Hard data, please. What did he do specifically?
EDIT: For the downvoters, my question is because I'm tired of being manipulated by parties on both sides of any issue only disclosing what interests them.
EDIT: For the downvoters, my question is because I'm tired of being manipulated by parties on both sides of any issue only disclosing what interests them.
Fram explained that he had received two previous “conduct warnings” from the foundation’s Trust and Safety Council for his incivil style toward other Wikipedians.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/wikiped...
Personally, I'm reminded of Linus Torvald's "voluntary" leave of absence.
With great power comes a great need to act with civility?
I, for one, would prefer a world of people who act in good faith, even if they address issues in a coarse and gruff manner at times; to a world of petty, passive-aggressive crybullies who ultimately contribute nothing of value, nothing but a veneer of shallow procedural "niceness".
These aren’t the only two options available.
That goes well beyond merely being blunt or rude.
>BU Rob13, a former member of ArbCom who recently retired from administration, said that Fram’s behavior toward him, including “taking shots” at him in an edit summary and following him to unrelated cases, felt like harassment.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/wikiped...
The statement the powers that be released would seem to bear this out.
>In a statement to BuzzFeed News, the organization said it had leveled the ban to maintain "respect and civility" on the platform. "Uncivil behavior, including harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism, is against our Terms of Use, which are applicable to anyone who edits on our projects," it said.
Presumably those who felt stalked by him are wary of making the accusations public, since at this point that may invite additional harassment from others.
[1]: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/wikiped...
The community does have systems to handle such situations though (e.g. the arbitration committee which has produced this letter).
Of course, these systems may or may not be adequate - I am not qualified to say, but it seems to me that the chief complaint here is that the WMF did not involve any community systems without having previously expressed concerns about them.
This suggests that either the WMF does not consider the systems adequate, in which case the arbitration committee is quite right to request that the WMF communicate this to them, or the WMF has some genuinely top-secret reason to ban someone that even the arbitration committee cannot be trusted with (which for a matter as light as a 1-year ban due to community reports doesn't seem likely).
In a community driven effort, those are contradictory statements.
If you care to any extent about the issue, going down the rabbit hole and looking for yourself would be the best course of action.
If it seems tedious, pointless and gossipy, asking for other people’s super biased TLDR wouldn’t help anyway, so perhaps ignoring this event could be a course of action (that’s what I did after reading 2 pages of finger pointing BTW)
Wikimeida foundation thinks it's cute that their unpaid content worker bees have a governance system. But we just saw what always happens when an autonomous decision maker with delegated authority makes the wrong decision.