Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

[Poetlister]

When was T&S formed and at whose behest? My recollections of WMFOffice from the Danny Wool years is that Office actions were done mainly to protect the WMF from potential legal and PR issues.

I'll do my best to give a bit of history behind this. Please bear in mind that much of this is from 7 to 10+ years ago, so my memory of events is a bit hazy.

If we go far, far back in Wikipedia's history, before I ever edited, there were no means of reporting threats of violence. Accordingly, when a threat was made (iirc on a school page), admins didn't really know what to do, and eventually a checkuser disclosed IP address(es) to an administrator who then contacted local law enforcement.

After this, the WMF (or maybe it was just Philippe) set up an emergency email where people could report threats of violence, and the WMF would then contact local law enforcement. This also made it more likely that law enforcement would take the threat seriously, since it was being reported by the WMF instead of a "Wikipedia volunteer". Initially, I believe only Philippe got the messages, and I know he had it set up to ring his phone at any hour of the day or night--major respect from me for that.

After some unknown amount of time (possibly when Philippe left in 2015), the WMF finally realized that having one employee doing this unpaid was a bad idea, so a team was born to monitor the emergency email address. This team became known as the Trust & Safety team.

Reaper. Thanks for this helpful comment.

[Dysklyver]

So it seems that the WMF T&S team have been in contact with Fram for over a year regarding Fram's behavior on the English Wikipedia.

[BURob13]

Fram said that from the beginning? Don't know why that's popcorn-worthy now. Is it really that much of a surprise that the WMF T&S team tried to talk to Fram and get him to de-escalate/stop violating the ToU before jumping to a ban?

[Guido den Broeder]

1. Was there anything done off wiki (ie, not visible to us) that was reported about Fram to WMF T&S? (ie, emails, or off wiki contacts?)
2. Do you know of anyone else on arb.com/WMF who has discussed Fram with the WMF T&S team? (No need for names: just yes/no)

1) I wouldn't be able to say that if I knew.
2) Yes. As noted before, the WMF tends to keep ArbCom as a whole (either via email or through our monthly calls) apprised of who they're investigating. Well, at least who they're investigating when those people have some connection to enwiki.

1. Yes, except that part of it was in fact visible to us since it occurred here on Wikipediocracy (later deleted)
2. Yes, more than one

[Dysklyver]

Fram said that from the beginning? Don't know why that's popcorn-worthy now. Is it really that much of a surprise that the WMF T&S team tried to talk to Fram and get him to de-escalate/stop violating the ToU before jumping to a ban?

The reason it's popcorn worthy is because where people have asofar been concentrating on one or two people who forced the WMF to do this, it seems increasingly likely that it was a series of complainants over a long timeframe and the WMF finally just decided they better do something.

All these people engaging on writing their book length bogroll on the WP:FRAM page keep saying it's unreasonable to impose a ban based on 2-3 diffs and complaints from that women whom has been mentioned already, and your supreme not-a-sock arbness.

Whereas, a pattern of escalating complaints from most active editors, WIR editors, Wikimedia affiliated editors, and others over a long period is quite another matter.

[No Ledge]

1. Was there anything done off wiki (ie, not visible to us) that was reported about Fram to WMF T&S? (ie, emails, or off wiki contacts?)
2. Do you know of anyone else on arb.com/WMF who has discussed Fram with the WMF T&S team? (No need for names: just yes/no)

1) I wouldn't be able to say that if I knew.
2) Yes. As noted before, the WMF tends to keep ArbCom as a whole (either via email or through our monthly calls) apprised of who they're investigating. Well, at least who they're investigating when those people have some connection to enwiki.

1. Yes, except that part of it was in fact visible to us since it occurred here on Wikipediocracy (later deleted)
2. Yes, more than one

1. You're suggesting that Fram has or had an account on Wikipediocracy and posted something here that T&S feels he should be disciplined for?

[Pudeo]

I suppose there's no reason for community Check Users then either. Just write in the the TOS that sock-puppeting is forbidden (it's already there, kind of) and have WMF employees handle IP/device information for greater privacy.

[Ming]

It's worth noting that every major website with community contributions has a Trust & Safety department these days. It's necessary.

Perhaps so, but there is one obvious presenting problem here, and two not so obvious. The obvious problem is that people don't trust T&S, and by extension come to mistrust the foundation.

Both of the less obvious issues come around to the same thing: what's the point of the project? If it is to write an encyclopedia, well, the WMF has little to nothing to do with that. The project is administered, to whatever degree, by the various volunteers; to some very large degree it isn't managed at all. It's extremely easy to question the foundation's intervention in this when it doesn't positively contribute to the editing. And that leads to the matter that Ming has brought up several times when Fram's name has come up here: he is doing a lot of scut work policing of the site that hardly anyone else is doing, and which nobody is making sure gets done. Assuming that the conflict with Hale is the focus of this, well, in a properly managed project (a) there would be a huge fact-checking and edit-checking operation, and (b) someone with such obvious competence problems would have been found and dealt with, somehow, much earlier on. For all of Fram's cantankerousness, the root problem is not his disposition, but that anyone who actually cares about the output of the project either has to be utterly imperturbable, or tends to lose their temper from time to time, and has to give up and stop caring. The foundation has simultaneously exacerbated all of this by giving everyone huge new reason not to care, so that the only option forward is to work away in one's own little corner and never, ever, check anyone else's work, on top of making the "some animals are more equal than others" problem a whole lot worse than it already was.

[No Ledge]

Fram said that from the beginning? Don't know why that's popcorn-worthy now. Is it really that much of a surprise that the WMF T&S team tried to talk to Fram and get him to de-escalate/stop violating the ToU before jumping to a ban?

The reason it's popcorn worthy is because where people have asofar been concentrating on one or two people who forced the WMF to do this, it seems increasingly likely that it was a series of complainants over a long timeframe and the WMF finally just decided they better do something.

All these people engaging on writing their book length bogroll on the WP:FRAM page keep saying it's unreasonable to impose a ban based on 2-3 diffs and complaints from that women whom has been mentioned already, and your supreme not-a-sock arbness.

Whereas, a pattern of escalating complaints from most active editors, WIR editors, Wikimedia affiliated editors, and others over a long period is quite another matter.

