Wikipedia Sucks!

JBHunley wrote:Well, from [[commons:User talk:Fram]] we have the text of what Fram says is a communication from T&S in March 2019:


"However, in the hopes of avoiding any future issues and in the spirit of Laura’s own request on her talk page, we would like to ask that you refrain from making changes to content that she produces, in any way (directly or indirectly), from this point on. This includes but is not limited to direct editing of it, tagging, nominating for deletion, etc. If you happen to find issues with Laura’s content, we suggest that you instead leave it for others to review and handle as they see fit. This approach will allow you to continue to do good work while reducing the potential for conflict between you and Laura.

"We hope for your cooperation with the above request, so as to avoid any sanctions from our end in the future. To be clear, we are not placing an interaction ban between you and Laura at this time. We ask that her request to stay away from her and the content she creates be respected, so that there is no need for any form of intervention or punitive actions from our end.

"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. "



Now, maybe Fram is lying but I'll take him at his word. Especially since no one has challenged it in all this time. Jbh Talk 5:59 pm, Today (UTC−7)

Spinning Crow wrote: (ignores, spins, diverts)

On her now-deleted WP User Talk page, Laura Hale wrote:Fram

This is a request to stay off my talk page, in the same style as you request it of other editors. Other admins have requested that you stop posting on my talk page before. They have requested you stop taking action in regards to me, especially given your problematic actions as they relate to your inability to be impartial where I am concerned. You have claimed that DYKs I did were related to Gibraltarpedia, when they were clearly not, and you never retracted this. You completely out of process deleted article drafts from my user space citing gross BLP violations, which other admins said were not this after viewing the deleted content. You defended these actions, did not admit your errors, and did not retract this. These are two examples, of several, where you have acted in bad faith with me. Enough. Stay off my talk page Fram.

You were asked in September 2017 to disengage in admin actions related to me. You were asked in September 2017 to stop commenting on my talk page and you are being asked again in February 2018. If you have a problem with my work, then you need to talk to another admin and have them handle the problem. It should not be you. If you have questions about my edits, please direct them at admins and other users like SlimVirgin, Pigsonthewing, SkyHarbor, Orderinchaos and Victuallers.

If you are nominating any of the content I created for deletion or userifying any pages or redirecting any pages, these notifications need to be posted on the talk pages of the aforementioned admins so they may deal with your notifications. They can assess your admin actions, and if they believe any actions need to be taken on my part to change my editing behavior following any return, these admins can be the ones to communicate that message to me: NOT YOU.

If these admins are not able to work with you regarding my work to your personal satisfaction, please contact James Alexander, Patrick Earley, Jan Eissfeldt or Sydney Poore, members of the WMF's Support and Safety team.

LauraHale

Spinning Crow wrote: (sputters, insults, ignores, diverts)

In voting to lift Fram's ban unilaterally imposed by WMF, GorillaWarfare wrote:As I wrote in my comment accompanying my vote in FoF 6, most of Fram's behavior that was mentioned in evidence fell "firmly within that grey area of hostility that Wikipedia has struggled to handle for as long as I've been here." There were occasional instances that were severe (the attacks against ArbCom as one example), but the majority of the issue is that on multiple occasions Fram has identified editors whose contributions they have felt were substandard, and then over a significant period of time followed (see principle 5) those editors and scrutinized their contributions extremely closely, often bluntly and sometimes quite rudely. Although correcting the errors of other editors is a key part of Wikipedia's culture, editors are expected to do so carefully and constructively. If an editor believes that another editor with whom they have clashed is displaying a pattern of substandard contributions, they should involve neutral parties to address that concern rather than hounding that editor (principle 6).

Although I believe Fram's behavior has been unacceptable (both the attacks and the excessive scrutiny), the community in general has not taken a strong stance against editors who maintain plausible deniability that they are not intentionally harassing other editors, but are only focused on improving the encyclopedia. This is particularly true for administrators, editors who have been active for a long time, and those whose own contributions are exceptional—Fram fit within all three of these categories.

