The latest issue of the Signpost includes an article titled Did Fram harass other editors?. The article is an inappropriate fishing expedition allowing people with a grudge against Fram to throw accusations at him without supporting evidence and under a cover of anonymity. In particular, the article contains a claim that Fram participated in sexual harassment of an anonymous admin. Fram denies the claim but the Signpost has refused to allow him to reply to the charge in the article. From publicly available information this ugly claim appears to be false – it seems to be a highly distorted and tendentious account of a recognizable incident. To be sure, ArbCom is much better placed than me to figure out the exact truth of the matter. I have asked Smallbones to pull the article (or at least this quote) and the matter has been discussed at ANI. Smallbones has referred me to ArbCom so here I am. Presenting false anonymous claims of sexual harassment under the cover of journalism and without allowing the accused party to reply is unacceptable. This complies with no journalistic standards and certainly not with normal Wikipedia rules of conduct. A possible remedy would be for the article to be pulled and an apology to Fram posted instead. Haukur (talk) 10:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am relieved that the article was removed. A further step a responsible publication would take after publishing false or highly misleading accusations is to issue a correction and an apology. I urge Smallbones to begin drafting such a statement as soon as he can. Haukur (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would caution against restoring the article in any form. While the anonymous accusation was certainly the most objectionable part, the whole concept of the Signpost publishing an article with the title "Did Fram harass other editors?" would set a dangerous precedent and bring us into waters I'm not sure we can handle. Haukur (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every step of the way I have been hoping that this was an isolated lapse in judgment which could be quickly and amicably corrected once the relevant policies, facts and ethical issues had been brought to light. It saddens me that Smallbones still stands by his article and has taken no corrective action to put us on the right track. In that light, I ask ArbCom to consider whether he can continue to serve as editor of the Signpost. Operating a newsletter on Wikipedia which is distributed to any number of contributors via watchlist notifications and other means is a privilege which requires good judgment and community trust. Abusing this privilege to distribute unsubstantiated personal attacks is a serious breech of trust. Anyone can make mistakes but continual refusal to make any amends for this brings into question whether Smallbones has the right skills for the role. Haukur (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Smallbones

Sorry if it seems like I'm delaying here. I had a very stressful last week and this morning woke up to a ton of nonsense being said against me. My time this week is very much taken up, but I'll try to get the response going now. I'm not caught up with everything that's been said, but probably up to about 3 hours ago. I'll just put in bullet points so I can stop at a moments notice and continue later. I may reorder them later.

Ultimately, I think this has to be handled via private evidence. I would like to make sure that I get a chance to give my basic view (without confidential info included) and that a published finding be made signed by the voting arbs.
There are several reasons to keep this confidential. I won't say all of them here but will email an arb to give to the committee.
I went incredibly easy on Fram in the article. There's evidence that Fram provided, in which he later asked that names and other identifying info be removed. I agreed and later decided (on my own) I would only use it in the most abbreviated form with nothing like identifying info.
- We had earlier agreed that I could use that evidence on Signpost, with the only condition that I would not provide his text to any other person or organization, e.g. the WMF, T&S, ArbCom, but Signpost was ok - just the text itself off-Signpost was off limits, not my summary or comments or anything else.
- That's right, the original agreement was that I could have printed the whole thing in the Signpost, and the current agreement is that I can summarize it, comment on it, etc. anywhere as long as I don't use identifying information (other than that it was from Fram).
- It was incredibly reckless and arrogant for Fram to give me that info. My reading of it is: here is a list of people who I harassed - I'm proud of harassing them. And something much more serious.
- I couldn't have released that info in any case without hurting at least a dozen specific innocent individuals and the Wikipedia movement as a whole.
- While I will be very careful in using this information, it certainly did convince me that there was something real about the harassment allegations made about Fram.
- The only way to deal with this info in Wikipedia is to have both Fram and I state that ArbCom can see the text and view it in private.
Let's go back to the basic questions IMHO.
- Is there harassment on-Wiki and how do we deal with it?
- Is there any system on enWiki where a person can report harassment without exposing themselves to public ridicule and further harassment?
  - Possible places to report it? Talk pages? no. ANI? no. Other noticeboards? no ArbCom? not according to a recently departed Arb.
- Did Fram harass editors on-Wiki?
Given the recent uproar about Fram being blocked for harassment, it is the most natural thing in the world for a newspaper to investigate and publish a report on this, especially since Fram invited inquiries on his Commons talk page where he would provide information on the block.
- Was the article high quality? Damn right! Harassment is a notoriously difficult topic to get information on. Confidential sources are almost always used in stories on the topic - otherwise it would be impossible to have any story on a very important topic. I went to great lengths to get people to go on the record and was pretty successful 2 from previous published onWiki discussions and 2 more new sources (a recent arb and MontanaBW). I reported both people who told me that they weren't harassed and didn't see harassment. And I quoted 2 anonymous sources. This isn't a lightly sourced article.

I'd like the Arbs to do everything in their power, including asking other bureaucrats etc., to stop Fram from currently trying to out an editor on another website. No I'm not going to mention the website name - but lots of people here seem to be following it and I'm sure at least 1 Arb must know the site.
- Also I'd like arbs to do everything in their power to stop Fram from quoting my emails (to him) on that site. They are copyrighted by me and I've never given him permission to use them. You might say "Isn't turn about fair play? You've quoted his emails, why shouldn't he quote your emails. Answer: he is using my emails to help in an attempted outing. He has explicitly given me permission to quote his emails (CC BY-SA. Frankly, this could only happen on Wikipedia that somebody would give a journalist a CC license for this!) The exception is the email discussed above.

A lot seems to be happening and I just don't have any more time this week to finish this (unless I'm really really lucky). We have to find a way to let the people who feel they are harassed to have a voice without re-victimizing them. I stand by the article. People seem to be asking me below (and on another website) am I absolutely sure that everything the people who I contacted said is 100% true? Does the story match with what Arbcom or ANI determined to be the facts of the case? People who ask this should know better. Arbcom and ANI don't define "truth" any more than a Wikipedia article does. They go thru a process of compromise and active consensus seeking, that at best comes out with a "working version of the truth." At worst it comes out as people actively avoiding seeing an unpleasant truth. The point is that the people complaining about harassment feel that they are not being heard. I believe that these folks do have a right to be heard in a safe environment that prevents them from being harassed in the process of being heard. If only The Signpost can provide that environment onWiki, so be it. Much (by no means all) of the evidence in harassment cases comes off as sounding like "He said, they said". "He said" in this case is being accepted without examination even though Fram's supporters often say (approx) "He can be very difficult to deal with." The "they said" side hadn't been heard at all during this "constitutional crisis", though they have been shamefully harassed (e.g. attempted outings) at WP:FRAM.

People have suggested below that since only one quote is being disputed, that we just delete that quote, put the rest of the article back and move on. While I don't like ArbCom "editing Signpost pages", if that satisfies ArbCom, that's ok with me.

This was published. I haven't had time for anything more than a quick read.

Fram has informed me that he has withdrawn our agreement on what I can do with the information that he's sent me, and also that he sent all the emails from both of us about the article to Arbcom. Anybody who knows anything about journalism knows that once you've agreed that something can be published, it can be published. The agreement can't be withdrawn. Also everybody here knows that a CC BY-SA license can't be withdrawn. Fram licensed his emails to me as CC BY-SA. Fram's "withdrawal" accomplishes nothing. Somebody should also tell Fram that he shouldn't be sending my e-mails to him to anybody - I have copyright and haven't given him permission to do that. Not that I'm afraid of anything in them, but don't do that again! ArbCom should consider that he has lost control on this matter.

back on Monday after the holiday (I may be able to email an arb before then) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bilorv

I made two reverts to the blanking of the article by the SPA Petulant Clerk, a clear act of vandalism made by an editor wishing to avoid scrutiny. SchroCat quotes policy that reverting editors are responsible and culpable for reverts they make if they restore BLPTALK violations. I am happy for Arbcom to investigate whether the article violated BLPTALK, and if they find it did I will accept any sanction they deem necessary. But to pre-empt any questions of whether my actions were edit warring: in my edit summary, I wished to engage the editor in discussion, and I also left an EW template on their talk page and reported them to ARV so as to not violate either the letter or the spirit or WP:EW.

As for the article itself, I believe it not to violate BLPTALK and I've presented reasoning in this, this and this comment. I think it's disgusting that Jehochman has decided that their adminship grants them the power to unilaterally delete a thoroughly-researched Signpost article without consensus and Jehochman should be named as a party in this case for investigation of wheel war sanctioning, given that their action would clearly be opposed by each editor who reverted Petulant Clerk's blankings, and the blocking admin. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 13:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman engages in a fantastic example of responding to the letter rather than the spirit of a policy by insisting that WHEEL would only apply if the page were to be undeleted and then deleted again. The actions under discussion involve the page blanking, page restoration and then the blocking of an editor who blanked the page (by Oshwah). The last action in particular is an admin action made with the intent of keeping the page viewable and public. By deleting the page, this overrides the effect of Oshwah's admin action and is therefore the instigation of a wheel war. To be crystal clear, Jehochman violated the intent of the following part of WP:WHEEL: "Do not repeat a reversed administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it." — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 13:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this accusation that I am violating WP:BATTLE, I have no grudge against Jehochman (I don't recall the editor from any previous interactions) and am certainly not "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point" by commenting in an Arbcom case request. I object to the suggestion that I should stop speaking, because as a named party in this case I believe I have the right to (a) defend myself and (b) name relevant editors and actions that I believe should be scrutinised. In response to this accusation that I'm engaging in harassment, this hinges upon whether or not the article violates BLPTALK. I believe it does not and I urge Arbcom to accept the case and investigate this point; and I'll repeat: I'm happy to be sanctioned if the article is found to violate it. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 13:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck to match this clarification. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 14:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: Any opposers demonstrate this is not one of "the most obvious cases". — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 13:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie {Signpost}