One only need go back to the Crow's last post in his "Fram" thread before the WMF stepped in. His January 31 post amply demonstrated that while the Committee recognized serious behavioral issues, they failed to effectively act.

[No Ledge]

I suppose there's no reason for community Check Users then either. Just write in the the TOS that sock-puppeting is forbidden (it's already there, kind of) and have WMF employees handle IP/device information for greater privacy.

I hear from [i]The Nest[/i] that facebook recently hired an army of 500 people to police their site. I think we can still count the members of T&S on the fingers of one hand, or two at the most. WMF are trying to finesse this to save money, so that they can spend more of their fundraising haul on political lobbying and other activities not directly related to building an encyclopedia.

Incidents like this risk causing more editors to become "disengaged".

[CoffeeCrumbs]

Indeed, I have not seen you literally threatening other contributors. But, I have observed the sum of your activity in certain areas of interest (like copyvios, for example, or automated editing) having a similar effect to that of a threat: causing contributors to be scared to continue to contribute in fear of being constantly monitored and later attacked through community process, and eventually driving them away. From what I've seen, you are very good at spotting problematic edits and editing patterns; the issue is with the way and the perseverance with which you appear to approach the editors responsible for them. In many cases, even if your concerns have been valid, their raising has been done with a degree of abruptness, repetition, scrutiny and persistence that feels like hounding to the person on the receiving end, and causes them to abandon the project or limit their contributions. Now, I don't think this is your intention, but this does seem to be the result in several cases, hence the warning. So, I'm not saying you should stop trying to improve En.WP., only that in doing so you also consider how your activity and approach impacts the users you address and other readers of your comments, and how it contributes to an unfriendly volunteering environment that discourages them from returning to it.

— Kalliope, WMF T&S, Warning email to Fram based on offwiki complaint by unnamed editors, April, 2018

Man, this paragraph. Wikipedia: The Encyclopedia That Incompetent People Can Edit. Terrible editors feeling they should abandon their project or limit their contributions is a feature, not a bug.

[No Ledge]

It's worth noting that every major website with community contributions has a Trust & Safety department these days. It's necessary.

Perhaps so, but there is one obvious presenting problem here, and two not so obvious. The obvious problem is that people don't trust T&S, and by extension come to mistrust the foundation.

Both of the less obvious issues come around to the same thing: what's the point of the project? If it is to write an encyclopedia, well, the WMF has little to nothing to do with that. The project is administered, to whatever degree, by the various volunteers; to some very large degree it isn't managed at all. It's extremely easy to question the foundation's intervention in this when it doesn't positively contribute to the editing. And that leads to the matter that Ming has brought up several times when Fram's name has come up here: he is doing a lot of scut work policing of the site that hardly anyone else is doing, and which nobody is making sure gets done. Assuming that the conflict with Hale is the focus of this, well, in a properly managed project (a) there would be a huge fact-checking and edit-checking operation, and (b) someone with such obvious competence problems would have been found and dealt with, somehow, much earlier on. For all of Fram's cantankerousness, the root problem is not his disposition, but that anyone who actually cares about the output of the project either has to be utterly imperturbable, or tends to lose their temper from time to time, and has to give up and stop caring. The foundation has simultaneously exacerbated all of this by giving everyone huge new reason not to care, so that the only option forward is to work away in one's own little corner and never, ever, check anyone else's work, on top of making the "some animals are more equal than others" problem a whole lot worse than it already was.

This is why GenderDesk loves you.
I'm another one of those guys doing a lot of scut work (patrolling /maintaining) of the site that hardly anyone else is doing, and which nobody is making sure gets done.

And none of this work is worth squat in terms of being on the short list to get scholarships to attend their events.

[Vigilant]

Indeed, I have not seen you literally threatening other contributors. But, I have observed the sum of your activity in certain areas of interest (like copyvios, for example, or automated editing) having a similar effect to that of a threat: causing contributors to be scared to continue to contribute in fear of being constantly monitored and later attacked through community process, and eventually driving them away. From what I've seen, you are very good at spotting problematic edits and editing patterns; the issue is with the way and the perseverance with which you appear to approach the editors responsible for them. In many cases, even if your concerns have been valid, their raising has been done with a degree of abruptness, repetition, scrutiny and persistence that feels like hounding to the person on the receiving end, and causes them to abandon the project or limit their contributions. Now, I don't think this is your intention, but this does seem to be the result in several cases, hence the warning. So, I'm not saying you should stop trying to improve En.WP., only that in doing so you also consider how your activity and approach impacts the users you address and other readers of your comments, and how it contributes to an unfriendly volunteering environment that discourages them from returning to it.

— Kalliope, WMF T&S, Warning email to Fram based on offwiki complaint by unnamed editors, April, 2018

Man, this paragraph. Wikipedia: The Encyclopedia That Incompetent People Can Edit. Terrible editors feeling they should abandon their project or limit their contributions is a feature, not a bug.

https://www.opencouchsurfing.org/2011/0 ... fety-team/

A female customer of couch surfing, where kalliope was in Trust and Safety, was sexually assaulted at a company run couchsurfing party. This customer calls out kalliope as the one who attempted to keep her from reporting the crime.

Hard to imagine what kind of trust and safety org the WMF is building on that foundation.

[The Adversary]

It's worth noting that every major website with community contributions has a Trust & Safety department these days. It's necessary.

Perhaps so, but there is one obvious presenting problem here, and two not so obvious. The obvious problem is that people don't trust T&S, and by extension come to mistrust the foundation.

Both of the less obvious issues come around to the same thing: what's the point of the project? If it is to write an encyclopedia, well, the WMF has little to nothing to do with that. The project is administered, to whatever degree, by the various volunteers; to some very large degree it isn't managed at all. It's extremely easy to question the foundation's intervention in this when it doesn't positively contribute to the editing. And that leads to the matter that Ming has brought up several times when Fram's name has come up here: he is doing a lot of scut work policing of the site that hardly anyone else is doing, and which nobody is making sure gets done. Assuming that the conflict with Hale is the focus of this, well, in a properly managed project (a) there would be a huge fact-checking and edit-checking operation, and (b) someone with such obvious competence problems would have been found and dealt with, somehow, much earlier on. For all of Fram's cantankerousness, the root problem is not his disposition, but that anyone who actually cares about the output of the project either has to be utterly imperturbable, or tends to lose their temper from time to time, and has to give up and stop caring. The foundation has simultaneously exacerbated all of this by giving everyone huge new reason not to care, so that the only option forward is to work away in one's own little corner and never, ever, check anyone else's work, on top of making the "some animals are more equal than others" problem a whole lot worse than it already was.

