Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carabinieri (talk | contribs) at 23:50, 2 July 2019 (→‎Statement by {Non-party}: I had to chime in here). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
WJBscribe Motions 13 June 2019 9/0/0
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#User:TonyBallioni's block of User:Starship.paint and User:Geni's unblock|User:TonyBallioni's block of User:Starship.paint and User:Geni's unblock]]   29 June 2019 0/3/2
Disputed Signpost article   1 July 2019 5/0/1
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

WJBscribe

Initiated by WJBscribe (talk) at 00:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Resysop request (Floq)
Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram

Statement by WJBscribe

I restored the admin permissions of Floquenbeam (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), which were not removed through a community process or as a result of a ruling by ArbCom. My reasons for doing so are stated in this post. I refer this action to ArbCom for review and scrutiny. I will of course accept any sanction that ArbCom judges appropriate.

@SilkTork: Doesn't it depend on what the call is about? ArbCom may well want to explore with the WMF the circumstances of the ban of Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and the later decision to desysop Floquenbeam (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) instead of referring either matter to ArbCom. In the case of the former at least (I stand by my view that there could be no justification for the latter), it may that sensitive non-public information played a part - although I think everyone increasingly doubts it - so that it might be legitimate for that discussion to be had off-wiki. If the conversation were to move towards the general subject of WMF v Community relations, and the extent of the self-governance WMF is willing to permit us, then I agree that discussion is best held in a more open forum. However, ArbCom members may be best placed to make the argument for why a more open forum is needed for that conversation. I think that you for one would make that case well, so I would encourage you to participate. WJBscribe (talk) 10:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AGK: You're the only active Arb who (other than making some "clerking" edits, including changing the case title to make this case squarely about me, and creating bizarre redirects (see WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 18#Wikipedia:TRUSA)) hasn't opined yet, even though the request has now been open for a week. I realise this case presents tough issues, but tough issues are what you're elected to deal with. Would you like to let us know your position...? WJBscribe (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I restored Floquenbeam (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s permissions, I did not do the same for Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I have thought about that a long time. I guess I wanted to give WMF a chance to explain themselves, to engage with the Community (or ArbCom) and justify their actions. They have not done so. More than two weeks on, the community has been met with obfuscation and delay, and ArbCom has not been placed in a position to endorse WMF's actions against Fram. That isn't OK. I have therefore taken further steps are returned admin right to Fram. See my further statement at the bureaucrat's noticeboard [1]. The local status of Wikipedia:Office actions is now in doubt, but I nevertheless once again refer my actions to ArbCom for review. WJBscribe (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JEissfeldt (WMF) on behalf of WMFOffice

My name is Jan Eissfeldt and I’m commenting in my role as Lead Manager of the Wikimedia Foundation Trust & Safety team.

The Trust & Safety team apologizes for the disruption caused by our implementation of an Office Action. While the application of Office Actions is at times unavoidable, in this case it caused disruption to the community, which was not our intention. By default, we always aim to follow the principle of least intrusion possible for Office Actions. In the future we will improve our coordination with community-elected bodies like ArbCom across the movement when carrying out our duties.

The recent change to Office Action policy that allowed for the introduction of time-limited and partial (project-specific) bans is not a change of the team’s scope of cases taken. However, it does alter the way that sanctions are enforced by introducing more gradual steps intended to fill the gap between conduct warning office actions and indefinite global bans. We acknowledge that there has been confusion about how these changes apply to the English Wikipedia community.

Though my team followed precedent for a Foundation desysop of those who attempt to interfere in Office Actions, in deference to the confusion of this case, the Foundation will not be issuing further sanctions against or desysopping those who edited the block or the sysop rights of those who edited the Fram block to date. We defer to Arbcom’s judgment on how to proceed with regard to such behavior issues in this case.

The Trust & Safety team wants to stress that we do not want to impede or damage local processes on this project. We want to work with the English Wikipedia community and ArbCom on improvements to processes. We are closely following the discussions, including the ones on the ArbCom Noticeboard discussion page. about ideas for improvements and might comments on several of them in response to community questions there or on the other page as part of the issues we are currently exploring.

A more detailed post on the current situation is here and I will publish a first follow-up to non-ArbCom questions there shortly.--Jan (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@Nick: ArbCom traditionally partners with T&S Operations, which partners not just with this committee but also other community self-governance bodies like the Ombuds Commission or the stewards. James Alexander, during his time here, led the T&S Operations team itself, which was why he was present on ArbCom calls. I am in the role that Maggie Dennis previously filled, which means that while I oversee Operations, among other teams, I do not participate in the day-to-day tasks of Operations such as regular calls with community groups. Best, --Jan (WMF) (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

Short version: What Casliber said.
More: By chance, I was the first uninvolved editor to make a statement here. I deleted my earlier statement in order to make room for commenting on the motion, but what I first said then has suddenly become apt again: Don't inflame the already fraught situation any further.
I have a feeling that a full case will be a nightmare. The events of the past 24 hours took place largely because something needed to fill the vacuum left by the silence from ArbCom and the Board. Before you even consider accepting a full case, you need to issue a public statement about where we are at, in terms of what T&S are doing after ArbCom's discussion with them. Does WMF really understand the discussions at en-wiki about Fram? Or are they stonewalling us? Without resolving that, the community abhors a vacuum, and things are spinning out of control. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If a full case were to be opened to examine the use of admin and crat tools, there is absolutely no evidence that would come forth that isn't already known by everyone, including Arbs. A motion remains reasonable, but a full case would just be everyone repeating the opinions you already have here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the statement that AGK makes before his proposals makes some very good points about where the community is at. But as for having multiple full cases, take what I said ^^, and multiply it by each case. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please, please do not admonish anyone (and you would be taking a dubious position that any of those actions really were reversals of "office actions", as the ongoing community RfC about what "office actions" are demonstrates). And one of the best things you can do for the community is to pass a motion saying that no one who has resigned any permissions in this debacle has done so "under a cloud". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Motion 6 is just right, and motion 5 is a big mistake. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

WJBscribe didn't add me as a party, but I probably am. I, too, will happily accept any sanction the en.wiki ArbCom feels is justified for unblocking Fram yesterday. However, in my (completely unbiased!) opinion, no sanction is due either one of us. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @BD2412 and GorillaWarfare: BD's confusion is my fault. I said at VPP I wasn't going to ask for a resysop after my 30 day temporary desysop was up, as long as Fram was blocked. I did, however, ask for the bit back now at WP:BN. That's not quite as hypocritical as it might look at first blush, because (a) Fram isn't blocked (tho he apparently, I guess wisely, still isn't editing), and (b) since this was a request to basically overturn the desysop, I viewed that differently than asking for a resysop after serving my time. (plus, I didn't actually expect to be resysopped....) If, as I expect, I'm eventually desysopped by WMF again, I do not plan to ask for the bit back if Fram's still WMF-blocked. I'm using up my precious 500 word allotment to address minutiae, I know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If en.wiki ArbCom - Hell, if any one ArbCom member wants me to stop using the tools, just tell me. No need for a motion. I'm under no illusion that I'm going to be a sysop here when the dust settles anyway. But God damn it, it's going to be en.wiki ArbCom that tells me to hang them up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe that my unblock of Fram was within local policy, as some are trying to frame it. If there is some loophole I could wiggle through if you parse the words one way or another, I'm not interested in wiggling through it. I thought at the time that it was clearly a violation of local policy, and I knowingly did that per IAR; in extremis, I knowingly broke a rule to improve the encyclopedia. Reversing the WMF's block Fram - with overwhelming consensus to do so - was clearly in the best interests of the English Wikipedia. The contempt WMF is showing our local processes and "self rule" needed to be addressed somehow, and I firmly believed - and still believe - that they would have replied with 1/4th the current (insufficient) effort if all I'd done is join the long, long, long list of people objecting on WP:FRAM. They can break local policy and ignore overwhelming local consensus with impunity; I felt that breaking local policy with ... punity? ... was my only recourse. It was not a result of my "confusion", as Jan implied in one of his posts, even if it might be easier to make it all go away if we pretended it was. So if things are leaning towards "don't desysop Floq, but issue a clarifying motion that such action in the future will result in a desysop", then please don't. That's a cop-out. Either support the unblock (which would make me proud), or say you disapprove of the unblock (which I would completely understand) and chose from the spectrum of possible responses (no action, reprimand, temp desysop, permanent desysop, block, 1 year ban with no appeal). But let's not pretend I didn't know what I was doing in order to make the decision easier for you, or the consequences easier on me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Worm That Turned: I don't think there is a crisis of confidence in ArbCom; certainly not widespread, at least. If there was, I agree an election would be the solution. I think the crisis in confidence is regarding the community and WMF T&S, which neither an election, nor an ArbCom statement, can solve. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @El C: The short version: I don't think there is anything ArbCom can do. Long version: available on your talk page if you want, but I'm using up my precious word allotment, I'm risking getting the dreaded word counter added here... Anyway, we seem to have edit conflicted, I was mostly telling WTT that I think he misunderstood your comment about "crisis of confidence", but you said the same thing 2 minutes earlier and I didn't see it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mz7

The facts of the matter aren't really in dispute: WJBscribe, Floquenbeam, and Bishonen have all knowingly modified clearly designated Wikimedia Foundation office actions, which is something that has been sanctioned in the past by the Arbitration Committee (e.g. [2]). The Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction to review administrator and bureaucrat conduct with respect to office actions, but no jurisdiction to review the actual office action itself (c.f. WP:ARBPOL#Jurisdiction). The question now is whether it would be prudent for the committee to intervene at this stage in this case – honestly, I don't have a view here yet, but given the complexity of the case I'm thinking the answer will eventually be "yes", though right now may not be the best time to do so to avoid needless inflammation. Mz7 (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xaosflux

It may be a bit premature, but I suggest that the committee take up a single case, and expand it to all of the wheel warring that has occurred since Fram has been banned by the foundation. Suggest this is held for at least a few days as there may be more parties. — xaosflux Talk 00:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: I'd agree there is not standing about the actions performed by the office, but I do think there is standing about the actions performed by our admins and bureaucrats. Related to office actions, there is room to determine if our functionaries are expected to abide by policies such as OFFICE, or if the policy should be completely void as it has no community force. To a somewhat lesser extent there is also the issue of one 'crat overturning an explicit "deny" by another 'crat in a rapid fashion. — xaosflux Talk 15:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the suggestions to "resolve by motion" from @Joe Roe, KrakatoaKatie, Worm That Turned, and GorillaWarfare: - if doing so please clearly define what was, and as importantly - what was not considered as in scope of the case request that was resolved by such motioning, so we can tell if additional case requests or other deliberations are still needed. Topics I'd want to see include: Any activities of Fram; the administrative actions of Bishonen and Floquenbeam; the bureaucratic action of WJBscribe; if the Wikipedia:Office actions policy is deemed to be a community enforced policy at all (perhaps it is just a summary of things the WMF has declared they may exercise?); how or if the involuntary nature of office desysopings interacts with the restoration of adminship section of the administrators policy. Thank you (and the other committee members) for your work on this trying matter. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 03:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Worm That Turned: (or anyone working on the motion, pinged you as you began the motion component), please advise if the new action by WJBscribe is "in scope" as well and can be settled together, or if potentially complaining parties will require a unique case request. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 00:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

There needs to be a great meeting that is open and transparent and Arbcom needs to represent the communities interests in this. I think opening a case with respect to this is needed as I think this is a crisis in the making in how this place functions. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ST47

This situation remains too "hot" for a case to start at this time - with daily wheel-warring, there would be a dozen new parties before the evidence phase even ended. I would encourage ArbCom to consider ways to help cool the situation down by motion - possibly including removing tools from some of the parties pending resolution of the eventual case. Since at least some of the admins involved have stated that they don't believe their actions constitute wheel warring, a clarification from the committee on that point (and a statement that future participants will lose the relevant tools) may be helpful.

A full case will eventually be necessary to determine the outcome with respect to Floquenbeam's and Bishonen's sysop bits (who should be added as parties to a consolidated case), WJBscribe's crat bit, any future wheel warriors, and (if the committee feels there's anything to rule on) Fram's own sysop bit, once their office ban ends. ST47 (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by StudiesWorld

I agree with xaosflux on this. While I believe that it is, at this time, premature to accept a case, I also think that this will inevitable come to the Committee and allowing it to expand would make sense. I would add that I think that the case should be more expansive than any concerns regarding wheel-warring to include an investigation of the off-wiki harassment of contributors and any other conduct issues that may arise from this incident. As stated by ST47, I also think that the actions of Floq and Bish should be reviewed with an eye towards possible violations of WP:OFFICE and loss of community trust. StudiesWorld (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add that contrary to others' claims, office actions are not subject to local policies and therefore, it is impossible for WMFOffice to wheel-war. I would also say that I agree with Rob with respect to desysoping and decratting. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to proposals to let Floquenbeam, Bishonen, and WJBscribe off without any action, I think that is an option that ArbCom should consider only if they get binding assurances from these users that they will not use any advanced permissions they have to reverse office actions or ArbCom decisions at any point in the future. If they are not willing to make such an agreement, then they should all be desysoped because we can not trust them to act in this area, as a result of their behavior in this instance. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Building on what BU Rob13 said, I think that the fact that they describe their action as civil disobedience should be telling. When one engages in civil disobedience, one knows that they are breaking the rules and expects and is prepared for punishment. Given this acknowledgment, it would seem that they would not contest a finding that they broke policy. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EllenCT

Please use this opportunity to review the propriety of the Office actions, starting with the unilateral expansion of their remit to local non-legally necessary imposition of sanctions within the purview of established conduct policy and community processes and removal of advanced permissions; imposition of civility standards without community involvement, review, or approval, with secret trials by secret and unaccountable judges without the right of representation, defense or appeal, on secret evidence submitted by secret accusers; including the issues of "appropriate principles and our established constitutional order" cited by Jimbo;[3] and whether and which such actions are appealable to him.[4] EllenCT (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In connection with the likely scope of this case given arbitrator comments so far, I would like to make sure they are aware of this offer from Fram, inviting "the WMF to provide their evidence to a number of trusted WMF people who have no real reason to defend me, but whom I still trust to be impartial. People like Newyorkbrad, Drmies, Ymblanter, GorillaWarfare, Giant Snowman, ... Let them judge the evidence in private, without sharing it with me; if they agree that a) the evidence is compelling, and b) it couldn't have been handled in public, then so be it." EllenCT (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Wbm1058: (link) "For multiple self-unblocks, wheel-warring, and abuse of rollback." WP:IAR is policy, and it means that community consensus pertaining to what does and does not improve the encyclopedia takes precedence over rules. EllenCT (talk) 04:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wbm1058: Fram's stern and often gruff corrections have been repeatedly evaluated, over the decades now, with at least dozens of complaints similar to Laura's -- and while there is unquestionably plenty of room for improvement, which I believe Fram was sincerely trying to make since the initial T&S warning -- in the vast majority of cases I've been able to review, the community has concluded that Fram's efforts were improving the encyclopedia. In Fred's case, he was clearly trying to hide debate about his candidacy, which is very wrong. EllenCT (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

I think there is no way for ArbCom to avoid taking this, and it will be a good opportunity for the committee to affirm its commitment to our collaborative system of editing and our community-driven governance. The resysopping of Floq was, at worst, an excellent use of WP:IAR (with the caveat that there were no rules for this situation, I read IAR as Do the Right Thing), and in my opinion a pretty clear expression of the community's desire to not be ruled by unelected officials who have very important jobs, which sometimes require secrecy, of course--but in this case they completely failed to explicate anything at all to the community. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

While I appreciate some aspects of IAR, I also appreciate that WMF ultimately has the defacto authority here and we have to weigh IAR against anarchy. We can't have admins and bureaucrats going around making changes. So ARBCOM does need to discuss this. Whatever the reasons for the WMF ban, there needs to be a clear line of authority on who/what/when anything can happen. Also, I hereby rescind my topic ban, and ask that one of the admins modify the log so I can edit the full Wikipedia, in keeping with IAR. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Awilley

An argument could be made that a good application of WP:IAR is to enforce the clear and explicit will of the community over the actions of a "random stressed underpaid employee" who tried to pull stunts that Jimbo himself couldn't get away with. I hope that Arbcom will side with the community should a case become necessary. (I suspect that in this case the cooler heads at the WMF will decide that it is in everybody's best interest for them to back down, at least from the Floquenbeam desysop.) ~Awilley (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 28bytes

ArbCom does not have the remit to overturn Office actions, even ill-considered and badly communicated ones. It does have the option to offer leniency to any editors who, in good faith, have stood up against Office actions they felt were illegitimate and damaging to the community. I hope the committee will offer that leniency. 28bytes (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: I think the #Statement by Sandstein below gets it right. 28bytes (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender: That tweet has been deleted. Granted, it shouldn't have been posted in the first place, and it's symptomatic of the new environment we're in where it's fair game to call people "abuser" and "harasser" (and even a criminal, apparently) without consequence, but let's give proper credit when these types of attacks are withdrawn. 28bytes (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Adding, contra BU Rob13 and others: nothing in our policies requires the committee to desysop the editors who felt compelled to take these "bright line" actions. The committee will use its best judgment as to whether doing so would benefit the encyclopedia. I submit that sanctioning these editors for their "civil disobedience" would be more harmful than helpful, although I'm sure the committee understands they'll get complaints and angry reactions no matter what they decide. 28bytes (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Maxim and Primefac have been added as parties I would like to extend my previous remarks about leniency to these well-meaning editors as well. Just as Floquenbeam, Bishonen, and WJBScribe acted in good faith to defend the community against unwelcome encroachment from the foundation, so too did Maxim and Primefac act to prevent almost certain retaliation from that foundation. We've already lost WJBScribe, I don't want to lose anyone else. 28bytes (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Javert2113

I shall be brief: the situation remains unresolved. If, however, the Committee does choose to take this up, I ask they examine the totality of the circumstances; and ultimately reach a just conclusion. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 01:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An update: given the serious losses in the admin corps, along with the questions raised regarding the propriety of actions performed by WJBScribe (given recent actions), it would be best for the Arbitration Committee to step in at this time. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BD2412

There has already been some discussion of the fact that WMF's statement with respect to the desysop of Floquenbeam is somewhat ambiguous. It is arguable that it does not specifically forbid a 'crat here from restoring that bit, so long as Floquenbeam did not request this (which they did not). It says with respect to the period of the removal that the community "may decide on the request at that time", but it doesn't say what should happen if there is no request, or if the community (or a 'crat) decides to enforce Wikipedia policies by restoring rights previous to that time. bd2412 T 03:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per GorillaWarfare's comment, I had not realized that this was requested (I suppose due to Floquenbeam's talk page post indicating that they did not want the bit back). I agree with their rationale for making the request. There is still no express language prohibiting a 'crat here from restoring the bit, so any case against WJBscribe should be moot. bd2412 T 04:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BU Rob13

Current word length: 501; diff count: 0.

Let's see what the Office does in response to this egregious abuse of the bureaucrat toolkit, but I urge the Committee to accept this request. First, and most importantly, WJBscribe's action to revert an office action is egregious abuse of tools. It violates the Terms of Use. It should come with not only de-crat but also de-admin, as this is conduct severely unbecoming. Further, ArbCom should evaluate whether the desysops of Floq, Bishonen (pending, but sure to come), and WJBscribe (if you address that question) are under a cloud and require an additional RfA under existing policy. ~ Rob13Talk 04:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Welcome to post-policy Wikipedia. Should we just delete WP:WHEEL now, or...? ~ Rob13Talk 19:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want to elaborate on this, because it's a continuation of an extraordinarily dangerous attitude from the Committee that permeated my entire term. The Arbitration Committee is hesitant to take decisive action, especially where unpopular with the community. This is true even when our policies clearly favor a particular action. The hope is that, by avoiding conflict and de-escalating, the Committee can cause a problem to vanish. The reality is that this rarely happens. Instead, people learn that they can walk all over the Arbitration Committee without any consequences. They learn that there aren't limits, so long as you can drum up sufficiently loud supporters to make action difficult.

      The Committee is on the verge of making an extraordinary mistake by failing to address the administrative conduct issues here. You are teaching the admin corps that they can cross bright-line desysopping offenses, and if they can get a large enough number of supporters to show up, nothing will happen. Please look at the posts of Floq and Bishonen before they reversed the office action. They knew what they were doing was against policy and the Terms of Use. In fact, Bishonen even said "desysop incoming" at BN. They took an action of "civil disobedience", as they call it, or "abuse of tools", as our policies call it, with full recognition that they were crossing the line. The message is about to be sent that no such line exists if you can find some loud supporters of an admin action, because the Committee is unwilling to do unpopular things that will draw criticism.

      This will lead to more controversial admin actions in the future, including the reversal of any future office actions implemented locally. It will lead to long-term editors acting more brazenly in controversial topic areas. It will lead to editors failing to bring intractable disputes to ArbCom, because they do not trust you to resolve them with any helpful, decisive action. This pattern if avoiding conflict to the point of being walked all over needs to stop. It is fatal to ArbCom as an institution. ~ Rob13Talk 21:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      • And the prophecy has been fulfilled. As a direct result of ArbCom inaction in this case, WJBscribe has reverted another office action by restoring Fram's sysop flag. The Arbitration Committee must fulfill its mandate, or resign to make way for those who will. ~ Rob13Talk 00:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KTC

It doesn't matter how much they disagree with the Office action over Fram. Knowingly and deliberately reversing an Office action is a flagrant abuse of the bureaucrat toolkit by WJBscribe and administrator toolkit by Floquenbeam and Bishonen. Being popular, or making a popular decision doesn't make it right or okay. Everyone involved knew their actions is a violation of policy / against Foundation enforcement of the ToU. That's why it was done. To make a public stand. Well great, you got the plaudits, now suffer the associated consequences. -- KTC (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xover

There is no question or dispute over the actions involved in this case. There is little or no dispute over what the applicable policies are in this case. Thus the central issue is that the named editors (including Floq, who I agree should be named as a party) assert the necessity and justness of their actions despite existing policy.

The situation precipitating these actions is also hugely controversial, still emerging, still hovering between escalation annd deescalation, and with potentially massive and unpredictable long-term consequences. The discussion—despite valiant efforts by some to centralize and structure them—is also spread out over who knows how many noticeboards, project and user talk pages, and even across projects.

For these reasons I believe it is too soon for ArbCom to deal with the actual issue here; ArbCom will have to deal with one or more cases springing from this eventually, but the "fog of war" makes that impossible right now. There are also big questions about what ArbCom's effective remit will be in the locus of those cases when we get to them. I also believe that ArbCom can't simply ignore this issue (decline the case): doing so would in practical effect contribute to the chaos and risk contributing (unintentionally) to further escalation in an already fraught situation.

I would therefore urge the comittee to consider resolving this by motion, and that the motion that will best serve the community in this case is to employ, in effect, jury nullification (CGP Grey explainer video, 4:30). There is no real dispute about the actions or the applicable policy: but to implement a remedy based on that policy right now would be "unjust" (it would offend the sense of justice of the vast majority of the community), and would put ArbCom in an impossible situation. Resolve by motion that the named parties all violated policies in various ways, but that ArbCom will enact no remedies under the current circumstances.

Once this mess shakes out and it becomes possible for anyone to get any kind of perspective on it, that calculus will be entirely different. --Xover (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Banedon

@WTT & Callanecc, are case requests now venues for discussion? I don't understand. As a RFAR, the request is asking the committee to resolve a dispute, not saying "hey here's a problem, let's discuss it in this structured venue". This also seems distinct from any extra information, board meetings or anything like that; it's simply a question of whether WJB stepped out of bounds by reinstating Floq's admin tools knowing what he did at the time. Banedon (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: Let me be clear that I firmly believe that the Foundation acted inappropriately here if you've already made up your mind against one of the named parties, shouldn't you be recusing? Banedon (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Opabinia regalis: is it just me or does #6 say "the committee notes without comment this series of events ..." and then proceeds to comment on it? Banedon (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fæ

Clearly the remit here for Arbcom is not simply to make a statement about WJBscribe's actions, or to limit themselves to sanctioning WJBscribe when they are unable to sanction WMF employees acting anonymously as "WMF Office", even when blatantly wheel warring.

Arbcom is in the dock here, Arbcom has failed the Wikipedia community by failing to maintain a positive relationship with the WMF and contacts within WMF T&S. If Arbcom had not failed to fulfil its role on this project, then WMF T&S would trust Arbcom with the claims of harassment or bullying that underpin WJBscribe's actions.

More fundamentally Arbcom must restore the Wikipedia and wider Wikimedia community's trust by considering motions that:

  1. Confirm and detail Arbcom's role in active improvement of the implementation of Wikipedia's value expressed in WP:5P4 Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility
  2. State in plain English exactly how the relationship between WMF T&S (esp. use of the WMF Office role account) and Arbcom must work so that the WMF Office role account only ever needs to act in extreme and exceptional cases
  3. Take responsibility for the sanctions on Fram's account and negotiate with WMF T&S to ensure that all the evidence can be reviewed and safely held by Arbcom

Lastly much has been made of the evidence that the WMF provided this "Fuck Arbcom" diff to justify their ban of Fram's account for abusive conduct. If Arbcom accepts that such vulgar conduct, in particular by an administrator, is unacceptable for this project, then this threshold for bans and sanctions for abuse or bullying should apply equally for everyone, including Administrators, Arbcom members and WMF Trustees such as notorious potty mouth and unelected Arbcom member Jimmy Wales:

  • diff ... if you tell people to "fuck off" you should be blocked for it immediately, and banned if you continue
  • diff Utter fucking bullshit
  • diff ... telling them to fuck off is not nearly as satisfying as maintaining a good sense of humor while making them fuck off

--Fæ (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

I don't think this needs a full case as the facts are not in doubt: Floquenbeam, Bishonen and WJBscribe all used advanced privileges to overturn an office action, something that is explicitly prohibited in policy. The only reasonable response to this is to remove all their advanced privileges. These not to be returned without a new RFA, to be held after the dust has settled. The merits or otherwise of the Office actions are irrelevant, and even if they weren't they are explicitly outside the remit of the committee to investigate.

The questions regarding civility and its enforcement are completely separate and should not be conflated with the necessary removal of privileges. Thryduulf (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Dank: Whatever else you might think of Jimmy's statement, it is long-established that any block/ban or almost* any ArbCom sanction/lack of sanction can be appealed to him (at least in relation to en.wp, I'm uncertain about other projects). He doesn't always accept the appeal, and in practice he has never overturned an ArbCom decision, and it's been a very long time since he overturned a block or ban, but he does have the power to do so. (*Jimmy's actions can be appealed to ArbCom, but such appeals may not then be appealed to Jimmy). Whether he holds this power regarding the office is undefined, but ultimately the board (of which is a member) has the final say over the Foundation of which the office is a part. Thryduulf (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SmokeyJoe: WJBscribe most certainly did not act "for the community" - at most he acted for his interpretation of what a vocal sub-set of the community were demanding; he acted directly contrary to the wishes of another, equally important, part of the community (including me) and completely ignored that the vast majority of the community have not commented. You are correct that it was a political statement, but political statements are very nearly the last thing we elect 'crats to make. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Oshawott 12

In my opinion, the best thing to do is just for ArbCom to accept the case and look at the WMF account’s actions along with the whole Fram drama. I’m just here to give a recommendation, and I’m probably wrong, but hey, this is a great chance to get ArbCom to review the whole incident and get a better sum-up and conclusion than the WMF’s crap responses. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 09:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I take my words back. WMF gave new statements. However, it would still be a good chance to see ArbCom's take on this and what they plan to do with the sysops, the WMF and WP:WiR's tweets along with the case. It is ArbCom's job, and they've got no choice at this point anyways, so I'd say accept. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 02:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WBG

  • What Drmies states.
  • @Rob:- Did T&S inform you anything about the (supposedly pending) de-sysop of Bishonen? You seem to be quite certain .... ∯WBGconverse 09:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

If I were ArbCom I would be staying well away from taking any action on anything here at the moment, until more clarity on the entire situation is provided. As it is we have a situation akin to playing chess against an opponent which randomly moves the pieces around the board occasionally, and says "I can't tell you why I did that, but I can ensure you I had a full discussion with myself before I did it". Given the increasing stonewalling from the WMF, and the suggestions that this will happen again, I think ArbCom needs to look at this now. Otherwise we will just be here again when the next editor is disappeared. Black Kite (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Softlavender

There is no reason for this resysop action to be brought before ArbCom, especially not by the performer; if an admin or bureaucrat wants a review of their admin/crat action, the venue for that is AN or BN. I would therefore advise ArbCom to decline this case, since this is not what ArbCom is for (vanity review of admin/crat actions, submitted by the performer). If WMFOffice wants to take any action regarding the resysop, they can do so. If editors beyond the admin/crat in question have a major problem with an admin/crat action, they can file an ArbCom case, as a complainant, after review in the appropriate venue(s) (review as in polling of "Endorse" or "Overturn"). As it is, this case request seems to be out-of-process, unnecessary, and lacking any of the requisite pre-venue resolutions/reviews/polls. ArbCom doesn't do "review/scrutiny". That's what AN and BN are for. Softlavender (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

ArbCom also does not do "test cases" or "statement cases". If ArbCom wants to make a statement, it makes a statement. It does not accept cases under the pretext that doing so will allow it to make a statement. Softlavender (talk)

@28bytes: I'm well aware that the tweet was deleted two hours after it was reported at WP:FRAM and 16 hours after it went live on Twitter. That does not change or excuse the fact that an official WikiProject and Wikimedia-linked Twitter account with over 6,000 followers stated publicly on Twitter that a long-term Wikipedia administrator in good standing had committed "real crimes". Softlavender (talk) 02:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC); edited 03:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SN54129

Current word length: 434; diff count: 0.

I'm not sure that anything need be done at least until after the board meeting when we will know where (presumably) the WMF stands on the desysops/resysops. WJBscribe did the correct thing bringing this hear, but the biggest concern should be with de-escalation, not re-escalation, which further such actions including blocks and bans would only encourage.

If a case is still felt necessary after that, it should be brought and heard as a form of truth and reconciliation commission, coming to Xover's conclusion by motion. This is the one result that would truly de-escalate tension—a reversion to the status quo ante bellum.

Punishments may be deserved by the letter of the "law", but would actively pour fuel on the fire as far as broader community dissatisfaction goes.

  • @BU Rob13: pending but sure to come: wishing for it does not make it so. JW commented that further wheel warring will not be productive...I am recommending the same to WMF, so perhaps calmer heads have prevailed. We shall see, of course.
  • Thruuydulf's / KTC's suggestion lacks nuance, to say the least, although it would certainly be successful at the fuel + fire interface. The latter also is unnecessarily aggressive and seems indeed to preempt these proceedings.
  • IAR is fundamental. The encyclopedia was not improved by the office's original action; it has been improved by subsequent reversals. That is the bottom line. And I don't particularly buy the argument that the WMF is the highest authority here except in regard to extremely narrow areas of legal (and possibly political) consequence. As far as en.wp is / should be concerned, the WMF are the caretakers of the building in which the encyclopedia is written, and perhaps, keep us in paper...
    ——SerialNumber54129 10:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re. Ivanvector' diffs regarding WP:BN: in short, no. We can hardly be seen sanctioning an admin for upholding WP:NPA in the middle of a case dealing with aspects of civility. The irony would be supreme, f not the profitability. ——SerialNumber54129 11:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ivanvector, quite. I don't necessarlly disagree with your principle (and as I said in my OP, I don't want any more blocks/desysops/resignations over this, so we certainy agree on that); but I also note that—perhaps with a certain logic—the most vocal admins in this dispute—those most likely to put on the spidey suit—are also the most active layer of the administura we have. The action you propose would leave us with arbcom and a few legacy admins. ——SerialNumber54129 11:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent point by Alanscottwalker—viz, that one of the parties is untouchable by any sanction or recommendation that Arbcom could issue, and perhaps emphasises the degree to which any case would be a vacuous execise. ——SerialNumber54129 13:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee

I'm going to go against the majority so far and suggest that ArbCom should refuse to have anything to do with this whole affair. WMF chose to exert their superior power and override ArbCom's remit in dealing with English Wikipedia behavioral issues, and I think that's the way you should leave it - they made the bed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

@Ivanvector: Well, I for one have chosen to not take any administrator actions at all for the duration of this dispute, and I would at least urge everyone to avoid all admin or crat actions in anything directly related to it while the situation is so inflamed. There's nothing so badly wrong right now that can't wait a little while to be resolved. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on my first thoughts, I would suggest ArbCom should at least wait until the board had met and has tried to sort out the mess together with WMF, before voting to start yet another process to examine it all before we're sure we have all the available facts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC) (There are far too many words on this page, and mine don't really add anything. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by User:Reyk

I urge ArbCom not to get involved in the issue of de- and re-sysopping the administrators in question. In my opinion, none of them have lost the faith of the community; all of them should get their admin bit back if they've lost it automatically on request to a bureaucrat (this includes Fram); and there is need for neither an RfA nor an ArbCom ruling. Reyk YO! 10:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector

I wasn't going to participate in this at all given my separate protest, but just moments ago we've had an administrator in the anti-WMF camp threaten another admin with a block over this incident ([5]). I think it would be a good idea at this point for Arbcom to temporarily remove the advanced privileges of everyone involved in this dispute as a cautionary measure, before someone does something incredibly stupid and tips off another war of escalation. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping Future Perfect at Sunrise, Thryduulf, Beyond My Ken. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, that was Boing! said Zebedee, not BMK. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SN54129: whether or not I agree with the basis of FP's threat or the principle they're claiming to uphold, the point I'm trying to make is that I'm certainly not going to take action against anyone that's participating in this, no matter how egregious their abuse, because I don't know who's going to be the next to decide to be the Great Defender Of The Wiki and overturn my block or decide I need to be blocked because of their unique interpretation of ignoring the rules. There's already a parade of admins turning in their bits at BN. The grandstanding is doing real damage to the project, on many fronts. The WMF has seriously fucked up here, but each threat, each block, and each rogue admin action makes matters worse, not better. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partially in response to Amakuru's statement I have struck my recommendation to (paraphrasing) desysop everyone. Of course that's not helpful. Let me replace that with: "I think it would be a good idea for everyone involved to remain calm, and remember that we're not each other's enemies." To borrow Opabinia regalis' analogy, the WMF lit the match, but we're the ones dumping gasoline on this dumpster fire.
Directly to the case request: I enourage the Committee to accept, but only after we receive some kind of response following the Board meeting scheduled tomorrow, and then limited in scope to only English Wikipedia's community policies with respect to adminship and bureaucratship. To my mind, the Committee has no authority to place, nor modify, nor enforce Office actions. Let the WMF clean up their own mess and block/ban who they want to, but once that's settled, there are issues to deal with locally. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the motion 3.1 below, I encourage the Committee to accept the case as defined, or one generally defined as the Committee making recommendations to the community regarding a local mechanism for users to privately report harassment. It has become quite abundantly clear over the years but also with the recent incident that the community is not equipped to handle this. An "Arbcom-led RfC" should come after the Committee discusses internally what we can and cannot do as a community, and perhaps to frame an RfC in that context. It's very obvious that simply asking the community what should be done here will be an exercise in futility. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(this page is long and I'm not sure if I'm commenting in the right section, I would appreciate if a clerk would move my comment to the right section if this is not it)

Statement by Carcharoth

Current word length: 494; diff count: 0.

