This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Worm That Turned (talk | contribs) at 08:07, 6 September 2019 (→Removal of sysop user-rights: I'm going to have to oppose *sudder* over process). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are active arbitrators. Expression error: Missing operand for +. support or oppose votes are a majority.

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks. Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

User conduct

1) Editors on the English Misplaced Pages are expected to abide by the site's policies and guidelines. When an editor seriously or repeatedly violates these expectations, sanctions may be imposed, in accordance with policy, by an uninvolved administrator, by community consensus after discussion on a noticeboard, or by the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are also expected to abide by the applicable policies and guidelines and to exercise good judgement, especially in connection with major administrator actions such as blocking a good-faith editor, and for failure to do so may be subject to sanctions including desysopping by the Committee.

Support:

1. Worm(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. – Joe (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Wikimedia Foundation role

2) The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), sometimes referred to as the "Office," is the legal owner of the English Misplaced Pages website and infrastructure. Working through professional staff, many of whom also have experience as volunteer editors and community members, the Office plays an important and necessary role in administering the site. Historically, however, the Office has not intervened directly in day-to-day English Misplaced Pages project governance, and in particular has not handled user-conduct complaints involving on-wiki conduct, except in narrow circumstances that are unsuited for resolution by community volunteers. In the past, the Arbitration Committee has expressly asked that the Office handle certain narrow categories of misconduct complaints, but not that it take on a broader supervisory role regarding on-wiki day-to-day user or administrator conduct.

Support:

1. Worm(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. – Joe (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Civility

3) Editors are expected to show reasonable courtesy to one another, even during contentious situations and disagreements. See Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks.

Support:

1. Worm(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. – Joe (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Harassment

4) Editors must not harass other editors either on or off Misplaced Pages. Although some types of misconduct will clearly constitute harassment and warrant sanctions, in other cases whether harassment has occurred may be more borderline or subjective. The views and feelings of editors who believe in good faith that they are being or have been harassed are to be respected and fully considered, whether or not it is ultimately concluded that harassment actually occurred. Because the word "harassment" spans a wide variety of types of behavior, and because this word as used off-wiki can carry serious legal and human-resources overtones, at times it may be better to describe allegedly problematic on-wiki behavior such as "wikihounding" with more specific terminology.

Support:

1. Worm(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. – Joe (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Following another editor's contributions

5) It is important, though it can sometimes be difficult, to distinguish between an editor's reviewing and as appropriate correcting or commenting on the edits of a fellow editor making problematic edits, which is acceptable and in some cases even necessary, and the practice referred to as "wikihounding" or "wikistalking," which constitutes a form of harassment and is prohibited. See Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Wikihounding. While the line separating proper from improper behavior in this area may not always be sharply defined, relevant factors include whether the subject editor's contributions are actually viewed as problematic by multiple users or the community; whether the concerned editor raises concerns appropriately on talkpages or noticeboards and explains why the edits are problematic; and ultimately, whether the concerns raised reasonably appear to be motivated by good-faith, substantiated concerns about the quality of the encyclopedia, rather than personal animus against a particular editor.

Support:

1. Worm(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. – Joe (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Administrators' pursuit of issues

6) Administrators should bear in mind that they have many colleagues. If an administrator finds themself in repeated disagreement with another good-faith but allegedly problematic editor, or if other editors disagree with the administrator's actions regarding that editor, it may be better practice for the administrator to request input or review from others, such as by posting on the appropriate noticeboard, rather than continue to address the issue unilaterally. This can be true even if the administrator may not formally be "involved" in a dispute with that editor. Whether to handle a matter oneself or seek broader input can be a judgment call as in more clear-cut instances, an individual administrator may be justified in addressing the problem decisively on their own. The question to be asked can be whether bringing more voices into the discussion will enhance the chances of a fair and well-informed resolution that will be respected as such by the affected editor and by others. A corollary is that this approach can work only if other admins and experienced editors are prepared to invest the time and effort needed to review a situation and provide input when asked to do so.

Support:

1. This is certainly a factor in this case. Worm(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. – Joe (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proportionality of sanctions

7) No matter who is the sanctioning authority, any sanctions imposed on an editor or administrator for misconduct should be proportionate to the nature and severity of the conduct. Relevant factors to consider may also include how recently the misconduct took place, how clear it is that the behavior constituted misconduct, whether the editor has expressed or carried out an intent to improve their conduct, and whether lesser sanctions have been employed without success in trying to resolve the problem. For example, a lengthy site-ban will usually not be the appropriate sanction for on-wiki conduct by an experienced, good-faith contributor who has never previously been blocked at all.

