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

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Workshop Phase

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

Comments by 28bytes

Scope question

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

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

NYB's proposed decision

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

Comments by Adhemar

Remark in response to 28bytes’ scope question

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

NYB's proposed decision

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

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

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

Comments by Dank

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

Comments by Beetstra

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

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

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

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

Comments by EllenCT

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

Comments by Jehochman

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

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

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

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

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

My summary of this case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by Tryptofish

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

Comments by Rastus Vernon

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

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

Comments by Kusma

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

Comments by Peacemaker67

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

Comments by {username}

Please make copies for following commenters.