9 ms·

Fram (wiki mod in question) is apparently the Linus Torvalds of the old-guard Wikipedia community. “He’s a prolific genius!” vs “He’s a toxic asshole!” and much

by xref 7y ago

Fram (wiki mod in question) is apparently the Linus Torvalds of the old-guard Wikipedia community. “He’s a prolific genius!” vs “He’s a toxic asshole!” and much like the Linux community there have been no effective systems to deal with someone like that. It’s telling that the Wikipedia community’s response is “How do we deal with WMF” and not “How do we deal with this admin”

unreal37 7y ago
Yes, great analogy. Took quite a while for Linus to come to the realization that "I could be better".
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
geofft 7y ago
I am generally on the side of Linus being a toxic asshole, but, 1. I would consider it inappropriate for the Linux Foundation to remove Linus without the involvement of the community. They're there to be stewards of the project, not to run it, and while I have problems with Linus, I also have (different, unrelated, not directly comparable) problems with the corporate control of LF, and it would set a precedent that other decisions are in the hands of LF. And besides there's the practical problem that if Linus is still wanted by the community, banning one toxic asshole won't change the culture. If LF wants to advocate for the community to decide they no longer want Linus, that would be fine (and I'd honestly support it) and they should implement the community consensus if it emerges. (If they want to no longer pay Linus upwards of a half million dollars per year, that would certainly be within their rights, too.) 2. Along those lines it seems difficult to believe that Wikipedia's culture problem is a single dude. If we admit for the sake of argument that we do want WMF to ban assholes (which I can see the merits of), that's likely to translate to mass bans, which the existing community governance structures should at least be consulted in. (Even if one of the possible conclusions is "the existing community leadership are all asshole enablers and need to be stripped of power," make that decision after having the conversation.) 3. From reading around https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FRAM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FRAM it seems like he's one of the most vocal opponents to new features being pushed by WMF that the community seems to not be enthusiastic about. See the comment starting "In the absence of any explanation, the cynic in me guesses...."
- unreal37 7y ago
  Quite clearly, Fram was told to stay away from a user named LauraHale (in March 2019) - to avoid any interactions with her or her content completely. Essentially, it's a restraining order. So what did he do for him to get a Wikipedia "restraining order" against him? AND... he broke that restraining order by mentioning her in some comments. I mean, this isn't some statement about "banning all assholes" so much as action against a single person who refused to stop harassing another person.
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    > a single person who refused to stop harassing another person Fram wasn't out harassing anyone.
    - nsajko 7y ago
      Yeah, the accusation of harrassment is unfounded. Edit: To whoever downvoted me: The WMF T&S team (which banned Fram) did not say what was Fram banned for, neither was there any actions against him before the Arbitration Committee, there were not even any public complaints. What is happening to Fram on this thread is unjustified lynching.
      - geofft 7y ago
        I don't think "lynching" is a reasonable term here to describe being banned for a year from editing a single Wikipedia instance, even if the thread were not mostly leaning in favor of Fram as it is. TFA makes it clear that they didn't say what he was banned for and that there's no public info.
        nsajko 7y ago
        I meant this very thread on HN. Here he is being "lynched" by people who do not know anything about the case calling him a harasser.
mfer 7y ago
There's a difference between Linus and this situation. Linus noted he would work on being better at the same time the project adopted a code of conduct. If I read it right, in this case someone was banned for a year for an unknown reason. To relate it to government, it would be like someone being put in jail for a year without linking it to a violation of a specific law. For some it appears this is the problem.
nsajko 7y ago
> Fram (wiki mod in question) is apparently the Linus Torvalds of the old-guard Wikipedia community. FUD. The issue with the WMF T&S team's actions is that they are completely unaccountable, not appealable, not backed with any kind of justification or proof. And they bypassed the Arbitration Committee. > It’s telling that the Wikipedia community’s response is “How do we deal with WMF” and not “How do we deal with this admin” The response did include heavy scrutinization of Fram's activities to find any possible reason for sanctions against him.
- cf498 7y ago
  Its depressing to see how many people are happy to ditch the decentralized approach of decision making and conflict resolution in the community in favor of a position of authority that can dictate its will on the community.
  - nsajko 7y ago
    To be honest, the first thing I thought when I learned about this case is: "Great, maybe T&S will fix Croatian Wikipedia too!". Then I read the comment quoted in [0]. Looking at the greater context of T&S's actions it really seems that something shady is happening at WMF. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20319504 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20319504
belorn 7y ago
The biggest difference in this case is that I can go the mailing list and see Linus Torvalds words and the context in which they have been said. There is even articles that list top 10 of Linus rants, all with links to the specific mail. In the Fram case the closest we got is that he said the word "fuck" in regard to a statement that all admins who refuse two-token authentication would get banned, and that someone felt harassed after several stub articles had been deleted, although that is mostly speculations as WMF has explicitly said they won't give out specifics because of privacy concerns.
- DanBC 7y ago
  > 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.
  - belorn 7y ago
    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 [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=895438118&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Ar... 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.
raxxorrax 7y ago
I disagree. Eccentricity is a common character trait and looking past that requires close to zero effort. The communities reaction is probably due to seeing the value he brought to Wikipedia. "He is a toxic asshole" is a very subjective opinion compared to the arguments brought forward. Personally, I don't think there is any problem with Linux/Wikipedia that isn't in the eye of the beholder.
ergl 7y ago
Expect the part where Fram explicitly harassed a member of the community. Linus might be an asshole, but he didn't go around following a specific comitter and making their life harder for it.
Sniffnoy 7y ago
It's a mistake to focus on the particular issue like this. Trading away long-term process to get one short-term result is a bad trade. It doesn't much matter how bad Fram was; the particular issue that started the matter is mostly irrelevant in the face of the breaking of process. Don't get blinded by the short-term issue. Don't make short-termist trades. Fram is an object-level, short-term issue; the WMF is a process-level, long-term one.
- DanBC 7y ago
  Fram isn't a short term issue. There are countless arsehole editors who get away with being insufferable arseholes because they make many edits and because the admins turn a blind eye, and this has been happening for very many years. The inability of ANI and arbcom to do anything is the long running issue. They had their chance, they fucked it up, it's entirely unsurprising that WMF is enforcing the most basic wikipedia conventions.
  - Sniffnoy 7y ago
    By "short-term" vs "long-term" here, I'm not talking about how long something has been going on so far. I'm talking about how far into the future this will affect things. Breaking process so completely like this threatens long-term stability. It's not like "break process completely to ban Fram" and "just do nothing" were the only options. The WMF could have acted in a way other than in such a potentially disastrous way. If the process is producing wrong results (e.g. Fram should be banned but he isn't), you try to figure out why and make a better one, not just ignore it.

