Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions

Discussion on this page must be sectioned. Unless you are an arbitrator or clerk, create a section for your comments and comment only in your own section. For the Arbitration Committee, – GoldenRing (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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.

@GoldenRing: it appears the number of active arbs listed on the talk page conflicts with the template on the proposed decision page. 129.22.99.147 (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed – bradv🍁 20:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo made a comment that he fully supports the Arbcom to make a binding decision here, but have you (the Arb Com) received a committment from the WMF that they will honor the decision? I've rechecked the Board and Katherine Maher's statement but there is no mention that they would accept anything. I was not able to find any additional statements since Maher's. I am not sure many would support the ban to remain in place given the quality of the evidence submitted. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fully expect WMF to honour ArbCom's decision, regardless of what it is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the board statement. We support ArbCom reviewing this ban. We have asked T&S to work with the English Wikipedia ArbCom to review this case. We encourage Arbcom to assess the length and scope of Fram’s ban, based on the case materials that can be released to the committee. While the review is ongoing, Fram’s ban will remain in effect, although Arbcom and T&S may need ways to allow Fram to participate in the proceedings.

I've always taken "review" to mean "assessment with change if necessary", which fits nicely with mention of length and scope - length could be reduce to zero or time served, or indeed indefinite, scope works with more tailored arbcom solutions. So, no, I've seen no commitment outside this statement, but I take this statement as that commitment. Worm^TT(talk) 07:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I can neither imagine Jimbo walking back from his commitment to support any decision ArbCom makes nor the WMF going against Jimbo's explicit wishes in this case. Regards SoWhy 08:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the WMF going against Jimbo's explicit wishes in this case He has no legal right to dictate policy to the WMF, and the WMF treating him as their agent by tacitly endorsing his "personal guarantee" is rather frightening from a corporate governance perspective. It makes me seriously wonder what, if anything, the community-elected board members and executive director even do.
The more serious question, and one that I expect will go ignored given the general lack of interest in process, is whether the Foundation will accept and respect all the findings, rather than merely the result. The way the Board Statement is written, I honestly expect the answer is no: They're supporting review of the ban. Not anything else T&S has done, not anything else they have done, etc. So a finding that T&S engaged in misconduct or harmed the community? I expect it'll be ignored. A principle that the community requires public evidence wherever possible? I expect that will be ignored as well. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More relevant question may be whether the community (to be specific, the 40-50 or so who have vociferously campaigned in this case), will be willing to accept anything other than "time served" and formal restoration of Admin. rights. Leaky caldron (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody should be supporting a 1 year ban, given the evidence posted. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I Oppose a "time served" finding. That finding implies that the ban was justified but too lengthy. Assuming that there isn't some other evidence that we haven't heard about, the T&S ban should be vacated, not converted to time served. While the actual effect on Fram being able to edit is the same either way, vacating the ban sends a clear message to T&S that converting to time served does not. Then again, if Arbcom does decide that they would have given Fram a short block if they had gotten the case first, time served would be correct and vacated would be misleading. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly feel that the result should be accepted whatever it is. ArbCom is empowered to make these kinds of decisions. --Yair rand (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of decisions directly about Fram, I will be very interested in whether any principles or constructive findings about the WMF's actions in this case could be at least a starting point for discussions between WMF and the community regarding primary jurisdiction over the handling of conduct issues on en WP in more general terms, because that is clearly what is needed as a next step. Otherwise we will just be back here again soonish, and another unappealable WMF ban for a conduct issue would create a further crisis for many editors. I think WMF's aggregation of additional powers outside its previous scope needs to be pared back to what it was before; dealing with child protection, legal issues etc, but not conduct issues the community should deal with. This will need to happen alongside a discussion about how to better define and enforce community standards of conduct around incivility and harassment. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the Arbcom wishes to place an increased emphasis on civility, that goal is not furthered by artificial word count limits. In many cases, Fram correctly views the position of another participant in a discussion as wrong. Rather than curtly pointing out the error, a more polite approach would be to provide reasons, examples and perhaps a more wordy phrasing. Regardless of Fram's writing style, this would be a dangerous precedent to set, because once the word count limit is applied more broadly, talk page, ANI and other discussions would go from being a collegial discussion to a telegraphic tweet war. We do not want that, and civility involves the potential of wordiness, including phrases like "with all due respect..." and "I hear what you are saying but..." and "I understand your position to be X, but Y is a better view." Perhaps the ArbCom should impose a minimum word count requirement rather than a maximum in order to assure more polite modes of communication. However, since there are no findings of fact related to Fram's word count conduct, I am not in a position to judge what was intended. Thank you for your consideration. Hlevy2 (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FoF6 says, "These unredacted materials show a pattern..." If Arbcom never saw the unredacted materials, you probably mean "These redacted materials...." I am also troubled by evaluating redacted materials where the name of the complainant is withheld. It is impossible to find "harassment" without evaluating the conduct of both parties and whether the wikihounding was centered on related matters or following an editor to unrelated matters. If BLP are involved, then Fram and other admins are held to a higher standard to act quickly to prevent harm to third parties. Also, if the editor or subject matter is the subject of special enforcement, discretionary sanctions, or other restrictions, that would be relevant, although potentially hidden by redacting the names. Finally, all FoFs should be framed in terms of the Arbcom looking at the facts objectively, rather than from the subjective point of view of the unnamed party feeling harassed. The finding of facts and principles should be consistent and emphasize an objective standard for evaluating an admin who tries to solve the problems created by a chronically problematic editor. Many thanks. Hlevy2 (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To your first sentence: the unredacted portion of the partially-redacted materials shows this pattern. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These sections seem to make slightly different findings of facts (which don't belong here anyway), but isn't the remedy the same (confirmation of desysop, allowing RfA)? Or does 2b say that a Fram RFA should start immediately at the close of the case, and 2c says Fram is free to start an RfA at a time of his choice? —Kusma (t·c) 15:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Hlevy2's section

