5 ms·

> 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.
    - unreal37 7y ago
      He was told (in 2017 and 2019) to completely avoid interacting with her and her content. The notice Fram posted himself was quite clear - don't report her content, don't edit her content, don't interact with her in any way. That's quite serious. How does someone get a warning like that from WMF?
      - nsajko 7y ago
        Your comment is problematic for responding to because it is not clear if it is asking a question (and which question) or is it trying to say something between the lines. But I will try anyway: Essentially you are trying to say that Fram is a harasser because he got a warning from T&S. But that is not how T&S works. They (as far as is publicly known) react to any reports of misbehavior with (without investigation) trying to deescalate the situation by asking to stop interaction between concerned parties. Usually this only applies to Wikimedia staff, contractors, participants at Wikimedia events, etc. The fact that Fram even got a "warning" from the T&S is quite damning for T&S because they usually do not meddle in such stuff as was happening between him and LauraHale (for the uninitiated, she was writing a lot of, let us say it bluntly, crap articles and edits [0]; and he was, as a good editor, trying to fix those edits repeatedly), because of the implicated power that you can have over the Wikimedia communities by knowing someone on T&S and/or the Board. [0] She was writing duplicate paragraphs and mistranslating from a language she does not speak in an absurd manner. Edit: I deleted unfounded speculation I made against LauraHale. Sorry.
        geofft 7y ago
        > She was writing duplicate paragraphs (maybe to gain a greater edit count?) and mistranslating from a language she does not speak in an absurd manner. This is quite an accusation. Please stop lynching her.
        nsajko 7y ago
        You got a point there, I edited my comment accordingly. And I did not down-vote you, nor would I do it if I could.
        darawk 7y ago
        Are there not public records of these things that we can verify from?
      - belorn 7y ago
        WMF wrote: "To be clear, we are not placing an interaction ban between you and Laura at this time". "We remain convinced that the activity on Laura’s articles listed above was not intended to intimidate or make her feel uncomfortable".
        unreal37 7y ago
        Cherry picking lines out of context. A poor counter-argument. The statement before the one you posted was quite clear. Do not interact with her in any way. At all. Nothing. Don't even contact other admins and ask them to do it.
        belorn 7y ago
        Then why did they clarify specifically that this was not an interaction ban.What was the purpose of both lines if they thought Fram did harass her and thus wanted to impose a interaction ban? The problem with the accusation of cherry picking is that I don't have an issue if you would include the full text. In context it is pretty clear that what they wanted was to prevent any further friction between the two editors. If they thought it was harassment and they intended to issue a punitive action then they would have done that. WMF is quite cable to call out harassment without needing to wrapping it up with false statements of "To be clear, we are not placing an interaction ban" and "We remain convinced that it was not intended to intimidate or make her feel uncomfortable".
    - microcolonel 7y ago
      The truth doesn't matter anymore, they think we won't remember that time they joined in the free-for-all to say whatever terrible thing possible about the guy. There is a war on between the truth and the sensation of the high horse.
    - geofft 7y ago
      Calling someone a harasser is not lynching, quotation marks or otherwise. Notably, having a discussion in a forum allows you to say, "Ah, thanks, I was wrong." Lynching does not.
      - nsajko 7y ago
        Imagine if a bunch of people on a public forum (with posts upvoted to a high place) called you a harasser. Would it still not be lynching?
        geofft 7y ago
        It would still not be lynching, no. For example, I would be alive. What use is free speech if I only grant it to people who agree with me?
        nsajko 7y ago
        It is not literal lynching (as in throwing stones at a person), but I am not the first to use the word in that manner. Substitute lynching for character assassination, if you will.
        cf498 7y ago
        There is a difference between free speech and character assassination, even in the US.
    - DanBC 7y ago
      > who do not know anything about the case calling him a harrasser. I know what I've been told by WMF, which is that he was a harasser and that en:wiki failed to stop his harassment. I know also what I've read in the fram-gigantathread, where a bunch of admins describe him as kind of an asshole, and say that it's being going on for years, but then go on to excuse that because he makes a lot of edits.
      - nsajko 7y ago
        > I know what I've been told by WMF, which is that he was a harasser and that en:wiki failed to stop his harassment. > told by WMF No comment. > I know also what I've read in the fram-gigantathread, where a bunch of admins describe him as kind of an asshole, and say that it's being going on for years, but then go on to excuse that because he makes a lot of edits. Harasser =/= asshole.
      - nsajko 7y ago
        > I know what I've been told by WMF, which is that he was a harasser and that en:wiki failed to stop his harassment. There is another thing wrong with your comment: how could the English Wikipedia community attempt to stop Fram's alleged harassment if no harassment is known. Whether you want to sanction someone or just improve that someone's behavior, you have got to give an indication of what is wrong with their behavior.
  - mcguire 7y ago
    "Fuck ArbCom which doesn't even understand their own messages and again give themselves powers they don't have. First it was deletions, then it was mandatory 2FA, inbetween it is loads of evidence of utter incompetence in many of its members (witness the statement by AGK above, but also some of the comments at e.g. the Rama case request). Just crawl into a corner and shut up until the community asks you to do something within your remit, but don't try to rule enwiki as if you have the right and the competence to do so. Or collectively resign. But don't give us any more of this bullshit. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 07:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)" From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/895438118 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/895438118, linked by "And then a few hours ago, they posted my one year ban, and helpfully gave the actual reason. Which is one edit, this one. That's it." From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response..., which is "Fram's response on Commons."

