Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Motion: India-Pakistan

Original announcement

Open letter to the WMF Board

Original announcement

• Might I be the first to doff my hat, and state my great respect for such an excellent (and open) action in support of the English Wikipedia Community, our self-governance, and our long-standing aims of openness and fairness. My sincere thanks to all of you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• This is an excellent statement. The second para in particular raises some very serious issues around governance which need to be urgently responded to by the WMF given that they are at the centre of this matter. Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• That is a very good note, on many levels. Well done. I also note Katherine Maher's helpful Friday night comments on her their talk page E.g. – "a role for ArbCom in the immediate case" and "consultation on how to build processes and tools". Feels like things are (finally) starting to move in the right direction; could be a productive week in store. Britishfinance (talk) 08:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you, this is very well worded, frank and to the point, without being aggressive or attempting to undermine the WMF authority. Let's hope they listen.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Kudos for drawing the line where it is due. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Good job.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• I've been very critical of some of the actions of this iteration of the committee, but this is pretty much the textbook model of how such a thing should be done. Total credit both to whoever wrote it, and to all those who've put their names to it. ‑ Iridescent 08:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• A sensible and well written statement. Unlike most lashing out by this community so far. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you for that. It shows what true leadership looks like. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Wow - if only you wrote so clearly and concisely for cases ... sorry, I've been in sarcasm mode for a couple weeks now. Seriously very very well done folks. My compliments to the chef.
  • +1 Support — Ched :  ?  — 08:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• I also want to chime in with my support for this letter. As someone who's never been a big fan of Arbcom, I have to admit this was very well done. You have my sincere thanks. Sperril (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• With thanks to Joe Roe for pulling that together. SilkTork (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Perfect. Dignified, well-written, and just what needed to be said. Kafka Liz (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Well done and thanks. PamD 09:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• A demand that the WMF leave action to community-developed processes should be preceded by developing processes that are well-equipped to handle harassment complaints. The upcoming Signpost article notes that Fram's actions and behavior were brought up to the Arbitration Committee by multiple editors without resolution. I, myself, brought up his behavior with no resolution. Where is the working community process that the WMF should refer harassment complaints to, in your opinion? From where I'm sitting, the current process seems to consist of receiving a harassment complaint and promptly binning it if handling it would be particularly difficult or controversial. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• But I think the note recognises that: We also acknowledge that ArbCom has struggled to handle civility and harassment complaints in a way that adequately balances privacy against transparency, and due process to the accused against victim protection. I think both ArbCom and Katherine Maher are moving to agreement that a much better process is needed on this area (I don't think anybody sensible has advocated during this whole affair that on-Wiki handling of these issues is working); but one that needs co-operation. Britishfinance (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Britishfinance: I appreciate their recognition of this, of course, but then they proceed to ignore it for the rest of the statement. "We recognize that our processes are wholly deficient. We demand that you refer others to those processes." It doesn't work like that. Fix the processes first, then the WMF won't step in. The WMF doesn't want to step in. They had to, in this case, because enwiki has allowed harassment to propagate unchecked. Even with the large number of resignations over this issue, I am willing to bet that the culture of abuse and harassment that permeates enwiki to its core has lost us far more contributions than the resignations. I doubt it's even particularly close. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• @BU Rob13: Honestly, I don't think ArbCom need to hammer this point; I think it is largely conceded by the community. I can't see the status quo regarding reporting of issues in this area continuing; the WMF, Katherine Maher, ArbCom, and the bulk of the wider community (there are loads of examples on WP:FRAM) want real change here. One thing is clear from this whole affair, is that there is no going back to the status quo. Britishfinance (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• And yet, the tragedy is that they can't make the last logical leap that the current situation was caused by the community. The WMF has been all but begging the community to deal with harassment for years, with community health initiatives, research, etc. The enwiki community collectively ignored them.

  Imagine things from their shoes. They can't get the community or ArbCom to act to prevent harassment, despite repeated attempts. The community repeatedly brushes off the issue, often responding to reports of harassment with further harassment. At that point, there was simply no viable "refer to the community" option available when they received a complaint. Their choices were essentially "Take action ourselves" or "Do nothing, and acknowledge we are allowing harassment to continue". There are no good choices there, but they clearly chose the less bad one.

  At the point of the action occurring, the community could have used it as a wake-up call and fixed the processes so no actions like this are ever needed again. Instead, they went on the traditional witch-hunt of victims, blamed the WMF, called for mass-firings, attacked employees, etc. I've seen admins I respected outright say there is no point enforcing our policies/guidelines on civility or harassment at this moment. If anything, the reaction of the community has greatly increased the likelihood of future office actions related to harassment. Hopefully, the community can reverse course and seriously reflect on how we got into this situation. I can't say I'm terribly optimistic, though. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, British finance is spot on. It's taking a while for some at ANI to take this point on board, as people get let off the hook for obvious infringements, but there is going to be a new normal after the dust settles here. I just don't believe that it's the WMF who have either the local knowledge nor the time to police all that. They need to tell us what they expect, and we need to get on with it. Rob, you may think a high profile and unexpected ban of a senior admin was the way to do that, and you're entitled to your opinion, but whatever one may think of that it's indisputably backfired and damaged the project, at least short term. Utimately its going to take dialogue and collaboration to get to where we want to be.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• At least from the inside, I don't consider this ban unexpected. The Foundation discussed Fram with ArbCom multiple times over my term. ArbCom was aware of the conduct warnings and the general types of behavior that caused them, enough that I could spot that those behaviors were continuing on-wiki as I saw Fram pop up in various places. Knowing all of that, when Fram began following me around the project, taking shots at me, the Committee still did not act, instead allowing me to become so uncomfortable that I resigned. I am more than a little taken aback that the Committee then seemed surprised by the ban. They had every opportunity to try to handle the Fram issue themselves, in my opinion, even if they did not know the content of whatever reports T&S received. There was enough there to at least issue a very clear warning that further poor behavior would lead to sanctions, and honestly, that's probably all it would have taken to avoid action from the WMF. Some indication that the community was working toward handling the issue. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

(ec) It might be actually to become a good practice if ArbCon could forward to T&S the requests they can not handle. I hope this is already happening with the requests concerning the usual topics such as child protection, but it would have been a perfectly acceptable move, as fac as I am concerned, to forward there a behavior request they realistically can not handle. However, for me T&S starting handling behavioral requests on their own initiative without any community consultation is absolutely unacceptable.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Just as a point of information, we absolutely forward child protection and other "usual topics" to the WMF. We also have our monthly meetings in which we will sometimes update them on particularly difficult issues we're handling (even ones that are well within our own remit) but to my knowledge we've never asked T&S to take on something that was within our jurisdiction. Other arbs should of course feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The community needs concrete help from the WMF to improve those processes; it doesn't need them to step in and do it for us without being asked. – Joe (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

And until the enwiki community designs those processes and has the will to implement them, victims beware. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Such processes don't come into being by some "design". They evolve from trial and error and from participants' feedback. I spent over 20 years as the volunteer vice-chair of the committee that oversaw problems of malpractice in public examinations for one of the leading UK exam boards, and I can assure you that the job of getting that right was every bit as difficult as anything you've faced on ArbCom. It took years to develop working procedures and mechanisms that balanced fairness with maintaining public trust, but we learned that there multiple crucial issues that had to be addressed in order to strike that balance. It seems to me that the most important lesson that the community, ArbCom and the WMF could learn would include not overworking the system. In my field there were a million students taking exams in any given year, and you needed a large enough body of workers to handle all of the casework accurately and in a timely manner. That meant that "simple" cases could be dealt with by paid staff as long as there was a mechanism of appeal to our committee (which was composed of volunteers, all of whom were experienced teachers). Similarly, for more complex cases which were heard by the committee, other paid staff handled the reporting, investigation and preparation of the case. There was always a right to be heard whether it was a teacher on behalf of a student or the teacher themselves if their conduct was being examined. The committee's role was only to make a judgement based on the evidence presented, and impose whatever sanctions were agreed as appropriate. There was always an appeal available from us to an Appeal Committee, also composed of experienced volunteers.

