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

Time schedule
Fram has indicated that he will be on vacation and largely offline until 30 July. Isn't an evidence phase until just 7 August a bit short under those circumstances? Or will Fram be expected to participate only after that time anyway? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I believe that we intend to package up all the evidence at the end of the phase and send it to Fram. They therefore do not have 7 days to comment, and any extension would simply afford others more time to send in evidence and delay when Fram gets to begin responding to arbitrators.   AGK  &#9632;  21:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, so you won't tell us what incidents you have received evidence about before you post it all? Collecting evidence and finding diffs is hard work, and I'd rather not do that for things that 5 other people have told you about already. This seems rather inefficient to me. But if you insist, we can all send you emails that tell you that Fram said "Fuck Arbcom" once, but has done X amount of good work. —Kusma (t·c) 09:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the sentiment that 7 days to respond to a series of accusations sounds a bit short, in the context of an Arb case anyhow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) When is the deadline for those submitting evidence?
 * 2) It seems to me that many of those concerned over their perception that WMF was non-transparent were disturbed by the identity of the complainants, and their actual complaints, being kept secret.  If I submit evidence do I have the option of making my submission public?
 * 3) The invitation requested evidence from the last three years.  If I feel recent incidents show Fram is continuing a counterpolicy focus on my activities that dates back a decade should evidence I submit include or disclude diffs that document instances that are older than three years?  Geo Swan (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , 7 August for evidence, we are considering the rest of the deadlines. All evidence is to be submitted privately. You may provide evidence from prior to the past three years if it relates to more recent evidence. WormTT(talk) 15:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * After you publish a summary of the evidence we will begin to understand what the case is about. At that point I might want to submit rebuttal or confirming evidence. Until I know what the complaints are I am not going to submit anything. I suggest you give at least one additional week for further evidence from the community. Otherwise you are building in a strong bias in favor of the accusers. (They can complain about anything, but it’s impossible to prepare rebuttals of all possible complaints). Jehochman Talk 14:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Somewhat relatedly, is it allowed to send in "exculpatory" evidence? E.g "Fram reports and resolves a lot of accuracy issues at DYK; see example A, B and C" or the like? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In what way would evidence of doing good things be exculpatory in relation to the accusations made against Fram? Exculpatory evidence would surely be in the way of evidence exonerating him, not providing a character witness? Leaky caldron (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Precisely. That material would be appropriate to take into account when determining the level of the sanction (like the length of a ban, in the same way as character references are given for convicted persons prior to sentencing decisions), but not in relation to whether the infraction was actually committed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Questions for the committee
Will you publish a summary of the received evidence aprior to the posting of PD? &#x222F; WBG converse 14:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I fear they won’t publish anything useful ever. This has the makings of a backwards case. First they sanction. Then they judge. Then they hint at the reasons therefore, and finally they ask the convict to explain himself.  I hope to be proven wrong.  Jehochman Talk 18:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

What to expect?
Hey all:

I'm just curious as what we should expect. Did the committee receive a lot of evidence or not so much?

Cheers! &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 23:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I am looking forward to learning what this case is really about. All the guessing has been a misery.  Jehochman Talk 13:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * & -- The misery (probably) ends with the evidence as well as Fram's rebut being posted ... :-)  &#x222F; WBG converse 08:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments
ArbCom just reposting whatever nonsense accusations someone posted on the Internet seems to be the sole constant across the variety of evidence. &#x222F; WBG converse 08:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Fram rightly points to this external website: . Has anybody been aware of the existence of this site, or knows who's behind it? It's basically an external attack site against Fram, posing as a Wikimedia site (calling itself "Wikimedia Community Health", using the Wikipedia logo, but as far as I can see completely anonymous). Was the committee aware that parts of the "evidence" they posted was ripped off verbatim from this attack site? Did the committee members do anything at all to filter out the obvious nonsense from their "evidence"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems to me there is a lot there that is not here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've not seen that site before today. I can also confirm that the evidence I posted this morning was an aggregate of multiple users email evidence - any similarities are likely coincidental. WormTT(talk) 10:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , that's the perils of doing a private case on public evidence. At any case, did you post anything and everything that people mailed you after anonymising them? Have you attempted to even cursorily check the factual accuracy of these evidences? Some are flat-out wrong with nil leeway. &#x222F; WBG converse 10:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , as noted, yes, we removed some stuff that was hopelessly out of date and some stuff that was significantly dealt with elsewhere. However, this is a summary of what was said and there's a balance that must be struck between summarising and making a determination on evidence. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 11:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Worm: The similarities with that site are evidently not coincidental; several entries are taken over verbatim, with the same links and exact same editorializing (e.g. "Fram remains confrontational, but shrugs it off"). This includes the horribly misquoted "'I'm an admin, you are not. You may have your own stupid opinion'. Fram causes Ybmlanter to resign". Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