This is why GenderDesk loves you.
I'm another one of those guys doing a lot of scut work (patrolling /maintaining) of the site that hardly anyone else is doing, and which nobody is making sure gets done.

And none of this work is worth squat in terms of being on the short list to get scholarships to attend their events.

Quite.
I have needed the WMF T&S, I have pleaded with them, and I have gotten exactly zero support from them.
One example: I have been begging them for years to have my user page protected, not only on en.wp, but globally.

No reaction from T&S. Less that two weeks a brand new account turns up on my user page on another wiki, telling me (in English) that I should be "rounded up and shot". Thankfully the admins there protected my user page, but this has happen on half a dozen of my user pages so far (including commons and meta) ...and there are hundreds more to go.
But they block Fram for making "unfriendly volunteering environment".

I say: Fuck T&S.
Fuck You.

[Vigilant]

It's worth noting that every major website with community contributions has a Trust & Safety department these days. It's necessary.

Perhaps so, but there is one obvious presenting problem here, and two not so obvious. The obvious problem is that people don't trust T&S, and by extension come to mistrust the foundation.

Both of the less obvious issues come around to the same thing: what's the point of the project? If it is to write an encyclopedia, well, the WMF has little to nothing to do with that. The project is administered, to whatever degree, by the various volunteers; to some very large degree it isn't managed at all. It's extremely easy to question the foundation's intervention in this when it doesn't positively contribute to the editing. And that leads to the matter that Ming has brought up several times when Fram's name has come up here: he is doing a lot of scut work policing of the site that hardly anyone else is doing, and which nobody is making sure gets done. Assuming that the conflict with Hale is the focus of this, well, in a properly managed project (a) there would be a huge fact-checking and edit-checking operation, and (b) someone with such obvious competence problems would have been found and dealt with, somehow, much earlier on. For all of Fram's cantankerousness, the root problem is not his disposition, but that anyone who actually cares about the output of the project either has to be utterly imperturbable, or tends to lose their temper from time to time, and has to give up and stop caring. The foundation has simultaneously exacerbated all of this by giving everyone huge new reason not to care, so that the only option forward is to work away in one's own little corner and never, ever, check anyone else's work, on top of making the "some animals are more equal than others" problem a whole lot worse than it already was.

This is why GenderDesk loves you.
I'm another one of those guys doing a lot of scut work (patrolling /maintaining) of the site that hardly anyone else is doing, and which nobody is making sure gets done.

And none of this work is worth squat in terms of being on the short list to get scholarships to attend their events.

Quite.
I have needed the WMF T&S, I have pleaded with them, and I have gotten exactly zero support from them.
One example: I have been begging them for years to have my user page protected, not only on en.wp, but globally.

No reaction from T&S. Less that two weeks a brand new account turns up on my user page on another wiki, telling me (in English) that I should be "rounded up and shot". Thankfully the admins there protected my user page, but this has happen on half a dozen of my user pages so far (including commons and meta) ...and there are hundreds more to go.
But they block Fram for making "unfriendly volunteering environment".

I say: Fuck T&S.
Fuck You.

This just makes it more obvious that if you’re fucking the chair of the board while creating garbage content, that you’re more valuable and protectable than a person who is actually trying to do good work.

[Moral Hazard]

— Kalliope (T-C-L), WMF T&S,
Warning email to Fram (T-C-L) based on offwiki complaint by unnamed editors, April, 2018

https://www.opencouchsurfing.org/2011/0 ... fety-team/

A female customer of CouchSurfing (T-H-L), where Kalliope (T-C-L) was in Trust and Safety, was sexually assaulted at a company-run CouchSurfing party. This customer calls out Kalliope as the one who attempted to keep her from reporting the crime.

From this site, at which Kalliope is one of two T&S officers named:

the “Safety’ Team openly protected their friends from negative references and ignored complaints of rapes for months, while taking the time to delete Couchsurfers their friends disliked.

Nothing like that could happen at Wikipedia, where Ironholds's IRC-buddy Fluffernutter/Karen Brown (WMF) is entrusted to ensure that the nobles are properly handled. If you cannot trust somebody who yucks up being beaten by Throat-puncher to handle Trust and Safety, whom can you trust?

From an old thread:

Not sure, if this was posted yet. http://www.gnaa.eu/browser/trollforge/i ... og?rev=652