So, ask yourself if it's better to pluck new processes out of thin air (as WMF have done); or to improve the processes we already have and understand? Ask yourself what needs to be improved? Do you need some paid staff to filter the mundane stuff for you? Do you need more members of ArbCom so that you can run two cases in parallel without taking forever? Do you need T&S to undertake the initial investigations of "tough" cases and prepare evidence on behalf of unnamed complainants? If WMF see the problems of harassment and incivility as so important, why wouldn't they spend some money on getting the routine and time-intensive jobs done, and free up the elected volunteers to do what they do best: to represent the community impartially and to make accountable decisions that everyone can believe in? --RexxS (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

This is all very true. What else I'd point out though is the danger of reinventing the wheel. So much of what we're doing here is not unique or new, but is just a new wrinkle on an old problem. Harassment? Victims' rights? Why are we constantly sitting around arguing by throwing declarations of principles at each other rather than looking at what else has been done elsewhere? This is particularly true for procedure. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Excellent statement. Thank you. Haukur (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Excellently crafted. Thank you. ∯WBG^converse 09:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• As you know, I'm a huge fan of Arbcom. But seriously, this is excellent work, well done to all concerned, it looks like the current members of the committee are genuinely committed to the mission and I applaud that. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Well said. Let's hope they listen. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you. My enjoyment and interest in Wikipedia has decreased drastically over the past weeks but this gives me a bit of hope, as long as the WMF provides an adequate reply. --bonadea contributions talk 09:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

+1 to the statement - SchroCat (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Well written, thank you. Kante4 (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Excellent. Giano (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes - very thoughtful and helpful, well done Arbcom. The Land (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Hear hear. MER-C 09:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Terrific statement. Toa Nidhiki05 10:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• My principal objection to paid editing boils down to the question, "Why should I volunteer my time to improve an article that someone else is being paid to improve?" Why would I work to earn somebody else's paycheck?
  This whole scenario boils down to the same question, why would someone volunteer to serve on Arbcom and take all the grief which comes with it when T&S claim the turf and are being paid to do the same work? As the scope of T&S's self claimed remit expands (like an incontinent cat claiming territory) why would any of us volunteer do any of the housekeeping.
  I'm stumbling toward an uncomfortable, and unavoidable, question - am I a member of a volunteer community, or an unpaid employee of WMF?
  T&S need to get their tanks off the lawn and respect the distinction.
  But Arbcom have expressed all this a bit more eloquently. Well said. Cabayi (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yeah, well-worded, puts the issue into clear perspective and points a path as to what to do next. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Well said. Thank you. Struway2 (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Arbcom statement looks to me "sensible" until a "threat to leave" appears. There is no way to leave Wikipedia as there is no way to leave Earth (well, they threat to leave only Arbcom there). I think the solution is to consistently make users more WP:CIVIL in general. The source of the problem is the general tolerance of uncivil behaviour of experienced users. There should be more warnings and temporary blocks for such users so they don't go too far with it. --ssr (talk) 10:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  Define "civility". —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 10:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  There is already a definition by the link to Wikipedia:Civility which is an established policy. --ssr (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  I asked you to define it, not rattle off what Wikipedia says it is. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 10:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  I was only referring to policy, not introducing my own definitions. --ssr (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Perfectly done, ArbCom Dax Bane 10:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• I fear I must concur that, per Rob: "We also acknowledge that ArbCom has struggled to handle civility and harassment complaints in a way that adequately balances privacy against transparency, and due process to the accused against victim protection" negates the entire rest of the letter's implied claim that Arbcom can handle it. This is them admitting they couldn't - David Gerard (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  Since ArbCom's composition changes with every election, a prior ArbCom's failure to act "correctly" does not logically mean that this ArbCom or any future ArbCom will act the same way. Furthermore, admitting failure to act in the past is usually regarded as the necessary first step to change one's behavior. I think this open letter is clear that the Committee is willing to address prior failures and defend the community's ability to self-police as much as possible. Regards SoWhy 11:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  I wrestled with this a bit myself. I feel like we're in a chicken an egg position: if the WMF has decided to take on enforcement of harassment issues, then there is no point in spending the immense amount of ArbCom's and the community's time required to have a thoughtful RfC about how to improve our process. But of course, without a better process, we will be no better at handling these difficult issues. I think one positive thing about this whole situation is that it has drawn attention to how nuanced these kinds of issues are—in the past, people have been extremely wary of ArbCom holding private proceedings, but it seems this situation has drawn attention to how important privacy protections are in harassment cases. I am hoping that we will come out of this with all parties (WMF, ArbCom, and the general community) better informed about all the issues there are to juggle in harassment cases, and a community more willing to allow the ArbCom to handle them privately when needed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking this stand. The persistent culture of WMF clumsily attempting to micromanage this project without consultation with its users is detrimental to its ultimate goal. Until WMF truly partners and dialogs with the Wikipedia community, these frictions will continue to drive highly productive editors away from the Wikimedia movement. Surely, that's not what anyone wants. - MrX 🖋 11:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Stronger than I expected. Glad it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Excellent, many thanks to the wiki.en ArbCom for bravely standing up for the values of the Wikimedia Movement against undue interference by third parts. Darwin ^Ahoy! 11:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• I feel so proud that the Arbitration Committee speaks up for my interests and advocates for the wellbeing of our shared Wikimedia Community values. This is the response that the Wikimedia Foundation reasonably should have expected when they took the extraordinarily unusual action that they did, then made the situation even weirder by both not explaining their action and having no particular response to this entirely predictable community response. This statement by ArbCom matches my view of the situation and communicates what I want. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Very good letter, well done! Bishonen | talk 11:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC).
• Watching this incident caused me a lot of concern for a project whos mission I care deeply for-- in spite of my inactivity in recent years. The earlier comments by NewYorkBrad and especially this statement by the ArbCom brings me hope that there are plenty of thoughtful people with their hands on the rudder. The Wikipedia community is going to make things right (whatever right is), even if it isn't easy, and they'll do it togeather. I regret my limited role in the initial creation of office actions. While they were never the best tool, they were less of a compromise in a world where Wikimedia had a very different and much closer relationship with the rest of the community than the world we appear to live in today.--Gmaxwell (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Excellently worded, excellently crafted and dignified letter - I thank everyone at Arbcom for writing this, I really did lose all hope here but seeing this letter certainly gives me hope now. –Davey2010^Talk 11:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• The English Wikipedia community is indefensibly toxic according to the recent Buzzfeed report, if admission is the road to recovery then there we go. The letter in many ways is quite good, but 1) why did the Committee not acknowledge Arbcom was in private communication about Fram before the ban; and why did the Committee not acknowledge the policy change by the WMF was in fact publicly done on English Wikipedia by an English Wikipedia administrator? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment. Where did the article state that the 'English Wikipedia community is indefensibly toxic'? Nishidani (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: Re. 1) – could you clarify what you mean by "in private communication"? Re. 2) – I wasn't aware of this, do you have a diff? – Joe (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: this is the diff--Ymblanter (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

That’s a WMF staff member acting in their capacity as a Foundation employee. One reason community members create such accounts when they join WMF as an employee is to be very clear about which hat is being worn when the edit is made and this was clearly not someone acting as a local administrator. –xeno^talk 12:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

We are not talking about hats. That staff member is well respected integral part of this community and that is what matters, when talking about community, and it was publicly done on English Wikipedia (ie. it was publicly done, in the community). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Nishdini, that's how that article reads; Joe I will gather diffs, the prior communication before the ban has been mentioned on the ctte's noticebroad by iirc Opibiana and AGK; the policy change is in the page history of Office. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

No, that is how you read the article, despite it stating:

It finds itself in the painful position that the YouTubes and Twitters of the world have been unable to escape: in open conflict with some of its most devoted users, without whom its scale and success would be unimaginable, but whose sometimes toxic culture threatens its long-term health.

Getting a handle on the size and severity of the toxicity problem in the Wikipedia community is difficult. The relatively small number of admins and active editors of Wikipedia compared to the number of active users on a major social network means 'the scale of harassment is necessarily smaller.Nishidani (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I doubt people are under the impression that when I read, I am not reading for myself. And even in your quotes, you just showed the community is indefensibly toxic according to that article, there is no reason for an encyclopedia to be sometimes toxic in culture, and it has little to no defense (indefensible) - just because it's a smaller group is irrelevant to being toxic regardless, only to size. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a shame more people didn't pick up on that at the time. Regarding prior communication about Fram, he has been a party to many arb cases over the years and more recently he's had disputes with several individual arbs and the committee as a whole. To my recollection, that has been the context in which Fram's name has come up on our mailing list during my term. Saying we were "in private communication" in the letter, which we tried to keep concise, could have implied that we were holding some sort of private case about him, or had received formal complaints, which is not the case. – Joe (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

No. I did not say just write "in private communication". My question was not about anything other than the private communications with the WMF before the ban, that have already been made public, and should have been acknowledged in the letter since the letter deals in communication. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: Oh I see (you did actually just write "in private communication" – that's why I asked for clarification :) ). In that case yes we'd known for some time that T&S were talking to him, and were told a few days before that they were considering a ban. Unfortunately that was on a poorly-attended call and I don't think many arbs picked up on it in the minutes (I was inactive at the time), which of course is not T&S' fault. I thought about putting that in the letter, but Jan has already apologised for not communicating it to us more clearly in advance, and I actually think T&S are generally good at keeping us (ArbCom) informed about what they're doing, so it didn't seem worth pursuing. The communication problems we refer to are largely in communication after the ban. – Joe (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

That is unfortunate, if you are not upfront about the communications before the ban, it is bound to mislead others into thinking there was no communication and put all blame on someone else, when communication is a two-way street. 'We are considering going to ban'; Possible ctte responses: 'how dare you'; 'oh, that makes sense given all our past discussions';'not worth discussing'; 'could care less', 'silence equals consent', etc. etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

And to tie it together, a similar thing arises in the other issue I questioned the committee about, by not noting the public on English Wiki change by a valued member of the enwikicommunity and WMF person, it likely misleads in a damaging way, likely causing 'othering'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Well written. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Excellent statement. I think it exactly expresses the issues. That said, Rob is right. Fram, and others, have had civility and harassment problems for years. If Rob is correct, and this has been brought to ArbCom in the past, yeah, I can see why WMF did this. It needed to be done. I'm still hugely opposed to WMF stepping in like this. We have a classic case that (mostly) only the "elites" contribute at ANI or even vote for ARBCOM. The vast majority don't have a say. And folks who have been here for a while have either adjusted to the civility problems or have pretty thick skin to begin with. Basically speaking, WMF could have done a much better job communicating with ArbCom before the ban-hammer got tossed about. But ArbCom, and the community-as-a-whole, should have done a better job actually recognizing civility problems and setting a higher bar for expected behavior. Hobit (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