I urge Arbcom to take immediate action to remove this blatant harassment. For transparency, I sent an email to Arbcom before this case request was initiated. That article also invites open speculation to the extent of Fram's misdeeds - (Redacted). The material in question was removed by Winged Blades of Godric before the article was published, but re-inserted. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the editors who restored the BLP violations before the article was published so they are aware of this discussion: Tony1 and Megalibrarygirl. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most Wikipedians at WP:FRAM agree that a new system of reporting and dealing with harassment is needed. I don't think that airing dirty laundry across the entirety of Wikipedia by the Signpost, using completely unsubstantiated and anonymous reports (but some identities are easy to work out) with no diffs or evidence, against someone who is not able to respond, was what anybody had in mind. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming Fram quoted it correctly on meta, this email from Smallbones is disturbing - (Redacted) I think Smallbones needs to be indeffed for what he's done. What choice did Fram have when the Signpost was going to publish such an article? Arbs, please act soon. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Arb probably needs to investigate how the Signpost chose to contact those editors quoted in the article. It appears they chose only editors with known conflicts with Fram. They omitted interviewing countless editors who had positive experiences with Fram, of which I am one. I thank Fram for helping me when I needed it. This methodology is like asking Democrats if they like Donald Trump. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend Arb place immediate indefinite blocks against the editors here demonstrating a misunderstanding and misapplication of the BLP and harassment policies.Mr Ernie (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterating my call to Arb to issue preventative blocks. Here we have an editor praising the author of a piece containing BLP violations as a "Defender of the Wiki" having "courage" to attack an editor who is not able to respond. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The last thing Wikipedia needs is editors doffing green eyeshades and putting together "investigative journalism" pieces on other editors. Such pieces are put through a rigorous editing process by experienced journalists and legal teams, who are paid and trained to do that type of review. It's the same reason why we don't let Wikipedia editors give medical or legal advice; those professions are governed by extensive regulations that are in place to protect people. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush (Signpost)

I think the article needs to be pulled as a matter of urgency until such time as the conflicting accounts are resolved. We err on the side of caution in matters relating to BLPs and I dread to think what Fram's blood pressure stats may be at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaky caldron: WP:BLP applies everywhere. - Sitush (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As Black Kite has just noted, @Lourdes: has just protected the article with the apparent BLP issue still intact. I have queried this here. - Sitush (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alanscottwalker, WP:BLPTALK is a section within WP:BLP and therefore references to BLP here include it. I note your sympathy with those who are alarmed with the Signpost article but are you suggesting that the issue does not rise to the level of potential defamation, as covered by the very section to which you link? - Sitush (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Opabinia regalis:, I commend the ability of Ritchie333 to see balance in what was said. Unfortunately, I think they're atypical: most people assume fire when they see smoke and have a tendency to quote Mandy Rice-Davies with regard to the maligned person ("well, he would say that, wouldn't he"). Just removing a couple of bits and then republishing is unlikely to fix the larger issue. - Sitush (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The latest update from Smallbones - expected to be their last for five days - seems to be suggesting that they believe The Signpost has a role in righting great wrongs and that Smallbones does indeed see great wrongs in the treatment of those allegedly harassed. It does not tally with Fram's responses on meta and, frankly, I'm more inclined to believe Fram simply because he claims to be quoting from the emails whereas Smallbones has been paraphrasing. Arbcom need to see the full email trail, determine who is lying (because someone is, given the massive contradictory statements regardings the emails) and set some sort of guidance on just where The Signpost fits in the scheme of things. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Worm That Turned, Opabinia regalis, Smallbones has again today made the claim that Fram is "proud" of his alleged harassment of others. Fram has denied this interpretation but Smallbones seems intent on doubling-down regarding it. Smallbones may be correct but, if not, what they keep saying is a massive personal attack. Are you still saying that the community can deal with this, even when the community is not likely to get access to the emails? - Sitush (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SchroCat (Signpost)

That "article" is a personal attack that we shouldn't be publishing. It's in breach of WP:BLP/WP:BLPTALK ("Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. (Original emphasis) The trash-piece fails all three of those policies; it's trial by media. Those concerned should be taken to task. WP:BLP is a policy that applies to ALL pages, including Signpost. ("Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page]]" (Original emphasis).) BLP covers everything, including Signpost.

Those involved in this article are not experts in dealing with investigating what constitutes actual harassment, as far as is known. Harassment is a difficult subject to tackle, and whoever ran this piece hasn't got the slightest clue how to deal with it properly.
Signpost is NOT a newspaper: it's a semi-internal newsletter; the writers are not Bernstein and Woodward; Ben Bradlee is not steering the path between rights and wrongs. The people who wrote it are not journalists, do not work to journalistic standards, or have an experienced editor who oversees the output along ethical lines. Like everything else round here, it's run by amateurs up to a decent standard, but without the training, knowledge, professionalism or liability insurance needed to operate.

< Various comments combined into statement bullet points >

Smallbones, I hope that at some point the penny drops that this is not about Fram, but WP:BLP. You are not in any way qualified to deal with questions of harassment - leave it to someone equipped to do it. As your crass intervention shows, trying to do a Daily Mail-style piece is entirely the wrong way to do it. - SchroCat (talk) 04:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So Smallbones wants to put Fram on trial via the Signpost, and is happy to ignore everyone else when they point to the BLP policy which he has infringed. Over 1,100 words, and now we have to wait for five days before he bloats his statement even more? Hell of a way to run a circus. - SchroCat (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Carabinieri, the article itself isn't "an administrative action" this: it is a one-sided description about an administrative action: there is a huge difference. – SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, and AGK:, It's disappointing to see your decline here. If I go to ANI and post a thread saying "Editor X has attacked me", should it be readily believed and Editor X automatically be blocked? Of course not. None of the comments that had accusations against Fram (including the two from anonymous sources) had a single diff by way of evidence. The Signpost page does not get a free pass to ignore the BLP policy. Would you like to read unfounded accusations about yourselves within an article? Me neither. – SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WBladesG

What the OP says. The Signpost is not our secondary ArbCom, that it can be exploited as a venue to cast such grave aspersions at an user, under the cover of anonymity. I raised the issues before publication at a t/p but Smallbones declined to entertain my grievances, in any manner.
A principle in Gamaliel and Others notes:-

There is widespread agreement in the Wikipedia community regarding the importance of the biographies of living persons policy. The policy has been adopted and since its inception repeatedly expanded and strengthened by the community. In addition, the Arbitration Committee has previously reaffirmed the values expressed through that policy. Fundamental values and practices concerning biographical content has been emphasised in a resolution of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees and were also expanded and strengthened. If an editor wishes to restore content removed in good faith under the policy, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. Restoring the original content without significant change requires consensus.

Another principle in the same case notes:-

Restoring what is perceived to be a BLP violation, instead of discussing whether it is a BLP violation or not, can lead to sanctions.

It appears that Smallbones might not have read this. ∯WBG^converse 12:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article shows what a lot of people don't like to hear: that there was most likely a very good reason to sanction Fram. - I, for one, remain very willing to hear that Fram sexually harassed users *but* from the ArbCom; not from Tom or Harry or Signpost in the form of Page 3 gossips. Also, Fram has denied Smallbones' assertions of his' consenting to the piece and all that, over his meta t/p. I am not inclined to buy either's story w/o a full investigation by our community-elected-representatives (who are entitled to deal with private evidence) as to what transpired out behind the scenes. ∯WBG^converse 14:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333 - you're seriously comparing Trump with Fram? Does the concept of public figure evade you? ∯WBG^converse 16:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not making much sense; you accept that the premises of your argument is based on a false equivalent but yet advocate that the argument (in itself) is not a false equivalent.

And we are not showing moral outrage. This is about our house-policies and abidance by them. Laws of free speech does not apply here and for good. If Fram is a sexual harasser, he shall be dealt with, in a proportional manner and I don't have any second thoughts about that. *But* there's a proper venue to table such complaints and AFAIS, neither you nor MLG nor Smallbones are so, irrespective of the number of mails in your inbox. ∯WBG^converse 16:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with:-

The practical solution is for Smallbones and his source to satisfy themselves that the quote mis-remembers some key details of an incident that is very recognizable to anyone who followed it at the time. It therefore isn't appropriate to keep in the article, so that portion can be blanked ....

But, I believe we need to proceed with a full case, aligned along the 5 points mentioned by Jehochman. The Signpost seem to be frequently invading into uncharted territories and routinely creating shit-storms, in the process. Also, at-least one/two users (prima-facie) seem to have weaponized aggressive victim-hood, for dis-reputing perceived opponents and anonymity, for evading (warranted) public scrutiny. ∯WBG^converse 09:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also echo 28bytes' query to Gamaliel. ∯WBG^converse 09:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mendaliv

There is a clear WP:BLP violation that ANI has refused to remedy. I propose that this matter be handled by injunctive motion and the offending language be stricken from the Signpost. If any more discussion is to be held, let it happen with the offending language stricken and not before. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the fact that the page has been deleted, there may be less impetus to take rapid action here. I still urge the Committee to impose injunctive relief to command that the article stay deleted until this case request is resolved. In addition, the Committee might choose to command that quotations to the disputed content be courtesy blanked. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I object to Ritchie333's characterization of the objection to this article as mere "moral outrage". This is not merely about morals. This is about principles. This is about policy. This is about getting us back to building an encyclopedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of Smallbones' statement thus far is a rehashing and extension of matters that should have been brought up in a case request that was declined just over 24 hours ago with no dissents. While there will probably come a time for a Fram case request, this is not the vehicle for such a case. What is at issue here is how WP:BLP applies to the Signpost. As to the narrow issue of "consent to publication", I question whether anybody can consent to BLP-violative material being published. Many years ago, when the main concern was defamation or liability against WMF, that argument might have teeth. But over the years, the policy has become more one of care and carefulness when dealing with things that might harm a living person. For instance, things like sexuality, gender identity, religion, and ethnicity, but also accusations of crimes or non-criminal wrongful acts. I think it's important we not lose sight that this is the core issue of this case request. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to arbs and clerks: Smallbones' statement, now that a third part has been added, is over 800 words, and Smallbones indicates that more is coming. In light of the argument I make regarding the likely scope of this case (i.e., a Fram conduct case was just declined a day ago) it would behoove someone to request that Smallbones substantially narrow the focus of that statement. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones' statement has now ballooned to over 1000 words. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: IntoThinAir: Moving Signpost offsite would fix just about everything. The problem would be distribution. Why should an offsite project's newsletter get to be distributed by massmessage or sitenotice? I think this would actually be a death sentence for Signpost. And in any case, on-wiki sanctions could still lie for off-wiki behavior that constitutes on-wiki misconduct. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wehwalt (Signpost)

