Fram

[CrowsNest]

The rebel leader is unconvinced.

I have been reading the various developments since I posted above. I just wanted to drop a note to say that I share many of the views expressed by those who have responded to the recent statements by the WMF Board and CEO (both in terms of disappointment that there wasn't more, and optimism that they nevertheless paint a way forwards). I think many, potentially including Board members, may have had unrealistic expectations as to what those statements would achieve. Words alone were never going to be enough to convince all those who have left to reconsider, nor to prevent further resignations/retirements. Too much trust has been lost along the way for there to be an easy fix available. I for one will continue to watch developments and to see how community interactions with the WMF actually change in the coming weeks/months, and whether a fair process is developed to replace the current WMF T&S fiasco. I confess to be skeptical as to what will be achieved, but I am trying hard to keep an open mind. As they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. WJBscribe (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the Foundation is going to give a damn for what he or anyone like him thinks.....

Just to be clear, I think there is world of difference between knowing who your accuser is (which is a basic right irrespective of the nature of the complaint against you) and a right to "confront" your accuser, which would rarely (if ever) be appropriate. I have never advocated for the latter. WJBscribe (talk) 09:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Telling Fram who accused him of harassment, is no different to letting him confront them. Repeatedly. We're talking about a user who absolutely rejects the idea he stalked Rob just to fuck with him. Making people feel like shit, grinding them into the dirt as divine punishment, is Fram's idea of policy enforcement. Confrontation is what he is all about. Why he doesn't want to be involved in off-site attack forums like ours is behind me, he'd be fucking perfect for it. The Hate is strong in this One.

This is why anonymous reporting exists. The Wikipedia community cannot keep control of any user, they see qualities like that in their peers, and they celebrate them, bestowing on them power and privelage. The very idea these officially sanctioned wikikillers are even capable of reacting calmly to accusations of harassment, is laughable. It is baked into the community - someone accuses you of something, then you don't do something as silly as accept the concerns on good faith and do your best to answer the accusations and let the established systems of self-government decide who is right and who is wrong. No, you assume bad faith and go on the attack. You dig through their history to find something to accuse them of. It's all about intimidation.

The Wikipediots forget this at their peril - Fram was only finally forced into introspection when it looked like he might face a full investigation. And even then, when the threat passed because the investigators are cowards, he was soon back to his old self. That's on you. To outsiders, you are disgustingly amoral people, who cannot and should not be trusted to run a lemonade stand, never mind a global and diverse community.

Everyone whatever they are accused of, and whoever their accuser, deserves fair process.

If the WMF fails to respect local projects' autonomy, this is no longer the Wikipedia I knew.

Farewell, Will

You were part of a Wikipedia that had a Mediation Committee, on which you served. What happened to that? Shuttered, as thoroughly pointless, of no use whatsoever to a community so absolutely in love with conflict and toxic masculinity.

You don't want a fair process (the T&S flowchart is better than some employee complaints systems I've seen), you want the ability to dissuade complainants, to make them absolutely afraid of the consequences of reporting a Power User like Fram. To the point you don't even do anything when your Administrators work with scum like Wikipediocracy to harass complainants.

Wikipedia hasn't changed one bit, as far as I can see. A selfish irresponsible prick like you abused your tools to endanger a potential victim of harassment despite having absolutely no way of knowing the consequences of your actions, and ArbCom did nothing, and the community has hailed you as a hero, signaling your resignation wasn't under controversial circumstances at all.

There will be consequences for everybody in your sick cult, every single one shall be considered as guilty as the next, as it has always been.

HTD.

[Graaf Statler]

Let's just take a look at the people lined up behind poor, poor little Laura Hale.

* SlimVirgin arguably the most vicious powerplayer ever to land on en.wp
* Victuallers of Gibralterpedia infamy
* Raystorm aka Maria Sefidari currently to Chair of the Board
* Sky Harbor ?

Fram is patiently arguing that Hale's edits make the encyclopedia worse and that, even in 2016, this had already been going on and being talked about for years.