16:35:37 8/<g3/ gSceptrege8/>g I would vote for Nick fucking Griffin above Ed Balls
3520 16:35:52 ?/ * Demiurge1000g wouldn't
3521 16:36:19 8/<g3/ gIronholdsge8/>g I would
3522 16:36:37 8/<g3/ gIronholdsge8/>g I want him to be elected so he can make a tit of himself nationally instead of every time he tries to please his wife
3523 16:36:42 8/<g3/ gFluffernutterge8/>g ...
3524 16:36:49 8/<g3/ gFluffernutterge8/>g man british politics are weird
3525 16:37:06 8/<g3/ gIronholdsge8/>g Fluffernutter: and female british politics
3526 16:37:10 8/<g3/ gIronholdsge8/>g don't be sexist
3527 16:37:17 3/matthewrbowkerg is now known as ?/MRB[afk]g
3528 16:37:27 8/<g3/ gIronholdsge8/>g (also, I heard the most sexist thing ever yesterday)
3529 16:37:31 8/<g3/ gFluffernutterge8/>g did you speak it?
3530 16:37:38 8/<g3/ gIronholdsge8/>g no
3531 16:37:49 8/<g3/ gFluffernutterge8/>g share
3532 16:37:58 8/<g3/ gIronholdsge8/>g a wikipedian I know reacted to "there is a gender gap" with "there *is* a gender gap. it's between my legs, and I want lots of lovely ladies to fill it"
3533 16:37:59 8/>3/>;/>g 3/join8//g?/#wikipedia-eng 8/(g?/Yetanotherxg8/!g~soxred93@wikipedia/Soxred938/)gg
3534 16:38:04 8/<g3/ gFluffernutterge8/>g ...ew
3535 16:38:07 8/<g3/ gIronholdsge8/>g "...THIS IS WHY SO FEW WOMEN EDIT"
3536 16:38:08 8/<g3/ gDemiurge1000ge8/>g Ironholds: He has a *wife* ? I thought BNP people were all gay with really weird fetishes?
3537 16:38:08 8/<g3/ gGfoley4ge8/>g ^
3538 16:38:10 8/<g3/ gFluffernutterge8/>g you will tell me who this is
3539 16:38:14 8/<g3/ gFluffernutterge8/>g in pm if necessary
3540 16:38:15 8/<g3/ gIronholdsge8/>g Demiurge1000: he's married
3541 16:38:17 8/<g3/ gIronholdsge8/>g Fluffernutter: nope
3542 16:38:28 8/<g3/ gDemiurge1000ge8/>g Ironholds: Wow, he must be the black sheep of the party
3543 16:38:34 8/<g3/ gIronholdsge8/>g BLACK SHEEP?
3544 16:38:43 8/<g3/ gIronholdsge8/>g THERE ARE NO BLACK SHEEP IN THE BNP! WHITE SHEEP ONLY!
3545 16:38:47 8/<g3/ gDemiurge1000ge8/>g ok, sheep without milk
3546 16:38:48 8/<3/<;/<g 3/emoquit8//g?/#wikipedia-eng 8/(g?/BarkingFishg8/!g~thor@wikipedia/BarkingFish8/)g8/(gQuit: *.Fish *.Filleted8/)g
3547 16:38:52 ?/ * Ironholdsg raises a lighter and begins singing "rule britannica"
3548 16:38:52 8/<g3/ gFluffernutterge8/>g haha
3549 16:39:02 ?/ * Fluffernutterg carts Ironholds off to the funny farm

Without naming any minors, were any of these then underage?

Based on her performance in this and other IRC logs with Ironholds and Demiurge1000, Fluffernutter should not be entrusted with an office on Trust and Safety.

[Poetlister]

I suppose there's no reason for community Check Users then either. Just write in the the TOS that sock-puppeting is forbidden (it's already there, kind of) and have WMF employees handle IP/device information for greater privacy.

Yes, they should do this. But firstly they save a lot of money by having volunteers doing it and secondly CU status is an enormous prize for hat collectors. One of the great motivating forces for attracting people is hat collecting.

[Mason]

I have needed the WMF T&S, I have pleaded with them, and I have gotten exactly zero support from them.
One example: I have been begging them for years to have my user page protected, not only on en.wp, but globally.

No reaction from T&S. Less that two weeks a brand new account turns up on my user page on another wiki, telling me (in English) that I should be "rounded up and shot". Thankfully the admins there protected my user page, but this has happen on half a dozen of my user pages so far (including commons and meta) ...and there are hundreds more to go.
But they block Fram for making "unfriendly volunteering environment".

You should tell Joe Bernstein this. T&S is obviously a needed function, but their priorities could use a sanity check.

[The Adversary]

So, BURob13: when will you start working for the WMF?

[Poetlister]

So, BURob13: when will you start working for the WMF?

Not until they have enough sense to overhaul their recruitment policy!

[Midsize Jake]

So, BURob13: when will you start working for the WMF?

Not until they have enough sense to overhaul their recruitment policy!

Was he involved in the BrillLyle ban a couple of years back? That was a travesty.

We were always fairly quick to blame James Alexander personally for nearly everything related to these SanFranBans, but clearly his actions didn't just materialize out of thin air.

[Vigilant]

So, BURob13: when will you start working for the WMF?

Not until they have enough sense to overhaul their recruitment policy!

Was he involved in the BrillLyle ban a couple of years back? That was a travesty.

We were always fairly quick to blame James Alexander personally for nearly everything related to these SanFranBans, but clearly his actions didn't just materialize out of thin air.

James Alexander built a castle of incompetence on a foundation of dipshits.
He hired the current crop of fart-huffing morons.

He and HR both deserve nothing but contempt for what they've wrought.

[BURob13]

So, BURob13: when will you start working for the WMF?

I might actually apply eventually, but not for the role you would think. The role would be very time-limited, too, and probably unpaid.

I have my full-time gig locked down for at least the next three years.

[Vigilant]

So, BURob13: when will you start working for the WMF?

I might actually apply eventually, but not for the role you would think. The role would be very time-limited, too, and probably unpaid.

I have my full-time gig locked down for at least the next three years.

How much does being a rodeo clown pay these days?

[BURob13]

About 200k starting + bonus

[Kumioko]

About 200k starting + bonus

I wish I had a rich parent that could hire me into a top paying position I was grossly unqualified for. I had to earn the positions I got!

[Vigilant]

For the record crow, I enjoy your posts.

Abd and the swivel eyed loon are tedious in their unhinged utterings.

Kiss kiss

[BURob13]

About 200k starting + bonus

I wish I had a rich parent that could hire me into a top paying position I was grossly unqualified for. I had to earn the positions I got!

Try again. Single mother, grew up with three of us living in a two bedroom apartment. I’ve worked for everything I’ve got.

[The Adversary]

This is just not quietening down:

Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram (T-H-L) 784 K+224 K talk
Archive 1: 151 K
Archive 2: 141 K
Archive 3: 126 K
Archive 4: 200 K
Archive 6: 23 K
= 641+ K

In addition
Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Summary (T-H-L) 16 K
Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Proposals about WMF Office (T-H-L) 34 K

Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Statement from Jan Eissfeldt, Lead Manager of Trust & Safety (T-H-L) 9K

...that is a total of over 1.708 K.
And I haven even counted Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case (T-H-L) (which is presently at 179K, and bound to become much more)

The longest page on en.wp is presently 550 K: the totally unreadable Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore) (T-H-L)

[Disgruntled haddock]

Hope the new job works out, Rob. Makes sense that you won't be around Wikipedia much.

