User:GorillaWarfare/Fram admin status notes

Submitted evidence that discussed things other than specific examples of Fram's behavior

 * February 5, 2014: Fram blocked on Mediawiki.org (5y7m ago)
 * Block placed by mw:User:Eloquence (Erik Möller, at the time the Deputy Director of the WMF) for saying Just shut your big mouth please. to another editor:
 * Block notification:
 * Fram replies Please block me indefinitely then., Eloquence does so, later unblocked by Nemo_bis (all in block notification thread)


 * February 2018: Laura Hale creates talk page notice directed at Fram, asking them to stay off her talk page, and direct notifications about her work to a list of admins or Support & Safety (T&S)

Fram's behavior

 * February 2013: Fram is rude to Kumioko (who had logged out and accused Fram of smearing him? not really sure what is going on here, this is before Kumioko was blocked, no?), edit wars to keep the comment
 * Fram: Kumioko, if you really feel that I have created a smear blog[], why don't you take it to MfD? I miss my weekly dose of Kumioko-getting-laughed-out-of-the-room... I suppose your aim is to get blocked for personal attacks and harassment, so that you can play the martyr and complain even more about the uneven treatment of editors vs. admins and so on, and about how people are out to block our most productive editors. Of course, you have long ceased to be a productive editor, but why let reality get in the way of rhetorics?
 * Edit is removed a few times and Fram is warned (eg by Bgwhite: "Again remove the uncivil comment. Stay away Fram.") and Fram readds it with the summary Fuck off and reread policy, Bgwhite. You are out of line here.)
 * 
 * September 2016 Fram proposes findings/remedies against Cwmhiraeth at the TRM case workshop
 * Corresponding evidence was submitted as required, although Fram was notably the only person to submit evidence against Cwmhiraeth. Still, Fram followed proper DR steps by submitting evidence and proposing workshop drafts, although their suggestions were not incorporated into the decision (nor was Cwmhiraeth added as a party to the case).
 * December 21, 2016 at Wikipedia talk:Did you know
 * 
 * "@Fram and The Rambling Man: Would you two care to fucking drop it already. You both are on a crusade to purportedly "improve" the quality of DYK, but all you have consistently and purposely done is hound anyone that is actually doing the labor of construction and promotion, while actively AVOIDING doing any of it your-self. Its seems clear at this point that your purpose is to not improve the project, but to run it into the ground by chasing anyone away that is doing the work. Your methodology is not productive an you actively are killing the project.--Kevmin § 20:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)"
 * Followed by a longish, now-hatted thread between Kevmin and The Rambling Man, with no comment by Fram
 * "I am reopening this thread to give Fram a chance to respond to Kevmin. TRM has already responded (hidden above) and need feel no obligation to respond on Fram's behalf. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Very kind, selective hiding, that's always helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)"
 * Fuck off, Cwmhiraeth. Fram (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Also followed by a conversation at Ritchie333's talk page, after Ritchie reverted the "fuck off" comment: . Fram acknowledges it's uncivil: "Fuck off" is not a personal attack, it is an uncivil way to say "go away and leave me alone"
 * September 15, 2017 at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 September 15
 * 
 * Summary: F off
 * This same diff was mentioned in the hatted portion of the ANI conversation that Ritchie333 mentioned in their statement on Crosswiki issues as evidence that Fram and Pigsonthewing can't get along. Fram explained there that the "F off" edit summary was a joke, because they were removing a stray "f" that had ended up in the edit. This seems to be genuinely the case.
 * September 27, 2017 at User talk:Magioladitis
 * 
 * Summary: *Fuck off and crawl back to your own corner, Izno. You inserted yourself in a conversation I started, and then you try to shut me up? What is with pro-Wikidata editors?
 * I'll save you the burden of saying it: Don't reply to me again unless obviously invited. -- Izno 17:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fuck off, Izno. You are inserting yourself in a discussion I started on Magioladitis' talk page. You are then giving wrong advice and pretending that you fixed an issue when you did nothing of the sort. I'll reply to you here and in every discussion you come along uninvited and disruptively as long as I want to, and as often as I want to. Keep your fake righteousness and lack of actual responses to yourself and crawl back to your own corner instead of pushing your pro-Wikidata agenda here and supporting disruptive edits because they fit your distorted view of what enwiki should become. If you don't like the responses you get, then stop spouting nonsense. Fram 19:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * February 2018: Fram blocks Mathsci for one week
 * May 4, 2019: "Fuck ArbCom" comment
 * Fuck ArbCom which doesn't even understand their own messages and again give themselves powers they don't have. First it was deletions, then it was mandatory 2FA, inbetween it is loads of evidence of utter incompetence in many of its members (witness the statement by AGK above, but also some of the comments at e.g. the Rama case request). Just crawl into a corner and shut up until the community asks you to do something within your remit, but don't try to rule enwiki as if you have the right and the competence to do so. Or collectively resign. But don't give us any more of this bullshit.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=895438118&diffmode=source
 * Certainly not "behav[ing] in a respectful, civil manner", but the fact that this was directed at ArbCom complicates this as I've already pointed out onwiki at