• It's a horrible idea no matter how you slice it. Enforcement will be a nightmare, especially when it comes to litigating what constitutes an "issue". Lawyers lick their lips at something so pregnant with fact issues, because this is something that will net you lots of billable hours. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Kusma's section

My take is that 2c is an endorsement of the desysop, while 2b is a "no decision" on the desysop. Think of reviews of umpire decisions in sporting events: 2b is saying "umpire's call" or "ruling on the field stands", 2c is saying "decision confirmed". You're right though, the difference is something that belongs in a FoF. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You've got to be kidding me. This page has had posts for weeks without this sectioned discussion enforcement. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from HLevy2's section

• I agree; this is a pointless restriction that will do little or nothing to improve things, and in some cases may make things worse. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, two things. First off, the Committee should not punt on whether Fram's desysop was warranted or not. Either uphold it and formally desysop him, or find it wasn't warranted and overturn it. Second, principle 2 ("Wikimedia Foundation role") contains a factual error when it says The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), sometimes referred to as the "Office," is the legal owner of the English Wikipedia website and infrastructure. While the Foundation does indeed own the physical infrastructure, contributors own both the social infrastructure and content, and each author owns their own contributions to it. The ToU have always been clear that, while contributors agree to license their content under a free license, they retain their ownership and copyright interest of that content. The WMF does not own Wikipedia, just the servers it currently runs on. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A remedy restricting Fram's participation on noticeboards seems off the mark to me. It both hampers discussion and doesn't get at the heart of the matter. If the problem is that Fram is being overzealous in their investigation and enforcement of behavioral problems with specific editors, why not simply prevent them from taking multiple admin actions against the same user? If that's not enough; require Fram to disengage from any long-term behavioral issue they find, and to instead bring any such to the community's attention? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FoF #4 (Community-provided evidence) says The Committee was not authorized to post, and therefore did not post, the case materials provided by the Office or a summary of that evidence. Separate from the issue of public posting of evidence, I think it is important to state explicitly whether Fram was given any opportunity to respond to this evidence.

FoF #6 (Evaluation of Office-provided case materials) is unclear on the issue of whether any of the alleged "borderline harassment" occurred after the "second private conduct warning". The phrasing suggests not, and that the ban was enacted because the abuse of the Committee was seen as a violation of the warnings, but it is not stated explicitly. I understand that the Committee is treading a fine line here in terms of revealing the content of the Office document, but I think this point cuts to the heart of the case because it bears directly on whether this was an issue that the Committee can and should handle.

