> In the Fram case the closest we got is that he said the word "fuck"
No it isn't. WMF said that they had allegations of harassment, that they weren't going to release details of that harassment to protect the accuser[1], and that after having looked at several _years_ of fram's edits they decided to take action.
[1] and looking at this thread and the wikipedia thread they were right to do so.
You are wrong there. The exact diff was given to Fram:
"And then a few hours ago, they posted my one year ban, and helpfully gave the actual reason. Which is one edit, this one[1]. That's it." - Fram
""This decision has come following extensive review of your conduct on that project and is an escalation to the Foundation’s past efforts to encourage course correction, including a conduct warning issued to you on April 2018 and a conduct warning reminder issued to you on March 2019. With those actions in mind, this ban has been triggered following your recent abusive communications on the project, as seen here [1]." - WMF
The _factually matter_ is, the only explicit proof we have as justification of creating this ban is the evidence that WMF gave. The warning on March 2019 was about the alleged harassment, which WMF said "We remain convinced that the activity on Laura’s articles listed above was not intended to intimidate or make her feel uncomfortable".
The speculation is that the provided diff with the word "fuck" is a false herring and the actually reason for the ban is something like them changing their mind of on the March 2019 decision, or something completely else where the they want to protect the accuser. We don't know, the information is not given, its not out there.
I see no reason to suspect that and I do not believe that WMF would not say something if a Wikipedia Administrator wrote a fake email in their name.
> We have to decide if we believe fram or wmf.
That is a false proposition. People can choose to believe different speculations, but there is no evidence that the statement from Fram are not written by Fram and the statement from WMF is not written by WMF. I see no evidence to doubt the authenticity of each parties statements.
No it isn't. WMF said that they had allegations of harassment, that they weren't going to release details of that harassment to protect the accuser[1], and that after having looked at several _years_ of fram's edits they decided to take action.
[1] and looking at this thread and the wikipedia thread they were right to do so.