ArbCom that Fram deserves to be banned. They certainly believed they were doing the right thing when they banned him in the first place. I doubt many of them think letting ArbCom decide is the right thing either. And that's even if we're talking about intentionally exerting undue influence on the Committee. Alan, you're out of your depth here. You really need to read about these things before you comment on them. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

You have no idea what I read. Such asides as that are silly. Did you not understand: 1) It is assumption of bad faith against the committee that they are unable to judge whatever communications they get appropriately. 2) There is no reason to assume the ctte members are anything but able to question and judge what the WMF says properly; 4) Unless you are also positing that the committee's communications with Fram are "undue" influence, then your claims regarding the WMF don't follow; 5) Similarly with everyone else that communicates with the committee about the case. But the committee is entrusted do what's right in private and there is no reason to assume they won't, no matter what anyone says to them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You have no idea what I read. I can infer what you've not read by your comments, in which you keep repeating things that make little or no sense, like this "bad faith" aside. 1) It is assumption [sic] of bad faith against the committee that they are unable to judge whatever communications they get appropriately. Why would incompetence be bad faith? Or for that matter, why would it be "bad faith" if they're doing what they think is right, even if the process is inherently unfair? That's the catch-22 of "assuming good faith", and why it's never enough. 3) There is no reason to assume the ctte [sic] members are anything but able to question and judge what the WMF says properly; Non sequitur: The fact is that the closeness is inherently unfair, unreasonable, and corrosive to impartiality. 4) Unless you also positing that the committee's communications with Fram are "undue" influence, then your claims regarding the WMF don't follow WMF are in a special position and there is an imbalance of power. But, yes, I do agree that Fram's communications to the Committee should also be made open. 5) Similarly with everyone else that communicates with the committee about the case. I have no problem with all statements being made public. But most of all, WMF's, because of the imbalance of power present. They are like a public prosecutor's office in this adjudication and the closeness they share and have long shared with the Committee is dangerous here. But the committee entrusted [sic] do what's right and there is no reason to assume they won't, no matter what anyone says to them. The same for judges. In fact, far, far more so. But we don't trust them with ex parte communications either. Considering a person's reputation and years of work building that reputation are at stake in this adjudication, I would expect some semblance of fairness and impartiality. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

"Why would incompetence be bad faith?" Because you are assuming they are incompetent. "Why would it be "bad faith" if they're doing what they think is right, even if the process is inherently unfair?" Because you assume they won't handle things fairly within the process they are entrusted to apply, and that the process they choose is unfair. This is not a court. So, your prosecutor claims are just nonsense. All anyone is deciding is whether someone should be restricted or not in using a website. Of course, the committee should say as little as possible that could effect anyone's reputation for such a thing as website participation. Discretion is what's called for and the committee are entrusted to use it wisely and fairly, and will, we assume. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Because you are assuming they are incompetent. That isn't an assumption of bad faith. Because you assume they won't handle things fairly within the process they are entrusted to apply, and that the process they choose is unfair. That isn't an assumption of bad faith either. Of course, the committee should say as little as possible that could effect [sic] anyone's reputation for such a thing as website participation. I can't comprehend what you're trying to say here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

You don't understand that all that is being decided is website participation. Well, that, perhaps, explains much of this foolish out-of-place legalese in your comments. As for the rest, your claims plainly come down to not trusting that the committee members are capable and willing to appropriately do their mandated task on private matters -- that is assumption of bad faith. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

foolish out-of-place legalese Can you drop the personal attacks? I've been respectful up til now. I don't intend to engage further with someone who is going to peddle ignorance as something profound and falsely accuse me of making assumptions of bad faith. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I have been more respectful than you have been all along with your asides, including now. As for your legalese being foolish and out-of-place, that is a comment on content not person. But I am more than willing to leave it at, the committee should say as little as possible in any way, if it will affect anyone's reputation. That's why their discretion exists, and the community trusts and assumes they are fully capable to do their task and that they will act fairly and not be "unduly" influenced by anyone else. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Motion: Discretionary Sanctions: Awareness and alerts

Original announcement

• Support + more It is worth being VERY clear for such application of broad power. I think it's worth noting that Discretionary Sanctions should also have to be filed appropriately in the log. Without that log being filled out, Admins have the ability to pretty easily apply discretionary sanctions to any article they want based on the current definition of "broadly construed". As such, there's very little oversight in that manner. I'm pretty sure many articles listed listed under DS aren't properly logged. This should be enacted as further restraint and encourage throughly investigated, deliberate, and judicious actions on such broad powers as granted by ArbCom. If this isn't where we're supposed to discuss this, please move it. Buffs (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  I guess I should add specific verbiage: "7. The page(s) edited must be properly marked in the Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log." Buffs (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• I don't quite understand the below as a grounds for "awareness":
  • They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed);