Ditto to what most have said. This isn't the press and Smallbones isn't Woodward and Bernstein. If we're to pretend to be a self-governing community on turf owned by the WMF, to avoid any potential of liability to our host, we should pull such things until and unless given clearance by WMF Legal.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish Generally agree, but I don't see sorting out the powers of Smallbones as Signpost editor as terribly difficult. The Signpost, to my thought anyway, is not a newspaper, it is a WikiProject, whose purpose it is to keep editors informed of what is going on around the project. The AC ruled in its German War Effort case that WikiProject leaders are just as subject to the rules as anyone else and have no special powers over content or conduct. Without such overriding powers, contributions of articles in the Signpost are subject to the policies at WP:BLPTALK, as SchroCat sagely pointed out. I should note that the Terms of Use only forbid intentionally posting libelous material. Our en-wp policies reach further than that, and they should.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish I think anything beyond keeping the article deleted would be an unneeded distraction at a time of greater crises (I'll stop the back and forth after this, I promise). So I agree.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Leaky caldron

~~Is this not a content dispute? Does AC have the power to order this to be removed?~~ Thanks to Sitush - apparently it does. I'll postpone my RFA for another 12 years! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leaky caldron (talk • contribs) 2019-07-01 11:33 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite (SP)

This isn't even difficult or contentious. From WP:BLP - all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article.. The Signpost article needs to be pulled and the actions of people who repeatedly restored the BLP violations looked at closely. And per WP:BLPTALK, you can't simply print an anonymous accusation about someone in the Signpost (or, for that matter, anywhere else), whether it be completely true, partially true, somewhat misleading or completely false. I was considering pulling the anonymous part myself, but the whole article has now been fully protected with the BLP violation in it by @Lourdes:, so that might not be the best idea right now. Black Kite (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd further point out that if the email from Smallbones to Fram quoted by Fram at Meta "Fram, You do realize that you are apparently outing the admin you mention, don't you? You shouldn't be playing hardball with me like that. I'm pretty sure you could get permanently globally banned for that now. If you'd like to delete the meta page and say whatever you'd like as a response to the admin in the same number of words the admin used (125) without identifying him in any way, we could probably do that. The offer stands for 1 hour. User:Smallbones" does indeed exist, we are looking at nothing but a serious sanction here. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: The problems are as follows (1) This is obviously a violation of BLPTALK (2) Anyone who is familiar with the issues raised will know exactly who the "Anonymous" editor is, thus the Signpost has effectively outed them (3) The Anonymous quote isn't exactly false (although at least one part of it actually is), but it's very misleading as to the entire context of the incident... Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TRM (Signpost)

In full agreement with SchroCat. The problem here is that this will take too long to process and all the while, the offending article remains visible for all to see, and for all logged in users to be directed to. The damage is still being done. It needs to be removed. If Arbcom decide it's just fine to post, do it then, but not right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the level of confused messages, including from admins in this very case application, around what constitutes harassment, where BLP applies etc, this case has to be taken. Honestly, I am incredibly disappointed by some of the comments here which seem to amount to revenge strikes on Fram. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dweller

I urge a speedy resolution by motion by Arbcom on this. Even more than that, I urge an even speedier decision by the Signpost to nominate this page for speedy deletion before an admin takes matters into their own hands and we have 'yet another' Arbcom case about that. I admire the Signpost's signs of growing journalistic ambition. Heading into full-fledged personal investigation, with its natural reliasance on claims and counter-claims 'for balance' is incompatible with BLP, but never mind that, and here I address you, Signpost stakeholders, not Arbcom, it's incompatible with the sense of community the Signpost should be trying to build. Totally inappropriate. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker (SP)

Sympathetic to the complainants but it appears they are pointing at the wrong part of policy, this is not an encyclopedia article, and the subject deals with WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS and Wikipedia enforcement, which is policy and wiki-administrative judgement not law, so the pertinent section would be WP:BLPTALK (2nd paragraph). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, I am not implying anything, I am pointing to the section of policy to review. (I would caution everyone against stating any legal theory of violation without a court judgement, anywhere, that includes the legal theory of defamation). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Jehochman is not the process now, that if anyone wants it restored in full or in part, they appeal to AN? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jhochman: Looking at it again I suppose the issue cannot be decided at AN because it is now invisible to almost all Users, right? At any rate, no one can judge any of this without examining the exact words that people wanted removed (technically, as far as the article in whole is concerned then the all parts can be restored without the offending part, if any) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Four points on content. 1) For BLP, the committee will have to distinguish the Gamliel case because that involved an encyclopedic BLP subject, whom we cover in encyclopedia articles, and we need to be especially scrupulous about the people we cover in articles, which is why policy says leeway for editor discussions. (Note that does not answer the question but it will be important). 2) Part of this may well turn on what the facts are of the alleged bad acts (whether, it is posting a picture or whatever?) not the conclusion applied by I take it, a person quoted?, and whether it is stated as opinion (and it might just be that part of the conclusion(s) should be redacted). 3) Without knowing the entire article, only a committee of admins (hi Arbcom) will actually be able to restore any of the article given the speedy process used (which is rather interesting because it will make you defacto content editors at least in this project space) 4) But that will be alleviated somewhat, if the committee says it is without prejudice to a future MfD. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Usedtobecool

It is beyond a simple content dispute. The Signpost reaches everyone as an official publication from Wikipedia (never mind the technicality). It should either adhere to WP policies or there should be specified and recognised exemptions. I vote former. ArbCom must accept this case since the issue is of grave concern and urgent. What was published went beyond anon. allegations, Signpost saw fit to publish speculative allegations of grievous nature, an act that might have repercussions even for an independent media. "Investigative journalism" isn't a valid excuse, far from it. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 11:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dave

Arbcom should accept this case and the article should be pulled immediately, I wasn't only shocked at the article but was disappointed too, Pull it and accept the case. –Davey2010^Talk 12:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we ever meet one day - Beers are on me! Thanks for doing that it's much appreciated. –Davey2010^Talk 13:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

Possibly erring on the side of caution I’ve deleted the page under the CSD attack page/negative unsourced BLP criteria. Do not restore it until ArbCom rules. Jehochman ^Talk 12:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed Oshwah's action and agree with it, actually, because the editor doing the blanking was evading scrutiny. Jehochman ^Talk 13:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~As for the case, you need to examine these issues:~~

Is the Signpost part of Wikipedia and subject to our rules?

Has the anonymous source who made the inflammatory accusations been spreading baseless aspersions to the Signpost, to ArbCom and to WMF? That could be harassment and head-hunting. Wikipedia is not a game where we try to ban perceived opponents.

Can editors use anonymity and aggressive victim-hood to evade scrutiny of and responsibility for their actions? ArbCom is well positioned to investigate and rule on this question.

If the Signpost is part of Wikipedia, do Signpost reporters have journalistic privilege vis a vis ArbCom? Signpost staff have no mandate to handle confidential info, they haven’t signed a WMF non disclosure agreement and they haven’t been elected by the community. You see where I’m going.

Does ArbCom have a mandate to ask the Signpost reporters to show their evidence or face sanctions for making personal attacks?

~~I've added JamieDoe to this case as named party. This is a placeholder since the actual name can be given to ArbCom in private. Jehochman ^Talk 17:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)~~ [reply]

You've got other priorities. As of now, I don't see the benefit of hearing this case being worth the trouble. Community processes can probably handle it.

@Newyorkbrad: I considered redacting the page but encountered several thorny problems: past redactions had been reverted, it was unclear what exact material was challenged because different people framed the conflict in different ways, and I did not trust myself to alter the writing of the Signpost editors without mangling the article. Jehochman ^Talk 20:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirill Lokshin and Gamaliel: please disclose any involvement you may have in the genesis of this dispute. For instance, you’re both in the board of Wikimedia DC, which issued this peculiar press release about the Fram ban. [3] Please see also 28bytes question below. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 19:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv and Oshwah: Petulant Clerk has been indef checkuser blocked.[4] This tends to affirm both of your actions as being proper. Jehochman ^Talk 15:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SN

This needs to be pulled immediately per all^^^. What also needs to be addressed is the edit-warring by a number of experienced editors to restore this outrageous content. For example, here Megalibrarygirl claims it is merely reporting, and more, she recognises that the material is sufficiently contentious that it may be worthy of the Arbco's intervention—yet proceeds to restore it anyway. And Oshwah, it turns out, just assumed because it was a signpost article that it would be up to snuff. Maybe I shouldn't have done that. Didn't even read the article before using the block tool? Bizarre, to say the least.

Smallbones should probably be blocked for his egregious BLPvios—particularly as, since the material had been removed before going live, he was aware that it was contentious. All others at least reprimanded. In what universe is speculating on another editor being a sexual harasser satisfactory Wiki-behaviour? It is NOT the Signpost's job to be contentious unless it markets itself as a yellow-sheet tabloid; and if it does, of course, it can do so on another site and another server. Personally, since this is the latest in a litany of massive editorial misjudgements from the SP team, it's probably time to review its value to the community: if every time it is released it generates controversy, then it is absolutely WP:NOTHERE. And if the parties involved in publication can't see that the article and commentary constitute as much harassment as anything they're speculating over, then CIR applies. ——SerialNumber54129 12:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On edit: Excellent work Jehochman. ——SerialNumber54129 12:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can the Arbco or a clerk draw the attention of MLG to policy? Many thanks. ——SerialNumber54129 13:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333:} I think you're under a slight misapprehension. This is a case request regarding the harassment of Fram, and the enabling thereof by experienced editors, not harassment by him; the case you're suggesting is being deliberated upon ^^^up there^^^. ——SerialNumber54129 16:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cryptic (Signpost)

This is a cynical, odious, and most of all obvious weaponization of anti-harassment protections in order to score petty revenge points against Fram. Several of the users edit warring to restore this anonymous-in-name-only source knew or should have known that - the "Revision deleted only" checkbox is right there on Special:Contributions/Fram, and the edit in question on the very first page. Arbcom must accept this case; these users should no longer be trusted with access to that checkbox.