For those who can't be bothered to keep up with the developments at WP:FRAM, Newyorkbrad has posted a suggested resolution in favour of the WMF rescinding the ban. So at this point, virtually everyone who is anyone on enwiki has weighed in. What happens now? The board of trustees angle is surely a dead-end; if not, we would have heard something by now. T&S apparently does not care how many volunteers they piss off. How will the community react in the mid-term, and who will blink first?

[Kumioko]

Hope the new job works out, Rob. Makes sense that you won't be around Wikipedia much.

For those who can't be bothered to keep up with the developments at WP:FRAM, Newyorkbrad has posted a suggested resolution in favour of the WMF rescinding the ban. So at this point, virtually everyone who is anyone on enwiki has weighed in. What happens now? The board of trustees angle is surely a dead-end; if not, we would have heard something by now. T&S apparently does not care how many volunteers they piss off. How will the community react in the mid-term, and who will blink first?

Yeah I saw that. NYB is just spouting gas. As a lawyer and longtime arb he knows that the WMF isn't going to lift the ban and he knows that the community is really hot right now. So he can gain points by looking like the good guy and posting a well crafted comment. He loses nothing and gains a few pats on the back from community members. Having said that, I agree with the comments of SmokeyJoe and others. Fram deserves his ban and regardless of the reasoning, method, or the pissing and moaning of the community, the WMF should leave it in place and, if people keep fussing, they should change it to global and indefinite.

[eagle]

Early on, most WP editors learn that one better think carefully before going to ANI. ANI looks at the conduct of both parties to a dispute and sometimes the ANi boomerangs back with a sanction against the complaining party. The fundamental problem with the Fram (T-C-L) ban is that T&S did not consider the long-standing misconduct of LauraHale (T-C-L) whose Wikiwarrior track record goes back to her earliest editing days. Given the pattern of her behavior, a reasonable person must ask if her complaints to T&S were made in good faith. The Community should hold Hale accountable for her role in this crisis.

[BURob13]

Early on, most WP editors learn that one better think carefully before going to ANI. ANI looks at the conduct of both parties to a dispute and sometimes the ANi boomerangs back with a sanction against the complaining party. The fundamental problem with the Fram (T-C-L) ban is that T&S did not consider the long-standing misconduct of LauraHale (T-C-L) whose Wikiwarrior track record goes back to her earliest editing days. Given the pattern of her behavior, a reasonable person must ask if her complaints to T&S were made in good faith. The Community should hold Hale accountable for her role in this crisis.

The fundamental problem with this post is that you assume this ban had much at all to do with LauraHale. It seems highly unlikely that it does, since there was no new conduct directed toward Laura by Fram since the last warning.

[eagle]

Early on, most WP editors learn that one better think carefully before going to ANI. ANI looks at the conduct of both parties to a dispute and sometimes the ANi boomerangs back with a sanction against the complaining party. The fundamental problem with the Fram (T-C-L) ban is that T&S did not consider the long-standing misconduct of LauraHale (T-C-L) whose Wikiwarrior track record goes back to her earliest editing days. Given the pattern of her behavior, a reasonable person must ask if her complaints to T&S were made in good faith. The Community should hold Hale accountable for her role in this crisis.

The fundamental problem with this post is that you assume this ban had much at all to do with LauraHale. It seems highly unlikely that it does, since there was no new conduct directed toward Laura by Fram since the last warning.

If this were an on-wiki process we would know the exact conflict that triggered Hale's complaints to T&S and third parties could have weighed in regarding the credibility and competence of the two parties. An on-wiki process would have also made clear the conduct since Hale's last complaint that would warrant the office action. I can understand why child molesters should be handled off-wiki, but how does that rationale apply to the conduct at issue here? If Fram's conduct warrants a disciplinary action, it should be handled on-wiki by the community-based structures. That process would also consider the long-standing misconduct of complaining party or parties such as LauraHale (T-C-L).

[tarantino]

I suppose there's no reason for community Check Users then either. Just write in the the TOS that sock-puppeting is forbidden (it's already there, kind of) and have WMF employees handle IP/device information for greater privacy.

I hear from [i]The Nest[/i] that facebook recently hired an army of 500 people to police their site. I think we can still count the members of T&S on the fingers of one hand, or two at the most. WMF are trying to finesse this to save money, so that they can spend more of their fundraising haul on political lobbying and other activities not directly related to building an encyclopedia.

Incidents like this risk causing more editors to become "disengaged".

Facebook actually employs 15,000 moderators through outsourcing. A not insignificant number of which develop PTSD because of the horrific content they have to moderate.

[Guido den Broeder]

Early on, most WP editors learn that one better think carefully before going to ANI. ANI looks at the conduct of both parties to a dispute and sometimes the ANi boomerangs back with a sanction against the complaining party. The fundamental problem with the Fram (T-C-L) ban is that T&S did not consider the long-standing misconduct of LauraHale (T-C-L) whose Wikiwarrior track record goes back to her earliest editing days. Given the pattern of her behavior, a reasonable person must ask if her complaints to T&S were made in good faith. The Community should hold Hale accountable for her role in this crisis.

The fundamental problem with this post is that you assume this ban had much at all to do with LauraHale. It seems highly unlikely that it does, since there was no new conduct directed toward Laura by Fram since the last warning.

If this were an on-wiki process we would know the exact conflict that triggered Hale's complaints to T&S and third parties could have weighed in regarding the credibility and competence of the two parties. An on-wiki process would have also made clear the conduct since Hale's last complaint that would warrant the office action. I can understand why child molesters should be handled off-wiki, but how does that rationale apply to the conduct at issue here? If Fram's conduct warrants a disciplinary action, it should be handled on-wiki by the community-based structures. That process would also consider the long-standing misconduct of complaining party or parties such as LauraHale (T-C-L).

This has been tried (with Fram, Laura plays only a minor part) and failed at the expense of Fram's victims, because he has a swarm of supporters standing by and ArbCom is too scared to do anything.