Support:

1. Worm(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. – Joe (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Fram

1) Fram is a long-time active editor and administrator on the English Misplaced Pages. They have been a high-profile administrator and a party to various disputes over the years, but had never been blocked prior to the events that prompted this case (). The Arbitration Committee declined several times to accept requests for arbitration filed against them (2018, 2016) and, where they were involved in cases, have not produced findings against them. The WMF Office sent a "conduct warning" to Fram in April 2018, and a reminder of that warning in March 2019. The Committee has seen copies of the warnings sent to Fram, as well as Fram's response.

Support:

1. Worm(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. – Joe (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Office ban of Fram

2) On June 10, 2019, the WMF Office announced that Fram was banned from the English Misplaced Pages for a period of one year, effective immediately, as a non-appealable Office action. No detailed public rationale was provided for the action at that time and the Office has explained that a full explanation cannot be provided as non-public information was involved. As part of the same Office action, Fram's administrator status on English Misplaced Pages was revoked. Unlike almost all "Office action" bans in the past, the ban was limited in duration and did not affect Fram's participation on other Wikimedia Foundation projects such as Commons and Meta.

Support:

1. Worm(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. – Joe (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Events following the ban

3) The Office's one-year ban of Fram led to extensive discussion within the English Misplaced Pages community. While a variety of views were expressed, a consensus emerged that the English Misplaced Pages community wishes to retain its role, including the role of the community-elected Arbitration Committee where necessary, in regulating user conduct on this wiki, rather than have the Office undertake that role in cases that can be handled through existing on-wiki or ArbCom processes. In an open letter, the Committee directly expressed to the Office a similar view. In response, the WMF Board and Katherine Maher, on behalf of the Foundation agreed to provide case materials to facilitate the Committee's review of the scope and length of Fram's ban.

Support:

1. Worm(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. – Joe (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Community-provided evidence

4) In addition to receiving the information provided by the Office on a confidential basis, the Arbitration Committee invited members of the community to submit relevant evidence directly to the Committee by e-mail. On August 19, 2019, the Committee posted a summary of the community-provided evidence, as well as Fram's reply to that evidence. The Committee was not authorized to post, and therefore did not post, the case materials provided by the Office or a summary of that evidence.

Support:

1. Throughout the process, I have attempted to be consistent with the idea that I would weigh the community evidence higher than the Office evidence. Worm(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. – Joe (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Evaluation of community-provided evidence

5) The evidence provided by the community, as summarized on the evidence page, reveals instances of incivility or lack of decorum on Fram's part, but does not reflect any conduct for which a site-ban would be a proportionate response. In addition, the evidence reveals instances in which Fram has made mistakes as an administrator, including the overturned blocks of Martinevans and GorillaWarfare, but does not reflect any conduct for which desysopping would be a proportionate response.

Support:

1. Worm(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. – Joe (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

Evaluation of Office-provided case materials

6) The Office provided case materials to the Arbitration Committee, upon which they based their conduct warnings and ban. The materials were partially redacted, notably removing the initial complaints as well as other information within the file. These unredacted materials show a pattern of borderline harassment against multiple individuals, through hounding the individuals and excessively highlighting their failures. In the period after receiving their second private conduct warning, Fram was abusive towards the Committee as a whole and specific members. The Office subsequently enacted a 1-year ban and desysopped Fram.

Support:

1. There was an awful lot of raw information in the document, but this is a good high level summary. Worm(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. As noted in the principles, "harassment" and "abuse" carry a deal of subjectivity. Personally I would not call the conduct in the T&S report harassment, rather incivility or possibly wikihounding, and I don't consider his comments towards arbs/ArbCom abusive, at least in the context of the dismally low standard of civility which the community currently appears to consider appropriate when offering 'feedback' to the committee. But semantics aside, I can support the substance of this finding of fact: that Fram sometimes takes his criticism of other editors too far, that multiple people have experienced this as harassment, and that he consistently fails to assume good faith in ArbCom and other 'authorities' within the movement. – Joe (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Fram's criticisms of others would tend to start from a position of Fram observing conduct he found inappropriate, and then escalate in frustration when he felt that the response to his observations were not acceptable. Such escalations would inevitably prove to be counter-productive. Fram's motives would generally be good, but by indulging his frustrations to the extent of becoming hostile, he was creating a chilling atmosphere in which it was difficult for the criticised person to feel confident they could improve. Fram is not alone on Misplaced Pages in indulging his frustrations - indeed, this is a known civility issue. Our community is notably understanding of the stresses involved in creating an online encyclopedia. Indeed, I think only those who have been closely involved in content creation, such as the bulk of the Misplaced Pages editing community, can fully understand such stresses. As such the community has historically been tolerant toward those who indulge their frustrations as a result of editing stress, especially when those who indulge their frustrations are otherwise hugely beneficial to the project. However, such community tolerance needs to be adjusted so we don't allow otherwise well meaning and respected editors to sound off and harass other editors simply because they are frustrated at the lack of progress to their criticisms. It should not have been the Foundation who spoke to Fram, it should have been us the community reaching out in a collegial manner to advise him to cool it a bit. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. If the general behavior of Fram described in the document was the cut-and-dried, egregious behavior that typically comes to mind when you think of "harassment" (outing, off-wiki stalking, hateful comments, etc.), they would have long ago have been ejected from the community. But most of the behavior was firmly within that grey area of hostility that Misplaced Pages has struggled to handle for as long as I've been here. It is not behavior that is well covered by policy, nor is it easy behavior to address with "partial sanctions" (a term I'm using here to describe sanctions short of blocks and sitebans, such as topic and interaction bans) to remove the person from areas where it's occurring. I will also note that much of this behavior falls even within the grey areas of what could be called "hounding". GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
5. The document describes behavior that is unpleasant, uncollegial, and arrogant. It's often been said that Fram's obvious commitment to accuracy mitigates these characteristics, but there's good reason to believe that this kind of behavior is counterproductive even on its own terms; people don't learn well when they're stressed, fearful, defensive, or distracted. GW is right that this is difficult behavior to address with ordinary sanctions, but honestly I think a few interaction bans would've been effective had the relevant material been raised through community processes. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

No off-wiki misconduct

7) There was no evidence of off-wiki misconduct in either the Office provided case materials, or the community provided evidence.

Support:

1. Worm(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. This is important to point out, as until now it has generally been safe to assume that office actions do involve off- or cross-wiki matters. – Joe (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
5. This is important, as Joe says. It certainly was my assumption. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Remaining issues

8) Beyond the specifics of Fram's case, there is a broadly shared view that Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia processes for raising and addressing harassment-related issues warrant continued review and potential improvement. However, there is a consensus that on-wiki issues on English Misplaced Pages should generally remain within the purview of the English Misplaced Pages volunteer community, including this Committee, unless there are specific reasons that the Office should address a particular concern or type of concern.

Support:

1. It's worth noting that in my opinion "attacks against the committee" - which makes it more difficult for the committee to act - does not constitute a specific reason for the Office to act. Worm(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. – Joe (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. I will echo WTT that it is both difficult and awkward for the Arbitration Committee to handle issues involving attacks on the Committee itself, but that has historically not prevented the ArbCom from handling cases in which some of the named parties have attacked the Committee or its members. It would perhaps be worthwhile to include discussion on how best to handle this particular issue in the RfC that will (assuming the remedy passes) follow this case. "Specific reasons" in this finding of fact is somewhat vague, but the on-wiki issues that the English Misplaced Pages (and the ArbCom specifically) leaves to the Office primarily include legal threats, child protection issues, and threats of harm. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
5. What WTT and GW said. Awkwardness is not sufficient justification to bypass community processes. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Community consultation

7) Whilst this case was ongoing, the Office drafted a "Community consultation on partial and temporary office actions". The full consultation is expected in early September 2019.

Support:

1. Worm(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. – Joe (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Fram's 1 year ban is vacated

1a) The Committee decides that Fram's ban was not required, and therefore vacates it.

Support:

1. Fram's conduct has been problematic in many respects, but on balance I do not think either ArbCom or the community would have banned them under the same circumstances. The problem was not so much what they were doing (they are almost always right in their criticism of other editor's conduct, and the project needs people willing to scrutinise those in positions of trust) but how they were going about it. In other words, Fram definitely needs to soften their approach, but unless and until it's shown that they're not going to do that, a ban would be punitive rather than preventative. – Joe (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. The problem here has not been Fram in isolation, it has been the community in allowing a committed and well meaning editor to behave rudely and aggressively. Fram is not the only editor who has felt justified in speaking harshly to others, and has not faced the whole community expressing their disapproval. Every editor on this community who supports hostility as a method of dealing with concerns, is responsible for what happened to Fram. Fram should not be punished for the environment we created which allowed him to feel he was justified in his aggression. SilkTork (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. As I wrote in my comment accompanying my vote in FoF 6, most of Fram's behavior that was mentioned in evidence fell "firmly within that grey area of hostility that Misplaced Pages has struggled to handle for as long as I've been here." There were occasional instances that were severe (the attacks against ArbCom as one example), but the majority of the issue is that on multiple occasions Fram has identified editors whose contributions they have felt were substandard, and then over a significant period of time followed (see principle 5) those editors and scrutinized their contributions extremely closely, often bluntly and sometimes quite rudely. Although correcting the errors of other editors is a key part of Misplaced Pages's culture, editors are expected to do so carefully and constructively. If an editor believes that another editor with whom they have clashed is displaying a pattern of substandard contributions, they should involve neutral parties to address that concern rather than hounding that editor (principle 6).Although I believe Fram's behavior has been unacceptable (both the attacks and the excessive scrutiny), the community in general has not taken a strong stance against editors who maintain plausible deniability that they are not intentionally harassing other editors, but are only focused on improving the encyclopedia. This is particularly true for administrators, editors who have been active for a long time, and those whose own contributions are exceptional—Fram fit within all three of these categories.The community (including the Arbitration Committee) has also generally allowed more leeway when it comes to attacks against groups, particularly groups with more "power" than the editor making the attack (in this case, the Arbitration Committee).As it currently exists, the section of harassment policy that discusses hounding leaves plenty of room for Fram's behavior—the concerns they raised were not always without "good cause", and (as evidenced by the extensive discussion that has happened at WP:FRAM and elsewhere) it is not without question that Fram was engaging in these behaviors with the intention of causing distress. Policy also makes no room for the distinct possibility that there is a discrepancy between whether a target of these discussions experiences distress and whether the instigator intends to cause it.Even was it agreed that Fram was hounding editors, it is unlikely that this behavior would have led to a lengthy ban (either of one year or of three months). More likely it would have been addressed with interaction bans, or possibly a topic ban from the area(s) of conflict. While I do not agree that these types of sanctions tend to put a stop to the root behavior, they are the standard. I suspect that the Wikimedia Foundation also disagreed that these sanctions are useful in addressing the cause of the issue, and, like myself, wished to see the English Misplaced Pages take a stronger stance on harassment and other behaviors that can drive editors away from the project. However, imposing the ban themselves was not an appropriate or effective way to move forward, and neither would it be appropriate for the Arbitration Committee to do so (or for me to vote that we do).It is the community as a whole that accepts these kinds of behaviors, and it cannot be just one body (the WMF or the Arbitration Committee) that decides they are unacceptable and acts against them. If the community does not wish to allow editors, even those who have made great contributions to this project or edited for years, to drive off other editors with plausibly productive but intensely critical focus, then the community must take a stance against this behavior in policy and in support for said policy's enforcement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
4. I find myself agreeing strongly with almost every word GW has written. If we take the WMF out of the equation, a ban would likely not have happened - therefore the correct decision is to vacate the ban completely. First choice. Worm(talk) 07:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Fram's 1 year ban is disproportionate

1b) The Committee decides that Fram's ban of 1 year was disproportionate, and therefore removes it with time served.

Support:

1. This is currently where I sit, however I do not currently oppose the other options. Worm(talk) 14:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

   Moving to second choice, having read GW's comments. Worm(talk) 07:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

2. Second choice after 1a. – Joe (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Second choice after 1a. SilkTork (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Second choice, per my comment at 1a. Although the siteban was a disproportionate sanction, some sanction to end the behavior would have been appropriate. I don't think a three-month ban would've been my first choice, but given that Fram has now been banned for that period I would rather we move forward than spend time trying to settle on a sanction that would be representative of current policy, actually address the issue at hand, and not be punitive. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Fram's 1 year ban is justified

1c) The Committee decides that Fram's ban of 1 year was justified and shall remain in force.

Support:

Oppose:

1. Per my comments under 1a. – Joe (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. SilkTork (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Per my comments at 1a. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
4. I've said before that I don't believe in time limited bans, so would have voted against this one either way. Had I felt it was justified, I would be proposing an indefinite ban. Worm(talk) 07:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Fram's sysop userright is reinstated

2a) The Committee decides that the removal of Fram's sysop userright was not needed, and therefore returns it to him.

Support:

Oppose:

1. Per my comment under 2c. – Joe (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. I'm not sure about the wording (but I have not been involved in shaping the PD, so unaware of the thinking behind it) as it might be seen as odd to siteban an admin but allow them to keep their admin tools, but regardless of the wording, I think the question of Fram's admin status should be decided by the community when he returns to Misplaced Pages and is able to respond to questions and assure the community that he will tone down his frustration, and if someone is not responding how he would like, that he gets at least one other admin to look into the issue. SilkTork (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Per my comments at 2c. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Trust of the community (resysop)

2b) The committee declines to reinstate Fram's sysop userright unilaterally and instead refers the matter of their administrator status to WP:Request for adminship to determine if Fram retains the trust of the community as an administrator.