My advice would be to to wait a few days and see what happens and where community discussions (and the WMF Board meeting) go. In the meantime, try and come up with a sensible collective statement from ArbCom to help people understand your role (or lack of a role) in what is happening here, maybe on the whole matter, or maybe narrowly focused on your responsibilities. Try and help the English Wikipedia community and the WMF work out a way through this. Try to limit the damage being done. Don't limit discussion (here or elsewhere), but do try to set some boundaries for civil discussion. (As a small point of order, naming and notifying a role account may not actually reach the people operating that role account i.e. has someone emailed the email address listed at User:WMFOffice, and are those posting at User talk:WMFOffice actually expecting a reply?). Has a role account ever been named in an arbitration case request before? Carcharoth (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are signs that more information is slowly emerging, and things are becoming clearer. Unfortunately, there is a lot of reading to do to get to that point. Clear summaries and timelines may help get a handle on what is going on here. Plus reading around all the discussions in various venues. On a specific point, my question to the arbitrators is, in light of what SilkTork says here, why are you letting the WMF put you in a position where you knew ahead of time about this, but were not trusted with any information about it? Consider what that says about the relationship between ArbCom and the WMF. If anything is to come out of this, insist on a better-defined relationship and don't let yourselves get put in an awkward position like that again. Carcharoth (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Katie, please can you and other arbitrators who will be participating in that phone call with the WMF, read what Fram has said here and consider: (1) The WMF are affecting the editorial independence of their projects by this level of micromanagement and are opening themselves up to legal liability; and (2) the WMF are dealing with matters that are your jurisdiction. A sensible resolution to this would be for the WMF to pass jurisdiction back to you (ArbCom) and for you to open a case examining Fram's conduct. That would likely resolve the specific matter at hand. On the general matter going forward, the WMF approach that is most likely to build bridges and repair some of the reputational damage is for them to make the case for the need for this sort of project-specific WMF ban as part of their toolset, but to work with the communities on implementing it in a way that will gain acecptance. Carcharoth (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Statements are being withdrawn and two of the named parties have made further statements. ArbCom, you need to get a grip here and sort out what you are going to do. Carcharoth (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dave

Personally I'm with Boing on this - WMF chose to ignore all processes we have and simply do things their way ..... so as such I feel this case should be declined, That being said if a case is really desired then I would suggest waiting after the meeting,

I also thank WJB for coming here although ofcourse they didn't have to. –Davey2010Talk 11:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well 3 weeks later and as of writing this comment no statement has been given so I support resolving this by motion, I don't entirely agree with admonishing Floq, Bishonen and WJB due to this being exceptional and rare circumstances
I support DGGs proposal - WMF bans should never be overturned although in this case these were exceptional circumstances but as stated below what happened over the last 3 weeks shouldn't set a precedence,
I will say inregards to WJBs resysopping of Fram - That really shouldn't of happened but it's all water under the bridge now i guess. –Davey2010Talk 13:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WaltCip

The origin point of everything that has occurred here is the messaging (or lack thereof) by WMF. The board meeting on June 14th is expected to provide to the community some clarity to an incident that badly needs clarification. Until then, ArbCom should remain in a holding pattern.--WaltCip (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WMFOffice has given a statement effectively deferring judgment to ArbCom for those who were responsible for reversing or circumventing office actions. Regardless of how I feel about what has transpired, and however much I disagree with what the WMF has done, policy is clear, as is the precedence on how we have handled cases like this in the past: This is wheel-warring. Floquenbeam and Bishonen were out of line in unblocking Fram, and WJBScribe was out of line for reversing the office de-sysop of Floquenbeam. These individuals should be respectively de-sysopped and de-cratted, eligible to regain their advanced rights only after a successful RfA/RfB.--WaltCip (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Over 110 statements. This is insane.--WaltCip (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Amakuru

Current word length: 452; diff count: 0.

  • First of all, I am definitely in sympathy with Fram because, based on the evidence available so far, their block was an unwarranted office action in an area where it is not sensible IMHO for the office to act. Based on the evidence, of course. There may be things we do'nt know about that affected the decision, in which case perhaps it was justified after all.
  • That said, though, the office is God for us since they own the servers, and reversing their actions just isn't permitted. We all signed up to their basic rules when we opened our accounts and that still holds even if we disapprove of what they do. So speaking personally I would never have taken the actions that Floq, Bish or WjbScribe took. I don't think they particularly advance the situation re Fram's access and cause a lot of distraction and drama. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to SilkTork's acceptance comment below, in moving the focus away from WJBScribe's action, which would be a fairly pointless exercise, to one centred on the interplay between ArbCom and the office regarding civility and harassment cases. I think that is a great idea and I would be interested in following a case of that nature. Having Jan and the office on board exchanging views would be ideal, but even without that it would be an opportunity for the community to clearly structure its thoughts on how this *should* work and hopefully feed that back to the office, either through Jimbo and DocJames or directly. As a quick example of the sort of ideas that might be shared, I personally think that ArbCom is a much better vehicle for this process than the T&S department,despite their pronouncement to the contrary on the WP:FRAM page. Wikipedia is a diverse community of many nations, genders, races, creeds etc. and for all that they get some stick sometimes, I think ArbCom actually does have broad representation from a variety of cultural backgrounds. The WMF, on the other hand, is an organisation based in a physical location on the US West Coast, presumably with employees who reside in the area, and hence, albeit through no fault of its own, has a more limited world view. There's also the more prosaic point that we elected our ArbCom and they are accountable to us. The WMF's line is that ArbCom just isn't dealing with the things it's supposed to deal with. If that is the case, we need to sort it out. Make sure that harassment really isn't tolerated. But the solution is not to hand the keys to the kingdom to people who, with the best will in the world, don't really understand its workings.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doug Weller

I'm with Boing! said Zebedee and a few others who have asked that this case be declined. It's possible that something might come up tomorrow that makes it unnecessary or, hopefully less likely, might lead me to change my mind, but I'm not convinced that taking this case will benefit the English Wikipedia. I understand the arguments about the ToS, etc, and as an Arb I was almost always willing to accept caess of Admin misconduct. But this is different. It's an extraordinary, unprecedented situation. Although I disagree with User:Drmies about accepting this case, I agree with his comment on IAR meaning "Do the Right Thing". Not taking this case will not result in anarchy or Admins Gone Wild - I don't think that any Admin will see what's happened this week as a precedent for doing what they like. And if they do, they'd be wrong and should expect the consequences. I'm not arguing that the WMF was wrong - or right - but that I've seen some excellent editors and Admins acting as their conscience dictated, not for personal reasons but for the good of the encyclopedia. We should cherish that, not punish it. Leave this to the community (and I guess inevitably to the WMF if they continue to sanction). Doug Weller talk 13:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF has wisely decided not to take any further action against the participants in this case. If it is correct that they broke the ToS, then the WMF has decided to ignore that. Given that, I can see no positive gain from ArbCom deciding to discipline them and still believe that the case should be declined. At the most it might pass a motion noting that this has been a very serious clusterfuck and that the Committee expects all participants to avoid such actions in the future. Of course the Committee could also recommend various courses of action for the community to embark upon, but my 4 years on the Committee suggests that doesn't often pan out. Doug Weller talk 07:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SchroCat

  1. Floq, Bish & WJB (F-B-W). Jan Eissfeldt non-apology apology says "In acknowledgement of the confusion caused by the application of this newer type of ban, we will not be issuing sanctions against or desysopping those who edited the block or the sysop rights of those who edited the block to date". If the WMF are prepared to replace some actions of ArbCom as the final 'executioner' of editors, then their remit on not punishing people involved in the same events should be equally applicable. Eissfeldt acknowledges that the mess is WMF's fault: that is notification that a case does not need to be held, or we get into a double jeopardy situation.
  2. Excellent comment from Carrite. Eissfeldt's statement also says "the introduction of time-limited and partial (project-specific) bans is not a change of the team's scope of cases taken. Yes. It. Is. This is a naked power grab by the office into the remit of ArbCom and to usurp it. It has made you look toothless and pointless. They did it without explanation and it extinguished the much of the community's trust. This was a deliberate step, not an accident (if accidental, you have to query the competence of those involved).
  3. John Cline, I cannot image a worse step for the community than those three individuals resigning their tools. It happened as a result of an extra-ordinary step by the Office; extra-ordinary steps generate extra-ordinary responses, and the actions of F-B-W are a reaction to such.
  4. Future steps. Comments have been made (eg by SilkTork) on the need to hold a case "to clarify procedures moving forward". Yes, we need something to discuss a future relationship, but is this within ArbCom's remit?

Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good grief... has anyone actually seen the haemorrhaging of talent at WP:BN? This whole case is looking so far behind the times as far as events in the last day or so have gone. The tweets from the head of the WMF have shown us in just how much contempt the organisation holds us (it's on a par with the crass nonsense of a comment from the Chair of the BoT comparing complainers to Gamergaters). My patience is nearly gone – unfortunately it seems like a number of Admins have also reached the end of their tethers. I'm hugely angered by the WMF and all that has gone on, but most of all I'm deeply frustrated and saddened that my community is tearing itself apart, and it seems that the WMF don't give a toss about it all. - SchroCat (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

So, this is how it goes: something happens; before seemingly even reading any policy or guideline or bothering to relate what we can read, we seemingly start yelling; we don't contact the people involved, even though such could have been found, nor say what we could easily find; we name conspiracy theories, call out claimed personal peccadilloes, and assume bad faith, and we make it abundantly clear that whatever the response is, we will not accept it. Into this you get tool wielders climbing the ramparts to throw themselves off. It is no wonder why reasonable people might say this project demonstrates incapability. (Nor is it any secret to honest pedians that from time to time, we demonstrate incapability).

For the future, Arbcom immediately issue a temporary injunction so people don't throw themselves off the ramparts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to give away writing, images, and audio in the form of an encyclopedia. That is all. We are not here to experiment in democracy, nor anarchy. It is a mystery what some people want Arbcom to do in an area in which Arbcom does not even have jurisdiction, and where WP:CONSENSUS and WP:TOU are crystal clear, and will not be thrown over by Arbcom, nor could they be, in that Arbcom relies on similar power and the similar ability to take things in private. -- Alanscottwalker (talk)
It is fundamental to Wikipedia Consensus that office actions cannot be overturned; it is also fundamental that a true WP:CONSENSUS can only exist if it respects Wikipedia policies, and there are a number of Wikipedia policies which grant the office discretion (authority) to make these decisions. It's a Central Pillar of the project that the project is not an experiment in democracy, nor anarchy. The facts are plain that the one Crat action that began this case, now two more admin actions that have been added are useless, so cannot improve anything even if the desire is to have a social order, which is not the purpose of the project. How many times do we stress to people in the administration of this project, NOTFREESPEECH, NOTSOCIALNETWORK, NOTJUSTICE. Because none of those are what the project is for. And despite the stress in our 1) Central Pillars, 2) every Arbcom case, 3) in many statements of editors, 4) and sometime actions of administrators, that WP:CIVILITY matters, no one can claim the project does not fail there from time to time. There is no case here, because we already know the policies, and Arbcom is completely without competence nor authority to overturn WP:CONSENSUS, et al., which just leaves remedy, but the remedy has already been decided, no further action on the 2 admins and 1 bureaucrat for this incident, here no matter how mistaken (if mistaken it was), or venal (if venal it was), their conduct. (On Fram, there are a few things to note: 1) this committee does not have jurisdiction; 2) in their first statement, Fram seems to say they were trying to do better since being warned, which suggests there was indeed a problem; 3) at least, one former arbitrator [6] and one current arbitrator, and perhaps some others have suggested there were conduct problems, 4) but at any rate, the remedy, is out of this committees' hands). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The motion is fine. The recent kerfuffle, in which WJBSCRIBE resigned need not delay. As I requested weeks ago, a temporary injunction was in order -- at least that had a chance of freezing things in place while, we do what every group involving scores of people (some of whom are at least trying to be reflective) does -- take our time, and with an ingrained principle, there is no deadline. When WJBScribe overturned another Crat's tick, and resyssoped the only temporary desyssyop of Floq, I suggested to him it would have been more responsible to have shown forbearance and wait. Now, like any power, tools need to be held in abeyance from time to time, and at some point that responsibility of refraining may lead to resignation, which must be honored. WJBScirbe's resignation just further practically moots this case. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dank

Jimmy's statement here is extraordinary ... in a clear context of T & S bans, he's saying that it's long-established that he can overturn bans, and that he's willing to fall on his sword to do so. This completely undercuts arguments on this page and elsewhere that there's no point in even discussing things here (and I don't know Jimmy from Adam, but I suspect that was his goal, to enable moderate ... and moderated! ... discussion). T & S may outrank us, but Jimmy's position is that, in exceptional circumstances, he outranks them in some sense (or maybe he's just confident that he can out-persuade the Board). So, yes, until and unless Jimmy changes his mind, discussion leading to a case, and even a case itself, may be beneficial. Calm discussion would certainly be more beneficial than the likely alternatives. - Dank (push to talk) 14:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: What's extraordinary is that he made the statement immediately, and in a context where he has to mean the T & S ban, rather than bans in general ... he's clearly considering his options here. So, while Arbcom may want to decline the case because their hands are partially tied, it's demonstrably false to say (as some are saying) that a case would be "pointless". Ultimately unsuccessful, maybe, but it's not pointless to give parties on all sides the opportunity to talk rather than waving (or falling on) swords. There's a lot Arbcom can do, and Jimmy may be able and willing to do some of the things they can't do. - Dank (push to talk) 17:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ms Sarah Welch

I urge the committee to accept this case after the June 14 meeting and follow it through for the following reasons: the en-WP project's content creation and its maintenance is volunteer-driven. The best interest of this project can be served and sustained only if the necessary rights and responsibilities of editors and admins are maintained or revoked through a consensus process. Rob and a few others remind us of the TOU, but every person with love and bits for this project derives her or his just privileges from the consent of the volunteer community. If and when any person or unelected Office appears to act against these interests of this project, it is the right of the community to question it, protest about it, act on it, and so alter it.

The committee is our elected group. They are qualified and trusted to review difficult cases, institute procedures, and adopt appropriate motions. That includes cases of alleged hostility and harassment in wikipedia, with or without alleged egregious and disruptive editing.

A large section of the en-WP community is clearly upset with this extraordinary WMFOffice action on Fram who has been one of en-WP's gadfly, plus the actions on Floq, the resignations and the rest. The issues here: "what processes were followed, were they fair and just, are our standard processes not capable of handling such cases, was there any undue favoritism or undue cruelty shown in this case to either side because of any direct access to the members of WMFOffice, are there checks and balances against the WMFOffice to help the interests of the project, what must be done in this case, what must be done in future cases, why or why not". A review and scrutiny of the facts and decisions in this case, at an appropriate time, will help the project and heal the en-WP community. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis and Doug Weller: On "reviewing office actions is out of the scope of an arbcom case", the WP:ARBPOL states, "The Committee has no jurisdiction over: (i) official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff;..." and then it reads "The Committee may take notice of conduct outside its jurisdiction when making decisions about conduct on the English Wikipedia if such outside conduct impacts or has the potential to impact adversely upon the English Wikipedia or its editors." Doesn't the latter apply here? While ArbCom may have no jurisdiction on "official actions" (e.g. global indef block by WMFOffice), is ArbCom forbidden from reviewing non-actions such as policies, rules and procedures that directly or indirectly affect the purpose of en-WP? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RegentsPark

I was off-wiki for a couple of days so apologies if my understanding of the situation is incorrect but here's what I've figured out. Fram was blocked, banned and desysopped for unexplained reasons by an "office action" on the part of WMF. Floq unblocked Fram and was desysopped under the same office action. WJBScribe restored Floq's admin bits with the reasoning that neither the community nor arbcom were involved in the desysopping of Floq. The nub of this situation appears to be that we, as a community, are unclear about where our own role (whether as a community or through arbcom) in managing en-wiki ends and where that of WMFoffice begins. Unfortunately, this is just another website and, like all websites, it comes along with its "Terms of Service". Regardless of what happens to Fram, Floq, or WJBScribe, whether we want to contribute to this site or not should depend on an understanding of the implications of our agreeing to these terms of service and ArbCom should accept this case only for the purpose of bring clarity to that. In particular, it would be good to get answers to the following questions. Do we accept that WMFOffice can desysop admins in cases that can be handled on-wiki (like Floq's desysopping)? Should WMFOffice consult with ArbCom or the community (sharing whatever information they can reasonably share) before taking unilateral action against an editor (as in the case of Fram)? These, I believe, are reasonable questions and, to the extent that the committee works for the community, it should take this case to seek answers to them, leaving the status quo (Floq resysopped, WJBScribe a bureaucrat, Fram unblocked but still banned pending explanation from the foundation) in place. --regentspark (comment) 14:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Amorymeltzer

I would like to echo and expand upon what xaosflux and others, including Arbitrators, have suggested, namely to consider the broader Sturm und Drang around tool use, but in due time. It is incredibly likely that ArbCom will have some role in the outcome — especially because doing so is likely to be more acceptable to all parties — and it would be best to do so after more of the play has unfolded, at least as far as advanced tool use is concerned. Portions of the storm seems to be calming somewhat, and while it's nigh time to process cleanup, it has not yet passed. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

ArbCom should take no action here. It exists to resolve disputes among editors. This dispute, however, is between editors and the WMF Office, which is not subject to ArbCom's authority. A case would therefore be pointless because it cannot result in (effective) sanctions against the WMF Office.

Nor should ArbCom take a case to consider sanctions against the users who have undone actions of the WMF Office. That's because the WMF Office has the ability, as events have shown, to sanction such conduct by itself. (By which, to be clear, I'm not suggesting that the WMF Office should impose any more such sanctions. Doing so would compound the apparent grave errors the WMF Office has committed so far.)

The dispute can only be effectively resolved by the body with the authority to make the WMF Office comply with this community's expectations regarding dispute resolution. That body is the WMF Board of Trustees. Users should make their expectations in this matter clear to the members of the Board, primarily the community representatives. I intend to do so. Sandstein 16:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RexxS

I'm going to suggest that ArbCom postpone any decision on taking this case for a week or so. I honestly don't think that there's any urgency needed in reviewing the actions of the players so far. It may well be that some sort of compromise solution might render any such review moot.

On that point, I will ask ArbCom to consider a suggestion from me that they are going to have to be part of any long-term solution. Hopefully you've already reached that conclusion and are already engaged with T&S in looking at ways of improving procedures so that we minimise the chance for this sort of crisis to recur.

If it's any help, my view is that T&S missed the opportunity to involve you more closely when they issued warnings and an i-ban. If T&S had involved you more at that point, it may even have been possible for the warnings and i-ban to have been issued in the name of ArbCom, and given the community a sense of ownership of any sanctions. Similarly, if T&S had presented their case for a site ban to you in confidence, you may well have been able to take over that case and reached a conclusion, likely in camera, and issued a ArbCom sanction that was appealable with conditions you set. I'm not suggesting that T&S need to involve you in dealing with paedophiles and on legal issues – those "extraordinary circumstances" that we understand must remain the remit of WMF – but for something that normally would be dealt with by ArbCom, I'm sure both you and T&S appreciate the necessity and good sense in working closely together. --RexxS (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Agent00x

If we refer specifically to WP:TOOLMISUSE, it does not appear to mention the reversal of office actions as a misuse of administrative tools, however, it does say that it is a possible indication of an incipient wheel war. It's not even listed as a special situation. Pending the outcome of the meeting on 14th June, maybe it's time that the policy is updated to reflect that a reversal of office action counts as tool misuse. This way we will not have so much uncertainty about whether the actions of the administrators and bureaucrat count as a misuse of tools.

Also, based on the behavior of the office team in this investigation, maybe it's time the WP:OFFICE General Information section is reviewed too. It appears that the "Office actions are transparent when possible, but safety (and legal compliance) comes first." section did not apply in this case? There was no safety or legal compliance to worry about, so why was this not transparent? Also per WP:OFFICE, they were also requested to provide details of the internal processes followed to enforce the office action, but I am not sure we saw sight of those by the office, only via members of the ArbCom team. Agent00x (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moe Epsilon

I've been looking at this discussion since it began without commenting to see how this would play out. Now that a lot has, it's clear that there's only one solution and I hope arbitrators seriously consider what I'm saying. The only logical choice to make here, outside of inaction, is the following:

  • Desysop Floquenbeam and Bishonen for thirty days, for reversing an office action minus time served for Floquenbeam (since that was the benchmark the Foundation previously used in deciding Floquenbeam's desysop)
  • Desysop and decrat WJBscribe for thirty days, for reversing an office action.
  • Reinstate the ban of Fram, minus time served, until the issue is discussed and resolved however the outcome.

Office actions have always been subject to not going through the normal community processes (it says it plainly in the nutshell at Wikipedia:Office actions) and have always been subject to no appeal option. This didn't bother anyone until it affected an unblockable user. While more transparency from the Foundation is needed, they have office hours and are not readily able to chit-chat or disclose all the information you seek right away. Multiple people are looking into it, and resolving the issue can take time. That isn't the problem. The problem is the community having no patience. And again, you can have community consensus, but the Foundation is going to act regardless and not even ArbCom is above them. This lack of patience, however, has resulted in misuses of the administrator and bureaucrat tools. The only person I think has had any tact in this situation has actually been Fram. Floquenbeam, Bishonen and WJBscribe: I want you to know I have no problems with you personally and think you do fine around Wikipedia, and my suggestions above are not reflective of that. However I feel like you all stepped beyond the line willingly, especially you WJBscribe, knowing there would be consequences. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the community (clearly not everyone) loses a little trust in your actions.

But let me make one thing perfectly clear, this whole fiasco was self-inflicted. The reason the Foundation side-stepped ArbCom is because they believed this community isn't able to reach these conclusions on their own and decided it for you. The misuse of tools only proved that, if anything. Unless you want the Foundation to continue to side-step ArbCom, then all of you need to follow the policies as written and act accordingly (and yes, I mean civility as well). If you don't, then prepare to be trampled upon. If ArbCom doesn't act here, whether in a case or a motion, then I can only think the gap of trust widens between you and the Foundation. — Moe Epsilon 20:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Montanabw

Current word length: 496; diff count: 0.

I concur that overriding WMF Office is outside the purview of ArbCom. WMF owns the servers; it's their house, their TOS, and if someone sued, they'd have to pay the lawyers. That said, WMF has an obligation to be as transparent as law and policy allows. So if something is opened up, I think it is an opportunity to create a crystal-clear understanding of where the line between ArbCom and the WMF is drawn.

I concur with BU Rob13 that the failure of the community to rein in Fram is one reason WMF got involved in the first place. Fram should have been subjected to disciplinary actions (and probably a few blocks) for his incivility years ago. Just because Fram might have been technically correct was not carte blanche to be a jerk; and no one seems to disagree that at times his behavior went far beyond the pale. Similarly, just because some of us are able to meet Fram head-on and slug it out in the rough-and-tumble of the WP talkpage universe doesn't mean everyone should have to.

As for Floq and Bish, they each deliberately chose to exercise civil disobedience by reversing an office action, and they knew that going in. For that reason, they don't need to be exempted from appropriate penalties, and both of them no doubt are big kids who are ready for that. But I think a bit of leniency is appropriate. A de-sysop for this single action is too much; but restrictions of some sort are needed as a reminder to all to keep cool. Once they have taken their medicine, everyone needs to move on.

Wikipedia needs to modify its consensus model—"consensus" too often reflects the views of a loud, aggressive minority who drown out all other voices. Also, people bothering the alleged victim off-wiki have crossed the line, which can carry real-life penalties.

Yes it can get frustrating to deal with certain problematic styles of editing. But incessantly hounding until people feel they have to contact the WMF is not the way to fix things. If Fram received civility warnings prior to this block, he should have taken them to heart and figured out a different way to get his point across.

en.wiki also has problem with sexism and intolerance. It is not only male-dominated, it is also infected by the "brotopia" culture. I don't think it's entirely deliberate—For some individuals, I think they are simply clueless, but others have biases they refuse to examine.

The WMF has the right to enforce their TOS, and an obligation to investigate complaints. But, it is reasonable to call them to account for that ham-handedness. They should make their actions as clear as law and policy allows, in part to educate the community about how to avoid similar sanctions in the future. Montanabw(talk) 20:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ajraddatz

Since they were introduced in 2006, it has not been acceptable for a Wikipedia administrator or bureaucrat to reverse an office action. This applies to any office action, regardless of how the individual or even the community feels about it. Furthermore, one of the best practice of being an admin is to not use the tools in tense situations when action is not needed. It has always been the expectation that admins and bureaucrats maintain a level head and take reasoned responses.

We have a situation where three advanced rights holders have violated all of these policies and practices. And for absolutely no reason. The ban happened Monday, and the first unblock happened the day after. The second unblock the day after that. We're now four days out -- the board hasn't even met, and there has barely been enough time for the bureaucratic machine of the Foundation to issue a full response. Quite simply, nothing that happened here needed to happen in the timeframe that it happened.

Because of that, there needs to be some accountability for the users that made an active decision to violate these policies and practices. I don't think that it should happen right away, because like with the Fram ban, there is nothing urgent here. But I would ask that the Committee at least accept this case. This is an incredibly unfortunate event that has reflected poorly on all sides. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hurricane Noah

I do not think the arbitration committee should take this case as the WMF has clearly stated it will not be taking action against these individuals. Yes, what they did was wrong. I'm not excusing their behavior. I just don't feel there is a need to discuss this at Arb Com. In cases like this, it is the WMF that has the authority to issue sanctions. Since they have chosen not to go forward with them, I see no reason to discuss the matter. NoahTalk 21:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SmokeyJoe

There is a crisis of confidence. There is a crisis of trust. There are questions of scope, ArbCom and WMF. The most trusted people at en.wikipedia are the bureaucrats, including User:WJBscribe. WJBscribe's action was not an abuse, but a precisely crafted political statement. It was done in the interests of the project, and it spoke for the community.

Pity WJB took the next step too far, resysop of Fram, for no good reason. I’m guessing that the stress of this was too much. We need some calm but timely action. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

The committee should act calmly, and logically, with a view to what's best for collegiality, community confidence, and the project. A sensible statement might suffice.

Statement by Robert McClenon

First, User:Sandstein is entirely correct that this is not a case that is within the scope of ArbCom. The ArbCom was set up by the WMF to deal with disputes between editors that the community cannot solve. It was not set up by the WMF to deal with disputes between the community and the WMF. ArbCom cannot open a case involving any of the issues about sanctions on User:Fram or any action taken with regard to any other administrator.

Second, User:Montanabw is correct that the English Wikipedia does not have an effective governance process. The WMF has sent a two-part message. First, the WMF has no confidence in the ArbCom. The ArbCom should have been the forum that dealt with issues involving conduct by an administrator, but the WMF found it necessary to take action without asking or involving the ArbCom. That was a finding of no confidence in the ArbCom. I do not know whether the WMF was right in that judgment. My guess, unfortunately, is that the WMF was right in ignoring the ArbCom. Second, the WMF recognizes that the English Wikipedia community is not governing itself effectively, either via the ArbCom or via the "community" process. The English Wikipedia is able to deal effectively with trolls, vandals, flamers, and other editors who are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. It does not deal effectively with harassment, misogyny, bullying, persistent POV-pushing, or intractable content disputes involving reliability of sources. The English Wikipedia has not been able to manage its own disputes, and the WMF has had to reassert control. Any effort by ArbCom at this point to open a case would be too little and too late, and would interfere with solving the greater problem of which this is a symptom, the lack of a governance process.

The current governance of the English Wikipedia has not changed much since 2006, consisting of the ArbCom, the "community" process, which, as User:Montanabw notes, is too often simply the loudest editors, and the WMF exercising reserve powers. This governance model did not include any effective mechanism for its own evolution or for orderly change or growth. Changes, such as the Terms of Use have been mostly instituted by the WMF. The current events illustrate that the governance model of the English Wikipedia needs to be reformed.

Third, at this point, the arbitrators have a choice as individuals, which is whether to follow User:BU Rob13 and resign, either in protest, or as recognition that ArbCom is not effective, or for any other reason, or continue to represent the English Wikipedia community. Those arbitrators who continue to represent the English Wikipedia community should take a lead role both in explaining the current situation to the community and in working with the WMF to establish an effective governance system for the English Wikipedia.

Please see my further statement at User:Robert McClenon/Governance. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hawkeye7

The contention that this case is beyond the scope of ArbCom is incorrect. The arbitration process exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia conduct disputes (i.e., not content disputes requiring mediation) that neither community discussion nor administrators have successfully resolved. (Wikipedia:Arbitration) ArbCom has accepted many cases in the past that have been solely about conduct. Acceptable conduct is defined by the Terms of Use instituted by WMF. These are the rules that the rest of us live by. Every day (it seems) editors are blocked for trifling violations. The contention that the conduct of the bureaucrat and administrators falls outside the scope of ArbCom due to their privileged position has never been accepted before. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cryptic: According to WP:WHEEL, the definition of WHEEL warring also includes "Reversal of a Wikimedia Foundation office action". While it is true that in the distant past some administrators were de-sysopped for WHEEL-warring, in recent times (the most recent case being Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder), ArbCom have taken a far more relaxed and understanding view, and have regarded WHEEL-warring as worth no more than a caution at most. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent relevant case regarding an office action was the "Increase of protection on article protected under WP:OFFICE action" case, in 2014, in which Kww was "admonished for knowingly modifying a clearly designated Wikimedia Foundation Office action, which he did in the absence of any emergency and without any form of consultation". Although you could argue that administrator behaviour in this case is arguably far more egregious, that was four years ago. I doubt if the administrators in this case have much to worry about. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cryptic: I agree with you, except that there's no such thing as a "bright-line instadesysop" any more. ArbCom generally ignores WHEEL-warring these days. And interference with office actions, once another bright line, is now also a relic of the past. None of the admins in this case need have any fear being blocked or de-sysopped, at least by ArbCom. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally very happy that admins de-sysopped for cause can now be re-sysopped on request. This is a great step forward. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Snow Rise

Honestly, I don't see how the Committee can avoid taking a case here, ultimately. Indeed, I would have liked ArbCom to have taken immediate steps to clarify that there was to be no more wheel warring in response to the WMF Office Action--frame it as "temporary emergency injunction" to stabilize the situation, but some immediate action was called for, imo; ArbCom's usual tendency towards caution (laudable as it is) should not have prevented drawing a line with regard to the escalating disruption. We very nearly saw a mass-desysop and the creation of a fault line between the WMF and the community as bad as any since the Knowledge Engine, and only the decision of the T&S team not to exercise their authority in the face of community members overstepping the bounds of their positions spared us mass sanctions.

I can appreciate your being caught off guard when the initiator of this case did the final office action reversal and then came straight here to throw the situation into your lap like the most high-stakes game of hot potato I've ever seen onsite. I sympathize especially in that the T&S team also did not give you more of a concrete headsup about the Fram's sanction. But the situation is within your purview and I don't see how you can avoid commenting at least upon the appropriateness of a community member reversing an office action, even if you ultimately only give responsible parties a slap on the wrist to sooth community upset. I'm sure its also self-evident the community would really appreciate an accounting of the depth of the committee's involvement in advising on T&S investigations and how comfortable you are with the situation in (as Jimmy would put it) a "constitutional" sense?

When Jimbo and his early collaborators ceded ownership interest in this project, he entrusted it to two groups, of which this community is one. The other, however, he vested with much more authority, including all legally-enforceable rights and responsibilities. The WMF owns the domain, the name, the servers, the tech backbone, and the bank accounts that keep the lights on around here. Whenever there exists a civil suit or a criminal complaint based on behaviour in this community, it lands in their laps. Everyone here will be safely in their armchair director seats and well insulated from the consequences. Put bluntly, the parties who reverted the office actions were out-ranked by light years and went way beyond what could be justified by the extent of their community mandate.

None of which should be taken to mean that I think the community is a junior partner here or shouldn't be upset about how events unfolded; far from it. But there is a division of responsibility and an institutional reality here that was not respected by some members of this community entrusted with powerful tools. ArbCom cannot go without addressing that behaviour at some level and making it clear that there can't be a repeat in the future. Snow let's rap 04:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lourdes

ArbCom should decline the case for two clear reasons:

  1. Assuming they take the case up and pass some decision against the Foundation's actions; they would clearly all be kicked out en masse by the Foundation, the community be damned.
  2. Assuming they take the case up and pass the decision in favour of the Foundation, much of the community would see them as simply being lickers.

Sometimes, to run is better than to fight. Seeing all your current ambivalent responses, you guys are on the right path. Thataway puhleaze iz the fire escape. Lourdes 05:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Leaky caldron

No need to deal with the eponymous subject. These acts of self-immolation should be sensibly unwound in due course if that is what the functionary(s) concerned desire. They have served the purpose of escalating and highening awareness. It should stop - and probably should not have started - but we are where we are.

For next steps, we have the statement from WMF [7]. Today's meeting should provide direction. AC must be the conduit for conduct issues associated with en-WP matters that are identified to the WMF (but not raised en-wiki) and AC must guarantee their involvement and fully represent the community in all such decisions. A failure to accomplish this will immediately create the risk of any community member being office-banned by virtue of any scant evidence claim brought to WMF's attention by any mischief making, vengeful party willing to make a case of abuse by a community member they have had a run-in with. (not saying that is what happened here).

Finally, it is possible that a competency block of an editor who is also a WMF staffer might be required at some point. Paraphrasing our own essay on the subject, 'when we have finally exhausted all reasonable attempts to correct their behavior, explain and demonstrate how to do things correctly, and after a pattern of behavior has been well established and the user shows they are unlikely to do things correctly, a block, topic ban, or full ban may be the only solutions that minimize disruption to the encyclopedia'. There is no doubt this would end up in your lap down the line.

@SilkTork: - In any circumstances, what amounts to talks about talks should be attended if only to demonstrate a willingness to listen. If the invite is in good faith without commitment, what is there to lose?
@Promethean: "preferring the more self-aggrandizing approach of direct intervention" Do the actions of WJBscribe not fit that description?

Statement by Britishfinance

ArbCom must take this case, because in 7 to 14 days time, we will need a "clean the slate" ruling from ArbCom on interpretation of any "future" similar actions, post the expected upcoming WMF/BoT "clean the slate" statement. From subsequent WMF communications (esp. Jan Eissfeldt of T&S), it seems WMF have chosen not to go to Defcon 1 yet (e.g. not looking for material sanctions on these admin actions), but that may change if things on-wiki are not clarified, and further on-wiki counter-actions ensue. BN is filling up with corpses.

The crux is represented by FRAM's "F-ArbCom" post (and that whole exchange). FRAM correctly assumed his words did not merit material sanctionable actions, as in an audience of some of the most senior admins on WP, there was never a suggestion that such action was being contemplated.

In WMF-world however, the "F-ArbCom" post, in that audience, was evidence that on-wiki cannot govern WP:5P4 (note this). Given past warnings to FRAM, it seems it was a final straw for WMF. It is apparent WMF's rule change to have 1-year bans, and the communication from JE of T&S, is a sign WMF is going to play a more active role in this area.

The initial WMF communication was bad – no clarity the issue was civility, no "heads-up" as to their concern on WP:5P4, and no guidelines on their interpretation. However, ultimately, per Sandstein above, the WMF/BoT view will prevail; in my experience of BoTs, no trustee is going to over-rule legal advice in these areas of conduct and civility (god forbid, but if a person does something harmful to themselves after their concerns were ignored, the moral-legal-financial implications for WMF are dire). However, given disturbing posts about WMF potentially having COI issues in this case, it would seem critical that BoT/ArbCom are allowed inside the "secrecy circle" on such cases for good governance. ArbCom needs to prepare for this change (we all do).

Britishfinance (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Worm That Turned: The root issue is the confusion on whether this new type of WMF office action regarding CIVILITY was justified, and the actions that ArbCom/BoT are taking to verify it. Before moving to your proposals, we need ArbCom/BoT to set a hard date – before which everybody will power-down (somebody please lock the BN) – on which ArbCom/BoT will tell the community either:
(a) ArbCom/BoT have seen all the evidence and believe (simple majority) the action was justified.
(b) ArbCom/BoT have seen all the evidence but disagree (simply majority) with the action.
(c) ArbCom/BoT will not be shown the evidence by WMF and therefore cannot form any view.
For (a), we are largely done, and just need to integrate ArbCom into the final stages of future WMF CIVILITY actions. For (b), we need a longer period of discussion with WMF on T&S versus Community Standards to see if we can improve alignment/close the gap (no RfC is going to work until the specific nature of this gap is established with WMF). For (c), we will need to recognize a reality that WMF will hold the final and confidential say on CIVILITY; this reality may not work for editors who have given their service on the basis of an understanding that Community Standards prevail.
This ArbCom case is a good device to focus discussion, however, we urgently need to know whether we are in (a), (b), or (c) before progressing. Britishfinance (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Land

I'd suggest that Arbcom takes some kind of case along these lines.

