Isn't it odd, how the standards for what constitutes a local or a global issue, and what is and is not a justifiable intervention, depends on who is playing the role of colonial master, and who is in the role of powerless smurf......Since azwiki has bureaucrats, there is no technical means to prevent a bureaucrat from regranting Cekli the rights (such as happened on Commons a few years ago). --Rschen7754 17:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
much as I don't like intervention from the global community in a local Wikipedia's issues, when a Wikipedia's entire governance structure is corrupt and self-serving, it is unfortunately necessary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
There is no conspiracy here, I just believe that Wikimedia wikis shouldn't be run by admins who abuse their tools to push POV and copyvios. --Rschen7754 06:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
If that is really a globally banned user, you should not be blocking the user but asking WMF (ca at wikimedia dot org) to globally lock the account so they are blocked from all wikis. They also have access to CheckUser and private information and can make a much better determination than you can of sockpuppetry. Also, their name is on the logs, not yours, so you are not the target of any retribution, which is typical for globally banned users. --Rschen7754 18:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
This should be handled by WMF since it is their ban. --Rschen7754 22:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
the fact that there are too many sysops who have made questionable actions, it can be argued that admins should be removed because they did not act when they saw clear cases of admin abuse taking place. --Rschen7754 01:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
A Wikipedia that allows itself to be used as a tool to spread propaganda and similar stuff isn't even Wikipedia at all if you ask me. Saederup92 (talk) 08:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Or perhaps it is the perfect example of a Wikipedia in its natural state? All the others instinctively progress to high levels of pov and bias but are restrained by rules, but Azeri Wikipedia, free from the proper enforcement of those rules, actually goes the whole way there. How else can you explain Boing! said Zebedee's "intolerable" being tolerated for a decade or more? Remember, that much highlighted "So Called Armenian Genocide" article has had that title since at least 2009! [22] 88.108.93.109 14:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Some have mentioned requesting a global ban against Cekli829, and without commenting on the merits of that proposal, a ban would have to come from WMF at this stage. The community global ban policy requires the user to be indefinitely blocked on 2 wikis and Cekli829 is only indefinitely blocked on 1 (hywiki). (Yes, it is possible to start a RFC on anything and get a consensus to override the policy. That is also a very bad precedent to set).
..... --Rschen7754 05:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't want to be the Arbitration Committee. I am a volunteer and I am not required to do this. --Rschen7754 18:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Fram
Re: Fram
Oh, what gems you find when you go a wanderin'......
Re: Fram
Now it's all coming out, the ineptitude of en.wiki's self-governance and their desperation to blame anyone but themselves for it......
Let's examine the timeline.....
1. The WMF probably began investigating Fram on or after hearing a complaint about his sustained attack on ArbCom of 4 May, for which he was warned by Bishonen and AGK, but which he ignored.
2. You probably began to discuss Fram's conduct in the Rama case on or around 6 May (abuse of tools) or 10 May (abuse of others)
3. ArbCom was informed of an impending WMF ban of Fram on a conference call before it happened, something that got recorded in your official minutes.
4. Fram was WMF banned on 12 June.
-------
All of that tells me that from a standing start of having serious concerns in early May, the WMF Trust & Safety Team had completed a deep dive investigation and issued the appropriate sanction on Fram based on prior warnings to cut that shit out, before you lazy bastards in ArbCom had even gotten around to initiating your open and transparent public proceeding.
You were given a heads up by the WMF that an off-world strike targeting one of your local warlords was imminent, yet you SAID NOTHING, not even to ask the WMF to hang fire because you were also considering your own action, up to and including a public prosecutor case as an individual not an Arb, if necessary. We now know, no action was taken. Not even a discrete private word that the recent warnings issued by individual Administrators and Arbitrators should now be considered as endorsed by the whole Committee. We can assume not even a personal warning was communicated by you.
Of course, simple incompetence is one possible explanation for this total failure to communicate your position as the local law, to the Federales of the WMF. Another far more plausible reason for why you as a Committee and you as an individual didn't want to take ownership of that screwup, was that you collectively had to your thumbs up your assess, and were ONLY TOO PLEASED when you learned someone else was taking the decision out of your hands.......
So.......after all this FUCKING BULLSHIT of an attempted revolution, it turns out the most pertinent private evidence that was being kept from the community, was their own precious ArbCom's incompetence and indecision.
Release the ArbCom list mails. Let your people know exactly what was said, and by who.