The other side is refusing to talk about the terrible quality of Hale's edits and is laser focused on Fram being a bully.

That it took 3 years for Laura to get her way is really what surprises me.
But less than a year since Sefidari ascended to the Petal Throne.

I can't seem to find any evidence of Sefidari going to bat for any of Fram's other 'victims'... why do you suppose that is?

If Laura were a bog standard editor with no support from on high, she'd have been indeffed years ago for a variety of competence and collaboration failures.

You mistake is all the time the same, a assumption presented as a fact. What was the reason of the FramBan is something we simple don't know. As long we don't know what was the reason of that FramBan is this is all talking in the air. And you do this all the time, you present a bunch of weak evidences or not even, distillate your one true out of it and precent that as a fact.
But that is outside the wiki glass bell not gonna work, Vig. We simple don't know why Fram is banned or me, that is the only real fact there is and the rest is bull.

[Graaf Statler]

That's exactly where I'm at on this. We don't know, can't know, and shouldn't fucking care if they're sleeping together. What is very clear, undeniably so, is that Ms. Hale had an extremely close relationship to the chair of the WMF board and that there should be red flags waving and sirens blaring about Conflict of Interest between WMF functionaries and the Fram situation.

I've come to believe that there are probably multiple complainants, mostly aroused to fury by the Phelps article deletion debate.

This still is a bullshit case, miserably handled by all sides, with an absolutely mockable chief of WMF, now on yet another "Vacation-Work-Vacation," as she so aptly puts it, fully exposed...

I am one of the few people who took the trouble to read all this shit till page 39 and so on and I am myself a banned person by WMF so I have not any reason to be pro WMF, Timmy Tim.
But I have seen nothing, and really nothing what is even close to bad faith. Or not being integer. And it is only a assumption madam Hale should have misused her position to get Fram banned.
And indeed we shouldn't fucking care if they're sleeping together, and beside that there is not any evidence for that.
But Timmy, the fact madam Hale had a close relation with the chair doesn't mean she has fixed a global ban for Fram, there is not any hard evidence for that. So, why should the red flags wave?

I tell you what Timmy and on aggie's WR I wrote about the same. You guys are blaming the wrong ones. The practice of Star Chambers is now for years and years going on and the global ban tool is for the same years and years misused in a way where it not for was meant. In all those years the community(s) had the change to say stop, what is going on here. But did they? No, they didn't.
And now is Fram hit by that ban tool and now the whole chicken coop is in a panic. But how is to blame for that?

You Timmy. You and your lazy friends. The lazy Wikipedian community's who gave Kafka the free hand in all those years. Eigen schuld, dikke bult. You do the crime, you do the time. Fram simple just have to be patient for a year.

[CrowsNest]

I wonder how long it will take the precious ArbCom to finish reviewing the Fram situation.......he is after all, already officially one month into his twelve month ban.

Despite the continued empty promises of reform each time elections come around, ArbCom are as slow as they have always been at progressing even simple cases, taking 51 days to conclude Curly Turkey had voted for Christmas, and that was a relatively simple case encompassing behaviour in one content dispute.

Ironically that case had echoes of Fram like blindness as to what is and is not acceptable conduct when pursuing the noble cause of Protecting Teh Wiki, and has predictably ended in a petulant retirement. Didn't go well for Team Asshole, almost as if ArbCom are subtly changing the way they handle such users, based on some mysterious recent correction in their philosophy. But I guess the community doesn't want to hear about stuff like that.

Five days since they confirmed they had received sufficient information from the Foundation to open a case on Fram, and ArbCom are still apparently trying to decided how it should be conducted, and evidently they want the community's help (presumably so they have someone to blame when it all blows back on them).

I say apparently, because of course ArbCom are showing that at even post-FramBan, they have no real desire to improve their communications with the community. Also quite predictably, the community show no signs in wanting to hold their precious ArbCom to the same ridiculous expectations as the various Foundation staff they harangued and berated for not giving them hourly updates and not answering ever single word directed at them, immediately.