What does the success or non-success of an appeal have to do with awareness of a DS? Surely the very existence of a sanction within the area of conflict should be sufficient to show awareness of the DS, whatever the outcome? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• Would you say that you should be aware of an area that you had been sanctioned in, appealed successful, moved away from and then not edited for 5 years? Sanctions in the area are likely to have changed over that period. DS has been around a long time now, and this is a plausible scenario. Worm^TT(talk) 22:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I think that's a plausible scenario, and a set time period is a reasonable thing to have, but I still don't see where that fits into the language above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
    • To address both of your concerns, perhaps "(and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed)" should be replaced with something like "and the relevant DS have not changed since the sanction was imposed"? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

      Peacemaker67, I'm not seeing the need. While an individual has an active sanction in an area, it's reasonable to assume they are aware of DS in the area, no matter how long ago the sanction was set. When the individual has no sanction, even if they've had them in the past, then they follow the other rules for awareness (which all default to 12 months). Worm^TT(talk) 11:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

      OK, that's fair enough, but if they have successfully appealed, surely they still know the sanctions exist? I'm not clear what scenario you are looking at here? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

      Peacemaker67 & Pppery, I believe the thinking was that if you have an active sanction, you're expected to remain aware of the topic area, but if your sanction is appealed then there is no such requirement. This was pretty consistent throughout the 2013 review of DS where awareness was brought forth. AGK and Roger Davies led that review, they may have more comments on why it was decided that way. Worm^TT(talk) 09:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

      You've completely failed to answer my question, Why is it any more likely for a user who successfully appealed their sanctions to forget about DS than one whose sanctions expired? (who, per the rules, is perpetually aware) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

      Pppery, I believe the thinking was that if you have an active sanction, you're expected to remain aware of the topic area, but if your sanction is appealed then there is no such requirement. seems to be an answer to that question. It's not so much about "forgetting about DS", but keeping up to date with the DS and the area - making sure you are aware that there has been no changes in the DS in the area and so on. A user without active sanctions has no need to follow what's going on, a user with active sanctions probably should. At least that's my take - There was a year of discussion (which I linked to) for you to peruse at your leisure. Worm^TT(talk) 14:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

      The provision was added as a safety valve. It was thought right to treat users who successfully appealed as having never been sanctioned at all, including in relation to their "Awareness" for the purpose of administering DS. I recall that the provision was specifically designed to prevent the unjust eventuality of a user being sanctioned so as to make them perpetually "Aware" and subject to the concomitant disadvantages. Remember, when the review took place there was a significant stigma associated with the entire DS system: some of its admins were regarded as high-handed and capricious. I rather think that Pppery's question (Why does being sanctioned affect awareness?) misses the point: nobody said it does, but the system deliberately grants them a full excusal with a broader end in mind. To this day it remains, in my view, the right position: imagine appealing a sanction and, years later, being hit with another without an updated alert first being issued. AGK ■ 21:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

      Worm That Turned I think Pppery has something of a point; it turns on the word "active" in what you quoted. According to the awareness requirements currently, someone who was blocked for 24 hours for a 1RR violation, or even (arguably) someone who was issued a logged warning at AE, is considered perpetually "aware" of DS in the area. It is clear to me that someone with an active sanction can be expected to keep up to date with the DS regime in place; someone with a sanction that expired years ago, not so much. Yet the current wording considers them equally "aware". GoldenRing (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

      GoldenRing, Ah, got you. Pppery, apologies, I completely missed the point you were trying to make, and yes, I agree, there is a problem with that. I'm curious, does anyone know of a situation where this has been exploited? Has anyone ever been sanctioned as "aware", while the only criteria they have for awareness is an expired sanction? At any rate, as much as I am loathed to suggest bringing DS back to ARCA again.. that's probably the best place for this discussion. Worm^TT(talk) 12:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