Don't you dare hide behind the confidentiality of email discussions, the community has spoken. You are their elected representatives, you produced those emails in your capacity as their public servants in commission of their sovereign rights, they have the right to know what they contain.
Don't you DARE waste anyone's time pretending the solution to this utter bullshit is forcing the Executive Director to divert some of her precious time to establishing a noticeboard on your own damn wiki to tell you things they already told you in private.......
By my reckoning, this will be about the billionth time it has been said that ArbCom needs to sort itself out, to make sure it responds to issues in a timely manner, make sure it communicates efficiently and effectively, and most of all, stops letting issues it is already aware of go unresolved for lack of anyone being prepared to stand up and say, well, fuck the community, this is policy and we will enforce it unless or until they say it is not policy. Understandably difficult on a Committee with Opabina Regalis on it, but if she and other assorted cuckoos are preventing the rest of you doing your duty because it would upset the mob, you should have resigned.
And on that score, check your fucking manual - as far as external observers and victims are concerned, an Administrator being repeatedly rude to a user in a way that appears targeted and designed to intimidate, is harassment, regardless of whether the nominal reason for it is ostensibly to enforce another Wikipedia rule. It should never be the case that an Administrator develops the reputation of being an asshole who happens to be right, there is no ambiguity in the law - these people are not for Wikipedia at all, never mind its trusted positions which require higher standards.
The Feds know this, they had seen how often Fram was allowed to get away with it for reasons that are entirely about the locals not liking the no assholes rule, and so they acted the only way they could, and are empowered by local law to do so. Declaring OFFICE is not a local law now, is all well and good, but Fram certainly isn't getting a retrial unless or until you can convince the Federal Government they should adopt your permissive attitudes to assholery, for the good of the Federal Republic.
A good start in convincing the Feds you can be trusted with any kind of law enforcement, might be to file that Arbitration case you said you were going to file as a Public Prosecutor. No reason why it can't be progressed, the local harassment statute still says what it says, Fram is still capable of submitting evidence in his defence, the community is adamant there is no COI issue with ArbCom sitting in judgement over a vocal critic, and if there even is a policy which says ArbCom is not a moot court, well, given that would be a local policy, you can exercise your local sovereignty to over-ride it, for reasons of national security.
The people have a right to know - was this whole drama really only about who got to ban Fram first, or whether he would have really been able to say anything in his defence that could have saved him?
Or is it really about the fact the community would never have wanted Fram banned for his easily provable and quite inexcusable crimes against the ToU and local policy, and indeed would have lynched any ArbCom that would have, and that is why they probably never would have dared try.
Answer now, or I will answer for you.
The Tyranny Of Evil Men.
HTD.
OK, so the naughty WMF denied you the opportunity to exercise your rights to self-government, yeh?I was hearing concerns about Fram during the GiantSnowman case and the Rama case which was making me aware that people found his approach unnecessarily harsh. That he used his admin tools to edit through full protection to revert a sitting Arb on an ArbCom page, made me think that it may be appropriate to request a case to look into that and other incidents, and I was considering opening a case as an individual, rather than as an ArbCom member. The Office Action terminated that consideration, so we have been denied the opportunity as a community to openly examine Fram's conduct and see what we can all learn from it.
SilkTork (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Let's examine the timeline.....
1. The WMF probably began investigating Fram on or after hearing a complaint about his sustained attack on ArbCom of 4 May, for which he was warned by Bishonen and AGK, but which he ignored.
2. You probably began to discuss Fram's conduct in the Rama case on or around 6 May (abuse of tools) or 10 May (abuse of others)
3. ArbCom was informed of an impending WMF ban of Fram on a conference call before it happened, something that got recorded in your official minutes.
4. Fram was WMF banned on 12 June.
-------
All of that tells me that from a standing start of having serious concerns in early May, the WMF Trust & Safety Team had completed a deep dive investigation and issued the appropriate sanction on Fram based on prior warnings to cut that shit out, before you lazy bastards in ArbCom had even gotten around to initiating your open and transparent public proceeding.
You were given a heads up by the WMF that an off-world strike targeting one of your local warlords was imminent, yet you SAID NOTHING, not even to ask the WMF to hang fire because you were also considering your own action, up to and including a public prosecutor case as an individual not an Arb, if necessary. We now know, no action was taken. Not even a discrete private word that the recent warnings issued by individual Administrators and Arbitrators should now be considered as endorsed by the whole Committee. We can assume not even a personal warning was communicated by you.