Remedies #1b (Fram's 1 year ban is disproportionate), #1c (Fram's 1 year ban is justified), and #2c (Removal of sysop user-rights) are implicitly supported by FoF #6 (Evaluation of Office-provided case materials). This is important to note for a number of reasons:

1. As I understand it, Fram has had no opportunity to respond to the underlying evidence.
2. Per ARBPOL, basing decisions on such secret evidence is arguably outside the remit of the Committee.
3. At least one arbitrator has indicated (as part of a support) that the summary provided in FoF #6 is overstated.
4. Another arbitrator supporting FoF #6 has indicated that the public evidence should be given greater weight.

Remedy 3 (Fram restricted) seems unsupported by any finding of fact, or any evidence I have seen. In my experience, arbitrary restrictions of this type often lead to "gotcha" enforcement that does not serve the project. I'd rather see Fram reminded or even admonished about specifics.

Bovlb (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We weren't allowed to give Fram anything more than the brief summary of the T&S evidence posted on the evidence page. I believe we've stated this publicly multiple times during the case. They responded to the summary in the evidence phase.

If your point 3 is referring to me, I don't think the summary is overstated. I think that terms like "harassment" and "abuse" are contextual and subjective. Personally I think they are little too strong in this case, but I can understand why others might see it differently, and more importantly some targets of Fram's behaviour did consider it as harassment. – Joe (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: Thanks for responding.

I believe we've stated this publicly multiple times during the case. — No doubt, but I meant that it is important to state this explicitly in the FoFs, analogous to #4's the Committee posted a summary of the community-provided evidence, as well as Fram's reply to that evidence.

I don't think the summary is overstated — You are, of course, the ultimate arbiter of what you meant to say, but I feel that phrases like "I would not call", "I don't consider", and "a little too strong" support the idea that the summary is overstated, in the sense that it is stated too strongly or is exaggerated.

Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would the Committee explicitly cite the evidence on the basis of which they support the de-sysop of Fram? This can be used as the (incredibly low) new bar for which cases regarding admin behavior can be brought before the committee. I've in mind half a dozen or so admins who should expect to be de-sysop'd quite quickly. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As always, remedies follow from the principles and FoFs. Speaking for myself, I'd highlight principle 1, 5 & 6 and FoF 1, 5 & 6 as the reason for supporting remedy 2b/c.

Not to be pedantic, but we are also talking about whether to resysop Fram. They've already been desysopped by the WMF and we're now asked to consider whether to overturn that action. I've seen enough evidence of incivility that I'm not comfortable doing that without confirmation they have the community's support via an RfA. I'd have a higher bar for desysopping on ArbCom's initiative. – Joe (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is Remedy 3 (Fram restricted) meant to be 500 words per issue, or 500 words per issue per venue? It seems to me that both readings create perverse incentives - if the former, it encourages a malfeasant editor to stonewall Fram on user or article talk until he's out of words, so that he can't escalate to ANI; if the latter, it encourages Fram to escalate prematurely. Plus, either way, there'll be admins lining up to include the mandatory {{ANI-notice}} as counting against the 500-word user talk limit, not to mention the abhorrent and unreadable practice commonly seen at WP:ARC of keeping under 500 words by removing previous statements. —Cryptic 18:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerks: please do not change this section into a "Statement by Fut.Perf"

Where has this horrible fashion sprung from, of enforcing comments in personal section format? This is a talk page, not a statements page. We talk here. That's the way this community chooses to provide feedback on things, by talking them out, in threaded dialogue. I can see no advantage in enforcing this exceptional format, other than as yet another demonstration of power by the arbs and their clerks. If the committee doesn't want to hear the community talk, they'd better say so up front. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Future Perfect at Sunrise, I appreciate your concerns about the format. I also saw a comment above by Mendaliv about sectioned discussion, and it's clear that there's some frustration about the change, so I hope I can be somewhat helpful in my explanation.

Proposed decision talk pages are normally sectioned in almost every case. The reason it wasn't before here is that there wasn't a proposed decision. Arbitration pages exist to help the committee reach a fair, well-informed decision; in that process, community comments are highly valuable and deeply appreciated. We also know that these disputes can cause tempers to run hot; almost by definition, arbitration cases are centered on disputes that the community has been unable to resolve. The sole purpose of the PD talk is to provide comments to arbs to help them reach the best resolution possible; true debates serve no good purpose here. Non-arbs aren't your audience – I wager you'd agree that arguing with and convincing non-arbs on this talk page of your positions doesn't do you all that much good, since it's the arbs who'll be voting on this. And over many years of doing this, the committee has found that the most helpful comments for the arbs do not come in the form of threaded discussion. Is it possible to have unproductive heated arguments with sectioned discussion? Sure, but in our experience, it's much harder.