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.
  - unreal37 7y ago
    He was told (in 2017 and 2019) to completely avoid interacting with her and her content. The notice Fram posted himself was quite clear - don't report her content, don't edit her content, don't interact with her in any way. That's quite serious. How does someone get a warning like that from WMF?
    - nsajko 7y ago
      Your comment is problematic for responding to because it is not clear if it is asking a question (and which question) or is it trying to say something between the lines. But I will try anyway: Essentially you are trying to say that Fram is a harasser because he got a warning from T&S. But that is not how T&S works. They (as far as is publicly known) react to any reports of misbehavior with (without investigation) trying to deescalate the situation by asking to stop interaction between concerned parties. Usually this only applies to Wikimedia staff, contractors, participants at Wikimedia events, etc. The fact that Fram even got a "warning" from the T&S is quite damning for T&S because they usually do not meddle in such stuff as was happening between him and LauraHale (for the uninitiated, she was writing a lot of, let us say it bluntly, crap articles and edits [0]; and he was, as a good editor, trying to fix those edits repeatedly), because of the implicated power that you can have over the Wikimedia communities by knowing someone on T&S and/or the Board. [0] She was writing duplicate paragraphs and mistranslating from a language she does not speak in an absurd manner. Edit: I deleted unfounded speculation I made against LauraHale. Sorry.
      - geofft 7y ago
        > She was writing duplicate paragraphs (maybe to gain a greater edit count?) and mistranslating from a language she does not speak in an absurd manner. This is quite an accusation. Please stop lynching her.
        nsajko 7y ago
        You got a point there, I edited my comment accordingly. And I did not down-vote you, nor would I do it if I could.
        darawk 7y ago
        Are there not public records of these things that we can verify from?
    - belorn 7y ago
      WMF wrote: "To be clear, we are not placing an interaction ban between you and Laura at this time". "We remain convinced that the activity on Laura’s articles listed above was not intended to intimidate or make her feel uncomfortable".
      - unreal37 7y ago
        Cherry picking lines out of context. A poor counter-argument. The statement before the one you posted was quite clear. Do not interact with her in any way. At all. Nothing. Don't even contact other admins and ask them to do it.
        belorn 7y ago
        Then why did they clarify specifically that this was not an interaction ban.What was the purpose of both lines if they thought Fram did harass her and thus wanted to impose a interaction ban? The problem with the accusation of cherry picking is that I don't have an issue if you would include the full text. In context it is pretty clear that what they wanted was to prevent any further friction between the two editors. If they thought it was harassment and they intended to issue a punitive action then they would have done that. WMF is quite cable to call out harassment without needing to wrapping it up with false statements of "To be clear, we are not placing an interaction ban" and "We remain convinced that it was not intended to intimidate or make her feel uncomfortable".
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    The truth doesn't matter anymore, they think we won't remember that time they joined in the free-for-all to say whatever terrible thing possible about the guy. There is a war on between the truth and the sensation of the high horse.
  - geofft 7y ago
    Calling someone a harasser is not lynching, quotation marks or otherwise. Notably, having a discussion in a forum allows you to say, "Ah, thanks, I was wrong." Lynching does not.
    - nsajko 7y ago
      Imagine if a bunch of people on a public forum (with posts upvoted to a high place) called you a harasser. Would it still not be lynching?
      - geofft 7y ago
        It would still not be lynching, no. For example, I would be alive. What use is free speech if I only grant it to people who agree with me?
        nsajko 7y ago
        It is not literal lynching (as in throwing stones at a person), but I am not the first to use the word in that manner. Substitute lynching for character assassination, if you will.
        cf498 7y ago
        There is a difference between free speech and character assassination, even in the US.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    > who do not know anything about the case calling him a harrasser. I know what I've been told by WMF, which is that he was a harasser and that en:wiki failed to stop his harassment. I know also what I've read in the fram-gigantathread, where a bunch of admins describe him as kind of an asshole, and say that it's being going on for years, but then go on to excuse that because he makes a lot of edits.
    - nsajko 7y ago
      > I know what I've been told by WMF, which is that he was a harasser and that en:wiki failed to stop his harassment. > told by WMF No comment. > I know also what I've read in the fram-gigantathread, where a bunch of admins describe him as kind of an asshole, and say that it's being going on for years, but then go on to excuse that because he makes a lot of edits. Harasser =/= asshole.
    - nsajko 7y ago
      > I know what I've been told by WMF, which is that he was a harasser and that en:wiki failed to stop his harassment. There is another thing wrong with your comment: how could the English Wikipedia community attempt to stop Fram's alleged harassment if no harassment is known. Whether you want to sanction someone or just improve that someone's behavior, you have got to give an indication of what is wrong with their behavior.
- mcguire 7y ago
  "Fuck ArbCom which doesn't even understand their own messages and again give themselves powers they don't have. First it was deletions, then it was mandatory 2FA, inbetween it is loads of evidence of utter incompetence in many of its members (witness the statement by AGK above, but also some of the comments at e.g. the Rama case request). Just crawl into a corner and shut up until the community asks you to do something within your remit, but don't try to rule enwiki as if you have the right and the competence to do so. Or collectively resign. But don't give us any more of this bullshit. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 07:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)" From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/895438118 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/895438118, linked by "And then a few hours ago, they posted my one year ban, and helpfully gave the actual reason. Which is one edit, this one. That's it." From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response..., which is "Fram's response on Commons."