[Guido den Broeder]

1. Was there anything done off wiki (ie, not visible to us) that was reported about Fram to WMF T&S? (ie, emails, or off wiki contacts?)
2. Do you know of anyone else on arb.com/WMF who has discussed Fram with the WMF T&S team? (No need for names: just yes/no)

1) I wouldn't be able to say that if I knew.
2) Yes. As noted before, the WMF tends to keep ArbCom as a whole (either via email or through our monthly calls) apprised of who they're investigating. Well, at least who they're investigating when those people have some connection to enwiki.

1. Yes, except that part of it was in fact visible to us since it occurred here on Wikipediocracy (later deleted)
2. Yes, more than one

1. You're suggesting that Fram has or had an account on Wikipediocracy and posted something here that T&S feels he should be disciplined for?

Some revealing posts by WhoReallyCares were removed from this thread, which btw describes the incident(s), conveniently forgotten by everyone on Wikipedia, that caused the WMF to look into Fram's contributions.

[C&B]

That links to a WO thread; is WhoRealyCares removing our posts too...?

[Anroth]

That links to a WO thread; is WhoRealyCares removing our posts too...?

Just add him to the ignore list. The frothing at the brain is a drain on everyones time. (GdB that is, not WRC)

[BURob13]

Early on, most WP editors learn that one better think carefully before going to ANI. ANI looks at the conduct of both parties to a dispute and sometimes the ANi boomerangs back with a sanction against the complaining party. The fundamental problem with the Fram (T-C-L) ban is that T&S did not consider the long-standing misconduct of LauraHale (T-C-L) whose Wikiwarrior track record goes back to her earliest editing days. Given the pattern of her behavior, a reasonable person must ask if her complaints to T&S were made in good faith. The Community should hold Hale accountable for her role in this crisis.

The fundamental problem with this post is that you assume this ban had much at all to do with LauraHale. It seems highly unlikely that it does, since there was no new conduct directed toward Laura by Fram since the last warning.

If this were an on-wiki process we would know the exact conflict that triggered Hale's complaints to T&S and third parties could have weighed in regarding the credibility and competence of the two parties. An on-wiki process would have also made clear the conduct since Hale's last complaint that would warrant the office action. I can understand why child molesters should be handled off-wiki, but how does that rationale apply to the conduct at issue here? If Fram's conduct warrants a disciplinary action, it should be handled on-wiki by the community-based structures. That process would also consider the long-standing misconduct of complaining party or parties such as LauraHale (T-C-L).

This has been tried (with Fram, Laura plays only a minor part) and failed at the expense of Fram's victims, because he has a swarm of supporters standing by and ArbCom is too scared to do anything.

It's less scared and more naive. There is a pervasive attitude on the current Committee that problems ignored are problems that will go away. Less is more; if you don't add fuel to the fire, it can't get bigger.

Obviously, that's nonsense, because there are an endless supply of Wikipedians willing to take a can of gas to that sucker and blow shit up. If the current Committee would deal with minor problems when they were small, they wouldn't become major problems. The Committee allows situations to go on for so long that we no longer have any viable way to deal with them. Fram, TRM, etc. - it's all because we didn't act early on in their careers as toxic influences.

A 48 hours ban on TRM about 3-4 years ago would have caused him not to become the way he is. We've taught him there are no boundaries.

[Anroth]

A 48 hours ban on TRM about 3-4 years ago would have caused him not to become the way he is. We've taught him there are no boundaries.

Ahahahaha oh wait you are serious?

[The Adversary]

Fram (T-C-L)'s first ever block was a year ban by WMF.

First.Ever.

I would quite have understood it if he had been blocked, say, for a week or two for his "Fuck arb.com" remark when he was already cautioned. I think most people would have.
You never tried that.
That is the problem.

It is the draconian FIRST real response which is causing civil war at en.wp just now. (Hysterically ironic, when WMF accused Fram of "escalating conflicts"; then WMF go and start WWIII.)

[Carcharoth]

An alternative view, from Fram's user talk page on Commons (it is also worth reading what Fram has posted there as well):

A View From Outside

Your story is generating a lot of heat around the internet and it piqued my interest enough to read through much of the talk pages on Wikipedia, starting with the incident of your ban, the community response, the argument regarding WMF control over the project, the method (more than the reason) behind your ban, and finally a look through your interactions with User LauraHale.

The community response was rather embarrassing for Wikpedia, it being such an enormous overreaction of screaming and witch-hunting, without first getting to grips with the reasons behind your unique ban from up above but as a reader I could appreciate the en.Wikipedia furore at the idea the ‘server owners’ could sweep in and take actions against or over the head of the admin infrastructure of the volunteers maintaining the content of Wikipedia. That said, as an outsider, I could also see the value of their action – harassment is complex; victims want the harassment to stop and reporting the incident often opens themselves up to even more harassment. This result is likely ten-fold when the body one is reporting the incident to, is made up of close associates/defenders of the individual you are reporting.

The issue is, associates may not even SEE the individual’s actions as harassment. The individual likely doesn’t see their actions in that way either; few acts of bullying or harassing or stalking (or worse – abuse), are being committed by people with a rational understanding of what they are doing. The ‘bully’ is being rude to someone because they deserve it, or because they themselves are in pain: justified. The ‘stalker’ is being lured or encouraged, the way the person dresses or looks at them, it’s a game, it’s what they want: justified. The ‘harasser’ is simply on someone’s case for doing things wrong, being hard on them because they keep messing shit up: justified. The abuser is beating the shit out of someone else because they asked for it. Justified. At the root of any deed, even the most heinous, is probably a hook you could hang justification on, and this is where facts are a lot easier to process than emotions.

“Look, she messed up here, here and here!” begets “Wow, what a mess – yep, looks like he was right to call her out”. Because its just maths. It doesn’t take any effort, just add the numbers up. Unlike looking in any depth at the way the individual was ‘calling out’ the victim, which would involve examining duality of meaning, perception of tone, implied/interpreted/misinterpreted violence, the victim’s state of mind, fear thresholds… crikey, that’s a hell of a lot of work. No wonder the accused doesn’t want to admit they went too far, they probably haven’t the energy to dissect their own behaviour, let alone the feelings of their victim. Better just stick to the ‘facts’: they deserve it. An attitude I expect most associates adopt along with the accuser, too.