Arbitration requests

 * October 2016: Fram
 * 
 * Brought by Cwmhiraeth; involved parties Cmwhiraeth, Fram. "Fram targets certain editors, bullies them, harasses them and sometimes hounds them, following them around and undermining their contributions. He undertakes campaigns with the apparent aim of driving away productive contributors. Additionally, at DYK, Fram examines the hooks at a late stage in the process, often when they are already on the main page, has a habit of "pulling" them and calling the nominator, reviewer and promoter publicly to account, denigrating and humiliating them for their failings. This could be termed community harassment!"
 * Declined 0/7/1; mostly agreed it was unripe for arbitration
 * October 2017: Crosswiki issues
 * → Also mentioned by Rschen7754 in their statement in the 2018 Copyvio and retaliation case request as an example of "numerous complaints about Fram’s approach to dispute resolution (especially in tech-related matters) and to adminship"
 * 
 * Brought by Fram; involved parties Fram, Ymblanter. Fram began a discussion on enwiki about a Wikidata Bot they felt was importing unreliable/spammy information to Wikidata, which was approved by Ymblanter. Part of an overall opinion of Fram that Wikidata data should not be used on enwiki in any widespread (or perhaps automatic) way, a topic on which Ymblanter and Fram disagree. Ymblanter feels Fram is hounding them, Fram feels Ymblanter is "an enwiki admin I can't trust to be level-headed, able to defuse situations, or able to handle criticism, who seems to lack the basic knowledge of some core policies (what are personal attacks? what is stalking?) or how and where to present a case if you do want a sanction against someone. An admin who sees fit to make chilling statements about indef blocking and who sees no problem in editors spamming their commercial website to Wikidata and enwiki, and even facilitating it."
 * Conflict began when Fram opened a discussion mentioning the bot and Ymblanter at Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs:
 * Ymblanter: "Concerning stalking, I am sure User:LauraHale will have smth to say. What I had to say about it is on my user talk page linked above. I must add two things. First, this encounter is one of the top five the most unpleasant ones I ever had in Wikimedia projects. I do feel seriously offended, and I do not see even a bit of good faith from Fram's side. Second, my limited experience with Fram shows that they never listen to their opponent, they in fact never make any effort to listen to their opponent, but they maintain that they are always right, whereas the opponent is right only when they are fully aligned with Fram's opinion. I believe Fram should at some point look at the mirror. I do not see any merit for accepting the case to be honest. Note also that what they want from me is to edit a closed section of AN. I tried to remove it to avoid being arxived but was reverted."
 * The majority of comments were not about Fram's behavior, but it did come up:
 * "I would like to ask if it was entirely necessary to make sacarstic remarks ([10]) after you knew the editor was upset by the way you presented your (valid) points ([11]). Just a thought. Alex Shih (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)"
 * @Alex Shih; I agree with your last point of your post at 16:55, 31 October 2017, and should not have made that sarcastic remark. Fram (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "However, if I had to pick two editors who just cannot get along, it would be Fram and pigsonthewing. Recent examples include the edit-warring I mentioned above and which was hatted by Primefac, who admonished the pair of them with "ENOUGH. Fram and Andy, I respect you both, but your conduct here is not making either of your cases better". Yet in the past couple of days I can see "Get the beam out of your own eye" [GW note: this was Pigsonthewing speaking] and "Yes, improving articles is such a POINTy action, perhaps you should report me to the wiki-authorities for my actions. [GW note: Fram]" - Ritchie333
 * Mike Peel: "You [Fram] always think you are absolutely right, and ignore any opinions to the contrary. That's not healthy/constructive."
 * HJ Mitchell: "I just feel compelled to point out that Fram has a long track record of railroading projects and groups and particularly editors he disagrees with and this case is perfectly on form: a wall of text, lots of allegations, and just a handful of diffs which show an editor with a good track record getting a bit terse. As usual, Fram starts with a legitimate point (in this case, that there are problems with [some of] the content being imported from Wikidata) but advocates for an extreme solution and bludgeons the process and drowns his opponents in walls of text across multiple venues, all the while refusing to assume good faith or budge an inch from his position. In other words, the kind of thing that leads normally level-headed editors to despair. If there is to be a case, I would ask that Fram's conduct be very closely examined. @Callanecc: A few diffs would not illustrate the pattern because there's nothing obviously wrong with any of Fram's individual comments, but look at his interactions with Rich Farmbrough. With Magioladitis. With Cwmhiraeth. With the entire DYK project (and I'm sure I've missed some). Compare and contrast that with his conduct here. I don't question the purity of Fram's motives; I expect he feels he's doing what's right for Wikipedia and to a certain extent he has a point. The problem is with the wars of attrition he wages."
 * We ended up declining the case req, handling the case by motion:
 * (E) Editors should abide by high standards of user conduct, including remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, in the RfC and in all other comments on Wikidata-related issues. Editors who are knowledgeable and/or passionate about the issues are encouraged to participate and share their expertise and opinions, but no individual editor's comments should overwhelm or "bludgeon" the discussion.
 * I believe point E was included specifically to try to preempt the behavior HJ Mitchell described
 * February 2018: Fram
 * 