Of course, simple incompetence is one possible explanation for this total failure to communicate your position as the local law, to the Federales of the WMF. Another far more plausible reason for why you as a Committee and you as an individual didn't want to take ownership of that screwup, was that you collectively had to your thumbs up your assess, and were ONLY TOO PLEASED when you learned someone else was taking the decision out of your hands.......
----------SilkTork, who complained about Fram during Rama's case? In-private or am I not spotting anything? WBGconverse 09:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Fram's action was discussed on the list, but due to particular logistical reasons, such as low levels of activity of the Committee members meaning it was difficult to get consensus, the matter drifted. The longer it drifted the more difficult it seemed to appropriately respond to the action. SilkTork (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
So.......after all this FUCKING BULLSHIT of an attempted revolution, it turns out the most pertinent private evidence that was being kept from the community, was their own precious ArbCom's incompetence and indecision.
Release the ArbCom list mails. Let your people know exactly what was said, and by who.
Don't you dare hide behind the confidentiality of email discussions, the community has spoken. You are their elected representatives, you produced those emails in your capacity as their public servants in commission of their sovereign rights, they have the right to know what they contain.
Don't you DARE waste anyone's time pretending the solution to this utter bullshit is forcing the Executive Director to divert some of her precious time to establishing a noticeboard on your own damn wiki to tell you things they already told you in private.......
This was your screw up, Steve, individually and as a Committee Member. Own it.Hello Katherine Maher
I am Steve Pereira - User:SilkTork on en.wikipedia: a user, admin, and member of the English ArbCom.
You will be aware of Trust & Safety's Office Action on en.wikipedia in which User:Fram was locally banned for one year as you will have seen the report that T&S compiled, and will have signed it off.
......
It is difficult to sum up the community's exact feelings about this matter as there have been varied responses, however what appears to be emerging as a consensus is that it would be helpful for the enwiki community and the WMF to have an open dialogue on how Office Actions are handled and announced, and for the community and WMF to have an effective permanent interface on en.Wikipedia where notices could be placed, queries raised, and an open and productive dialogue on a range of issues could take place so the WMF and the community can work together to improve the project.
........
It would be helpful if there were some acknowledgement from yourself that you are aware of this issue, and that you would consider looking into how a permanent interface could be set up on en.Wikipedia (similar perhaps to the 'Crat Noticeboard and the ArbCom Noticeboard), and to opening a dialogue on the talkpages of such an interface where representatives of WMF and the enwiki community could look into issues such as harassment on enwiki, Office Actions, and perhaps this particular ban on Fram.
By my reckoning, this will be about the billionth time it has been said that ArbCom needs to sort itself out, to make sure it responds to issues in a timely manner, make sure it communicates efficiently and effectively, and most of all, stops letting issues it is already aware of go unresolved for lack of anyone being prepared to stand up and say, well, fuck the community, this is policy and we will enforce it unless or until they say it is not policy. Understandably difficult on a Committee with Opabina Regalis on it, but if she and other assorted cuckoos are preventing the rest of you doing your duty because it would upset the mob, you should have resigned.
And on that score, check your fucking manual - as far as external observers and victims are concerned, an Administrator being repeatedly rude to a user in a way that appears targeted and designed to intimidate, is harassment, regardless of whether the nominal reason for it is ostensibly to enforce another Wikipedia rule. It should never be the case that an Administrator develops the reputation of being an asshole who happens to be right, there is no ambiguity in the law - these people are not for Wikipedia at all, never mind its trusted positions which require higher standards.
The Feds know this, they had seen how often Fram was allowed to get away with it for reasons that are entirely about the locals not liking the no assholes rule, and so they acted the only way they could, and are empowered by local law to do so. Declaring OFFICE is not a local law now, is all well and good, but Fram certainly isn't getting a retrial unless or until you can convince the Federal Government they should adopt your permissive attitudes to assholery, for the good of the Federal Republic.
A good start in convincing the Feds you can be trusted with any kind of law enforcement, might be to file that Arbitration case you said you were going to file as a Public Prosecutor. No reason why it can't be progressed, the local harassment statute still says what it says, Fram is still capable of submitting evidence in his defence, the community is adamant there is no COI issue with ArbCom sitting in judgement over a vocal critic, and if there even is a policy which says ArbCom is not a moot court, well, given that would be a local policy, you can exercise your local sovereignty to over-ride it, for reasons of national security.
The people have a right to know - was this whole drama really only about who got to ban Fram first, or whether he would have really been able to say anything in his defence that could have saved him?