regarding your 'an aggregate of multiple users email evidence' .. Can you in any way enumerate how many users are 'multiple', and of those how many of the email addresses are confirmed to independent Wikipedia usernames (I am not asking you to divulge who, I am only asking about how many users ArbCom knows (confirmed) the associated user, and how many are completely anonymous (which, technically, could be the same user using different email addresses for different evidence). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * (+1) Also, the evidence page states:- If you have concerns about your evidence being posted publicly in this way, please email the Arbcom "B" List to discuss it. In light of that clause, did you receive any evidence but yet, chose to omit it from the anonymised summary? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 11:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not willing to give any firm figures, however, "Multiple" is less than a dozen. I didn't recognise every email address, but I did recognise almost all. I saw no evidence of single users submitting under multiple addresses. Finally, the only community evidence we did not include was for reasons explained at the top. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 11:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, great, even if that also fits with '2' / '1 and 1' (2 < 12; I didn't recognise every email address = I recognised 1; I saw no evidence of single users submitting under multiple addresses = as I recognized 1, the other is likely someone else but have no evidence that it is the same editor ...). (noting that 'I didn't recognise every email address' does not necessarily mean that you can link it to a Wikipedia user per sé).  In the end that still fits with one editor who copied the above website.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am rather dubious about that website. There is very little detail on who runs it, and the links on the website imply that it's part of a service for quickly setting up websites. I can't find a single link on Meta-wiki to that site, either. Are we sure it's not just someone's blog who has been copying stuff from us? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course it's just somebody's blog. But it's somebody who's misappropriated the Wikipedia logo and pretends to speak for a Wikipedia initiative, in order to attack Fram. We are dealing more and more with a case not of harassment by Fram, but harassment of Fram. But you're right in one respect: those particularly dubious pieces of evidence weren't original to that site, but had indeed been previously posted on-Wiki. The "shrugs it off" and "you're an admin" howlers were posted by User:JAGUAR at ANI on6 March 2018. Whoever spoon-fed them to the committee could have taken them from there or from that website. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The incident involving myself was cited at ANI, and the ANI thread was cited at BN both when I resigned and when I asked my tools back, so that it was not so difficult to find for someone who has been active here one and a half year ago. (No idea about the website though).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I can only surmise that there is a lot arbcom is not at liberty to disclose about this. I've been reading past arbcom proceedings before making an account because it was interesting to me, and it seems like almost every case where sanctions were applied or considered had a lot more meat to go on then what looks like some really thinly spread mild civility violations over 3 years. If there is indeed a lot of damning evidence they can't post, this might have been better dealt with entirely privately, as doing it half-half will just fuel speculations and distrust even further. Just my observations from someone who wasn't involved and didn't have an account until recently. Magischzwei (talk) 12:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ↑↑This↑↑ &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 13:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately what's finally been posted is really weak. I mean what is this even supponsed to mean - Block of Mathsci. Quite a few admins have blocked Mathsci. Regarding the F word, admins and editors alike routinely use this type of language. Why would you include that? This makes the T&S action look even worse. Reading between the lines here, this was always about Laura Hale, from the T&S perspective. This should not have been the test case to debut their new weapons. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Similarly, the "Bullying of Geo Swan" links to a user conduct RFC endorsed by more editors than endorsed any of the alternate views. Believe me, I know bullying on Wikipedia, and that is not it. EllenCT (talk) 02:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The sole question that remains now (from an intensively practical view-point), is about how individual arbitrators are going to weigh these evidence w.r.t the T&S bunch. I recall an arbitrator, earlier noting that he (personally) intends to give far more weight to the bunch of submitted evidence than the T&S report. Do they still stick to their stand? Can others clarify, with some amount of reasoning? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 13:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

This is the evidence?
If this is a comprehensive list of Fram's misconduct, he needs to be immediately unblocked and unbanned with apology. That the evidence includes things such as the "I'm an admin, you are not" quote presented as though it were something Fram was directing at a non-admin rather than as a paraphrase of what he felt another admin was telling a non-admin is really disturbing. There are certainly things on that list (such as the ill-considered block of Gorilla Warfare) that could legitimately merit a possible admonition or at least a reminder, but a site ban for this stuff? No way on earth. 28bytes (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , To be clear, this is the evidence provided by the community for this case. It is not the evidence provided by T&S which Fram was banned under. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 13:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we're not given the opportunity to vet whether what T&S has contains equally out-of-context and/or penny-ante infractions. 28bytes (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just for perspective: T&S produced a 70 page document of evidence, and the community comes with about 1/4 of a page? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it still the stance of the arbitration committee to give greater weight to this summarized community evidence then to the T&S report? Magischzwei (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , after the case was opened, you noted :- ... I personally intend to weigh community evidence higher than the T&S document ... Do you still stand by your intentions? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 17:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I do. I can't speak for the rest of the committee, but I hope that a clear proposed decision should show where the committee stands. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 17:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 17:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * , after the case was opened, you were exploring ways to reduce the report or summarize it to where it can be released to the public. Where did such explorations lead to? &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 17:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The Arbitration Committee is still discussing with the WMF as to exactly what we may contain in a summary about the T&S report. I have not been as directly involved in summarizing the evidence as others, but everything I have seen indicates the summary will contain very little information effectively making the report confidential. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 20:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks; please point me to the arbs who are more directly involved. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 20:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , that would be me. However, I have focussed on getting a general statement about the T&S document (which is included in the evidence), rather than summarised evidence, which I do not see happening. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 09:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * - What exactly is a general statement? The word seems to be too vague to me, to make much sense of. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 19:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just so we are very clear on this: "To be clear, this is the evidence provided by the community for this case. It is not the evidence provided by T&S which Fram was banned under." So Fram is not being provided with, at any point, any evidence that was submitted by WMF's T&S? Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't see that happening. No. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 09:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not OK. People have to have the opportunity to respond to the case against them. Wikipedia cannot have system where judgments are passed (by TS& or ArbCom) without giving people the basic ability to defend themselves. The evidence that has been published here clearly does not justify a one year ban. If T&S are unable to make their case in a way that can be presented to Fram to allow a proper opportunity to respond (which might be a different document to the redacted "file" passed to ArbCom), the ban must be lifted immediately. I am saddened to see ArbCom apparently willing to support T&S's practices in this case. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm sure every committee member is painfully aware of this impasse. We are now looking at the workshop to find how to manage it, if indeed it is possible at all. Also, I'm glad to see you back. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 14:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I am back only to express my dismay. It feels like things have only worsened while I have been away. Fram still hasn't been given due process and I am speechless at the way Ritchie has been treated. I am sorry ArbCom feel under attack, but I cannot offer any comfort. This is no longer a project I feel comfortable being part of. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Because of the particular circumstances of this case, everything on the Evidence page was put there by ArbCom. My first, gut, reaction when I saw it was that ArbCom had reviewed everything they had access to, and had decided that what is posted here is the "valid" stuff. But then, when I thought about it some more, it occurs to me that, whereas ArbCom assembled and formatted the evidence, they may perhaps be posting a summary of what was submitted to them, without passing judgment on it (just as with evidence pages of public cases, where members of the community post evidence of varying quality). It might be helpful if the Arbs could confirm whether or not the Committee regards all the posted evidence as having passed some sort of initial evaluation – or whether it is reasonable for editors to assume that some "evidence" will not be found convincing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , there was a very high level evaluation, removal of things that were hopelessly out of date or shouldn't have been there, as well anything that could identify the individuals who made the statements in the first place. Just as is usual for an arbcom case, not all evidence that remains is convincing. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 09:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying that, and thank you for your thoughtful answers to the many questions on this talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why it we did not have an open wiki page for community evidence (could have been in addition to email evidence if necessary), if you don't include any of the T&S evidence anyway. Instead, we got some external anonymous websites collecting evidence. Why is that preferable? —Kusma (t·c) 15:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And this isn't evidence to base a ban and desysop on. Arbcom can either base any decision essentially on the confidential T&S evidence only (in which case the evidence phase here was a waste of the community's time that someone should apologise for) or base their decision on the fact that much of the open evidence, while superficially not nice, has turned out to be justified or not actionable, so the same could be true of the T&S evidence. Given the amount of information I have been given (I only know that it is 70 pages long), I find it difficult to believe this unknown material really does justify a ban and desysop. —Kusma (t·c) 18:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Charges
Reading the "evidence" I'm struck that we still need to know what the charges are that the evidence is supposed to support, and by inference what behaviour change T&S wants of Fram and the rest of us. I'd also like to know:
 * 1) Does T&S consider that this public evidence justifies their 12 month ban of Fram? If not now would be a good time to tell us. Otherwise you will either have people saying that "T&S misjudged things and Arbcom was right to overrule them", or "yes but the stuff you couldn't be shown was more convincing".
 * 2) Does T&S consider that all of this "evidence" is relevant to their case? Or does it include public evidence with  material that others have sent to Arbcom but which T&S had already decided to ignore.
 * 3) Do T&S and Arbcom accept the principle of double jeopardy? IE if the community has decided not to take action over an incident you can try and change the rules for the future, but it is wrong to reverse that decision and punish someone who has already been cleared.
 * 4) Is the new rule that admins may not use the F**k word on talkpages? If so then certain parts of the evidence make sense, and I might just take the whole saga off my watchlist. Or make a large batch of popcorn.
 * 5) Is the new rule "don't block the regulars for edit warring"? I'm keen to change the way we police edit warring and to move from blocking editors to protecting pages against individual accounts. But I'm conscious that changing policy by sanctioning those who enforce current policy is itself a toxic behaviour.
 * 6) Ditto for both attempting to delete marginally notable content and blocking for copyvio breaches.