But from an outsiders point of view, one held by someone who wasn’t already heading down a path they didn’t have the time or effort to change, the most shocking thing about this all is how you, over a period of several years, spoke to the user LauraHale. I mean, reading it with eyes that aren’t in _your_ head, or the heads of your defenders – you know, fresh, green eyes; the way you continually spoke to her is _disgusting_ in the least hyperbolic sense I can assure you of. I mean, if I had a boss like you who spoke to me in that way, even if I was making a lot of mistakes, it would drive me to both depression and fear. If I _saw_ your behaviour in ‘real life’, it would break my heart, moments before I broke the aggressors’ nose. Just the endless barrage of comment after comment after comment, nitpick afer nitpick, and the _language_; Christ, you are going to be lucky if this incident ends with just you getting a little ban, rather than something far, far worse for you, or them.

You obviously felt your language was okay and that your intense, one-man personal policing was justified – hey, if you want people to stop telling you you are shit, stop being shit, right? But I urge you to read it back. I urge anyone to read it back. Strip out how well you know yourself, strip out how well you think you know her or her laundry list of apparent crimes. Just look where your name pops up on her talk page – deletion notice after deletion notice of articles she has written, comment after comment of “you are so poor at”, “you are clearly awful at”, “your X is terrible”, “this is junk”, “this is garbage”, “your article is nonsense”, “stupid mistakes”, “have a history of writing complete nonsense”, “you are wrong”, “you are poor” over and over and over. Even when people diplomatically try and prize you away from her with the suggestion that – as you were obviously causing her much distress (is distress ever deserved?) - maybe other people could monitor instead of you, you fight bag and dig in harder. You are in the right, she is rubbish, you will never stop. It’s truly disturbing reading and I’m thankful that, as of yet, it hasn’t ended with a serious incident.

I don’t care how right you are. I don’t really care about the power struggle of the WMF and en.wiki, or what procedure was right/wrong. And I don’t care what mistakes some girl made while making a few articles about disabled sports on a free website which amounts to little more than 2MB of actual information and what seems like terabytes of 20somethings squabbling with each other under the hood. What I do care about is how people treat each other. And how people who refuse to truly examine their own actions, continue to act in a way they _just wouldn’t have_ if they had, and continue to act in a way that causes irreversible pain to their victim and/or themselves. You, and your admin friends need to step outside of the woods for a second and view the whole forest. You have been truly vile. No amount of ‘being right’ should be justification enough for any Wikipedia admin or volunteer who holds themselves in high regard, for your relentless campaign against LauraHale. A truly sickening read that invited my take on it; which no doubt will be both unwelcome and brushed off but heck, you never know – maybe it will be worth my writing it if it encouraged even the smallest of changes.

R

[Disgruntled haddock]

Or maybe it’s the community who’s setting the civility standards, and ArbCom is playing along? Remember a couple of years ago when newly minted administrator Amortias blocked Cassianto (not exactly the most pleasant fellow) for incivility? The community all but ripped his head off.

Personally I don’t think there’s a civility problem on Wikipedia at all, at least comparatively speaking. If you think Wikipedia is toxic, hang out on Discord for a while.

[Poetlister]

So, BURob13: when will you start working for the WMF?

Not until they have enough sense to overhaul their recruitment policy!

Was he involved in the BrillLyle ban a couple of years back? That was a travesty.

We were always fairly quick to blame James Alexander personally for nearly everything related to these SanFranBans, but clearly his actions didn't just materialize out of thin air.

As always, Mr. Midsize hits the nail on the head. it's too easy to blame James Alexander for everything. No doubt he had encouragement from more senior people at WMF. The question is whether the conduct that has been condemned here has stopped since he left. It seems that the answer is no.

[tarantino]

An alternative view, from Fram's user talk page on Commons (it is also worth reading what Fram has posted there as well)

Ironically, that person was muzzled by Bishonen on enwiki last year.

[C&B]

Or maybe it’s the community who’s setting the civility standards, and ArbCom is playing along? Remember a couple of years ago when newly minted administrator Amortias blocked Cassianto (not exactly the most pleasant fellow) for incivility? The community all but ripped his head off.

Personally I don’t think there’s a civility problem on Wikipedia at all, at least comparatively speaking. If you think Wikipedia is toxic, hang out on Discord for a while.

or Topix

[C&B]

That links to a WO thread; is WhoRealyCares removing our posts too...?

Just add him to the ignore list. The frothing at the brain is a drain on everyones time. (GdB that is, not WRC)

[Guido den Broeder]

Early on, most WP editors learn that one better think carefully before going to ANI. ANI looks at the conduct of both parties to a dispute and sometimes the ANi boomerangs back with a sanction against the complaining party. The fundamental problem with the Fram (T-C-L) ban is that T&S did not consider the long-standing misconduct of LauraHale (T-C-L) whose Wikiwarrior track record goes back to her earliest editing days. Given the pattern of her behavior, a reasonable person must ask if her complaints to T&S were made in good faith. The Community should hold Hale accountable for her role in this crisis.

The fundamental problem with this post is that you assume this ban had much at all to do with LauraHale. It seems highly unlikely that it does, since there was no new conduct directed toward Laura by Fram since the last warning.

If this were an on-wiki process we would know the exact conflict that triggered Hale's complaints to T&S and third parties could have weighed in regarding the credibility and competence of the two parties. An on-wiki process would have also made clear the conduct since Hale's last complaint that would warrant the office action. I can understand why child molesters should be handled off-wiki, but how does that rationale apply to the conduct at issue here? If Fram's conduct warrants a disciplinary action, it should be handled on-wiki by the community-based structures. That process would also consider the long-standing misconduct of complaining party or parties such as LauraHale (T-C-L).

This has been tried (with Fram, Laura plays only a minor part) and failed at the expense of Fram's victims, because he has a swarm of supporters standing by and ArbCom is too scared to do anything.

It's less scared and more naive. There is a pervasive attitude on the current Committee that problems ignored are problems that will go away. Less is more; if you don't add fuel to the fire, it can't get bigger.