 * Brought by Gatoclass; involved parties Gatoclass, Fram. "[Fram] pulled a hook from a protected queue and then disappeared for days when a few minutes discussion would have resolved the matter, an abnegation of his responsibility to remain accountable and respond promptly and civilly to queries about his admin actions under WP:ADMINACCT (something, I might add, he has done countless times before at DYK). When he finally returned, he responded with an outrageous bad faith assumption, personal attack and falsehood, an egregious breach of his commitments under ADMINACCT. He struck down my hook verification with no explanation and failed to respond to the underlying issue, leaving the nomination in limbo for days on end and causing considerable anxiety to the nominator; extremely poor behaviour for an administrator. After hypocritically deleting my repudiation of his charges as a "personal attack", leaving me no option but to similarly delete his, he then restored his attack, an act of both studied malice and extremely poor judgement"
 * Declined 1/9/1. Two arbs had appetite for a broader case about issues at DYK, but most felt there was not enough to the specific confrontation between Fram and Gatoclass that couldn't be handled by the community.
 * Background: DYK has come up at arbitration before in the 2016 The Rambling Man case, where it was noted that "The "Did you know" and "In the news" sections of the main page have issues in the area of quality control, nomination, evaluation, and vetting of content" and the community was urged to review the selection process at those sections. The two arbs who mentioned a broader case specifically referred to the TRM case, and that DYK/ITN has been an ongoing problem area at least since then.
 * Statement by Ymblanter, removed by a clerk for being unsupported by evidence, about Fram tending to assume bad faith and push POV (and saying they would provide evidence upon acceptance of the case). After removal, Ymblanter replaces the statement with "I fully agree with conclusions of Gatoclass, especially in their reply to Fram, and urge the Committee to accept the case to investigate long-standing issues with the behavior of Fram and to see whether their behavior is compatible with ADMINACT.-- Ymblanter 10:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)"
 * Fram themself mentions two ANI threads in their statement, one about them and one opened by them:
 * "If anyone wonders what Ymblanter is talking about, it refers to" — does indeed appear that this is what Ymblanter was alluding to in their statement, though I'm not sure that was ever confirmed by them
 * Opened by Ymblanter on January 17, 2018: "Fram developed an unfortunate habit of interpreting my statements and then saying I have said something I did not.... when I do reply Fram becomes even more aggressive. Last time they filed an Arbcom case against me and failed miserably. Avoiding them completely is not really an option, since they continue to comment on the points I make."
 * Conversation about which the ANI thread was opened was started by Fram: . That conversation was referring to an exchange that had occurred at
 * Fram asked Y to retract their statement (or corroborate it) at WT:MOS that "[Fram] they developed an unfortunate habit lying about my behavior, as if nobody can check what I actually said"
 * Our public evidence summary can be interpreted to read that "I'm an admin, you are not. You may have your own stupid opinion" was something that Fram said to someone else; in reality Fram was posting their interpretation of something Ymblanter had said (and, though perhaps a bit extreme, it wasn't an unreasonable interpretation)
 * Closed citing consensus that no action be taken
 * Ymblanter resigned adminship January 18, 2018: and took a brief wikibreak
 * Despite a few slightly snarky comments at the discussion (hatted in the section starting "Losing focus here", for example) and some at Y's talk page (which should also be taken in the context of rude comments from Y), Fram behaved reasonably here. No major ADMINCOND concerns.
 * "Feels more like retaliation for than anything else."
 * Opened by Fram about Gatoclass on January 30, 2018, about Gatoclass threatening to open an ArbCom case about The Rambling Man for "disruption to make a WP:POINT" after TRM says he will stop fixing errors in hooks and only report errors once they reach the main page
 * Closed citing consensus that "Gatoclass should back down, and was not justified to invoke ArbCom"
 * Not really a factor as far as Fram's ADMINCOND, since it was opened by Fram and not about them. Fram alleges the ArbCom case was opened in retaliation for this report.
 * In Fram's original statement (later trimmed) Fram acknowledges some fault: "I overreacted there"..."Neither of use is without blame here"..."ArbCom is of course free to take on this case to look at either the behaviour of Gatoclass and me (which would necessarily include the ANI discussion I just linked to), or to look at DYK in general, but I would suggest that this is simply closed as clearly premature (where are the attempts at dispute resolution?) and incorrectly presented, with a trout for me for not checking the actual edit made at the article but relying on the edit summary, and a trout for Gatoclass for short-circuiting the DYK process with this hook, and for this ArbCom request."
 * March 2018: Copyvio and retaliation
 * 
 * Brought by Fram; involved parties Fram, Ritchie333, Dr. Blofeld. Fram discovered multiple(?) copyvio issues in articles created by Dr. Blofeld and opened an AN thread, then opened the case request because of concerns about Dr. Blofeld's and Ritchie333's behavior at the AN discussion.
 * This boomeranged pretty strongly on Fram in the case req statements—far more than the Oct '17 Crosswiki issues case request. Perhaps evidence that Fram's behavior worsened/stayed the same but affected more people, or perhaps just more people showed up who were critical of Fram. Behavioral concerns raised about Fram in this case:
 * "Fram, I am certainly not a friend of Dr Blofeld, but to my eyes you're coming across as a vindictive crank rather than someone raising a legitimate concern." ‑ Iridescent 17:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I couldn't give a flying fuck about how I come across. Apparently everyone here thinks it is no problem that we have dozens of copyvios in the histories, with some or many of them remaining in the actual histories, if the one that produced them is a cornerstone of our society or somesuch. Can you please tell me what I am supposed to be "vindictive" about? And can you perhaps also indicate what isn't legitimate about the concern? Fram 21:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fram apologized later:, shortly after opening the case req