Fram is clearly less inclusionist than me, sometimes less diplomatic than I aspire to be, and active in using the tools in a couple of areas where I have not been active as an admin. I could conclude from that that I am not personally at risk from whatever change T&S are trying to make, and drop out of the discussion. But I'd already guessed most of the above, and I have continued to follow this because it is important that we get this sort of thing right, and that we treat everyone fairly - including Fram. I am disappointed that we don't have something here which shows that T&S had acted sensibly and proportionately and that if I'd noticed I'd have blocked Fram myself. That leaves us where we were at the start of this saga. T&S has made a mistake in giving a fixed term ban for undisclosed reasons. If we knew what the reasons were we would likely assume that either Fram has made a mistake that merits a 12 month ban, or T&S has made a mistake in banning Fram for 12 months, but T&S are keeping certain things secret. Since T&S has made one mistake in this, there is at least one rule of thumb that they were wrong in the other aspect, and as they are the ones insisting on secrecy, I suppose that makes two rules of thumb that point to them being at fault.....  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , this is just the evidence submitted by the community if I understand correctly. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  18:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that there will be overlap between this and whatever T&S was concerned about. I'd be surprised if there wasn't overlap between the individuals who have complained to T&S and those who have complained to Arbcom. My questions apply equally whether this includes a bit that T&S have said that Arbcom could publish or this is purely based on what others have sent Arbcom. It is particularly important to ask "Does T&S consider that this public evidence justifies their 12 month ban of Fram?. If it doesn't then we are being asked to take their word that there is other more serious stuff out there, if it does then Arbcom can continue with a public process to review the Fram case.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  20:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I understand your reasoning and your questions. But:


 * This case has been in uncharted territory from the get-go. Making assumptions about whether or not there is overlap between the allegations in the T&S document and the published evidence is tricky. (Other assumptions are shattered too. I generally assume good faith — it’s even a fundamental principle here on Wikipedia — but in this case, the staff at WMF have done their very best to undermine any good faith I might have had in them.)


 * Either the supposedly-still-forthcoming summary of the 70-page T&S report will contain other and graver allegations against Fram (against which Fram should then finally be able to defend himself) or there isn’t really anything more in the 70-page T&S report than already mentioned or whatever was in that report never gets divulged to Fram (and/or us), not even in summarised form. In the latter case, I urge everybody, including the arbitrators who have actually read the report, to ignore that there ever was a T&S report. Allegations that aren’t explained to the accused and against which the accused cannot defend himself, aren’t allegations at all — but mere defamatory gossipy whispers. They should not be considered in any way in the outcome of this or any other arbitration case.


 * Still in the latter case, whether T&S considers that this public evidence justifies their 12 month ban, is not really relevant now. Let the normal arbitration process run its course, and lead to a decision whether this public evidence merits a sanction, and if so, which one (and for whom). — Adhemar (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

"We did not see any evidence of off-wiki abuse"