Or is it really about the fact the community would never have wanted Fram banned for his easily provable and quite inexcusable crimes against the ToU and local policy, and indeed would have lynched any ArbCom that would have, and that is why they probably never would have dared try.
Answer now, or I will answer for you.
The Tyranny Of Evil Men.
HTD.
-
Graaf Statler
- Side Troll
- Posts: 3996
- Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Fram
much as I don't like intervention from the global community in a local Wikipedia's issues, when a Wikipedia's entire governance structure is corrupt and self-serving, it is unfortunately necessary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
You make me damm curious Boing! Because what corruption can be solved by global banning a blocked user with a corrupt block of your beloved colleague Drmies AKA Natuur12 who had left WP for over a year?
Hypocritical shithead! You know dammed well those Global Bans are just rotten corrupt! They are in no way to stop any corruption, they are wiki political.
Fuck yourself Boing!, you yourself are rotten and corrupt as hell! Because you was the one who blocked me instantly on jimmytalk when I tried to explain Jimmy what was rotten in the state of Holland, tremendous dipshit what you are!
You are a evil, evil man, Boing!
Re: Fram
Hilarious to think, but not remotely surprising, that this drama has blown up entirely because of en.wiki's own ArbCom's prediliction for secrecy and mistrust of the community's ability to handle its own affairs.
The community should have been told that as of early May, Fram was being scrutinized with a view to prosecution. They should have been given the chance to either launch that case themselves, or more likely beat the living shit out of anyone who dared file it.
This would not change the fact ArbCom's own bungling of Fram's performance review long before May was already a matter of public record, nor that victims of harassment don't tend to willingly submit to public flogging even if the prize is the public prosecution of their harasser.
But this examination of entirely public matters by the proletariat, would at least have made it obvious to the locals as to what role they had played in bringing the Black Helicopters flying over that hill to terrorize their peaceful little village. Because some of them genuinely might just be so thick that they still don't get it.
This thing probably had the internal code name OPERATION CLEAN HOUSE. They probably would have rejected OPERATION RESTORE FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY because, well, y'know, they're not actually free and they don't live in a democracy. OPERATION REVENGE, OPERATION KILLSTRIKE, OPERATION KARMA, OPERATION IHATEMYJOB, OPERATION ICUTMYSELF, having of course already all been used previously, mostly as a result of the warm greetings so often supplied by Fram from his position in the tollbooth, or occasionally under the bridge, on the road from the big city.
The reason you are all hiding under your beds now, is because your precious ArbCom let you down. But hey, you can at least take comfort that you elected them, their incompetence and indecision and diversion and deflection is just a reflection of the type of leadership you apparently want. Your democratically expressed will.
The time for reform is long over. Only the purifying effect of HELLFIRE can save the village and guarantee the harvest for years to come. There is a reason the Black Helicopters were only ordered from the Military Industrial Complex last winter. The WMF got a good deal, trading in their evidently entirely useless Sunflower Cannons and Love Mortars.
HTD.
The community should have been told that as of early May, Fram was being scrutinized with a view to prosecution. They should have been given the chance to either launch that case themselves, or more likely beat the living shit out of anyone who dared file it.
This would not change the fact ArbCom's own bungling of Fram's performance review long before May was already a matter of public record, nor that victims of harassment don't tend to willingly submit to public flogging even if the prize is the public prosecution of their harasser.
But this examination of entirely public matters by the proletariat, would at least have made it obvious to the locals as to what role they had played in bringing the Black Helicopters flying over that hill to terrorize their peaceful little village. Because some of them genuinely might just be so thick that they still don't get it.
This thing probably had the internal code name OPERATION CLEAN HOUSE. They probably would have rejected OPERATION RESTORE FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY because, well, y'know, they're not actually free and they don't live in a democracy. OPERATION REVENGE, OPERATION KILLSTRIKE, OPERATION KARMA, OPERATION IHATEMYJOB, OPERATION ICUTMYSELF, having of course already all been used previously, mostly as a result of the warm greetings so often supplied by Fram from his position in the tollbooth, or occasionally under the bridge, on the road from the big city.
The reason you are all hiding under your beds now, is because your precious ArbCom let you down. But hey, you can at least take comfort that you elected them, their incompetence and indecision and diversion and deflection is just a reflection of the type of leadership you apparently want. Your democratically expressed will.
The time for reform is long over. Only the purifying effect of HELLFIRE can save the village and guarantee the harvest for years to come. There is a reason the Black Helicopters were only ordered from the Military Industrial Complex last winter. The WMF got a good deal, trading in their evidently entirely useless Sunflower Cannons and Love Mortars.