"If Rob is correct, and this has been brought to ArbCom in the past, yeah, I can see why WMF did this." Help me follow your logic here. If the issue was a really toxic user that arbcom didn't handle which was concerning Wikimedia, why wouldn't the appropriate course of action for WMF staff to bring the issue to the arbcom and collaborate on a solution? Failing that, why wouldn't the the correct course of action be form WMF staff to act with transparency with (at least) the arbcom? Keeping arbcom (largely) in the dark and overriding the normal governance process doesn't foster a feeling of collaboration. To me it feels both disrespectful and suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the purposes Wikimedia was created to serve.--Gmaxwell (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I think WMF did it wrong ("WMF could have done a much better job communicating with ArbCom before the ban-hammer got tossed about."), but yeah I wrote that poorly, so thanks for asking. To clarify: I understand why WMF felt they needed to act, I just think they should have taken other steps first. Clearer communication with ArbCom in an attempt to say "Folks, this is, in our opinion, harassment. If you can't take care of it, we are going to have to" would have been the right place to start IMO. So I understand why they felt the need to act (it was well overdue IMO), I just disagree with the exact actions taken. Warnings to ArbCom and the community as a whole were needed. This shouldn't be a closed-door process unless it has to be. Hobit (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Good effort but I'm not sure this is a good look: "We also acknowledge that ArbCom has struggled to handle civility and harassment complaints in a way that adequately balances privacy against transparency, and due process to the accused against victim protection...." followed in bold next section by "We ask that the WMF commits to leaving behavioural complaints pertaining solely to the English Wikipedia to established local processes." Local processes are not effective. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment.HobitCivility is as yet undefined. As to harassment, this takes numerous forms, such as persistent reverting at sight of an editor one dislikes, mostly with no policy-comprehensible edit summary, no matter how academically solid and on-topic the sources almost invariably are, and how lengthy the subsequent talk page explanation may be - something I have 13 years of experience of watching or 'suffering'. I don't report these things. Arbitration would invariably call such clashes 'content disputes' since it rarely invokes WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT as a problem of behavioural incivility worthy of sanction (I remember just one case from my area). Neither would the WMT T&S group do so. So their harassment policy is a restricted view of a wider exurban slum reality. Find another word, because this is just really about policing language, regardless of the obtusity, stone-walling, hounding etc that is a constant stick in the wheels of serious encyclopedic work.

• Yes, the statement is close to impeccable within the terms of our remit and complaint.Nishidani (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Leaky caldron: the two passages you highlight don't have to be mutually exclusive. We can acknowledge that we need to improve, and invite help and guidance from the WMF in achieving that, without saying that we have to hand them all the keys to the kingdom and leave all civility / harassment blocks to them. Personally I believe the the T&S team has a lot of general and theoretical knowledge on this topic, which it could use to help ArbCom, but is ill equipped, both in size and local knowledge, to actually do the policing itself. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Nishidani, though the quibbling grammarian in me is having a slight meltdown due to the placement of one comma. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 12:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Fantastic. – Teratix ₵ 12:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you. I guess this is the unpopular question, but what about the members who did not sign? Were they inactive or did they oppose it? (or is that something they would have to say for themselves?) --Rschen7754 12:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Rschen7754: - Check the thread on Joe's t/p. 2 are inactive and 1, umm.... ∯WBG^converse 13:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  Two are inactive and then there is this edit.--Gmaxwell (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• This is a good approach. Hopefully this can be used as a starting point to improving local procedures and working with T&S to restore accountability and community backing to this crucial area of user protection. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Brilliant statement. I know that at WP:FRAM some had low expectations of you, due to relative quiet. But we have a brilliant statement that was well worth the wait. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you all who signed. DuncanHill (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Well written, politely phrased and sets out where the fault lines legitimately lie. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• I've honestly never been prouder to be part of this community.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you to the ArbCom members behind this. starship.paint (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• This is an excellent opportunity to define how the T&S team should work with the Wikimedia communities, and will hopefully develop a series of guidelines for their actions. We must not forget that this type of administrative sanction handed out by the WMF office could target any contributor in any language, not just English speaking contributors on en.wikipedia. I mostly contribute in French (I am bilingual), and I am following this incident with the greatest interest. I sincerely hope that a solution is found before we have more admins and other important volunteers resign. GastelEtzwane (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Well done, and a model for how WMF staff should in turn communicate with the community in a professional and collaborative manner. Acroterion (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Excellent, thank you. —Kusma (t·c) 14:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• My thanks goes to the Committee for finally issuing a strong collective statement about this acute crisis — and specifically, the usurping of their authority by the Foundation. I've been calling for this all along. True, it took a while, but you know what they say... better late than never. El_C 14:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Excellent, well done all! Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you for an excellent and thoughtful response. Once again, I hope the WMF is listening. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you. This is to note that everyone on the board has received this letter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you to ArbCom for this; it is a well-written, concise, and extremely civil summary of the situation. However, given the way the WMF has been responding so far, I would also advise the Committee to be prepared to not get the sort of response you're hoping for to it, and be ready for the next steps to be taken, whatever they may be. rdfox 76 (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Everybody’s said everything that needs to be said, but yeah, this is great. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Hear hear (pile-on). – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Excellent statement and guidance. I especially appreciate the comments from GastelEtzwane and GMaxwell. – SJ + 15:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Well done. I'm really proud of what the committee has done here. Thank you. I hope it's given the consideration it deserves. 28bytes (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Excellent! If the response from the WMF is not satisfying enough, I, too, will let go of the mop. --Randykitty (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Great stuff. Thank you to all. - Sitush (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Great stuff indeed. Beautifully crafted and suitably measured in tone. Exactly the response required. May the reply be similarly thoughtful and constructive. KJP1 (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, very well done indeed. Thank you for this. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Bene factum! -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you for this. Abequinn14 (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Well done, thank you very much. SQL^{Query me!} 17:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• I've been looking for a bit of a beacon of light that there is a way forward in this bloody mess, while I've been wading through my inactivity. This is the first I've seen of it. This is a great response put forward by the Committee, and good job for not letting emotion bite into it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• This is a very strong, substantive, and forward-looking letter. Now it is time for the Foundation to respond in kind. Neutrality^talk 17:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you for this step toward a solution whereby community-elected representatives develop processes for protecting the privacy of victims of harassment while also providing appropriate due process for the accused. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• A great letter, and a reason for optimism amid a very sad time on the project. I just hope that none of you really do end up resigning. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• As of 30 June, two bureaucrats, 18 administrators, an ArbCom clerk, and a number of other editors have resigned - Wow. I knew a couple of admins had resigned, but this is crazy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  Tomorrow the Administrator Newsletter must be out, they include complete lists (note that there were desysoppings and unrelated resignations this month)--Ymblanter (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• I was asleep at the time that the letter was sent. I have now read it in full. It is an excellent letter. Thank you for your efforts. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Well said. Hut 8.5 18:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• This is a wonderful statement, and the absolute best you could've made. Thank you for this. Retroity (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• THe most impressive and probably the most important thing the Committee has ever done, or at least since I becaame a clerk in 2009. I know from my time on the Committee how difficult it must have been to get the wording right, and you can see from the comments above that most people think you did. Add me to the list of those who are proud of what you did and see it as the first ray of hope since this all started. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• As an administrator and a ten year editor, I offer my full support of this letter from ArbCom to the WMF. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you arbs for this letter. I 100% agree with you --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you for this. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Very well done. Thank you. Kanguole 19:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Superb letter. Kudos to all who worked on this. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you. Abecedare (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Well said. I think you have formulated what many (most?) of here at en.wp thinks, Huldra (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Wonderfully said. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• This is excellent, but no matter how bad things get, I suggest that arbitrators not resign. It is one thing for individual admins to do so as a symbolic gesture; but the Arbitration Committee is one of the few parts of enwiki that can plausibly claim to speak for the community and can communicate our positions directly to the WMF. One of the issues we're having here (as we saw in Maher's initial comments) is that many in the WMF don't consider our tradition of community discussions to be representative or legitimate, which makes it extremely difficult for us to convey our concerns to them in a way that they'll take seriously. Its status as enwiki's "Supreme Court" ("Wikipedia's Supreme Court", as far as most outside observers would say it) also gives you a visible platform that the WMF can't easily ignore. Even if the WMF reacts in the worst possible way - even if ArbCom is reduced to just writing disappointed letters to them, basically - we cannot afford to shut down one of the few communication channels with them that we have left, or to give up one of the few ways the community has to produce coherent messages that outsiders will recognize as coming from an authoritative source. --Aquillion (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, it's a nice and thoughtful statement. Well-written and diplomatic. But I agree with BU Rob13 that while ArbCom might admit it hasn't handled harassment cases successfully, there is nothing in this statement that indicates a way forward or what will change to make this positive improvement happen. Rob has stated elsewhere that he was harassed as a member of ArbCom and you all didn't take any action. If you can't take action when a member of the Committee is harassed, what happens with a regular editor who you might not even know gets stalked on-wiki or off? This statement is great as an acknowledgement of the situation as it stands but I don't think members resigning is going to help create a proper way to handle harassment on Wikipedia which is at the root of this entire situation. I don't understand how you can have the authority and responsibility to handle private complaints but lack the ability to do anything about them. Without a change in this practice, WMF is going to continue to take action when ArbCom proves they can't and we'll be back here before the end of the year. Resignations make a loud, political statement but I don't think they will lead to any change HERE on Wikipedia, for the editing community, whom you were elected to represent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Had no one resigned, the odds are that the discussion here would have held little weight. Arbcom is inefficient with 'civility'? So, by general consent has been the T&S Office in this case. It's a massive problem no civilization or institution has ever adequately solved. It's pointless tasking Arbcom with its inadequacies, and then delegating the repair work to an extremely smaller body whose capacity to address the issue is itself under a sombre cloud. Nishidani (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone resigned to make a political point. As far as I can discern, the resignations were submitted because the resigning admins and editors feel that the proposed model of bans and blocks lacks transparency, making any further engagement within such a system untenable for them. Dr. K. 22:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• there is nothing in this statement that indicates a way forward or what will change to make this positive improvement happen: The way forward would be soliciting input from the community and WMF on how to change ArbCom's practices such that we can more effectively handle harassment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you. Dr. K. 22:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you very much for crafting and supporting this statement. It has been the most positive turn that I have seen since the trouble began. I support this statement as well as the committee members behind it. I hope that the Board's statement will follow suit.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• I'm sure ArbComs response could be worse but nothing comes immediately to mind. I'm particularly dumbstruck by the response here. Arbcom's giving WMF an ultimatum saying that arbcom has no working process, doesn't take most cases, drops the ball on the cases it does take, and is demanding the WMF, recognizing all these good arguments, trusts arbcom to handle all harassment complaints and demands WMF to stop taking cases... Now, what leaves me dumbstruck is to see the community in rapturous delight in reading this and the vast majority of people showering arbcom with praise for this. I honestly don't know what anyone could like about this ultimatum... So, to take this as a case in point, in the case of fram, arbcom demands that the buck stop at arbcom for fram, and arbcom would have ignored it. Which I suppose is the implication for why people support this. Or if arbcom took the case the arbcom case would have been just as opaque as the WMF case... The "transparency" arbcom is promising is a false promise, or it's a complete betrayal of any confidence anyone ever had in arbcom... But arbcom doesn't seem to be changing any of it's confidentiality rules, so, presumably, until arbcom does change it's confidentiality rules and abolishes all arbcom confidentiality, these transparency promises arbcom are making here are empty promises in an ultimatum arbcom is making to essentially throw WMF under the bus. So that the community takes it's anger out on WMF and not on arbcom, who would be, and, as far as I know, are now, under basically the same confidentiality/transparency rules that WMF is under. Maybe I just completely didn't understand the message arbcom was sending with the letter. Could someone explain what I got wrong?Cernelmustard (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you and know that you speak for thousands of us, non-admin editors, who spent long time on this page and are terrified of the corporate over-reach. I have thousand times more trust in institution created by editors for editors and elected by editors, flawed as it is, than corporate faceless beurocrats who decided to run their social project on site they havent built. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Excellent statement, thanks for making this stand. NativeForeigner ^Talk 01:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Fantastic statement. Thank you guys. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Best thing I've seen from an Arbitration Committee in many many years, perhaps ever. Well done and thank you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 06:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• I, too, would like to chime in to thank ArbCom for this letter, which reflects my view as well as, I think, that of many in the community. Sandstein 07:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• +1 Reyk _YO! 08:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Late to this. This is an excellent and well-considered response from ArbCom, and closely reflects my views on the matter. A conduct issue such as this apparently was should have been shared with ArbCom, and community accountability and self-governance should have been supported by WMF. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Not perfect, but plenty good enough to endorse here, too! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• This is the sort of thing we need. Noice! talk to !dave 09:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Great statement, thank you all for this. -FASTILY 09:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• I have nothing to add to this but a resounding hear, hear! Very well-written! rchard2scout (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you. No such user (talk) 10:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Excellent. I'm truly impressed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you. the wub "?!" 12:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Excellent. Thank you all. shoy (reactions) 12:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• My thanks as well for publishing this open letter and to those arbs who drafted it and who signed it. Carcharoth (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks Arbcom ... but especially thanks to everyone who signed. The community is coming together in a really impressive way. - Dank (push to talk) 13:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Very civilized statement, thanks. It has already been translated and posted to other wikis. Members there are watching this case with great concern. --StYxXx (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Good response, I fully endorse it. Thanks, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• I support this statement. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• +1. Makes the point well. Hopefully a way forward. Woody (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• My thanks to the Committee for this very needed and well-written statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• @GorillaWarfare:, @Joe Roe:, @KrakatoaKatie:, @Mkdw:, @Opabinia regalis:, @Premeditated Chaos:, @RickinBaltimore:, @SilkTork: and @Worm That Turned: Well done! Paul August ☎ 22:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Pile on kudos for the letter. -- œ^™ 23:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Additional pile-on kudos. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks to the Committee for issuing this timely and tone-appropriate statement in defense of local self-governance. Per BU Rob13's comments here, I hope this is a step in the direction of an Arbcom-led development of a suitable local harassment reporting mechanism. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Excellent statement. I fully support it. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 00:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Adding my voice to the many above: Thank you to all the Arbs who wrote and signed this. Well done. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Belatedly adding my thanks to the committee for this letter. Let's hope it elicits a sensible response. Absconded Northerner (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you all for this wonderful letter. Bravissimi tutti! Zingarese talk · contribs 16:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• +1. I personally believe Wikipedia suffers from handling civility issues and it's been one of the reasons for my recent inactivity. However, due process and overreach are far more important and I support the Arbcom's statement on this matter. Regardless of how the one specific ban turns out, I hope there is fruit from the ArbCom-WMF discussions on this topic and the editing community does not feel stranded by the Foundation. Soni (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Bravo. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Well done and thank you. Wikipedians need to be clear as to whether WMF is unilaterally grabbing control of matters that should be decided by the community, so that we can make an informed choice as to whether to continue donating our time. Certes (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Well done, and a great job with the transparency aspect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with most of the others here: nice job. Similar to a funeral, I suppose, it's also heartening to see so many long-time users coming together in one place, even if the precipitating circumstance is unfortunate. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The hit squad move in on Raystorm and Megalibrarygirl