 * In "Jan Eissfeldt update (06/21/2019)", Jan wrote … despite efforts … to scrutinize the contributions …, the community does not and cannot have all the facts of this case (emphasis and elisions mine). The only reasonable inference from the assertion that community scrutiny of edit histories cannot uncover "all the facts of this case" is that evidence relevant to Fram's ban is not actually present on-wiki. That is, Jan is here pretty much outright asserting that the case involved off-wiki conduct by Fram; and asserting that Fram was lying in their plain statement—posted prior to Jan's statement, and brought to their attention several times—that this was not the case. Fram (and others) had also repeatedly asked T&S to confirm (or deny) whether the case was only regarding on-wiki behaviour or not.Ever since that statement it has been clear that either Jan or Fram was lying (feel free to insert a euphemism, the net effect is the same under the circumstances). If ArbCom's evidence does not involve off-wiki behaviour—or redactions mentioning off-wiki evidence that can't be shared—that means either it was Jan who was lying, or T&S is withholding crucial evidence from them (and, by extension, us). --Xover (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Has Jan been asked to clarify how, if there are no complaints of off-wiki abuse, the community "cannot" have all the facts of the case? Perhaps there is some third, unseen possibility here? EllenCT (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * what I have been thinking about is that there is someone (powerful?) behind an account that has been complaining, but digging behind the diffs (or even the type of information) may 'out' the person. What happened may be rather minor and maybe not even really 'visible'.  WMF was pressurized to do something, and here we are.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * There is an additional factor. My understanding is that T&S wants to protect the individuals who have complained to them. If T&S were to give all the facts of their investigation, it would expose those who complained. As is noted, the initial complaints are redacted, but I could guess where the complaints have come from based on the details of the investigation. Someone more unscrupulous than I may take those guesses and subject them to harassment - unfair because the report was made in confidence and it's still a guess. We've already seen this when Fram "let slip" details of a specific user mentioned by WMF to him directly. So, to maintain the users confidentiality, T&S simply cannot pass out their report to the community in general, and given Fram's already published parts of an email, I doubt T&S would pass him any more information either. I understand their stance, and it has nothing to do with off-wiki abuse. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 09:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Who is '"let slip" a quote of? Or are you using the quotation marks in their other meaning implying Fram didn't "let slip" anything, it was a deliberate ... something nefarious? Please clarify. 2605:B100:F043:4754:741F:3652:6799:9476 (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In his first reaction on the ban, on 11 June 2019 8:03, Fram summarised the totality of the (very limited) communication that he received from WMF over the years. It included a March 2019 warning about two (correct) edits he made, half a year earlier, to mainspace articles. Somehow, those edits made a user with initials LH feel uncomfortable. At that time (March 2019), WMF issued a one-sided interaction ban (also with total disregard of Wikipedia procedure and policy, without fair hearing or due process). Fram’s reaction diff I believe this is what Worm That Turned refers to as Fram’s “slip”.
 * As a natural consequence of WMF’s secrecy, people began to speculate. Given the deafening silence and secrecy, and the few leads, and the gossip of the existence of a relation that some consider relevant, some speculation focused on that particular person. Example diff Other example diff
 * On 17 June 2019 21:53 Jan Eissfeldt (WMF) defended WMF’s action: In Fram’s case, (…) we did send more than one of those warnings/reminders before the most recent step. diff. This mention of the reminders, which can only refer to the communication about the LH-angering edits, only intensified the speculation around LH.
 * The commotion led LH to retire from Wikipedia. — Adhemar (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