 * Fram to Ritchie, Too bad that you didn't really delete it per G12, as that would instantly have meant your deadminship for involved and wrong use of the tools. If this is the best you can do, then you have no business joining this discussion as you are not qualified to judge copyvios apparently.
 * Portion of Iridescent's statement: "Speaking as someone who even Fram can't accuse of being motivated through a love for Dr. Blofeld, Fram's conduct regarding this issue—and other recent disputes with which he's been involved—has been an atrocious mix of unnecessary overpersonalization, extreme defensiveness when challenged, lashing out at anyone he feels isn't sufficiently agreeing with him, and a general attitude that his opinions are invariably correct and it's his duty to bludgeon them through regardless of opposition. (If this case is accepted—or looks like it's going to be accepted—then I'll follow with as many diffs as you feel you need, although I assume you're all familiar with his history.)"
 * Part of Rschen7754's statement: "There have been numerous complaints about Fram’s approach to dispute resolution (especially in tech-related matters) and to adminship (for example, this declined ArbCom case request just a month ago: [23] and the Wikidata request [24].) I do not think that it is premature to consider an ArbCom case examining their battleground conduct (as unbecoming of an administrator), though I suspect I may be an outlier here."
 * Part of GreenMeansGo's statement: I suppose it's possible that at some critical threshold of acting like a jerk (if such a finding of fact was made), a person may reach a point where they begin to become less effective as an administrator, because discussions about legitimate problems may tend to get sidetracked into discussions about whether they have a sustained history of failing to... for instance... lead by example and behave in a way that is civil and respectful for others or to model appropriate standards of courtesy. I can understand that it may be frustrating to find yourself in a position where others are unwilling to collaborate with you to do things like cleaning up potential copyright violations, because you may have yourself formed a track record of behaving in a way that does not foster collaboration. A good symptom of this might be filing multiple declined ArbCom cases, being party to others, or the occasional frivolous ANI because you, at some point, apparently forgot how to communicate effectively in a way that makes those things unnecessary. As I type this, seven out of the twelve comments appear to address Fram's own behavior. I'd say that's a perfectly fine reason to accept. The current dispute did not arise in a vacuum, but is itself the result of Fram's apparent penchant for finding situations where they are technically correct, and responding in the most tone deaf way possible (see for example  ).
 * Additional statements that I will not copy/paste in full here
 * Two days after opening the case, Fram adds a section to their statement titled "Introspection": Looking back at the last few days and the last few months, it is in retrospect obvious that I have crossed the boundary of being blunt but fair (which I usually was for the last ten years) to "being right and being a dick at the same time", as it was succinctly put. Not all the time, luckily, but a bit too often. Starting e.g. an AN discussion about the copyvio's had the best intentions (I really wanted to know how best to deal with this situation), but starting it with a sensationalist headline and so on was never going to help. Some others escalated the situation as well, but I didn't recognise my role in it and was way too fast to bring this here (a mistake I already made a few months earlier, I'm apparently a slow learner sometimes).
 * I obviously need to dial things back a few notches and rethink some of my approaches. I still think that my underlying motivations were right and my concerns about policy violations generally correct (and e.g. the recent blocks used in the ill-fated desysop attempt at ANI were well-deserved and dealt with in a perfectly normal and appropriate way), but the way I addressed some issues and people was over the top, unnecessarily unfriendly and unconstructive. I'll do my best to work on these things and to again become the "blunt but fair" admin (and editor) I usually was until relatively recently. Fram 16:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Declined 0/9/1, largely as something that can be handled by the community, but with multiple notes that Fram's behavior was poor (as was the behavior of some other parties)
 * December 2018–February 2019: GiantSnowman
 * 
 * Brought by Legacypac; involved parties Legacypac, GiantSnowman, Bbb23, Fram, Ymblanter. "Unfortunately GiantSnowman has shown enough failure to understand and follow rollback and blocking policy that he should be sanctioned up to loss of Admin tools. Several other Admins have protected GiantSnowman by shutting down discussion and excusing his behavior (obvious Super Mario effect) so evidently the community can't handle this without the structure of an ArbComm case. Admins generally have failed to address proposals and votes to sanction GiantSnowman."
 * Fram was not originally included as a named party, but was added later. Fram was extremely critical of GS, and at times uncivil towards them.
 * A FoF was proposed: "While raising some legitimate concerns, Fram has also unnecessarily personalised this dispute with other users..., assumed bad intent on the part of other users..., transferred concerns about one user to another, running the risk of demonising the former." It did not pass (2/8/0), but many arbitrators wrote that Fram's behavior was "exhausting", "he's like a dog with a bone", etc.
 * Diffs cited in the FoF:
 * Since you followed me to Jacquemijntje Garniers and not the other way around, you are once again being hypocritical. Please stuff your festive greetings up a turkey. Fram 12:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is certainly an ADMINCOND issue — the others not so much.
 * Drmies, whose judgment or impartiality I seriously doubt.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * The accompanying reminder ("to conduct themselves appropriately when communicating with other editors") also did not pass 2/8/0

