Case clerks: GoldenRing ( Talk) & L235 ( Talk) & Cthomas3 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Committee as a whole
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
![]() | Case management update:
|
![]() | The Evidence phase for this case is closed.
Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go
here and create an
edit request. |
The following is a public summary of the community evidence passed to the arbitration committee by community members. In addition, we have received copies of emails sent between Trust and Safety and Fram, as well as another individual and Fram. Information which was significantly out of date has been removed, as has anything which has been significantly dealt with elsewhere.
Although the identity and related content of initial reports was redacted, we understood after review of the 70+ page Trust and Safety document that there were 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. We did not see any evidence of off-wiki abuse.
Noting also multiple cases raised by Fram, some of which considered his behaviour [17] [18] [19]
There's one instance where Fram undid his own mistakes, like one block on one editor: [27] [28]
Fram has a history of commentary on various software projects, which was not appreciated by a few WMF employees, who were ready to use their tools to block him for that reason: [29]
In February 2019, two arbs supported an admonishment (or reminder) about my conduct, 8 others disagreed [38]. This is the most recent diff in this whole evidence page, as far as I have seen, yet 4 months later I was banned for one year and remain so two months later. It is clear from the evidence that my conduct has significantly improved and that my conduct in 2019 was in general not a problem (apart from the MartinEvans block of course). The reward for improving one's behaviour is banning?
It would have been nice if ArbCom had used that week+ they took to summarize the "evidence" to actually weed out the wheat from the chaff, and remove duplicates, things out of scope, and things which are not evidence of anything problematic, so that this case could have focused on a fair, accurate summary of what I actually did wrong, and how this has improved (or not) more recently. ArbCom just reposting whatever nonsense accusations someone posted on the Internet without checking if the claims about me had any merit at all is disappointing.
I see that most of the above "evidence" (the actual evidence and the ridiculous bits) all appear on [41] so it seems as if whoever posted to the Arbs took it from there (and it also seems as if not too many people bothered to post evidence, which would have been obvious with an open case instead of this hopefully never repeated experiment). Fram ( talk) 07:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Case clerks: GoldenRing ( Talk) & L235 ( Talk) & Cthomas3 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Committee as a whole
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
![]() | Case management update:
|
![]() | The Evidence phase for this case is closed.
Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go
here and create an
edit request. |
The following is a public summary of the community evidence passed to the arbitration committee by community members. In addition, we have received copies of emails sent between Trust and Safety and Fram, as well as another individual and Fram. Information which was significantly out of date has been removed, as has anything which has been significantly dealt with elsewhere.
Although the identity and related content of initial reports was redacted, we understood after review of the 70+ page Trust and Safety document that there were 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. We did not see any evidence of off-wiki abuse.
Noting also multiple cases raised by Fram, some of which considered his behaviour [17] [18] [19]
There's one instance where Fram undid his own mistakes, like one block on one editor: [27] [28]
Fram has a history of commentary on various software projects, which was not appreciated by a few WMF employees, who were ready to use their tools to block him for that reason: [29]
In February 2019, two arbs supported an admonishment (or reminder) about my conduct, 8 others disagreed [38]. This is the most recent diff in this whole evidence page, as far as I have seen, yet 4 months later I was banned for one year and remain so two months later. It is clear from the evidence that my conduct has significantly improved and that my conduct in 2019 was in general not a problem (apart from the MartinEvans block of course). The reward for improving one's behaviour is banning?
It would have been nice if ArbCom had used that week+ they took to summarize the "evidence" to actually weed out the wheat from the chaff, and remove duplicates, things out of scope, and things which are not evidence of anything problematic, so that this case could have focused on a fair, accurate summary of what I actually did wrong, and how this has improved (or not) more recently. ArbCom just reposting whatever nonsense accusations someone posted on the Internet without checking if the claims about me had any merit at all is disappointing.
I see that most of the above "evidence" (the actual evidence and the ridiculous bits) all appear on [41] so it seems as if whoever posted to the Arbs took it from there (and it also seems as if not too many people bothered to post evidence, which would have been obvious with an open case instead of this hopefully never repeated experiment). Fram ( talk) 07:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)