Were I Fram, I'd be litigating. —Cryptic 13:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smallbones: You're way, way over wordcount. One of the skills a journalist must learn is conciseness. Here's an example, for the two hilit bullet points in your statement: "Do not allow Fram to speak in their defense." —Cryptic 13:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OR: There is no misremembering involved here. The incident was in a recent arbitration case to which JamieDoe was a party, and it's still sitting there visible for all to see. —Cryptic 13:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by starship

(1) @Bilorv:, I disagree that Jehochman has unilaterally acted without consensus. 12 editors posted here before Jehochman saying that such claims are not acceptable. There have been references to aspersions, WP:BLP, and WP:BLPTALK. Over at WP:ANI, there were also 4 other editors (myself, Deacon, Bori, rnddude) who objected to such claims, and did not post here yet. The opposers are definitely fewer in number, and I'm not too sure what their policy-based arguments are, apart from one argument that the Wikipedia would consider to the Signpost to be WP:RS. starship .paint (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(removed Paragraph 2 originally addressed to Bilorv as redundant with Oshwah's statement)

(3) @Bilorv: - I have argued that Jehochman had consensus when you earlier argued that he hadn't. To now change the argument towards speedy deletion criteria seems like shifting the goalposts. Yes, there are opposers, but fewer and with less policy arguments. starship .paint (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(4) @Megalibrarygirl: Fram had opportunity to dispute the content and declined as written here. This cannot be a BLP violation since the person in question did not dispute - Fram's meta sandbox shows that he did dispute before press time. The revision history of the sandbox is here [5]. It shows Fram clearly disputing on 29 June 2019 between 15:38 and 15:53. He wrote in his sandbox because this longer reply is just to get some more space and to reply to the latest entries. Signpost was published on 15:28, 30 June 2019‎. [6]. starship .paint (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(5) @Smallbones: stop Fram from currently trying to out an editor on another website - if this website is meta.wiki ... that's actually the recommended place for Fram to post. Also, if what Fram did on their meta sandbox is outing, so did you, Smallbones. In your article you provided 4 distinguishing characteristics [7] of your source which may help identify them. starship .paint (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I hope that's all the comments I'll be making on this case. I'm out. Feel free to use any of the evidence above, because I hope I won't be participating further. starship .paint (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beetstra {Signpost}

Just when I thought that Wikipedia could not become any darker. This is until now the most obvious on-wiki case of harassment I have seen. Please accept this case. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Megalibrarygirl

I do not think the Committee should accept the case. There is freedom of press in freedom of speech. I see freedom of speech praised when someone is "gruff" or "difficult" on Wikipedia. However, when a news article is written that deals with the elephant in the room, everyone is passionate to delete. There is a failure at Arbcom and there was a failure in how WMF rolled out the ban. The article shows what a lot of people don't like to hear: that there was most likely a very good reason to sanction Fram. So what are we going to do about this? We can't even decide to protect marginalized groups of people at the Administrator's board [s]. Things that are absolutely beyond the pale are tolerated as jokes.

I am in agreement with Bilorv. Fram had opportunity to dispute the content and declined as written here. This cannot be a BLP violation since the person in question did not dispute. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD on that page, we see Fram basically outing the person who made the accusations. I read the situation as very complicated, but I don't see Fram specifically calling for the entire piece to be removed. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WaltCip

Stating that the article is not harassment nor a BLP violation because it contains information indicating there was "a very good reason" to sanction Fram is begging the question. In the meantime, the article needs to be removed as contentious. The edit-warring does not require an ArbCom case to sort out. --WaltCip (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: - Welcome to callout culture.--WaltCip (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deacon Vorbis

WP:BLP is clear, and it was clearly violated here. If ANI doesn't want to deal with it, then ArbCom is what's left. Megalibrarygirl's claim that it's not a BLP violation if you don't dispute it is without merit and just bizarre. I recommend that she and Tony1 also be named parties to this case for restoring the material. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capeo

This wildly irresponsible article needs to be taken down now. People also need to stop with the "freedom of speech/press" crap. Neither apply on WP and it's rather shocking to see some people claiming some "journalistic" exemption that should clearly know better. Not to mention, no competent journalist would use an "anonymous" quote that contains details that clearly identify the person being quoted. The article is irresponsible on multiple levels. Capeo (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s rather concerning how many experienced editors here, particularly some admins, who seem to have fairly warped ideas about basic stuff like BLP and outing. BLP applies everywhere. There’s no question about that, as the last Signpost related ArbCom case affirmed. There is no free speech on WP to violate BLP and the Signpost isn’t journalism. No journalist would threaten the subject of an article with a ban for deducing the very obvious “anonymous” source. No journalist would even use a quote from a source that’s supposed by anonymous when it quite clearly identifies the source. No journalist would go to press without the article subject’s response to anonymous claims when said response was offered. If no response was available, no journalist would print such anonymous accusations without investigating the accusations first.

In this case the actual events were easily discernible, the anonymous accusations are an obvious distortion of the facts, and that leaves an actual journalist with two options: 1) convince the anonymous source to give up anonymity, because the journalist’s own research doesn’t coincide with the available facts, and they are required to publish what they’ve learned about the accusation through their own research if the original accusation is going to be published. 2) not publish the accusations at all if the source doesn’t agree to this.

Smallbones was obviously aware of the actual facts around the “anonymous” sources claims, as was the “anonymous” source themselves, yet they both went forward anyway. Oh, and both let stand a ridiculously defamatory implication that the article’s subject is a serial harasser of woman editors. They both need to be heavily sanctioned. No matter how you feel about the FRAMBAN stuff (I personally think Fram should’ve been desysopped a long time ago) this was a despicable hit job Capeo (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel:, yeah, BLP doesn’t apply when discussing an admin’s (or anyone’s) behavior WHEN THEY CAN ACTUALLY REPLY. A Signpost article making very serious claims, while denying the accused’s replies, is a blatant BLP violation. It’s not even arguable. Particularly because the accused has the capacity to respond and it was ignored. Your claims of Fram’s “attacks” on meta are disingenuous at best. Responding to accusations with counter arguments isn’t attacking. If that’s the case then no evidence based system of guilt could possibly exist. As I already said, I’m no fan of Fram, but this is a perfect example of railroad untruths to get a desired result. It’s (or should be) the exact opposite of what is trying to be achieved. Capeo (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:, assuming the email exchanges that Fram posted at his meta TP are genuine, there wasn’t the “sign off” being suggested by Smallbones. Not to mention, the supposedly “anonymous” accusation is part of ridiculously public ArbCom case where the “anonymous” accuser didn’t get their way. It’s a hit piece. Both the reporter, who denied right of reply from the accused, and the accuser, who made defamatory insinuations regarding sexual harassment, knew what they were doing. It doesn’t matter if Fram was a good or bad admin (I already said I think he should’ve been desysopped long ago), these levels of unevidenced BLP violations would never stand in an article, let alone against another editor. Capeo (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coffee Crumbs

This was a blatant violation of WP:BLPTALK and it's disturbing that a group of people are working to restore it. In the context of Wikipedia, there's no more marginalized group of people than people who aren't allowed to directly participate in their defense. Megalibrarygirl and Tony1 ought to be added as included parties, especially the former given the statements given here. It is extremely troubling that an editor or an admin would make the argument that enforcement of BLP policy requires an affirmative action to be made by the victim in order for those references to be removed and to hold that position is fundamentally inconsistent with holding permissions. Weasel words don't rescue it either; if I add to Peter Politician's talk page is guilty of crimes without any reliable sourcing, I'd be blocked and adding "probably" or insisting "well, Pete Politician hasn't specifically objected" would not be a saving construction. And as a side note, even if there would typically be a freedom of the press issue -- there isn't -- freedom of the press in this context is held by the publisher, not by agents of the publisher.

This is a more significant violation than even in the Gamaliel case. In that case, at least Gamaliel was warring to restore a lame joke, not to restore a serious direct allegation. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also find the "journalistic independence!" point to be without merit. If the Signpost had an anonymous source at T&S that identified the complainant and that was printed, I would wager approximately zero people would be waving that identical banner. In fact, I'd wager the same people would (rightly) argue that Jehochman's removal wasn't far enough and that it should be revdel-ed and the writer sanctioned. Let's sent this strawman to the wastebin. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by King of Hearts

At first it appeared that Fram consented for the article to be published, or at least did not object to it. But on meta:User talk:Fram he rejects this characterization as false. Negative allegations about any editor must be backed by evidence, or it will be removed. I hope ArbCom has the opportunity to examine the private evidence (e.g. emails) to make a proper determination as to the facts. At the moment I don't know who's right or wrong, but anyone who significantly misrepresents their interaction with another editor in a way that casts aspersions on that person must be severely reprimanded. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I think Arbcom would have accepted a case on Fram under normal circumstances. But here 1) they are missing some potentially important pieces of evidence, which WMF has refused to provide; and 2) as long as the WMF's one-year ban on Fram stands, there isn't much wiggle room for Arbcom to act if sanctions against Fram are warranted. So I see no point in Arbcom accepting a Fram case until and unless WMF agrees to delegate it to them. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pawnkingthree (Signpost)

This attack page should never have been published and Jehochman was quite right to speedily delete it. Because of the serious BLP issues involved here, Arbcom should accept the case.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr rnddude

Please, accept this case. There are multiple conflicting issues here to be sorted out and can only be handled via ArbCom (or T&S if you really want). The harassment and sexual harassment claims should have been forwarded to ArbCom (or since it's claimed that ArbCom abrogated on their responsibility, T&S) to begin with. I don't personally believe that ArbCom would be handed compelling evidence of such behaviour and "just [shrug] and ignore it" as is claimed, and so believe it should be handled by you (not T&S). The secondary matter, should it turn out that these claims are false, exaggerated, misleading, etc, is what to do about such matter being published in the Signpost, and the conduct of those involved. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PamD

I was shocked to read the article, especially when I read Fram's comments on it at their Meta page which tell a different version of events. I commend Jehochman for removing the article.

@Megalibrarygirl: You say Fram had opportunity to dispute the content and declined as written here: that would be a strong argument were it not for Fram's alternative version of events written here. Given the seriousness of claim and counterclaim here, it's right that the article has been deleted pending ArbCom's decision. PamD 15:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Oshwah

Because I took some actions that involved the page at the center of this case request, and the fact that they've been mentioned and discussed here - I felt that I should add a statement for the record in order to help clarify some confusion and explain my thoughts regarding them. I initially ran into Petulant Clerk when his/her first edit was published that replaced the entire signpost page with {{Personal attack removed}}. I was not aware at the time that the signpost page was under scrutiny and that many users felt that unsubstantiated accusations and statements were present and to the level of being very serious violations of policy. I rolled back the changes and warned Petulant Clerk for the disruptive edit.

Petulant Clerk responded to the note I left expressing that he/she felt that the entire page was libelous and asked me questions regarding that policy. I just assumed (apparently incorrectly) in general that signpost articles and pages were peer-reviewed by other editors and members of the project before they were published, and (apparently incorrectly) thought that there was no way that such a page would contain exactly what Petulant Clerk was describing it as in his/her response to me, and hence the response he/she gave was silly. I took another look at the page history a few minutes later to see that Petulant Clerk was continuing to make the same edits repeatedly. I believed that the user legitimately felt that the entire page was libelous given his/her response to me, but was being disruptive by edit warring instead of following dispute resolution. At that point, I felt that administrative action was necessary, and I applied a 36 hour block to Petulant Clerk for disruptive editing.