Non-arbitration dispute resolution

 * January-February 2017: ANI thread "Wikidata discussions and fallout"
 * 
 * Started by Fram, asking for more uninvolved eyes on discussions related to Wikidata. No admin action in the sense of blocks or the like is requested, just some pre-emptive cooler heads who can lead discussions into calmer waters.
 * Thread devolved somewhat into sniping between Fram, RexxS, Kusma, Ritchie333, etc.
 * Closed by Beeblebrox with no action taken and the recommendation the parties go to ArbCom if the users can't agree to avoid each other
 * October 2017: ANI thread "Misuse of tools by Fram"
 * 
 * Started by Guy Macon. Concerns that Fram has accused him of bad faith but then only supplied reasons why they think GM was wrong; Fram deliberately inserted comments into head of ongoing RfC; Fram revdeled a comment that GM claimed was fair use, Fram claimed was copyvio; Fram reverted/revdeled an unrelated comment that "could be viewed as being indirectly critical of his prior behavior." "I am a big boy and can handle whatever insults and disruption Fram throws at me, but is is not fair for him to follow me around use his tools against me when he is WP:INVOLVED up to his elbows. Even if I did violate a copyright (which I dispute) he should have asked an uninvolved admin to deal with it, rather than using the tools when he is so heavily involved."
 * Discussion trended towards agreement that GM's quote was copyvio (not a "brief verbatim textual excerpt") and that Fram's action was reasonable even if they were INVOLVED because of the obvious copyvio; GM accepted this and withdrew the request.
 * January 2018 ANI thread "User:Fram and incivility"
 * Discussed above

