Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Motion: India-Pakistan

Original announcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WMF temporary bans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion: Discretionary Sanctions: Awareness and alerts

Original announcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any updates on the Fram case?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, maybe trying to influence what's going on is "politics", but lots of people are trying to influence what's going on, and for good reason. This whole affair has generated so much discussion precisely because a lot of people have an interest in what's going on, have opinions about how events should play out, and hope that their comments and actions will influence that future. Like PMC said below - people try to use dispute resolution processes for what you could call politics all the time. While I think people should preferably put their own (user)names to things where possible, I don't think it makes much difference if the members of WM-Wherever submit evidence individually or as a group; if it's obviously biased or inaccurate or otherwise crappy evidence, then it won't have much influence other than taking up some space on a mail server somewhere. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

If a community member, or indeed a chapter, were to involve themselves by publicly supplying evidence then people are free to look at that evidence and endorse or challenge it. If a grant funded organisation issues a press release supporting the organisation that funds them I think we all know the value of such actions. ϢereSpielChequers 08:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Fram case opened

Original announcement

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Brief background material is fine, but it's like any other "pattern of behavior" case - there's a balance between prioritizing recent events and looking back far enough to see any recurring patterns. Two to three years is usually a good timeframe to see both angles. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, we have not solicited any specific persons on-wiki or off to provide evidence, and there are no plans to. Frankly, I don't expect that we will receive any evidence from vanished/renamed users. Leaving the project by way of a hard vanish is a pretty serious step, and I doubt anyone who felt that way would be hanging around waiting for us to open a case so they could submit evidence. I could be wrong; if I am, I expect we'll weigh such a submission based on the quality of the evidence, but it's not something we've already made a decision on. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you (the reason I asked in the first place was noticing this and wondering what was going on there - courtesy ping to KrakatoaKatie). Couple more questions: will you be accepting evidence submissions from anyone who may have a conflict of interest (and will you be proactively on the lookout for any potential COI given that the community will be less able to scrutinise such matters)? Will you accept evidence submissions from members of the WMF Board or WMF employees? Will you accept evidence submissions from groups (e.g. Wikimedia chapters who have expressed concern, such as WM-DC mentioned in the section above) or will you only accept evidence from individuals? Of course, T&S should also have asked themselves such questions, but who knows if they did? ArbCom can hopefully be a bit less of a black box in that regard. And thank you (all of you) again for being responsive here - it is much appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Those emails were regarding CU/OS activity IIRC. I'm not sure how you'd define a conflict of interest with regards to this situation - does anyone who feels Fram has negatively affected them have a COI? What about anyone who feels Fram has positively affected them, is that also a COI? Where do you draw the line? As for board members or employees, I very much doubt they would submit any evidence in this matter (aside from the T&S report that we already have), given that it was specifically handed to us so we could judge it independently. If it comes up (say if an employee submits new evidence as an individual) I imagine we would handle it as we would handle any submission of evidence, by weighing its merits and making a decision as to its relevance. As for evidence submitted by entire an Wikimedia chapter collectively - as far as I know that's never been done. Aside from the above-noted statement of general concern, AFAIK WM-DC hasn't had any other as-a-chapter involvement in the situation, so I don't exactly anticipate any collective submissions from them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, those are about functionary activity. Nothing to do with the Fram case at all. Katie^talk 00:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both for explaining that those emails were to do with functionary activity. I should have realised that was a common factor there. My suggestion, as far as it is possible, regarding evidence that needs to be weighed (or even rejected) due to context, is to make as clear as possible that you have done this. e.g. If a set of evidence is completely rejected, then say that this happened. Give people some idea of the volume of evidence submitted and the number of people who email you. That small amount of information will satisfy most people. Carcharoth (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Fram once provided evidence at arbitration against an editor. If that user or a friend from WM DC turn up bearing evidence, the possibility of retribution needs to be considered. I mention the possibility because two such users had a go at me after I deleted that problematic Signpost article which was arguably slandering Fram. It felt like I was caught in the crossfire of an old feud. The thing is that they didn’t disclose the history of their conflict or their collusion. Jehochman ^Talk 00:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