The entire Framspace is protected.

<snip>

The reference to Floquenbeam as "she" did raise an eyebrow here. His RfA could have been checked, or the template {{gender|Floquenbeam}} made use of. Per my last edit, I am still 111 miles away from the editor Future Perfect at Sunrise is persecuting, so if he blocks, ban him. He was involuntarily de-sysopped ten years ago, but he is still an administrator. An Arbitration case was opened four months ago Special:Permalink/900550284#Notice but the Committee has done nothing to lance this boil. Can one of its members explain the reason for the delay? As usual his recent comments have been unhelpful. ...heads must role at the office affirms his lack of competence in English. Then he objects to the statement Over the past few days we have received many requests to review the recent issues that have surfaced due to the office action taken against Fram. What does Future Perfect at Sunrise know of the due diligence which has been undertaken in San Francisco?

The line of argument is pointless. Fram is banned by the Foundation. How can it be "wheelwarring" to block someone to enforce a ban? An editor was "banned" and then unbanned following the Foundation's intervention. Yet both Fram and Future Perfect at Sunrise argue that the unban is unlawful. When Fram's year is up, if he can't explain why he thinks the unban is unlawful he should remain banned. Then the Stewards should explain why they globally locked the editor in direct defiance of the Terms of Use. As to the unblocks, Alastair Campbell has been expelled from the Labour Party and remains expelled, irrespective of how many other members ask that they should be expelled as well. 81.136.172.62 (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter's action demonstrates absolutely that de-sysopped administrators should never be re-sysopped, with the honourable exception of Yngvadottir (which college did you go to?) 92.19.248.238 (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

It's now being suggested that Fram should appeal to Jimbo. Fram is banned from Jimbo's talk page, so I think we know how that will go. Here's Olivia Rudgard, writing in The Daily Telegraph on 10 June:

The mental pressure of being in the minority in a male-dominated or white-dominated industry is hard to describe, but Pao has had more practice than most.

... Discrimination, misinformation, online abuse and harm have become Silicon Valley's hot topics, years after her efforts to address them put her in an unfortunate limelight.

... Among others, she names the targets of "Gamergate", women who in some cases were driven from their homes and livelihoods, in a 2014 row that was ostensibly about ethics in gaming journalism but became essentially a harassment campaign against women in the industry who had raised the alarm many years before.

Harriet Russell, writing in the London Daily Telegraph on 15 June:

The London Metal Exchange (LME) is banning floor traders from drinking alcohol during the working day as part of a new "zero tolerance" policy that could result in fines or even bans for breaking the rules.

... A spokesman said: "The LME has broad powers under its rule book to ensure fit and proper behaviour on the Ring and Ring dealing ...

"I think the LME is conscious of broader issues happening across the City, and wants to follow examples set by Lloyd's of London and other big names," said one market observer. "They have to show they're getting with the times."

Some people think Wikipedia is not part of "real life". They are wrong. 90.220.171.44 (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's proposal

<snip>

28. Oppose Fram attempted to override an Office action regarding the unbanning of an editor. Then Opabinia (who is still on the Committee) went to the Foundation in a (failed) attempt to get them to support Fram. While on the Committee Newyorkbrad argued that a WP:INVOLVED action by Future Perfect at Sunrise was not involved because "in his mind" he did not believe he was involved. Given the facts, why should the Foundation have any confidence in Newyorkbrad's proposal? 188.220.244.103 (talk) 06:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Johnuniq said at 08:13, 20 June "Banned means banned". So why are we even discussing this? 46.208.211.200 (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

29. Oppose as per Montanabw and endorse proposal by Nick Moyes, especially point 6. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

"Climbing the Reichstag with or without my Spider-Man costume"

An ex-Arbitrator, Thryduulf, apparently does not want the Committee to hear cases referred to it by the Community. With sentiment like this, does Newyorkbrad really think his proposal is going to fly?