First, hopefully the outcome of the WMF's process will leave much of the resolution of this situation to community processes. It's preferable for decisions to come from Arbcom than from the WMF, where possible.

Secondly, hopefully Arbcom will use this as an opportunity to reflect on and develop how it as a body deals with harrassment and bullying, both in its own right and in conjunction with the Trust and Safety team.

Thirdly, I would like Arbcom to send some kind of signal about how this kind of discussion should be handled both by WMF and community members. I am sure there is already plenty of discussion about this behind the scenes, but some kind of statement from Arbcom about how it views its role and how it views Trust and Safety's role would be good. Also, there have been times when the discussion about this whole issue has gone well beyond the limits of what's acceptable on Wikipedia. We've seen some pretty unpleasant instances of harassment and bullying in the debates about Fram's ban, and I urge Arbcom to take action on those too.

Statement by MrX

Arbcom should decline this case as being outside of the scope of it purpose, and per Softlavender, Boing! said Zebedee, Doug Weller, Sandstein and others. Arbcom is not the de-escalation team, nor the community's chosen liaison to the WMF, nor the vanguard in a conflict with the WMF. Perhaps there is some small aspect of this that would require a motion, but a full case would not be productive in my opinion.- MrX 🖋 12:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm troubled by the suggestion from Katie that Arbcom would consider reinforcing WP:OFFICE by desysopping admins who reverse WMF office actions. Fram's one year ban is either WMF testing the waters for a total usurpation of power, or it is incompetence heaped upon corruption to get even with a vocal critic. T & S has acted without transparency, accountability, and (apparently) oversight. While the board of trustees apparently takes their sweet time to align their message with Jan's contorted blather, this assault on our long standing self-governance continues its advance.
We have lost several admins over this, but I wonder how many regular editors like myself are just waiting for the last act of this horror show to unfold before we decide to quit contributing altogether, knowing that at any time, we might be ejected for any reason or no reason at all.- MrX 🖋 12:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DGG

Actually, arb com is the community's liaison to Trust and Safety. It worked tolerably well in the years I was on the committee, with our liaison there at the time, James Alexander. The problems that T&S and arb com deal with sometimes overlap. DGG ( talk ) 14:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After reading subsequent responses, and the committees various proposals, I think what is really needed is a motion that: the meta policy that" [Foundation bans] are final; they are not appealable, not negotiable and not reversible" is incompatible with fundamental ethical principles of fairness and therefore not accepted at enWP. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GRuban

I have a slightly different reason that I hope you accept. The statements from Trust & Safety have basically boiled down to "we are taking this action due to harassment, so can't reveal details to ArbCom because we need to protect the victim". Right now, WP:ARBCOM says "Arbitrators are volunteer users—usually experienced editors and administrators—whom the community of editors at large elects to resolve the most complex or intractable disputes that may arise within the community, and to oversee the few areas where access to non-public information is a prerequisite." - which has usually been interpreted that ArbCom is where to go to for harassment issues, and can be trusted with such information. But if WMF is taking this action because they can't trust ArbCom with non-public information related to disputes within the community, why should we? You don't need to accept this as a full case, you can merely pass a motion that changes this portion of your charter. (Or acknowledges that the WMF has just changed it for you.) --GRuban (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite

There was a Wikipedia (est. Jan. 2001) before there was a Wikimedia Foundation (est. 2003). First the later was born and then it grew and grew into a massive bureaucracy with a $100,000,000 annual donation-take, cashing in on the work that the volunteer community has done and the public goodwill it has attained. As bureaucracies will do, its mission scope has expanded to match its income growth (largely to rationalize its budget and justify its future growth). This marks a turning point, a new phase, in which the WMF is attempting to micromanage day-to-day user behavior on En-WP. This has never been part of its purview; nor should it be. Arbcom absolutely must accept this case and fight as the volunteer community's democratically elected institutional representatives to preserve local autonomy in the face of the bureaucratic onslaught. Otherwise, we might as well admit that we are nothing more than unpaid interns for the (cough cough) professionals at WMF. And hey, that's not what I'm gonna do with my time. This is an existential menace for WP as a volunteer institution, all wrapped in the false guise of "Terms of Service." Carrite (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Historical explanation of origins of WMF is HERE.
Wake up and do your god damned job, Arbcom. Is Wikipedia the collective work of a set of semi-autonomous volunteer communities around the world or is Wikipedia a website run by professionals in San Francisco with (begrudgingly accepted) contributions from volunteers? Defend local autonomy! Carrite (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gamaliel

If Arbcom isn't going to investigate tool abuse, what is the point of having Arbcom at all? Gamaliel (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guettarda

I have mixed feelings about this, but it seems to me that we need a clear statement that accounts with advanced permissions need to be used with the utmost respect for our processes. We only allow a handful of role accounts (WMFOffice and WMFLegal are the only ones I can think of), and a person using an account like that needs to behave impeccably when using the account. Instead, we have WHEEL warring, and we have a block and de-admin of an account that WMFOffice could reasonably be seen to be in conflict with.

Whoever was using that account showed very poor judgment. We may not have the authority to sanction T&S, but the Arbcomm has every right to consider the actions of the person or persons in control of that account when those edits were made. Guettarda (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beetstra

Note: I am not a fan of the ArbCom system to begin with. I still remain thatit is to be disassembled completely.

I am sorry, but I do not trust that ArbCom can come with any good resolution in the end. Anything that will go against WMF will be blundly overruled by WMF (seen Floq's desysop, and actions like superprotect). And any resolution in favour of WMF will result in the community asking the question whether the ArbCom came to a fair answer or whether they are meekly following WMF as to not make a problem. Both scenarios result in loss of (community trust in) ArbCom.

This is NOT something for ArbCom, this is plainly the community vs. WMF. ArbCom, stay at the sidelines, stay away from the core situation (as in this request) and make sure our individual community members behave with the expected decorum.

(and that from someone who thinks that ArbCom needs to be abolished). --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID

I want to link to Seraphimblade's comment first for some background.

I would urge Arbcom to take the case and decide on the question of did the WMF over-reach when it started taking direct action against members of the wikipedia community. Not on the issue of Fram, nor on Floq, Bish & WJBscribe's actions. The key point that needs to be clarified, and clearly communicated to the WMF is how much the ENWP community will tolerate interference. The banning of Fram is not even the most disturbing issue (non-appealable star chambers with unknown evidence and unidentified witnesses aside) the most disturbing thing is the WMF directly, or by implication if you wish to interpret their actions that way, threatened an editor and administrator into backing off a problematic editor who was continuously causing editorial issues. It was a direct attack on the editorial process of ENWP, a direct attack on the ability of ENWP to govern itself, and its clear that the WMF staff want to impose their own ideological viewpoints on ENWP over community consensus. How long before they decide that our articles are not supporting their views? Just disappear the editors who are keeping them neutral, vanish the admins keeping the NPOV activists in line. Arbcom can at least assess the community views on the WMF's involvement in a structured manner. And if it turns out the community does agree that the WMF has no business interfering in standard ENWP conduct issues, then all the actions subsequent to Fram's ban are therefore in furtherance of the community's wishes and can be ignored. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing comments from the Arbs here that talk about improving or handling the WMF as if the recent actions are a done deal. Very little about outright rejecting their interference. If Arbcom are going to roll over and throw up their hands, there is very little point in accepting a case. Deal with it by motion and rubber stamp the WMF Ofice point of view. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cryptic

Contrary to some statements above - and I sure hope the committee doesn't need a reminder of this - reversing an administrative action is not wheel warring. Floquenbeam did not wheel war. WJBscribe did not wheel war. Somewhere between two and three users did: whoever was operating the WMFOffice account, in reblocking Fram; Bishonen, in reunblocking; and JEissfeldt (WMF), in effectively reblocking Fram by declaring that any edit by Fram would get him glocked.

The committee may find that it's not able to sanction the WMF accounts. But it can certainly issue a statement that they behaved in a way that would have gotten one of the ordinary morlocks that generate the donations that pay their salaries instantly and uncontroversially desysopped. —Cryptic 21:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Hawkeye7's statement here, no, "* Reversal of a Wikimedia Foundation office action" is not in the definition of wheel warring. It's in a list of four "Possible indications of an incipient wheel war:". Which isn't to say that it's not sanctionable in itself, or indeed has been in the past, but selective out-of-context quoting from policy in an attempt to turn a sanctionable action into a bright-line instadesysop one like wheel-warring doesn't help your case. —Cryptic 05:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hasteur

Observing that there are various "Support our Fram"/"OfficeBlocks mean unimpeachable" factions within the debate, The Bureaucrat (and needless to say the Admin) actions should be taken up by the committee. No amount of Administrators Noticeboard/Bureaucrats Noticeboard/RFC will resolve the issue at hand. The committee is the only one able to take the Non-Public information that the Foundation has and take into consideration the Admin and Bureaucrat actions. Anything less would be an abrogation of what the Arbitration Committee has been chartered to do. Hasteur (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Headbomb

Whatever you do, please, just deal with this by a motion, rather than protracted proceedings that span months. Put 1 month moratorium on specific people / types of actions if you need to and give a clean pass to the parties involved in recognition of the unusualness of the situation, or summarily desysops/decrat people, just don't let it fester for months. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Kudpung

When I registered , IIRC, the WMF then had 7 employees. It has now grown to over 300 which leads those employees to believe that they are our masters where in reality, they are there to serve the communities. At its genesis, the founders had no inkling that Wikipedia/Wikimedia would grow to be what it is today, so many of today's issues were not preempted. Thus the communities and the WMF have had to evolve organically. We now need a strong Arbcom and what the Committee needs to do here, IMO, is regard this as a test case and conclude - without necessarily issuing any sanctions just because they can - with a statement of what needs to be discussed and created by the community to address the lacunae in our policies. In other words, deal with it by motion. Therefore I would suggest waiting on the outcome of the board meeting. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JEissfeldt (WMF), you have provided some background about the position you hold in the WMF. Basically admitting that you are in charge of T&S but are not aware of what goes on there. Perhaps you could let Arbcom and the community know who your immediate superior is. It might help towards establishing lines of responsibility and communication for the future. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

While I can't say if this case should be taken or not, I will say that arbcom should look at their own current competencies. "The office" was created in another time and at that time the competencies it ended up with were needed. What competencies does "The office" have that Arbcom could handle, without overwhelming arbcom? I wonder if the office could act in an investigatory and advisory capacity with arbcom acting in a judicial capacity. That's more an idea but the actual question what can ARBCOM specifically handle? And well ARBCOM knows what they can handle. The Logic: ARBCOM is elected by the English wikipedia. You represent our interests. While there are times when things can't be made public, the community at a minimum needs someone representing us. Consider opening a discussion with the office if nothing else.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 67.164.113.165

StudiesWorld writes, "I also think that the actions of Floq and Bish should be reviewed with an eye towards possible violations of WP:OFFICE and loss of community trust." Others have said similar things.

I want to say that my own trust in Floq, Bish, and WJBScribe increased after the unblocks/resysops that they did. They were elected to serve the encyclopedia rather than the WMF, and they stood for the encyclopedia with their WP:BOLD actions when there was a conflict between the encyclopedia and the WMF. Meanwhile, I have lost considerable trust in the WMF, and also in the various sycophants, enforcers, concern trolls, and nervous Neds/Nellies on-wiki who couldn't bear the idea of the community responding with actions rather than words to the WMF's own outrageous incursion.

We are dealing with a WMF at least part of which is NHBE and wants to run a mini-Facebook or clickbait publisher instead. I'm convinced that Floq, Bish, and WJBScribe's willingness to engage in Realpolitik strengthened the pro-encyclopedia position within the WMF. We owe them gratitude and heightened trust rather than sanctions and lower trust. The large collections of barnstars posted to their talk pages following the incidents, and the strong support they received at WP:FRAM and WP:AN (consider the heavy support for a proposal to literally block/ban the WMF office account), show that quite a lot of other editors feel the same way I do. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Wehwalt

Take the case, don't take the case, as you please, what does it matter? The hammer of deciding who shall remain on this project has well and truly shifted to T&S. Who will have the patience for an arb case when anonymous denunciation will do, to a T&S whose standards are not our own? If you can say the right things about how you feel, and if the right people go to bat for you behind the scenes ... the bottom line is we could be marking this page historical in a very few years.

My personal advice is don't take the case because all the sound and fury will be meaningless unless something fundamental changes. Depending on where you are, it is spring or it is fall, but probably without exception, outside the birds are singing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: What they said is meaningless. The name of the complainant would constitute additional private and off-wiki information. So we already knew that.-—Wehwalt (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dax_Bane! Please don't urge calm out of one side of your mouth while calling some editors a "mob" with the other. They are fundamentally incompatible. You say there is a want of a better term. I don't know about "better" but there are lots of ways of putting it that will get your point across in a more appropriate manner. Consider rephrasing that part of your statement.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just redoing the ping to Dax Bane.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Arbs: Before you get launched on this thing and the consequent time sink, could we know what purposes you have in it that cannot be accomplished in a motion? If you wish to make statements about the need for change on Wikipedia, maybe it would be best to get going on the change and ditch the statements?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Reaper Eternal

I urge Arbcom to decline this case, since they can only sanction one party. Even an indefinite block on User:WMFOffice does nothing since they can simply unblock themselves and change anybody's user rights via meta. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Govindaharihari

  • Acccept and move to office actions - the arbitration committee is the highest authoritative body here and this storm needs to be addressed at the highest level. Per Rob, Should we just delete WP:WHEEL now, or...? locally on this wikipedia muliple violations of advanvced permissions have occured as yet without recriminations, that is clearly something arbcom has a remit for. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jéské Couriano

The goal of any Arbitration stemming from this incident, bluntly, should not be any form of sanctions on anyone. WMF's largely boilerplate responces have almost universally pointed to our policies in re harassment and civility and their lack of trust in ArbCom to address this area, so the focus should be on finding out just where the policies are deficient (as WMF won't outright tell us). While ArbCom generally does not make policy per its mandate, I am of the opinion that it can strongly suggest improvements to be made and leave the specifics of how to get there to the community members willing to make the sausage, and indeed it has done something similar before (WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions, WP:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2, WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement as examples). The question of the relationship between ArbCom and the Foundation is one that should be held between ArbCom and the Foundation only as this would directly affect ArbCom's mandate and their ability to hold in camera arbitrations such as Joshua Z (2008 Feb 5). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 19:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rockstone35

This has to be the most dramatic incident I've ever seen at Wikipedia in all of my 12 years here; plus out of everything I've read on Wikipedia drama from before my time here. Whatever decision ArbCom makes will have serious impact that will reverberate for years to come. Indeed, the very survival of the project 10 years from now, at least in its current form, likely would hinge on what ArbCom decides. That's why ArbCom should be very cautious about taking this case before we get more information, and I'd recommend holding back on accepting it at this point. Rockstonetalk to me! 21:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme

Current word length: 392; diff count: 0.

I'm on the same page as Montanabw and BU Rob13. Based on my understanding of WP, I've always seen a structured hierarchy (starting at the lowest) editors, administrators, bureaucrats, ArbCom & WMF. I was not aware en.WP was sovereign - thought it was part of a united front with the buck stopping at WMF. Considering admins comprise ArbCom and admins spend time in the trenches, it's hard to imagine they don't form alliances, friendships and have favorites - we're only human; thus UNBLOCKABLE and Teflon editor come to mind. I'm also aware of minor rumblings about alliances between editors and WMF staff but they are fewer and farther between, and the structure within WMF makes potential biases/favoritism less likely - of course, there's always recusal. I support T&S and believe their actions should be respected. No one is above civility policies or what the community expects from administrators; the latter of which requires high standards. While admins and ArbCom are an editor's 1st two lines of defense, WMF is our last resort. I see WMF as the least biased and safest place to seek help or resolution when all else has failed. Theirs should be the final word, so if you don't comply, say goodbye. ArbCom needs to take this case. Atsme Talk 📧 21:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • After reading the responses, I don't understand why so many feel they have to "resist WMF". Our first priority is the project - same applies to WMF. Why the divisiveness and not unity? There's no need for anarchy - we're collaborators here because of the good graces of the WMF Board of Trustees - they've entrusted us to do the right thing, to be treated and treat others fairly, reasonably, and w/civility. There are aspects of the system that have failed us. In the broader picture, editors and admins are not the ones who will be held legally accountable/responsible if something goes awry or in cases of failed fiduciary responsibility/ToU. WMF's Board of Trustees carries that weight. The anarchy I've witnessed has not been in the best interests of the project but more of resistance to maintain independence, power and control with little to no legal responsibility. I don't see such tactics as noble because it's divisive and the project suffers. It's time to move on and let the responsible parties do their jobs. Let's all get back to creating an incredible encyclopedia. ;,( Atsme Talk 📧 22:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis

Per IAR, we should restore the status quo ante, so Fram should also be resysopped. If the WMF has evidence that Fram cannot be trusted to be an Admin or if his editing here poses a threat to Wikipedia and that evidence cannot be disclosed, then hand that evidence to ArbCom and let them decide on taking appropriate measures. Count Iblis (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note by Starship.paint

My original statement was removed at the request of ArbCom as it was not related to this case of change of user rights. This post is just to clarify what happened to whoever visits here from the several links and notifications I wrote to the original statement. That is all. starship.paint (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Cline

If this shitstorm stays its present course, I can not fathom its not being accepted as a case. Neither can I fathom its not becoming the largest disruptive distraction (by far) to building the encyclopedia this community has ever endured nor (potentially) the most derisive discourse ever regrettably had. The last thing I would ever wish to see on this site is the kind of nuanced bickering this case will undoubtedly engender among the most experienced and well respected of our editing community as is posturing now (on and off of en-Wikipedia). I fear (at this point) that we will suffer losses across the entire spectrum of this great project (among admins, editors, and readership alike) no matter what course ultimately emerges as the path of resolution. The only solution that could have positive mitigating effects, in my opinion, would be if ​all ​three ​parties who boldly chose to misuse their advanced permissions in calculated defiance of policy and bright-line rules would now take responsibility for, and ownership of their decision and actions by relinquishing their associated permissions voluntarily. I think this would spare everything undesirable about a case, hasten the likelihood of realizing positive changes in the methodologies under protest by your collective actions, and allow the community to heal her own wounds by reasserting our trust and appreciation in each of you at the earliest RfA/B that you each will hopefully convene. I sure hope that each of you will.--John Cline (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cwmhiraeth

I would urge the Committee to accept this case in order to clarify the rights and responsibilities of the WMF Office as against those of the representatives of the community (ArbCom, bureaucrats, administrators). The case, or motion, should settle such issues as who has a right to overturn Office decisions, and whether an editor desyssopped by the Office needs to undertake an RfA before being given back the bit. The findings could then be used to set a precedent for the future. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: I am shocked by the proposed wording of the motion which in effect, allows administrators or bureaucrats to overturn Office actions with impunity. Please consider rewording item C. to:

  • (C) Floquenbeam, Bishonen and WJBscribe will receive no further sanction from the Arbitration Committee for their actions but will be required to undertake an RfA, or RfB in the case of WJBscribe, if they wish to retain these rights, to show that they still have the confidence of the community. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Barkeep49

I thought after Gamaliel said my thought better and more succinctly than I could've I wouldn't be making a statement. However, I feel compelled to point out that this would now be the second time ArbCom, in the interests of community comity, declined to sanction a sysop for use of the tools in contravention of the Office. On the one hand it truly shows that Wikipedia has no firm rules, a pillar which I fully support. On the other hand, is it even a rule if it never gets enforced? I thought what Floq, Bish, and WJB did was brave because they acted knowing that there would be consequences. I agree with the principle they were standing up for, but it diminishes their action if the consequence is a hearty pat on the back for a job well done. I would support a re-RfA for Floq and Bish, but also think they need to go through one. If, as some of us suspect, WMF made this action because they've lost confidence in us to handle civility issues then part of that lack of confidence has to be our repeated willingness, even at ArbCom, to prize short term healing of the community over the longterm health of the community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​​If AGK's 3.1 passes (and I hope it or something similar will pass) I would think that at the end of it there will still be an RfC. Instead I think this motion setups a structure for discussion and crafting of the RfC, the lack of which has sometimes caused issues at WP:FRAM. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WereSpielChequers

This is the biggest such kerfuffle that Wikipedia has had for years. But I bet it won't be the biggest or worst ever. Arbcom could and arguably should take on a case to help reconcile the community and the WMF. A key part of defusing the current situation is to find a way that somehow gets a collective reconciliation and burying of the hatchet, not just for two admins and a crat who have stood up to the WMF, but for various admins who have resigned over this, and also for the unknown number of WMF staff behind the WMFoffice role account, many of whom are also members of the community.

At the moment it is probably clear to everyone that the WMF wants to alter some community norms on this site. But because in their first use of a 12 month ban it was unclear as to why they were banned Fram, we don't know what change they want to make to behaviour on this site. Only that some things that some of us do may earn us a 12 month ban. That should be troubling for those who have sensibly remained strictly pseudonymous, but for those whose real identities are or have been linked to their accounts - this is or should be a matter of concern. I would hope that my stock in trade of correcting easily confused words is uncontentious. But if the standard now is being perceived to harass goodfaith editors who you think have made mistakes, should I worry that someone will get me blocked for fixing typos in many of their edits?

Six years ago we had in my view a much worse kerfuffle here. In those days it was the WMF who had much lower standards for online behaviour than this community could accept, and Arbcom had to go through the difficult process of desysopping an individual who was unblockable because he worked for the WMF. Ironically, and I hope coincidentally, on that occasion it was Fram who threatened to block a WMF staffer for personal attacks on IRC.

I'm hoping that Arbcom can:

  1. Find out from the WMF what policy changes they want to make to our cultural norms.
  2. consult the community re these changes and implement the ones we can make work.
  3. Negotiate with the WMF re any changes we object to
  4. Make sure that these changes are not retrospective, so anyone who has been following the old rules has the chance to shift to the new ones.

I don't know the current Arbs as well as I knew some of your predecessors, but I'm confident that you are the right people to get us all out of this mess. ϢereSpielChequers 19:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Liz

Current word length: 500; diff count: 0.

I've thought about this for several days and part of me thinks that the last thing ArbCom needs is yet another statement from a Wikipedia editor on this matter. But I would like to encourage you to take this case and make it not about admins and their blocking/unblocking or sysoping/desysoping but tackle the trickier aspect of the relationship between ArbCom and WMF. A case is not the ideal forum for this discussion but I can't think of an alternative method that would tackle this evolving relationship. There needs to be some focus on where ArbCom's responsibilities start and stop and if WMF is going to usurp part of ArbCom's role, everyone should be aware of this and at least have a modicum of agreement with this change.

I think this is important because WMF is only going to grow bigger, not smaller and the chances of a situation like this occurring again are increasingly likely if this experience has taught us anything. Yes, everyone agrees that this incident was not handled correctly but I agree with SilkTork that it does present an opportunity to define roles. The reason I think this action has hit everyone so hard is a) most of us didn't see it coming and b) the evidence is considered private and can not be shared.

If ArbCom can have a formal conversation with WMF on their intentions and how they see themselves policing projects, I think editors, admins and the committee would feel better knowing in advance what actions they might take when WMF feels it is necessary to act. Fram's block and the ensuing actions were unprecedented and caught so many of us off-guard and having a better understanding of what ArbCom handles vs. what WMF handles can only improve all of our expectations. Editors might not like the answers that come out of this discussion but at least we would be warned ahead of time on ways WMF can exercise disciplinary authority on hot-button topics like those Trust & Safety oversees. I can truly understand those who are saying you should stay a mile away from this subject and I agree that the outcome might not change. But I think that to avoid incidents like this occurring in the future, it's a discussion that needs to happen, better sooner than later. Liz Read! Talk! 23:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If there is another venue for having this conversation between ArbCom and WMF rather than a full-fledged case, then go for it. But a community RfC just can't handle something so fundamental to the way this website is governed. This will involve a sustained discussion between ArbCom and WMF and if there are alternative ways of handling it, that would be great. I just don't see any right now but that might be from a lack of imagination. Do whatever works best to bring ArbCom and WMF into more agreement, other than an extended conference call. That sounds like it didn't work out so well last time. Liz Read! Talk! 00:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Epipelagic

This behaviour by the WMF may be here to stay. Similar clamps on free speech are currently happening on social media sites around the world. So is it that, following Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, the WMF are eager to show they are up with the play by unpersoning and disappearing their own community members? There is nothing new about this on Wikipedia. Jimbo Wales initiated similar crackdowns on the more able content creators a few years ago. It was his attempt to placate an infestation of social networkers who wanted to control them. Now it seems the WMF is hunting for community members they can disappear, charging them with the one act guaranteed to generate mindless outrage – the political incorrectness of saying something someone else didn't want to hear. Or, as the WMF likes to put it, "harassment and/or abusing others".

Damnation comes easily this way on the basis of evidence from anonymous informers that only the WMF knows about. Even the WMF becomes anonymous at this point, and the charge itself is made by a faceless apparatus called the WMFOffice. No details of the charge is offered, merely that there is a charge. No review is offered, no defence is possible. We have no idea whether Fram was engaged in serious bullying, and it seems Fram has no idea what the charges relate to either. Liberal principles of justice have been abandoned. Guilt is final on the grounds that an unknown charge has been made by a faceless apparatus. The same suppression techniques Kafka wrote about and Stasi implemented. The Committee needs to establish whether this behaviour by the WMF is likely to continue as part of a wider alignment with the clamps on free speech by other social networks, or whether the current incidents are just an aberration. – Epipelagic (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kusma

Basically the whole issue is that some people at the WMF are not satisfied with the norms of this community, and how it chooses to enforce them (or not). They chose a heavy handed way to approach it, bypassing ArbCom and banning Fram. The WMF Office staff (assuming they are not completely incompetent, in which case they shouldn't have anything to do with the management of a community of volunteers) knew this was a declaration of mistrust in our ArbCom. I would like to see something done by ArbCom, but it should not be directed at WJBscribe, Floq or Bishonen here. Defending our community against an aggressive bureaucracy is not a crime, nor is saying "I'm Spartacus". Any case should be the WMF Office versus the ArbCom arguing about who has jurisdiction about editor conduct here. If ArbCom doesn't believe it should have jurisdiction, I suggest you all resign. If ArbCom believes it should have jurisdiction but hasn't, I suggest to go on strike until outside interference ceases.

While I'm here, a few words about Fram (I was his admin nominator many years ago). I have often disagreed with Fram (sometimes about the substance, more often about the tone of his comments) but have never regretted nominating him. He is a tireless and uncompromising advocate for upholding quality and standards, especially on the Main Page. I can understand why some people would feel followed or even harassed by him, but I always felt he did what he did (asking for high quality/notability standards and calling out people for repeatedly failing to improve) to everyone. There is a line between repeated legitimate criticism and harassment, and in the case here we are not shown where it is, so we can't actually do anything about our community norms to address this. An invisible hand enforcing invisible rules is not an acceptable situation. —Kusma (t·c) 05:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Premeditated Chaos: @KrakatoaKatie: I don't think the proposed motion giving admin tools protest against an Office action a pass this time but promising to disallow it at the next Office action, no matter how problematic that action might be, is a good way forward on its own. Remember, there is no way to appeal Fram's ban through any normal channel. We don't know where the authority of ArbCom ends end where the authority of T&S starts for local project issues, and we don't know what type of behaviour might get us a one year office ban. If all we get out of this is your proposed motion strengthening the Office, with no resolution of the underlying conflict, the correct community response should probably something like the "fuck arbcom" that may or may not have started this mess. —Kusma (t·c) 05:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

Optimally, we are trained to research, control sources, winnow wheat from the chaff, in order to produce a quality in articles that can stand up to the best external specialized scrutiny. Documentation must be verifiable, by a link or direct consultation in libraries, and if someone cannot verify what I, for one, report from a source, I am obliged to reconsult it and copy out the queried passage to enable the sceptic to ascertain/verify the correctness of the paraphrase. Trust in the integrity of the product is secured by the best-practice procedures. The reader of our ideal FA articles is assured that minute scrutiny by multiple editors of competence has verified everything in the text. When disputes flare up or persist, we have an internal system of monitoring and judgment deliberated upon by elected members of this community, and defer to their decisions because, like the process of high quality article drafting, everything is visible to the involved parties. We can verify everything in a democratic process. We may dispute conclusions, bans or closures without verdict, but we know who said what, how which arbitrator interpreted the evidence. What the WMF is proposing challenges all of the principles that govern the actual construction of the encyclopedia. It may be within their right as owners to do so, but for 16 years it wasn't thought necessary, and the innovation proposed undermines enwiki's autonomy while encroaching on its established culture of conflict resolution. It does this by instituting a parallel process/Proceß whose methods and criteria of assessment are beyond our purview, cannot be independently verified, and therefore demand blind trust. It is, apart from modern experiments in totalitarian 'justice', essentially theological, a secular demand for a mass community fideistic acceptance that some omniscient godlings will understand and punish more fairly than our sublunary institutions manage to do.

In short, the culture we were encouraged to develop: subjecting admins to scrutiny and recall, constraining editors to abide by known rules, verifying everything to secure the trust of our global readership, is rendered subordinate to a parallel universe that demands trust without proof of competence, methods of verification and evaluation that are opaque, and whose results cannot be challenged. All this because of a numbers of plaintiffs feel their hurt sensibilities have not obtained justice within the existing Arbitration process. Since the innovation implies arbitration is inadequate, cannot be internally reformed, Arbcom itself of questionable efficiency, and that the remedy consists of the introduction of secret deliberations that overrule the standard methods we employ, it is surely imperative that the community and its representative organs, assess the issue, ne vitam silentio transeant velut pecora, quae natura prona atque ventri oboedientia finxit. —Nishidani (talk • contribs) 10:13, 17 June 2019‎ (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

Just as a general comment, if any individual arbitrator filed an anonymous complaint to the WMF T&S team about Fram I think it is incumbent on them to recuse. And any editor who has filed the same should not be commenting as an uninvolved editor. Either make your complaint privately or publicly, but publicly supporting your own private complaint should not be allowed. nableezy - 16:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MJL

Current word length: 600; diff count: 2.

I've been following this controversy for the last week. I am disheartened and unamused; at times shocked and vexed; but most of all I am just tired.

Tired of this drama, tired of mob mentality; tired of how the most I can ever hope to achieve right now on this site is more additional whitenoise to this near endless fiasco. What is there for me to do? I wrote an essay, made my comments, and received semi-positive feedback. However, I'm not satisfied because if I truly did enough then we would never have been here.

Here's my contention: I suggest that Arbcom duly accept this case by motion.

Precedent for this case

(1) In early 2014, after Kww filed this request, arbitrators admonished them for reversing an office action. (2) Later that year, Arbcom opened [and closed] Media Viewer RfC. (3) Even in 2017, arbcom enacted Crosswiki issues: Motion.

For various legitimate reasons, arbcom has not previously involved itself with the issue of Fram's conduct. In 2016, Arbcom declined to hear a request against Fram as the request had many faults. Then in 2018, arbcom declined a similar request from Gatoclass as it was premature.

Arbcom has jurisdiction

In full disagreement with WormTT below, Arbcom clearly has jurisdiction here. In the section on precedent, I have outlined 3 specific times Arbcom (1) reviewed admin actions that interfered with WP:OA, (2) reviewed community conduct in reaction to WP:OAs, (3) previously found a need to step in community disputes related to WMF.

Separately, Arbcom has the ability to set the parameters for which it chooses to look into Fram's conduct as an administrator (without interfering with the office action). I am aware of at least six accounts that have both a global ban and an arbcom ban (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6). However, I make no statement as to whether arbcom should choose to act on this matter. Historically, arbcom has not chose to review Fram's conduct, and there is no precedent for arbcom taking action after an office ban has been placed.

Community has deadlocked

There have been multiple attempts to resolve this controversy. Spanning multiple pages, there have been 1 million characters written on WP:FRAM alone. The community cannot engage with this issue any more than it already has.

Arbcom needs to take action

To conclude, this is the group of arbitrators I trust the most to be able to settle this issue. This arbcom has thus far made some the most difficult choices and has worked harder for this community than any arbcom before it. It consists of users with amazing judgement and insight.

Yes, there exists ongoing discussions in the community and the WMF board regarding this issue. However, regardless of the outcome of those discussions, we need to see arbcom step in to restore order and prevent further disruption to the project.

I fully believe our rules work if only there exists a will on Arbcom to enforce them. I believe there is right now. Thank you. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Current word length: 500.

Extension granted on 23:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC).

Responses

@Kww: My apologies for abrupt ping.

@SilkTork: Don't resign; you're needed.

@WormTT: This case couldn't overturn WP:OA, yes. Conduct is still reviewable. Comparison: Getting blocked for WP:3RR violations at the WP:OFFICE enwiki page. It wouldn't be OA to block (Just ADMINACCT).
Regular conduct disputes don't require this. Otherwise, I'd agree. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I would like to bring to the Committee's attention Newyorkbrad's "A suggested resolution" at WP:FRAM. While not specifically addressed to this case request, it is pertinent to the background of the case, and could potentially impact the decisions of Arbitrators about whether to take the case or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the motion to admonish WJBscribe, Bish and Floq, I am vehemently opposed to any admonitions if they do not include an admonishment of T&S for their action in usurping the community's right to police itself, and of the WMF Board for letting us all twist in the wind while they try to decide what to do about repairing the significant loss of trust between the community and WMF staff. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by wbm1058

@Hawkeye7: "While it is true that in the distant past some administrators were de-sysopped for WHEEL-warring, in recent times (the most recent case being Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder), ArbCom have taken a far more relaxed and understanding view, and have regarded WHEEL-warring as worth no more than a caution at most." (link)

Excuse me?? Bauder was DESYSOPPED! The hypocrisy here is absolutely astounding. If an editor can be EMERGENCY desysopped for wheel-warring on their own ArbCom elections page, then it should be a slam dunk to desysop them for overturning an office ban. Y'all should just admit you have no respect for rules, and just make things up as you go along to rationalize your self-serving desired outcome. wbm1058 (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EllenCT: (link) Well, if you can make a valid argument that Bauder's possession of the admin toolset "prevented the community from improving the (content of the) encyclopedia" in order to justify his desysopping, then an equally valid – or even more valid – argument can be made that Fram's presence was preventing certain community members from improving the encyclopedia, and thus that is a valid reason for the WMF's Office Action. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kww

Really weird to get pinged on this one on the basis that my admonishment set some kind of precedent. I guess in a way it did: WMF behaved irrationally, I behaved rationally, so I got admonished, despite the fact that the WMF action was clearly erroneous and that all accusations that I had somehow "reverted" WMF by increasing the protection level on an article were blatantly false. I expect to see a similar result here.

There may be a chance to address one of the root problems that plagued Wikipedia while I was active, and, from periodic monitoring, still seems to be the case. Somehow, somewhere, people got the idea that it was OK to unilaterally undo a block placed by another admin, even when that admin objects, and that it becomes the blocking admin's responsibility to generate a consensus for the block. That's how problems like Eric Corbett got magnified and magnified. That behaviour also goes against the flow for all other admin actions: if the blocking admin disagrees with the unblock, the block should be reinstated unless and until there is a community consensus to unblock. I'm quite certain that if that approach had been used here, the community consensus to unblock would have been easily obtained, and we would not be in the case of one admin facing sanction for doing something most people think was right.—Kww(talk) 05:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by North8000

Any case involving admins / 'crats who undid WMF actions is going to end in a quandary. I'm certain that they had obvious & overwhelming support enwiki support, but possibly there was no organized process that arrived at that. Also the mysterious WMF processes and unspecified rules that led to their actions could be (or not be) considered an authoritative rulebook. Plus it appears that the admins / crats that undid WMF actions are not going to suffer any retribution. So IMO a case involving them would be a bad idea. A better case would be to wait a bit and then have Arbcom take up the case of what Fram did and didn't do. Say that Arbcom must be given all of the info, which can be kept confidential as needed. North8000 (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by UninvitedCompany

This whole thing makes me sad and has sapped much of my motiviation to contribute. I see disrespect for the community and its traditions all around and a lack of leadership and communication in certain key places.