Obviously, that's nonsense, because there are an endless supply of Wikipedians willing to take a can of gas to that sucker and blow shit up. If the current Committee would deal with minor problems when they were small, they wouldn't become major problems. The Committee allows situations to go on for so long that we no longer have any viable way to deal with them. Fram, TRM, etc. - it's all because we didn't act early on in their careers as toxic influences.

A 48 hours ban on TRM about 3-4 years ago would have caused him not to become the way he is. We've taught him there are no boundaries.

Hahahaha, he was who he is long before he started editing Wikipedia, and was already harassing me, to name just one example, in 2007. Fram is who he is. You all enabled him, or happily took part in the harassment like Anroth (Only in death). That is the bigger problem.

I told you two years ago, but like everybody that could have done something, you ignored me and did nothing. That is why the WMF took charge.

[Auggie]

An alternative view, from Fram's user talk page on Commons (it is also worth reading what Fram has posted there as well):

A View From Outside

Your story is generating a lot of heat around the internet and it piqued my interest enough to read through much of the talk pages on Wikipedia, starting with the incident of your ban, the community response, the argument regarding WMF control over the project, the method (more than the reason) behind your ban, and finally a look through your interactions with User LauraHale.

The community response was rather embarrassing for Wikpedia, it being such an enormous overreaction of screaming and witch-hunting, without first getting to grips with the reasons behind your unique ban from up above but as a reader I could appreciate the en.Wikipedia furore at the idea the ‘server owners’ could sweep in and take actions against or over the head of the admin infrastructure of the volunteers maintaining the content of Wikipedia. That said, as an outsider, I could also see the value of their action – harassment is complex; victims want the harassment to stop and reporting the incident often opens themselves up to even more harassment. This result is likely ten-fold when the body one is reporting the incident to, is made up of close associates/defenders of the individual you are reporting.

The issue is, associates may not even SEE the individual’s actions as harassment. The individual likely doesn’t see their actions in that way either; few acts of bullying or harassing or stalking (or worse – abuse), are being committed by people with a rational understanding of what they are doing. The ‘bully’ is being rude to someone because they deserve it, or because they themselves are in pain: justified. The ‘stalker’ is being lured or encouraged, the way the person dresses or looks at them, it’s a game, it’s what they want: justified. The ‘harasser’ is simply on someone’s case for doing things wrong, being hard on them because they keep messing shit up: justified. The abuser is beating the shit out of someone else because they asked for it. Justified. At the root of any deed, even the most heinous, is probably a hook you could hang justification on, and this is where facts are a lot easier to process than emotions.

“Look, she messed up here, here and here!” begets “Wow, what a mess – yep, looks like he was right to call her out”. Because its just maths. It doesn’t take any effort, just add the numbers up. Unlike looking in any depth at the way the individual was ‘calling out’ the victim, which would involve examining duality of meaning, perception of tone, implied/interpreted/misinterpreted violence, the victim’s state of mind, fear thresholds… crikey, that’s a hell of a lot of work. No wonder the accused doesn’t want to admit they went too far, they probably haven’t the energy to dissect their own behaviour, let alone the feelings of their victim. Better just stick to the ‘facts’: they deserve it. An attitude I expect most associates adopt along with the accuser, too.

But from an outsiders point of view, one held by someone who wasn’t already heading down a path they didn’t have the time or effort to change, the most shocking thing about this all is how you, over a period of several years, spoke to the user LauraHale. I mean, reading it with eyes that aren’t in _your_ head, or the heads of your defenders – you know, fresh, green eyes; the way you continually spoke to her is _disgusting_ in the least hyperbolic sense I can assure you of. I mean, if I had a boss like you who spoke to me in that way, even if I was making a lot of mistakes, it would drive me to both depression and fear. If I _saw_ your behaviour in ‘real life’, it would break my heart, moments before I broke the aggressors’ nose. Just the endless barrage of comment after comment after comment, nitpick afer nitpick, and the _language_; Christ, you are going to be lucky if this incident ends with just you getting a little ban, rather than something far, far worse for you, or them.

You obviously felt your language was okay and that your intense, one-man personal policing was justified – hey, if you want people to stop telling you you are shit, stop being shit, right? But I urge you to read it back. I urge anyone to read it back. Strip out how well you know yourself, strip out how well you think you know her or her laundry list of apparent crimes. Just look where your name pops up on her talk page – deletion notice after deletion notice of articles she has written, comment after comment of “you are so poor at”, “you are clearly awful at”, “your X is terrible”, “this is junk”, “this is garbage”, “your article is nonsense”, “stupid mistakes”, “have a history of writing complete nonsense”, “you are wrong”, “you are poor” over and over and over. Even when people diplomatically try and prize you away from her with the suggestion that – as you were obviously causing her much distress (is distress ever deserved?) - maybe other people could monitor instead of you, you fight bag and dig in harder. You are in the right, she is rubbish, you will never stop. It’s truly disturbing reading and I’m thankful that, as of yet, it hasn’t ended with a serious incident.

I don’t care how right you are. I don’t really care about the power struggle of the WMF and en.wiki, or what procedure was right/wrong. And I don’t care what mistakes some girl made while making a few articles about disabled sports on a free website which amounts to little more than 2MB of actual information and what seems like terabytes of 20somethings squabbling with each other under the hood. What I do care about is how people treat each other. And how people who refuse to truly examine their own actions, continue to act in a way they _just wouldn’t have_ if they had, and continue to act in a way that causes irreversible pain to their victim and/or themselves. You, and your admin friends need to step outside of the woods for a second and view the whole forest. You have been truly vile. No amount of ‘being right’ should be justification enough for any Wikipedia admin or volunteer who holds themselves in high regard, for your relentless campaign against LauraHale. A truly sickening read that invited my take on it; which no doubt will be both unwelcome and brushed off but heck, you never know – maybe it will be worth my writing it if it encouraged even the smallest of changes.

R

This is amazing, and pretty much captures my views about how Wikipedians interact with each other. Every so often I pop in and see what it's like to write for them. It's crazy how quick the abusive jerks come out of the woodwork. It is impossible to get anything done, and if you keep trying, you get drawn into it.

I see two problems though. 1) This is apparently not all about Laura Hale, and 2) If it is all about Laura, then why did it have to happen to someone with a direct personal link to the WMF?