It wasn't until SchroCat added a reply to me on Petulant Clerk's user talk page agreeing that the entire signpost page was "disgustingly libelous" that I began to think that there might actually be legitimate concerns here. I responded to SchroCat by stating that my actions were in no way, shape, or form attempting to make or impose a judgement call regarding the page's content and whether or not it was appropriate or a violation of policy, or hinder any kind of discussion regarding the pages content. I was simply taking action here in order to address the repeated back-and-forth disruption that was being made unilaterally to replace the entire page with a template, instead of discussing the concerns with other editors and agreeing on an appropriate action.

Jehochman's deletion of the signpost page was completely appropriate given the concerns expressed, and even if the deletion did go against a ruling or judgement I made, this would not be wheel warring at all... and I would assume that Jehochman found a compelling reason to take that action, and I would not have objected to it. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing - ~~Ping received. My apologies if my statement is too long. I'm at work all day today. Will fix it tonight.~~ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC) Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing - Word count has been reduced in order to comply with statement section rules. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dank (Signpost)

SilkTork: Brilliant. And brave. - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ritchie333

I read the Signpost article yesterday before it was published, and thought "Yes, this correlates with the off-wiki complaints and evidence I have received against Fram". I am just utterly shocked at how several of my closest Wikipedia colleagues seem to be attacking each other - for what reason? This whole thing reminds me of people getting all hot and bothered about the Trump Baby balloon saying "respect the President of the United States". Same thing! The report has been deleted, so I suggest resolving this by motion that it stays so and no admin should restore it. As I have said elsewhere, if Arbcom want an in camera case for Fram, I will supply my offline evidence for a ban if asked and if it is deemed appropriate. I am certainly dead against airing dirty laundry in public. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: Of course not, I'm comparing the moral outrage sparked by the two events. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Ernie: I was aware of the developing Signpost article as it appeared in the Newsroom, but declined to comment as I don't personally think Fram's conduct has risen to the level of sanctions. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm certainly open to defending or agreeing with him when the circumstances arise. (Example) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: The subtle but important difference was I read the piece and saw something like "Anonymous said he quit Wikipedia because he claimed Fram liked stomping on kittens. We asked Fram, who refuted this and said he has never stomped on kittens." I wouldn't read that and come away thinking "Yes, Fram stomps on kittens"; all I have is two sides of a story. Harassment and defamation would have intended to make me feel less of Fram as a person; this doesn't. I accept that other people have a different view, but the hysteria and threats to sanction Smallbones are just over the top. I don't think he was trying to settle a score with anyone, and if he was, it's gone right over my head. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mkdw

In February 2019, I raised this very issue at the Village Pump asking whether The Signpost could publish potentially defamatory POVs. Most of the discussion focused on whether the January issue constituted defamation or not as opposed to the actual questions. They were:

If an op-ed or editorial contains defamatory views, may the piece be published in The Signpost and therefore on Wikipedia?
Are there limitations on the degree of severity such as racist views?
Should the community be included in setting the content guidelines for The Signpost and respectively its enforcement?

Some may be surprised to know that The Signpost has their own content policies as guidelines. The VP discussion did not go anywhere; most of the discussion was spent calling me confused, that I was causing bureaucratic disruptions, and that I was even "abusing the term 'defamation'" by a former Arbitration Committee member. Others stated they were perfectly willing to let The Signpost set their own policies and guidelines on content separate from that of the rest of Wikipedia. A lot of emphasis was placed on trying to protect the publication from extinction. Despite my best efforts of trying to raise these concerns about future issues, I am severely disappointed to see us here today.

I urge the committee to accept this case and resolve it by motion, especially amid recent events surrounding the question on whether we, as a community, have been adequately addressing harassment and abuse. Mkdw ^talk 16:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To expand a bit further, a motion could be passed for the article to remain deleted until a time when the community has adequately reached a consensus for itself where to balance "freedom of the press" and our local content and conduct policies/guidelines. Mkdw ^talk 19:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FeydHuxtable

Agree with Ritchie333 - would be good if this is accepted, but handled with a swift motion to endorse the deletion, but with no sanctions or censure for the Signpost or others involved, per extenuating circumstances.

If you believe Fram's meta statement (which I do, IME Fram is always truthful) then clearly the article was in violation of policy. Sounds like Smallbones received a huge volume of emails making the pro WMF case, and seeing so much one sided evidence, he might have lost his neutrality. (Which IMO sometimes happens even to the best journalists on FT.) There's also the pressure that was being put on the Signpost with various editors saying how important it was for it to publish on time, some seeming to think that would have a much needed soothing effect on the distress many of us feel after Framgate.

I see some are saying MegaLibaryGirl & Tony should be added to the case. That would be ridiculous in my view – in the cold light of day it's clear that it was the right call to delete the article, but at the time of the undeletions the info we have now would not have been widely known. Folk would have reasonably believed Fram was given several chances to respond. I applaud MegaLibaryGirl for having the courage to stick up for those she believes might be silenced victims, even if in hindsight it turns out that policy favoured the other side.

Cant believe the way Framgate's got good admins & veteran editors to start attacking each other left right and centre. Trolls and others wanting our community to go the way of thousands of now failed platforms must be rolling on the floor with glee. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: switch to reccomend decline per Opabinia. Confident we'd get a good outcome if this was accepted, but it would be divisive, and in this crucial period some of the Arbs are rightly being cautious about spreading their attention too thin. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David Eppstein

In my mind, the relevant questions here are: Can The Signpost operate like a traditional newspaper, with content under the control of an editor, confidential sources, and an internal process for vetting the accuracy of those sources, or should it be forced to operate under the rules for other Wikipedia content, with anyone allowed to change its content and with strict rules that all likely-to-be-disputed content must be verifiable through sources published elsewhere? In this instance, did it have and follow an internal process for vetting the accuracy of its confidential sources? If it is required to only report material that has already been published elsewhere, how can it survive and continue to produce useful reporting on happenings at Wikipedia? And, if the accusations are true that ArbCom failed to handle credible accusations of sexual harassment that were brought to it, what should be done to change ArbCom processes to prevent that failure in future?

Questions I'm not interested in include: If Fram did harass another editor, how should he be sanctioned? (Already addressed by the one-year WMF ban.) What is the identity of the allegedly-harassed editor? (None of my business.) And in the dispute over whether The Signpost can be allowed to make controversial claims based on confidential sources, were the actions of various admins wheel-warring? (Not interesting and not worth taking to ArbCom.)

@AndyTheGrump: When you say "journalists have to be outsiders" are you trying to imply that, for instance, small-town newspaper journalists have a tradition of living in a different town than the one they report on, and of avoiding participation in town activities? Because I've never heard of such a thing, and the journalistic codes of ethics that I've scanned do not have any such rule. I would like to see evidence that this is a widely accepted standard before applying it to our own journalists. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Montanabw (Signpost)

ArbCom should Decline and the article should be restored. David Eppstein provided an excellent rationale and I concur with much of what he said. As someone who responded to a request for information for the article and one of the few people willing to put my name to my quotes, I also agree that The Signpost is journalism. It is not a BLP violation to use anonymous sources (just ask the Washington Post during Watergate), it is balanced journalism to present multiple viewpoints, and the editor should, in fact, be commended for writing a balanced article. This whole request is a waste of bandwidth. Montanabw^(talk) 18:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion (signpost)

ArbCom needs to accept this, since it raises a lot of serious questions about our handling of harassment, the use of anonymous sources in on-wiki communication, the editorial independence of the Signpost and how it intersects with our policies on WP:CIVIL and WP:BLP, and so on. That said, I urge you to avoid any sanctions or drastic measures given the extenuating circumstances; and I feel that the larger question of Signpost's purpose and editorial independence may need to be settled outside of ArbCom. There have been several fraught cases related to it in the past, and the larger question of "can the Signpost rely on anonymous sources for negative material about a living person?" strikes me as something that ought to be settled by the community vis-a-vis deciding what we want the Signpost to be, rather than by ArbCom. While WP:BLP applies everywhere, it makes at least notional sense that it ought to apply differently to the Signpost if we intend for it to perform original journalism (where this sort of use of anonymous sources is not uncommon), and I don't feel that essentially putting that outside of the Signpost's scope ought to be a question decided by ArbCom alone. --Aquillion (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat:: That is obviously the question at issue, and (since it is an existential question for the Signpost, whose practice of performing original research has longstanding community support) it is outside the scope of what ArbCom ought to decide. Your assertion that WP:BLPTALK would bind the Signpost to avoidance of original research is absurd and bears no relation to how the Signpost has ever operated, nor to any consensus that has ever been reached in discussions over it or in relation to the applicability of WP:BLP to that area. Clearly, though, asking ArbCom to rule entirely on its own that the Signpost is forbidden from performing original research (a ruling that would functionally shut the Signpost down) goes far beyond a question they can reasonably address - that is a question for the community as a whole. --Aquillion (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @SchroCat:: The applicability of and interpretation of our policies is a matter of consensus; here is the only existing discussion of how WP:BLP applies to the Signpost. Again, if you disagree, start a larger discussion; leaping straight to demanding that ArbCom (in effect) shut the signpost down by barring it from performing its intended purpose (especially as a result of an ill-considered case fed by high tempers over recent events) is a bridge too far and goes way beyond what ArbCom could reasonably rule on at this point given the limited prior discussions. This ArbCom case is not the time or the place to try and decisively settle the long-unanswered question of the Signpost's purpose and how it relates to BLP. --Aquillion (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kusma (signpost)

In a way, this is almost like the original Fram ban case you have never heard -- but instead of finding out whether Fram harrassed people, you may need to find out whether saying "Fram harrassed people" is a true statement or a nasty personal attack... but I guess you can find a somewhat different scope for the case, and I very much hope that we can then all get a bit more agreement about what is and isn't harassment out of this case, and following that we can all try harder to stay on the right side of the line to make this a more pleasant place to be. But if you do end up hearing the original Fram ban case, you should consider merging this. —Kusma (t·c) 19:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pine

I suggest that we acknowledge how much good The Signpost has done and think about how to provide a certain amount of protection for unpopular content while also limiting potential harms from accidental or intentional falsehoods in BLPs.

I was not involved in writing the article in question.