The handling of the office action (and by extension, what to do with Fram) is a problem for @Jimbo Wales: and the community members of the board of trustees. I hope they take their responsibility seriously. I do not believe that the arbitration committee can help in this area. I believe that accepting this portion of the case would distract the community from the more important task of working with the trustees and, in future trustee elections, remembering the vital importance of these roles.

There is a trend towards activism and politics among the bureaucrats. Maxim's desysop of Fred Bauder, and (in essence) supervoting at some recent RFAs, are prior examples. WJBscribe's actions in this matter are a continuing example. It is not clear to me whether this is a good thing. It is here that that committee could make a difference.

UninvitedCompany 21:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nick

The statement I don't know Jan, and he hasn't been on any of the meetings with us so far this year and I don't know why (James Alexander missed very few). worries me enormously. I have the utmost respect and trust for Katie, I know her to be tactful and diplomatic, so for her to say this makes me incredibly worried. Just how much of a breakdown has there between between T&S and ArbCom ? I would like @JEissfeldt (WMF): to comment in relation to this.

-- Nick (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rschen7754

Maybe I'm not supposed to say this as a former steward, but I would be deeply troubled by any motion that requires or mandates that ArbCom remove sysop permissions for any violation of WP:OFFICE. Yes, in most cases ArbCom should remove sysop, and admins should know that it is a very likely consequence (and I would not object to that being the motion), but it could tie ArbCom's hands in a future case when the "right" thing to do is to oppose the OFFICE action, or whether mitigating factors should be considered. (It leaves the question of what "right" is, I suppose).

I also think that a six-month ban on RFA after that comes dangerously close to ArbCom making policy, and is inconsistent with past decisions where admins who did far worse things didn't get that restriction. --Rschen7754 04:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: I suppose, but I think that ArbCom would lose credibility if they did that. --Rschen7754 23:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given WJBscribe's actions I now think a full case is inevitable. --Rschen7754 05:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

I have a question for Katie, and also Rschen7754. Arbcom famously doesn't go by precedent. The policy states: "While the Committee will typically take into account its earlier decisions when deciding new cases, previous decisions do not create binding precedent. As community policies, guidelines and norms evolve over time, previous decisions will be taken into account only to the extent that they remain relevant in the current context. So if Katie's suggestion for a motion that "in the future, reversal of WMF office actions will be met with desysop and no RFA for at least six months" is supported by the committee, can that motion even tie the hands of future committees? In six months, we'll already have a partly different committee. Maybe they won't think it's relevant in the next context.

As long as I'm here, I'll just say I agree with Floquenbeam's recent addition.[8] What he says goes for me too. Bishonen | talk 10:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

@SilkTork: "We've had no communication from [the WMF] since the 19 June phone call meeting other than setting up the next call on 3 July".[9] Thank you for sharing that in your comment on the Fram request below. I had been assuming there was ongoing communication. If WJBscribe knew the input from the WMF was this slow, it's IMO no wonder he lost patience.User:KrakatoaKatie, I've always had great confidence in your judgment. You said on 23 June that you were very encouraged by the initial conversation the committee had had with T&S, I presume meaning the conversation on 19 June. May I ask if you're still, now waiting for another conversation on bleedin' 3 July, very encouraged? Bishonen | talk 10:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • @Opabinia regalis and Joe Roe: The motion "Reversion of office actions (II)" seems to aspire to create policy by fiat, since reversal of Office actions is not considered wheel warring per WP:WHEEL. I know Hawkeye7 states above that it is, but he's clearly misreading the policy, as Cryptic has pointed out. It may not be a big deal in this case, but it does seem like encroachment on our policies, and might, as you say, "set expectations" for the future around what wheel warring is. It's hard to believe anybody has a taste for starting an RfC to get the policy changed, but of course that's up to you. Bishonen | talk 09:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • @Joe Roe: Frankly, you seem to be only quoting the bits of WP:WHEEL you like, just like Hawkeye7 did. Yes, it's listed as a possible indication of an incipient wheel war, along with not only "deliberately ignoring an existing discussion in favor of a unilateral preferred action", which you quote, but also along with "an administrator getting too distressed to discuss calmly". Do you consider such distress "wheel warring" also? It's in the same list. It's not just "some" that prefer to strictly reserve the phrase wheel warring for the second revert onwards"; it's the policy. Also, @SilkTork: do you really think it's useful to talk about ""wheel warring over office actions", instead of simply about reversing office actions? I don't know why you guys love to shoehorn in wheel warring into this, when all it does is make trouble. For example, applying SilkTork's phrasing to me and Floquenbeam would have made a (presumably unwanted) distinction between the two of us, because I wheel warred, but Floquenbeam did not. But I won't comment on this stuff further. It's no skin off my nose, and I can see it's a mere annoyance. Bishonen | talk 11:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Mendaliv

I want to echo the complaints above about the notion of the Committee rubber-stamping Office Actions with a summary desysop. I have little to add that hasn't already been said about that specifically. I want to further address the notion of a six-month RfA ban. It is my view that the Committee should never enact RfA bans as part of a desysop. The Community's ability to start a RfA as a means of overturning a rogue Committee's overreach should never be subject to question.

I additionally want to address the outrageous notion that this Committee's jurisdiction does not encompass the entire website. The Arbitration Policy, which may be amended, does exclude the official actions of the Foundation and its staff. And yet, the Committee is not subordinate to the Foundation. Wikipedia is a separate sovereign, not a treaty port where visitors from this foreign land of the Foundation are not subject to our policies. This is inherent in the history of Wikipedia and the relationship between Wikipedia and the Foundation.

Even if remedies might be difficult to enforce, it is likely that the Foundation would obey the decrees of the Committee out of a sense of comity. Viz. Mr. Eissfeldt's use of a non-role account to make an official statement in this case. And if the Foundation wishes to disrespect the commands of the Committee and desires of the Community, they may do so. Regardless, it is important that the Committee formalize its ability to investigate and pass judgment as to the wrongfulness of Foundation conduct and the conduct of its staffers. Refusal to declare a wrongful act wrongful merely because the wrongdoers would thumb their noses at you would be symbolic of the utter failure of this Committee.

I therefore propose that the Committee take the following actions:

  1. Hold this request in abeyance
  2. Enact a Motion to amend the Arbitration Policy to strike any jurisdictional limitation with respect to the Foundation
  3. Hold the required referendum
  4. Resume this request once the referendum passes
  • Questions for the Arbs, that may need to be resolved prior to any motion going forward: (1) If there is a lack of jurisdiction over "official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff", does this solely mean jurisdiction to overturn or bind in remedies, respectfully? (2) If the answer to 1 is "yes", then ArbCom has jurisdiction to investigate particular OAs and their propriety, as well as make FoFs, and probably should be prior to going forward with this motion. (3) If the answer to 1 is "no" (and I think it is), then there is no jurisdiction to adjudicate or to make FoFs with respect to WMF actions or staffers; I would then argue there's an implied reciprocal lack of jurisdiction—ArbCom should not be enforcing office actions, period, because it lacks the jurisdiction to investigate whether they were violated and determine appropriate sanctions for violating them. Please consider this. I believe it may be a rephrasing of what SilkTork says below. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to endorse DGG’s proposal. Please make such a motion, urgently. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Promethean

I removed my previous opposition to hearing this matter; There is now a legitimate question of WP:WHEEL violation due to the actions of Primefac and Maxim. In my view, the action undertaken by these bureaucrats was at best unhelpful and inflammatory; They should have deferred to the active WP:RFAR, but appear to lack the good judgement required to do so, preferring the more self-aggrandizing approach of direct intervention. Promethean (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaky caldron: "Do the actions of WJBscribe not fit that description?" I would forgive anyone for thinking that his actions do fit that description. But even if they did, WJBscribe has now resigned, which isn't much of a prize to show for his actions. The other two have not yet resigned, and thus extra scrutiny of their actions seems in order. Promethean (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: You've indicated that you held private counsel with another bureaucrat on IRC, and that from that discussion, came to a decision to take an official on-wiki action. Would you be willing to make those IRC logs available to the Arbitration Committee and or the broader community? In addition, given that there is an active arbitration case relating to this matter, do you accept that it may have been poor judgement to take an action like the one you and Maxim did, with only an editable IRC chat-log as evidence of your prior consensus and initial reasoning, knowing that it would have been of interest to ARBCOM and the community? Promethean (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Maxim: Same question ^^

Statement by El_C

Seeing as the Foundation's representative has seemingly entrenched themselves in their position, now is the time for the Arbitration Committee, as the closest thing to the community's elected governing body, to assert itself on our behalf. I realize Committee members still have to work closely with the Foundation, but the time to take a stand is now. El_C 19:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: who do you envision drafting the RfC? The community? The Arbitration Committee? Both? El_C 19:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, will the Committee not issue further statement about the present crisis in confidence? El_C 19:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Worm That Turned: first, sorry for being a bit slow. I asked the question, but almost immediately realized that drafting the RfC itself effectively is (or can be seen to be) as a sort of statement. True, my hope was that the Committee would also issue a separate statement about the crisis in confidence that the community has developed with the Foundation (or certain components therein), but I realize that isn't likely to happen due to a variety of factors, chief among them, that the discussion with them is still ongoing. But the slow pace of this discussion has proven, well, problematic. Hopefully, all that is on the verge of changing. Thanks again for baring with me here. El_C 20:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Floquenbeam: I think that this is something such an RfC would aim to resolve, serving as a joint-statement from both the Arbitration Committee and the community. Something the Foundation would have to take notice of. I mean, what else would you propose? El_C 20:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Floquenbeam: by all means, expand on my talk page. I'm interested to hear your proposal. El_C 20:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We must not let the community's overall objection be muddied. It is, I believe, generally, as follow:

The Foundation's component imposing the ban can be seen to imply criminality-level misconduct, which is surprising given the ban's local application. The case being judged in absentia is also facet of the objection. Being denied a right of appeal is yet another (even though, historically, one could always appeal to Jimbo).

The losses that this crisis of confidence with the Foundation has brought and continues to bring, hopefully, are going to resonate. This is a matter of urgency. I am putting stock in the RfC idea (which I hope will reflect what I said here) and, directly at the board level, on efforts on the part of Jimbo and Doc James, also, to help bring this all to resolution. El_C 17:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the Committee's Open letter to the WMF Board, some of what was said here may become moot. Again, my thanks goes to the Committee — it took a week (see my first comment here), but you did it. Nicely done! El_C 01:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nick-D

It is not acceptable for admins and bureaucrats to unilaterally attempt to overturn office actions: they simply do not have the right to do so, and it amounts to protecting people who have been assessed to have violated the terms and conditions. In the case here, a prominent editor who had been found to have engaged in harassment was protected, which obviously sends a terrible message. Commons had similar problems with this after Russavia was banned by the WMF, with users with advanced permissions there insisting that he retain his admin rights and his ban-evading socks not be blocked as the ban hadn't come from their community (see [10], for instance) - never mind that he had been banned for sexual harassment after years of trolling and other misconduct which the Commons admins had disgracefully failed to address. At the time there was a widespread view here that Commons was dysfunctional and its admins and bureaucrats needed a clean out. More recently, we had some similar issues with admins wheel warring over blocking Eric Corbett. As we obviously don't want to go down the same path as Commons did, Arbcom needs to accept this case. As to the problem of the WMF foolishly stepping into Arbcom's role through its intervention here and not explaining why it needed to do so, I'm struggling to see how it could be sorted out through an arbitration case given it relates to WMF policies, not En-Wiki policies. Other avenues would be better suited to resolving the issue. Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mjroots

I respectfully request that ARBCOM does accept this case. Fram should be a named party. He should be permitted to participate in the case notwithstanding the threat from OFFICE to block him should he edit on en-wiki.

Even if the case is that ARBCOM cannot impose sanctions on OFFICE, it can certainly make statements that It is very strongly recommended that OFFICE... (takes a certain course of action).

This issue is far too big to ignore.

Statement by Aquillion

I can understand the need to make it clear that, ultimately, trying to reverse Office actions is futile and counterproductive; and I trust ArbCom enough that if you genuinely feel that such a finding is necessary as a show of good faith in order to reach a better outcome from discussions with T&S, then it's necessary. That said, I urge you to avoid a formal finding to that effect unless it is absolutely necessary. Community backlash is an important part of what keeps our editorial independence safe from WMF overreach. ArbCom was chosen to be the representatives of the community in that sort of discussion, and I don't think they should be making that sort of overreach any easier than is strictly necessary. I mean, if this is part of negotiations with the WMF and you think it will help, go ahead, but I'd strongly suggest not doing it out of a desire to maintain stability or things of that nature - the fact that WMF overreach risks destabilizing the site and its community is a feature, not a bug, and serves as a sort of Poison Pill that ensures that the culture, outlook, and opinions of the community do matter even in situations, like this, where the WMF is putting the full weight of its authority behind its actions. Normally, we discourage those sorts of WP:POINTy gestures because other channels for resolution exist - but in this case, when dealing with the WMF, the fact is that they often do not. --Aquillion (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: Even if you're not in a situation to actually overturn the ban, and even if you of course wouldn't be able to publicly share any information you have, Arbitrators are still reasonably respected by the community. Having you sign some sort of NDA and review the privileged information in this case and then say "I can't share what I saw, but it unambiguously justifies the ban" could definitely help cool things down. (Conversely, "I can't share what I saw, but it was an edge-case that could have gone either way" or "I can't share what I saw, but it definitely doesn't justify the ban" might not as directly resolve the situation, but it would at least point us towards where we need to go moving forwards.) Obviously it wouldn't be ideal, but this is a non-ideal situation where we have to weigh lots of competing factors; I think just having ArbCom, who was selected and is trusted by the community, weigh in like that would help bring clarity going forward. Obviously, this would depend on T&S playing ball, but it seems worth pushing for. --Aquillion (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

I accept office actions in cases where the community can not deal with the problem, however, Arb was fully capable of handling the Fram situation without the ham fisted actions by the Office. I have no opinion on the merits of the Fram case, as I don't have the information, but I do take issue with the methods employed by the WMF. Of course, that isn't why we are here, Actions by Crats and Admin are at issue.

It is not ArbCom's job to be the minions of the WMF and enforce their rulings, particularly when their methods so offend the community. The WMF may have a right to do as they please, but if they want to maintain a community of volunteers, they have an obligation to engage the community, or by extension, Arb, before taking non-emergency action on an editor. The actions by WJBscribe, Bishonen and Floq might violate one policy, but they are clearly within the spirit of another, the most important policy we have, WP:IAR. Sometimes you do the right thing even if one policy says don't, not as an act of defiance but as an act of restoring the status quo and in the long term, improving the encyclopedia.

My personal recommendation is to decline the case, let things stand, and continue working with T&S towards a better solution in the future, one that doesn't alienate the community. If the WMF has no accountability to the community, then we are not volunteers, we are subjects, and I don't care to be ruled. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • And now we are up to around 10 or 11 admin gone and 1 crat. WJBScribe just handed in his admin and crat tools. Not sure this is worth pursuing anymore. This isn't slowing down Arbs, it is gaining momentum. Now would be a good time for forget this case and get something concrete in assurances from the WMF that this won't happen again this way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buffs

Current word length: 329; diff count: 1.

The issue with this ban is twofold: the first is the lack of transparency. ArbCom is our body of elected representation and should be privy to relevant communications when banning a user. The second is a lack of process. ArbCom is perfectly capable of handling this situation. Given that one of the possible aggrieved parties ("Laura" as identified by the Fram) has a personal relationship with the WMF Chair and this block was enacted with someone they are having a disagreement, at a bare minimum, there is a conflict of interest present at the bureaucratic level. That the same person implied that the community response was sexist leads to the implication that a ban may have been at least related to an attempt to "right a great wrong". ArbCom should have been given the evidence and dealt with it. If ArbCom has seen the preliminary evidence and deems it appropriate, I have no problem with a suspension of rights/privileges of Fram until such time as ArbCom finishes/rules. WMF Office Actions should be limited to emergencies and I've seen no evidence of such exigent circumstances.

It is worth noting that I do not feel that Fram has done a particularly good job maintaining civility (in fact, he's been pretty lousy). Had I been in the position of authority, I would have probably desysoped him for his behavior; as an admin, it's inexcusable. I do not defend him personally, but the process here is ripe for abuse, POV pushing, and fraught with atrocious precedents that need to be addressed and curtailed/clarified. Thanks in advance to ArbCom for taking on this case.

I think it's pretty clear that the actions taken here by admins were in good faith and they made their point well. I think they are indeed guilty as sin and their punishment should be a solid trouting at worst. The rest of the issues needed to be resolved and this was the best way to do it. Buffs (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GreenMeansGo has a fine solution listed below as well. A desysoping with immediate RfA (with or without ArbCom endorsement) would be acceptable as well. Buffs (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tazerdadog

I'd like to endorse the actions of Floquenbeam, Bishonen, and WJBScribe as necessary and correct. They should be commended, should not be sanctioned, and no rule should be put in place to enjoin future similar actions.

The committee should accept this case with an eye towards scrutinizing all parties, including the WMF. A motion is not likely to be sufficient to address the problems here. Even if sanctions are not enforceable, a statement from ARBCOM that said this is unacceptable and would've gotten a community administrator desysopped would still be effective (assuming that's what the evidence shows).

Statement by Fish and karate

Resolving this by a motion that says "don't do it again" is a cowardly abrogation of your responsibilities. Floq, Bish and WJB did what they did knowingly in breach of the rules around wheel-warring and WP:OFFICE. I completely applaud their actions. However, the job of ArbCom is to dispassionately apply the rules, not wuss out, and they should all be desysopped at a minimum. They know this and were all willing to accept it. If a motion saying "blah blah naughty admins don't do it again" is the end result you should all take a page from Rob's book and resign. ArbCom was created to handle the really complex and difficult cases that the community as a whole could not. Right now, the community is doing a far better job than ArbCom of dealing with this case, and ArbCom noping out of addressing, properly and significantly, this whole episode will be the final straw that demonstrates that ArbCom is utterly pointless, and reinforces my belief that most of you ran for ArbCom to allow you to pontificate, collect another hat, and feel important. Fish+Karate 10:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I urge the committee to note Ched’s post below. This is going to continue to spiral unless you get a grip of this, firmly. The shitty, passive, mimsy motion below is not sufficient and does not address any of the real issues. Yes the original block is outside your jurisdiction, but everything that followed is very much what you signed up to be on arbcom to do (or, increasingly more likely, professed to) which is handle this stuff. Fish+Karate 06:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mangoe

I ask that this case be declined, along similar lines to those set forth by Dennis Brown above. What I have heard does not convince me that there was anything that couldn't have been handled through normal processes for dealing with interpersonal conflict, and it does not strike me that this conflict is any much worse than others which have been allowed to continue, or the many that have been stopped through a visit to AN/I or ARBCOM. I do not gather that T&S intends to take over routine civility patrol, never minding that various discussions have established that the standards are much lower than I would ever personally tolerate— negligible, I might say.

But this all points (beyond the circumstances of this thus far unique occurrence) to a systemic problem which ARBCOM should not try to put itself in the position of legislating by fiat. If T&S is required to exist due to some legal necessity, it does not seem to me that it should put itself at an Olympian distance, hurling an occasional thunderbolt to intervene in the affairs of us mortals. We do not work to serve them, not in any way whatsoever, nor do we work to serve the foundation as a whole. The foundation exists to serve the mission, again because it is necessary to have such organization. And thus I reject the notion that ARBCOM should presume to tell us what the relationship is between the community and T&S, which is the direction I see this case taking.

Yes, the issues here need to be worked out. This is not the place. Mangoe (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On further consideration I'm convinced that my input is not needed, not here, not anywhere in the project. Mangoe (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GMG

I agree with F&K. They should all be deadmined, clearly and unequivocally, and anything less means that ArbCom is, as I have long suspected, a body which can mostly be replaced by the other functionaries in the role of handling private information, as they are on any other project without an ArbCom. Most or all of them will be immediately resysopped in an immediate RfA. I was under the impression that the point of ArbCom was resilience and level-headedness regardless of the whims of the mob, and that was supposed to be its saving grace. GMGtalk 01:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Legoktm

Either WP:OFFICE is a real policy that needs to be followed, or it's not (hint: it's not really up to the community to decide). Not mentioning it at all in the motion makes no sense, since that's the actual issue that ArbCom can deal with. Overturning office actions should be immediate desysops/decrats for everyone involved, regardless of the reason - that's how I always understood and interpreted the policy. Legoktm (talk) 02:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Yes, I'm a contractor for the WMF, but I've also been an editor/admin for much longer than that. It's in that role I'm leaving this comment)

Statement by Ched

Feel free to delete my post (again) if it is covered elsewhere - (I can't read everything, nor do I wish to) Several things each Arbcom member should be aware of:

  • Changes to Fram's user rights (abilities), both back and forth [11] and discussion at WP:BN here. [12]
  • Changes to what used to be a policy page, and the edit waring over it. (please note that a WMF declared account made changes without discussion.) This is over Wikipedia:Office actions. RfC here: [13]
  • An AN/I report on said policy/non-policy: [14]
  • And the XfD that was sure to follow. [15]
  • New page to log office actions: Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by WMF Office
  • .. and again the attending XfD [16]

Given these recent developments I would think that at least one or two of you may want to reconsider that "handle by motion" parts of your voting. Sorry to add to an already overly long ... whatever this is, but I thought it important that you all know. Thanks. — Ched :  ?  — 05:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Crazynas

@Maxim: (technically) and @Primefac: (socially) have engaged in what we technically (although perhaps no longer in practice) define as wheel warring by taking the third action with regard to the +sysop status of Fram. [17] Although they cite policy in their close [18] this is in fact outside the bureaucrat mandate for removal of permissions, since a request for removal came neither from the user or this committee (as Pppery had in fact already noted in the discussion referenced).

The extraordinary circumstance that locus is OFFICE in my mind detracts (rather than adding, as cited in the close) any justification for this action. They don't need our help to enforce their policies (especially when doing so is contra to our own). If we want to expand the mandate of the bureaucrats to enforcing office actions we need to change our policy to reflect that. Regardless, ~2.5 hours of discussion was premature (and certainly hadn't snowballed) for finding a consensus, either way, for this reversal. By their actions I believe both Maxim and Primefac are now implicit parties to this case, and should be so included in any subsequent action. Crazynas t 09:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Casliber

Recommend (1) striking a private deal with WMF not to do this again without private consultation with the committee (2) calling an amnesty, and (3) vacate the case. The grossly unusual action in the first place has led to a slew of conflict that is escalating. If a deal can be struck just get everyone to move on. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xeno

Maxim’s removal of Fram’s administrator userright is the second time Maxim has performed an out-of-process desysop (previous occurrence: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder#Maxim desysopped Fred Bauder). –xenotalk 10:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dax Bane

This whole mess started with WMF taking the golden global banhammer, photocopying it at 75%, putting the original back in the tool chest, and using the new shiny silver one to issue a minimum 12 month ban on Fram, with reference to a complaint originating from one (or more) editor (or editors), on this particular project under the WMF's purview.
The community, understandably was divided in its response, with a vocal mob (for want of a better phrase here) forming a posse and calling for various actions (and information) from the WMF - none of which is realistic, bluntly. Then came the bold actions, some covered under the auspices of IAR (and I don't fundamentally disagree with the reasoning used for the most part in any of them) - but I ask both WJBScribe with restoring Floquenbeam's sysop tools (and your recent resignation of your own tools) and Maxim (@Maxim: courtesy ping) recently electing to enforce the original WMF decree in removing the same tools, what have you ultimately achieved with either of your actions? Have they improved the project in any meaningful or substantial way, or merely added more fuel to an already volatile powder keg?

What this community needs, right now, is calm - not more irrational bold actions taken in the heat of a moment without further thought to, or care for, consequence. Dax Bane 10:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: Yes, you might be right, however initial appearances of the crowd that gathered (initially at WP:BN, later at WP:FRAM, then elsewhere) did have some hallmarks of a mob IMO - which has since further spilled out into not only calls for action but action taken in addition, of which I couldn't pick a better example than this very case request and everything that has transpired as a result of it. Frankly, that's calling a spade what it is. I called for calm because, clearly, further bold actions aren't helping matters. If you think that is a two-faced way to put things, well you're entitled to your opinion and I couldn't fault you for having one. Dax Bane 11:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Primefac

I do not have much more to say than what I said in the closing statement of the original BN thread regarding WJB's actions, but I suppose I should explain mine/Maxim's.

Following WJB's re-sysop of Fram, Maxim and I discussed on IRC what (if anything) should be done; we agreed with TonyBallioni's statement regarding a rock and a hard place for any other 'crat (to paraphrase heavily), and set out to see if WJB's actions (regardless of motivation) were permitted by policy. If they were, we were willing to let ArbCom and/or the WMF sort it out. They weren't, however, and with WJB acknowledging that they would not consider a reversal to be wheel-warring we reversed the action.

Regarding Xeno's statement above: while Maxim pulled the trigger, I was just as equally involved and it could have easily been me that flipped the bit and Maxim that posted the closing statement, but I crafted the language of the close so it went the way it did. I also think it is improper to call it an out-of-process desysop, because the sysop itself was out-of-process; we simply corrected an error — besides, we're so far away from "proper process" and any sort of normal that there is almost nothing regarding this case that can be considered "in-process". Primefac (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]

  • For the record, I find zero reason to release IRC logs that basically boil down to an hour of "does this policy allow/disallow their actions?" and discussing the wording of the close. If the Arbs give a good reason for needing said conversation then I will not oppose sending it to them. Primefac (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Quetstar

While i fully agree with Floq and Bishonen's actions, i disapprove WJBscribe's decision to restore Fram's admin rights. He should have consulted the community and the other bureaucrats before restoring them. I therefore ask ArbCom to resolve this request by motion. Quetstar (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Maxim

I don't have much to add to Primefac's statement. The action was taken to revert the extremely unusual situation to previous level of detente while other involved parties (i.e. WMF, Arbcom, community) continued the discussion, without prejudice to future direction to re-admin Fram's account. Maxim(talk) 23:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wnt

WMFOffice has far less than no consensus for its changes to the text of WP:Office Actions. According to the discussion on WP:FRAM it did not even bother to change the Terms of Use to authorize the temporary block of Fram. Therefore, undoing the block, or various other one-sided temporary actions against those reverting them, is not a violation of policy. As others say, it is not "wheel warring" when it is a direct reversion of a contested admin action. There is no basis for sanctioning anyone but WMFOffice -- which can theoretically be done, to some extent, since they never gave themselves immunity from, at least, being yelled at by ArbCom or having "principles" written about them, and perhaps other measures.

ArbCom should also consider that it was its own terrible handling of harassment in the Fae case (and doubtless others) that has surely opened the door to the idea that Wikipedia's autonomous community needed to be redefined as an informal mob, worthy of contemptuous Tweets, merely awaiting formal administration on any topic of interest. ArbCom could do something positive by reviewing past cases to see where it has collaborated with serious harassment and trying to make amends. Wnt (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal for a harassment workshop is frightening, because the last thing we need is another Star Chamber or a crackdown on irate editors. Nonetheless, WP:Civility is still poorly written, full of aspirational advice that probably doesn't mean anything but nobody can be sure. Some time ago I proposed an edited version taking out the tripe (see the page history) so we could see what was left (and perhaps argue about it); the policy probably has changed a little since then (at least sexual harassment is mentioned at WP:Harassment now), but it's still a mess. Anything must pass an RfC in the end, though. Wnt (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newyorkbrad

Following up on my comment here, there are now more statements on this request for arbitration than in any previous case.

Somehow, I am reminded of the moment in Penn and Teller's underwater card trick bit when Penn says to Teller, "congratulations, you broke the record." Of course, it's a bit of a mordant comment, as Teller appears to have drowned at the time. Fortunately, Teller turns out to have survived. I hope that morale on this project will also survive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guy Macon

We elected Arbcom to deal with these issues, and arbcom is well equipped to handle this one. Arbcom should issue a finding of fact that the WMF failed to turn the evidence over to Arbcom and give them a chance to do their job, noting that it is OK for the WMF to take appropriate temporary emergency action that lasts until Arbcom makes a decision.

I call upon Arbcom to investigate the claim that one of the parties is in a personal relationship with a member of the WMF, whether this constitutes a conflict of interest, and whether the WMF member properly recused themselves and anyone who reports to them. This should also result in a finding of fact, one way or the other.

All administrators who decided to start using the tools to right a great wrong in this case should be warned that they should have started with seeking a consensus among other administrators rather than single-handedly using the tools. I will leave it to Arbcom to decide if any sanction beyond a warning is needed. This isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened and it really needs to stop right here and right now. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