HTD.
-
Graaf Statler
- Side Troll
- Posts: 3996
- Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Fram
Crow wrote:But hey, you can at least take comfort that you elected them, their incompetence and indecision and diversion and deflection is just a reflection of the type of leadership you apparently want. Your democratically expressed will.
They just got what they deserved. They all where thinking there is free labor to explore, and we get the benefits without doing anything.
And I have to say Any Rand works from time to time. James Alexander is now for the second time in Hawaii, had a nice twitter of Chelsea Clinton, makes 175-200K a year.........
But the problem with every pyramid scheme's is the last ones pay the bill of the rest. They cash all the shit budgets out of the past at the end.
And that is what is going on now.
Re: Fram
Secrecy secrecy........
The aptly named Worm.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =903374891
....says repeatedly how the WMF is doing great, communications wise, while admitting the Committee is dysfunctional as ever.
And then, when the slightest hint is made that ArbCom could have caused this mess (and we now know they did), then bang, he throws the WMF right under the bus......
You had every chance to avoid the shit hitting the fan. In the long term you could have fixed the culture, this piece of shit having been elected in December 2017 for crying out loud, a period that covers all of Fram's likely WMF case file of ban evidence. In the short term you could have taken the case as SilkTork apparently wanted in May. Before he was banned, you could have told the WMF you were about to act, or didn't want them to act. If they told you to go fish, you could have resigned.
All of this was in your power. We are still waiting for a full and comprehensive explanation as to why these things were handled by your elected office, your Committee, in such a way as to produce this mess. People have been harassed because of it. That's on you.
Your communication sucks, even when compared to the WMF's in this matter. Even here, you're all still just dribbling out little titbits on your personal talk pages to whichever scumbag licks your balls just right. Your lack of transparency is causing unofficial inquests to be held on all sorts of pages on the open Wikipedia.
You have a noticeboard. Use it.
Equals? Fuck off.
The mob is not happy......Our mailing list discussion is now at hundreds of entries long. Most of my time is going into that venue and specifically into trying to arrive at a consensus with colleagues. I will enter a vote once I feel sure about what I think the committee should do next. AGK ■ 21:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
---------If an Arbitrator filed the request with WMF we are entitled to know which of our elected representatives is betraying our interests. That’s all I want to know. If it was some other random editor who complained, I absolutely don’t care who they are and have not even an atom of resentment against them. They can remain anonymous. Jehochman Talk 03:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
The aptly named Worm.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =903374891
....says repeatedly how the WMF is doing great, communications wise, while admitting the Committee is dysfunctional as ever.
And then, when the slightest hint is made that ArbCom could have caused this mess (and we now know they did), then bang, he throws the WMF right under the bus......
Never in a million years would I ever want to work with such disreputable people.I believe we have been clear that this is the WMF mess, not Arbcom's. Indeed, it was the first thing I said after Fram was banned. I also think that the committee members comments on the case page reflect that. WormTT(talk) 08:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
You had every chance to avoid the shit hitting the fan. In the long term you could have fixed the culture, this piece of shit having been elected in December 2017 for crying out loud, a period that covers all of Fram's likely WMF case file of ban evidence. In the short term you could have taken the case as SilkTork apparently wanted in May. Before he was banned, you could have told the WMF you were about to act, or didn't want them to act. If they told you to go fish, you could have resigned.
All of this was in your power. We are still waiting for a full and comprehensive explanation as to why these things were handled by your elected office, your Committee, in such a way as to produce this mess. People have been harassed because of it. That's on you.
Your communication sucks, even when compared to the WMF's in this matter. Even here, you're all still just dribbling out little titbits on your personal talk pages to whichever scumbag licks your balls just right. Your lack of transparency is causing unofficial inquests to be held on all sorts of pages on the open Wikipedia.
You have a noticeboard. Use it.
Equals? Fuck off.
-
Graaf Statler
- Side Troll
- Posts: 3996
- Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Fram
Crow wrote:Never in a million years would I ever want to work with such disreputable people.
No, of course not. And the great thing is I don't have to anymore! They really don't have to be afraid I will sock or ever return because that SanFanBan was really a great relieve. I didn't had to feel me for anything responsible, no one could ever say I was a part of this craziness.
The only questions what remain for me are the big why's. Why is my name on that list, why all that trouble for a complete unimportant user what I was who had left a year before. But for the rest....
