Wikipediocracy_Site_Admin wrote:The WP folks can all read this thread now. I, for one, am still willing to entertain alternate explanations for what T&S did, but as I stated practically at the outset, just because Fram deserves a ban (and that's whether or not he really does), it doesn't mean WP doesn't have a Laura Hale problem. They do have a Laura Hale problem, and it won't be solved merely by her deciding to "vanish" and them letting her do it.
For a start, shut your pie hole about being open to alternatives, they've been posted on here for a long while, and you're all too chicken to respond.
Also, you're still not quite getting the fact that there is not one single connection between anything Laura did, and any attempted justification of Fram's treatment of her. There is no excuse for harassment. None. Nada. If people want to argue all he was doing was policy enforcement, let them try. I am still waiting for the parts of policy that excuse him, to be quoted, as would normally happen in an Arbitration Case not being influenced by shadier elements, for whose purposes there is no policy justification. Quite the reverse, in fact, as we saw in the Wikipedia Gamergate case.......
Harassment is a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting one or more targeted persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating them. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for targeted persons, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.
But yes, let's also explore this proposed solution to the problem. What is it? Specifically, what is the problem, and what are Wikipedians meant to be doing to fix it?
Since time immemorial, where there is no legal element to a dispute, it has been accepted that whatever someone has done on Wikipedia, they retain the right to walk away, and it is for the Wikipedians to fix whatever issues is being claimed exist. Too much feminism, is I gather, the main complaint? Feel free to correct, on the record, so it can be tested. Perhaps a blog post? CornPoke McGikkiguddy still got his typewriter?
Why is Laura not entitled to vanish? Other than her being a woman who challenged the patriarchy. What must she endure, in addition to your efforts? If you were independent of Wikipedia, that would be one thing, even better if it were possible to sue "Vigilant@Wikipediocracy" for failing to employ truth as his absolute defence, but this shit is clearly being coordinated with Wikipedia Administrators, to be disseminated on Wikipedia.
Is that your meaning of solving the problem? Just how does one ensure she isn't allowed to vanish? The obvious meaning is you want her name and these unproven (and seemingly unrpoveable) allegations smeared all over Wikipedia, for all time, for reasons that seem to have very little to do with exposing the systemic flaws of Wikipedia or achieving any kind of Wikipedia sanction, and everything to do with targeting this specific woman, destroying her completely, for.......well. You know.
The longer you pretend Jess Wade isn't a bigger problem for Wikipedia with a more urgent solution, with a far better ethical justification for use as the personification of a systemic issue by an independent platform, requiring no help or assistance from Wikipedia to prove it, the more this is looking like, well........you know
Speak, or be damned regardless. As you presumably mean to convey to all the women
Me, I don't need to hear from Wade at all, if she chooses not to acknowledge concerns, as seems to be the case. She can leave, if has wants, as she has suggested at times is her preference. Which she would have surely done if her level of on-wiki harassment ever reached even a tenth of what Hale has faced at the hands of your members and customers. Not that she probably even knows of it, but she can exercise her right to vanish if she wants, erase all sign of her existence from Wikipedia for all I care.
Her exercising her ability to choose to leave, and however she wants, doesn't make a blind bit of difference to my reason for investigating her, or the ongoing relevance of my findings to Wikipedia criticism, independently published, not easily denied even if the underlying evidence is fully erased by Wikipedia, as unlikely as that is. But it would be the dignified thing to let her go, never looking back. No need to pursue her outside of the wiki, unless she continued her efforts to abuse it from outside, as is already her m.o. You found Hale doing anything like that? Or is it enough for you to merely allege it?
True independence. True ethics. True truth.
Try it some time, 'ya freaks.