      I'm not aware of this ever happening while I've been at AE, but it's not that likely I'd remember it. GoldenRing (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  Why is it any more likely for a user who successfully appealed their sanctions to forget about DS than one whose sanctions expired (who, per the rules, is perpetually aware). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• There are going to be an awful lot of meat-and-sockpuppets turning up on some of the more contentious articles should this wording be adopted, all claiming innocence of the DS and wasting a lot of magic fairy dust from checkusers (unless WP:DUCK over-rides such concerns). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  LessHeard vanU, I'm not sure you realise, this wording has been in place since 2014. We are just adding the final, underlined line in this motion. Worm^TT(talk) 22:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  Worm That Turned I handed in my flags and left the project as a regular participant in late 2013 mid 2012 (this has been my most active period since that time ) so, no, I was not aware. Of course, I might not have been aware even if I had continued to edit - my peculiar ability to not see what is happening next door was part of what I was pleased to call my "charm"... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC) amended per strikeout and update. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• What happens if a user removes the {{Ds/aware}} template from their talk page? The current wording is unclear as to whether they remain perpetually aware or cease being aware the instant they remove the template. I think the outcome that makes to most sense is for the user to remain aware for 12 months, as if an alert had been given at that exact moment. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  I did notice that the wording did not specify, unlike Awilley's wording (The editor has placed a {{DS/Aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page, or has removed the template within the last 12 months) that. Not ideal to have a wording that technically allows editors to dodge sanctions by removing the {{Ds/aware}} template from their talk page (assuming the interpretation is that they cease to be aware then). Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

If they have no template on their talkpage they may be given an alert. The template is there for the benefit of those users who do not wish to receive an alert, and is intended to prevent the creation of extra work for the person placing the alert - like having to check page history for the past 12 months. SilkTork (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

You do see the potential loophole, right? ~Awilley (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@SilkTork: so if I want to sanction someone, I need to make sure that either they have had an alert, or have added the new talkpage template, or have added it AND removed it, right? Removing it doesn't mean that somehow they had amnesia, does it? Doug Weller talk 14:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

If you try to insert a DS alert on the talkpage of a user that has already had one - even if it's been removed - the software tells you that. Black Kite (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The intention was to prevent users from being alerted who didn't want/need to be alerted, while at the same time requiring no extra work from anyone who wanted to put an alert on someone's talkpage. If there is a problem with it in practise, we can look at it then. There is sometimes some unforeseen teething problems, which is why in this case I asked for the template to be created before the Committee signed off on it, in order to minimise any such teething problems. I think we can trial this and see what happens. SilkTork (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I wasn't sure if DSAware worked the same as the DS alerts, but I think you are saying it does, which is good. Doug Weller talk 08:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Any updates on the Fram case?

I appreciate the committee's July 5 update about plans for an ArbCom case regarding Fram. Apologies if I've missed it, but I cannot find any more recent announcements. Is such a case in progress? Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Related, but there was this: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversion of office actions —Locke Cole • t • c 23:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Funny, I went poking around here just now searching for the answer to this question as well. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Funny, in that anyone actually expects speedy responses or ongoing updates to this secret case. The ArbCom process has built-in indefinite holding periods and it will take even more of those torches and pitchforks that were waved at WMF when they were being slow to respond to expect anything else here. In defense, these are volunteers as opposed to employees that can be held accountable for their time. I think the community is owed an explanation of what process is going on though - and what will be public and what will not? (For example, is only the evidence secret - and the findings of fact can be at least publicly (perhaps with redacted names) be shared? Will the community be allowed to workshop the remedies? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• A question that's been turning around in my head is this: I am of the understanding, from various posts, that Arbcom received a sizable document from T&S that lays out the case against Fram. Now perhaps names have been blacked out, but 'items' should remain. If there is such a sizable document, I would think there have been numerous complaints about Fram sent to T&S. During the time-frame in question, I'm wondering how many complaints Arbcom received. I'm not looking for names of course - but if T&S received a large number of complaints - surly our typical venue for complaints would have received as many or more. But then again, if there is just one person doing the complaining, perhaps Arbcom has had 0 complaints about Fram off-line. Could someone clarify if one of these two is in fact the situation? — Ched :  ?  — 06:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • They have already clarified above that the complaints outlined in the materials from T&S were not solely from one individual. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Based on the declined case requests page, there's two - one declined in February 2018 (diff of removal) and another in October 2016 (diff of removal). This is just declined cases where Fram is the focus of the request, however, and I'm not counting the two very recent ones as those came up in the wake of the T&S ban. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 07:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually I was curious about the ones submitted via arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. — Ched :  ?  — 09:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