So the identity "slip" preventing us from knowing the substance of the accusations and shielding the accusers from the checks and balances of an open trial was exposing an editor who had a several paragraph screed against Fram at the top of their talk page? Do you personally believe that is a reasonable concern on the part of T&S? EllenCT (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Well all I will speculate on is that no, I do not think it was the post (or user mentioned) above but another one entirely. But I am not going to out them.Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed compromise on private T&S dossier evidence
Are there any reasons not to simply list all the diffs and/or wikilinks in the 70 page dossier? EllenCT (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC) ...perhaps with limited redactions supplemented by summaries to address any of the possible concerns mentions in the previous section? EllenCT (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * T&S won't allow and Mkdw says above, that a commonly agreed-upon public disclosure of the report, as settled between the ArbCom and T&S, contains near nothing. I don't think that we, the broader community, habe any realistic scope of seeing the contents of T&S report in any manner. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 06:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) Yes, certainly. Assume I was one or more of the "dozen" complaints. I would have been writing stuff like "Look what a dick Fram was to me in [diff] [diff] and [diff]. And I felt really horrible when they said [diff] [diff] [diff] on my talk page." If I said that with an expectation of confidentiality—which I certainly would have when talking to "Trust & Safety"—to then make public those diffs would feel like a fundamental breach of trust and like being outed (doesn't matter if the community does figure out it was me: I would feel equally exposed regardless). And in addition to being a horrible and unethical thing to do to the reporter, it would undermine the necessary trust that would enable future complainants to dare get in touch. And none of these factors are affected in the least by whether my complaints were frivolous or meritorious!You can fault T&S for many things in this case, but fiercely protecting the identity of those who have contacted them should not be one of them. And ArbCom needs to be even more careful because they're handling such information second hand (that is, they are holding it in trust on behalf of T&S).I would assume there is information ArbCom can release even under those constraints, but it would almost certainly have to their summary of carefully de-identified information; and it will be such that they will face complaints of being "vague". They may, of course, see some better solution than I can; but I don't think it likely, and I think the community should respect such necessities when the time comes. It won't be ArbCom being vague or hiding information: it will be them doing the best they can under those constraints. --Xover (talk) 06:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Maybe section-by-section abstracts, then? EllenCT (talk) 06:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Section by section, or issue by issue, or something along those lines, yes. We, and Fram, must have at least enough information to understand what kind of behaviour is alleged, even if details must be couched in vagueness. --Xover (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "You can fault T&S for many things in this case, but fiercely protecting the identity of those who have contacted them should not be one of them." Sorry, protecting anonymous complaints by (given Fram's interaction history) likely disruptive editors is something that can be faulted. In almost every professional organisation when you make claims of harrassment, one of the first things you are told is that your anonymity will not be guaranteed over the life of the complaint, because at some point, unless the claims are found to be not credible at a very early stage, the person accused will have to be told what they are accused of, what they did, and to which individual they did it. Except for T&S apparantly. Which given the current people working there is unsurprising that it adheres to 'listen and believe' rather than a more professional non-credulous approach. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In almost every professional organisation … Indeed, but Wikipedia is not a professional organisation, editors are not employees (with the attendant rights, obligations, legal protections, and recourse), and—unlike a professional organisation—editors are anonymous (for good reason). In fact, I think failing to see that distinction is likely one of the things we should fault T&S for: those factors have severe implications for what they can do and how they can do it. For one thing, it means issues that are not so clear-cut and obviously egregious cannot be properly handled by T&S. And for another, it means their standards of evidence must be significantly high. In fact, judging by all the information available to me they have, in this case, inappropriately attempted to apply standards and practices from a professional organisation setting without accounting for the fundamental differences that obtain here.The consequence of making frivolous complaints to T&S should be that T&S refuses to act on your complaint, not getting thrown to the wolves and facing potential real harasssment, doxxing, and worse. Recall also that the good-faith community here—harsh and prone to overreact as it can be sometimes—is not the only consequence to be concerned about. We are an extremely public website, and we know there are communities elsewhere that relish in what we would term unequivocal harassment.And consider the consequences not just for a single editor who made objectively frivolous and bad-faith complaints. Let's say somewhere in one of the instances that led to Fram being taken to ANI and ArbCom I felt they had comitted some low-grade but, to me, serious policy infraction. Excessively confrontational and hounding, let's say. What if I had made a single, good-faith (even if ultimately misguided), complaint to T&S about it, and T&S would otherwise have ignored it as too minor but included it with the rest since they had a case open. If the identies of the complainers are not safeguarded, my complaint would have then been caught up in the outrage generated by the other bad-faith and frivolous complaints. Internet outrage is not exactly famous for being nuanced and measured. My failure to properly assess the seriousness of the issue or the appropriate venue for handling it should not be punishable by being fed to angry mobs with pitchforks and torches. A BOOMERANG at ANI or AE is usually a pretty mellow trouting, or at worst a pseudo-formal admonishment.My point is that we need to separate the two concerns: we need to protect the identity of the complainers, and fault T&S for their botched handling of the case. That this is exceedingly difficult to do is, in my opinion, ipso facto proof that T&S failed and that the civility-policing/partial-bans stuff cannot work. T&S is the 800-pound gorilla: perfect when a heavy sledgehammer is called for, but entirely the wrong tool for stacking fine china. When they get it in their head to take over the china shop the inevitable result is FRAMGATE.Encouraging ArbCom to release as much information as at all possible is fine (I absolutely agree). But they are limited not just by restriction imposed by WMF Legal and T&S, but by that necessary concern for those who have complained. At some point we are going to have to take their assessments on faith; and they are going to have to do a whole lot of extra work verifying claims—to a very high standard—since they are precluded from enlisting the community's assistance in that task. --Xover (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Indeed, but Wikipedia is not a professional organisation" - but the WMF are. And it is their insistance on protecting pseudo-anonymity that has led to this mess, as any process based on that for investigating harrassment is flawed to start with. "At some point we are going to have to take their assessments on faith". No we dont. Not when those assessments originate from a flawed process by questionble individuals. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that the WMF's handling of this is nothing short of disastrous, and I additionally assert that the disaster was both predictable and inevitable. Under the constraints that follow from Wikipedia's very nature, T&S cannot handle anything more nuanced than those obvious cases that, I believe, everyone agree they should (child protection, threats of violence, assisting with off-wiki harassment, and so forth), without it ending in just this kind of disaster. And I am significantly worried by the appearance that their "solution" to that quandry seems to be to attempt to change what Wikipedia is rather than adjust their standards and practices to operate as best they can within those constraints.On your second point, however, I need to specify: we need to trust ArbCom, not T&S, and that includes trusting them to disregard frivolous and bad-faith complaints. Based on what I'm seeing so far, that appears to be exactly what they are doing: they've set the scope to exclude ancient history and issues dealt with previously. And I have seen nothing to make me doubt that they will treat the (anonymous, even to them) allegations with the necessary level of scepticism. T&S has, sadly, given us significant reason to distrust their ability to objectively and impartially assess the evidence (see e.g. the message quoted above), but I believe, and trust, ArbCom will take that into account in their own assessment. There is no reason to think the community's collective scoff at the evidence posted so far will engender a less incredulous reaction from ArbCom. --Xover (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This cuts to the heart of the issue, doesn't it? After seeing the (incredibly weak) display of evidence against Fram that was mailed to ArbCom during the evidentiary phase, a lot of people are now expecting a full unban and restoration of sysop to him. (Also see NYB's proposed decision for this sentiment). Now if the T&S Dossier contains allegations that are credible and damning enough to sway ArbCom towards upholding or extending the ban, how many people will believe and trust ArbCom on that? The default reaction will probably not be positive from the community Magischzwei (talk) 10:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems to me like that is the locus of the dispute here. If anyone makes a public accusation at AN/I or Arbcom, their conduct is also examined and if the allegations are found to be excessively one sided (like when there was mutual incivility but only one side is presented, the accuser may find themselves with a WP:BOOMERANG back to themselves. Allowing purely private and anonymous evidence that cannot be publicly scrutinized means that this fundamental protection against abuse of process no longer exists, when you think about it. Nobody that complained about Fram to T&S can be faced with a Boomerang, not just because their identity isn't known even to ArbCom, but because a Sanction, Motion or Finding of Fact against them would reveal them as the complainant. This seems to be a fundamental challenge to how Enwiki currently practices dispute resolution. Magischzwei (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree very strongly with your excellent observation. Because I have never seen this argument raised in the entire WP:FRAM-and-associated discussion pages, I am awarding you the coveted inline bulb2 animation, in hopes that others might be more likely to read your comment. Seriously, all of the discussion has been around publishing the accusations so that others can understand how they are being judged, but nobody mentioned the inherent checks and balances of an open trial, as far as I can remember. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But my point throughout this is: so much more than child pornography, death threats and so forth, harassment and incivility (.. and edit warring, reverting of vandalism, removal of spam, ...) do take two to tango. Show me cases where an editor arrives here and starts to swear at their first talk page post ... such a person would never even make it to admin.  Show me an admin that opens up with swearing at an editor who they never interacted with on-wiki.  Yes, admins get angry, they are human, but that (bad hair days excluded) only happens after significant time/interaction (look back to the start of the situation that led to the Gorilla Warfare block, look back to the start of the discussion that led to the Izno fuck off - both have history).  If I tell you to fuck off then there is a reason why I tell you to fuck off.  Were the responses excessive, yes, but all can be appealed.  Yes, it should be avoided (especially if you are an admin), but as I stated earlier: I cannot recall an admin telling me to fuck off in 13 years (and I have been dragged before AN/I).  All the 'real' situations in this evidence are like that (mostly discussed to death already).  Unless one starts swearing on a first encounter there always is a reason, and where there is a reason, there may be a boomerang.  Taking yourself out of the situation and only showing the bad other side is the whole reason why the community screamed loud.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That is what I mean though. In the future RFC or what have you about going forward, one thing needs to be clear. If action is expected to be taken on fully confidential reports, then the subject of the report and action can't know why the action was taken, what they have done wrong or who accused them. Further, in a mutual dispute, anyone who "accuses first" can not be punished alongside the reportee, because that would inevitably violate the report's confidentiality. I haven't seen this mentioned before which is why I brought it up, but it seems like that is the new normal if dealing with harassment properly means accepting fully confidential evidence. Magisch talk to me 12:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So, what stops me then to post a whole list of copyvio documents, or start spamming wikipedia? As soon as I get blocked I send an email to T&S asking for action on the admin who blocked me because I got harassed? What I mean is that never action should be taken on secret evidence like this, this is always a two-way street.  It becomes a first-mover advantage which may quickly lie with the person who makes abusive posts.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion on how this should end either way, until like two weeks ago I didn't even have an account and just read things here and on past arb cases out of interest. It's not like I have the clout or standing to seriously propose anything anyways, I just wanted to bring up this conundrum / concern because I hadn't seen it mentioned previously. Personally I can't really form an opinion due to lack of context and experience. Magisch talk to me 12:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Newyorkbrad
I have no more information than anyone else, but this point I take it that the evidence in the T&S document is drawn, at least primarily, from on-wiki edits and comments.