I think that Smallbones has given ample evidence of his good faith, including his repeated statements about his willingness to be responsible for what happens when things go wrong at The Signpost. I hope that Fram's statement that disagreed with Smallbones' characterization is a result of a good faith misunderstanding.

The WP:No original research policy appears to apply specifically to Article space: "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed.". Apparently NOR does not apply to project space, where The Signpost lives. This allows The Signpost to conduct original research such as interviews.

What seems to be controversial is The Signpost publishing original research that is both contentious and is regarding living persons. Quoting the WP:BLP policy: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy... This policy applies... in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material."

I think that the particular Signpost article in question should remain deleted pending a discussion between Smallbones and Fram regarding what material Fram does not protest (or, to borrow language from the BLP policy, which material is not "contentious").

In parallel or in addition to a discussion between Fram and Smallbones regarding what material Fram does not object to including, I think that the community could have a policy discussion regarding whether there should be a narrow exception from BLP restrictions for certain types of Signpost content, keeping in mind that The Signpost is a newspaper. This discussion can happen without Arbcom's involvement. The outcome would not significantly affect most Signpost content, but investigative reporting could be adversely impacted in situations where secondary sources are not available and the subject of the report is a living person such as a Wikipedian or WMF board member.

Given what I currently know, I encourage the parties to assume good faith of each other, and for Arbcom to assume good faith by the parties. I understand why people were upset. I think that at least some of the issues in this case can resolved diplomatically through private discussion and/or through a community discussion about the scope of BLP policy.

I encourage Arbcom to ~~decline this case or to~~ have a narrowly focused case to satisfy itself that various people were acting reasonably given the information that they had at the time, the current state of Wikipedia policy, and the nature of the The Signpost.

--Pine (✉) 19:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy (Signpost)

Do the people who have repeatedly restored anonymous and unverified accusations against Fram even consider that they may be harassing Fram? Have they considered, as feelings are what matters here now, that Fram may justifiably feel harassed at having his responding to an anonymous and disputed accusation met with threats of a global ban? Do the people claiming there is some right to free speech or free press here see any sort of irony in responding to Fram speaking with a threat of a global ban? Have the people claiming that Fram outed anybody even read WP:OUTING?

Finally, I feel silly making what I thought was an obvious point, but if you would like to write something that need not obey Wikipedia's policies, most obviously WP:BLP and WP:NPA, then you can do it on literally any other website. wikipediasignpost.org is available if you're interested. But pages on Wikipedia are required to follow Wikipedia's policies, and you dont get to carve out a special exemption to that for your pet project. nableezy - 19:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Land

It would be a real shame if the only thing Arbcom does in this whole affair is to sanction people who have tried to work out whether Fram was actually harrassing anyone. That would, in the circumstances, be pretty much the ultimate irony. The Land (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

I think that the case should not be accepted and if it is, be handled by motion. Here is the problem here, in fighting the good fight with the holy sword of wiki righteosness we risk creating a martyr out of people. The stuff to Fram continues to frame a good case of speculation and at the same time fighting the people that are crusading and sanctioning them only throws fuel to a different side of the same fire. Someone has to stop the madness that USER:WMFOffice created, wonder if the "Fuck Arbcom" ban was worth this level of disruption? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wugapodes

This case should be accepted with a specific and narrow focus on the editorial independence of The Signpost. Mkdw points out that this is a recurring question that ought be addressed. David Eppstein correctly notes the scope of questions to be asked. BLP policy is motivated by legal considerations of libel, and Montanabw rightly points out that good faith use of anonymous sources by newspapers to report news is not libelous. An important question in this regard is one that David asks: "In this instance, did [The Signpost] have and follow an internal process for vetting the accuracy of its confidential sources?" Questions of whether the article constitutes harassment should be informed by the question of editorial independence; if The Signpost is a newspaper with adequate journalistic ethics and procedures, it is very chilling to call investigative journalism on a newsworthy topic harassment. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 20:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Abecedare

In addition to the disregard for WP:BLP and WP:NPA, I am also concerned with Smallbones' then (mis)relying on another wikipedia policy, WP:OUTING, in order to prevent Fram from responding to the accusations. I quote, You do realize that you are apparently outing the admin you mention, don't you? You shouldn't be playing hardball with me like that. I'm pretty sure you could get permanently globally banned for that now.

Even looked at purely as a question of journalism ethics: journalist should do their best to not reveal the identity of an anonymous sources themselves but they have absolutely no remit to prevent others from guessing or disclosing a source's identity, especially through threats (since Watergate has been mentioned, look at the numerous attempts by reputable authors and journalists to unmask Deep Throat).

Fwiw, I don't believe discussing the on-wikipedia identity of the person who charged Fram with sexual harassment would constitute Outing. Smallbones granting a wikipedia editor anonymity to speak to Signpost does not mean that no other editor on wikipedia can ever again speak about that editor or related incidents! That said, I am not going to do so (and urge others to not do so, here, either) because: it's immaterial to this case; it's a bell that can't be unrung; and, above all, it's the right and decent way to treat a fellow editor who certainly felt harassed. The merits of those accusations can be examined by arbcom independently.

(TL;DR) Arbcom should accept this case to examine if site-wide wikipedia policies, such as WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NPA etc, apply to Signpost (NB: I am intentionally not listing WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR etc since they are not site-wide policies) and if any of those policies were violated. I am not looking for sanctions against any editors/admins, who I believe were all acting in good faith, but we do need better compliance with applicable wikipedia policies and basic journalism ethics. Abecedare (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by XOR'easter

I think David Eppstein's evaluation of the questions in play here is exactly right. And I concur with Wugapodes that if The Signpost is a newspaper with adequate journalistic ethics and procedures, it is very chilling to call investigative journalism on a newsworthy topic harassment. I note that the Buzzfeed article about this incident has been criticized at WP:FRAM for some factual errors, which rather underlines the importance of having some entity that can undertake knowledgeable journalism about Wikipedia.

Statement by Javert2113 (Signpost case)

Recent events and questions regarding the independence of the Arbitration Committee, its remit, and its ability to function absent interference by outside parties compel, in my opinion, the Committee to accept this case; doubly so as a case of possible harassment. Although reasonable editors may properly debate and disagree about the editorial independence of The Signpost, I know we all agree on the principles espoused by the community at WP:BLP. That is what controls this discussion, after all's said and done.

WP:BLP is very clear: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." (Emphasis original.) Moreover, "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia [...]" (emphasis mine), and, as such, it must take priority over any and all internal standards The Signpost may have. (WP:BLPTALK is tangential: while The Signpost is published in non-article space, that is not the crux of the question here; there is a larger, overarching question to be answered.) At least, that is the way I see it.

Setting my beliefs aside, I strongly urge the Committee to accept this case, on the sole question of the applicability of WP:BLP to articles, columns, and other features published in The Signpost.

One last thing: I heartily thank Jehochman for removing the offending page. Thank you. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newyorkbrad

I've adopted the uniform heading of "statement by" but this is actually more of a question. Is the dispute about the entire "Signpost" article or large portions of it, or just about one or two sentences? If the latter, is there any way the parties could agree just to delete the disputed portion? I realize that such a resolution would not address the questions of principle involved, but it might avoid a weeks-long proceeding when we have plenty of other controversies around already, to say nothing of the "Streisand effect" aspects of having an arbitration case about whether a specific sentence or paragraph constitutes a BLP violation or not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Agent00x

I think that, as part of arbitrators accepting this case, someone needs to state what is being accepted, to avoid confusion, and to limit scope to scritcly the issue(s) at hand. Is the case to look at whether or not the article was a BLPTALK violation? Is it to look at what kind of freedoms the signpost has to post that kind of material? Is it to look at the actions of the individuals who deleted and restored the content? Is it to look at the actions of the individuals since doing that? Is it a combination of all the above, or is it all the above?

The statements supplied so far have been mixing variations of all of these, and I think it could lead to an evidence page that may lose focus of what is actually the case is really about (if we end up with a full case and not motions). I assume we do not want to drift into the whole Fram territory, as surely the scope for that is the other arbitration case that is currently under submission?

If it's blatently obvious, feel free to ignore my statement, I just want to avoid a case going wildly off track, e.g. discussing the Fram case, and having evidence ignored because it is not under scope. Agent00x (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish (Signpost)

I'm thinking about things where ArbCom might want to be extra-careful, as in "first, do no harm". There is so much in this situation that, on the one hand, rests on long-understood norms such as don't cast aspersions without explicit evidence, but on the other hand, represents stuff where everyone on-wiki is dealing with unprecedented strange new situations. So I would hate to see Smallbones or anyone else sanctioned for anything. (When I read the article yesterday, I thought it was odd to have those unattributed statements, but it did not strike me at the time that there would be any policy issues, and I even posted a "thank you" message to Smallbones and the other Signpost editors. Maybe I'm just slow.) And there is a certain irony, in that T&S appear to have acted against Fram based on just the kind of material that was in the article. And, on the other hand, there are issues about finding fault with users saying that they felt harassed, while also wishing to be anonymous. This is a messy situation, and it would obviously be bad to aggravate tensions any more than they are already. What I think a case should be about is to define the boundaries of what is and is not permitted by existing policy. That would be useful. Meting out punishments would not. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: although I'm not a fan of back-and-forth in RfAr, I'll reply that although it might not be difficult, I just don't think it would be a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I increasingly feel concerned that there may have been an overreaction to the Signpost article, perhaps related to all of the other stress in the community lately. It feels very strange to have gone from "Fram is harassing people" to "people are harassing Fram". I do not see any malice in the way the Signpost article was written. Insofar as there are BLP concerns, if there had been something like that in mainspace (a passage with inadequately sourced criticisms added to a page), it would have been reverted but it would probably not have gotten to RfAr. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pythoncoder

I was not involved with the publication of this article; however, as a longtime Signpost contributor, I feel I should tell my side of the story. I read the article once before its deletion, and that was after publication. I didn't remember much about its contents. From the quotes provided by Fram, however, it appears to constitute harassment and/or defamation. The deleting admin made the right decision in deleting this. Please accept. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gamaliel

As Fram himself pointed out several years ago in an ArbCom case:

you are aware that BLP has an exception for discussions of admin conduct, right?

And there's no question that this is a story about an administrator behaving badly.