The community (including the Arbitration Committee) has also generally allowed more leeway when it comes to attacks against groups, particularly groups with more "power" than the editor making the attack (in this case, the Arbitration Committee).

As it currently exists, the section of harassment policy that discusses hounding leaves plenty of room for Fram's behavior—the concerns they raised were not always without "good cause", and (as evidenced by the extensive discussion that has happened at WP:FRAM and elsewhere) it is not without question that Fram was engaging in these behaviors with the intention of causing distress. Policy also makes no room for the distinct possibility that there is a discrepancy between whether a target of these discussions experiences distress and whether the instigator intends to cause it.

Even was it agreed that Fram was hounding editors, it is unlikely that this behavior would have led to a lengthy ban (either of one year or of three months). More likely it would have been addressed with interaction bans, or possibly a topic ban from the area(s) of conflict. While I do not agree that these types of sanctions tend to put a stop to the root behavior, they are the standard. I suspect that the Wikimedia Foundation also disagreed that these sanctions are useful in addressing the cause of the issue, and, like myself, wished to see the English Wikipedia take a stronger stance on harassment and other behaviors that can drive editors away from the project. However, imposing the ban themselves was not an appropriate or effective way to move forward, and neither would it be appropriate for the Arbitration Committee to do so (or for me to vote that we do).

It is the community as a whole that accepts these kinds of behaviors, and it cannot be just one body (the WMF or the Arbitration Committee) that decides they are unacceptable and acts against them. If the community does not wish to allow editors, even those who have made great contributions to this project or edited for years, to drive off other editors with plausibly productive but intensely critical focus, then the community must take a stance against this behavior in policy and in support for said policy's enforcement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 6:48 pm, [5 Sept 2019] (UTC−7)

Spinning Crow wrote: (averts eyes, chatters mindlessly, hyperventilates, collapses)

These unredacted materials show a pattern of borderline harassment against multiple individuals, through hounding the individuals and excessively highlighting their failures.

this is a good high level summary. WormTT(talk) 14:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I can support the substance of this finding of fact: that Fram sometimes takes his criticism of other editors too far, that multiple people have experienced this as harassment, and that he consistently fails to assume good faith in ArbCom and other 'authorities' within the movement. – Joe (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Fram's criticisms of others would ..... escalate in frustration when he felt that the response to his observations were not acceptable. Such escalations would inevitably prove to be counter-productive. ...... indulging his frustrations to the extent of becoming hostile ...... SilkTork (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

most of the behavior was firmly within that grey area of hostility ...... GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The document describes behavior that is unpleasant, uncollegial, and arrogant...... people don't learn well when they're stressed, fearful, defensive, or distracted. ....... Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not think either ArbCom or the community would have banned them under the same circumstances. ...... – Joe (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The problem here has not been Fram in isolation, it has been the community in allowing [an] editor to behave rudely and aggressively. ....... Every editor on this community who supports hostility as a method of dealing with concerns, is responsible for what happened to Fram. Fram should not be punished for the environment we created which allowed him to feel he was justified in his aggression. SilkTork (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

the community in general has not taken a strong stance against editors who maintain plausible deniability that they are not intentionally harassing other editors, but are only focused on improving the encyclopedia.........Even was it agreed that Fram was hounding editors, it is unlikely that this behavior would have led to a lengthy ban.......It is the community as a whole that accepts these kinds of behaviors, and it cannot be just one body (the WMF or the Arbitration Committee) that decides they are unacceptable and acts against them. ..... the community must take a stance against this behavior in policy and in support for said policy's enforcement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing strongly with almost every word GW has written. If we take the WMF out of the equation, a ban would likely not have happened - therefore the correct decision is to vacate the ban completely. First choice. WormTT(talk) 07:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

GW's post is very thoughtful. I agree that I almost certainly would not have supported banning Fram based on the evidence available if it had come to us in a normal community process, so I have to support vacating the attempt to impose that sanction from outside those processes. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)