There is this recent failed proposal, where ArbCom decided against a conduct reminder for Fram this February. —Kusma (t·c) 12:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• A case shell has been created: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram for those watching. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• @28bytes: A case has now been opened. The evidence and workshop phases are to be held in private, with instructions on the case pages for how to submit evidence and proposals. GoldenRing (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay, we have been discussing the best way to conduct the case, alongside trying to catch up with the other stuff the Committee has to deal with, and all with a smaller amount of Committee members than normal. We agreed process and wording and signed off on it last night. We are not issuing a formal statement on the T&S document, though a few of us have made informal comments on it on this page, enough for people to be aware that there were a number of reports (the earliest dating back to 2016), so this is not a single person issue, and several of the reports were before the user blamed for the ban had even started editing Wikipedia. Anyway, what we intend to do is hold a case on Fram, rather than a case on T&S's document. I have made clear that I felt it was inappropriate for T&S to issue the ban, but now that T&S have handed over their document, and have agreed that ArbCom should look into the matter, I am looking forward rather than backwards. I have said on this page that I feel damage has been done to the relationship between T&S and ArbCom by T&S imposing this ban, however what I am looking to now is repairing that damage and building a better and more open relationship moving forward. The document is clear that there have been a number of concerns about Fram's behaviour spanning three years. For me that is evidence enough that a case is justified. SilkTork (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing and SilkTork: Thank you for the update. 28bytes (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

SilkTork, regarding several of the reports were before the user blamed for the ban had even started editing Wikipedia, I'm not sure which user you are referring to and realise that you will not/cannot say but it is my understanding that one of those who was mentioned in discussions was contributing long before 2016. Can you confirm that you have checked this, including their alleged prior accounts? - Sitush (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

My bad, I have struck that part of my comment. My essential point, however, is that there is sufficient evidence in the document of a range of users having issues with Fram, enough to hold a case, and that is what we are doing. SilkTork (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunate but fair enough, thanks. Is there any indication that the range of users is representative? I mean, I have hundreds, if not thousands, of complaints against me but I don't think any of those people will have contacted T&S simply because they will not have known about it. Bearing in mind that, IIRC, there was an attempt to weaponise ArbCom itself a few years ago, using a slate of people involved with WM-DC, I am concerned that the latest events may be another skewed attempt at weaponisation, and especially since WM-DC actually put out a press release concerning it. Will ArbCom be taking into account any affiliations etc and also the sheer number of contributions (ie: if you make enough contributions then you're bound to upset someone). - Sitush (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Sitush makes a good set of points here. For those who haven't been following along, WM-DC is Wikimedia Washington DC. The press release in question can be found at their press page (it was also published on public Wikimedia mailing lists and possibly other locations). The press release itself is here titled: 'Wikimedia DC Statement on Terms of Use Enforcement'. The opening sentence is: "Wikimedia District of Columbia is deeply concerned by recent events that have occurred on the English Wikipedia, including community controversy regarding a ban imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation." Now ask yourself why WM-DC (of all the chapters) put out a press release? It is clear that this was done because they want to influence what is going on - i.e. politics. The difference is that they did it as an organised group, as oppose to speaking up as individuals. Is that what should be happening (maybe it should be)? What if all the chapters put out press releases detailing their concerns? What if WM-DC as a group wrote to ArbCom regarding the now open case? Many voices and views are competing to be heard here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Fram case opened

Original announcement

So it's the star chamber after all? Well at least we know who the judges are. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• It does say "Evidence submitted will be summarised, anonymised and presented to Fram and to the community here." on the Evidence subpage, which I read as the case not being completely private. —Kusma (t·c) 12:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oh, and there is one thing that may require clarification: The case page says "The committee accepts that it should open a full case to investigate the interactions of Fram with other editors over this time period." without specifying what "this time period" is. —Kusma (t·c) 12:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  You are right. The time period is the last three years, I'll sort that. Worm^TT(talk) 13:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  Well now hold on a sec, SilkTork indicated that this is to be a Fram case and not a case on the T&S document. It would stand to reason that his whole record is relevant, if not in terms of wrongdoing, in terms of mitigating factors. If it's just going back to 2016, when the T&S record starts, then it's just a case on the T&S record, with outside evidence supporting its complaints, isn't it? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  Mendaliv, This is a case on Fram, not the T&S document. I believe we are treating the document as "submitted evidence", though I personally intend to weigh community evidence higher than the T&S document. Three years is a reasonable period to go back in establishing a pattern of behaviour, which is what we're supposedly looking at. Worm^TT(talk) 14:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  It's honestly confusing, then, that the T&S document has the same time scope as this case. Presuming this case gets to a remedy phase, will mitigating evidence (e.g., character evidence, evidence of rehabilitation or potential therefor, etc.) be accepted outside of that scope? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Could the committee start by posting a brief, anonymized summary of what they received from WMF? We shouldn’t be left guessing what the case is about. How can we present relevant evidence if we don’t know which incidents to examine? I think all the cloak and dagger is just theatre. Many editors have already figured out what this was about. You may as well confirm, correct or clarify because facts are preferable to rumors. Jehochman ^Talk 12:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