Justice delayed, is justice denied, as they say. And even though the Fram case appears to be the only one where the community is remotely interested in ensuring "natural justice" (the precise definition of which is hilariously unravelling rapidly of course), even that maxim seems to escape them when it comes to the historical and still quite contemporary failings of their pathetic form of self-government.

For all its faults, a deep dive investigation of years worth of Fram's interactions with others, with an outcome in just four weeks, seems pretty just and efficient by comparison. Especially when, unlike for the poor Turkey, Fram suffered no torture at the hands of a disinterested and opaque investigation panel for weeks, before his sanction was handed down. Had the community not protested, who knows, maybe he might have been better off for it. It's the hope that kills, as they say.

[Graaf Statler]

About the same I wrote on aggies board. if those Arb's are wise they resign. Just sink Arbcom. They are not payed for it, they are not qualified for there job and whatever there verdict is they will be payed in WP's crypto money, Shit Budgets.

Just take beer on a terras guy's and let them all fuck themself with there trollopedia. Jan is a clever guy, he got the money and just gave the hot potato to Arbcom but you are all just too fucking stupide to understand that.

[badmachine]

While the leading admins of enwiki were acting like the world's gonna end, a high-profile checkuser-admin abused his power, to block me for good, with practically zero chance to appeal.

He did so by blocking my main and 2 inactive alt accounts with the obviously false allegation of abusive use of multiple accounts. CheckUser tool is given only to a few, trusted admins. His rights can be revoked instantly for the breach of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_policy , yet the ArbCom just ignores this case. It's now at the cross-wiki Ombudsman Commission, which closed 2 cases out of 15 or so in 2018...

Evidence of abuse and full correspondence with ArbCom:
https://wikipedia-accountability.netlif ... -oc-1-req/

This is to show how blatant tool abuse is handled by "establish community processes". The German Wikipedia is much better prepared to handle such cases with 2 public community procedures, detailed in a blog post:
https://wikipedia-accountability.netlif ... arassment/

Enjoy.

Good luck dealing with the Ombudsman. As for the private information removal, you might have more luck in the revdel IRC channel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IRC ctrl+f revdel

As for getting any kind of justice (I couldn't tell whether you are seeking justice or not), the Wikipedians have written this charming essay: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... no_justice

Good luck. :]

[Graaf Statler]

I got it! I think here we get a clear view what happened with that FramBan.

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 00#p242310

Guido den Broeder is a super inclusionist and seems to me the complainant. Logical, because Fram attacked him about that rancid book of him with sex fantasy's of minors to sink Drmies for Arbcom. And, T&S are Inclusionists, remember the mail of Kalliope Tsouroupidou's to Fram. And Fram is a deletionis.+The Laura Hale affaire=A SanFanBan.

And if you don't jump the next time around like a stoned monkey, Vig, and just listen to me it safe you a lot of time. Because my theory is much and much strongen than all you rubbish conspiracy theories of the past time together.
A banned user who has managed it to get a sysop of WO-En blocked with the help of a crap ex-sysop of WP-De.
Congrads, guy's.

We've been at this for a month, and while I'd say that at one point his focus on Laura Hale could be deemed "excessive" or even "obsessive.

Really, Jake?

[CrowsNest]

Everyone noticed that right? The Wikipediocracy thread on FRAMBAN turned to the 2017 incident where Fram, having not gotten his way on one of his usual cases of "policy enforcement", rather than walking away and dropping it, returned with renewed vigour, accusing his target of pedophilia to get the ban he wanted.

Wikipediocracy has just removed the whole debate from the thread, because it is apparently unrelated to FRAMBAN. Seriously.

With no hint of irony, the user Fram accused and who was subsequently banned through basically mob justice, is being told by Wikipediocracy to shut up and stop whining, because due process is irrelevant. If Wikipedia says you're banned, you're banned. Facts don't matter. Process doesn't matter. Motives of your pursuers don't matter. A ban proposal polluted by rank accusations of pedophilia, doesn't matter.