WJBscribe: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • I have removed a few statements that do not contribute anything to the question of whether to accept a case or not. To those editors, there was nothing objectionable in your statements and you are not unwelcome here; I am just trying to keep the case request as manageable and relevant as possible. GoldenRing (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Note of a clerical nature, rather than by a clerk as such.) @BU Rob13: The request may be renamed after the committee's view crystallises. I was renaming as a judgement on what the request should not be (a bunch of words all boiling down to one bureaucrat's name) named rather than what it necessarily should be named. Watch this space, I guess. Significant renames are usually handled when the case is opened. AGK ■ 17:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse I have spoken about issues that might cross over with this case with a reporter that I respect at a national (US) outlet --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to all: Please remember that the purpose of statements here is to help the committee decide whether arbitration is necessary, not to give detailed arguments for particular outcomes. I have asked a couple of editors to trim their statements in line with the word count limit (1,000 words for parties, 500 for others), bearing this particular point in mind. GoldenRing (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Clerk Note At the direction of the committee I've removed references to Wiki Project Women in Red as they did not play a role in the change of user rights. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since there seems to be some concern with where I received the directions from the committee. The clerks team was instructed to remove statements pertaining to WikiProject Women In Red on the Clerks-L mailing list by a member of the Arbitration Committee. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 07:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • As above, I have removed the remaining references to WiR. SQLQuery me! 01:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • BU Rob13, Amakuru, Atsme, MJL: You are all over the word limit to varying degrees. Please trim your statements. Snow Rise gets the prize for correctly guessing the number of sweets in the jar. GoldenRing (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks to those who have shortened their statements. GoldenRing (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WJBscribe: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <9/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Comment The last thing I want is for the Arbitration Committee to rush into becoming involved in an already fraught situation and make things worse. I intend to keep up-to-date with all of the various conversations surrounding this to the best of my ability, but I would like to be deliberate about any action we choose to take. There is no rush to decide whether this case needs to be accepted, and especially considering that the board will be meeting in a few days and that the folks behind the WMFOffice account are likely not working around-the-clock, we should extend some understanding that things may move a bit slowly on the WMF side of things. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BD2412: No comment on the point you're making, but I did want to note that Floquenbeam did indeed request it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to publicly register my support for what Opabinia has suggested below: using this opportunity to have an arbcom community consultation/RfC on a few key points of improvement for local community processes for dealing with complaints about harassment and related behavior. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept with the intention to resolve the case by motion, and follow up with an RfC (organized by the Arbitration Committee) on how the community would like to see harassment and private complaints handled going forward. While I fully understand SilkTork's concerns about doing this in RfC format, I think we could organize an RfC with moderation rules similar to an ArbCom case and ask the clerks to keep careful watch over the page. This page has already become quite long, and much of the conversation here addresses matters outside of the scope of the RfC I'm envisioning, so I'd rather not try to lump it all in to this case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I stand by my wish to follow this with an RfC, but I am reconsidering whether a full case is needed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • After a night thinking it over, I have decided that we would be doing a disservice to the community by handling this by motion. I think we do need to devote a full case to this. I would still like to see conversations about future harassment incidents and the relationship between the community, ArbCom, and WMF to be held in an ArbCom-hosted RfC, but I do think we need a full case to address the concerns raised here. Accept with the intent to open a full case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would also like to clarify the scope I'm envisioning for this case. The Arbitration Committee (at least at this time) does not have access to the information that the T&S team/WMF presumably used to make their decision. I think it would be inappropriate for us to relitigate whether Fram deserved a ban—that decision has been made by the WMF and cannot be overturned by the ArbCom even if we were to disagree with their conclusion, and without the full picture, the only possible decisions we could reach are "based solely on evidence presented at this case, and not necessarily the evidence off which the WMF was working, a ban of one year was justified (or we choose to impose a stricter sanction)" or "based solely on evidence presented at this case, we would not ban Fram, but because we're operating with a limited view of the evidence, we cannot say the WMF ban is undeserved." Making a decision based off of a limited set of evidence, when a decision has already been made on a fuller corpus of evidence, seems pointless at best, and counterproductive at worst. It also seems like an inappropriate set of outcomes—no outcome would change the effect on Fram (other than possibly extending a ban, I suppose). Therefore, I think this case should be opened and limited in scope only to the actions of various community members after the ban was placed: namely, those who took actions using their admin or bureaucrat tools. I have not decided whether the ArbCom should be sanctioning users for overturning an action we don't fully understand, or sanctioning users that the WMF has specifically decided not to sanction, but that is precisely what a case would be for. I would specifically choose to defer any conversation on how harassment, private complaints, etc. should be handled going forward to the RfC—I think combining that and the admin/crat conduct would make for a much too large case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been doing my very best to keep shtum over the past few days, as someone is going to have to tidy up this mess. A case request is a good place to have some discussion. I intend to ask the clerk's to enforce word limits evenly and firmly. If there is something you want to say, say it succinctly. WormTT(talk) 06:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Banedon:, no, case requests are awful places to have sensible discussions - but the case request page can act as a stopper to controversy around and about. Since it is monitored by clerks, hopefully extraneous discussion can disappear. WormTT(talk) 13:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My current thought is that we should accept the case and resolve it by motion. The facts are not in dispute, we all know what happened. I was looking back at what 2014 WTT thought about Arbcom handling Office actions and I agree with that wise individual. Those actions are rightly out of our jurisdiction. Things are still developing, so I may hold a different opinion in the near future - but I feel that any motion should make a statement about what happened and little more. I have little or no interest in sanctioning individuals who were reacting to such extraordinary circumstances. I empathise with those community members, and while I may not agree with their actions, I do understand them. If the WMF can make peace with our community member's dissenting actions then I see no benefit to the committee throwing around sanctions instead. WormTT(talk) 20:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @MJL: I remain unconviced. ArbPol specifically states that Arbcom Has no jurisdiction over OFFICE actions. I'm not willing to enforce their actions - they have the ability to do that. They appear to be attempting to de-escalate, by answering questions and not doubling down against the admins and 'crat who acted against them. When it comes to Office actions, I am willing to accept their decisions - they have more information than I do and the dialogue I have had with them over the past year and half has led me to trust the WMF of 2019 far more than the last time I was on the committee. Further, website owners are under increased pressure to manage their own communities properly. We are not in 2004 - the world has changed, and we need to accept that. Arbcom is the last step in dispute resolution amongst the community and the WMF actions are outside that remit. WormTT(talk) 14:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Xaosflux, thanks for that, I absolutely agree that any motion would need to answer those questions. My hope is that a closing motion would answer those questions to the best of the committee's ability - so that follow up cases would not be needed. WormTT(talk) 11:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WJBscribe, as a fellow 'crat, I'm stunned at the action you took last night. One fundamental rule of restoring sysop bits is that it comes from the community, not from the individual 'crat - there needs to be a request (I've seen none from Fram). There needs to be discussion (actually, on the sysop bit, there has been very little), and there needs to be consensus. None of these existed (or point me to them if they did). You chose to step over that fundamental crat role (of not making decisions, but weighing consensus), to give advanced user-rights to a user who has been banned for reasons that you (and I) am not aware of. I empathise with the fact that you took the action to snub the WMF - but it made no sense as an action. Fram is banned on the English Wikipedia for one year - if he takes any action, he will be globally banned indefinitely. I've been tempted to re-block Fram a number of times (and would do so at his request), simply because I do not feel it fair to allow him to be banned indefinitely because he makes an accidental edit. Your action almost appears to be egging him on to do just that.
    I'm left with a quandary. I still believe that actions taken in retaliation to Fram's ban are out of our jurisdiction. In additition, I want to see this matter de-escalated. Yet, all the other actions up until this one have been made within the admins / 'crats individual authority. The only rule they broke was the "bright line" of "ignoring Office actions", but I firmly believe that the Office should be the ones to enforce Office actions - they have the full information, and the full toolset to do so. In this case, you did not hold the authority to make the decision, you crossed a number of additional lines - to snub the WMF. I need to think further, but it looks to me like you want to go out with a bang, to force a bad decision. That's simply not behaviour I expect of a 'crat. WormTT(talk) 07:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just come back from an extended break and am not intending to say much about this elsewhere on the project. As Worm notes, a case request is a good place to have some discussion about this as long as it is done calmly, respectfully and succinctly. Keep in mind that we may have more information after the Board meeting and that a case request does not necessarily preclude the Office from acting as they see fit. I'd also like to emphasise GW's comment that the folks in the WMF Office have office hours and we should not be expecting them to communicate around-the-clock. @Worm That Turned: did you intend to include the ≠ symbol? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Banedon: I was referring to comments specifically on the issue at hand: The use of admin/crat tools to override/interfere with/other characterisation an office action, what ArbCom's role is here, and when, if at all, we should take any action. My preference to wait until after the Board meeting is primarily that the result of that meeting could be directly relevant. For example, the Office may decide to act itself or the Board might ask that we all draw a line under it and move on. To what extent the outcome is relevant is an unknown at this point so I'd rather wait. Hope that answers your question? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno, guys, I don't think enough stuff is on fire yet. Come back when there's more stuff more on fire. (Since this is one of those situations where humor is in short supply: No, I'm not serious.) I agree with GW about patience with a WMF response, and plan to sit on my hands on this one for a bit. The board is apparently scheduled to meet on the 14th, so the time horizon is not long. Consistent with my general views on the subject of good-faith but imperfect actions taken under highly urgent circumstances, I actually think we could make some progress untangling the community aspects of this separately from inquiring further into the WMF's decision-making, but on balance it's better to take a holistic view if we can. One important point: I think most people who follow arbcom know that I'm not exactly the civility warrior type. So I am serious when I say that in this particular request, in any resulting case or other followup, and ideally in discussions of this issue across the project, please be extra civil. Even if your temper is frayed, even if you're sure you're right, even if the other person was rude, etc etc etc. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you JEissfeldt (WMF) for your comments and for your (in my opinion) wise decision to help us all de-escalate this situation by not pursuing further actions. I do not think we will need or should have a full case: reviewing office actions is out of the scope of an arbcom case, and dragging this out for a month about the community aspects under our purview would be the worst thing we could do. I'd accept only to dismiss by motion, documenting the outcome with no local sanctions. (Accept-and-dismiss sounds a bit silly, but is a handy way to make sure we preserve all the relevant history here in a searchable way that is consistent with all the other stuff in arbspace.)
      There's a lot still to unpack here, but I think we can more productively do that in other venues. To the extent that it's a communication-with-arbcom matter, that's better discussed privately; many of the remaining issues are either the subject of ongoing community discussion or are more general than an enwiki dispute resolution process. I understand there are ongoing conversations that people might be interested in contributing to on meta, for example this "Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation" talk page. Jan's statement indicates there will be further initiatives that are designed to promote inclusivity by ensuring a healthier culture of discourse, and may I strongly recommend that notifications about those initiatives be posted in places like the arbcom noticeboard where community members with knowledge of our dispute resolution processes will see them, as well as the usual places. And likewise, may I also recommend that enwiki editors voice their opinions in those processes. I personally don't tend to do that - in part because (ironically!) I don't tend to feel heard in those conversations - but perhaps that's a mistake and there's a communications gap on our end too.
      Earlier I floated the idea on the mailing list of channeling the widespread interest in this issue into an arbcom community consultation/RfC on a few key points of improvement for local community processes for dealing with complaints about harassment and related behavior. I think Steve's idea below has merit, but think we should start with a more focused agenda, and a format that doesn't have the local-sanctions/admin-conduct stuff in this case mixed in or leave the community members who are parties to this case waiting for discussions about other issues to wrap up. Specific points of interest, for me at least, would be:
      1. communications expectations around actions taken on private evidence - which always generate lots of star chamber/secret trial drama, which is a disincentive for taking those actions (no matter how much I'd like to believe otherwise about my own motivations)
      2. managing the environment in case requests and on case pages - I know the contentiousness of cases can also be a disincentive to pursuing dispute resolution
      3. handling harassment-related complaints that are based mainly on public behavior, but where the complainant believes a public complaint will prompt retaliation
      Lastly: I am still hoping that we will get an answer to the question I asked in comments to Jimbo in advance of the board meeting, as to whether the ban rationale included non-public information (as I'd first assumed) or was based entirely on public behavior - either as a public response or privately to arbcom. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Only in death: I think "done deal", "roll over", etc. is the wrong framing. The argument is basically that this should have been handled locally. For that to be the case, we need to make sure of two things: first, that our local processes really can handle harassment problems within reasonable limits, and second, that this really did involve a set of complaints that were within those limits. The first part is something the community has struggled with before, and the conversation about this incident has highlighted some potential current problems. If there's problems, we should fix them while we have the opportunity, even if we don't like how they came to light. On the second part, I think we need more information still. We know what Fram has said on commons, but we do have to consider the possibility that he is misrepresenting or misunderstanding something (though it would be out of character). It is also possible that T&S chose not to describe the full range of issues in their communications to him because the material was private, or that some kind of misunderstanding or miscommunication occurred that led them to think the issue was beyond our limits when we would have thought otherwise. Being too confrontational puts us at risk of ending up in a worst-case scenario where we don't repair the damage to the relationship between the community and the Foundation, and we make it harder for harassment complaints to be handled by either party.
      Speaking more broadly - the three people who used their user rights here did a lot of things right. They saw something they really disagreed with, took the actions they thought were necessary, explained their reasoning, did not personally attack the people who made the original decision, and took responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Although their reactions were the ones that were "against the rules", and undoubtedly escalated the situation - and really, speaking with the Arb Hat on, are Things That Should Not Be Repeated - those actions are in many ways more constructive than a lot of the other stuff that's been said and done in response to this incident. There's aspects of the community's reaction here that I'm really uncomfortable with, and think we need to do better on. One is the rampant unsubstantiated personal speculation (please nobody repeat that stuff here). Another is the flame-war-y style of a lot of the comments about T&S staff - calling for their firing, accusing them of corruption, questioning their motives on dubious grounds, comparing them to various historical repressive regimes, etc (please nobody repeat that stuff here either). T&S is these people. We might recognize some of them. Any one of us can think they made a serious error, and say so, without all the purple prose.
      @Ms Sarah Welch: I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting we actually do with that. I think it's inevitable that we'd "take notice of" the WMF's actions here, if there were a case - and I suppose we could in principle vote on a collective statement of some kind - but I don't think this is best done in a case format. Relations with the office could be a topic to include in the RfC. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept, solely to handle by motion. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that took a turn. OK, I get that there's a lot of pent-up frustration here, and a widespread sense of not being listened to or not having a working accountability mechanism, and that's a recipe for dramatic actions. As a purely practical matter, I think we'll be more effective if we act like a mature community that can handle its own dirty laundry rather than continuing with more brinksmanship.
      I'm still against a case. The whole point of the case structure is fact-finding; we gather evidence, and then we figure out solutions based on that evidence. It makes no sense to run a fact-finding process when no one who's going to participate has the relevant facts. I think we keep the basic structure of the motion as-is; nobody but WJBscribe has done anything that would need different treatment now than it did this morning. The RfC is about broader issues and separate from WJBscribe's re-sysop act, so keep that too. An act of conscience like this, I respect the motivation, but I think you usually resign when you do this kind of thing - as I see WJBscribe has now done. I think we make a note of that in the motion and otherwise move forward with it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been quiet over this whole saga, mainly because I do not want to seem like I am involved, show a bias etc. I concur with my fellow Arbs here, this is a good place to have a CIVIL discussion. I cannot stress civil enough here. I also want to see what comes from the board meeting tomorrow as well. FOr the moment i am neutral on taking the case. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewing everything since then, I believe that we need to Accept taking this case to resolve by motion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I am generally inactive on all matters, I feel I have to get involved in this one as it relates directly to the very incident that I am concerned about. The head of the WMF team responsible for this incident, Jan Eissfeldt, has said: "We defer to Arbcom’s judgment on how to proceed with regard to such behavior issues in this case." As such ArbCom can decide to remain silent on the issue (decline the case) in order to reduce drama in an already tense situation, or can accept that Jan is courteously acknowledging that conduct on enwiki is best handled by enwiki. Remaining silent does not always resolve anything. Sometimes it does work to ignore drama. Indeed, we advise that as the initial approach to disputes and incivility: WP:DISENGAGE, WP:UNCIVIL. But sometimes not dealing with an issue doesn't actually make the issue go away. It can make things worse by allowing inappropriate conduct to go unchallenged and unchecked. In the various threads on this issue, there are a number of comments that Fram should have been dealt with a while ago, and that - essentially - through our own inaction, community and ArbCom, we have forced the Foundation to act in this way. We are blaming the Foundation, when we should be taking this opportunity to critically examine ourselves. Let me be clear that I firmly believe that the Foundation acted inappropriately here, largely through inadequate communication, but even there we need to reflect on ourselves and look at what we have done, community and ArbCom, to assist paths of communication. I don't think we have done enough. I feel we should take the opportunity offered by this situation to talk openly in the structured environment of an ArbCom case, and start moving toward both a new type of ArbCom and a new type of relationship with the Foundation. So far Jan has spoken, but any member of the Foundation can speak here as a party because User:WMFOffice is named as a party. I don't think the case should be named WJBscribe, as Will is but one person involved in this incident. The case should be named Office actions, and the scope should be to look into all aspects of this incident with a view not to punish anyone, but to clarify procedures moving forward. My ideal would be that if the Foundation do take full advantage of the opportunity offered here, that at the end of this case we will have clarified in an open discussion between enwiki and the Foundation exactly when and how the Foundation can get involved in conduct disputes on enwiki, and exactly how the community can raise objections that will be listened to. With the full involvement and commitment of Foundation, community and ArbCom we can establish procedures that we all support and uphold. Let's take this opportunity and Do The Right Thing. Accept. SilkTork (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also feel that it is important that if we do hold this case, that everyone conducts themselves as they would at a job interview. With the benefit of the internet, none of us are speaking live, and so we all have the opportunity to pause and reflect on what we have typed before pressing the Publish changes button. Anyone who uses the sort of language that would not be used in a job interview or on day time TV will be reverted and warned. If they do it again they are banned from the case pages. Anyone who comments negatively on another person rather than that person's actions will be reverted and warned. If they do it again they are banned from the case pages. Anyone who posts angrily will be reverted and warned. If they do it again they are banned from the case pages. It is time for us to stop making allowances for people being angry and insulting during ArbCom cases. There is far less excuse for that than there is during a live court case. We need to move forward and show that sensitive and contentious issues can be conducted in a calm and structured manner. SilkTork (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Banedon. I think I may have expressed myself poorly. I am not proposing a case in which we seek to punish anyone or even look for blame. I am proposing a case in which we seek out to resolve the problems we have. There in nothing in ArbCom policy that says we have to have a case in order to decide blame and punishment. Our role is to act to resolve problems and to reach binding solutions. Those solutions can be positive and enhancing - they need not be restrictions and sanctions. I think not only that the Foundation made an error here, but also that ArbCom made an error, and that the community made an error, and I as an individual made an error. I think that's the basic starting point: recognising that we have made errors. Acknowledging that helps enable us to be clear that we need to seek solutions to assist us in avoiding such errors in future. If anyone here is thinking that the community and/or ArbCom are blame free in this incident, and that any fault is entirely that of the Foundation is probably not going to be helpful to the case. For this to work we all need to be self-reflective and entirely honest. Nothing less will do. But, of course, it depends entirely on the Foundation being willing to take part and embrace the opportunity. I am optimistic that they will. SilkTork (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WMF and ArbCom are currently arranging a phone meeting to discuss this issue, and I have been invited. I wish to decline that offer here in public, and invite WMF instead to discuss the issue openly (minus, of course, any private information specifically about Fram) on enwiki. I think for an open project which is built on accountability and open record keeping, we have drifted toward a culture of accepting too many private meetings in which decisions are made which have an impact on the community and the project, and are then imposed on the community with no accountability. As far as possible we need to break that cycle, and bring back openness and accountability. My stance here is not going to change that meeting, but I feel it is important to indicate that I favour holding meetings in as open an environment as possible, with accurate record keeping to allow everyone freedom of access. At the very least, those taking part could commit to providing minutes of the meeting for the community. SilkTork (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hear what people are saying regarding attending the meeting. I hadn't expected to be militant about this issue. I am not a militant person, but we are living in interesting times, not just here on Wikipedia, but out in the real world as well. There is much fear, secrecy and walls when what we actually need is trust, communication, and openness. Today I visited a friend who has recently had a baby. During her pregnancy it was discovered she had breast cancer. She was allowed a few weeks to breast feed, but is now doing chemotherapy so cannot breast feed, and her hair is falling out. Her partner is not coping with the stress, and last night they had a big row and he stormed out. So she's got three mega stress events all going on at the same time. But she's a brave woman and is handling it all really well. It puts this Fram Incident into context I suppose. Maybe what is needed here is less people protesting and being militant, and more people willing to cooperate and seek a solution. On the other hand, I am so so so annoyed at what has happened, which has exasperated my already fragile frustration at ArbCom doing much of what it does out of sight (when much of it can be done here on enwiki). There are some good people on Trust & Safety. People known and respected here on Wikipedia. The Foundation itself is composed of well meaning individuals - same as here on Wikipedia. We are essentially the same people. It's not the people that are at fault but the procedures. Not all the procedures. But certainly a number of the procedures that take place out of sight of the community. While I may possibly serve some good by attending that meeting, I'm not sure that I could, and I'm not sure that is the true route out of this situation anyway. Also, I'm not sure I want to do it on a personal level. Thoughts of resigning are also present in my mind, and have been since this started. Indeed, if I'm not prepared to discuss this situation with the WMF via a phone conference perhaps I'm not living up to the responsibilities of this post. Sigh. But, on the other hand, I am very very very willing to discuss the matter with WMF here in the open on enwiki. My mind is in a whirl, and I'm "veering all over the place like a supermarket trolley". So, I am undecided on what to do. But I do feel that it would be better to hold discussions out in the open than in secret behind closed doors. SilkTork (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the "restore order and move on" thinking behind Katie's suggested motion. But I could not support a motion in which one part of the community (ArbCom) instructs another part of the community (Crats) to remove community given rights from a user who was operating with the consent of the community and with the best interest of the community merely because that user was doing so in opposition to an unclear Office Action which potentially undermines the community. What I'd like to get from this case is a clear understanding of the relationship between the community and the Foundation, and more clarity regarding when and how Office Actions are performed. I don't think it is helpful for ArbCom to swear blind loyalty to the Foundation and promise to uphold whatever action the Foundation does in the future, regardless of how damaging to the community and therefore the project as a whole that action may be. We need clarity before we can support any future Office Action.
I would like to get that clarity from an open discussion here on ArbCom pages where experienced clerks can maintain decorum, and where - if needed and appropriate - private material can be examined by ArbCom, rather than via a RfC where keeping the discussion in hand would be more difficult, and where private material could not be seen. I'd like to see the Evidence pages turned over to Discussion pages, and the Workshop pages turned over to Suggestion pages. And, however many Committee members take part in this case, an equal number of Foundation members take part, and all build and vote on the Proposed decision pages. I am excited at the prospect of how such a case could bring the community and the Foundation together with greater understanding, and we can all move forward in greater harmony and stability. There is an opportunity here to do something great. This is not a time to hush things up and sweep concerns aside, leaving nothing resolved. This is a time to do The Right Thing. SilkTork (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The levels in which this whole thing makes me sad are innumerable. My community is tearing itself apart. At my count, in the last week we've lost eight good administrators, including Fram, who have either taken breaks or have resigned the tools. WereSpielChequers, we're supposed to have a meeting with Trust & Safety this week, and I'm going to do my damnedest to get the answers to your questions, because they're my questions too. I support OR's idea for an RFC, because we as a community simply must do better in handling harassment and bad behavior. As for this case, I'm on the fence. I understand the 'civil disobedience.' I do. I also understand that we can't have admins contravening WMF office actions. I'll most likely make a motion to make sure everyone understands that going forward – in the future – reversal of WMF office actions will be met with desysop and no RFA for at least six months. Before all that, though, I want to hear what the outcome of the board meeting was and I want to have this conversation with Trust and Safety. Then I'll have more to say. Katietalk 12:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Carcharoth: Thanks for pointing that out to me. I don't spend much time on Commons so I missed it. Fram's concerns are part of why I want to get some answers from the WMF. There was a recent case where Fram's conduct was part of the FoFs and the remedies, and I voted against them. I didn't do that because I wasn't concerned about Fram. I did it because if we're going to discuss Fram, then le's do it in a case about Fram. Do we need to do that now? Maybe. At the moment, I'd say hold off until we get to talk to the WMF. Let me temper expectations, though – it's entirely possible that we don't get the answers we're seeking. I don't know Jan, and he hasn't been on any of the meetings with us so far this year and I don't know why (James Alexander missed very few). All I can vow is that we'll do our best. Katietalk 14:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept to resolve by motion, though I won't be the one putting it forward. We've discussed it, and I see some of the problems that Bishonen has pointed out. Here's the macro view: I'm very encouraged by the initial conversation we've had with T&S, and I hope we can find a way to handle these kinds of private matters locally, as a committee, in the relatively near future. I wish I could say more than that, but I can't at this time. Soon, though. :-) Katietalk 13:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I haven't been editing this week, I have been keeping up with both FRAMBAN and this case request. Speaking only about the unblocking/resysopping that this case request concerns: I don't think it would be helpful for the Arbitration Committee to place sanctions on editors whom the WMF has explicitly decided not to sanction. That doesn't mean I endorse or support their reversal of Office actions, but I think it would be counterproductive to reignite the issue when the WMF has opted to take a step back and not re-escalate the situation. I would support a motion like the one Katie suggests, to make explicit that future reversals of Office actions would be unacceptable and grounds for loss of tools. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept to resolve by motion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like OR, my preference is still to resolve by motion. Had WJBScribe not resigned, I would have wanted a change in the current no-sanctions proposal, but since he has, any further sanctions on him would be moot. I think the RfC on self-governance with regards to harassment/civility is a better way to get a handle on the rest of the issue going forward. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept with a view to resolving by motion. I'm coming late to this, but I'm seeing a consensus that, whilst reversing office actions should not be encouraged, nobody wants to see any further sanctions in this instance. What happens next with regard to harassment and T&S bans is going to be a longer discussion, outside the scope of a single ArbCom case. – Joe (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Xaosflux: As I see it, this case pertains to the administrative actions of Bishonen and Floquenbeam and the bureaucrat actions of WJBscribe in overturning an office action. For the time being at least, ArbCom has neither the authority nor the information needed to review the original WMF ban of Fram. I would like ArbCom to be part of the discussion on the role of community processes vs. WMF oversight in harassment and private reports, but I don't think it's our place to "rule" on that as part of a case. – Joe (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WJBscribe: We have asked, and were told a) there is additional, private and off-wiki information relevant to the ban; b) ArbCom doesn't have all of it; and c) they do not consider the ban, as an office action, to be overturnable by ArbCom. Given that, I don't feel competent to assess Fram's ban, although others on the committee may feel differently. – Joe (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SchroCat: I don't know. I can ask, but I strongly suspect that the answer (either way) will end up giving out more information about the ban than I could disclose under the access to non-public information policy. I am also not sure what the purpose of asking would be if I can't share the information, other than curiosity, because I don't foresee being in the position of reviewing Fram's ban any time in the near future. – Joe (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SchroCat: "Off-wiki" does not necessarily mean "offline", and I'm not saying either are the exact words they used; otherwise, I think your question is directed at the WMF rather than us. – Joe (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been following events since Fram's block despite being marked as inactive. Significant life changes have recently taken me away from Wikipedia, however, given recent events I felt compelled to remain involved. I was on the ArbCom-WMF conference call and I have personally written a letter to Jimmy on the matter. Despite my silence on Wikipedia, for which I apologize, I have been following along with the community discussions as best I can including the recent bureaucrat actions. I share many concerns expressed by the community such as the lack of consultation; local governance; a form of due process; while also understanding the need for confidentiality; a solemn responsibility for providing a safe space; and protecting victims of harassment. These are undoubtedly complicated issues and I fully support any and all efforts within our community that seek to address these issues.
As expressed to the WMF, on principle many of us on the committee do not believe ArbCom should be enforcing WMF Office actions unless absolutely necessary (such as public safety). I was pleased to see the WMF was willing to de-escalate the situation by rightly choosing to not pursue further actions against the individuals who initially reversed or acted in contravention of WMF Office actions. By withdrawing their intent to enforce a portion of their own policy, they are providing a standing one-time exemption.
The recent resysop of Fram stands out from the others. In my opinion, it was a step backward and not in the best interest of the community, nor did it seemingly have the broad support of the community. Rather, it felt very much like an individual action (even if the individual felt they were acting in the interest of the community). The community has not granted bureaucrats the discretionary ability to resysop editors who have been involuntarily desysopped. In the weeks since Fram's ban, the community had the opportunity to amend our policies such as WP:RESYSOP. While this recent action was again in contravention of the WMF Office action policy, it was also in violation of our local resysop policy. As a community attempting to defend our ability to self-governance, the recent action only works against these efforts; we cannot have editors with access to advanced permissions unilaterally acting against local policy. If the WMF Office actions are a source of confusion for the community, the precedent set by allowing unrestricted admins and bureaucrats to act without regard to policy will only exponentially exacerbate the situation. We must adhere to our own local policies and rules.
The community and the WMF will need to address the issue of enduring long-term harassment and incivility. These are not a Wikipedia only problem and it is widely being addressed both online and offline, particularly in legislation and in the workplace. Whether we like it or not, Wikipedia has become an institution and must also adapt to the changing times. If this whole situation has shown us anything, unilateral action is not the way to go. Instead, we must engage in dialogue and consultation on both sides going forward. If we truly believe we are capable of handling these issues locally, then we as a community must be ready and willing to make uncomfortable and even controversial blocks of established (and possibly even well liked) editors who consistently cross the lines of civility through a local governed process.
Much of this is outside the scope of this case, so as for the case at hand, I vote to accept. Mkdw talk 04:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept as up to 3 arbitration cases. I am going to separately propose a set of motions along 4 topics for individual voting. The committee needs to start breaking this down and taking preliminary decision about how to proceed. Below I summarise the motions I will propose. I trust the following is brief, accurate, and has minimal self-importance in tone; I'd be content with the first two…
The events connected with WP:FRAMBAN confront our community with several issues. These issues affect the long-term health and sustainability of the Wikipedia community. Each issue hinders us from attracting new users, retaining existing ones longer, and collaborating effectively all the while.
(I) WMF's banning of Fram was poorly-communicated and its basis is disputed. Posting long explanations, devoid of meaning, demonstrated a lack of emotional intelligence and was like red rag to a bull. Having worked with the WMF as an arbitrator, I know their team are actually better than this, but it hardly matters. The tension between community and website property owner is now palpable. The tension is affecting our community. I am sure we could get on with it; Wikipedia would continue existing and uninvolved users would curtail the most disruptive protests. However, I think we ought to tackle the questions of Fram ourselves, through the arbitration process. Is there on-wiki evidence that Fram harassed or disrupted Wikipedia? Does Fram deserve to be banned? The WMF will not release their evidence to us, and we cannot render a verdict on their ban as such. However, we can still submit Fram to a parallel hearing and judge them as we would before WMF office actions became what they have.
I will also propose a second motion to expressly decline a Fram case. Some colleagues may want to leave the entire question of Fram to the WMF. For my own part, I think we need to air this out. Neither proposal would "take over" the ban from WMF.
(II) The next issue is the soundness of judgment in the many administrators and bureaucrats who have acted in this situation. I recall the days when bureaucrat was Wikipedia's most staid, uncontentious role. Generally, I would like to voice my concerns that we seem to be acquiring an extra layer of activist permissions-holders. Bureaucrats have always been told to use their judgement, but never to substitute it for non-bureaucrats. I see a number of bureaucrats now doing so. The Wikipedia community does best on a flat structure.
By current reckoning, 5 permissions-holders have used their tools in circumstances that warrant further examination. Using tools without a clear community request is usually disruptive; WP:FRAMBAN attracts a limited audience and cannot qualify. Using tools without a basis in community policy (for example, we have clear rules against reversing actions without discussion) is usually disruptive. Consequently, I will move to open a case examining whether the following users have met Wikipedia's standards of judgement and conduct: Floquenbeam, Bishonen, WJBscribe, Maxim, and Primefac. I may yet vote for no action against some or most of these users. I will also offer a choice to arbitrators for an alternative motion for a case merely into WJBscribe, whose actions were the most obviously at odds with the community's expectations. Other arbitrators may like to slice and dice the set of users further still. Theoretically, someone could propose a "motion of forgiveness" for all users; I would oppose that.
(III) The Wikipedia community seems to be having difficulty with areas relating to the principle of respectfulness in user interactions. This topic is coming up time and again at WP:FRAMBAN and during this request. The WMF called us out for specifically lacking a process for dealing with harassment complaints. It seems obvious that we have some kind of problem. I am not yet sure what it is, let alone how to go about tackling it. ArbCom is not a policy-making body, but we can clarify policy (or gaps in policy) for the community. We are also entitled to issue binding rules that force users to find a resolution, even about policy issues. This case request is not the place to try doing that. If this case doesn't warrant us using that entitlement, it's time to pack up, switch off the lights, go home: ArbCom is closed.
I will propose a motion for a quasi-arbitration case where we can examine the problem, take views from the community, and start voting on a decision. Our decision may be to open an RfC under committee management (I think that idea first started with Opabinia regalis and others; or maybe it was someone at WP:FRAMBAN). Or our decision may be something else entirely. Don't worry, we will be staying well away from GovCom territory.
(IV) The final issue presenting itself is the WMF's increasing activity on the English Wikipedia. I do not think we can easily act to clarify that problem until the first three issues are resolved in the coming months. I will propose resolving that the committee will update you later in the year about negotiations and discussions with the WMF about "information-sharing" and working more closely together. Anything less wooly than such a resolution is probably not going to be possible while the Wikipedia community, the Arbitration Committee, and the WMF are so far apart in what they need and want.
I admired and was heartened by the passion many users show for Wikipedia and its future direction under the WMF. We often forget that the opposite of hatred is not love, but apathy: these strong feelings show that people care, and always will, about the Wikipedia mission. However, our community is better served by cool action, not heated words. Some users are not consistently applying that principle to what they write to others and about others. I have proposed the above motions in a new section below for voting. AGK ■ 21:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've lost track of the origin of that idea, but I'm pretty sure it came from the community discussion. For the rest, well said. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Motions: Fram and connected issues

For these motions there are 11 active arbitrators. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 6
2–3 5
4–5 4

This motion is being proposed in independent sections, each of which may be subject to alternative proposals. The motion will carry when one or more sections reaches an unconditional majority, and shall consist only of those sections that do pass.

WJBscribe

1.1) The case request, WJBscribe, is to be opened and entitled Actions on Fram. The case will be handled under an accelerated timetable, with:

  • a concurrent evidence and workshop phase lasting 1 week from the date of opening;
  • the committee's proposed decision to immediately follow for comment and voting; and
  • drafting arbitrators and designated clerks to be specified later.

The committee will examine the judgement and actions of WJBscribe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Floquenbeam (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Maxim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and Primefac (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) in the course of this arbitration case.

Support
  1. Proposed. AGK ■ 21:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think, regardless of whether we decide to sanction the administrators/bureaucrats named above, we owe them and the rest of the community the attention of a full case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. No, what I meant by a conditional acceptance vote is that we're going to not do these things. I do not want them in a motion, I do not want them in the ocean, I do not want all this commotion, I do not want green eggs and ham, I do not want them Sam I Am. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I just don't see what a full case would accomplish, given the volume of information and discussion we've already had. – Joe (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per OR. Katietalk 20:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A full case would be redundant for this situation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per OR. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SilkTork (talk) 10:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. A case is about fact finding. We know what happened. I'm still of the opinion that dismissing by motion and opening an RfC is the best alternative WormTT(talk) 19:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Comments
  • I'm really not seeing the benefit to holding this as a full case, and would prefer to dismiss by motion. However, I'll think on an alternative before opposing. WormTT(talk) 21:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still mulling over WMF passing the deliberation on these admins to ArbCom, while not giving us full access to the context. Without the context we don't have enough stuff here for a case. This just comes down to plain facts: three admins who reversed Office Actions, for which WMF has decided not to sanction. Assessing the overturning of Office Actions is not normally within our remit, and even though WMF have given us the authority to assess this situation, without the context there is little we can do here. If, knowing the full context, WMF decided not to sanction, then what is left for us to do? The admins can give their justifications in the case, but we already have those. I think we already have enough information on this situation to make our own individual choices as to which way to go, so if we wish to deal with the admins separately we can do it by motion, adding our rationales for our decisions if we wish, and so making any points felt necessary. SilkTork (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point I think it could be in principle 'accepted' but dismissed with a motion per my comments above. Mkdw talk 23:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fram (case)

2.1) The case request WJBscribe deals with actions that took place within a broader context of conduct by Fram. The committee will open a case examining this context. The case is to be opened and entitled Fram. The case will be handled under special procedures, with:

  • evidence accepted only in private, to the committee's arbcom-en-b email address;
  • no public workshop phase; and
  • a reserved right for the committee to vote on specific findings of fact in private, with only a summary decision posted on-wiki for voting.

The committee will examine the conduct of Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to the fullest extent possible and render an independent judgement in the course of its case. The committee's judgement will fall upon Fram as a separate decision of the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. For the avoidance of doubt, the decision will not supplant or supersede the earlier Wikimedia Foundation decision.

Support
  1. Proposed. AGK ■ 21:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. We've just declined a case request on Fram from a member of the community, so this for me will also be a decline. That is not to say I don't think that either the community or ArbCom should examine Fram at some point - I think it would be useful for Fram's conduct to be examined, but this is not the time. There are two scenarios I can see where it would be appropriate for ArbCom to examine Fram's conduct: Either 1) With WMF in private right now, and/or 2) After he is released from his ban, and his conduct becomes a concern again. SilkTork (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No, we just declined this same thing below. This has no practical value at this stage. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. We don't have the information or the remit to examine the wider context. I also think we can separate the question of "is it okay to revert office actions?" from the specific office action that started it. – Joe (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Absolutely not, per my decline vote on the case request by Jehochman. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Joe. There's no point. Katietalk 20:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No, per my existing comments at the Fram case request from Jehochman. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Not at this time. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Comments
  • I could accept this, under certain circumstances. We'd need to make clear what our standards for "harassment" were to the community. We'd need as much information as possible, including from the WMF, such as full correspondence to and from Fram. We'd need agreement from the targets to look into the case and be able to ask them questions. This would be a very difficult case to take, but I'm not dismissing it outright, because it may be the only solution at some point in the future. WormTT(talk) 19:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fram (dismissal)

2.2) The case request WJBscribe deals with actions that took place within a broader context of conduct by Fram. The committee declines to examine this conduct. Questions about the sanction that was applied to Fram by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) should be submitted to WMF staff.

Support
  1. Proposed. Second choice; support only if 2.1 fails. AGK ■ 21:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. We need to deal with this either by case or by motion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We voted to accept the case, we need to resolve it (as GW says, by case or by motion). – Joe (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As to add to what GW and Joe said. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. We accepted it, most of us noting a preference to handle by motion. Let's do what we said. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per PMC. Katietalk 15:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Not the right solution WormTT(talk) 19:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Comments
  • If I understand the wording correctly, this is saying that the Committee are declining a case to look into Fram's conduct. But we haven't been asked on this case to look into Fram's conduct. He's not a named party. I can understand a motion to bring Fram into this case (which has been proposed and rejected), but I don't understand a motion to decline something that we haven't been asked to do. Have I misunderstood the wording? SilkTork (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment generally

3.1) The committee is concerned that the English Wikipedia may not have in place processes that can deal, fairly and effectively, with allegations about certain forms of harassment. It is not the responsibility of the committee to make policy. However, the community does make use of the arbitration process to refine its understanding of gaps or deficits in policy. The committee opens a case, entitled Harassment generally, to be handled under special procedures, with:

  • no evidence phase;
  • a 4-week workshop phase;
  • a special invitation to the Wikimedia Foundation to participate in the workshop (preferably via pre-identified delegates);
  • the committee's proposed decision to follow after 4 weeks; and
  • drafting arbitrators and designated clerks to be specified later.

Several arbitrators have informally expressed the view that a full Request for Comments (RfC) would be appropriate; this could be guided under committee procedures or remanded more fully to the community. This motion is not implementing that view. This motion is establishing a case so that this and other options might be explored more fully.

Support
  1. Proposed. (Case name might end up being amended by copyedits.) AGK ■ 21:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Comments
  • Is there a better title for the case? AGK ■ 21:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "Handling of Harassment on English Wikipedia"? WormTT(talk) 21:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admittedly, I am still trying to decide what the best course of action is here. I absolutely believe the English Wikipedia community (including ArbCom) needs to explore the possibility of a private and fair process where victims of harassment can safely come forward without the risk of being further harassed for doing so. The process also needs to be able to examine long-term harassment and incivility and for editors who are found to have consistently violated these policies to be sanctioned accordingly. One of the main issue is that I believe enacting such a process/system will require substantial policy reform to the harassment and civility policy, as well as ARBPOL (if the community decides this will be handled by ArbCom). Whether this exploration begins with an ArbCom case, an RFC, or on another project space page, I have no idea which will provide the best result, but no matter what, the community and the WMF will need to support and ratify it into policy. Mkdw talk 00:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am fully of favour of discussing the underlying causes that have led to this incident. One of which is the general poor communication between enwiki and WMF, and the other of which is identifying and handling harassment. They are related, as while incivility and disruption and general misconduct is ArbCom's responsibility, there is a boundary blur when it comes to harassment as that comes under both ArbCom and WMF. It's probably an ask too much to have ArbCom have a case on general communication between enwiki and WMF, so having the focus on how we can mutually deal with harassment would be a more likely and manageable route. However, that would need WMF agreement on getting involved, so we would have to ask them directly to comment on such a proposal. If they declined, we could still hold a discussion to see what we as a community could do to identify and defuse harassment. Perhaps we need to consider a little more the principle of defusing harassment rather than punishing those accused of harassment. If drivers are speeding down a road and killing pedestrians I think it better to put in speed calming measures and educating drivers to slow down and take more care than it is to temporarily ban them each time they kill someone. SilkTork (talk) 09:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not opposed to this - certainly we should have some sort of discussion about the topic - but, at the risk of repeating myself, I think the format of a case is the wrong tool for the job. Better the wrong tool than none at all, but still. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My preference would be an ArbCom-led RfC, though per Opabinia, better the wrong tool than none at all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OR and GW are right. I could live with this, but since the structure of an RfC is available to us, we should focus on that. WormTT(talk) 19:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Office actions

4.1) The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) have recently adopted a new policy expanding the types of "office action" their teams can take and the circumstances in which their teams may act.