I suspect that many of the allegations against Fram in the T&S document fall squarely into the category of "Fram spots what he perceives as ongoing problems in the contributions of a good-faith but flawed editor, and zealously pursues the issue over a long period, criticizing that editor and perhaps blocking and perhaps opening a noticeboard thread or an ArbCom case. Throughout, Fram's intent is to protect and improve the encyclopedia, not to harass the other editor; however, that editor subjectively perceives that he or she is being chased by Inspector Javert." This likely involves multiple other editors, not just one. Hence my recommendation in my proposed decision that Fram be counseled, upon his return to editing and/or adminning, that he need not take sole responsibility for such issues himself, but with the corollary that other admins and experienced editors must be willing to help address such long-term issues when they arise.

A second topic presumably addressed in the T&S document is general civility. If we held an incivility sweepstakes, though, I don't think Fram would be among the top ten offenders; it would certainly be fine if he were to use the word "fuck" less often, but inducing him to do that cannot be the main factor behind all this sturm und drang.

A third point may relate to comments made by Fram on-wiki to or about WMF employees; the expectation that contributors treat each other with basic respect and common courtesy applies to WMF personnel to the same extent as volunteer editors. (Perhaps that should be added as a principle in the decision.) That expectation does not disappear because an editor believes that the employee, or the WMF as a whole, has messed something up. But it takes a heck of a lot more indelicacy and directness of speech than I've noticed from Fran so far to justify banning a previously unblocked contributor for a year and pulling their admin bit.

If there are 70 pages of evidence they contain more details than this, but as far as I know, those are the categories of what we are talking about. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , That sounds like a good general summary. There is one category you have skipped over, which is mentioned in the T&S summary, which is Fram's comments towards the Arbitration Committee and it's members. I expect that this can fall into a similar set of points as your third, but I did think it worth noting. I'd certainly appreciate any thoughts you might have on drafting principles/ findings in those areas. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 17:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What evidence of criticism of WMF or ArbCom has been presented in theevidence? Are you again adding evidence while the evidence phase is closed?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If memory serves, the banning message that Fram received cited a "fuck arbcom" comment made during a debate earlier this year on WT:ACN as the last straw that brought the WMF banhammer down. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Honest question here since I don't see that event linked in the evidence: is it common practice to include further events into proceedings after the evidence phase is closed? Zeratul2k (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Overleaf it is written that the eyes only T&S evidence comprises over a dozen reports to the Foundation. The report detailed long-term disputes with several community members, Arbcom as a body and its membership, and Foundation staff members. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 18:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Point taken, though I guess that serves as an example of how keeping the whole of the T&S evidence secret isn't conductive to a full discussion of the underlying issues. I haven't been following this topic as in depth as others have, so I had no idea of the comments Fram had made ragarding ArbCom. Zeratul2k (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, point taken, but then we would just blindly follow what T&S gave us. And I thought that that was thoroughly rejected by the community.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Despite being unable to see the text of the actual complaint made, having someone outside the committee submit a principle on the subject would still be useful. It is acceptable to criticize the committee, the decisions, or actions of the committee, etc., but there is something to be said for the delivery of that criticism. We need to remember that even though the criticism is directed at a committee, standards of decorum still apply. Being excessively harsh is unlikely to have the intended effect, contributes to the attrition rate, and discourages quality candidates from offering to serve. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 18:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd just treat it as a form of disruption if someone was to make denigrating, inflammatory comments inside the case request, those comments should be removed, and if necessary, the person making them should be sanctioned for disrupting Committee proceedings. There's no need to get into the practical effects of such conduct in order to discourage it; it simply needs to be clear that while commentary and criticism is always welcome, disruptive comments may be moved elsewhere or removed entirely, and persistent or severe disruption may lead to sanctions, no matter who the person is. And I think that's key: We already routinely see legitimate comments by banned users (and disruptive comments by presumably banned users on throwaway accounts) removed and even revdel'd when they're inside the case. We should hold all participants to that standard. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , indeed, I believe that would be a helpful principle to make. The fact is that Fram did not just make comments about the committee as a body (that diff above), but also directly against committee members, within cases. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 06:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So we are moving on and on to showing that there was a repetitive form of such comments broadly throughout the community. The fact is that Fram did not just make comments about the committee as a body (that diff above), but also directly against committee members, within cases.  If that is the case, then why do we not see those diffs appear in the evidence?  Even 'that diff above' does not appear in the evidence.  Why does Fram not have the possibility to defend themselves against it?
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Proposed_decision seems to be rather understanding and puts the tone down to 'not ideal', 'perfectly reasonable', and 'the last time I felt Fram was overstepping the mark, they responded with introspection and I don't recall seeing issues for the remainder of the year.' (my bolding). In fact, ArbCom did not even deem that sufficient for a reminder (let alone an admonishment).  Now we go down to a full site-ban and desysop because the overall pattern is so bad with absolutely no show of evidence?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you for those links. You'll note that in March 2018, I told Fram he was over overstepping the mark. His introspection accepts that his actions were over the top. Yet, in January 2019, the committee was seriously considering a finding against him. Look at the opposing arbitrators comments, "exhausting", "less than ideal", "I went back and forth", "I have concerns". Now, I'm not saying we should be doing a full site ban and desysop, that came from T&S. I'm trying to workshop options.<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 07:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also see that (and I don't necessarily disagree). But Findings of Fact are based on evidence which then needs to be presented (which then hopefully can be rebutted, or at least put in context).  And the same FoF contains 'matches those of the users he is responding to' (I'm not necessarily agreeing with an eye for an eye), 'but can sometimes be understandable when put into context', 'I think it was perfectly reasonable to say "hey, someone else is currently under scrutiny for something you seem to be doing, you might want to adjust your behavior so you don't also wind up under scrutiny."' and 'The rest of that conversation is civil'.  And you realize that These FoFs and Remedy are of January 2019 (case closed on February 10), where the most recent evidence presented in the evidence phase is of January 30.  Anything new since?  Maybe the not-issued reminder did it's job?  Or are we up for a double jeopardy?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Quoting Fram, in reply to diff
 * "WTT, as an Arb, you should now that that is not how evidence in an Arb case works.
 * "The parties and other interested editors are encouraged to place evidence on the case's Evidence subpage, in the form of diffs demonstrating contested behavior along with explanations and context. Be clear and concise. The parties should be aware that argument is not evidence, and that thirty words and five well-chosen diffs may speak more eloquently than a 500-word diatribe.
 * Serious allegations require serious evidence, with each aspect of the evidence supported by illustrative diffs. An arbitrator or clerk may remove statements which are not adequately substantiated. "
 * And from en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Evidence
 * "Supporting assertions with evidence
 * Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. "
 * Please don't now try to use inadmissible evidence (a section of a case which wasn't linked to in the evidence phase), nor invisible evidence (the T&S document). There are already very few rules remaining in this case, it would be appreciated if you at least stuck to those rules and not proceed any way you want.
 * Now, looking at the fundamentals: you refer to the 2019 case, where you have a remedy about me failing 2 to 8, probably because the one finding of fact about me, which was not about comments towards arbitrators, failed as well (again 2 to 8). Your reply to Beetstra refers this FoF (the "Fram" section in . Your original statement was about me making comments against committee members in cases ("The fact is that Fram did not just make comments about the committee as a body (that diff above), but also directly against committee members, within cases."), but the FoF (and thus the comments about "exhausting", "less than ideal", "I went back and forth", "I have concerns") were not about comments against committee members in cases, but about comments towards others, and not even during the case but before it started.
 * This is why we normally have a full evidence phase, to make sure that evidence can get scrutinized before it is erroneously used in the workshop. Now we have an Arb including evidence willy-nilly, to support their claims even when these claims are not supported by the evidence they use. Fram (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * copied on request from https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fram&oldid=19316704#Things_to_post. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with NYB. Fram needs to learn how to address content issues without making imperfect editors (all of us!) feel persecuted.  I know that whenever I've had my work reviewed by Wikipedia's best editors, it has made me feel like garbage.  It is hard to volunteer, to do one's best and then get heavy criticism.  It must be even worse for editors who come here hoping to contribute when their native language is not English.  We all need to work on being tolerant, kind, and patient. Jehochman Talk 21:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie333 may be Kusma?
What do the two evidence diffs have to do with Ritchie333? Both are from a heated discussion about the use of Wikidata in infoboxes. I made two edits (not indicated by the diffs, which are Fram edits) where I suggested Fram should maybe change his approach a bit, but as I was on the other side of that particular dispute, Fram understandably perceived these remarks as taking sides against him. Anyway, whoever wrote the evidence should fix it and consider changing "Ritchie333" to "Kusma" and giving the correct context to why Fram brushed off my friendly suggestion. —Kusma (t·c) 05:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * maybe you could consider this analysis at the analysis of evidence in the Workshop? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll probably do that later (for the context), but the mistaken attribution to Ritchie should be fixed at the source. —Kusma (t·c) 06:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , The evidence is what was submitted, right or wrong, however a comment like that in the analysis section would very much clarify and would be helpful, if you do get some time. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 06:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I put something up at the workshop page. I think the evidence page shows clearly that this experiment in gathering evidence by email has been a failure. —Kusma (t·c) 16:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * failed ... or clutching at straws. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Fram's second warning and the T&S 70-page document
I know that I will never get a reply on this.