Leaving aside questions of the role of journalism in the community, which it clearly does not have the maturity to properly address, you do realize the utter futility of endorsing the deletion of something anyone can read on the Internet Archive? And you do realize the utter foolishness of demanding this story be deleted when it has dominated community discussion for almost a month? In that discussion, editors openly speculated about the alleged misdeeds and identities of accusers and WMF staffers, and you did nothing. The admin who deleted the Signpost article was one of the most active participants in that discussion, making this an obvious WP:INVOLVED violation, and you do nothing. Fram himself is openly attacking his accusers on Meta, with editors linking to it here on this very page, and you do nothing. But when the victims use the Signpost to speak out, ArbCom is once again asked to sanction and silence the victims. I hope that it will finally break with its long tradition of doing so. Gamaliel (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 28bytes

@Gamaliel: Is it your intention to participate in this case request as an uninvolved observer? 28bytes (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Liz

According to the article, Fram was repeatedly spoken with and had signed off on the Signpost piece and was okay with it being published. Is this day-after remorse or is this statement included in the piece incorrect? If Smallbones did have the okay from Fram to publish the article, how are third parties asserting BLP violations? Is it because they were offended by the charges?

I think that ArbCom should be given permission to see the original email exchange between Smallbones and Fram. If what the article stated is accurate, I can't see how Smallbones can be faulted for accepting Fram's permission as it was given.

It should also be mentioned that many editors shared on the article talk page their own experiences, both positive and negative, with Fram over the years. These are not anonymous charges and I think ArbCom should consider these comments as well, some of which supported the content of Smallbones' article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would find it highly ironic, ArbCom, if you accept this case as one concerning harassment against Fram and ignore any consideration of charges of harassment BY Fram. That would be highly hypocritical. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kudpung

Whatever the outcome, this is going to force major changes in The Signpost's future content and the way it is managed, if indeed anyone is left who wants to continue producing and publishing it. From a readership point of view, due to its many infrequencies of publication there is also the question whether the community still really wants the newspaper - remember that I brought it back to life just over a year ago after it had been abandoned by its then E-in-C and almost given up as a loss by its so called editorial board.

As Editor-in-Chief I beefed up its content and wrote some mildly thought provoking columns and I suffered some serious personal attacks and harassment both online and offline and even from members of this very committee (which I chose not to pursue, but which heavily dispirited me from wanting to contribute to Wikipedia). During my tenure however, there were no controversies such as this article for which I was wrongly accused, attacked, and further harrased as having been being responsible for it, whereas in actual fact I had nothing to do with it whatsoever - the conjecture was creatd by two users who comment frequently around the site and who are not known for calm and polite demeanour.

Unlike many of the readers' comments, which like RfA is the only other place on en.Wiki where users are allowed to be as nasty as they like with impunity, a thought should go out to those who really are in control of the publication and who create and manage each month's issue in good faith. I've been in that chair, and it's probably one of the most dangerous jobs on-Wiki, which is why I once suggested that The Signpost find its own server.

I'll not characterise here on whether the article was a BLP issue or whether Jehochman's unilateral deletion of the page was apt or wheel warring or if he is INNVOLVED or whatever, hence David Eppstein and Pine have summed up best what I otherwise feel, and as it already looks as if the Committee will take the case, I urge them to do so but for each member to be introspective and to proceed with utmost caution, and not necessarily propose or vote for sanctions just because they can. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nil Einne

IMO the signpost article went too far. Also if the signpost moves to its own servers this would help in some ways although it would also mean that linking to it from here could be problematic. If this does happen, the signpost should be more clearly branded as a newspaper by some members of the community since as mentioned with the last controversy a problem is it's currently presented as the community newspaper.

Whether via arbcom or the community, we need to have more clarity surrounding how BLP intersects with our community processes and interacts. BLP applies everyone on wikipedia we all should know that. But as with a lot of things, the devil is in the details and I'm not sure if "some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community" is clear enough. While a strong supporter of BLP, I've always considered that while BLP technically applies, in cases of discussions of contributors in relation to their on wikipedia behaviour/actions, we should generally rely on our other policies and guidelines.

From a BLP standpoint, the vast majority of discussions would nominally violate the policy if we strictly applied it. I mean even the fact that Fram was banned by the WMF did not I believe have reliable secondary sources until relatively recently, and you're not going to find BLP compliant RS that user X was socking/vandalising etc in most case.

Notably from a BLP standpoint whether something is anonymous is only of minor consideration. If an allegation about a widely notable NP is continually widely covered in RS, it likely belongs in some article even if anonymous. By comparison it is not always be appropriate to include every allegation Anderson Cooper made about a LP (and especially not if it's only self published). Yet in this case, I think it does matter precisely because the issue of RS coverage is if limited relevance.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Amakuru (Signpost)

~~I think it's right that Arbcom take this on, per their comments below. We need a new normal when it comes to accusations of harassment, and any plausible case should be looked at. However,~~ having looked at the article, I personally think it's fair and balanced, in the same vein as the BuzzFeed article, which also touches on the opposing views on this saga. The article does not pass judgement on either Fram or his accusers, but simply presents the evidence and invites readers to draw their own conclusions. Like it or not the issue of Fram, and the rightness or wrongness of his ban, is right out in the open and front-and-centre right now, and I don't see why the Signpost, which is a newspaper, should not be able to research, highlight and discuss these issues, none of which are secret or unavailable elsewhere. — Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Having read Opabinia regalis's decline below, what they say is very reasonable. This could have been resolved far more easily by negotation with Smallbones, and removal of the offending passages, to which they have agreed. I understand that there are people who don't like the Signpost, or who don't like the fact that an investigative piece in the Signpost has highlighted the on-the-record complaints that others have made about Fram in the past, but that isn't a matter for Arbcom, it's for the community to decide. As of now, the Signpost has a right to exist, since no community consensus has banned it. And as already noted, the article is fair and factual and can't be construed as harassment. I would request the Arbs who already accepted this case to look at OR's reasoning and consider declining. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xover (Signpost)

I wasn't going to comment on this, but I think Smallbones has completely lost the plot here. Wikipedia is NOT a newspaper. The defence of the article (both by Smallbones and by the few others supporting it) all argue on the basis that the Signpost is somehow a prima facie journalistic endeavour with freedom of the press protections, the ability and expectation to publish original reporting, and protecting their sources. This is all fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's pillars, policies, and purpose. Something like the Signpost can be tolerated (and I am even in general a big supporter of it!) so long as it doesn't take that little IAR-based leeway and stretch to the point that NOTHERE and DISRUPT start becoming relevant.

And in this case (and a few lesser and previously-isolated incidents) they have strayed over that line. I happened to read the article before it was salted, and it was a hit piece of the kind we banned actual newpapers from use as RS for. The clue was in the title: "Did Fram harass other editors?". Such headlines are always tendentious and mean to imply that the answer is "Yes" without having to actually come out and say that (because then you have to substantiate it, and you have to explain why you make the accusation in the Signpost instead of reporting it here or a noticeboard). It is a good rule of thumb that such headlines can always be answered with "No", and that is the case here too: the article is "just asking questions" and reporting anonymous and off-wiki accusations. That is, it is casting aspersions.

If anyone wants to make those kinds of accusations they need to do it at AN/ANI or to ArbCom (including privately if needed). Publishing them in the Signpost first is a sanctionable violation of WP:NPA and WP:HARASS. I don't care what kind of evidence Smallbones now says they will provide ArbCom in private: it is too late for that and immaterial to this case request. Whatever evidence they want to provide belongs in a separate case request titled "Harassment by Fram", and it has no bearing on this case which is about the behaviour of those involved in the publication of the extended personal attack here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-06-30/Special report. --Xover (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kirill Lokshin

In past cases (e.g. Badlydrawnjeff, Manning naming dispute), the Arbitration Committee has ruled that administrators are empowered to summarily delete an article when they hold a good-faith belief that it significantly violates our BLP policy. It seems uncertain whether Jehochman, who carried out the summary deletion in this incident, actually held such a belief ("I previously read the article and liked it", "If even one arbitrator shows up and requests that the page be restored, I will do it"). I would ask the committee to consider this question and provide guidance as to whether administrators may summarily delete articles as significant BLP violations even if they are unable or unwilling to articulate why they personally believe that to be the case.

More generally, I urge the committee to reflect on why Fram's victims felt more comfortable speaking to the Signpost—or, for that matter, making reports to the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust & Safety team—than approaching the committee. I would suggest that attitudes like that of Jehochman above—where he proposes that one of these victims deserves to be sanctioned for having the temerity to tell others about their experiences—lies at the root of the problem. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, as I'm certain you already know perfectly well, I have no involvement the genesis of this dispute. If you want to accuse me of something, by all means do so directly; otherwise, your vague insinuations are becoming quite tiresome. This is not the old Wikipedia investigations list, and not everything is a conspiracy. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IntoThinAir

To my mind, this controversy seems to stem from two entities that are fundamentally at odds with each other: namely, the Wikipedia community, with its well-justified dedication to removing BLP-violating content based on unreliable sources, and the Signpost's efforts to engage in investigative journalism, which fundamentally aims to generate reliable content and thus constitute a reliable source, like a major newspaper. The arguments that the deleted page was a BLP violation seem to be a criticism of the journalistic practices by the author and/or editors, morphed into a different criticism that we can't have serious allegations about users in public without reliable sources to back them up, as this violates BLP. What is apparently being missed here, at least by many users, is that in this case the Signpost is attempting to become a reliable secondary source by reporting on these allegations in a similar way as major newspapers report on harassment allegations against famous people citing anonymous sources.

At its core this dispute seems to be about whether the Signpost should be allowed to engage in investigative reporting, being sufficiently separate from the rest of WP, or whether "freedom of the press" does not apply here, meaning that they should stick to regurgitating what acceptable, non-WP sources have said. I personally think that moving the Signpost to a non-Wikipedia URL and allowing it to report on whatever it wants would go a long way toward solving this problem, and towards resolving the incompatibility between original investigative reporting and not making serious allegations not based on separate "reliable" sources. Finally, I should note how hysterical many other users have become that these accusations against Fram have been made public, and that a grossly disproportional amount of attention has been directed at whether the Signpost has "harassed" him rather than the significantly more important issue of whether he has harassed other users. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AndyTheGrump

AndyTheGrump, briefly back from retirement to comment from a perspective less influenced by current events:

At its heart, this dispute is about the purpose of the Signpost, and the degree to which it can claim to engage in 'investigative journalism' concerning disputes within the Wikipedia community. And I would suggest that there is only one answer - not at all. Investigative journalism aimed at making public abuses by those in power is one of the key means by which such power is kept in check. I would hope that all commenting here would support the rights of journalists to investigate, and to publish their investigations. There is however a proviso. One that I would have hoped would be obvious. Journalists have to be outsiders. It is simply untenable for an organisation to engage in 'investigative journalism' of itself. In the eyes of its readers, the results of such 'journalism' are immediately open to doubt. They are tainted. Not because the 'insider' journalist is necessarily answerable to those in power, and thus unduly influenced by them. Not because the journalist is necessarily be allied with some internal faction or other and thus liable to bias in that faction's favour. No. Not because these things are necessarily true, but because any reasonable person should assume that they are, barring external evidence to the contrary.