I think I speak for the clerks and the committee when I say that we don't give a damn about "power". It's an internet website, for Pete's sake; you must have a really low opinion of us if you think this is the only way we can get some sort of power rush. The arbitrators and clerks I've had the joy of working with over the last four and a half years have been good people, dedicated people, who do this difficult job because they believe in it. From what I can see, the job of an arbitrator is deeply unpleasant and the members of the committee do it because they think the work is important; anyone who wanted to do it to feel power wouldn't last a moment in the position.

Please know that out of respect for your request, I will not be changing your section title name. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here now reading this page because I value the input of everyone. As Arbs our role is to make a final, binding decision. How we reach that decision is up to the individual Arb, but I don't think any of us reach a decision without taking the community's views into account. And we may change or amend a decision based on comments made by others: other Arbs, other community members, parties to the case. Having sectioned comments works better. As Kevin says, having a threaded discussion which can dissolve into an argument is not helpful. Folks can comment on each others' comments within their own section, so there's no censorship going on, just a method of organising feedback that has proved to work well. I hope that satisfies your query. Also, I hope as we move forward on the civility front, such comments as "yet another demonstration of power by the arbs and their clerks" will be universally found to be unacceptable. SilkTork (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Echo SBlade that the Committee should not punt on whether Fram's desysop was warranted or not. Either uphold it and formally desysop him, or find it wasn't warranted and overturn it. Joe's reply in the regard to Ernie is awful. ∯WBG^converse 19:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there desysop PDs but no admonishment or reminder PDs on offer as alternatives? 28bytes (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage everyone, and especially the arbiters, to read and consider Newyorkbrad's comments below. NYB's workshop proposals were excellent and the committee is really missing an opportunity to bring this mess to a satisfactory conclusion by diverging from the sound principles, findings of facts, and remedies he offered there.

I urge the committee to avoid any remedy that references "time served", as that would imply a 3-month siteban is an acceptable sanction supported by the public evidence, which it most definitely is not. Vacate it. 28bytes (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the option of a Topic Ban from addressing other users' qualities and behaviour. Almond Plate (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The behaviour shown in the case materials, combined with the overturned decisions mentioned in the community evidence, fall below the standards expected for an administrator. Accordingly, the committee declines to reinstate Fram's sysop userright." And two committee members already support this one.

So let me get this straight, evidence that neither Fram nor we can see or respond to shows problems, while evidence that we can see and respond to shows negligible problems, and committee members support punishment based on the evidence that we can't see or respond to? This amounts to basing the punishment entirely on secret evidence. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL @SilkTork. "Anyone who claims we enjoy the arbitrary exercise of power will be promptly punished".—Chowbok ☠ 21:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much to say about the case, but I read these all the time and I think the sectioning enhances community voices rather than silencing them. This way I don't have to search through a (typically interminable) discussion with a thousand indents, mostly paired with tangents, to figure out what one person actually thinks, or to refer to it after the discussion has taken place. Threaded discussion is vulnerable to distraction and derailing, and favors the loudest voices. If you want to hear from a wide sample, it helps when everyone has their own slot. Seren_Dept 21:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the Committee remains limited in what can be disclosed from the Office-provided evidence. However, some of that evidence is the basis on which some arbitrators are voting to uphold Fram's desysopping. In general, except in extreme circumstances not present here, the Committee would not desysop an administrator without his or her having received some form of prior warning that his or her conduct was problematic.

Here, as correctly noted in the decision, Fram never received a formal warning from this Committee, although in a couple of instances there were comments by individual arbitrators suggesting a change of approach. Fram did receive the "conduct warnings" from the Office. In 2018, Fram suggested a willingness to reflect on the input he had received. Without having seen the Office-provided evidence, I would be hard-pressed to see a case for desysopping unless Fram engaged in serious misconduct after his having received these inputs rather than before. This is particularly so because while I have had my own disagreements with Fram and have not always appreciated the tone of his "voice" expressed to me and others, his goal throughout all of these matters has plainly been to ensure the quality of the encyclopedia we are working to create and maintain.