People submit evidence with the intention of getting people they're in conflict with sanctioned all the time in arbitration cases. It's practically a given; a case is basically a structured way of saying "ok, everybody tell us what you think about who's at fault in this conflict and what we should do about it." The probability that we will get submissions of evidence from people who think Fram is terrible is a solid 100% - but I'm also 100% sure we'll get plenty of submissions from people who think Fram is the bee's knees. Our job as arbs is to take the totality of the submissions and read them, consider the source and the context, weigh their actual relevance and significance, and render a decision on the basis of all of the evidence. That's what we do in any case we get and that's what we intend to do here, full stop. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but (a) we know that at least one significant group of people, several high-ranking members of which have extremely close connections to WMF, are colluders, politicised and determined to change en-WP; and (b) the arbs get "help" in weighing-up matters from evidence submitters who point out discrepancies etc when things are done in the open and that cannot happen in the proposed structure of this case. As I have said before, arbitrators make mistakes just as much as anyone else but the chances of mistakes happening reduce when scrutiny of evidence etc is spread wider. - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Listen, our eyes are wide open here, and we are not stupid. We're well aware of the history. We're relatively savvy people, for all our pomposity, and we will deal with those who have agendas. But there is some evidence in that report that we cannot disclose. I wish we could, but we can't. We will give Fram his due. We're determined to. In the end, half of the community will likely be angry and the other half will be angry about something else. It's the way this gig works. All we can promise is that we'll do the best we can, because we realize how important it is to Fram, to the people who contacted T&S, and to our community. Katie^talk 01:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I admire your self-confidence but I never mentioned the report, nor did Carcharoth or Jehochman. That's at least two arbs making mis-statements regarding the case in the last 12 or so hours (see this). It happens but, well, QED? - Sitush (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks to ArbCom for opening the case in a timely manner, I wasn't expecting it to open until Fram was back. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but this seems like a bit of a farce. You're only accepting privately submitted evidence? How can there be any rebuttals of claims of malfeasance? You're only going to get evidence of problematic edits by Fram this way because you can't submit evidence to prove a negative unless you're responding to something. Is the for public, redacted version of the evidence that ARBCOM got going to be presented to Fram and the public soon? That will, at least, be a starting point to submit evidence that Fram was correct in his editing (assuming that is the case, of course). Valeince (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I missed out on getting the first comment in because I don't have many administrator-related pages in my watchlist, but I do want to thank Arbcom for going with this compromise proceedings that seems to address the majority of the original concerns imo. It really means a lot to me that you guys put all this work in. I'm actually teary eyed about it. I am just really really happy with these proceedings is all. It must've taken an awful lot of work and discussing to come up with. I can't stop crying! It goes a long way to helping ensure this we have an open process that is still safe for folks to discuss things anonymously. :') –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Fram case opened (Arbitrary break 1)

While I don't doubt the integrity of this ArbCom in the slightest, I can acknowledge that this is a test in which ArbCom has something to prove to the Foundation, and that this investigation will likely come to the obvious conclusion that Fram was an asshole to too many people for too long, and that his sanction will be largely or wholly upheld. I presume there is a mutual understanding, if unspoken, that this meant to be a chance for Arbcom to legitimize this ban, not to overrule the Foundation, and that Arbcom's hands are largely tied. I expect no surprises in this regard. I do however vehemently request that Arbcom provide a conclusive finding of fact to the community as to whether Fram was banned in a direct response to one of the specified behaviors listed in the ToU clause that he was banned under (i.e. harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, vandalism; Transmitting chain mail, junk mail, or spam to other users.) No, the Foundation simply citing that clause is not evidence of a violation, and beyond that nobody has been able to answer this simple question with a simple secondary confirmation that it was not merely a civility shadowban, as many of us believe it was. A definitive answer to this fundamental question needs to be on the record. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: In all fairness, many arbs are on record saying (1) the T&S report was rather nuanced and somewhat compelling, but (2) it will not be weighted as heavily community evidence throughout this process. I suspect that this conclusion is not as predetermined as you may have implied here.
Either way, I would also like to see the specific TOU clause cited. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

In my view, it doesn't matter which TOU clause in particular this falls under. The TOU gives the WMF broad powers to ban users that are not limited to the list in Section 4. ("These activities include..." "Manage otherwise the Project websites in a manner designed to facilitate their proper functioning and protect the rights, property, and safety of ourselves and our users, licensors, partners, and the public." "In certain (hopefully unlikely) circumstances it may be necessary for [us] ... to ... block your account or access, or ban you as a user.") And even if ArbCom concludes this is not "harassment" it may be that T&S has a different understanding of the word "harassment" rather than that they were trying to deceive us about the motivation for the ban. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I think an important principle in this case will be how (and if) "harassment" is defined in enwiki policy. – Joe (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