by xref 7y ago

unreal37 7y ago

Yes, great analogy. Took quite a while for Linus to come to the realization that "I could be better".

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

geofft 7y ago

I am generally on the side of Linus being a toxic asshole, but, 1. I would consider it inappropriate for the Linux Foundation to remove Linus without the involvement of the community. They're there to be stewards of the project, not to run it, and while I have problems with Linus, I also have (different, unrelated, not directly comparable) problems with the corporate control of LF, and it would set a precedent that other decisions are in the hands of LF. And besides there's the practical problem that if Linus is still wanted by the community, banning one toxic asshole won't change the culture. If LF wants to advocate for the community to decide they no longer want Linus, that would be fine (and I'd honestly support it) and they should implement the community consensus if it emerges. (If they want to no longer pay Linus upwards of a half million dollars per year, that would certainly be within their rights, too.) 2. Along those lines it seems difficult to believe that Wikipedia's culture problem is a single dude. If we admit for the sake of argument that we do want WMF to ban assholes (which I can see the merits of), that's likely to translate to mass bans, which the existing community governance structures should at least be consulted in. (Even if one of the possible conclusions is "the existing community leadership are all asshole enablers and need to be stripped of power," make that decision after having the conversation.) 3. From reading around https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FRAM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FRAM it seems like he's one of the most vocal opponents to new features being pushed by WMF that the community seems to not be enthusiastic about. See the comment starting "In the absence of any explanation, the cynic in me guesses...."