Thoughts on which evidence to consider in regards to de/resysop

 * "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators, and consistent or egregious poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator tools. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors."
 * Which evidence sources to consider for desysop?
 * When it comes to banning an editor, we will sometimes consider a broader set of evidence than when it comes to lesser sanctions like a desysop (old but ban-worthy behavior, off-wiki evidence, etc.) In this case, we've considered the private evidence from T&S, which we have not been able to release to Fram. We have also considered privately-submitted evidence, though we were able to submit an anonymized summary of that to Fram. If there was behavior so egregious as to require a ban in the private evidence that we could not show Fram, I think I still would have supported the ban—even though this is a very unusual case where we are not allowed to show them the evidence, we were trusted by the WMF and the community to evaluate this private evidence, and if we were going to disregard everything in it we should have made that clear at the outset before taking on the case.
 * When it comes to desysoping an editor, however, I don't think it's appropriate to consider private evidence that can't be shown to that editor. We are acknowledging that we are acting out of standard process in reviewing this ban and considering this evidence we cannot show Fram, and I'm okay with that in this case (and in this case only — it needs to be discussed in the upcoming RfC so we do have a policy behind this in the event of future cases) since it seemed the only workable way forward. But the desysop is auxiliary to the ban issue at hand, and was presumably only enacted by the WMF as housekeeping since they'd just banned them. If we're going to choose to desysop in this case, we need to follow our standard policy, and that includes Fram being shown the evidence used against them.
 * Fram has not read the T&S document, nor have we been able to provide them with a summary version. WMF has not provided Fram with any version. We do not and cannot know who submitted evidence to the WMF or why they did so. We cannot know their reasons for contacting the WMF directly, when it is usually the ArbCom who handles these kinds of disputes.
 * Fram was made aware that the WMF had concerns about their behavior when they were warned in April 2018. Reminder was sent March 2019.
 * Fram has received the same summary of community-submitted private evidence as we released to the community, but no more.
 * Fram is of course aware of all discussions (at ArbCom, ANI, etc.) opened about their behavior, as is required.
 * Which time frame should we consider evidence for desysop?
 * If we declined to take a case to examine Fram's behavior in the past, is it appropriate to examine that same behavior now and act upon it?
 * Declining to hear a case does not mean we have decided all cited behavior in that case is acceptable
 * If the diffs, etc. mentioned in case requests were not representative of the overall pattern of behavior, we may have declined a case where we should have heard one about Fram's behavior, especially if individual arbs were not familiar with Fram/their DR history — was this the case with the most recent Fram case req (pre-ban)? If so, is this case the time to revisit this behavior?
 * This is perhaps a broader issue worth examining, since the amount of evidence-collecting to gather a representative case about Fram's behavior would be enormous, especially to a newer editor, someone active only in niche areas of WP, people who do not watch AN/ANI/ARB, etc. But we also should not (and cannot) rely on arbs to have historical knowledge of the cases that come before us.
 * Conversely, if we decided there was not sufficient reason to hear a case at the time, and no new evidence has been introduced, we do not want a "double jeopardy" situation. But was no new evidence introduced only because of the framing (heh, Fram-ing) of this whole case? Not really fair for us to speculate on hypothetical evidence that may exist but wasn't submitted.
 * If, in the process of hearing a case, the ArbCom explicitly voted down a FoF citing various behaviors as unacceptable, does that mean we have deemed those behaviors acceptable? e.g. the GiantSnowman FoF. I would say no, that does not excuse the behavior, but I also don't think it's fair to reuse those specific items as sanctionable behavior without quite a bit more in terms of examples of similar behavior.
 * Taking no action and "leaving this to the community" by leaving the desysop in place and requiring a new RfA or BN conversation should not be an option — that will only make the situation messier, possibly invite more cowboy actions like we saw when the ban was first placed, and raise jurisdictional issues (ex. board members have said that the ArbCom can overturn the decision but have not said anything about the community as a whole... so if ArbCom declines to overturn it by passing it to the community in this way, does that mean the ArbCom has upheld the WMF action and the community has no standing to overturn it?)