Please copy the undermentioned to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. The reference will be found at bullet point 2 (struck) of Proposed Finding of Fact No. 9 in the evidence link "Future Perfect at Sunrise removed the following proposed statement of facts."

CONSTANT HARASSMENT BY Future Perfect at Sunrise

Initiated by Stevepeterson (talk) at 16:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Stevepeterson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [diff of notification Future Perfect at Sunrise]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_Personal_Attacks_with_disgracing_insults_by_Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise

• Link 2

Statement by Stevepeterson

In a discussion in Talk:North_Macedonia I expressed my opinion that wikipedia should adhere to the recently signed Prespa agreement between North Macedonia and Greece in favour of peace in wikipedia. Specifically I shared my opinion that wikipedia could adopt term "North Macedonia's" as an adjective to the State's name: North Macedonia. This (along with "of North Macedonia") is the adjective recommended by "the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of North Macedonia". Admin User User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise has expressed that this would lead to poor English grammar and he is an advocate of the term Macedonian as the adjective of North Macedonia. As the discussion with other users went on he started to personally attack me using disgracing words and insults such as:

you really ought to leave this discussion to others who are competent speakers of English and don't have tin ears.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Macedonia&diff=884714936&oldid=884700282

And: you really need to shut up and learn some English and some proper grammatical terminology before you expose your incompetence further here. It's getting quite embarrassing to watch.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Macedonia&diff=884848956&oldid=884848841

Later, he offended all participants in the discussion by trying to collapse the whole conversation claiming "Embarrassing display of linguistic incompetence."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Macedonia&diff=884847688&oldid=884847206

I tried to explain that I feel insulted and disgraced so he should stop this behaviour by posting on his talk page:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=884730558&oldid=884559635

I would like to inform you that I consider your "you really ought to leave this discussion to others who are competent speakers of English and don't have tin ears." a Derogatory comment and personal attack to me. .

His response had no regret or apology: You don't need to inform me of that. What you do need to do, however, is to learn how to use talk pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise&diff=884735657&oldid=884730558

I brought to to ANI but I received so many personal insults there by Administrators biased towards USER:Future Perfect at Sunrise. There not only did he make the reported comments, he doubled down by linking to an article discussing people of low ability [who] have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority comes from the inability of low-ability people to recognize this basic lack of ability.. I have not been rude neither at the ANI nor at the initial discussion page so there should be no action to be taken against me. USER:Future Perfect at Sunrise on the other hand, has selected a telling link (against himself). He says There's never a nice way of telling an incompetent person that they are incompetent which is extremely inappropriate. FP@S has hidden a discussion on my talk page and I believe that his action (WP:INVOLVED is a misuse of the revision deletion tool. The insults I received made lose control of the ANI and instead of a resolution of the conflict with USER:Future Perfect at Sunrise, I am now proposed for Site Ban.

Statement by Floquenbeam

Dude...

Statement by Khajidha

While Future Perfect's wording was extreme, the fact remains that you demonstrate a lack of proficiency in the use of the English language. Especially considering that the argument is about proper English usage. You have been told numerous times, by numerous people, that the phrasing you wish to use is not proper English. You continue to argue based on your mistaken definitions (possessive nouns are NOT adjectives) and seem to refuse to learn from the grammar lessons that everyone is trying to give you. You even engaged in emotional blackmail (see this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stevepeterson&oldid=885173108), insinuating that you were contemplating suicide based on your treatment here and that others in similar situations in the future may also contemplate such actions. The proposed ban is MORE than earned. --Khajidha (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Legacypac

The filer is about to be CBAN'd at ANi so nothing needs to be done on this request except close it for they will not be able to participate. Legacypac (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by 92.19.174.217

There is a procedural error here by the clerk. While it is true that he acted correctly at 19:22, 26 February, removing a case which the Committee had declined, that decline was without prejudice to a further filing should the alternative dispute resolution mechanism fail. See judgments:

An Arbitration case should be the last resort if other dispute resolution attempts have failed. ...

-GorillaWarfare 18:40, 24 February 2019

It looks like on occasion it would be justified to shove a sock into FutPerf's mouth ...

- AGK 07:12, 25 February 2019

The second opinion shows that a second case would very likely have been accepted. The second filing was appropriate because by 16:46 on 26 February it was apparent that there would be no action against FP@S (see Legacypac's statement). His reasoning is flawed - the recent case brought by Twitbookspacetube against Winhunter continued after the filer was banned, and Winhunter went on to be de-sysopped. The only way the second case can be disposed of is by the Arbitrators giving their opinions in the usual manner - the clerk's removal of it at 19:25, 26 February, with an entry in the log that Arbitrators had declined it that day was out of process. Most, if not all Arbitrators, would have been unaware of the case because it was removed 1 1/2 hours after filing.

Turning to Khajidha's statement, an inquest yesterday was discussing the deaths of four teenage soldiers at Deepcut training barracks between 1995 and 2002 from gunshot wounds amid allegations of bullying and abuse. The allegations against FP@S have been confirmed by Committee judgments spanning ten years. In the present climate, if social media platforms are not seen to be taking effective action against this it is likely that governments will do it for them.

My comments at the ANI were removed by that interfering busybody Fortuna Imperatrix Tuesday, who claimed to have taken a break from editing when he was actually socking aggressively as an IP on pages he had previously posted comment on. If he starts playing up here I recommend an immediate block. What I said there was this:

*Oppose The Foundation has never banned an editor for making sockpuppet allegations. SPI reports are turned down every day but the filers don't get indefinitely blocked. Anyways, Steve didn't make a sockpuppetry allegation, he just drew attention to those who did. So let's turn attention to the real issue here - FP@AS has accused an editor of alleging that he (FPAS) is "a self-declared sex worker" Special:Permalink/885051895#Future Perfect at Sunrise removed the following proposed statement of facts:. The Foundation has banned editors who have made comparable allegations and failed to provide supporting evidence despite having had years to do so. I have no particular interest in FP@S's sex life, other than to note that while other editors discuss their family life FP@S doesn't appear to have one - in which case it is legitimate to ask why not? Pinging @:Stevepeterson as I expect Serial Number 54129 or someone of his ilk to be along shortly to remove this !vote. Fun fact:Beyond My Ken is regularly proposed at ANI for siteban for edit warring, incivility, sockpuppetry etc. Special:Permalink/866661947#Going forward. 11:47, 26 February 2019.

92.19.246.23 (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I have a confession to make - last night I dreamt of FP@S. It's never happened before and I hope it never happens again. He has now been given a formal notice not to meddle with Arbitration pages, so when he gets blocked he can't say he wasn't warned.

From the London Daily Telegraph of 23 February [2]:

I am a cynical old hack who has been taught to question everything. I had first heard about the Bridge Retreat last summer, after I burst into tears on a magazine editor when she asked me how I was. "I'm...fine," I wept, but of course I wasn’t. I was having another one of my depressions, one so furious that on several occasions I contemplated suicide over getting up.

This isn't me making a joke - as a mental health campaigner, I am not the kind of person to make jokes about suicide. It was awful.

This case needs to be processed expeditiously. If it isn't, and something bad happens, the Foundation will want to know why it wasn't. 217.34.36.106 (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Quoting AGK in the Signpost case, it is actually irrelevant that the filer has been banned. As AGK says,

We accept cases whenever our community mission would be best served by involuntarily imposing a binding decision.

We have here a case where an administrator was de-sysopped ten years ago for incivility and bullying. He has continued to be uncivil and he has continued to bully. No other administrator has enjoyed continued access to the tools after being de-sysopped for cause. It's time to iron out this anomaly. Bradv's action in hiding the case from the Committee is another example of his bad judgment - he previously caused a public relations disaster by deleting our article on Nobel Prizewinner Donna Strickland because he didn't consider the source (her faculty) to be "independent". The Committee should examine very carefully any application for promotion to full Clerk.

One of FP@S's complaints against Stevepeterson, which eventually resulted in him being banned, was an allegation (18:44, 25 February 2019) of his

writing in deliberately obfuscated Greek in order to make it more difficult for outsiders to understand.

In January 2016 an editor made the following observation at DeltaQuad's unprotected talk page:

In the sandbox two links from the "harasser"'s post are cited. What makes the respondent think The Rambling Man would have clicked on those links before replying? I have clicked on them. The first is claimed to be "a rant from another sock". It's actually a link to words written (yes, typed and saved) by the respondent which are so disgusting they would never be allowed in a family encyclopaedia.