I anticipate the response that the community can decide whether Fram retains our confidence as an administrator by resubmitting himself to a new RfA. However, since non-arbitrators still do not and will not have access to all the evidence, this will be a problematic exercise. In addition, I anticipate that a new RfA for Fram would be bitterly divisive for the community. Among other concerns, I anticipate that the RfA discussion would likely become another platform for further wiki-political and wiki-constitutional issues that, while it was important that we discuss and come to consensus on in June and July, are largely played out at this time.

Unless there has been serious administrator misconduct by Fram in relatively recent times, which based on the public information I am frankly not seeing, I suggest that a reminder remedy such as the one in my workshop proposals would be a more proportionate result than confirmation of the desysop. It also bears emphasis that Fram has already been prevented from both editing and adminning for three months, which in and of itself is a substantial sanction, which will have occurred and cannot be undone whether or not the Committee ultimately agrees or disagrees with it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just gotta say that any 'time served' votes won't line up with the evidence that has been shown to the community, which is kind of the whole point of this. Arkon (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to sleep on it before offering some more substantive comments, but I'll just point out something minor for now. Partway through the FofFs, the header font size changes. It should be made consistent throughout the whole decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish, fixed. – bradv🍁 21:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will echo other commenters above to say remedy 3 is not warranted, unfeasible and would not solve what it intends to. It also seems to not be supported by any Finding of Facts, so unclear how it crept in. There are more people out there who post more annoying wall of text than Fram had ever. I think what would be better than this is a remedy similar in design to Remedy #1.2 of GiantSnowman. The remedy should limit how far Fram can pursue an editor for infraction. For instance, it could say Fram could only do that once or twice, whereafter he must brought the attention of other admins to the issue for them to independently determine appropriate way forward. – Ammarpad (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have had that in mind since quite early on, and am still wondering if I should propose such a remedy. However, what is giving me pause is that in this situation Fram is already desysopped, so we are not essentially in a position of deciding to vote to desysop him, we are in a position of deciding to vote to resysop him. If this were a regular case, given the evidence before us, I would not choose to desysop, and would look for a nuanced solution, such as the GiantSnowman one. However, in these circumstances, I feel an open dialogue between the community and Fram as regards his ongoing behaviour is probably the most appropriate solution. In a RfA I would support Fram if he could demonstrate that he has taken on board concerns about how strident and relentless he can be at times, and would be willing to back off. One incident which I'd like, in an RfA, to discuss with Fram, is when he used his admin tool to edit through full protection on an ArbCom page and revert a sitting Arbitrator [1]. I'd like to get his thinking on why he thought that was acceptable, rather than raising his concern with the Arb in question or with the Clerks. I think an RfA would give the community and Fram a more open opportunity than an Arb case to work through issues like that. People would be free to question, quite neutrally and directly, rather than the more awkward system here of presenting evidence. Presenting evidence implies we are looking to either damn or praise Fram. Asking questions is more in line with finding out what Fram himself was thinking. I think ArbCom cases could involve more actual dialogue between ArbCom and the involved parties than it does at present. SilkTork (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using insider terminology is unwelcoming to newcomers. Please replace "wikihounding" with "hounding". The general principle is good. We should avoid throwing around the word "harassment" because it's an accusation of a crime, which is defamation per se in most jurisdictions when it's an untrue accusation. It is far better to use more specific terminology such as "hounding", "outing", "badgering", "baiting", "insulting" or "pestering". Jehochman ^Talk 23:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as one of the people who went on strike over this, I am dismayed that the committee isn't leaning further in the direction of "undo everything the office did and call it a day". This wasn't a day in court for Fram, it is a second secret trial with invisible evidence. This isn't supposed to be how our processes work, with secret rules that nobody knows, evidence nobody can see, and no chance to face one's accusers. These are considered fundamental rights in any sort of proceeding with real interest in justice, and I strongly feel arbcom should basically declare a mistrial in this case and re-instate Fram.

I'd like to be clear that this isn't about Fram and how much we all love him, it's about the right way and the wrong way to do things. Don't be afraid of T&S, I think they got the message that they made a serious error here, don't compound it by following their lead. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: without his or her having received some form of prior warning that his or her conduct was problematic

If you don't consider (at a minimum) three ANI threads and three Arbitration requests to be an indication that there might be problematic behavior that needs to be addressed, then I'm inclined to think this represents a failing of ArbCom to be corrected, and not a noble precedent to be upheld. We can't treat our users as nuanced decision makers when they are faced with every-day issues, and yet treat them in problematic situations as brain dead robots who need punch cards filled out in sextuplet with a big glowing rubber stamp in order to realize there is some error. That defies common sense. That is the line of thinking that leads people to believe that vandals need levels 1 through 4 warnings for inserting racial slurs into articles before they can be reported to AIV. That's nonsense and no clear headed thinking person should endorse it.