The Arbitration Committee will liaise with WMF about the handling of this policy with regards to the English Wikipedia. The committee will endeavour to consult the community and provide a status update later in the year.

Support
  1. Proposed. See my vote above: I think this is the best we can do right now. AGK ■ 21:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't believe we can actually do achieve much here, but discussing with WMF is something we do have the ability to do. I could accept this. WormTT(talk) 21:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes, if this can be done with the WMF absolutely. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I've thought about this, and end here, because the thing that I think is really, really, really needed right now and moving forward is for WMF to be communicating with enwiki directly, not via Meta or ArbCom. I could support a motion where the community is involved, but not without. A general discussion regarding office actions is not a privacy matter, and it impacts the community (and thus Wikipedia, because it is the community which writes, maintains and protects the encyclopedia) more than it impacts WMF or ArbCom. SilkTork (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Comments
  • ArbCom has historically been in communication with the WMF about global bans and I expect we will be informed about upcoming WMF Office local bans as well. If this is what we mean by "liaise" then I am not sure we need a motion for something we already do. However, if this is implying we will act as representatives of the community to engage in discussions with the WMF about local bans and explore with the WMF about changing this process going forward in the future, then I would want a clear mandate from the community in order to do so. I do not think we have the authority to enact that type of decision alone. Mkdw talk 23:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'm with Mkdw on this, but I would go further and say that I would like more involvement of the community in ongoing discussion, and more transparency. This is a good community (more united, more creative, more knowledgeable, more compassionate, and more fair than I think the WMF realises), and it has brought the project this far. If the community needs professional help in dealing with harassment and other matters, let that professional help come in the form of respectful and egalitarian consultation rather than remote, vaguely disdainful, and unconsulted (or poorly consulted) impositions of new policy. SilkTork (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't make sense to vote on this till this twitter business is sorted out. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it might be useful to clarify how exactly this would differ from our existing relationship with the WMF. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of office actions

5) The case request is accepted under the title Reversion of office actions and resolved by motion as follows.

WJBscribe, Bishonen and Floquenbeam admonished

WJBscribe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and Floquenbeam (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) are admonished for using their bureaucrat (WJBscribe) and administrator (Bishonen, Floquenbeam) user rights to revert an office action, in contravention of both official WMF policy and the English Wikipedia administrator policy. Given the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the action, no further sanctions are placed on these users at this time.

Support
  1. Proposed. – Joe (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Katietalk 22:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC) Second choice. Katietalk 15:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice, after #6 below. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice, #6 being first. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. SilkTork (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Office actions are not for Arbcom to enforce, as we do not make the decision and we do not have the information about it. The WMF has full tools to enforce their actions, and it's up to them to do so. WormTT(talk) 19:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Comments
  • If we admonish those who have resigned it will be the same as dysysopping and decratting them, as they will then have been deemed to have resigned under a cloud. SilkTork (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Under a strict reading of policy they've already put themselves under a cloud by resigning when there's an ArbCom case/request against them (see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Procedural note). But I for one don't see any of these resignations as an attempt to "evade scrutiny", even if we do end up admonishing. – Joe (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that regardless of the outcome of the case, WJBscribe and Floquenbeam resigned under a cloud - as the case was live and both knew this when they resigned. I have no doubt that both would pass a RfA/B in the future, and that should be the way to return to the bits - should they want to. WormTT(talk) 19:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of office actions (II)

6) The case request is accepted under the title Reversion of office actions and resolved by motion as follows.

Community advised

Office actions are actions taken by Wikimedia Foundation staff, and are normally expected not to be reversed or modified by members of the community even if they have the technical ability to do so. In this case an office action was taken against Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who was blocked and whose administrator rights were removed by the role account User:WMFOffice in implementing a Partial Foundation ban ([19]). No similar action had been taken before on the English Wikipedia, and it proved highly controversial.

In response, Floquenbeam (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) both used their administrator user rights to unblock Fram ([20]). Floquenbeam's administrator rights were temporarily removed by WMFOffice (talk · contribs) ([21]). WJBscribe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) used his bureaucrat rights first to restore Floquenbeam's administrator rights, and later to restore Fram's ([22]).

Although official WMF policy states that Unauthorized modifications to office actions will not only be reverted, but may lead to sanctions by the Foundation, such as revocation of the rights of the individual involved, JEissfeldt (WMF) (talk · contribs) indicated that the WMF would not implement further sanctions against the admins involved in reversing these actions ([23]). In recognition of that decision, and of the exceptional nature of the circumstances, the committee notes without comment this series of events. The community is advised that administrators and bureaucrats are normally expected not to act when they know they do not have all of the relevant facts, and that this is especially important with regard to office actions where those facts may be highly sensitive. As a general rule, reversal of office actions is considered wheel warring and wheel warring may be grounds for removal of administrative rights by the committee as well as by the WMF. Lack of sanctions under these exceptional circumstances should not set expectations around similar future actions.

Support
  1. First choice. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – Joe (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice. Katietalk 15:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Absolutely, and thank you for writing this. WormTT(talk) 19:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Comments
  • "As a general rule, reversal of office actions is considered wheel warring and may be grounds for removal of administrative rights by the committee..." I don't think it has been established that the first reversal of an Office Action is either wheel warring or sanctionable by ArbCom without authority from WMF. Perhaps: "wheel warring over office actions may be grounds for removal of administrative rights by the committee ....". SilkTork (talk) 08:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With that change I could support this. SilkTork (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bishonen: WP:WHEEL explicitly lists reversal of a Wikimedia Foundation office action as a "possible indication of an incipient wheel war," along with deliberately ignoring an existing discussion in favor of a unilateral preferred action. There's also the meta office actions policy to consider: [Foundation bans] are final; they are not appealable, not negotiable and not reversible. I believe the wording of this motion is consistent with both. I know some prefer to strictly reserve the phrase wheel warring for the second revert onwards, but it isn't always used that way and I think it's more pedantic than useful. We could also call it improper reversal of an admin/office action or simply misuse of tools; the substance is the same and equally supported by existing policy. – Joe (talk) 09:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bishonen, good point, sloppy wording on my part (ironically, since I'm pretty sure I took the other side not too long ago...) As a practical matter, I don't think much really hangs on this point, since any future . Joe Roe, what do you think of SilkTork's formulation? I think that's simplest, since it just leaves the definition of "wheel warring" up to WP:WHEEL itself (so if somebody does start an RfC before the next time this comes up, there's no residual inconsistency). Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'm fine with that, or, as Bishonen suggests above, just "reversal of office actions". – Joe (talk) 11:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"reversal of office actions" is what I am objecting to. I have no problem with "wheel warring" regardless of what it is over, as that is a community sanctionable action, and wheel warring over office actions is my understanding of the reference to it in WP:Wheel, not simply the first revert of an office action, so spelling it out as "wheel warring over an office action", or simply putting "wheel warring" is fine by me. SilkTork (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, @SilkTork and Joe Roe:, let's just go with "wheel warring" for simplicity's sake.
Banedon, the point is "not admonished" :) The rest is about setting the context for next time. (That said, it may not matter much; someone pointed out that the WMF gets one of these wild hairs every two years or so, and then it's arbcom 2021's problem.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motion to close

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This motion is currently for discussion purposes. It is not ready for voting.

Suggested wording

On 10 June 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) imposed a ban of 1 year upon Fram from the English Wikipedia as an WP:Office action. The ban was controversial amongst the English Wikipedia community, and after significant discussion at WP:FRAM, Floquenbeam unblocked Fram on 11 June. In response The WMF took an additional office action to re-block Fram and desysop Floquenbeam for 1 month. On 12 June, Bishonen unblocked Fram, while WJBscribe restored Floqenbeam's sysop privileges, simultaneously opening this Arbitration Request.

The Arbitration Committee has considered the request for arbitration and decides as follows:

(A) The case request should be accepted under the name "Administrative actions around Office block of Fram" and resolved by motion.
(B) The decision to ban was made solely by the WMF, and per WP:Arbitration/Policy#Jurisdiction, the Arbitration Committee does not have jurisdiction over this decision.
(C) Floquenbeam, Bishonen and WJBscribe will receive no further sanction from the Arbitration Committee for their actions.
(D) To allow the English Wikipedia community to decide the policy issues involved, a Request for Comment will be opened under the Arbitration space, and managed by the Arbitration Clerks. This RfC will focus on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future.
Comments

I've been trying to make a decision on how best to move forward on this specific case request. Generally, I believe this is what the Arbitrators are looking for in closing, but my wordsmithing skills are never the best, so have put it here for discussion purposes, rather than directly for voting. I am aware that a significant portion of the community will not be happy with point C and I do expect discussion around that point. It may be better to split this motion into different parts and vote separately when we do, so that we can finish with a complete motion from the committee as a whole, even if individual members may disagree with individual points. It may be that there is more to add too, but for now, I believe we have a starting point. WormTT(talk) 19:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C I (and I believe other Arbs) intend to draft an initial RfC based on the questions we have after our discussions with WMF. I expect it to be in Arbcom space and so subject to some strict clerking, but at the same time, to be accessible to the community who should be able to bring forward proposals and ideas. WormTT(talk) 19:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC) (As for the follow up on "crisis in confidence", Arbcom suffers from this regularly. The best way to handle that is at election time, or if you feel it necessary, to take it to an RfC. I don't intend to make statements as a committee which do not help the community, but rather to help work towards a solution). WormTT(talk) 19:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that WTT, I think that covers a number of things; though it's worth thinking on it a bit more. My first query, and perhaps someone can point me to the right page, is does ArbCom have the authority or remit to sanction these three people? Our authority is over enwiki, not over WMF. Is there wording which says it is down to ArbCom to sanction admins/'Crats for interfering with Office Actions? The closest I can see that we have some kind of authority here is that Jan said above: "We defer to Arbcom’s judgment on how to proceed with regard to such behavior issues in this case." But this was said after "the Foundation will not be issuing further sanctions against or desysopping those who edited the block or the sysop rights of those who edited the Fram block to date." I am having difficulty parsing that. Is that saying - "ArbCom would not normally have authority to sanction these editors, but we have decided in this case to give them authority to make a decision rather than do it ourselves"? I'd like clarity on that from Jan (or anyone else at WMF) before voting. Point D doesn't include WMF in the discussion. At the moment the WMFOffice is named as a party. If we dismiss this case with that motion, we are effectively dismissing the WMFOffice as well. This leaves enwiki talking to itself and WMF talking to itself and no progress would be made on the issue of cooperation and communication between enwiki and WMF. Of course, there is no saying that if we hold the case open rather than dismiss it by motion that anyone from WMF would take part anyway, but I'd prefer to try that. Either that or get an agreement from WMF that they would take an effective role in any RfC decided here. So my feeling right now is that we need further input from WMF. SilkTork (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Our jurisdiction is covered under WP:Arbitration/Policy#Jurisdiction. In effect, we have the authority to sanction these individuals - their actions were taken on the English Wikipedia, in relation to actions outside of our jurisdiction. However, because there is another group (the Office) who took the initial action, with the full information about the initial sanction (which we do not hold) and with the ability to enforce their initial action - I consider the three actions (Floqenbeam's unblock, Bishonen's unblock and WJBscribe's resysop of Floquenbeam at his request) to be something that the WMF should handle. They have stated they would not take any further action on the matter and I felt that we should allow that de-escalation to stand. On the RfC, I would expect that the WMF would be involved. We would be specifically discussing a privacy / harassment way of working, and so we would need their involvement. That said, this discussion has been overtaken by WJBscribe's escalation last night, and so I'm struggling to see how this motion can work. WormTT(talk) 08:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec - yes, a long one - I had to do a couple of things after I opened the window and starting writing) Thanks MJL, those links are useful. I am unclear on the relevance of your third link to the Crosswiki issues request; you may need to explain that to me a bit more. But the other two are clearly relevant.
I note in the Kww situation, that a WMF representative gave ArbCom authority to deal with the matter: "On any other wiki, I'd be removing your tools right now. However, on this wiki, because there is a functional Arbitration Committee, I'm going to, instead, refer this to them for them to determine what sanction to take.". Also noteworthy is that though the WMF representative felt that Kww should be desysoped, the Committee decided on an admonishment instead, by 10 votes to 5. I follow Worm's thinking in that case: "From a jurisdiction point of view, it's not something Arbcom should be weighing in on, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Jurisdiction is clear about this OFFICE actions are the top thing we should not be dealing with. By extension, we should not be dealing with reversals of OFFICE actions. Philippe, however, passed it our way."
In the Media Viewer RFC case, that was to look into the warning issued by a WMF staff member to an admin from the staff member's ordinary user account. The case was suspended after the staff member resigned as an admin, and WMF introduced a new staff user account policy, prohibiting the use of the same account for both work and non-work purposes. So that case was about a Wikipedia admin "making threats to another Wikipedia admin" - a conduct issue, and ArbCom had jurisdiction. If the "threat" had been made from a WMF staff account then that would have been a WMF warning, and ArbCom would not have had jurisdiction, and that would have been a matter for WMF to look into, not ArbCom.
So, we have two arbcom cases involving WMF. One which was about a staff member using the wrong account to issue a warning (and so became a conduct issue), and fell into ArbCom's remit because of that, and that case was suspended after the staffer resigned their admin tools, and the WMF made clear that when staffers are operating on behalf of WMF they must use their staff accounts. The other was looked into by ArbCom because a WMF staffer asked them to, and ArbCom passed a lower sanction than that the WMF staffer would have done. SilkTork (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Worm That Turned, I suspect that we would be able to decide on what should be done with the admins given that it appears that Jan has passed it to our hands, and there is precedent for that, and the WMF has accepted that ArbCom will pass lower sanctions than that they recommend themselves. But I am uncomfortable with that process, particularly here when the actions were done to underline the breakdown in the relationship between enwiki and WMF. I'd prefer to look at a solution which helps build the relationship, not undermine it further. If we do decide ourselves what to do with their behaviour - either sanction them, admonish them, or dismiss the incident by motion, we would be doing so alone, and whatever action we take has political implications. Where there is a conduct issue merge between WMF and enwiki, such as here, with enwiki admins undoing WMF actions, I feel the matter would be better resolved with WMF and ArbCom working together. I don't think WMF passing responsibility to ArbCom is helpful, though I appreciate the gesture. I think I would prefer we open a full case, and together with WMF attempt to resolve the issue of what to do with regard to Office Actions. SilkTork (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:TonyBallioni's block of User:Starship.paint and User:Geni's unblock

Initiated by Govindaharihari (talk) at 04:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • [24] diff of notification TonyBallioni
  • [25] diff of notification Geni
  • [26] diff of notification to Starship.paint
  • [27] diff of notification to Doc James
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Link 1
  • Link 2

Statement by Govindaharihari

Requesting a case regarding this admin warring. There are comments that the original block was undue and unneeded and complaints about the unblock. There are multiple requests for Geni to resign on their userpage, primarily from User:Ballioni both on IRC and on Geni's wiki talkpage User_talk:Geni#Please_resign, at the moment imo the community is so heated that there is no neutral dispute resolution available, only the abbcom is neutral enough to judge these problems related to the Fram issue. In reply to a comment below, I am not looking for drama rather prefer to reduce drama. It seems to me that all the requests for Geni to resign basically amount to Framban bullying. For those that suggest I am not involved in this issue, we are all as a community involved in this Framban issue. Govindaharihari (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TonyBallioni

Current word length: 451; diff count: 0.

Sigh: this request is premature and completely unnecessary as everyone who was asked said before this request was filed. It’s been a heated two weeks, and this does nothing good for the project. In terms of my block: I revoked TPA because the rationale for the block involved linking to Twitter. I thought it appropriate to prevent future potential links and harassment of that sort. Others disagreed with me, and while I initially disagreed with Doc James restoring, I saw his reasoning and was fine with it. There are administrators I respect who have told me they wouldn’t have revoked TPA, so I respect this was possibly an overreaction on my part.

We were having an unblock discussion. The Geni part came in when after we were having an unblock discussion where consensus was it was a good block and that it should be lifted once acknowledgement of the issue and commitments were made.

Geni then came in and unilaterally unblocked, which given the circumstances, I thought was both incompatible with policy and proved the WMF’s point: he unblocked someone who was harassing their staffers without any assurances. His actions in my view proved them right and condoned the harassment. In the current climate, I think resignation is a good idea if you can’t follow policy and talk to others about harassment issues.

That being said, I’d urge the committee to decline this case. While I don’t exactly think Geni has done a great job at this, no other dispute resolution at other notice boards has been attempted, I don’t want a reblock, and the community doesn’t need another 6 week long thing to fight over. As I said on my talk, I’d be happy if an on-wiki explanation to the questions asked was given to let this be. Let the talk page process play out. Speedy decline this. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Dennis Brown, Davey2010, and SilkTork: I disagree with Dennis' reading of the unblock policy, but generally agree with both Dennis and Dave. I think it is entirely consistent to think that someone's actions send such a bad message and are policy violations that they should resign (I still think Geni should for the reasons I listed on his talk), while also realizing it is not something that there should be forced desysoping over. Some may see this as inconsistent, but I don't, and as I said, I don't see the point of this case as even I don't want to have this forced. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr Ernie, I agree with you. That’s why I moved the discussion on-wiki fairly quickly. Nothing was “decided” on IRC, other than me deciding that the discussion should take place on the record on this project. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Geni

My primary concern was that we had a useful editor in conflict with an admin over the terms of an unblock. The admin has committed themselves to demanding assurances and the editor doesn’t want to give them in return for an unblock. Not an easy situation for either side to move from and since the admin has made the mistake of going for an indef rather than time limited block we can’t just wait it out.

The obvious solution is to remove the block at which point the editor is free to give whatever assurances they like without going back on their previous statement. Conflict resolution.

The reason I chose not to discuss it is that the admin had already made multiple statements making their position clear. This wasn’t a block based on anything secret. Any attempted discussion would have been a waste of time and time was important. For long standing committed editors being blocked hurts. Continuing to be blocked hurts. Hurting an editor while we waste time in a form discussion doesn’t help anybody.

I did explain things at the time to tony via IRC.©Geni (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doc James

In normal times, further discussion of this issue may have been reasonable. These are not normal times and we have more pressing issues. I am not supportive of action against anyone involved at this point in time. I would imagine everyone realizes a few lines were crossed and that this should not occur again. IMO it is already settled. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Barkeep49

I have rather strong feelings about the error of what Geni did and am tired of hearing "passions are high so we need to forgive sysop uses of the toolset against policy/practice". I count on policy/practice to keep me, an undistinguished but active editor, on the clean side of the block log and free from worry of a capacious block. That said there is 100% no case here. Geni indicated that they will respond to the concerns but they dont have time at the moment - and are likely asleep at this particular instant. Even an unsatisfactory response would not be enough to warrant an ArbCom case. This should be speedy declined. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Starship.paint

No case, please. Thank you. starship.paint (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: - I was not very upset, and I did not intend any harassment (I have apologized for unknowingly caused harassment). starship.paint (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: This more detailed explanation [28] was written by Geni. starship.paint (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have stepped away from Wikipedia, not sure for how long. Reasons on my talk page. At this point no Arb has accepted the case. I can’t defend myself after I do that, but oh well, I need this. I’d just like to say I hope there will be no sanctions on the involved administrators. I firmly believe everyone involved, including the filer here, is acting in the best interests of this project, and not for themselves. starship.paint (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (very slightly involved) Reaper Eternal

This is a pointless filing by an uninvolved editor fishing for drama. I urge the committee to speedy decline this. Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hawkeye7

In addition to wholeheartedly agreeing with everything Barkeep49 says, I am also getting really, really tired indeed of the practices of (1) short-circuiting discussions before everybody has a chance to see them (which ArbCom has already criticised in the past) and (2) of overturning admin decisions without any effort at consulting with the original admin (which ArbCom has also already criticised in the past). While not worth an ArbCom case, if the Committee aspires to playing any useful role, a motion reminding admins of the proper decorum for use of the toolkit would be appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Premeditated Chaos

I've recused for personal reasons, but I urge my colleagues to speedily decline this case, given that it was filed by an uninvolved third party during a civil discussion of the matter, against the wishes of the actual participants in the discussion. I don't think this is the kind of hasty case request we want to encourage, not when it steps all over in-progress attempts at dispute resolution. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tazerdadog

Two comments - This case should be speedily declined as contrary to the wishes of all parties, and way premature. @Doc James: should be included in this discussion. He modified the talk page access. For the record, I'd like to commend Doc's efforts in that discussion - he kept it from becoming a lot uglier than it could've been. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Oshawott 12

Even though I added a party, I still agree with Tony. No case and speedy decline, thank you. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 06:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further incredulity from SN

...at what, if not drama-trolling, is at least a sufficiently blatant disregard for community processes from the OP to be a poor lapse of judgment. Decline already. ——SerialNumber54129 07:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by SchroCat (TonyBallioni/Geni)

Decline please - and quickly. We don't need more dramah over something that shouldn't be here when there are more important things to discuss. - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pawnkingthree

This should be declined. No one except the filer, who has ignored the advice of several experienced editors, wants this. We haven’t even been to AN yet. Pawnkingthree (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wehwalt (TonyBallioni/Geni)

I believe both admins should have refrained from inflammatory actions at a time when active community members are regarding each other with deep suspicion. That being said, nothing would be gained by taking this case.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by StudiesWorld

I think that a speedy decline would be appropriate given that no dispute resolution has yet been attempted and one of the admins had already requested more time before answering. Having an ArbCom case at this time seems excessive and premature. I could imagine a scenario in which an ArbCom case results from dispute resolution, but we are not yet at that point. Contrary to what the filing party claims, many neutral methods of dispute resolution remain. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of Alanscottwalker (TB/G)

For better or worse, for ordinary administrative action (eg. not AE or OA), Wikipedia has chosen a second mover advantage (now codified in Wheel and RAAA) under certain conditions. But the second mover has to demonstrate that they are first willing to discuss, and to in fact discuss before they act, and discuss in earnest good faith in deference to consensus by discussion finding. Because there appears to be a general resolution already, Geni should be admonished by motion or can be admonished by Arbitrator statements in decline. The injunction this committee should have issued weeks ago in the earlier case, enforcing WP:CONSENSUS policy on OA, could also be expanded reminding Admins of their obligations to demonstrate the best, even or especially in trying circumstance, because that's the burden that goes with the power. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it seems to be an unfortunate sometimes artifact of process (and hopefully not something worse) that for some reason Admins (sometimes even those who do "abrupt" acts after long breaks) go then to radio silence (oddly mirroring the policy breaching silence before the act) and Arbcom is basically the mechanism there is to get the communication turned on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

Nothing to see here. Admin will occasionally step on each others toes a bit, it is actually part of the process. Nothing was hurt, the blocked party seems to have learned from the block, TonyBallioni's did seem a big strong, Geni's unblock was a bit abrupt, so what. In the end, both actions probably helped the encyclopedia, both actions were within policy (the spirit, anyway), so do us a favor and speedy decline this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • SilkTork, in a perfect world, Geni would have made a statement, but does it really matter? Nothing Geni could say would change the sequence of events, which are well known. Geni hasn't unblocked someone in years, so obviously it isn't a pattern. No prior dispute resolution, everyone has pretty much vented one way or another on his talk page, and as far as I know, unblocking over the wishes of the blocking admin isn't sanctionable by itself, that falls under admin discretion, even when done in a subpar manner. Tony could have filed if he felt it was desysop worthy, but he doesn't want a case. Since the blocked party has backed away from the discussion that got him in trouble, and has made it perfectly clear he "gets it", speedily declining this is probably best. The place is already on fire, we don't need to unnecessarily fan the flames on yet a new problem that has already solved itself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dave

This should be speedily declined, I don't entirely agree with Starship being unblocked like that however I didn't agree with the indef block either, Geni acted in the best interests of the project and I'm damn sure Starship has learnt their lesson, No need for the case. –Davey2010Talk 13:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork - With all due respect what is a statement from them going to achieve ? .... Statement or no statement there isn't going to be any sanctions over it, Your reply only engulfs an already huge bonfire (ironically this reply does too), If Tony cared that much he would be sat in the filing seat. –Davey2010Talk 17:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sphilbrick

I recommend declination. Mistakes were made, some lessons have been learned. Taking on this case would be a massive time sink relative to the exceedingly tiny possible need for a few minnow slaps.

Statement by WaltCip

Govindaharihari desperately needs to find something better to do.--WaltCip (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WBGodric

Just decline this. A heavy handed block, folks from IRC jumping in, James resolving the issue with a calm head, stupid unblock, mass-bullying for resignation and now we're over here. Drama-mongering for the sake of it. ∯WBGconverse 14:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seraphimblade

I think there are mistakes on both sides here. Starship.paint should not have publicly asked someone about the identity of an offsite account, but I can see the confusion in thinking that's okay when it's already under a real name known to the public. TonyBallioni shouldn't have jumped straight to an indef block for an editor without a history of such issues; revdeleting/suppressing the offending edit and issuing a stern warning to not do something like that again would probably have sufficed. Geni shouldn't have unilaterally unblocked while other admins were already discussing the matter. But the outcome (Starship.paint is unblocked and now understands clearly that doing something like that is unacceptable) is what it almost certainly would have been anyway. I don't see what else the Committee can do, and it's telling that no one who was actually involved in the matter thought an ArbCom case was needed. Trouts all around, and I think that's all we need. But if an admonition to Geni to not act precipitously is needed, I think TonyBallioni should receive the same. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

This should be promptly declined. There is no ongoing conduct issue, nor reason to believe that this is part of a pattern on anyone's part. Also, Govindaharihari failed to filling the part that says "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried". That's not optional.

Statement by Floq (TB/G)

Drama for the sake of an underlying principle is good or bad (depending on whether you agree with the principle). Drama for the sake of drama is trolling. This filing is trolling. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ad Orientem

While well intentioned, this filing is premature and in the present climate, it is unlikely to prove helpful. Additionally the OP does not appear to be substantively involved in the dispute which is being discussed elsewhere. I therefore join my colleagues above in urging a speedy decline. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TRM

Trout for Govindaharihari for creating yet more dramaz when we're well "glass full" in that department. Raising a request for an Arbcom case is not the only dispute resolution method available, and when one is barely tangentially involved, one might refer to this as "drama mongering". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MJL (TonyBallioni/Geni)

This is a pointless sideshow. I suggest nothing more than a decline and a personal trout to the filer. Stuff like this right now is a serious waste of committee time and energy in my opinion. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ivanvector (TB/Geni)

Recommend, as everyone else already has, that the Committee decline this case. However, I want to say that I endorse Tony's block and revocation of talk page access for the reasons he already stated. Harassment cannot be tolerated, even when an editor is very upset. And, I feel I need to say regarding Geni's action, I hope that we have seen the last of admins using the tools to do whatever the hell they feel like doing on the basis of their own personal principles or opinions about other editors' actions. We have policies and processes for many very good reasons, including several through which Tony's action could have been discussed and/or appealed, and just because the WMF wants to step all over a decade and a half of community evolution doesn't mean the rest of us need to do the same. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Beyond My Ken

More in common with trolling then with a legitimate case request. Terminate with prejudice and trout the filer for drama-mucking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kudpung

The actions all round may have been suboptimal, but this is simply drama mongering. Please decline. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by QEDK

It should be policy to trout filers who are just riling up the crowd for no reason. I have no personal animosity with them but this kind of filing shows why we should invoke IAR more often, than less. Parties on both sides explicitly informed the filer of 1) community has not discussed this and failed to resolve it, making it intractable and 2) this is a waste of time. The filer ignored the advice of multiple experienced editors and administrators and proceeded to file this with a narrative that is just theirs. I'm glad that all arbitrators have declined uptil now so that this frivolous case can be dispensed with. --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon About Useless Filing

The only question at this time seems to be what if anything to do with the filer, such as to require that they smell the dead trout. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

I think the committee needs to look into what exactly is being discussed and decided off-wiki on IRC. How can it be appropriate to hold discussions there, where nobody else can refer to them or check them later? Wikipedia business, aside from privacy issues, needs to be handled on-wiki. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Swarm

I'd call this request a WP:POINT violation, but that would imply that there was a point being made. This user's trolling is getting tiresome. ~Swarm~ {sting} 20:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kurtis

I've left a note on Govindaharihari's talk page asking him to try and refrain from submitting premature case requests in the future (permalink). Other than that, I think this is just water under the bridge and should be left alone. Kurtis (talk) 02:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shearonink

Decline please. Let's all try to weather the already-existing storm and not stir up any additional detritus. Shearonink (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User:TonyBallioni's block of User:Starship.paint and User:Geni's unblock: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • @Mr Ernie: As a matter of simple fact, it is routine for arbitration-related matters to be discussed off-wiki. The arbs themselves have both a separate, non-public wiki and a mailing list, and the arbs conduct discussions with the clerks on another mailing list. It's also fairly routine for some editors to go to IRC when they need assistance; personally I'm almost never on IRC, but I know that a subset of editors hang out there and regard it as a normal part of their editing. Although it happens quite a lot, people who don't hang out on IRC are often surprised when they find that others consider IRC part of wiki business. I don't mean to direct you into any particular way of thinking; you're welcome to consider such off-wiki communication as appropriate or inappropriate and I don't mean to take a position either way; I just wanted to point out that it does happen commonly and this wasn't an unusual piece of communication. GoldenRing (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:TonyBallioni's block of User:Starship.paint and User:Geni's unblock: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/3/2>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Recuse. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will set on the fence for a bit. This is certainly premature. Arbitration requests ought to be initiated by the parties, not passing busybodies. But the dispute itself is something that in ordinary circumstances would very likely be heading for arbitration: we have potential wheel-warring, and a request from one admin to another to resign. I hope other attempts at dispute resolution are successful, and we can decline, but in the mean time let's hold the request. I'm not willing to let potential admin misconduct go unexamined just because the atmosphere is tense. – Joe (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that Geni has still not responded to TonyBallioni's attempts to resolve this, nor offered a statement in this request, although they've been active elsewhere. I urge them to do so as soon as possible per WP:ADMINACCT; otherwise I'm leaning towards accepting. – Joe (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline To be blunt, at least to me, this is drama-mongering for the sake of drama-mongering. Tensions are extremely high right now, everyone is on edge. Look, EVERYONE take a deep breath and a step back. Both parties have de-escalated and I don't see a need to turn this into a case. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. This does not rise to the level of needing a case, and the issue seems largely settled. I also agree with Doc James that there are more pressing issues that need our attention. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waiting for a statement from Geni, which I hope will be more thoughtful than this. SilkTork (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. Katietalk 22:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Good grief. What Rick said. I'm about to go outside for awhile, let's all do that. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed Signpost article

Initiated by Haukur (talk) at 10:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Haukurth

The latest issue of the Signpost includes an article titled Did Fram harass other editors?. The article is an inappropriate fishing expedition allowing people with a grudge against Fram to throw accusations at him without supporting evidence and under a cover of anonymity. In particular, the article contains a claim that Fram participated in sexual harassment of an anonymous admin. Fram denies the claim but the Signpost has refused to allow him to reply to the charge in the article. From publicly available information this ugly claim appears to be false – it seems to be a highly distorted and tendentious account of a recognizable incident. To be sure, ArbCom is much better placed than me to figure out the exact truth of the matter. I have asked Smallbones to pull the article (or at least this quote) and the matter has been discussed at ANI. Smallbones has referred me to ArbCom so here I am. Presenting false anonymous claims of sexual harassment under the cover of journalism and without allowing the accused party to reply is unacceptable. This complies with no journalistic standards and certainly not with normal Wikipedia rules of conduct. A possible remedy would be for the article to be pulled and an apology to Fram posted instead. Haukur (talk) 10:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am relieved that the article was removed. A further step a responsible publication would take after publishing false or highly misleading accusations is to issue a correction and an apology. I urge Smallbones to begin drafting such a statement as soon as he can. Haukur (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would caution against restoring the article in any form. While the anonymous accusation was certainly the most objectionable part, the whole concept of the Signpost publishing an article with the title "Did Fram harass other editors?" would set a dangerous precedent and bring us into waters I'm not sure we can handle. Haukur (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every step of the way I have been hoping that this was an isolated lapse in judgment which could be quickly and amicably corrected once the relevant policies, facts and ethical issues had been brought to light. It saddens me that Smallbones still stands by his article and has taken no corrective action to put us on the right track. In that light, I ask ArbCom to consider whether he can continue to serve as editor of the Signpost. Operating a newsletter on Wikipedia which is distributed to any number of contributors via watchlist notifications and other means is a privilege which requires good judgment and community trust. Abusing this privilege to distribute unsubstantiated personal attacks is a serious breech of trust. Anyone can make mistakes but continual refusal to make any amends for this brings into question whether Smallbones has the right skills for the role. Haukur (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Smallbones

Sorry if it seems like I'm delaying here. I had a very stressful last week and this morning woke up to a ton of nonsense being said against me. My time this week is very much taken up, but I'll try to get the response going now. I'm not caught up with everything that's been said, but probably up to about 3 hours ago. I'll just put in bullet points so I can stop at a moments notice and continue later. I may reorder them later.

  • Ultimately, I think this has to be handled via private evidence. I would like to make sure that I get a chance to give my basic view (without confidential info included) and that a published finding be made signed by the voting arbs.
  • There are several reasons to keep this confidential. I won't say all of them here but will email an arb to give to the committee.
  • I went incredibly easy on Fram in the article. There's evidence that Fram provided, in which he later asked that names and other identifying info be removed. I agreed and later decided (on my own) I would only use it in the most abbreviated form with nothing like identifying info.
    • We had earlier agreed that I could use that evidence on Signpost, with the only condition that I would not provide his text to any other person or organization, e.g. the WMF, T&S, ArbCom, but Signpost was ok - just the text itself off-Signpost was off limits, not my summary or comments or anything else.
    • That's right, the original agreement was that I could have printed the whole thing in the Signpost, and the current agreement is that I can summarize it, comment on it, etc. anywhere as long as I don't use identifying information (other than that it was from Fram).
    • It was incredibly reckless and arrogant for Fram to give me that info. My reading of it is: here is a list of people who I harassed - I'm proud of harassing them. And something much more serious.
    • I couldn't have released that info in any case without hurting at least a dozen specific innocent individuals and the Wikipedia movement as a whole.
    • While I will be very careful in using this information, it certainly did convince me that there was something real about the harassment allegations made about Fram.
    • The only way to deal with this info in Wikipedia is to have both Fram and I state that ArbCom can see the text and view it in private.
  • Let's go back to the basic questions IMHO.
    • Is there harassment on-Wiki and how do we deal with it?
    • Is there any system on enWiki where a person can report harassment without exposing themselves to public ridicule and further harassment?
      • Possible places to report it? Talk pages? no. ANI? no. Other noticeboards? no ArbCom? not according to a recently departed Arb.
    • Did Fram harass editors on-Wiki?
  • Given the recent uproar about Fram being blocked for harassment, it is the most natural thing in the world for a newspaper to investigate and publish a report on this, especially since Fram invited inquiries on his Commons talk page where he would provide information on the block.
    • Was the article high quality? Damn right! Harassment is a notoriously difficult topic to get information on. Confidential sources are almost always used in stories on the topic - otherwise it would be impossible to have any story on a very important topic. I went to great lengths to get people to go on the record and was pretty successful 2 from previous published onWiki discussions and 2 more new sources (a recent arb and MontanaBW). I reported both people who told me that they weren't harassed and didn't see harassment. And I quoted 2 anonymous sources. This isn't a lightly sourced article.
  • I'd like the Arbs to do everything in their power, including asking other bureaucrats etc., to stop Fram from currently trying to out an editor on another website. No I'm not going to mention the website name - but lots of people here seem to be following it and I'm sure at least 1 Arb must know the site.
    • Also I'd like arbs to do everything in their power to stop Fram from quoting my emails (to him) on that site. They are copyrighted by me and I've never given him permission to use them. You might say "Isn't turn about fair play? You've quoted his emails, why shouldn't he quote your emails. Answer: he is using my emails to help in an attempted outing. He has explicitly given me permission to quote his emails (CC BY-SA. Frankly, this could only happen on Wikipedia that somebody would give a journalist a CC license for this!) The exception is the email discussed above.
  • A lot seems to be happening and I just don't have any more time this week to finish this (unless I'm really really lucky). We have to find a way to let the people who feel they are harassed to have a voice without re-victimizing them. I stand by the article. People seem to be asking me below (and on another website) am I absolutely sure that everything the people who I contacted said is 100% true? Does the story match with what Arbcom or ANI determined to be the facts of the case? People who ask this should know better. Arbcom and ANI don't define "truth" any more than a Wikipedia article does. They go thru a process of compromise and active consensus seeking, that at best comes out with a "working version of the truth." At worst it comes out as people actively avoiding seeing an unpleasant truth. The point is that the people complaining about harassment feel that they are not being heard. I believe that these folks do have a right to be heard in a safe environment that prevents them from being harassed in the process of being heard. If only The Signpost can provide that environment onWiki, so be it. Much (by no means all) of the evidence in harassment cases comes off as sounding like "He said, they said". "He said" in this case is being accepted without examination even though Fram's supporters often say (approx) "He can be very difficult to deal with." The "they said" side hadn't been heard at all during this "constitutional crisis", though they have been shamefully harassed (e.g. attempted outings) at WP:FRAM.
  • People have suggested below that since only one quote is being disputed, that we just delete that quote, put the rest of the article back and move on. While I don't like ArbCom "editing Signpost pages", if that satisfies ArbCom, that's ok with me.
  • This was published. I haven't had time for anything more than a quick read.