I hurried over to FP@S's sandbox to see what FP@S had been saying. Here are the words I found:

• f*** off, idiot (14:45, 28 March 2009) [no asterisks in original]
• fu**ing sick of you ... stupid idiotic lot ... fu**ing sick (19:33, 14 April 2009) [no asterisks in original]
• What the f**k(22:57, 19 April 2009) [no asterisks in original]
• the community can go f... itself (08:06, 3 September 2008)

At 13:02, 19 April 2009 FP@S was wishing everyone a Happy Easter. That's Macedonian (or even "North Macedonian") Easter. The comment gives the lie to his claim to be a Roman Catholic - Roman Catholics in Germany had celebrated Easter long before. 2 days, 2 hours and 50 minutes later he told an editor αι σιχτίρ μαλακισμένε. I am reliably informed that the phrase means "F**k off, w*nk*r", but on its own the word μαλακισμένε is innocuous. @Stevepeterson's alleged "obfuscated Greek" is vicarage tea-party pleasantries by comparison. This was 6 days, 7 hours and 32 minutes after FP@S had told a Bulgarian academic that Bulgaria was "a banana republic". All remedies, up to and including siteban, must now be on the table. 80.5.252.147 (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Favonian has been busy at Hebrew calendar and its associated talk page. Last time I looked the article was locked for two years and on the talk page a response to a personal attack was removed and the editor blocked. Less than half a day earlier, at 21:26, 15 April, FP@S removed another comment, blocking the editor 31.127.81.232. This was two minutes after a sockpuppet investigation had been opened. FP@S didn't report in. The case was closed no action at 22:03, as was to be expected since there was zero evidence. FP@S is sabotaging the SPI process by taking administrative action and not logging what he has done. This is not an isolated instance - it happens all the time. He has been reported to the Committee hundreds of times in the past thirteen years but they decline to take action. The Committee is on record as stating that FP@S's WP:INVOLVED actions are not involved actions because when he makes them he believes in his mind that they are not involved actions. If a convicted murderer goes to his gaoler, says his sentence has expired and demands to be released does the gaoler let him out? This case was filed fifty days ago and it is intolerable that the Committee has not yet taken any steps to deal with it. I'm not blaming them because it was removed by a trainee clerk within ninety minutes and they may not even know about it.

I note that FP@S is now describing the Committee as a "heap of rubbish". I was under the impression that he was Greek (Dear Baristam, as a card carrying honorary member of the "GREEK WIKIPEDIAN NATIONALIST JUNTA" I strongly object to your exposing our despicable methods in this way - 10:23, 20 December 2006).

However, I have just discovered that in April 2009 he kicked up a stink about the removal from the article about an Archbishop of Athens of sourced content implicating him in scandal. On the matter in hand, he says there is 'nothing to "separate"', but threatening a block to force out a consensus version and replace it with his Macedonist POV is classic WP:INVOLVED behaviour. Implicit in the words "final warning" is that the warner is an administrator. The timeline is awful. At 09:23 Gogo303 goes on FP@S' talk page and gives examples of undoubted Macedonist vandalism of Bulgarian churches. Now, we know what FP@S thinks of Bulgaria:

Wow. I am really sorry for you, for having to live in a banana republic ... What a shame.

- Future Perfect at Sunrise, 08:20, 15 April 2009

Why is someone who describes Bulgaria as "a banana republic" allowed anywhere near east European articles? At 09:30 FP@S removes the examples and accuses Gogo of "forcing" the consensus version into the article. At 09:41 Gogo clarifies that the "vandalism" reference relates solely to desecration of churches. At 10:26 he politely points out that FP@S should discuss the issue on the talk page rather than edit war. At 10:27 FP@S does go to the talk page, but instead of taking up this eminently sensible suggestion he issues his "final warning", "justifying" it with a reference to an issue which had already been put to bed. There wasn't even one personal attack, let alone three. He then accuses Gogo of not "meet[ing] other people's good-faith opinions" and threatens to block.

Now fairly obviously, by this time Gogo would have done some basic research on FP@S, e.g. by accessing his user page, which contains an image of Wikipedia going up in flames on the left and a chimpanzee on the right. There are liberal references to him being an administrator, including the unpromising statement This user takes the definition of admin abuse to a new level.

Replying to Banedon, the last ArbCom case against FP@S is in fact this one: Special:Permalink/885225348#CONSTANT HARASSMENT BY Future Perfect at Sunrise, which still has to be adjudicated on. @Callanecc, @Courcelles, @Gogo303, @GorillaWarfare, @KrakatoaKatie, @Opabinia regalis, @Premeditated Chaos, possibly they could both be dealt with together?

A post from FP@S' sock account (12:33, 22 April 2009) under edit summary just fooling around a bit contains the Cyrillic letter Ж. The sock lost no time in vandalising the article currently titled "North Macedonia" [3]. I see Legacypac has been banned for using the word "bitch" once on BrownHairedGirl's talk page. Why has FP@S not been banned for multiple uses of the phrases "banned creep", "criminal harasser", etc. etc.? The only action performed by Favonian in a 15-hour period yesterday was a 2-year WP:INVOLVED block, based on the fantasy that an editor could travel 200 miles in 58 minutes (not allowing for the time spent composing, typing and saving the edit).

@Gogo303: was probably right to go straight to Arbitration, bypassing ANI, after receiving FP@S' "I am just about to block you" warning. After all, Stevepeterson was blocked immediately he filed at ArbCom, having been brushed off at ANI. On Tuesday AGK noted:

But you [FP@S] have history of acting while involved, and I will have no truck with admins who measure and calculate their wording just enough for it to go unnoticed by everyone other than the recipient.

On Thursday he added that this bodes poorly for the future. He then removed the last part of the comment, pointing out that it was a "tautology". Indeed it is, but it's none the worse for that - after all, the Book of Common Prayer is full of them. But then he continues, ... I do not see this matter as part of a more troubling pattern. Seriously? 188.221.78.85 (talk) 07:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

A sockpuppet investigation was opened at 12:41 on Monday afternoon. FP@S blocked at 12:48, but, as usual, said nothing to nobody. It occurred to me that the reason why he said nothing to nobody is that he doesn't know what he is doing. I decided to test this theory by examining his block log. I concentrated on blocks with "VXfC" (or some variant) in the "reason" field, since this is what is entered in this field in his latest block. The editor blocked at 12:48, 6 May geolocates to Calne, Wiltshire. The editor blocked at 15:21, 4 May geolocates to Glasgow (not even the same country). The editor blocked at 12:40, 2 May geolocates to London. When we get back to 09:02, 26 April no "reason" is entered at all. Is any explanation to be found at SPI? Unfortunately not, as I pointed out earlier.

It's not only blocks that FP@S doesn't report in. The SPI report of 19:24, 7 May and RfPP request by Aloha27 at 19:25 led to FP@S protecting Computus for one year at 19:39. Again he said nothing to nobody and it was left to the bot to make the report (which it did at 20:02). This immediately raises the question, what other pages has FP@S secretly protected? Well, he indefinitely protected Gregorian calendar at 08:05, 11 December 2016. The barney there was Jc3s5h's claim that:

the Council of Trent approved a plan in 1563 for correcting the calendrical errors, requiring that the date of the vernal equinox be restored to that which it held at the time of the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and that an alteration to the calendar be designed to prevent future drift.

The Council said no such thing. What it did say [4] was this:

The sacred and holy Synod, in the second Session celebrated under our most holy lord, Pius IV., commissioned certain chosen Fathers to consider what ought to be done touching various ... books ... And it commands that the same be done in regard of the Catechism, by the Fathers to whom that work was consigned, and as regards the missal and breviary.

The article now says exactly what it said in 2016, with one difference - the date of the supposed canon has been changed from "1563" to "1545".

Another indefinite protection is Julian calendar, from 19 December 2017. The trigger here was a vandal removing a substantial block of content at 01:04, 16 December. Johnuniq added it back at 01:15. The vandal removed it again at 13:35, 18 December and at 14:43 an editor added it back, noting in the edit summary that the removal had been vandalism. At 12:22, 19 December AstroLynx removed the content again, claiming the editor who removed the vandalism was the vandal! FP@S' protection came five minutes later. 400,000 people signed a petition asking for the first picture in Islamic calendar to be removed. AstroLynx told the RfC that the Prophet delivered his farewell sermon to a congregation of five from a mosque pulpit. It later emerged that he had delivered it on a hilltop in front of thousands of pilgrims while sitting on his camel. This morning AstroLynx reverted a good-faith edit to Coordinated Universal Time one minute after it was made. The edit corrected the false statement that Greenwich Mean Time is the same as Coordinated Universal Time, replacing it with the correct statement that Greenwich Mean Time is the same as UT1. The article was in fact unprotected on Saturday. The unprotecting administrator did not consult FP@S - ALL FP@S' protections should be reversed in this manner.

On 4 December 2016 FP@S protected Solar time indefinitely. The trigger for that appears to be the removal of the incorrect information

the difference builds up until mean time is ahead of apparent time by about 14 minutes near February 6

and its replacement with the correct information:

sundial behind the clock 14m 06s on 12 February with a smaller minimum on 26 July.

On Monday I had another dream - I opened an account on Wikipedia. [At this point the keyboard started typing in Cyrillic - I managed to correct it]. For many, such a dream can turn into a nightmare as rouge administrators hunt them down:

Wikipedia: Sockpuppet investigations/Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylized"

Suspected sockpuppets

• 96.43.171.209

Three edits by IP account. All reinstated edits which were removed as sock edits by this banned user. - Aloha27 11:49, 12 October 2017

The edits being restored were by 31.52.216.116, which was blocked as a sockpuppet of User: **** *** *** *****. - Peter James 15:11, 12 October 2017

---

86.158.154.78, have you ever registered an account on Wikipedia? If the answer is no, then why not create an account for yourself, edit other articles for a month, and then try editing the one on Brexit?-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Toddy1. Your link to WP:ADMINABUSE is exactly what I was looking for. It seems I have taken the right step to talk to EdJohnston first to give him a chance to reply. So let us see what he says, before we take it to the next level. (Do you know anything about this NeilN interloper? - I saw his comment on the Sexual Intercourse article with regards to children in early 2017. He gives me the creeps.) 86.158.154.78 (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: @Toddy1 The latest remark from the IP resembles this gem of an edit summary from the ubiquitous WP:LTA/****. Agreed? Favonian (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Favonian: Yes, same style, same waste of time. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! IP blocked. Favonian (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

---

I have nothing to do with a user named "**** *** *** *****" in whose name I have been blocked.