Never in my whole live I have ever seen such a bunch of idiots.
Re: Fram
This is classic example of a trusted Wikipedia community member in action. This is why the WMF should have never proceeded on the basis it was remotely worth their time or effort to explain themselves to these pieces of shit, because it only ever gets spat back in their face. The community are just a pack of untrained dogs, swarming and barking and generally being unpleasant, dirty, filthy stinking animals.
In the midst of the community outrage, to better communicate, the WMF calmly provided a flowchart, explaining themselves thusly.....
In steps Floquenbeam, days later. He's pissed about something......
But no. Too simple for this Administrator. His post carried on thusly.......
But he wasn't done there. He's hadn't written all that shite for nothing. Here is where he was going (still a continuation of his original post!)......
So, in conclusion, based on nothing but his own laziness and stupidity, but obviously motivated far more by the fact he either already thinks he's right, or doesn't care and is just intent on making a scene, he has accused an WMF employee of dishonesty and professional misconduct. To emphasize the seriousness of his accusations, if he was right, then this person would be in line for at least a formal warning.
But he is totally wrong, because his entire opening assumption was false. They clearly do not follow this flowchart when deciding to desysop an Administrator who overturns an office action without first contacting the WMF. There probably is a flowchart, and it probably simply says, did they do it, was it an accident, are they likely to do it again. You wouldn't even consider whether or not the account was compromised, the action would the same.
In truth, regardless of the internal process, Floquenbeam cannot have been in any doubt how or why the decision to desysop him was done so quickly......
-----
This is the nature of the Wikipedia community. They have any number of policies which say don't do this sort of thing, don't make posts like Floquenbeam just did (indeed Administrators are specifically asked not to escalate already tense situations for any reason, least of all personal ones), the supposedly most important one being the sacrosanct WP:BLP (protection of living people against Wikipedia hosted lies that can damage their real lives). Administrators are expected to follow policy, and are expected to hold themselves to a high standard, exhibiting good judgement.
And yet nothing will be done. Seriously. Nothing. Who will block Floquenbeam indefinitely, as policy surely demands, until he gives reassurances that he will never repeat the sort of sloppy and negligent behaviour that led to this many violations in one single post?
English Wikipedia is a literal den of scum. They are literally blind to how disgusting their behavior is, from their most trusted users, as a matter of routine.
I cannot imagine what it must be like for WMF staff, to be forced to engage with assholes like this.
The only answer is to show them even more contempt. Put your boot on their neck, and press down. And keep pressing down. Until they submit, or die. No. Fucking. Mercy.
Metaphorically speaking of course.
What other option did they give me, you could say, with total sincerity, should anyone seriously think that was an over-reaction.
In the midst of the community outrage, to better communicate, the WMF calmly provided a flowchart, explaining themselves thusly.....
So, it is pretty clear to anyone who is not a retard, that the flowchart is the process followed when the T&S department is investigating a case with a view to either doing nothing, issuing a warning or a ban.On the question of how many cases reaching T&S result in office actions, the answer is two-fold:
* Roughly 90% of the outreach to T&S does not result in T&S cases. There are two big reasons for that: community self-governance and the hurdle for opening T&S cases being consequently pretty high. Much of the outreach we receive therefore can be routinely addressed by others and is being redirected - including to OTRS, ArbCom, other community processes. Last quarter, for example, the percent of T&S cases opened relative to outreach received was 8.1%, the quarter before 11%.
* Within these ~10% that become investigations, T&S cases resulted in actions in 48.18% of all investigations conducted over the last four years. That number includes both types of office actions: secondary like a private conduct warnings, and primary, like Foundation global bans.
........
There have been questions about the investigation process itself. As indicated on Friday above, my team has built a graphic to visualize the overall process to make it easier to navigate. Traditionally, it has been documented as a table on Meta and is always followed. I hope that the graphic puts the number I detail in the first bullet of this edit above into its context. ~10% go through the process visualized here and less than half thereof result in office actions taken. Jan (WMF) (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
In steps Floquenbeam, days later. He's pissed about something......
So, even though the dickhead is only going on memory as to why the flowchart was mentioned, he wants to ask a question, the answer to which could have been found by himself if he had just waited until he had located where had first seen the flowchart mentioned.The flowchart
The search function in the archives box doesn't seem to work; I can't find that flowchart of office actions that I know I've seen somewhere. Someone who knows where it is will earn a coveted "thanks" click from me for posting a link.