 * Conclusion: If, in the evidence that Fram has specifically been shown, there is **recent** behavior that **unquestionably** fails to meet ADMINCOND, we should take over the desysop as a part of this case. Otherwise, we need to figure out if we want to hear another case, and if so, if we should resysop Fram in the interim. If we decide that we do not want to split this into another case, we should resysop Fram, and possibly figure out wtf to do if someone immediately comes back with a case req about Fram's admin conduct.
 * As a part of this review: Evidence submitted to us by the community (if it was explicitly presented to Fram/the community during the evidence phase), past public discussions of Fram's behavior where Fram was made aware of the discussion (AN/ANI/ArbCom/etc.)
 * Threshold for "recent"? Does ArbCom have a standard period of time that's generally considered a reasonable evidence window? We did ask people to limit evidence to past three years, though that was followed loosely at best. Nothing codified more generally, but we usually don't accept evidence beyond a few years old unless it's part of a pattern... which I guess is the argument here, that this is an ongoing pattern of behavior. But we do require ongoing pattern of behavior cases to include recent behavior, which again would be in the past few years. We also look for evidence of behavior continuing after a warning for it.
 * Fram's "Introspection" comment occurred in March 2018; original WMF warning was April 2018. If we're looking for a reasonable timebox for evidence, March/April 2018 is the more reasonable than the three year window, of all the arbitrary dates we could choose. Fram was explicitly warned and pledged to improve their behavior. If they have demonstrated since then that they are still unable to meet ADMINCOND, a desysop seems appropriate. There is also approximately a year and a half of time in that window, and so it is sufficient to demonstrate a sustained improvement (or lack thereof) of behavior
 * Warning:, also mentioned by us in the PD
 * Pledge:
 * Would it be better to open a *new* case about Fram's behavior as a sysop?
 * Pros:
 * Clear to the community, to Fram, and to arbitrators which evidence is being considered.
 * In this case, even the arbitrators are probably all considering different subsets of evidence when deciding the desysop. Community has no idea what has been considered (hence repeated (and reasonable) quests for FoFs)
 * It would become a normal "desysop or not" case, rather than this weird "desysop, decline to resysop, resysop, leave to the community... etc."
 * The issue of whether we were going to resysop or not was not really discussed much until after the PD was posted and the decision to overturn the ban started to pass. People were probably not considering ADMINCOND or even abuse of admin tools when submitting evidence, and the standard of evidence to demonstrate a failure to meet ADMINCOND is significantly different than that demonstrating bannable behavior.
 * If we open the case, it saves whichever poor soul tries to open yet another discussion about Fram the grief of people who are exhausted
 * Cons:
 * This whole fiasco has been ongoing since the ban was placed on June 10 (now 3 full months ago). ArbCom is exhausted, the community is exhausted, Fram is probably exhausted too. Is it reasonable for any of these groups/Fram to weather another case?
 * This whole issue is "tainted" to some degree. Even with clear evidence demarcation, some people will be concerned that ArbCom has read the evidence from T&S and might be considering it (subconsciously or otherwise). Similar concerns will probably exist that the ArbCom has seen the WMF desysop and is as a result biased towards/against/who knows when it comes to desysopping.
 * Someone has to open the case—would we just wait for someone in the community to take the (above-mentioned enormous amount of) time to open one? Open one ourselves? Even if we did close the case by concluding "Fram did nothing wrong and we're resysopping them", I suppose someone could still come along and immediately open a new ADMINCOND case—should we be effectively predetermining if we would accept or decline a new case about Fram as a part of this one?

Proposals outline

 * Timing of evidence
 * Reusing evidence?
 * Public vs. private evidence
 * Fram violated admincond within this time frame
 * Fram did not violate admincond — is this necessary? Opposing the above would effectively be the same thing... although in the same way that not accepting a case does not excuse behavior, opposing a remedy does not mean you'd necessarily support a remedy finding the opposite
 * Resysop Fram

Age of evidence
The arbitration policy does not place strict limits on the age of evidence that may be submitted in an arbitration case, although the Arbitration Committee will sometimes preemptively limit the scope of a case to a specific period of time. Even when the Committee does not limit the case scope in this way, they may choose to disregard or give less weight to evidence that is not recent.