- SdrawkcaB99, 22:19, 16 January 2018

The SPI report was filed by Jayron32, the administrator who illegally activated an "LTA" report. Jayron 32 responded to an SPI report (12:02, 7 May 2019) by Aloha27, whom we have met, with a block at 13:46. Normally it takes months for these reports to be actioned. Could there be some link to reports on Risker and GorillaWarfare's talk pages between 9 and 15 April 2019 detailing misogynistic bullying by Jayron32? Similar reports have been filed in respect of Favonian, whom we have met.

---

Follow-up: Administrator Abuse by Users Mandruss and NeilN

Good morning Yamla. Recently you participated in what I think is called "cyberbullying", after I had tried to file a complaint against two administrators, see below. Unlike the other bullies, you at least gave a reason, namely "block evasion". May I ask you for the background to this claim? It is a sincere question, and the reason that I am asking is that I am trying to understand the mechanisms of Wikipedia, so that I can file a successful complaint against these two administrators without risk of further allegations and blocks. Many thanks in advance for your cooperation. 86.158.154.106 (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

1=Yesterday, on the Wikipedia_talk:Consensus page, I made a Request for Comment on my proposed new algorithm for editing Wikipedia pages. Essentially, I proposed the idea of including a majority voting element, which is often already applied in practice, but has not been formalised. To my astonishment, Users Mandruss and NeilN ganged up on me with abusive language and blocked me. I request that I be unblocked immediately, and that those two Administrators be sanctioned for their behaviour. Otherwise I may refuse to participate in Wikipedia editing from now on. 86.158.154.104 (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC) | decline = I see talk page access has already been revoked. Good. If you aren't willing to address your block evasion, you shouldn't expect to be unblocked. Yamla (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Please don't request an unblock on my behalf. I'm not blocked. As to the unblock request I did yesterday, I presume you mean the one at User talk:86.158.154.104. I declined the unblock request because your block notice said you were blocked for "Block evasion" but you did not address this in your unblock request. As you did not address the reason for your block, there were no grounds for me to consider lifting the block. Nothing else in your request was relevant, when considering lifting your block. --Yamla (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the rapid response. So how do I (and you as an administrator/registered user) obtain information on the alleged block evasion? In other words, what precisely is the block about? 86.158.154.106 (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Ask the blocking administrator. Or look at WT:Consensus where you started a conversation and see how the blocking administrator closed the discussion. ~ GB fan 14:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit-conflict) You'd have to ask the blocking admin. There's no information I have that you don't already have. I mean specifically, there's no sort of hidden blog log available only to admins, which has additional information. In your case, it's unclear if one of your other IP addresses was blocked, or if you previously used an account. You may know that, of course, but I don't. The one piece of information you may not know is that blocks apply to the person. What I mean is if you have an account and that account is blocked, you aren't permitted to edit through an IP address. Similarly, if one of your IP addresses is blocked, you aren't allowed to just change IP addresses and continue editing. Even though the block is placed on an account or an IP address, it applies to the person behind the account or IP address. --Yamla (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

In this specific case, you are believed to be the long-term vandal known as **** *** *** ***** (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/**** *** *** *****. I take no position on this claim. --Yamla (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the latest IP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Message for Yamla

Hi Yamla, I hope you will read this because NeilN has struck again, interrupting our dialogue on your Talk page. First of all, many thanks for the link pointing towards the long-term Vandal(X). So if I understand this correctly, NeilN is evading Administrator Abuse charges by blocking the plaintiff (me), by the simple means of tagging my IP onto a random other blocked account holder. How do you suggest I bring this behaviour to the attention of senior Wikipedia administrators? 86.158.154.106 (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

CONSTANT HARASSMENT BY Future Perfect at Sunrise: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

CONSTANT HARASSMENT BY Future Perfect at Sunrise: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Acknowledging statement to Arbcom open letter

Dear, Arbitration Committee,

Thank you for sharing your thoughtful statement with the community and us. The Foundation will be working through the points you have raised and plans to provide a fuller response here in public tomorrow. Best regards, --Jan (WMF) (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for your response; however, please don't rush your response (and perhaps give yourself a chance to check it with ArbCom/BoT in private first); you may only have one more shot to get this right (and I sincerely believe from reading Katherine Maher's comments on Friday that it can be got right). thanks Britishfinance (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• It doesn't inspire me with confidence to see that Jan is now speaking on behalf of the Board. I think an acknowledgement either from the Chair or the Secretary would have been more appropriate. DuncanHill (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with the observation that WMF really cannot afford to get it wrong a single further time, but I don't want anyone to use this acknowledgment as a reason to criticize Jan. I see his statement as passing information along, but not as being an official spokesperson. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I was criticising the Board, let me make that explicit. DuncanHill (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I see now, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree as well. I thought Ms. Maher had become our point of contact with the Foundation following our escalation. I certainly hope this isn't a sign that the answer will simply be permitting ArbCom to try Fram rather than reforming the whole process. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @Mendaliv, much as it pains me to defend her, tomorrow is the first day of the WMF's financial year so she probably has a legitimate reason to be too busy at the moment. Pundit did confirm buried in the morass that the board have received the letter. ‑ Iridescent 20:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Seconding Iridescent, but taking into consideration British Finance's clearly practical calculations, I would suggest that the community suggest there is no need to stick to the letter of that promise ' to provide a fuller response here in public tomorrow.' It would be technically better to specify that this late promptness would regard communication their response to Arbcom in private. That would allow some preliminary finessing or discussion between them and the body which represents us. A day or two more then, before going public, won't hurt, at this point.Nishidani (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
      • (ec) Considering that on her talk page[5] Ms. Maher has indicated she will be following the discussion thru the end of the weekend, I would expect she would post here on her own behalf. (She may yet be unaware of this thread, however.) I suspect Eissfeldt is posting here at his own initiative. If that is the case, while I have no doubt he is speaking sincerely, I would recommend that he refrain from further posting here. People are very unhappy with him & are more likely to respond to him rather than what he says. -- llywrch (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • More, this was a letter to the Board, not the WMF. If the WMF wishes to respond, sure, but the Board should have their own full response, unless they are punting it to the WMF, but I haven't gotten that cynical yet. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Amanda. The board has the fiduciary responsibility for oversight of the WMF. The WMF does not oversee the board. If the board's response were to be different than that of the staff response, it would be an untenable position. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @DuncanHill: I don't think it's a problem that Jan responded to a message sent to the board. The Board is made up of volunteers and it will take them longer to put together a response to the letter than paid staff, and staff responding does not mean that the board can't respond as well. I think it's a good thing that Jan et al. want to respond to this letter, even if it's not addressed directly to them. --Deskana (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Deskana: I understand that the Secretary is a staff member, not a volunteer. It's a matter of good practice. A board usually speaks to its stakeholders through the Chair or Secretary. If Jan wants to comment publicly on the Open Letter in his staff capacity that's fine - great actually. But the Board should speak for itself, especially when one of the issues of concern is the behaviour of a group of staff. DuncanHill (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
      • That is what concerned me. It could be read as the board (or its chair) referring the matter to the "appropriate" management department.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Having seen how the Board works in responding to crisis, I highly doubt that. The Board does not work nearly fast enough to have already decided on a course of action on a letter written yesterday. Taking any kind of action in this scenario is something that is likely to involve a discussion with a large number of board members, and that won't happen in 24 hours on a Sunday. So, I really don't think Jan's intention to respond has anything to do with the board at all. --Deskana (talk) 12:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• For reference, we've also received an acknowledgement from the Board that the letter was received and circulated to all its members. – Joe (talk) 09:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• I'm glad I'm not the only one finding it a bit weird that a letter addressed to the BoT is acknowledged by a staff member, claiming "the Foundation" will answer back to it. Darwin ^Ahoy! 11:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I didn't think that Jan had the authority to speak for the Foundation either, only for T&S. If he's just passing on information from the ED (or perhaps a community liaison) then he should have included that in his comment. Unless I'm missing something? Sunrise (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• For anyone who has missed it, Jimmy Wales says we should be getting a statement from the board pretty soon - see User talk:Jimbo Wales#Upcoming. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I see. So we should not shout "fire" in a crowded Wikipedia. Thank you, Holmes.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

