4 ms·

I think the issue is the community used to have a say in these bans, and that’s why ArbCom exists. Now ArbCom is a bit irrelevant, the Foundation decides guilt

by dahdum 7y ago

I think the issue is the community used to have a say in these bans, and that’s why ArbCom exists. Now ArbCom is a bit irrelevant, the Foundation decides guilt in secret and hands out punishment as they see fit.

izacus 7y ago
The article states that was the case before too. What changed?
- onei 7y ago
  From reading the article, the bans handed out by the Foundation appear to have been permanent and targeted at less high-profile members of the community. It also suggests that the bans were targeted at obviously illegal activities, e.g. child pornography. I'm not sure how verifiable what the bans were for is, but it seems to be the widely held view. This is an intervention that realistically should have been dealt with by the community. If he had posted "Fuck Wikimedia" as well, there could have been another perceived conflict of interest. Sooner or later you run out of conflicted groups of people and what happens then?
  - nullc 7y ago
    > obviously illegal activities, e.g. child pornography. Right. There was another recent incident which generated some drama due to the lack of transparency by Wikimedia, but it ultimately fizzled because the banned user in question was silent and so absent any alternative people assumed that the ban was well justified. In this case, the banned user has written a calm and clear description of events from their perspective, including paraphrasing the communication they received from Wikimedia. This discussion has essentially foreclosed the possibility that it was something like child pornography in question-- and, in fact, the specific citation of a rude remark towards arbcom stands out in particular because arbcom apparently had no involvement in the ban.
    - nullc 7y ago
      I realized later that "another recent incident" was actually just the start of this incident before the banned user and the arbcom requests for clarification went inadequately answered.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    > This is an intervention that realistically should have been dealt with by the community. The community had years to deal with fram, and they decided not to.
    - onei 7y ago
      I absolutely agree that if someone was as abrasive and toxic as has been suggested then they should have been dealt with long ago. However, if Wikimedia feel that the community has failed to do so, then why not seek to address that failing to fix this case and others in the future rather than taking unilateral action? It doesn't make long term sense unless the message is that Wikimedia will be taking a larger role in moderating the community.

by dahdum 7y ago

izacus 7y ago

The article states that was the case before too. What changed?

onei 7y ago
From reading the article, the bans handed out by the Foundation appear to have been permanent and targeted at less high-profile members of the community. It also suggests that the bans were targeted at obviously illegal activities, e.g. child pornography. I'm not sure how verifiable what the bans were for is, but it seems to be the widely held view. This is an intervention that realistically should have been dealt with by the community. If he had posted "Fuck Wikimedia" as well, there could have been another perceived conflict of interest. Sooner or later you run out of conflicted groups of people and what happens then?
- nullc 7y ago
  > obviously illegal activities, e.g. child pornography. Right. There was another recent incident which generated some drama due to the lack of transparency by Wikimedia, but it ultimately fizzled because the banned user in question was silent and so absent any alternative people assumed that the ban was well justified. In this case, the banned user has written a calm and clear description of events from their perspective, including paraphrasing the communication they received from Wikimedia. This discussion has essentially foreclosed the possibility that it was something like child pornography in question-- and, in fact, the specific citation of a rude remark towards arbcom stands out in particular because arbcom apparently had no involvement in the ban.
  - nullc 7y ago
    I realized later that "another recent incident" was actually just the start of this incident before the banned user and the arbcom requests for clarification went inadequately answered.
- DanBC 7y ago
  > This is an intervention that realistically should have been dealt with by the community. The community had years to deal with fram, and they decided not to.
  - onei 7y ago
    I absolutely agree that if someone was as abrasive and toxic as has been suggested then they should have been dealt with long ago. However, if Wikimedia feel that the community has failed to do so, then why not seek to address that failing to fix this case and others in the future rather than taking unilateral action? It doesn't make long term sense unless the message is that Wikimedia will be taking a larger role in moderating the community.