If you don't consider all of this mess as fair warning that there may be some problematic behavior that doesn't seem to have made an impact either: When is it not necessary to correct problematic edits someone else makes? Oh right, when they "feel" harassed, boohoo.

"Boo hoo" ... Boo hoo indeed. That's disgusting, and none of us ought to be in the business of defending it. If overly bureaucratic processes are defending it, then overly bureaucratic processes are the problem, and if we can't fix it then the Foundation should step in more and not less to fix a problem we apparently cannot. GMG^talk 23:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like everyone else here I do not want to cause Laura Hale unnecessary distress and like others I did not want to present counter-evidence to the portion of the T&S material which resulted in Frams warnings re her. I had hoped that ArbCom would not fall back to using the 'unknowable' to sanction and desysop a long serving and good faith editor. Since the voting is showing that the 'secret' evidence is being used to support a finding of 'desysop and time served' I want to ask ArbCom if they have independently validated the claims? Examined the motivations of the editor who, by all publicly known evidence, got the T&S investigation going? I hate to be able to focus only on a single person but it is reasonable to say she is, even if not primary, central to this case. (Out of politeness, sensitivity and brevity I'll skip that but I can put together as much evidence as you want to support this.)

A cursory examination, the minimum which ArbCom should have done, shows:

• Per meta:WikiWomenCamp/FAQ/Biographies/Laura Hale "She is the Wikipedian in Residence for the History of the Paralympic Movement in Australia project" Since her user page has been deleted I can not quote the time she says she ceased working as a WiR but I think it was 2012 +/- a year or so.
• Per the tender on Wikiversity as a Copy Writer she was budgeted $100.00/hr for "Wiki authoring, editing, uploading and formatting".

This matters because much of the conflict between her and Fram revolved around her editing of Paralympic athletes. We saw in the linked evidence that Fram suspected her of being a COI/PAID editor; asked her about it; and she said she was not. Whether this was true at the time is dificult to prove but there is direct evidence (Since she disclosed this relationship on-wiki this is not WP:OUTING unless you really want it to be) that Laura Hale continued to edit Wikipedia on behalf of the Australian Paralympic Committee. In fact their 2017-2018 Annual Report ^[2] says quite clearly, on p.54 under 'Knowledge Services':

• "Wikipedia articles about every member of the 2018 Australian Paralympic Team and 2018 Australian Commonwealth Games Team. Wikipedia articles created through the Australian Paralympic History Project continue to be collectively viewed around 120,000 times every month. This rate was exceeded considerably during the PyeongChang 2018 Paralympic Games and Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games"
• "Patricia Ollerenshaw, Greg Blood, Ross Mallett, Laura Hale and Graham Pearce remain major individual contributors to the Project."^{emp. mine}

Now, there has been much gnashing of teeth and rending of cloths that these secret bans can be abused by paid editors to bully anyone who challenges them. That was probably seen as hyperbole by most yet here we have, at least the very strong appearance, of this not being something that might happen but rather something that has happened.

Maybe those complaints to were not about protecting a $100/hr job but it sure looks like it and because of the structure of this process both the community and ArbCom have not been allowed the opportunity to find out.

Regrettably some of ArbCom are basing their decisions on this un-examined and un-questioned evidence. That is not right so I am now putting this issue up for the community and ArbCom to examine.

How much trust do you have in a redacted document which was produced by an arm of the Foundation whose Board Chairman has been alleged to have a personal COI with the complaining individual. Especially when that individual may have been making $100/hr for years from the work Fram was calling into question. I am glad I am not in your shoes but, if LH has indeed been being paid by the APC to edit up until 2018 or further, then the case should, at a minimum, be decided entirely on the public evidence and the appearance of potential improper use of T&S for personal financial gain should be taken up by the Foundation Board.

To be clear; I am not presenting this in an attempt to tarnish reputations or harass. Nor am I drawing any inferences or conclusions. I have no intention of presenting any material about linked accounts, even those disclosed on-wiki. Jbh ^Talk 00:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]