No problem Watson — Ched :  ?  — 14:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Jan creates a crisis on Wikipedia, and then exacerbates it through his incompetent handling of the situation, to the extent that our best admins are leaving in droves, and it even gets picked up by the media. The situation is so extraordinary, and confidence in the staff so utterly low, that Arbcom literally writes a joint letter to the Board, explicitly going over not only Jan's head but every other staff member's head, including the Executive Director, who's apparently too busy bullying journalists on Twitter to step in and show any sort of leadership. And Jan actually has the audacity to respond to it on behalf of the Foundation, as if were not addressed to his superiors in response to community grievances about him. The optics alone are terrible, and certainly do not help the image of detachment and incompetence the staff have cultivated. I don't even know how someone can be this oblivious. It's truly mind-boggling that we can have this incredible community of sensible, mature, reasonable, intelligent, serious, professional, academic, humanitarian volunteers, and yet the Foundation itself, which increasingly seeks to rule over us by decree, cannot even pretend to match our basic standards of transparency, accountability, competence or civility. There's not even a pretense of a professional organization here. It's like there's a bunch of clowns running the show. I don't want a response from Jan. I'd rather Jan resign. It would be a reasonable first step. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  It certainly is a wonder why WMF has yet to make the promised statement. Also, it was picked up by the media... and Breitbart lol. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Swarm: as someone I respect deeply, please could I politely request for you to tone it down a little and discuss the issue rather than the individuals. I'm no more happy about the way this situation has been handled than you are, and I think T&S needs to handle things differently in future, but ultimately Jan is an employee of an organisation and he's been given a specific role, which is to "manage the overall safety of our online and offline communities when incidents happen". Just as we are asked to WP:AGF and remain WP:CIVIL in on-wiki matters, so we should extend the same courtesy to the office. There are certainly lessons to be learned by everyone, and both the T&S committee and the community need to understand what is expected of each other. But I think it's unfair to say that Jan and his team have been "incompetent", just that their actions and mandate have been misaligned with what we expect of them. On your specific accusation that he has chosen to "respond to it on behalf of the Foundation, as if were not addressed to his superiors", I read his statement differently - he was not pretending to speak for the board, but simply that as the letter was shared with "us and the community" (i.e. was a public and open letter), he would give his take on it himself, which seems a reasonable thing for someone in his position to do. I am seeing positive signs coming from various sources in the past day or two, and I think all of us will wind up happier if we work together rather than tear lumps out of each other. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  Both the language and the signature indicate that he was speaking officially. Things in tech organizations may be looser than things were when I got my MBA or when I served on the board of a (much smaller) nonprofit, but I don't see Jan doing that cowboy-style. He is speaking on behalf of WMF as the responsible department head and WMF is not contradicting him.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Wehwalt: to answer this specific point, with apologies, I probably phrased it badly. Yes, I agree it looks like Jan is planning to issue an official response on behalf of the WMF executive and/or the T&S team, not just himself. I just meant that it doesn't necessarily imply he's trying to speak for the board, or that he's claiming the letter was addressed to him and his team. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed, one of the more unprofessional, uneducated, and nasty things about this has been the community heaping of abuse on WMF staff who are relating the policy, views and decisions of the WMF (it's called shooting the messenger, and it is unethical). More than four weeks ago, anyone of any competence would have read the documents and would know who made the approvals in the matter including legal and the ED, and would have known the recourse, so shooting the messenger is not only useless unprofessional nonsense, it is inhumane. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  That is a good point, thanks. Personal comments, as always are and should be out of bounds. If Jan, however, has been empowered to be the point of contact between community and organization on matters such as this, then job performance in that regard can be commented on factually without a reasonable person thinking it offensive, though they might deem it rather risky. This dramafest has now gone on over three weeks, and while losing an admin every few months because of WMF action is rather par for the course, losing one a day, just about, for three weeks looks rather careless. That probably can be talked about subject to the above. If on the other hand, if some have speculated, this is similar to what was expected when the implementation of partial bans was planned, that also is probably worth talking about.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  Except, the maturity you suggest could have happened seems most unlikely, as it is apparent from practically the start, the policy the staff member was required to relate is 'we hold information private', so no matter what the individual said, they were going to be shot (unless, perhaps, they said, 'oh, that was my mistake, I will revert now, sorry, and I am resigning to face the poverty and sack-cloth and ashes, I deserve, please, please pillory me'). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  It's hard to see Jan as merely a messenger, a "staff member" "required to relate" when he heads the department with that policy and has a role in both making and enforcing it. We seem though to be arguing two different points: you are arguing abuse and I am focusing on legitimate questioning, while agreeing that abuse is wrong. You are ignoring the agreement and continuing to argue the abuse.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  No, privacy is a global WMF policy. Second, legitimate, look above and below, 'how dare you speak, . . . why are you not speaking?' Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Jan, you wrote that the Foundation plans to provide a fuller response here in public tomorrow (July 1). While it's understandable that plans can go awry, it is unacceptable that you did not bother to spend 30 seconds letting us know that there would a further delay and what the reason for the delay is. You have routinely ignored good faith questions asked of you, and most of your communications throughout this crisis have been verbose, but vacuous. That the WMF continues to allow you be its spokesperson for such issues boggles the mind and erodes what little trust remains in the enwiki community. It is no wonder hundreds of users have lost faith in the WMF and its leadership. Some say it's incompetence, but I'm left wondering if it's not intentional.- MrX 🖋 12:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Jan, do you posses a calendar or do you want me to ship you mine? I was under impression that Germans are punctual, as point of national pride. EllsworthSK (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  I don't think additional harsh words in this sub-thread are productive at this time: The initial response here demonstrated (to whatever extent it wasn't already obvious to some) that Wikimedia staff responding to this letter had *terrible* optics. Jimmy has since posted that the board will be doing (or at least saying) something but needs a bit more time to get a sign off of all board members due to logistics. Given that I wouldn't be expecting a further response from staff at this time. Continued prodding here at this time isn't helping and, if anything, probably just serves to exacerbate bruised emotions needlessly. --Gmaxwell (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  Perhaps you are right. And perhaps I am also at point where it is truly difficult to care. I have trained over my years in corporate jobs couple dozen people for various positions. At every point I always tried to get accross very simple and singular point If you committ yourself to deadline, you get the job done by then. If you cant, you communicate it prior to expiration of deadline and kiss some boot. If you decide to set up second deadline, you either fullfil it or hand over your resignation. This is something I expect from people who are working at entry level and 9.9 times out of 10 they deliver. Jan failed to. I do not know why, and most likely it is out of his hands, but I just simply do not care at this point. He could come here yesterday and apologize for what will be a delay and offer a new deadline, or simply words of apologies and assurances that Board will deliver. He failed to do so and if this is how TnS is run, then my puzzlement about their actions is gone. And this will be the last thing I will write to Jan, or anyone, about this whole mess. EllsworthSK (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  Jan cannot speak on behalf of the board (and he should have clarified that, his post reads as if the ArbCom letter was addressed to his team). At this point I'm not sure if he can speak for anyone except T&S, since this clearly has been escalated to the CEO level, which is probably at least 2 levels above him in the hierarchy of the WMF. We should just ignore this, Jimbo has committed to either a board statement or a (non-diplomatic) personal statement [6] within 12-16 hours, and Katherine has committed to a follow-up [7]. That is more important than anything from Jan at this point. --Tinz (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Given that if the Board gets the response wrong we'll rapidly end up with a lot less arbitrators and admins, it seems sensible for them to take a bit of extra time to (try to) get things right. Attacking Jan in his role as the messenger isn't helpful. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• The Boards Statement Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, see also Katherine Maher's statement. This has always been a matter of a completed executive decision of the Foundation, under Foundation policy. It could not be more clear that Jan has been the staff messenger of the policy and executive decision, which any competent person would know if they just read the documents and statements weeks ago. The attacks on Jan, (including eg., the ethnic slag about being German), have been reprehensible, demonstrating the incompetence, and worse, of the community. The recourse was ever only to get the ED and Board to reverse or revise (the board needed to make new direction on policy and the ED needs to interpret the new direction into executive decision making - Jan was stating what the executive's decisions were under the Foundation policy that existed at the time - and in the message above, relating what the Board/Executive "plan" to respond was). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Link to Katherine Maher's statement (someone should collate all these statements on one page). You (Alanscottwalker) have been consistent in your views, and are right in many cases (including calling out the German bit above), but it is crystal clear that the open letter was addressed to the WMF Board of Trustees. There was no need for Jan to post what he did above. What was needed was a statement from the Board and a statement from the ED. We have that and the question now is to what extent Jan and other WMF employees can speak independently (or with any credibility) given those statements. What we need to know is to what extent the ED has 'taken over' here and to what extent her team includes T&S personnel. Carcharoth (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

No need, you say. Fine. Then people should feel free to not pay attention to what they do not need. Attacking the messenger of what is claimed to not be needed, is still gratuitously lacking in ethics, however. (As for the rest, it sounds rather absurd, if someone here wants to be the employee's superior, than go join the foundation and get the job, and then they get to decide if the employee is following direction, and take steps if they are not). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

One issue only. Fram. That is why we are here. The internecine battle between community / WMF / Arbcom is for a future debate. Leaky caldron (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversion of office actions resolved by motion

Original announcement

• Peace for our time! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• A step in a positive direction. I understand that there are likely ongoing conversations between the involved parties. Based on the recent statement by the committee, which received near universal praise from the community, I have confidence in Arbcom's handling of the situation thus far and patiently await their response to the most recent statements by the board, as also the amplifying statements by Jimbo and Katherine Maher. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• The right outcome. Thanks for dealing so well with such a difficult situation. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

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 [8] 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)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics closed

Original announcement

I have no idea on the merits of the case and the validity of the decision, but I would like to thank the arbs, in particular, the drafting arbs (I guess KrakatoaKatie and Premeditated_Chaos) for properly doing their job during this period when the whole project was perturbed and was dangerously oscillating.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I definitely agree - both with the above, and I think they really stuck to the "minimum required solution", which has been a common concern in recent years. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both, your kind words are very much appreciated. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)