+1 if sensitive material has been redacted, there's no reason not to share a synopsis of the evidence. This should have been prepared and presented straight away. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 12:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, SilkTork above seems to have leaked who it wasn't. What I want to know is (1) whether the records T&S submitted are all the records, (2) whether the records were produced in anticipation of this process, and (3) whether the records were maintained in the ordinary course of business. As to what is "relevant evidence", they seem to be going for a "full Fram" case, so everything bad you can find about Fram is relevant. Of course, there's no way to refute anything since it's all going to be kept secret. So if you're interested in defending Fram you should find everything he's done that could be called bad and then find exculpatory evidence to respond to all of those instances. And really, for his defenders, it's probably a good idea to dig up everything exculpatory you can find at all. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

It is something we have been discussing. Anything with respect to the T&S report will need to be cleared by WMF Legal. It is important to note that the report was redacted for release to the Arbitration Committee (a committee of individuals who have signed multiple confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements with the WMF); the report was not redacted for public release. We are effectively dealing with layers of confidentiality both within the WMF and with those who are covered under NDAs. To reduce the report or summarize it to where it can be released to the public will be a much more complicated process which we are exploring. Mkdw ^talk 16:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Another question: Who is recused? The use of the "b" mailing list makes it appear that there are recusals. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• No recusals. We put it on B to allow us to easily separate Fram-related emails from the dozens of other emails we get daily. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• This is a star chamber charade, a horrible precedent allowing poison-pen anonymous attack and denying elementary rights of the accused to hear evidence against him and to present potentially exculpatory counter-evidence. The community has been lead into a cul-de-sac by WMF intervention; this secretive process is in no way a satisfactory outcome to their external incursion. Carrite (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree 100%. Everyone needs to be looking over their shoulders now. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 12:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see evidence that any procedural rights are being violated. I assume that, despite the evidence being confidential, the parties still have access to it? Sandstein 19:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• I got the impression that Fram won’t see anything until the Committee has anonymized everything, which I expect they’ll do once they close the phases. The idea that the public would be able to participate in a workshop phase via e-mail is frankly ridiculous anyway. How are we supposed to constructively suggest principles and sanctions when we can’t see any evidence?? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  Mendaliv, I hope that is not the case. If they don't update the evidence page as emails come in, they are likely to get the same evidence over and over again. I'm lazy and don't want to compile evidence, so I'd like to know whether someone else will say what I might say. —Kusma (t·c) 21:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Just in case I have posted in the wrong place, please note this comment of mine. - Sitush (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• Amid all the (to be expected) criticism, I'd personally like to thank the committee for taking on this issue and opening the case. My respects to you all, and my best wishes - you're going to need them. Rest assured that at the end of the case(s), you will all be receiving "My community went through FRAMGATE, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt" gifts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  Please make sure to submit all shirts to arbcom-en-tee@wikimedia.org Barkeep49 (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

You'll be fine. Write a summary of the essential points to consider. What are the issues to be decided? Write that up and get it cleared by WMF, and then proceed with the case. Fram said he would be absent from July 15-30, so you have about a week to do this without losing any time at all. Jehochman ^Talk 16:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Write that up and get it cleared by WMF, and then proceed with the case. I hope you're joking. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a difference, at least in theory, between saying "complaints were received from Users A, B, and C" (which I understand the WMF would have an issue with) and "we are looking at Fram's interactions with Users A, B, and C" (which should be okay, at least as to editors who were not among the complainants— and we shouldn't make assumptions or speculate as to who complained about what). I realize that saying the latter might lead to the former, and hence it might not be permitted to identify every A, B, and C, but I'm not sure of that and so I raise the question for the arbitrators to consider. I also echo the point made above that it would be worthwhile for the Committee to specify the time-frame on which their review of Fram's conduct is focused. Setting a time-frame presumably wouldn't preclude reference to earlier events as background information, but it would help everyone involved in the process, including Fram, to focus their efforts on the most relevant evidence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

It would even be useful to identify venues and date ranges, without naming specific editors. Jehochman ^Talk 22:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

This is smart. I certainly hope the Committee takes this sensible step. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

A set of questions: without naming any specific editors, have the committee as a whole (or individual arbitrators) been proactively contacting interested parties by email to ask them to submit (or consider submitting) evidence? Related to that, has it been decided yet whether any evidence submitted previously or in the future by vanished or renamed users will be accepted as part of the case? Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)