Statement by Bilorv

I made two reverts to the blanking of the article by the SPA Petulant Clerk, a clear act of vandalism made by an editor wishing to avoid scrutiny. SchroCat quotes policy that reverting editors are responsible and culpable for reverts they make if they restore BLPTALK violations. I am happy for Arbcom to investigate whether the article violated BLPTALK, and if they find it did I will accept any sanction they deem necessary. But to pre-empt any questions of whether my actions were edit warring: in my edit summary, I wished to engage the editor in discussion, and I also left an EW template on their talk page and reported them to ARV so as to not violate either the letter or the spirit or WP:EW.

As for the article itself, I believe it not to violate BLPTALK and I've presented reasoning in this, this and this comment. I think it's disgusting that Jehochman has decided that their adminship grants them the power to unilaterally delete a thoroughly-researched Signpost article without consensus and Jehochman should be named as a party in this case for investigation of wheel war sanctioning, given that their action would clearly be opposed by each editor who reverted Petulant Clerk's blankings, and the blocking admin. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman engages in a fantastic example of responding to the letter rather than the spirit of a policy by insisting that WHEEL would only apply if the page were to be undeleted and then deleted again. The actions under discussion involve the page blanking, page restoration and then the blocking of an editor who blanked the page (by Oshwah). The last action in particular is an admin action made with the intent of keeping the page viewable and public. By deleting the page, this overrides the effect of Oshwah's admin action and is therefore the instigation of a wheel war. To be crystal clear, Jehochman violated the intent of the following part of WP:WHEEL: "Do not repeat a reversed administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it." — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In response to this accusation that I am violating WP:BATTLE, I have no grudge against Jehochman (I don't recall the editor from any previous interactions) and am certainly not "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point" by commenting in an Arbcom case request. I object to the suggestion that I should stop speaking, because as a named party in this case I believe I have the right to (a) defend myself and (b) name relevant editors and actions that I believe should be scrutinised. In response to this accusation that I'm engaging in harassment, this hinges upon whether or not the article violates BLPTALK. I believe it does not and I urge Arbcom to accept the case and investigate this point; and I'll repeat: I'm happy to be sanctioned if the article is found to violate it. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Struck to match this clarification. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: Any opposers demonstrate this is not one of "the most obvious cases". — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie {Signpost}

I urge Arbcom to take immediate action to remove this blatant harassment. For transparency, I sent an email to Arbcom before this case request was initiated. That article also invites open speculation to the extent of Fram's misdeeds - (Redacted). The material in question was removed by Winged Blades of Godric before the article was published, but re-inserted. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pinging the editors who restored the BLP violations before the article was published so they are aware of this discussion: Tony1 and Megalibrarygirl. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most Wikipedians at WP:FRAM agree that a new system of reporting and dealing with harassment is needed. I don't think that airing dirty laundry across the entirety of Wikipedia by the Signpost, using completely unsubstantiated and anonymous reports (but some identities are easy to work out) with no diffs or evidence, against someone who is not able to respond, was what anybody had in mind. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming Fram quoted it correctly on meta, this email from Smallbones is disturbing - (Redacted) I think Smallbones needs to be indeffed for what he's done. What choice did Fram have when the Signpost was going to publish such an article? Arbs, please act soon. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arb probably needs to investigate how the Signpost chose to contact those editors quoted in the article. It appears they chose only editors with known conflicts with Fram. They omitted interviewing countless editors who had positive experiences with Fram, of which I am one. I thank Fram for helping me when I needed it. This methodology is like asking Democrats if they like Donald Trump. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend Arb place immediate indefinite blocks against the editors here demonstrating a misunderstanding and misapplication of the BLP and harassment policies.Mr Ernie (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reiterating my call to Arb to issue preventative blocks. Here we have an editor praising the author of a piece containing BLP violations as a "Defender of the Wiki" having "courage" to attack an editor who is not able to respond. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last thing Wikipedia needs is editors doffing green eyeshades and putting together "investigative journalism" pieces on other editors. Such pieces are put through a rigorous editing process by experienced journalists and legal teams, who are paid and trained to do that type of review. It's the same reason why we don't let Wikipedia editors give medical or legal advice; those professions are governed by extensive regulations that are in place to protect people. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush

I think the article needs to be pulled as a matter of urgency until such time as the conflicting accounts are resolved. We err on the side of caution in matters relating to BLPs and I dread to think what Fram's blood pressure stats may be at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Leaky caldron: WP:BLP applies everywhere. - Sitush (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Black Kite has just noted, @Lourdes: has just protected the article with the apparent BLP issue still intact. I have queried this here. - Sitush (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alanscottwalker, WP:BLPTALK is a section within WP:BLP and therefore references to BLP here include it. I note your sympathy with those who are alarmed with the Signpost article but are you suggesting that the issue does not rise to the level of potential defamation, as covered by the very section to which you link? - Sitush (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Opabinia regalis:, I commend the ability of Ritchie333 to see balance in what was said. Unfortunately, I think they're atypical: most people assume fire when they see smoke and have a tendency to quote Mandy Rice-Davies with regard to the maligned person ("well, he would say that, wouldn't he"). Just removing a couple of bits and then republishing is unlikely to fix the larger issue. - Sitush (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latest update from Smallbones - expected to be their last for five days - seems to be suggesting that they believe The Signpost has a role in righting great wrongs and that Smallbones does indeed see great wrongs in the treatment of those allegedly harassed. It does not tally with Fram's responses on meta and, frankly, I'm more inclined to believe Fram simply because he claims to be quoting from the emails whereas Smallbones has been paraphrasing. Arbcom need to see the full email trail, determine who is lying (because someone is, given the massive contradictory statements regardings the emails) and set some sort of guidance on just where The Signpost fits in the scheme of things. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SchroCat (Signpost)

That "article" is a personal attack that we shouldn't be publishing. It's in breach of WP:BLP/WP:BLPTALK ("Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research.) The trash-piece fails all three of those policies; it's trial by media. Those concerned should be taken to task.

  • Bilorv, the page did WP:BLP (specifically WP:BLPTALK). I know you think the article is doing the right thing, but it puts a figure in the stocks for pillorying when he is unable to use the same forum to defend himself: the article actually is harassment.
  • Megalibrarygirl, "This cannot be a BLP violation since the person in question did not dispute" I am looking through WP:BLP to see where it confirms that. Can you quote which part? As Fram has said: "Smallbones making baseless accusations" and "I don't like the kind of backstabbing you are practising here", that is a prima facie case of "dispute". Harassment is a difficult subject to tackle, and whoever ran this trash piece hasn't got the slightest clue how to deal with it properly.
  • Aquillion, "WP:BLP ... ought to apply differently to the Signpost". No, no, no! Signpost is NOT a newspaper: it's a semi-internal newsletter; the writers are not Bernstein and Woodward; Ben Bradlee is not steering the path between rights and wrongs. WP:BLP is a policy that applies to ALL pages, including Signpost.
  • Pine, Re: "Apparently NOR does not apply to project space, where The Signpost lives", please see WP:BLP "In a Nutshell": "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page]]" (Original emphasis). BLP covers everything, including Signpost.
  • Aquillion, I'll take it from your non-answer that you cannot find exemption for the newsletter in the policy. "any Wikipedia page" looks clear cut. Signpost isn't a newspaper, and the people running it are the worst ones to try and push the line on what they think is acceptable. "Did Fram harass other editors?" is right up there with "Do you still beat your wife" as one of the most stupid headlines I've seen outside the Daily Mail.
  • Smallbones, I hope that at some point the penny drops that this is not about Fram, but WP:BLP. You are not in any way qualified to deal with questions of harassment - leave it to someone equipped to do it. As your crass intervention shows, trying to do a Daily Mail-style piece is entirely the wrong way to do it. - SchroCat (talk) 04:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amakuru, you make the mistake of considering Signpost is a "newspaper". It isn't. It's a semi-internal newsletter. The people who wrote it are not journalists, do not work to journalistic standards, or have an experienced editor who oversees the output along ethical lines. Like everything else round here, it's run by amateurs up to a decent standard, but without the training, knowledge, professionalism or liability insurance needed to operate. At best, the article was trash-tabloid rubbish, rather than anything of note or standard. - SchroCat (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So Smallbones wants to put Fram on trial via the Signpost, and is happy to ignore everyone else when they point to the BLP policy which he has infringed. Over 1,000 words, and now we have to wait for five days before he bloats his statement even more? Hell of a way to run a circus. - SchroCat (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WBladesG

  • What the OP says. The Signpost is not our secondary ArbCom, that it can be exploited as a venue to cast such grave aspersions at an user, under the cover of anonymity. I raised the issues before publication at a t/p but Smallbones declined to entertain my grievances, in any manner.
  • A principle in Gamaliel and Others notes:-

There is widespread agreement in the Wikipedia community regarding the importance of the biographies of living persons policy. The policy has been adopted and since its inception repeatedly expanded and strengthened by the community. In addition, the Arbitration Committee has previously reaffirmed the values expressed through that policy. Fundamental values and practices concerning biographical content has been emphasised in a resolution of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees and were also expanded and strengthened. If an editor wishes to restore content removed in good faith under the policy, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. Restoring the original content without significant change requires consensus.

Restoring what is perceived to be a BLP violation, instead of discussing whether it is a BLP violation or not, can lead to sanctions.

It appears that Smallbones might not have read this. ∯WBGconverse 12:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article shows what a lot of people don't like to hear: that there was most likely a very good reason to sanction Fram. - I, for one, remain very willing to hear that Fram sexually harassed users *but* from the ArbCom; not from Tom or Harry or Signpost in the form of Page 3 gossips. Also, Fram has denied Smallbones' assertions of his' consenting to the piece and all that, over his meta t/p. I am not inclined to buy either's story w/o a full investigation by our community-elected-representatives (who are entitled to deal with private evidence) as to what transpired out behind the scenes. ∯WBGconverse 14:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ritchie333 - you're seriously comparing Trump with Fram? Does the concept of public figure evade you? ∯WBGconverse 16:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not making much sense; you accept that the premises of your argument is based on a false equivalent but yet advocate that the argument (in itself) is not a false equivalent.
    And we are not showing moral outrage. This is about our house-policies and abidance by them. Laws of free speech does not apply here and for good. If Fram is a sexual harasser, he shall be dealt with, in a proportional manner and I don't have any second thoughts about that. *But* there's a proper venue to table such complaints and AFAIS, neither you nor MLG nor Smallbones are so, irrespective of the number of mails in your inbox. ∯WBGconverse 16:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with:-

The practical solution is for Smallbones and his source to satisfy themselves that the quote mis-remembers some key details of an incident that is very recognizable to anyone who followed it at the time. It therefore isn't appropriate to keep in the article, so that portion can be blanked ....

But, I believe we need to proceed with a full case, aligned along the 5 points mentioned by Jehochman. The Signpost seem to be frequently invading into uncharted territories and routinely creating shit-storms, in the process. Also, at-least one/two users (prima-facie) seem to have weaponized aggressive victim-hood, for dis-reputing perceived opponents and anonymity, for evading (warranted) public scrutiny. ∯WBGconverse 09:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mendaliv

There is a clear WP:BLP violation that ANI has refused to remedy. I propose that this matter be handled by injunctive motion and the offending language be stricken from the Signpost. If any more discussion is to be held, let it happen with the offending language stricken and not before. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the fact that the page has been deleted, there may be less impetus to take rapid action here. I still urge the Committee to impose injunctive relief to command that the article stay deleted until this case request is resolved. In addition, the Committee might choose to command that quotations to the disputed content be courtesy blanked. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I object to Ritchie333's characterization of the objection to this article as mere "moral outrage". This is not merely about morals. This is about principles. This is about policy. This is about getting us back to building an encyclopedia. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most of Smallbones' statement thus far is a rehashing and extension of matters that should have been brought up in a case request that was declined just over 24 hours ago with no dissents. While there will probably come a time for a Fram case request, this is not the vehicle for such a case. What is at issue here is how WP:BLP applies to the Signpost. As to the narrow issue of "consent to publication", I question whether anybody can consent to BLP-violative material being published. Many years ago, when the main concern was defamation or liability against WMF, that argument might have teeth. But over the years, the policy has become more one of care and carefulness when dealing with things that might harm a living person. For instance, things like sexuality, gender identity, religion, and ethnicity, but also accusations of crimes or non-criminal wrongful acts. I think it's important we not lose sight that this is the core issue of this case request. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notice to arbs and clerks: Smallbones' statement, now that a third part has been added, is over 800 words, and Smallbones indicates that more is coming. In light of the argument I make regarding the likely scope of this case (i.e., a Fram conduct case was just declined a day ago) it would behoove someone to request that Smallbones substantially narrow the focus of that statement. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Smallbones' statement has now ballooned to over 1000 words. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re: IntoThinAir: Moving Signpost offsite would fix just about everything. The problem would be distribution. Why should an offsite project's newsletter get to be distributed by massmessage or sitenotice? I think this would actually be a death sentence for Signpost. And in any case, on-wiki sanctions could still lie for off-wiki behavior that constitutes on-wiki misconduct. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wehwalt (Signpost)

Ditto to what most have said. This isn't the press and Smallbones isn't Woodward and Bernstein. If we're to pretend to be a self-governing community on turf owned by the WMF, to avoid any potential of liability to our host, we should pull such things until and unless given clearance by WMF Legal.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish Generally agree, but I don't see sorting out the powers of Smallbones as Signpost editor as terribly difficult. The Signpost, to my thought anyway, is not a newspaper, it is a WikiProject, whose purpose it is to keep editors informed of what is going on around the project. The AC ruled in its German War Effort case that WikiProject leaders are just as subject to the rules as anyone else and have no special powers over content or conduct. Without such overriding powers, contributions of articles in the Signpost are subject to the policies at WP:BLPTALK, as SchroCat sagely pointed out. I should note that the Terms of Use only forbid intentionally posting libelous material. Our en-wp policies reach further than that, and they should.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish I think anything beyond keeping the article deleted would be an unneeded distraction at a time of greater crises (I'll stop the back and forth after this, I promise). So I agree.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Leaky caldron

Is this not a content dispute? Does AC have the power to order this to be removed? Thanks to Sitush - apparently it does. I'll postpone my RFA for another 12 years! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leaky caldron (talk • contribs) 2019-07-01 11:33 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite (SP)

This isn't even difficult or contentious. From WP:BLP - all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article.. The Signpost article needs to be pulled and the actions of people who repeatedly restored the BLP violations looked at closely. And per WP:BLPTALK, you can't simply print an anonymous accusation about someone in the Signpost (or, for that matter, anywhere else), whether it be completely true, partially true, somewhat misleading or completely false. I was considering pulling the anonymous part myself, but the whole article has now been fully protected with the BLP violation in it by @Lourdes:, so that might not be the best idea right now. Black Kite (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd further point out that if the email from Smallbones to Fram quoted by Fram at Meta "Fram, You do realize that you are apparently outing the admin you mention, don't you? You shouldn't be playing hardball with me like that. I'm pretty sure you could get permanently globally banned for that now. If you'd like to delete the meta page and say whatever you'd like as a response to the admin in the same number of words the admin used (125) without identifying him in any way, we could probably do that. The offer stands for 1 hour. User:Smallbones" does indeed exist, we are looking at nothing but a serious sanction here. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ritchie333: The problems are as follows (1) This is obviously a violation of BLPTALK (2) Anyone who is familiar with the issues raised will know exactly who the "Anonymous" editor is, thus the Signpost has effectively outed them (3) The Anonymous quote isn't exactly false (although at least one part of it actually is), but it's very misleading as to the entire context of the incident... Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TRM (Signpost)

In full agreement with SchroCat. The problem here is that this will take too long to process and all the while, the offending article remains visible for all to see, and for all logged in users to be directed to. The damage is still being done. It needs to be removed. If Arbcom decide it's just fine to post, do it then, but not right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the level of confused messages, including from admins in this very case application, around what constitutes harassment, where BLP applies etc, this case has to be taken. Honestly, I am incredibly disappointed by some of the comments here which seem to amount to revenge strikes on Fram. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dweller

I urge a speedy resolution by motion by Arbcom on this. Even more than that, I urge an even speedier decision by the Signpost to nominate this page for speedy deletion before an admin takes matters into their own hands and we have 'yet another' Arbcom case about that. I admire the Signpost's signs of growing journalistic ambition. Heading into full-fledged personal investigation, with its natural reliasance on claims and counter-claims 'for balance' is incompatible with BLP, but never mind that, and here I address you, Signpost stakeholders, not Arbcom, it's incompatible with the sense of community the Signpost should be trying to build. Totally inappropriate. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker (SP)

Sympathetic to the complainants but it appears they are pointing at the wrong part of policy, this is not an encyclopedia article, and the subject deals with WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS and Wikipedia enforcement, which is policy and wiki-administrative judgement not law, so the pertinent section would be WP:BLPTALK (2nd paragraph). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, I am not implying anything, I am pointing to the section of policy to review. (I would caution everyone against stating any legal theory of violation without a court judgement, anywhere, that includes the legal theory of defamation). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Jehochman is not the process now, that if anyone wants it restored in full or in part, they appeal to AN? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jhochman: Looking at it again I suppose the issue cannot be decided at AN because it is now invisible to almost all Users, right? At any rate, no one can judge any of this without examining the exact words that people wanted removed (technically, as far as the article in whole is concerned then the all parts can be restored without the offending part, if any) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Four points on content. 1) For BLP, the committee will have to distinguish the Gamliel case because that involved an encyclopedic BLP subject, whom we cover in encyclopedia articles, and we need to be especially scrupulous about the people we cover in articles, which is why policy says leeway for editor discussions. (Note that does not answer the question but it will be important). 2) Part of this may well turn on what the facts are of the alleged bad acts (whether, it is posting a picture or whatever?) not the conclusion applied by I take it, a person quoted?, and whether it is stated as opinion (and it might just be that part of the conclusion(s) should be redacted). 3) Without knowing the entire article, only a committee of admins (hi Arbcom) will actually be able to restore any of the article given the speedy process used (which is rather interesting because it will make you defacto content editors at least in this project space) 4) But that will be alleviated somewhat, if the committee says it is without prejudice to a future MfD. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Usedtobecool

It is beyond a simple content dispute. The Signpost reaches everyone as an official publication from Wikipedia (never mind the technicality). It should either adhere to WP policies or there should be specified and recognised exemptions. I vote former. ArbCom must accept this case since the issue is of grave concern and urgent. What was published went beyond anon. allegations, Signpost saw fit to publish speculative allegations of grievous nature, an act that might have repercussions even for an independent media. "Investigative journalism" isn't a valid excuse, far from it. Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 11:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dave

Arbcom should accept this case and the article should be pulled immediately, I wasn't only shocked at the article but was disappointed too, Pull it and accept the case. –Davey2010Talk 12:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we ever meet one day - Beers are on me! Thanks for doing that it's much appreciated. –Davey2010Talk 13:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

Possibly erring on the side of caution I’ve deleted the page under the CSD attack page/negative unsourced BLP criteria. Do not restore it until ArbCom rules. Jehochman Talk 12:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed Oshwah's action and agree with it, actually, because the editor doing the blanking was evading scrutiny. Jehochman Talk 13:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for the case, you need to examine these issues:

  1. Is the Signpost part of Wikipedia and subject to our rules?
  2. Has the anonymous source who made the inflammatory accusations been spreading baseless aspersions to the Signpost, to ArbCom and to WMF? That could be harassment and head-hunting. Wikipedia is not a game where we try to ban perceived opponents.
  3. Can editors use anonymity and aggressive victim-hood to evade scrutiny of and responsibility for their actions? ArbCom is well positioned to investigate and rule on this question.
  4. If the Signpost is part of Wikipedia, do Signpost reporters have journalistic privilege vis a vis ArbCom? Signpost staff have no mandate to handle confidential info, they haven’t signed a WMF non disclosure agreement and they haven’t been elected by the community. You see where I’m going.
  5. Does ArbCom have a mandate to ask the Signpost reporters to show their evidence or face sanctions for making personal attacks?

I've added JamieDoe to this case as named party. This is a placeholder since the actual name can be given to ArbCom in private. Jehochman Talk 17:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I considered redacting the page but encountered several thorny problems: past redactions had been reverted, it was unclear what exact material was challenged because different people framed the conflict in different ways, and I did not trust myself to alter the writing of the Signpost editors without mangling the article. Jehochman Talk 20:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirill Lokshin: You seem to be making assumptions of bad faith.[31] When I read the Signpost piece I was just looking for information and it was a well written article with much information. Yes, I enjoyed it at the time, and this was not a case of deletion because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I was not thinking about BLP when I first read it, and I had not looked closely at whether Fram had been given adequate opportunity to reply, whether Signpost had any special mandate or not, nor did I know how other editors felt. Upon reading this page I saw that WP:BLPTALK was the issue, that editors provided sound reasoning, I thought about it, decided that yes the page was a problem, and "possibly erring on the side of caution" I deleted it. Changing one's mind in response to arguments and evidence is not a crime. You also made a straw man argument, misquoting me badly. Please strike "proposes that one of these victims deserves to be sanctioned for having the temerity to tell others about their experiences"; that's not what I said, nor what I meant. What I said was, "Has the anonymous source who made the inflammatory accusations has been running around casting baseless aspersions to the Signpost, to ArbCom and to WMF? At some point that editor may need to be sanctioned for harassment and head-hunting." Note the words "baseless" and "at some point" and "may". My question is conditional and depends upon what the evidence shows. Jehochman Talk 13:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, rather than cluttering this page with tangents, if anybody has concerns about my actions, please visit my talk page and ask me before jumping to conclusions. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 13:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv and Oshwah: Petulant Clerk has been indef checkuser blocked.[32] This tends to affirm both of your actions as being proper. Jehochman Talk 15:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SN

This needs to be pulled immediately per all^^^. What also needs to be addressed is the edit-warring by a number of experienced editors to restore this outrageous content. For example, here Megalibrarygirl claims it is merely reporting, and more, she recognises that the material is sufficiently contentious that it may be worthy of the Arbco's intervention—yet proceeds to restore it anyway. And Oshwah, it turns out, just assumed because it was a signpost article that it would be up to snuff. Maybe I shouldn't have done that. Didn't even read the article before using the block tool? Bizarre, to say the least.

Smallbones should probably be blocked for his egregious BLPvios—particularly as, since the material had been removed before going live, he was aware that it was contentious. All others at least reprimanded. In what universe is speculating on another editor being a sexual harasser satisfactory Wiki-behaviour? It is NOT the Signpost's job to be contentious unless it markets itself as a yellow-sheet tabloid; and if it does, of course, it can do so on another site and another server. Personally, since this is the latest in a litany of massive editorial misjudgements from the SP team, it's probably time to review its value to the community: if every time it is released it generates controversy, then it is absolutely WP:NOTHERE. And if the parties involved in publication can't see that the article and commentary constitute as much harassment as anything they're speculating over, then CIR applies. ——SerialNumber54129 12:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cryptic (Signpost)

This is a cynical, odious, and most of all obvious weaponization of anti-harassment protections in order to score petty revenge points against Fram. Several of the users edit warring to restore this anonymous-in-name-only source knew or should have known that - the "Revision deleted only" checkbox is right there on Special:Contributions/Fram, and the edit in question on the very first page. Arbcom must accept this case; these users should no longer be trusted with access to that checkbox.

Were I Fram, I'd be litigating. —Cryptic 13:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones: You're way, way over wordcount. One of the skills a journalist must learn is conciseness. Here's an example, for the two hilit bullet points in your statement: "Do not allow Fram to speak in their defense." —Cryptic 13:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OR: There is no misremembering involved here. The incident was in a recent arbitration case to which JamieDoe was a party, and it's still sitting there visible for all to see. —Cryptic 13:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by starship

(1) @Bilorv:, I disagree that Jehochman has unilaterally acted without consensus. 12 editors posted here before Jehochman saying that such claims are not acceptable. There have been references to aspersions, WP:BLP, and WP:BLPTALK. Over at WP:ANI, there were also 4 other editors (myself, Deacon, Bori, rnddude) who objected to such claims, and did not post here yet. The opposers are definitely fewer in number, and I'm not too sure what their policy-based arguments are, apart from one argument that the Wikipedia would consider to the Signpost to be WP:RS. starship.paint (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(removed Paragraph 2 originally addressed to Bilorv as redundant with Oshwah's statement)

(3) @Bilorv: - I have argued that Jehochman had consensus when you earlier argued that he hadn't. To now change the argument towards speedy deletion criteria seems like shifting the goalposts. Yes, there are opposers, but fewer and with less policy arguments. starship.paint (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(4) @Megalibrarygirl: Fram had opportunity to dispute the content and declined as written here. This cannot be a BLP violation since the person in question did not dispute - Fram's meta sandbox shows that he did dispute before press time. The revision history of the sandbox is here [33]. It shows Fram clearly disputing on 29 June 2019 between 15:38 and 15:53. He wrote in his sandbox because this longer reply is just to get some more space and to reply to the latest entries. Signpost was published on 15:28, 30 June 2019‎. [34]. starship.paint (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(5) @Smallbones: stop Fram from currently trying to out an editor on another website - if this website is meta.wiki ... that's actually the recommended place for Fram to post. Also, if what Fram did on their meta sandbox is outing, so did you, Smallbones. In your article you provided 4 distinguishing characteristics [35] of your source which may help identify them. starship.paint (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I hope that's all the comments I'll be making on this case. I'm out. Feel free to use any of the evidence above, because I hope I won't be participating further. starship.paint (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beetstra {Signpost}

Just when I thought that Wikipedia could not become any darker. This is until now the most obvious on-wiki case of harassment I have seen. Please accept this case. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Megalibrarygirl

I do not think the Committee should accept the case. There is freedom of press in freedom of speech. I see freedom of speech praised when someone is "gruff" or "difficult" on Wikipedia. However, when a news article is written that deals with the elephant in the room, everyone is passionate to delete. There is a failure at Arbcom and there was a failure in how WMF rolled out the ban. The article shows what a lot of people don't like to hear: that there was most likely a very good reason to sanction Fram. So what are we going to do about this? We can't even decide to protect marginalized groups of people at the Administrator's board [s]. Things that are absolutely beyond the pale are tolerated as jokes.

I am in agreement with Bilorv. Fram had opportunity to dispute the content and declined as written here. This cannot be a BLP violation since the person in question did not dispute. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD on that page, we see Fram basically outing the person who made the accusations. I read the situation as very complicated, but I don't see Fram specifically calling for the entire piece to be removed. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WaltCip

Stating that the article is not harassment nor a BLP violation because it contains information indicating there was "a very good reason" to sanction Fram is begging the question. In the meantime, the article needs to be removed as contentious. The edit-warring does not require an ArbCom case to sort out. --WaltCip (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: - Welcome to callout culture.--WaltCip (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deacon Vorbis

WP:BLP is clear, and it was clearly violated here. If ANI doesn't want to deal with it, then ArbCom is what's left. Megalibrarygirl's claim that it's not a BLP violation if you don't dispute it is without merit and just bizarre. I recommend that she and Tony1 also be named parties to this case for restoring the material. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capeo

This wildly irresponsible article needs to be taken down now. People also need to stop with the "freedom of speech/press" crap. Neither apply on WP and it's rather shocking to see some people claiming some "journalistic" exemption that should clearly know better. Not to mention, no competent journalist would use an "anonymous" quote that contains details that clearly identify the person being quoted. The article is irresponsible on multiple levels. Capeo (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s rather concerning how many experienced editors here, particularly some admins, who seem to have fairly warped ideas about basic stuff like BLP and outing. BLP applies everywhere. There’s no question about that, as the last Signpost related ArbCom case affirmed. There is no free speech on WP to violate BLP and the Signpost isn’t journalism. No journalist would threaten the subject of an article with a ban for deducing the very obvious “anonymous” source. No journalist would even use a quote from a source that’s supposed by anonymous when it quite clearly identifies the source. No journalist would go to press without the article subject’s response to anonymous claims when said response was offered. If no response was available, no journalist would print such anonymous accusations without investigating the accusations first.
In this case the actual events were easily discernible, the anonymous accusations are an obvious distortion of the facts, and that leaves an actual journalist with two options: 1) convince the anonymous source to give up anonymity, because the journalist’s own research doesn’t coincide with the available facts, and they are required to publish what they’ve learned about the accusation through their own research if the original accusation is going to be published. 2) not publish the accusations at all if the source doesn’t agree to this.
Smallbones was obviously aware of the actual facts around the “anonymous” sources claims, as was the “anonymous” source themselves, yet they both went forward anyway. Oh, and both let stand a ridiculously defamatory implication that the article’s subject is a serial harasser of woman editors. They both need to be heavily sanctioned. No matter how you feel about the FRAMBAN stuff (I personally think Fram should’ve been desysopped a long time ago) this was a despicable hit job Capeo (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gamaliel:, yeah, BLP doesn’t apply when discussing an admin’s (or anyone’s) behavior WHEN THEY CAN ACTUALLY REPLY. A Signpost article making very serious claims, while denying the accused’s replies, is a blatant BLP violation. It’s not even arguable. Particularly because the accused has the capacity to respond and it was ignored. Your claims of Fram’s “attacks” on meta are disingenuous at best. Responding to accusations with counter arguments isn’t attacking. If that’s the case then no evidence based system of guilt could possibly exist. As I already said, I’m no fan of Fram, but this is a perfect example of railroad untruths to get a desired result. It’s (or should be) the exact opposite of what is trying to be achieved. Capeo (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz:, assuming the email exchanges that Fram posted at his meta TP are genuine, there wasn’t the “sign off” being suggested by Smallbones. Not to mention, the supposedly “anonymous” accusation is part of ridiculously public ArbCom case where the “anonymous” accuser didn’t get their way. It’s a hit piece. Both the reporter, who denied right of reply from the accused, and the accuser, who made defamatory insinuations regarding sexual harassment, knew what they were doing. It doesn’t matter if Fram was a good or bad admin (I already said I think he should’ve been desysopped long ago), these levels of unevidenced BLP violations would never stand in an article, let alone against another editor. Capeo (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coffee Crumbs

This was a blatant violation of WP:BLPTALK and it's disturbing that a group of people are working to restore it. In the context of Wikipedia, there's no more marginalized group of people than people who aren't allowed to directly participate in their defense. Megalibrarygirl and Tony1 ought to be added as included parties, especially the former given the statements given here. It is extremely troubling that an editor or an admin would make the argument that enforcement of BLP policy requires an affirmative action to be made by the victim in order for those references to be removed and to hold that position is fundamentally inconsistent with holding permissions. Weasel words don't rescue it either; if I add to Peter Politician's talk page is guilty of crimes without any reliable sourcing, I'd be blocked and adding "probably" or insisting "well, Pete Politician hasn't specifically objected" would not be a saving construction. And as a side note, even if there would typically be a freedom of the press issue -- there isn't -- freedom of the press in this context is held by the publisher, not by agents of the publisher.

This is a more significant violation than even in the Gamaliel case. In that case, at least Gamaliel was warring to restore a lame joke, not to restore a serious direct allegation. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also find the "journalistic independence!" point to be without merit. If the Signpost had an anonymous source at T&S that identified the complainant and that was printed, I would wager approximately zero people would be waving that identical banner. In fact, I'd wager the same people would (rightly) argue that Jehochman's removal wasn't far enough and that it should be revdel-ed and the writer sanctioned. Let's sent this strawman to the wastebin. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by King of Hearts

At first it appeared that Fram consented for the article to be published, or at least did not object to it. But on meta:User talk:Fram he rejects this characterization as false. Negative allegations about any editor must be backed by evidence, or it will be removed. I hope ArbCom has the opportunity to examine the private evidence (e.g. emails) to make a proper determination as to the facts. At the moment I don't know who's right or wrong, but anyone who significantly misrepresents their interaction with another editor in a way that casts aspersions on that person must be severely reprimanded. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I think Arbcom would have accepted a case on Fram under normal circumstances. But here 1) they are missing some potentially important pieces of evidence, which WMF has refused to provide; and 2) as long as the WMF's one-year ban on Fram stands, there isn't much wiggle room for Arbcom to act if sanctions against Fram are warranted. So I see no point in Arbcom accepting a Fram case until and unless WMF agrees to delegate it to them. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pawnkingthree (Signpost)

This attack page should never have been published and Jehochman was quite right to speedily delete it. Because of the serious BLP issues involved here, Arbcom should accept the case.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr rnddude

Please, accept this case. There are multiple conflicting issues here to be sorted out and can only be handled via ArbCom (or T&S if you really want). The harassment and sexual harassment claims should have been forwarded to ArbCom (or since it's claimed that ArbCom abrogated on their responsibility, T&S) to begin with. I don't personally believe that ArbCom would be handed compelling evidence of such behaviour and "just [shrug] and ignore it" as is claimed, and so believe it should be handled by you (not T&S). The secondary matter, should it turn out that these claims are false, exaggerated, misleading, etc, is what to do about such matter being published in the Signpost, and the conduct of those involved. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PamD

I was shocked to read the article, especially when I read Fram's comments on it at their Meta page which tell a different version of events. I commend Jehochman for removing the article.

@Megalibrarygirl: You say Fram had opportunity to dispute the content and declined as written here: that would be a strong argument were it not for Fram's alternative version of events written here. Given the seriousness of claim and counterclaim here, it's right that the article has been deleted pending ArbCom's decision. PamD 15:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Oshwah

Because I took some actions that involved the page at the center of this case request, and the fact that they've been mentioned and discussed here - I felt that I should add a statement for the record in order to help clarify some confusion and explain my thoughts regarding them. I initially ran into Petulant Clerk when his/her first edit was published that replaced the entire signpost page with {{Personal attack removed}}. I was not aware at the time that the signpost page was under scrutiny and that many users felt that unsubstantiated accusations and statements were present and to the level of being very serious violations of policy. I rolled back the changes and warned Petulant Clerk for the disruptive edit.