unreal37 7y ago
Quite clearly, Fram was told to stay away from a user named LauraHale (in March 2019) - to avoid any interactions with her or her content completely. Essentially, it's a restraining order. So what did he do for him to get a Wikipedia "restraining order" against him? AND... he broke that restraining order by mentioning her in some comments. I mean, this isn't some statement about "banning all assholes" so much as action against a single person who refused to stop harassing another person.
- microcolonel 7y ago
  > a single person who refused to stop harassing another person Fram wasn't out harassing anyone.
  - nsajko 7y ago
    Yeah, the accusation of harrassment is unfounded. Edit: To whoever downvoted me: The WMF T&S team (which banned Fram) did not say what was Fram banned for, neither was there any actions against him before the Arbitration Committee, there were not even any public complaints. What is happening to Fram on this thread is unjustified lynching.
    - geofft 7y ago
      I don't think "lynching" is a reasonable term here to describe being banned for a year from editing a single Wikipedia instance, even if the thread were not mostly leaning in favor of Fram as it is. TFA makes it clear that they didn't say what he was banned for and that there's no public info.
      - nsajko 7y ago
        I meant this very thread on HN. Here he is being "lynched" by people who do not know anything about the case calling him a harasser.

mfer 7y ago

There's a difference between Linus and this situation. Linus noted he would work on being better at the same time the project adopted a code of conduct. If I read it right, in this case someone was banned for a year for an unknown reason. To relate it to government, it would be like someone being put in jail for a year without linking it to a violation of a specific law. For some it appears this is the problem.

nsajko 7y ago

> Fram (wiki mod in question) is apparently the Linus Torvalds of the old-guard Wikipedia community. FUD. The issue with the WMF T&S team's actions is that they are completely unaccountable, not appealable, not backed with any kind of justification or proof. And they bypassed the Arbitration Committee. > It’s telling that the Wikipedia community’s response is “How do we deal with WMF” and not “How do we deal with this admin” The response did include heavy scrutinization of Fram's activities to find any possible reason for sanctions against him.

cf498 7y ago
Its depressing to see how many people are happy to ditch the decentralized approach of decision making and conflict resolution in the community in favor of a position of authority that can dictate its will on the community.
- nsajko 7y ago
  To be honest, the first thing I thought when I learned about this case is: "Great, maybe T&S will fix Croatian Wikipedia too!". Then I read the comment quoted in [0]. Looking at the greater context of T&S's actions it really seems that something shady is happening at WMF. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20319504 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20319504

belorn 7y ago

The biggest difference in this case is that I can go the mailing list and see Linus Torvalds words and the context in which they have been said. There is even articles that list top 10 of Linus rants, all with links to the specific mail. In the Fram case the closest we got is that he said the word "fuck" in regard to a statement that all admins who refuse two-token authentication would get banned, and that someone felt harassed after several stub articles had been deleted, although that is mostly speculations as WMF has explicitly said they won't give out specifics because of privacy concerns.

DanBC 7y ago
> 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.
- belorn 7y ago
  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 [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=895438118&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Ar... 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.

raxxorrax 7y ago

I disagree. Eccentricity is a common character trait and looking past that requires close to zero effort. The communities reaction is probably due to seeing the value he brought to Wikipedia. "He is a toxic asshole" is a very subjective opinion compared to the arguments brought forward. Personally, I don't think there is any problem with Linux/Wikipedia that isn't in the eye of the beholder.

ergl 7y ago

Expect the part where Fram explicitly harassed a member of the community. Linus might be an asshole, but he didn't go around following a specific comitter and making their life harder for it.

Sniffnoy 7y ago

It's a mistake to focus on the particular issue like this. Trading away long-term process to get one short-term result is a bad trade. It doesn't much matter how bad Fram was; the particular issue that started the matter is mostly irrelevant in the face of the breaking of process. Don't get blinded by the short-term issue. Don't make short-termist trades. Fram is an object-level, short-term issue; the WMF is a process-level, long-term one.

DanBC 7y ago
Fram isn't a short term issue. There are countless arsehole editors who get away with being insufferable arseholes because they make many edits and because the admins turn a blind eye, and this has been happening for very many years. The inability of ANI and arbcom to do anything is the long running issue. They had their chance, they fucked it up, it's entirely unsurprising that WMF is enforcing the most basic wikipedia conventions.
- Sniffnoy 7y ago
  By "short-term" vs "long-term" here, I'm not talking about how long something has been going on so far. I'm talking about how far into the future this will affect things. Breaking process so completely like this threatens long-term stability. It's not like "break process completely to ban Fram" and "just do nothing" were the only options. The WMF could have acted in a way other than in such a potentially disastrous way. If the process is producing wrong results (e.g. Fram should be banned but he isn't), you try to figure out why and make a better one, not just ignore it.