Support:

1. This is where I currently sit. Worm(talk) 14:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. In favour of 2c – the effect of the two remedies are the same, but I don't think it's the committee's place to tell Fram they have to go through a new RfA. They may prefer not to. – Joe (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. In favour of 2c. SilkTork (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Prefer 2c, which is less ambiguous. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

I think Kusma's question on the talk page is worth addressing—is this meant to be interpreted to mean that we would open a discussion at RfA immediately after the case closed? It would be quite odd to do so if Fram had no interest in regaining their admin rights. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Kusma and any others, the idea of this remedy was that the decision on whether Fram should remain an administrator should remain with the community. Therefore the matter should be referred there, without prejudice of a statement about admin behaviour from Arbcom. Fram should be able to chose when he can run through the RfA process, it need not be immediate, or happen at all should they not chose to. Worm(talk) 07:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Removal of sysop user-rights

2c) The behaviour shown in the case materials, combined with the overturned decisions mentioned in the community evidence, fall below the standards expected for an administrator. Accordingly, the committee declines to reinstate Fram's sysop userright. Fram may request the user-right through an WP:RfA

Support:

1. I firmly believe that admins should be held to the highest standard of conduct. Enough doubt has been cast on Fram's conduct in this case that, at the least, another RfA is appropriate. – Joe (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Per WP:ADMINCOND "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others." I do feel that Fram lost sight of that "respectful, civil manner" enough times that the community should decide if they have confidence that he will adjust his behavior going forward. SilkTork (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Fram's behavior has not met the standards at WP:ADMINCOND, and so I am not in favor of returning their sysop userright without a new RfA. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I'm torn between 2a and 2c - which is the whole reason I created 2b. I do feel that Fram has overstepped the bounds of ADMINCOND, per the other arbs, however the process to have the bits removed was not followed. Fram was not able to comment on the WMF evidence, had he sat out the WMF ban, he may have been re-sysopped immediately. When it comes down to it, if we do not refer this to the community, then I believe my second choice is that we restore the user-right and allow the community to bring a proper case - should it be needed. Worm(talk) 08:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Fram restricted

3) Fram is indefinitely restricted to posts of 500 words or less in any venue – including AN, ANI, any noticeboard, any article talk page, any user talk page, and any arbitration page – on any single issue. They may appeal this restriction in one year.

Support

Oppose

1. I see the logic here, but a) I've come to believe that highly 'bespoke' editing restrictions like this are more trouble to enforce than they're worth; and b) I don't think length has been the primary problem with Fram's comments. – Joe (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. SilkTork (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. It is not the length of Fram's comments that has been a problem here, and I have no doubt that they could be equally or more disruptive in fewer words if they so tried. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments:

This is a very interesting idea. I do believe doing so would stop many of the issues that were raised during this case. Worm(talk) 14:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment

4) A Request for Comment will be opened under the Arbitration space, and managed by the Arbitration Clerks. This RfC will focus on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future.

Support:

1. Worm(talk) 14:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
2. SilkTork (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Comments:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 08:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC) by Worm That Turned.

Proposed principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	User conduct	4	0	0		.
2	Wikimedia Foundation role	4	0	0		.
3	Civility	4	0	0		.
4	Harassment	4	0	0		.
5	Following another editor's contributions	4	0	0		.
6	Administrators' pursuit of issues	4	0	0		.
7	Proportionality of sanctions	4	0	0		.
Proposed findings of fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Fram	4	0	0		.
2	Office ban of Fram	4	0	0		.
3	Events following the ban	4	0	0		.
4	Community-provided evidence	4	0	0		.
5	Evaluation of community-provided evidence	3	0	1		.
6	Evaluation of Office-provided case materials	4	0	0		.
7	No off-wiki misconduct	4	0	0		.
8	Remaining issues	4	0	0		.
7	Community consultation	4	0	0		.
Proposed remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1a	Fram's 1 year ban is vacated	3	0	0		.
1b	Fram's 1 year ban is disproportionate	4	0	0		.
1c	Fram's 1 year ban is justified	0	3	0		Cannot pass
2a	Fram's sysop userright is reinstated	0	3	0		Cannot pass
2b	Trust of the community (resysop)	1	3	0		.
2c	Removal of sysop user-rights	3	0	0		.
3	Fram restricted	0	3	0		Cannot pass
4	Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment	2	0	0		.
Proposed enforcement
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
0	Enforcement of restrictions	0	0	0		.	Passes by default
0	Appeals and modifications	0	0	0		.	Passes by default

Notes

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The Clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, unless an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support

Oppose

Comments