The Signpost describes itself as a "community-written and -edited online newspaper", its contributors come from within the Wikipedia community, and is published on the WMF servers. It is not an external journalistic enterprise. It is a part of the Wikipedia/WMF power structure, and as such influenced by whatever power struggles are current within the organisation it sits inside. It is simply untenable to present itself as a source of legitimate 'investigative journalism' concerning the very organisations within which it sits. No reader with any sense should assume impartial coverage from such a source. Instead the reader must treat it like any other internal source - good for finding out what the organisation wants the world to think about it, and maybe useful for finding clues about internal struggles. But as a credible source for impartial journalistic 'investigation' of the inner workings of said organisation? No. Not in the slightest. Presenting it as such is an insult to its readers.

If Smallbones or anyone else wants to engage in 'investigative journalism' concerning Wikipedia and/or the WMF they are free to do so. The more eyes on this enterprise the better. That is not at issue. They must however do it from outside, if they wish such 'investigations' to be taken seriously as impartial and untainted. And if anyone really wants to be taken seriously as an 'investigative journalist' of Wikipedia, they should probably remove themselves from the organisation and its power structure entirely. Insiders are ideal sources on the internal workings of organisations. They are not however impartial observers of such organisations. And if they claim to be, they are either fooling themselves, or trying to fool someone else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein. A locality isn't an organisation. And if you think that 'journalistic codes of ethics' are relevant to this discussion, please feel free to submit them as evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thomas.W

I've been following this page for a while with no intention of joining the discussion, but a few of the statements here are so over the top that I just have to voice my opinion. IMHO ArbCom should accept the case, with a special focus on what the people who produce The Signpost can and cannot do, and possibly also sanction those responsible for the hit piece on Fram for WP:NPA and WP:HARASS, since The Signpost isn't a newspaper and never will be one, unless they move to a site of their own, and thus can't claim to be excempt from any of the policies that apply here. Because a newspaper has a publisher, who is legally responsible for everything that is published, but The Signpost doesn't, which since it's hosted on servers owned by Wikimedia Foundation means that the foundation is legally responsible for what The Signpost publishes. Which is the main reason why WP:BLP ... applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts (my emphasis). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carabinieri

I encourage the committee to take this on, as it appears it will. I think it would be helpful to clarify the strictures under which the Signpost operates. Administrators and other editors routinely point out actions and wrongdoing by others on this site in order to discuss how to respond. I imagine that's why WP:BLP contains the following provision concerning pages outside of the article space: Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of no personal attacks. I only read the article briefly when it came out and don't remember all of it, but it would appear that it falls within this exception. Everyone has been discussing this case on WP:FRAM and elsewhere. Most of those discussions were were not based on facts, but wild speculation, much of it about living people. Many of the editors (several of whom I greatly respect, others I don't know) who are outraged by the Signpost article took part in this attack on a since-vanished editor and a board member but are now crying BLP. WP:FRAM is filled with speculation on who Fram's accusers might be, in an attempt to out them. The Signpost put in the effort to find people claiming they were harassed by Fram and handled their identities discretely, yet somehow its authors are the ones committing a violation? At this point, I really have no clue where the line is.--Carabinieri (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Headbomb (Signpost)

This is not much of a statement, but rather I submit this for both ARBCOM's and the community's consideration. The Signpost has a special place in Wikipedia. It's purported mission is, broadly, to inform, to entertain, and to publish. There is a lot to be said about freedom of speech/freedom of the press, but the key thing here is that while The Signpost is editorially independent of the WMF, it is nonetheless a Wikipedia institution, just as every other newsletter is. As such, while its content coverage is not bound by mainspace policies such as WP:NPOV or WP:N (first category of {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}}), it most definitely is bound by community norms and site-wide policies, such as WP:NPA, WP:BLPTALK, WP:LEGALTHREATS, WP:CHILDPRO, WP:WHEELWAR, and the like (basically everything else with a green check-mark in {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}}).

So-called 'Freedom of the Press' is not an excuse to add asterisks to our policies, saying that WP:BLPTALK violations are OK so long as you get to publish them in The Signpost (or some other newsletter). This shit wouldn't be acceptable in userspace. ARBCOM needs to make it clear that our policies also apply to an outlet that is disseminated to the entire community, on social media, through mailing lists, across several projects, to both Wikimedians and the general public alike. While I don't believe Smallbones acted in bad faith or out of malice, they should at minimum be severely admonished for failing to uphold such non-fucking-negotiable policies like WP:BLPTALK and lowering The Signpost to tabloid journalism. It's now at least twice in the last 6 months that The Signpost published pieces (the other being the so-called 'Humour' piece of February) that caused significant harm and division amongst the community. Both times, others objected prior to publication and were ignored (even harassed by The Signpost 'staff'). ARBCOM needs to send a strong message that so-long as they want to be published and distributed on Wikipedia, any newsletter, including The Signpost, is bound by its policies, just like everything else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: There is still the greater question of does policy apply to Signpost/newsletters, or does it/they have journalistic freedom to publish whatever it wants. This could be handled by motion, rather than full case. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MJL {Signpost}

As this looks likely to be accepted, I'm going to have to force myself to comment as a member of the Signpost's editorial board. I sat out the development of the last issue, but I do want to indicate my support for the article. In principle, the piece would have been fine to run, but not in that condition. However, I don't feel this month's issue was the proper time for such hard-hitting (ie controversial) reporting. There's just too many loose-ends that needed tying up before this story would have been ready to publish. Sometimes, less is more.^{Example: the Wikisource:News special report about this case}

Regardless, I'm really here to say a few things, but I'll make it quick. I don't think arbcom should accept this case, but I pretty much completely agree with everything else Headbomb said (painfully, it's all true). Were things better at the Signpost structure-wise, we would never be in this kind of mess.

I don't want to participate in this case further, but I do want to be kept in the loop. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party} (Disputed Signpost article)

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Disputed Signpost article: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Please remember that the purpose of statements here is to assist the committee in deciding whether there is a dispute that is ripe for arbitration or not, not to hash out all the rights and wrongs of that dispute. Also that there is a limit of 500 words @Oshwah, Capeo, Winged Blades of Godric, and Smallbones:. GoldenRing (talk) 09:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing ping: @Oshwah: GoldenRing (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed Signpost article: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <5/3/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Accept. I think in the light of views that ArbCom do not take harassment seriously enough, I will from this point until/if a better system of dealing with harassment is found be inclined toward accepting cases in which claims of harassment are made. SilkTork (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Katie^talk 15:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse per #Statement by Mkdw. Mkdw ^talk 16:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. I definitely think there are some questions here that need to be addressed. I would have suggested we request the article be temporarily removed while this case request (and possible case) were ongoing to mitigate potential harm, but I see Jehochman has already deleted it. I would personally prefer it not be restored until a decision is made here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- For the avoidance of doubt, although I am quoted in the article, I do not think it is necessary for me to recuse. I was asked via email if I had been harassed by Fram, and I answered, but that was the limit of my involvement with this piece. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. I was also going to suggest deleting and create-protecting it until the case concludes. – Joe (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accept It's been said ArbCom hasn't handled issues of harassment well in the past. Here's a chance to change that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with NYB. I gather the dispute is really over one particular anonymous quote in that article. Surely the practical solution is for Smallbones and his source to satisfy themselves that the quote misremembers some key details of an incident that is very recognizable to anyone who followed it at the time. It therefore isn't appropriate to keep in the article, so that portion can be blanked, the rest of the material can be restored, and we can all move on with our lives and not spend weeks increasing the prominence of the underlying incident and fragmenting our collective attention. (Smallbones, you said at ANI that you'd had a lot of emails about this, so I expect you now know the ways in which the facts are different than described? If not, what steps have you taken to find out since you were first asked about this?)
Since the intention here wasn't originally to engage in dispute resolution or ask for sanctions, but just to post some stuff in projectspace somewhere, I'm not sure there's much interesting to say about anonymous complaints from this particular set of facts. Responsibility for the claim lies on whoever makes the edit - no different than if someone suggested a change to an article and you decided to implement it. I understand the idea behind not wanting to make someone who feels they've been harassed prove their own case, but someone has to verify things, and if you don't have the tools or the time to verify something then you shouldn't put it in public. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Smallbones Just to be clear, this isn't really an issue of whether or not someone felt harassed, or even whether Fram contributed to that feeling (which I have no doubt is true). It's about publishing an error of fact. Arbcom and ANI and Wikipedia may not define "truth", but the logs of who posted what and when are as close as we're going to get.
  Anyway, since Smallbones is OK with removing the disputed section of the article, I think we can move on from this. I don't think this is a good set of facts for a test case on improved handling of harassment cases - it's obvious that the article wasn't created for the purpose of harassing Fram. Decline. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is tense at the moment, and the there's a lot of energy going into the community, meaning that things are bubbling over all over the place. Arbcom needs to remain focussed on what's important, what can be handled by the committee and what is going to have a long term effect. This article was problematic, but as OR says, it seems the crux is down to a single quote - the rest is just generally something people are unhappy with. For now, this appears to be a bit of a side-show, where people want to vent, it can be handled by the community. Decline Worm^TT(talk) 14:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of a Wikipedia newspaper has always troubled me. Newsletters or bulletins are fine, but brand any one as a "newpaper" and you seem to get lots of unhelpful baggage. That said, I do not think the committee should be ruling on the continued existence of the newspaper, nor really on how it conducts its stories. If the community has reservations about either matter, they may test consensus by nominating the newspaper at WP:MFD. Likewise, I do not think this committee should be adjudicating isolated allegations that the article harassed Fram or contained a shoddy claim. Arbitration is a last resort and I am not seeing how our attention would be helpful to this matter. The community is capable of chopping into the article (or deleting it entirely, if it is unsalvageable). Whether the page is branded as a newspaper article does not change the fact that this is a wiki. Sometimes people write silly things. If we are all agreed that the thing is silly, we can fix that thing without an arbitration case. Decline. AGK ■ 03:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]