9 ms·

But there are indications of corruption within WMF, capriciousness of the T&S team, and no evidence against Fram was given.

by nsajko 7y ago

jmull 7y ago
I agree T&S did not handle this the right way. My main point is ArbCom should have already handled this, perhaps a decade ago. So they are broken. If they want a healthy Wikipedia their first priority should be fixing themselves. They should understand why a toxic asshole was running free for many years under their watch and how they can prevent it from happening again. Maybe they are doing this behind the scenes, but it's not clear to me they even understand they have a problem. (BTW, no one seems to be disputing that Fram is an asshole. Maybe I missed it, but if true, then there's no question that in a community-driven site, something needs to be done about it. Some people seem to want to believe that it could be simultaneously true that Fram could be a big asshole AND be a good editor. In the context of a community-driven site, those people are wrong. Driving off potentially valuable contributors is cardinal sin.)
- nsajko 7y ago
  I am not that well acquainted with Fram, and the term asshole is not precise enough; but you really do need some well intentioned assholes if you want to run wiki-style projects. The problem is that wikis are free to participate to, but not everybody is well intentioned or capable of constructive and positive participation. Those people are more harmful than "assholes", and Fram used to take care of such people from what I gather. Edit: I did not down-vote you, nor would I do it if I could.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    No. That attitude is incompatible with Wikipedia. It's also wrong to suggest that fram was only abusive to people who shouldn't have been on wikipedia. Read the thread and buzzfeed articles linked here: even people on his side describe him as toxic.
    - nsajko 7y ago
      > It's also wrong to suggest that fram was only abusive to people who shouldn't have been on wikipedia. Quite a claim, maybe give some evidence for that? I saw no example of such behavior. > even people on his side describe him as toxic. I am tempted to call you "toxic". Terms like "brusque", "rude", "asshole", "harasser", "toxic" are not equivalent, but you repeatedly try to assign some of those labels to Fram based on others. "Brusque, bordering on rude sometimes" is not even a bad thing for a Wikipedia user. And "like Inspector Javert at times" is not really as strong as "toxic".
      - jmull 7y ago
        > Quite a claim, maybe give some evidence for that? I saw no example of such behavior. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-06-30/Special_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...
        nsajko 7y ago
        LOL, I posted that link in a top-level comment in this thread. Can you give an actual example where Fram was abusive, harassing, whatever? This link contains (as far as contra-Fram material goes) only unsubstantiated accusations (concerning a medium where public examples should be relatively easy to find).
        jmull 7y ago
        This is a link to Fram's own words. This link appears in the content of your link. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=895438118 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=895438118 Do you think that's good for a community? Obviously words like "asshole" and "toxic" include value judgements". But I don't think it's a very strong value judgement in this case.
        nsajko 7y ago
        Do you think saying "fuck" is harassment? Fram's edit you linked is on point criticism of the Arbitration Committee and I think it may have been good for the community. It would have been better, more efficient in transmitting its intended message, more influential if it were written in a better style (the kind exhibited on HN). I concur that there is danger of Fram's edits promoting bad style in other Wikipedia editors; but there is a tradeoff here that must be made, because good style takes effort and time (both for practice and execution), more so when one lacks relevant education; and some things need to be said (often saying something sooner is more effective than saying it later, too). I guess some people place most blame on the use of the word "fuck", but using it was warranted. Think about what such profanity can accomplish, it has the power to give a certain tone to one's message. Those who wield language with great command and effectiveness might think of ways to accomplish the same or better tone without using profanities, but for the rest of us profanities are a sometimes necessary shortcut through all the time and exertion needed for better style. Anyways, let us suppose you want to make Wikimedia projects more "civil", how long of a ban/block do you think profanities should warrant? Two days? A week? Certainly not a year, at least not the first time such a sanction is used. All the scrutiny Fram has been given during this scandal really ought to have found some more serious violations by Fram to warrant a year long ban. But let us not forget that nobody outside the WMF employ even knows why Fram was actually banned, nor what should they do not to be banned themselves. The T&S is a complete unknown. They refuse to fix some huge issues (like with the Croatian Wikipedia), but hand out apparently unwarranted unexplained unappealable bans across some Wikipedias (like what happened to Fram). The fact is that Foundation employees mysteriously attacked the community that produces value for the Foundation, of course it is going to raise big questions, which the Foundation is not even bothering to answer!?? The thing is, the community volunteers to produce valuable content for the Foundation, thus trust in the good intentions of the Foundation employees and governance is needed. Ironically the Trust and Safety team made that trust implode and a shroud of fear rise by issuing unexplained bans that well may be malicious or misguided or corrupted, but the community just can not judge the T&S team's actions, because they are unexplained, not supported by any evidence. Even as rulemakers the T&S team does not work, because their actions are totally unexplained, they give no guidance as to how one should act in the aim of not being banned. It might turn out in the end that Fram was rightfully banned (maybe the issue is something like child pornography), but that will not matter, because the issue is not Fram, the issue is that Foundation employee (or contractor, which is what most of T&S are [0]) actions are not accountable to the community. [0] https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/trust-and-safety/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/trust-and-safety/

But there are indications of corruption within WMF, capriciousness of the T&S team, and no evidence against Fram was given.