Fram stated on commons that they, "In March 2019, [I] received a "reminder" about two edits [I] made in October 2018". That leaves about 3 months of editing before the ban was executed. Seeing that the reminder took 5 months to process, I do not expect that the ban took less than a month to process. Anyway: lets take 3 months.

The last evidence posted to the evidence page is of the end of January. Hence, nothing particular, let alone excessively egregious after February 2019. What portion of WMF's 70-page document contains material that is from later than February 2019 (and while you are at it, how much of this document pertains material of the last 3 years)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It does seem very reasonable that the 70 page dossier should be summarized by a month-and-year histogram of complaints. That wouldn't leak any identity. I feel angry that we are going to such lengths to protect the people who very likely abused their position of power and privilege to make everyone waste so much time on this. It's inappropriate to propose sanctions against the accusers without more evidence that a boomerang is in order, but it's not inappropriate to propose admonishing the T&S instigators. EllenCT (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * it's not inappropriate to propose admonishing the T&S instigators Considering we're ignoring the jurisdictional limitations on the arbitration policy for this case, we could probably sanction the people at T&S as well. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the T&S people are just fine. I've had contact with most of them over the years, and they've always been good and helpful.  The problem here is primarily one of people disconnected from one another not understanding each other.  T&S should stick to their customary role, or if there needs to be change, it should be discussed, announced and implemented deliberately, not as a shock measure.  I don't think Maria Sefidari ordered Fram to be banned.  Most likely it was just a case of sympathy for familiar people triggering a stronger response than usual.  This is a natural human reaction (probably a cognitive bias) and is why judges will always recuse from cases involving people they know. WMF has room to improve, and hopefully they will.
 * By now Fram is well aware of what the concerns are, and I very much doubt there will be a recurrence of any problem. Moreover, so many eyes are on this, there would be instant reporting to ArbCom if there were any further issues.  Therefore, I suggest reducing sanctions to time served, if the T&S evidence shows actual problems continuing after the final warning, or if not, reversing the sanctions as "in error".
 * Let's not focus on blaming people. Let's learn from what happened and make things work better.  Jehochman Talk 04:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That is what I have said, the way this was approached has so utterly poissoned the well that the best conclusion is going to be 'in error'. A warning was issued in March, apparently it continued after that.  Instead of starting the ban procedure, at that point (well, probably already at the first warning) it should have been handed over to ArbCom ('we issued a warning in March to Fram, it continued', can you investigate and possibly start a case?  We will not tell you anything, but we want you to test the edits SINCE MARCH against our ToU and your policies and guidelines '.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is time for a do-over, and a reset to before 's ban.
 * 1. T&S overreached and failed to consider the effect of withholding evidence from Fram, the accused, and from the public, the Wikipedia community. This also means that T&S had not thought through the effects of promising confidentially in this particular case. That promise of confidentially makes sense when the case will be transferred to civil authorities, but not in the context of the Fram case.
 * 2. There should be a full discussion among the Wikipedia Community and WMF about what powers and processes should be appropriate for an organ like T&S. Secret evidence is not appropriate in a case that is at most activity that could be considered bullying, or excessive zeal in insisting on high quality articles, or blunt statements. Clearly the setup of T&S was flawed. The main weakness seems to be failure to consider consequences and proper use of any powers (or if any powers.) The Wikipedia Community can help.
 * 3. The situation we have now is a star-chamber that, fortunately, has made a big mistake early. The Community wants to help at the moment—I a pretty sure the T&S staff wants to get back to important work that is transferred to civil authorities. Or opening ARBCOM cases.
 * 4. Reducing incivility and bullying need to be a task taken up by the entire community. If that does not happen, opaque, flawed diktats from well-meaning functionaries above will accomplish nothing. Some leadership from T&S staffers would be a good start. Get involved with the community. Perhaps issue warnings, but present a case to ARBCOM. If criminal activity is suspected, hand it over to Legal. Help editors who feel bullied learn to defend themselves. I believe these would be much more productive actives.