Petulant Clerk responded to the note I left expressing that he/she felt that the entire page was libellous and asked me questions regarding that policy. I just assumed (apparently incorrectly) in general that signpost articles and pages were peer-reviewed by other editors and members of the project before they were published, and (apparently incorrectly) thought that there was no way that such a page would contain exactly what Petulant Clerk was describing it as in his/her response to me, and hence the response he/she gave was silly. I took another look at the page history and Petulant Clerk's contributions a few minutes later, and saw that the edits by Petulant Clerk to the article were continuing, and that they've been reverted by three different editors. I believed that the user legitimately felt that the entire page was libellous given his/her response to me, but was being disruptive by repeatedly replacing the entire article's text with that template instead of discussing the concerns he/she had. I felt then that administrative action was necessary in order to put a stop to it, and I applied a 36 hour block to Petulant Clerk for disruptive editing, and left it at that.

It wasn't until SchroCat added a reply to me on Petulant Clerk's user talk page, and added his statement agreeing with Petulant Clerk that the entire signpost page was "disgustingly libellous" that I began to think that there might actually be legitimate concerns behind these thoughts and actions. I responded to SchroCat by stating that my actions were in no way, shape, or form attempting to make or impose a judgement call regarding the page's content and whether or not it was appropriate or a violation of policy, or hinder any kind of discussion regarding the pages content. I was simply taking action here in order to address the repeated back-and-forth disruption that was being made unilaterally to replace the entire page with a template, instead of discussing the concerns with other editors and agreeing on an appropriate action.

Jehochman's deletion of the signpost page was absolutely not an action that overrode anything that I did, and was completely appropriate given the concerns expressed. I was not making a judgement call or ruling that the article's content was acceptable with the revert that I made; I was simply reverting the disruptive edit. Even if Jehochman's deletion of the article did go against a ruling or judgement I made, this would not be wheel warring at all... and I would assume that Jehochman found a compelling reason to take that action, and I would not have objected to it at all. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dank (Signpost)

SilkTork: Brilliant. And brave. - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ritchie333

I read the Signpost article yesterday before it was published, and thought "Yes, this correlates with the off-wiki complaints and evidence I have received against Fram". I am just utterly shocked at how several of my closest Wikipedia colleagues seem to be attacking each other - for what reason? This whole thing reminds me of people getting all hot and bothered about the Trump Baby balloon saying "respect the President of the United States". Same thing! The report has been deleted, so I suggest resolving this by motion that it stays so and no admin should restore it. As I have said elsewhere, if Arbcom want an in camera case for Fram, I will supply my offline evidence for a ban if asked and if it is deemed appropriate. I am certainly dead against airing dirty laundry in public. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: Of course not, I'm comparing the moral outrage sparked by the two events. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Ernie: I was aware of the developing Signpost article as it appeared in the Newsroom, but declined to comment as I don't personally think Fram's conduct has risen to the level of sanctions. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm certainly open to defending or agreeing with him when the circumstances arise. (Example) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: The subtle but important difference was I read the piece and saw something like "Anonymous said he quit Wikipedia because he claimed Fram liked stomping on kittens. We asked Fram, who refuted this and said he has never stomped on kittens." I wouldn't read that and come away thinking "Yes, Fram stomps on kittens"; all I have is two sides of a story. Harassment and defamation would have intended to make me feel less of Fram as a person; this doesn't. I accept that other people have a different view, but the hysteria and threats to sanction Smallbones are just over the top. I don't think he was trying to settle a score with anyone, and if he was, it's gone right over my head. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mkdw

In February 2019, I raised this very issue at the Village Pump asking whether The Signpost could publish potentially defamatory POVs. Most of the discussion focused on whether the January issue constituted defamation or not as opposed to the actual questions. They were:

  • If an op-ed or editorial contains defamatory views, may the piece be published in The Signpost and therefore on Wikipedia?

  • Are there limitations on the degree of severity such as racist views?

  • Should the community be included in setting the content guidelines for The Signpost and respectively its enforcement?

Some may be surprised to know that The Signpost has their own content policies as guidelines. The VP discussion did not go anywhere; most of the discussion was spent calling me confused, that I was causing bureaucratic disruptions, and that I was even "abusing the term 'defamation'" by a former Arbitration Committee member. Others stated they were perfectly willing to let The Signpost set their own policies and guidelines on content separate from that of the rest of Wikipedia. A lot of emphasis was placed on trying to protect the publication from extinction. Despite my best efforts of trying to raise these concerns about future issues, I am severely disappointed to see us here today.

I urge the committee to accept this case and resolve it by motion, especially amid recent events surrounding the question on whether we, as a community, have been adequately addressing harassment and abuse. Mkdw talk 16:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FeydHuxtable

Agree with Ritchie333 - would be good if this is accepted, but handled with a swift motion to endorse the deletion, but with no sanctions or censure for the Signpost or others involved, per extenuating circumstances.

If you believe Fram's meta statement (which I do, IME Fram is always truthful) then clearly the article was in violation of policy. Sounds like Smallbones received a huge volume of emails making the pro WMF case, and seeing so much one sided evidence, he might have lost his neutrality. (Which IMO sometimes happens even to the best journalists on FT.) There's also the pressure that was being put on the Signpost with various editors saying how important it was for it to publish on time, some seeming to think that would have a much needed soothing effect on the distress many of us feel after Framgate.

I see some are saying MegaLibaryGirl & Tony should be added to the case. That would be ridiculous in my view – in the cold light of day it's clear that it was the right call to delete the article, but at the time of the undeletions the info we have now would not have been widely known. Folk would have reasonably believed Fram was given several chances to respond. I applaud MegaLibaryGirl for having the courage to stick up for those she believes might be silenced victims, even if in hindsight it turns out that policy favoured the other side.

Cant believe the way Framgate's got good admins & veteran editors to start attacking each other left right and centre. Trolls and others wanting our community to go the way of thousands of now failed platforms must be rolling on the floor with glee. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David Eppstein

In my mind, the relevant questions here are: Can The Signpost operate like a traditional newspaper, with content under the control of an editor, confidential sources, and an internal process for vetting the accuracy of those sources, or should it be forced to operate under the rules for other Wikipedia content, with anyone allowed to change its content and with strict rules that all likely-to-be-disputed content must be verifiable through sources published elsewhere? In this instance, did it have and follow an internal process for vetting the accuracy of its confidential sources? If it is required to only report material that has already been published elsewhere, how can it survive and continue to produce useful reporting on happenings at Wikipedia? And, if the accusations are true that ArbCom failed to handle credible accusations of sexual harassment that were brought to it, what should be done to change ArbCom processes to prevent that failure in future?

Questions I'm not interested in include: If Fram did harass another editor, how should he be sanctioned? (Already addressed by the one-year WMF ban.) What is the identity of the allegedly-harassed editor? (None of my business.) And in the dispute over whether The Signpost can be allowed to make controversial claims based on confidential sources, were the actions of various admins wheel-warring? (Not interesting and not worth taking to ArbCom.)

@AndyTheGrump: When you say "journalists have to be outsiders" are you trying to imply that, for instance, small-town newspaper journalists have a tradition of living in a different town than the one they report on, and of avoiding participation in town activities? Because I've never heard of such a thing, and the journalistic codes of ethics that I've scanned do not have any such rule. I would like to see evidence that this is a widely accepted standard before applying it to our own journalists. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Montanabw (Signpost)

ArbCom should Decline and the article should be restored. David Eppstein provided an excellent rationale and I concur with much of what he said. As someone who responded to a request for information for the article and one of the few people willing to put my name to my quotes, I also agree that The Signpost is journalism. It is not a BLP violation to use anonymous sources (just ask the Washington Post during Watergate), it is balanced journalism to present multiple viewpoints, and the editor should, in fact, be commended for writing a balanced article. This whole request is a waste of bandwidth. Montanabw(talk) 18:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion (signpost)

ArbCom needs to accept this, since it raises a lot of serious questions about our handling of harassment, the use of anonymous sources in on-wiki communication, the editorial independence of the Signpost and how it intersects with our policies on WP:CIVIL and WP:BLP, and so on. That said, I urge you to avoid any sanctions or drastic measures given the extenuating circumstances; and I feel that the larger question of Signpost's purpose and editorial independence may need to be settled outside of ArbCom. There have been several fraught cases related to it in the past, and the larger question of "can the Signpost rely on anonymous sources for negative material about a living person?" strikes me as something that ought to be settled by the community vis-a-vis deciding what we want the Signpost to be, rather than by ArbCom. While WP:BLP applies everywhere, it makes at least notional sense that it ought to apply differently to the Signpost if we intend for it to perform original journalism (where this sort of use of anonymous sources is not uncommon), and I don't feel that essentially putting that outside of the Signpost's scope ought to be a question decided by ArbCom alone. --Aquillion (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @SchroCat:: That is obviously the question at issue, and (since it is an existential question for the Signpost, whose practice of performing original research has longstanding community support) it is outside the scope of what ArbCom ought to decide. Your assertion that WP:BLPTALK would bind the Signpost to avoidance of original research is absurd and bears no relation to how the Signpost has ever operated, nor to any consensus that has ever been reached in discussions over it or in relation to the applicability of WP:BLP to that area. Clearly, though, asking ArbCom to rule entirely on its own that the Signpost is forbidden from performing original research (a ruling that would functionally shut the Signpost down) goes far beyond a question they can reasonably address - that is a question for the community as a whole. --Aquillion (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SchroCat:: The applicability of and interpretation of our policies is a matter of consensus; here is the only existing discussion of how WP:BLP applies to the Signpost. Again, if you disagree, start a larger discussion; leaping straight to demanding that ArbCom (in effect) shut the signpost down by barring it from performing its intended purpose (especially as a result of an ill-considered case fed by high tempers over recent events) is a bridge too far and goes way beyond what ArbCom could reasonably rule on at this point given the limited prior discussions. This ArbCom case is not the time or the place to try and decisively settle the long-unanswered question of the Signpost's purpose and how it relates to BLP. --Aquillion (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kusma (signpost)

In a way, this is almost like the original Fram ban case you have never heard -- but instead of finding out whether Fram harrassed people, you may need to find out whether saying "Fram harrassed people" is a true statement or a nasty personal attack... but I guess you can find a somewhat different scope for the case, and I very much hope that we can then all get a bit more agreement about what is and isn't harassment out of this case, and following that we can all try harder to stay on the right side of the line to make this a more pleasant place to be. But if you do end up hearing the original Fram ban case, you should consider merging this. —Kusma (t·c) 19:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pine

I suggest that we acknowledge how much good The Signpost has done and think about how to provide a certain amount of protection for unpopular content while also limiting potential harms from accidental or intentional falsehoods in BLPs.

I was not involved in writing the article in question.

I think that Smallbones has given ample evidence of his good faith, including his repeated statements about his willingness to be responsible for what happens when things go wrong at The Signpost. I hope that Fram's statement that disagreed with Smallbones' characterization is a result of a good faith misunderstanding.

The WP:No original research policy appears to apply specifically to Article space: "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed.". Apparently NOR does not apply to project space, where The Signpost lives. This allows The Signpost to conduct original research such as interviews.

What seems to be controversial is The Signpost publishing original research that is both contentious and is regarding living persons. Quoting the WP:BLP policy: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy... This policy applies... in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material."

I think that the particular Signpost article in question should remain deleted pending a discussion between Smallbones and Fram regarding what material Fram does not protest (or, to borrow language from the BLP policy, which material is not "contentious").

In parallel or in addition to a discussion between Fram and Smallbones regarding what material Fram does not object to including, I think that the community could have a policy discussion regarding whether there should be a narrow exception from BLP restrictions for certain types of Signpost content, keeping in mind that The Signpost is a newspaper. This discussion can happen without Arbcom's involvement. The outcome would not significantly affect most Signpost content, but investigative reporting could be adversely impacted in situations where secondary sources are not available and the subject of the report is a living person such as a Wikipedian or WMF board member.

Given what I currently know, I encourage the parties to assume good faith of each other, and for Arbcom to assume good faith by the parties. I understand why people were upset. I think that at least some of the issues in this case can resolved diplomatically through private discussion and/or through a community discussion about the scope of BLP policy.

I encourage Arbcom to decline this case or to have a narrowly focused case to satisfy itself that various people were acting reasonably given the information that they had at the time, the current state of Wikipedia policy, and the nature of the The Signpost.

--Pine (✉) 19:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy (Signpost)

Do the people who have repeatedly restored anonymous and unverified accusations against Fram even consider that they may be harassing Fram? Have they considered, as feelings are what matters here now, that Fram may justifiably feel harassed at having his responding to an anonymous and disputed accusation met with threats of a global ban? Do the people claiming there is some right to free speech or free press here see any sort of irony in responding to Fram speaking with a threat of a global ban? Have the people claiming that Fram outed anybody even read WP:OUTING?

Finally, I feel silly making what I thought was an obvious point, but if you would like to write something that need not obey Wikipedia's policies, most obviously WP:BLP and WP:NPA, then you can do it on literally any other website. wikipediasignpost.org is available if you're interested. But pages on Wikipedia are required to follow Wikipedia's policies, and you dont get to carve out a special exemption to that for your pet project. nableezy - 19:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Land

It would be a real shame if the only thing Arbcom does in this whole affair is to sanction people who have tried to work out whether Fram was actually harrassing anyone. That would, in the circumstances, be pretty much the ultimate irony. The Land (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

I think that the case should not be accepted and if it is, be handled by motion. Here is the problem here, in fighting the good fight with the holy sword of wiki righteosness we risk creating a martyr out of people. The stuff to Fram continues to frame a good case of speculation and at the same time fighting the people that are crusading and sanctioning them only throws fuel to a different side of the same fire. Someone has to stop the madness that USER:WMFOffice created, wonder if the "Fuck Arbcom" ban was worth this level of disruption? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wugapodes

This case should be accepted with a specific and narrow focus on the editorial independence of The Signpost. Mkdw points out that this is a recurring question that ought be addressed. David Eppstein correctly notes the scope of questions to be asked. BLP policy is motivated by legal considerations of libel, and Montanabw rightly points out that good faith use of anonymous sources by newspapers to report news is not libelous. An important question in this regard is one that David asks: "In this instance, did [The Signpost] have and follow an internal process for vetting the accuracy of its confidential sources?" Questions of whether the article constitutes harassment should be informed by the question of editorial independence; if The Signpost is a newspaper with adequate journalistic ethics and procedures, it is very chilling to call investigative journalism on a newsworthy topic harassment. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 20:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Abecedare

In addition to the disregard for WP:BLP and WP:NPA, I am also concerned with Smallbones' then (mis)relying on another wikipedia policy, WP:OUTING, in order to prevent Fram from responding to the accusations. I quote, You do realize that you are apparently outing the admin you mention, don't you? You shouldn't be playing hardball with me like that. I'm pretty sure you could get permanently globally banned for that now.

Even looked at purely as a question of journalism ethics: journalist should do their best to not reveal the identity of an anonymous sources themselves but they have absolutely no remit to prevent others from guessing or disclosing a source's identity, especially through threats (since Watergate has been mentioned, look at the numerous attempts by reputable authors and journalists to unmask Deep Throat).

Fwiw, I don't believe discussing the on-wikipedia identity of the person who charged Fram with sexual harassment would constitute Outing. Smallbones granting a wikipedia editor anonymity to speak to Signpost does not mean that no other editor on wikipedia can ever again speak about that editor or related incidents! That said, I am not going to do so (and urge others to not do so, here, either) because: it's immaterial to this case; it's a bell that can't be unrung; and, above all, it's the right and decent way to treat a fellow editor who certainly felt harassed. The merits of those accusations can be examined by arbcom independently.

(TL;DR)  Arbcom should accept this case to examine if site-wide wikipedia policies, such as WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NPA etc, apply to Signpost (NB: I am intentionally not listing WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR etc since they are not site-wide policies) and if any of those policies were violated. I am not looking for sanctions against any editors/admins, who I believe were all acting in good faith, but we do need better compliance with applicable wikipedia policies and basic journalism ethics. Abecedare (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by XOR'easter

I think David Eppstein's evaluation of the questions in play here is exactly right. And I concur with Wugapodes that if The Signpost is a newspaper with adequate journalistic ethics and procedures, it is very chilling to call investigative journalism on a newsworthy topic harassment. I note that the Buzzfeed article about this incident has been criticized at WP:FRAM for some factual errors, which rather underlines the importance of having some entity that can undertake knowledgeable journalism about Wikipedia.

Statement by Javert2113 (Signpost case)

Recent events and questions regarding the independence of the Arbitration Committee, its remit, and its ability to function absent interference by outside parties compel, in my opinion, the Committee to accept this case; doubly so as a case of possible harassment. Although reasonable editors may properly debate and disagree about the editorial independence of The Signpost, I know we all agree on the principles espoused by the community at WP:BLP. That is what controls this discussion, after all's said and done.

WP:BLP is very clear: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." (Emphasis original.) Moreover, "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia [...]" (emphasis mine), and, as such, it must take priority over any and all internal standards The Signpost may have. (WP:BLPTALK is tangential: while The Signpost is published in non-article space, that is not the crux of the question here; there is a larger, overarching question to be answered.) At least, that is the way I see it.

Setting my beliefs aside, I strongly urge the Committee to accept this case, on the sole question of the applicability of WP:BLP to articles, columns, and other features published in The Signpost.

One last thing: I heartily thank Jehochman for removing the offending page. Thank you. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newyorkbrad

I've adopted the uniform heading of "statement by" but this is actually more of a question. Is the dispute about the entire "Signpost" article or large portions of it, or just about one or two sentences? If the latter, is there any way the parties could agree just to delete the disputed portion? I realize that such a resolution would not address the questions of principle involved, but it might avoid a weeks-long proceeding when we have plenty of other controversies around already, to say nothing of the "Streisand effect" aspects of having an arbitration case about whether a specific sentence or paragraph constitutes a BLP violation or not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Agent00x

I think that, as part of arbitrators accepting this case, someone needs to state what is being accepted, to avoid confusion, and to limit scope to scritcly the issue(s) at hand. Is the case to look at whether or not the article was a BLPTALK violation? Is it to look at what kind of freedoms the signpost has to post that kind of material? Is it to look at the actions of the individuals who deleted and restored the content? Is it to look at the actions of the individuals since doing that? Is it a combination of all the above, or is it all the above?

The statements supplied so far have been mixing variations of all of these, and I think it could lead to an evidence page that may lose focus of what is actually the case is really about (if we end up with a full case and not motions). I assume we do not want to drift into the whole Fram territory, as surely the scope for that is the other arbitration case that is currently under submission?

If it's blatently obvious, feel free to ignore my statement, I just want to avoid a case going wildly off track, e.g. discussing the Fram case, and having evidence ignored because it is not under scope. Agent00x (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish (Signpost)

I'm thinking about things where ArbCom might want to be extra-careful, as in "first, do no harm". There is so much in this situation that, on the one hand, rests on long-understood norms such as don't cast aspersions without explicit evidence, but on the other hand, represents stuff where everyone on-wiki is dealing with unprecedented strange new situations. So I would hate to see Smallbones or anyone else sanctioned for anything. (When I read the article yesterday, I thought it was odd to have those unattributed statements, but it did not strike me at the time that there would be any policy issues, and I even posted a "thank you" message to Smallbones and the other Signpost editors. Maybe I'm just slow.) And there is a certain irony, in that T&S appear to have acted against Fram based on just the kind of material that was in the article. And, on the other hand, there are issues about finding fault with users saying that they felt harassed, while also wishing to be anonymous. This is a messy situation, and it would obviously be bad to aggravate tensions any more than they are already. What I think a case should be about is to define the boundaries of what is and is not permitted by existing policy. That would be useful. Meting out punishments would not. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: although I'm not a fan of back-and-forth in RfAr, I'll reply that although it might not be difficult, I just don't think it would be a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm missing something, but I increasingly feel concerned that there may have been an overreaction to the Signpost article, perhaps related to all of the other stress in the community lately. It feels very strange to have gone from "Fram is harassing people" to "people are harassing Fram". I do not see any malice in the way the Signpost article was written. Insofar as there are BLP concerns, if there had been something like that in mainspace (a passage with inadequately sourced criticisms added to a page), it would have been reverted but it would probably not have gotten to RfAr. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pythoncoder

I was not involved with the publication of this article; however, as a longtime Signpost contributor, I feel I should tell my side of the story. I read the article once before its deletion, and that was after publication. I didn't remember much about its contents. From the quotes provided by Fram, however, it appears to constitute harassment and/or defamation. The deleting admin made the right decision in deleting this. Please accept. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gamaliel

As Fram himself pointed out several years ago in an ArbCom case:

you are aware that BLP has an exception for discussions of admin conduct, right?

And there's no question that this is a story about an administrator behaving badly.

Leaving aside questions of the role of journalism in the community, which it clearly does not have the maturity to properly address, you do realize the utter futility of endorsing the deletion of something anyone can read on the Internet Archive? And you do realize the utter foolishness of demanding this story be deleted when it has dominated community discussion for almost a month? In that discussion, editors openly speculated about the alleged misdeeds and identities of accusers and WMF staffers, and you did nothing. The admin who deleted the Signpost article was one of the most active participants in that discussion, making this an obvious WP:INVOLVED violation, and you do nothing. Fram himself is openly attacking his accusers on Meta, with editors linking to it here on this very page, and you do nothing. But when the victims use the Signpost to speak out, ArbCom is once again asked to sanction and silence the victims. I hope that it will finally break with its long tradition of doing so. Gamaliel (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 28bytes

@Gamaliel: Is it your intention to participate in this case request as an uninvolved observer? 28bytes (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liz

According to the article, Fram was repeatedly spoken with and had signed off on the Signpost piece and was okay with it being published. Is this day-after remorse or is this statement included in the piece incorrect? If Smallbones did have the okay from Fram to publish the article, how are third parties asserting BLP violations? Is it because they were offended by the charges?

I think that ArbCom should be given permission to see the original email exchange between Smallbones and Fram. If what the article stated is accurate, I can't see how Smallbones can be faulted for accepting Fram's permission as it was given.

It should also be mentioned that many editors shared on the article talk page their own experiences, both positive and negative, with Fram over the years. These are not anonymous charges and I think ArbCom should consider these comments as well, some of which supported the content of Smallbones' article. Liz Read! Talk! 00:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would find it highly ironic, ArbCom, if you accept this case as one concerning harassment against Fram and ignore any consideration of charges of harassment BY Fram. That would be highly hypocritical. Liz Read! Talk! 00:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kudpung

Whatever the outcome, this is going to force major changes in The Signpost's future content and the way it is managed, if indeed anyone is left who wants to continue producing and publishing it. From a readership point of view, due to its many infrequencies of publication there is also the question whether the community still really wants the newspaper - remember that I brought it back to life just over a year ago after it had been abandoned by its then E-in-C and almost given up as a loss by its so called editorial board.

As Editor-in-Chief I beefed up its content and wrote some mildly thought provoking columns and I suffered some serious personal attacks and harassment both online and offline and even from members of this very committee (which I chose not to pursue, but which heavily dispirited me from wanting to contribute to Wikipedia). During my tenure however, there were no controversies such as this article for which I was wrongly accused, attacked, and further harrased as having been being responsible for it, whereas in actual fact I had nothing to do with it whatsoever - the conjecture was creatd by two users who comment frequently around the site and who are not known for calm and polite demeanour.

Unlike many of the readers' comments, which like RfA is the only other place on en.Wiki where users are allowed to be as nasty as they like with impunity, a thought should go out to those who really are in control of the publication and who create and manage each month's issue in good faith. I've been in that chair, and it's probably one of the most dangerous jobs on-Wiki, which is why I once suggested that The Signpost find its own server.

I'll not characterise here on whether the article was a BLP issue or whether Jehochman's unilateral deletion of the page was apt or wheel warring or if he is INNVOLVED or whatever, hence David Eppstein and Pine have summed up best what I otherwise feel, and as it already looks as if the Committee will take the case, I urge them to do so but for each member to be introspective and to proceed with utmost caution, and not necessarily propose or vote for sanctions just because they can. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nil Einne

IMO the signpost article went too far. Also if the signpost moves to its own servers this would help in some ways although it would also mean that linking to it from here could be problematic. If this does happen, the signpost should be more clearly branded as a newspaper by some members of the community since as mentioned with the last controversy a problem is it's currently presented as the community newspaper.

Whether via arbcom or the community, we need to have more clarity surrounding how BLP intersects with our community processes and interacts. BLP applies everyone on wikipedia we all should know that. But as with a lot of things, the devil is in the details and I'm not sure if "some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community" is clear enough. While a strong supporter of BLP, I've always considered that while BLP technically applies, in cases of discussions of contributors in relation to their on wikipedia behaviour/actions, we should generally rely on our other policies and guidelines.

From a BLP standpoint, the vast majority of discussions would nominally violate the policy if we strictly applied it. I mean even the fact that Fram was banned by the WMF did not I believe have reliable secondary sources until relatively recently, and you're not going to find BLP compliant RS that user X was socking/vandalising etc in most case.

Notably from a BLP standpoint whether something is anonymous is only of minor consideration. If an allegation about a widely notable NP is continually widely covered in RS, it likely belongs in some article even if anonymous. By comparison it is not always be appropriate to include every allegation Anderson Cooper made about a LP (and especially not if it's only self published). Yet in this case, I think it does matter precisely because the issue of RS coverage is if limited relevance.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Amakuru

I think it's right that Arbcom take this on, per their comments below. We need a new normal when it comes to accusations of harassment, and any plausible case should be looked at. However, having looked at the article, I personally think it's fair and balanced, in the same vein as the BuzzFeed article, which also touches on the opposing views on this saga. The article does not pass judgement on either Fram or his accusers, but simply presents the evidence and invites readers to draw their own conclusions. Like it or not the issue of Fram, and the rightness or wrongness of his ban, is right out in the open and front-and-centre right now, and I don't see why the Signpost, which is a newspaper, should not be able to research, highlight and discuss these issues, none of which are secret or unavailable elsewhere.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xover (Signpost)

I wasn't going to comment on this, but I think Smallbones has completely lost the plot here. Wikipedia is NOT a newspaper. The defence of the article (both by Smallbones and by the few others supporting it) all argue on the basis that the Signpost is somehow a prima facie journalistic endeavour with freedom of the press protections, the ability and expectation to publish original reporting, and protecting their sources. This is all fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's pillars, policies, and purpose. Something like the Signpost can be tolerated (and I am even in general a big supporter of it!) so long as it doesn't take that little IAR-based leeway and stretch to the point that NOTHERE and DISRUPT start becoming relevant.

And in this case (and a few lesser and previously-isolated incidents) they have strayed over that line. I happened to read the article before it was salted, and it was a hit piece of the kind we banned actual newpapers from use as RS for. The clue was in the title: "Did Fram harass other editors?". Such headlines are always tendentious and mean to imply that the answer is "Yes" without having to actually come out and say that (because then you have to substantiate it, and you have to explain why you make the accusation in the Signpost instead of reporting it here or a noticeboard). It is a good rule of thumb that such headlines can always be answered with "No", and that is the case here too: the article is "just asking questions" and reporting anonymous and off-wiki accusations. That is, it is casting aspersions.

If anyone wants to make those kinds of accusations they need to do it at AN/ANI or to ArbCom (including privately if needed). Publishing them in the Signpost first is a sanctionable violation of WP:NPA and WP:HARASS. I don't care what kind of evidence Smallbones now says they will provide ArbCom in private: it is too late for that and immaterial to this case request. Whatever evidence they want to provide belongs in a separate case request titled "Harassment by Fram", and it has no bearing on this case which is about the behaviour of those involved in the publication of the extended personal attack here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-06-30/Special report. --Xover (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kirill Lokshin

In past cases (e.g. Badlydrawnjeff, Manning naming dispute), the Arbitration Committee has ruled that administrators are empowered to summarily delete an article when they hold a good-faith belief that it significantly violates our BLP policy. It seems uncertain whether Jehochman, who carried out the summary deletion in this incident, actually held such a belief ("I previously read the article and liked it", "If even one arbitrator shows up and requests that the page be restored, I will do it"). I would ask the committee to consider this question and provide guidance as to whether administrators may summarily delete articles as significant BLP violations even if they are unable or unwilling to articulate why they personally believe that to be the case.

More generally, I urge the committee to reflect on why Fram's victims felt more comfortable speaking to the Signpost—or, for that matter, making reports to the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust & Safety team—than approaching the committee. I would suggest that attitudes like that of Jehochman above—where he proposes that one of these victims deserves to be sanctioned for having the temerity to tell others about their experiences—lies at the root of the problem. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IntoThinAir

To my mind, this controversy seems to stem from two entities that are fundamentally at odds with each other: namely, the Wikipedia community, with its well-justified dedication to removing BLP-violating content based on unreliable sources, and the Signpost's efforts to engage in investigative journalism, which fundamentally aims to generate reliable content and thus constitute a reliable source, like a major newspaper. The arguments that the deleted page was a BLP violation seem to be a criticism of the journalistic practices by the author and/or editors, morphed into a different criticism that we can't have serious allegations about users in public without reliable sources to back them up, as this violates BLP. What is apparently being missed here, at least by many users, is that in this case the Signpost is attempting to become a reliable secondary source by reporting on these allegations in a similar way as major newspapers report on harassment allegations against famous people citing anonymous sources.

At its core this dispute seems to be about whether the Signpost should be allowed to engage in investigative reporting, being sufficiently separate from the rest of WP, or whether "freedom of the press" does not apply here, meaning that they should stick to regurgitating what acceptable, non-WP sources have said. I personally think that moving the Signpost to a non-Wikipedia URL and allowing it to report on whatever it wants would go a long way toward solving this problem, and towards resolving the incompatibility between original investigative reporting and not making serious allegations not based on separate "reliable" sources. Finally, I should note how hysterical many other users have become that these accusations against Fram have been made public, and that a grossly disproportional amount of attention has been directed at whether the Signpost has "harassed" him rather than the significantly more important issue of whether he has harassed other users. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AndyTheGrump

AndyTheGrump, briefly back from retirement to comment from a perspective less influenced by current events:

At its heart, this dispute is about the purpose of the Signpost, and the degree to which it can claim to engage in 'investigative journalism' concerning disputes within the Wikipedia community. And I would suggest that there is only one answer - not at all. Investigative journalism aimed at making public abuses by those in power is one of the key means by which such power is kept in check. I would hope that all commenting here would support the rights of journalists to investigate, and to publish their investigations. There is however a proviso. One that I would have hoped would be obvious. Journalists have to be outsiders. It is simply untenable for an organisation to engage in 'investigative journalism' of itself. In the eyes of its readers, the results of such 'journalism' are immediately open to doubt. They are tainted. Not because the 'insider' journalist is necessarily answerable to those in power, and thus unduly influenced by them. Not because the journalist is necessarily be allied with some internal faction or other and thus liable to bias in that faction's favour. No. Not because these things are necessarily true, but because any reasonable person should assume that they are, barring external evidence to the contrary.

The Signpost describes itself as a "community-written and -edited online newspaper", its contributors come from within the Wikipedia community, and is published on the WMF servers. It is not an external journalistic enterprise. It is a part of the Wikipedia/WMF power structure, and as such influenced by whatever power struggles are current within the organisation it sits inside. It is simply untenable to present itself as a source of legitimate 'investigative journalism' concerning the very organisations within which it sits. No reader with any sense should assume impartial coverage from such a source. Instead the reader must treat it like any other internal source - good for finding out what the organisation wants the world to think about it, and maybe useful for finding clues about internal struggles. But as a credible source for impartial journalistic 'investigation' of the inner workings of said organisation? No. Not in the slightest. Presenting it as such is an insult to its readers.

If Smallbones or anyone else wants to engage in 'investigative journalism' concerning Wikipedia and/or the WMF they are free to do so. The more eyes on this enterprise the better. That is not at issue. They must however do it from outside, if they wish such 'investigations' to be taken seriously as impartial and untainted. And if anyone really wants to be taken seriously as an 'investigative journalist' of Wikipedia, they should probably remove themselves from the organisation and its power structure entirely. Insiders are ideal sources on the internal workings of organisations. They are not however impartial observers of such organisations. And if they claim to be, they are either fooling themselves, or trying to fool someone else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein. A locality isn't an organisation. And if you think that 'journalistic codes of ethics' are relevant to this discussion, please feel free to submit them as evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thomas.W

I've been following this page for a while with no intention of joining the discussion, but a few of the statements here are so over the top that I just have to voice my opinion. IMHO ArbCom should accept the case, with a special focus on what the people who produce The Signpost can and cannot do, and possibly also sanction those responsible for the hit piece on Fram for WP:NPA and WP:HARASS, since The Signpost isn't a newspaper and never will be one, unless they move to a site of their own, and thus can't claim to be excempt from any of the policies that apply here. Because a newspaper has a publisher, who is legally responsible for everything that is published, but The Signpost doesn't, which since it's hosted on servers owned by Wikimedia Foundation means that the foundation is legally responsible for what The Signpost publishes. Which is the main reason why WP:BLP ... applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts (my emphasis). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Carabinieri

I encourage the committee to take this on, as it appears it will. I think it would be helpful to clarify the strictures under which the Signpost operates. Administrators and other editors routinely point out actions and wrongdoing by others on this site in order to discuss how to respond. I imagine that's why WP:BLP contains the following provision concerning pages outside of the article space: Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of no personal attacks. I only read the article briefly when it came out and don't remember all of it, but it would appear that it falls within this exception. Everyone has been discussing this case on WP:FRAM and elsewhere. Most of those discussions were were not based on facts, but wild speculation, much of it about living people. Many of the editors (several of whom I greatly respect, others I don't know) who are outraged by the Signpost article took part in this attack on a since-vanished editor and a board member but are now crying BLP. WP:FRAM is filled with speculation on who Fram's accusers might be, in an attempt to out them. The Signpost put in the effort to find people claiming they were harassed by Fram and handled their identities discretely, yet somehow its authors are the ones committing a violation? At this point, I really have no clue where the line is.--Carabinieri (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Disputed Signpost article: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Please remember that the purpose of statements here is to assist the committee in deciding whether there is a dispute that is ripe for arbitration or not, not to hash out all the rights and wrongs of that dispute. Also that there is a limit of 500 words @Oswah, Capeo, Winged Blades of Godric, and Smallbones:. GoldenRing (talk) 09:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed Signpost article: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <5/0/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Accept. I think in the light of views that ArbCom do not take harassment seriously enough, I will from this point until/if a better system of dealing with harassment is found be inclined toward accepting cases in which claims of harassment are made. SilkTork (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Katietalk 15:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse per #Statement by Mkdw. Mkdw talk 16:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. I definitely think there are some questions here that need to be addressed. I would have suggested we request the article be temporarily removed while this case request (and possible case) were ongoing to mitigate potential harm, but I see Jehochman has already deleted it. I would personally prefer it not be restored until a decision is made here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the avoidance of doubt, although I am quoted in the article, I do not think it is necessary for me to recuse. I was asked via email if I had been harassed by Fram, and I answered, but that was the limit of my involvement with this piece. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. I was also going to suggest deleting and create-protecting it until the case concludes. – Joe (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept It's been said ArbCom hasn't handled issues of harassment well in the past. Here's a chance to change that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with NYB. I gather the dispute is really over one particular anonymous quote in that article. Surely the practical solution is for Smallbones and his source to satisfy themselves that the quote misremembers some key details of an incident that is very recognizable to anyone who followed it at the time. It therefore isn't appropriate to keep in the article, so that portion can be blanked, the rest of the material can be restored, and we can all move on with our lives and not spend weeks increasing the prominence of the underlying incident and fragmenting our collective attention. (Smallbones, you said at ANI that you'd had a lot of emails about this, so I expect you now know the ways in which the facts are different than described? If not, what steps have you taken to find out since you were first asked about this?)
    Since the intention here wasn't originally to engage in dispute resolution or ask for sanctions, but just to post some stuff in projectspace somewhere, I'm not sure there's much interesting to say about anonymous complaints from this particular set of facts. Responsibility for the claim lies on whoever makes the edit - no different than if someone suggested a change to an article and you decided to implement it. I understand the idea behind not wanting to make someone who feels they've been harassed prove their own case, but someone has to verify things, and if you don't have the tools or the time to verify something then you shouldn't put it in public. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=904557060"