Private evidence
The arbitration policy allows people to submit evidence privately in an arbitration case when there are compelling reasons for it not to be submitted publicly. When the Arbitration Committee admits privately-submitted evidence, existing policy requires a private hearing, where parties are "notified of the private hearing and be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to what is said about them before a decision is made."

Consideration of evidence
When deciding what evidence to consider, the severity of the behavior is an important factor. In the case of old evidence or, in this exceptional case, privately-submitted evidence that cannot be discussed with the accused party, evidence of severe abusive behavior may warrant consideration. Conversely, when the behavior in consideration is less severe, evidence of behavior from long ago is often not considered unless it is as background to a pattern of misbehavior that has continued recently, and evidence that cannot be shared with the accused party should not be considered.

Purpose of sanctions
User sanctions are applied with the intention of putting an end to the poor behavior that led to the sanction, and usually with the hope that the sanctioned party will learn from the sanction and improve their behavior as a result. If a user appears to have learned from the matter, the sanction may later be lifted upon appeal (or in the case of desysopping, the user may regain the right after a successful request for adminship). In order for a user to learn from the sanction, it must be made clear to that user what behavior was unacceptable.

Administrator conduct
Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators, and consistent or egregious poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator tools. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors. (WP:ADMINCOND)

The Arbitration Committee accepted a case out of policy
The Arbitration Committee agreed to accept the Fram case to review the WMF Office action, despite the unprecedented requirement that the Committee review partially-redacted case materials compiled by the Trust & Safety team that could not be shared with Fram. Hearing a case in which a party cannot review the evidence submitted against them is outside of the existing arbitration policy.

The site ban was the central issue in this case
The majority of the discussion around the Fram case centered on the one year site ban, and this is what the Arbitration Committee specifically was asked to review: "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." (board statement) The WMF's removal of Fram's sysop rights was auxiliary to the ban action and not itself a sanction: "The removal of administrator access is intended as enforcement of the temporary partial Foundation ban placed on Fram. It is the community’s decision what to do with Fram’s administrator access upon the expiration of the Office Action ban." (WMFOffice statement).

Warning and pledge to improve behavior
In March 2018, Fram pledged to improve their behavior in a comment at an arbitration case request, quoted in part: "I obviously need to dial things back a few notches and rethink some of my approaches. I still think that my underlying motivations were right and my concerns about policy violations generally correct..., but the way I addressed some issues and people was over the top, unnecessarily unfriendly and unconstructive. I'll do my best to work on these things and to again become the 'blunt but fair' admin (and editor) I usually was until relatively recently." Around the same time, the Wikimedia Foundation Trust & Safety team sent Fram a conduct warning.

?
Out of the evidence that was allowed to be made public to Fram and the community, there were two incidents following Fram's pledge to improve their behavior and the WMF conduct warning in which Fram was disrespectful or uncivil. There is also evidence that some members of the community have ongoing concerns with Fram's behavior (some expressed in past discussions examined as evidence:, , , ; and some expressed in conversations following the Office action, for example: , ).

Fram's sysop userright is reinstated
Fram's sysop administrator tools were removed as a housekeeping action accompanying the WMF Office ban, and not as a separate sanction. If remedy 1a declaring that Fram's ban was not required passes, the sysop userright will also be restored.

Fram's sysop status examined
The two recent incidents in which Fram was uncivil do not meet the expectations of administrator behavior (FoF 9), but also are not sufficient to demonstrate a recent pattern of poor behavior. We recognize that the framing of this case around whether Fram should be site banned may have discouraged people from submitting evidence of poor but not site ban-worthy behavior. Following the closure of this case, we will open a new case specifically to examine Fram's behavior as an administrator. Evidence submitted privately as a part of this case will not be considered as a part of the new case, but may be resubmitted to the Committee following the standard admissibility of evidence portion of policy.

Fram admonished
Fram is admonished for failing to exhibit the respectful, civil conduct expected by the administrator conduct policy, and warned that future inappropriate conduct may result in their administrator privileges being revoked.


 * Should not pass this and the remedy to open a new case.