— Neonorange (Phil) 04:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

How many people sent in evidence?
How many individual editors provided evidence in response to Arbcom's solicitation last month? EllenCT (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I believe I've said somewhere, less than a dozen. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 07:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason that you don't want to say the specific number? EllenCT (talk) 07:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Almost certainly because with some of the material they received it's not clear how to count it (e.g., if someone sent them something saying "I think you should ban Fram, he's rude" without supplying any specific diffs, would that count? If they receive the same identical email from two different people, does that count as one submission or two?), so it's impossible to give a firm number. I wouldn't get too hung up on this particular point. &#8209; Iridescent 08:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I discussed this earlier with WTT. From their answer it can be concluded that it is between 2 and 11 incusive. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm interested in the total number of people who sent evidence as was provided, even if some of them sent the same evidence, but not if what they sent was not included in the evidence. I suspect it's substantially less than six. EllenCT (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * See  for why I am pretty confident it is three or less independent reporters. In short of the pieces of evidence eight are copy/paste from an old ANI; two are so poor that I'm confident they are copy/paste from somewhere because no one could be that carelessly intentionally deceptive, leaving two which might have independently submitted. (The duplication of the Martinevans issue may indicate an independent submission as well or just carelessness) I just can not see several people, acting on their own, to all be so lazy as to copy/paste material from the same source. Nor can I see all of the people submitting evidence not trying to tie it together with a narrative complaint. Just look at how a regular ArbCom case evidence section is -- pretty much everyone tries to tie their evidence together to demonstrate their case but here no one did.  Jbh  Talk  13:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This evidence is SO little that it looks suspicious. In a regular case many people send each massive amounts of evidence and each of them is known (and personally addressed if evidence is substandard or not applicable, and all is heavily scrutinized).  Now each was submitted anonymous.  And several of the points are even taken down.  And you are right, it looks like significantly less than 12, which is then so much in contrast with more than 12 editors submitting 70 pages of evidence.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I thought the same when I looked at the presented evidence. It almost seems like it was just thrown together to see what would stick. Zeratul2k (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You know, the thought that T&S was able to compile such a massive dossier on Fram when the community--including all those who would like to see him gone--managed to come up with such a small amount of evidence reminds me of a term used in legal circles, something that is explicitly prohibited for US prosecutors. It looks to me like T&S went on a "fishing expedition" to gather anything they possibly could on Fram to boost their case.  Mayhaps we're seeing why such techniques can be ruled prosecutorial misconduct in the US?  rdfox 76 (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know about anyone else, but I sent in some evidence, which was lightly edited by the committee (some of my commentary was removed) and now forms the majority of the "Arbcom declined" subsection (but I only pointed at one of the cases started by Fram). I didn't put a huge amount of work into this, as I had no idea how many other people would submit the same or similar evidence showing that Fram's behavior has been examined by ArbCom several times before, and had already been dealt with and found not to be a significant problem. I don't know why so little evidence critical of Fram was submitted, but maybe people were naively assuming that there would be something derived from the T&S evidence on the page (you know, maybe something pointing to anything looking like a justification for a ban and desysop? I was naive enough to expect that the evidence page of this case would contain some actually relevant evidence). Somewhat offtopic, I would really like to get a take-home message out of the case, and currently it is "Fram annoyed several powerful people or people with powerful connections, and annoying these people sufficiently carries the penalty of a one-year ban", which isn't a message I am particularly happy with. —Kusma (t·c) 17:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Occam's razor. The theory that there is no other evidence is much simpler than the theory that you could not be bothered to look for the possibility to find more evidence and expected that others would do that (hence apparently rather difficult job) for you.  And it is so easy to prove your theory yourself: find if there is significant evidence that should have been submitted (which is already unlikely as now others did not come with that evidence either, and people have been scrutinizing Fram's edits for 8 weeks now).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Why Has the Evidence Summary Not Been Sanitized?
I'm extremely troubled that the summary of the evidence has stayed how it is. Since this is a collection of evidence, already filtered by arbitrators, and not arguments from individual commenters, the commentary surrounding the evidence should be and should have long been removed. Someone can argue, for example, that "Fram remains confrontational" with Cwmhiraeth or that Fram's block of Martinevans was "seen as vindictive," but this commentary should not be part of an evidentiary summary. Ambiguity of this nature is fundamentally unfair to the accused; that a curated list of evidence contains this type of commentary leaves a reader with the question as to whether that commentary is in the voice of ArbCom or not. If it's not, it ought to be, at a minimum, labeled as commentary of the person/people who sumitted the evidence and if it is the conclusion of ArbCom, it should be found in the decision, not in the evidence itself. A summary of evidence ought to be a summary of, well, evidence. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. This is a knock-on from the original sin. &mdash; Neonorange (Phil) 20:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sigh, the evidence is gathered to show Fram's guilt. This is how evidence in ArbCom cases is gathered.  It is not put in context, scrutinized, ArbCom will dothat for us.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)