by nsajko 7y ago

But there are indications of corruption within WMF, capriciousness of the T&S team, and no evidence against Fram was given.

jmull 7y ago

I agree T&S did not handle this the right way. My main point is ArbCom should have already handled this, perhaps a decade ago. So they are broken. If they want a healthy Wikipedia their first priority should be fixing themselves. They should understand why a toxic asshole was running free for many years under their watch and how they can prevent it from happening again. Maybe they are doing this behind the scenes, but it's not clear to me they even understand they have a problem. (BTW, no one seems to be disputing that Fram is an asshole. Maybe I missed it, but if true, then there's no question that in a community-driven site, something needs to be done about it. Some people seem to want to believe that it could be simultaneously true that Fram could be a big asshole AND be a good editor. In the context of a community-driven site, those people are wrong. Driving off potentially valuable contributors is cardinal sin.)

nsajko 7y ago
I am not that well acquainted with Fram, and the term asshole is not precise enough; but you really do need some well intentioned assholes if you want to run wiki-style projects. The problem is that wikis are free to participate to, but not everybody is well intentioned or capable of constructive and positive participation. Those people are more harmful than "assholes", and Fram used to take care of such people from what I gather. Edit: I did not down-vote you, nor would I do it if I could.
- DanBC 7y ago
  No. That attitude is incompatible with Wikipedia. It's also wrong to suggest that fram was only abusive to people who shouldn't have been on wikipedia. Read the thread and buzzfeed articles linked here: even people on his side describe him as toxic.
  - nsajko 7y ago
    > It's also wrong to suggest that fram was only abusive to people who shouldn't have been on wikipedia. Quite a claim, maybe give some evidence for that? I saw no example of such behavior. > even people on his side describe him as toxic. I am tempted to call you "toxic". Terms like "brusque", "rude", "asshole", "harasser", "toxic" are not equivalent, but you repeatedly try to assign some of those labels to Fram based on others. "Brusque, bordering on rude sometimes" is not even a bad thing for a Wikipedia user. And "like Inspector Javert at times" is not really as strong as "toxic".
    - jmull 7y ago
      > Quite a claim, maybe give some evidence for that? I saw no example of such behavior. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-06-30/Special_report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...
      - nsajko 7y ago
        LOL, I posted that link in a top-level comment in this thread. Can you give an actual example where Fram was abusive, harassing, whatever? This link contains (as far as contra-Fram material goes) only unsubstantiated accusations (concerning a medium where public examples should be relatively easy to find).
        jmull 7y ago
        This is a link to Fram's own words. This link appears in the content of your link. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=895438118 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=895438118 Do you think that's good for a community? Obviously words like "asshole" and "toxic" include value judgements". But I don't think it's a very strong value judgement in this case.
        nsajko 7y ago
        Do you think saying "fuck" is harassment? Fram's edit you linked is on point criticism of the Arbitration Committee and I think it may have been good for the community. It would have been better, more efficient in transmitting its intended message, more influential if it were written in a better style (the kind exhibited on HN). I concur that there is danger of Fram's edits promoting bad style in other Wikipedia editors; but there is a tradeoff here that must be made, because good style takes effort and time (both for practice and execution), more so when one lacks relevant education; and some things need to be said (often saying something sooner is more effective than saying it later, too). I guess some people place most blame on the use of the word "fuck", but using it was warranted. Think about what such profanity can accomplish, it has the power to give a certain tone to one's message. Those who wield language with great command and effectiveness might think of ways to accomplish the same or better tone without using profanities, but for the rest of us profanities are a sometimes necessary shortcut through all the time and exertion needed for better style. Anyways, let us suppose you want to make Wikimedia projects more "civil", how long of a ban/block do you think profanities should warrant? Two days? A week? Certainly not a year, at least not the first time such a sanction is used. All the scrutiny Fram has been given during this scandal really ought to have found some more serious violations by Fram to warrant a year long ban. But let us not forget that nobody outside the WMF employ even knows why Fram was actually banned, nor what should they do not to be banned themselves. The T&S is a complete unknown. They refuse to fix some huge issues (like with the Croatian Wikipedia), but hand out apparently unwarranted unexplained unappealable bans across some Wikipedias (like what happened to Fram). The fact is that Foundation employees mysteriously attacked the community that produces value for the Foundation, of course it is going to raise big questions, which the Foundation is not even bothering to answer!?? The thing is, the community volunteers to produce valuable content for the Foundation, thus trust in the good intentions of the Foundation employees and governance is needed. Ironically the Trust and Safety team made that trust implode and a shroud of fear rise by issuing unexplained bans that well may be malicious or misguided or corrupted, but the community just can not judge the T&S team's actions, because they are unexplained, not supported by any evidence. Even as rulemakers the T&S team does not work, because their actions are totally unexplained, they give no guidance as to how one should act in the aim of not being banned. It might turn out in the end that Fram was rightfully banned (maybe the issue is something like child pornography), but that will not matter, because the issue is not Fram, the issue is that Foundation employee (or contractor, which is what most of T&S are [0]) actions are not accountable to the community. [0] https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/trust-and-safety/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/role/trust-and-safety/