Anyway, I'm curious; User:WMFOffice, when you desysopped me, did the decision to do so go thru the entire chain of command shown in that flowchart?
But no. Too simple for this Administrator. His post carried on thusly.......
......and it is so unsurprising to see a Wikipedia Administrator just casually accusing an identifiable person of dishonesty based on his own lazy assumption.Seems like it took significantly less than a month. If not, then this flowchart seems more aspirational than fact-based, and it is dishonest to say that T&S always follows it.
But he wasn't done there. He's hadn't written all that shite for nothing. Here is where he was going (still a continuation of his original post!)......
.......OK. You're an idiot, but oh, you're still not done?And if you didn't follow it for me, I'm concerned you may not have followed it for Fram.
Oh wow. Surprised this garbage even included "if so".If so, I wonder if you anticipated the blowback, and had decided in advance to desysop anyone who unblocked Fram; it would seem useful for people to know that you knew it would cause an uproar and did it anyway. I find it hard to believe that you were able to navigate that bureaucracy so quickly, when every single other thing the WMF has done (added:) regarding this ban has been marked by a glacial pace and pleas to give it some time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
So, in conclusion, based on nothing but his own laziness and stupidity, but obviously motivated far more by the fact he either already thinks he's right, or doesn't care and is just intent on making a scene, he has accused an WMF employee of dishonesty and professional misconduct. To emphasize the seriousness of his accusations, if he was right, then this person would be in line for at least a formal warning.
But he is totally wrong, because his entire opening assumption was false. They clearly do not follow this flowchart when deciding to desysop an Administrator who overturns an office action without first contacting the WMF. There probably is a flowchart, and it probably simply says, did they do it, was it an accident, are they likely to do it again. You wouldn't even consider whether or not the account was compromised, the action would the same.
In truth, regardless of the internal process, Floquenbeam cannot have been in any doubt how or why the decision to desysop him was done so quickly......
....nor does he have any basis to think the WMF wouldn't have resolved beforehand to desysop anyone who interfered with this ban. You would be more surprised if they had not. They may be surprised at the community's reaction, but that is rather the issue, their complete and total contempt for the idea the WMF has any say in deciding a fundamental issue like who has what rights, not even in rare cases as a last resort.Office Actions are actions of last resort taken by the Foundation as part of our role and our commitments to hosting the Wikipedia sites. In section 10 of the Terms of Use, we identify that the need may arise as part of our management of the websites to take certain actions, and these actions may not be reversed. Using administrative or other tools or editing rights to reverse or negate an Office Action is unacceptable, as is interfering with other users who attempt to enforce an Office Action or the Terms of Use.
As has been correctly observed by users on the bureaucrats' noticeboard and other places, Office Actions are explicitly not subject to project community rules or consensus. If a user attempts to reverse or negate an Office Action, the Wikimedia Foundation may take any action necessary to preserve that Office Action, including desysopping or blocking a user or users. In this case, and in consideration of Floquenbeam's actions in reversing the Office Action regarding Fram, we have reinstated the original office action and temporarily desysopped Floquenbeam for a period of 30 days.
-----
This is the nature of the Wikipedia community. They have any number of policies which say don't do this sort of thing, don't make posts like Floquenbeam just did (indeed Administrators are specifically asked not to escalate already tense situations for any reason, least of all personal ones), the supposedly most important one being the sacrosanct WP:BLP (protection of living people against Wikipedia hosted lies that can damage their real lives). Administrators are expected to follow policy, and are expected to hold themselves to a high standard, exhibiting good judgement.
And yet nothing will be done. Seriously. Nothing. Who will block Floquenbeam indefinitely, as policy surely demands, until he gives reassurances that he will never repeat the sort of sloppy and negligent behaviour that led to this many violations in one single post?
English Wikipedia is a literal den of scum. They are literally blind to how disgusting their behavior is, from their most trusted users, as a matter of routine.
I cannot imagine what it must be like for WMF staff, to be forced to engage with assholes like this.
The only answer is to show them even more contempt. Put your boot on their neck, and press down. And keep pressing down. Until they submit, or die. No. Fucking. Mercy.
Metaphorically speaking of course.
What other option did they give me, you could say, with total sincerity, should anyone seriously think that was an over-reaction.
-
Graaf Statler
- Side Troll
- Posts: 3996
- Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Fram
Glad I did in 2015 long before that SanFanBan the only right thing, leaving the place. Just leaving. I didn't look back, nothing because I understood I was dealing with a mental digital hospital filled up with patients .