But the community evidence is likely to be skewed by proxies for the WMF who work in tandem with each other, such as WM-DC, and because without sight of the evidence by the community in general (anonymised, if necessary) it is inevitable that complaints will be encouraged. That, indeed, was part of the apparent rationale for approaching T&S in the first place, ie: to bypass established on-wiki procedures. We're creating a monstrous situation here that will have severe future ramifications. - Sitush (talk) 07:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes this should flush out some alleged misdeeds. But anything cited in public can then be examined and either Fram can be sanctioned, but in an efficient effective way where they can only return if they know what to do differently in the future. Or we can remind the evidence submitters that if you want to change policy the way to do it is to propose a change to policy, not to harass those who are enforcing an agreed policy. ϢereSpielChequers 08:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes but the evidence and workshop phases are being rolled into one here and any publication will happen after the phases are over - it is this for which I sought clarification yesterday. So there won't actually be anything for the community to comment on prior to ArbCom making a decision. Yes, Fram will be given the opportunity to comment prior to that stage but it really will be Fram vs The World and, bearing in mind that two arbs have already made mis-statements/have misunderstood in the conduct of this case, I really do think it needs extra eyes as far as is practicable. - Sitush (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I am aware that the AC is all that stands between us and the arbitrary whim of T&S, but I'm not quite clear on the rationale for the public-submitted evidence to be confidential. Could that be explained? The public has no idea who the complainant(s) might be and so could not out them.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the committee should reflect on being as open as it can be. Wehwalt is right - most onwiki evidence can surely be presented without revealing who complained about it. The community provides a valuable scrutiny role in these proceedings, which they cannot do when prevented from seeing it. Of course, offwiki activity like emails and other sites might need to be presented more delicately or not at all. But of a 70 page dossier, it must be possible to share much of it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't even go that far. I'm just asking why the evidence submitted by members of the community cannot be public.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Minor question: the 'drafting arbitrator' has been designated as 'committee as a whole' - is this to avoid undue pressure being brought to bear on individuals, or is it a genuine desire for all arbitrators to actually participate in drafting? (There will surely be some arbs that won't have the time or inclination to do the heavy lifting there, and sometimes too many people makes it difficult to do that.) After the fact, maybe it should be stated if the process (presumably the drafting will be done on the arbwiki) was driven by one or two arbitrators, as that is information that is needed to judge the performance of arbitrators. May I also suggest that you anonymise submissions as they are received, so minimising the potential sources of leaks (i.e. don't transfer identifying information from emails to the arbwiki). I am quite sure you have thought of this already, so I won't make many more suggestions like this, but that is the sort of thing that is hopefully being considered. Carcharoth (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Colleagues can correct me, but I do not think the prospect of pressure upon drafting arbitrators came up at all. Appointing drafters is a workflow tool for the committee. We seem to have, independently, agreed without discussing that such a tool is not appropriate in this case. In other words, this matter required closer participation from the start by all arbitrators. AGK ■ 20:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

When I was an Arb I always felt that the more Arbitrators who participated in the workshop and PD drafting phase the better, Doug Weller talk 07:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely. It was frustrating to workshop stuff and only when the PD was posted did arbs read through everything and result in a very messy and protracted PD phase. More involvement by everyone earlier results in faster, better results. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• This absolutely isn't how I see it. I wouldn't have voted to take a case if we were constrained in what conclusions we could reach, and we've been assured by Jimmy and others that we can overturn T&S' sanctions if that's what we decide. I know at least several other arbs share the view that we should treat this as a new case from as blank a slate as possible. The T&S document (or more precisely, the reports from editors it contains) is one piece of evidence and won't carry any more weight than anything else we receive. – Joe (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

  Joe Roe, I wonder that you need to consider it at all, given that the community will likely supply the same or equivalent information.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Wehwalt: if the scope of review is years, that report may contain evidence submissions from editors that are not currently available to re-submit their evidence. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

  That's a reasonable guess, but I'm hoping for the straight dope.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Question - I think I know the answer, but given all the secret stuff I thought I'd ask. Can User:A submit evidence that User:B and User:C had issues (even if User:A was not involved in the least)? — Ched :  ?  — 23:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
• I have logged in to WP after a long absence because this case is important. Fram is one of the reasons why I gave up my prolific editing of WP. See User_talk:Alan_Liefting/Archive_21#Categories for a bit of background. Fram was one of a number of irrational editors who were more interested in punitive actions against other editors instead of concentrating on building a high quality encyclopaedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)