Jan and his professional team who did a excellent job, Romaine who should have grap the chairwoman of the French chapter in her pussy. 
I am really dying, I am pissing my pains.
It will be a nice Wikimania there in Stockholm, that is for sure.
I think the "safety team" will have a lot of work to keep the place "safe" there in Sweden!
Jan and his professional team who did a excellent job,
Romaine who should have grap the chairwoman of the French chapter in her pussy. I am really dying, I am pissing my pains.
It will be a nice Wikimania there in Stockholm, that is for sure.
I think the "safety team" will have a lot of work to keep the place "safe" there in Sweden!
Re: Fram
More highly relevant stuff that is just littered in random places.......
The bias here is in what you have said the collective should do. Your bias has caused you to misread the WMF's statements - they did NOT indicate they are "willing to let this one instance go". They stated that in the interests of calming troubled waters, they would leave the matter of deciding what consequences befall these local Administrators for interfering with an Office action, up to the local authorities. As in, you and your eleven pointy hatted colleagues (or however many you are down to now).
They do not. They left the decision to you, deliberately avoiding giving away what they wanted the outcome to be. Logic dictates that if they have a preference, it would be the outcome that most effectively dissuaded rogue Administrators from believing they can fuck with office actions without contacting the office, and face no consequences for it. With all the talk of local sovereignty and not wanting to set any unwanted precedents, it seems obvious they want you to desysop/decrat the rogues for at least thirty days, and probably not return their tools unless or until they accept the following as the position of the Foundation and (hopefully) the local ArbCom....
Perhaps me quoting part of your local policy might assist you......
I have an idea. Now this may come as a shock, but in the real world, where professional standards are a thing, it is considered a conflict of interest for someone to sit on a disciplinary panel over someone they consider a friend. It makes no difference if you think you're being unbiased by saying you personally want to do the opposite of what you think a friend would do.I consider two of the three admins involved to be friends, but I personally think they should be desysopped/decratted with RFA at any time. My personal opinion has to take a back seat to the good of the project. We want to de-escalate here, and if the WMF is willing to let this one instance go, I think we should at least be open to doing the same with the caveat that future actions like these will have defined consequences. If you (or any of my talk page stalkers) have other ideas, I'm always open to hearing them.Katietalk 12:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
The bias here is in what you have said the collective should do. Your bias has caused you to misread the WMF's statements - they did NOT indicate they are "willing to let this one instance go". They stated that in the interests of calming troubled waters, they would leave the matter of deciding what consequences befall these local Administrators for interfering with an Office action, up to the local authorities. As in, you and your eleven pointy hatted colleagues (or however many you are down to now).
A friend of the accused would of course fall victim to the self-delusions of misreading such a statement, concluding that while they personally might want to do what the rule book says they must, dammit if it isn't just too bad the big bosses seem to want me to clear them.Though my team followed precedent for a Foundation desysop of those who attempt to interfere in Office Actions, in deference to the confusion of this case, the Foundation will not be issuing further sanctions against or desysopping those who edited the block or the sysop rights of those who edited the Fram block to date. We defer to Arbcom’s judgment on how to proceed with regard to such behavior issues in this case.
They do not. They left the decision to you, deliberately avoiding giving away what they wanted the outcome to be. Logic dictates that if they have a preference, it would be the outcome that most effectively dissuaded rogue Administrators from believing they can fuck with office actions without contacting the office, and face no consequences for it. With all the talk of local sovereignty and not wanting to set any unwanted precedents, it seems obvious they want you to desysop/decrat the rogues for at least thirty days, and probably not return their tools unless or until they accept the following as the position of the Foundation and (hopefully) the local ArbCom....
Given your conflict of interest, even though you claim you personally would want (a weaker) version of this outcome (weak because we know the community would want to immediately resysop them via a pro-forma RfA/B, no real questions asked), the only proper course of action here, for you, is to recuse.We must stress again that Office Actions, whether “technically” reversible or not, are not to be considered reversible by a local, or even the global, community, no matter the circumstances or community sentiment.
Perhaps me quoting part of your local policy might assist you......
.....although I suppose if local policies carried any weight, none of this would have ever happened.An arbitrator may recuse from any case, or from any aspect of a case, with or without explanation and is expected to do so where he or she has a significant conflict of interest. Typically, a conflict of interest includes significant personal involvement in the substance of the dispute or significant personal involvement with one of the parties. Previous routine editor, administrator or arbitrator interactions are not usually grounds for recusal.