Oh sure, Fram didn't come out and say, this user is a pedophile. He's too smart for that. But no serious and unbiased investigator, which Wikipedians obviously aren't, would fail to conclude this was his objective, as he obliquely referred to the user's "interests" and otherwise said it without saying it.

Even though this was all happening long after the community had decided it didn't have the expertise or the authority to deal with accusations of pedophilia, not one person in that hastily assembled lynch mob asked Fram why had not reported the user to the Foundation, if child safety was really a factor.

In echoes of what was to come in this inquest, they wanted to know every little detail, and are mad as hell that ArbCom tried to deny them their right to prosecute all crimes in the public gaze. The banned user claims this has seriously damaged the identifiable minor involved, but of course they didn't even think of that at the time, and probably still won't care now. Doesn't effect them, right?

Smart people who know their Wikipedians can see what was going on. As well as Fram doing his usual harassment as policy enforcement, he was also motivated by a desire to thumb a nose at ArbCom's authority, who had unbanned the user. It infuriated Fram, undoing all his hard work, having got the user banned a decade ago in the first place. Fram didn't just start holding ArbCom in contempt in May. No, his hatred has run deep, and lasted a very long time. The difference to the rest of the community is, given an opportunity, he acts on it.

All this extra motivation, as well as presumably trying to show Wikipedia has no need for a Foundation at all, they just need a hundred Frams, and the streets would be clean and the trains would run on time. No coincidence either that other corrupt, ArbCom/WMF hating Administrators like Black Kite and Dennis Brown were involved in the lynching.

Fram celebrated his victory by claiming the accused was behaving like a "nutcase" for wanting Wikipedia's smears against the user, who edits under his real name, to be removed from Google results. Fram was allowed to behave like that by the Wikipedia community, even though by then, this was a firmly established European legal principle, an actual real world implementation of Wikipedia's utterly worthless 'do no harm' doctrine.

What is clear, is that even though the outcome might have been exactly the same, is that if you removed Fram from this whole equation, the banned user wouldn't still be furious at their treatment, wouldn't be basically still be pissed about it to this day, probably pissed off enough to be one of the several people who filed a complaint to T&S when he saw Fram repeatedly getting away with the same shit over and over, aided and abetted by ArbCom's ineffectual and indeed indecisive response to such clear and obvious long term misconduct by an Administrator.

What is also clear, is that if Wikipedia was run properly, if WP:ADMIN meant anything to the shitheads the community unwisely trusts to wield their authority, then Fram certainly wouldn't have been involved because he would have been busted years ago, and the entire thing would have been handled markedly differently, from venue to evidentiary standards.

The Wikipediocrats are wondering why the press isn't interested in their Fram conspiracy theory. This is why, you dumbfucks. You just don't come across as credible. You come across as clueless idiots. You come across as paritzans. You come across as Wikipedians. Which is what you are.

Wikipedia policy, and basic common decency, holds that people are entitled to not be harassed for over a decade by nasty game playing manipulative pieces of shit like Fram, cynically exploiting the fact the Wikipedia community cannot or does not want to ensure their Administrators are beyond reproach. What they have done, or might have done, to make you think they deserved it, is irrelevant. An entirely separate issue, especially when you already know Fram has an established pattern of behaviour, and it doesn't change based on what the target has done.

When you show yourselves capable of understanding these basic concepts, then maybe journalists might start taking you seriously.

[Graaf Statler]

The Wikipediocrats are wondering why the press isn't interested in their Fram conspiracy theory. This is why, you dumbfucks. You just don't come across as credible. You come across as clueless idiots. You come across as paritzans. You come across as Wikipedians. Which is what you are.

Now, this seems me clear. Hopping around and scream on Wikipedia drama boards like an overcaffeinated monkey as aggie described it convince of course no one, even not if Timmy boy write look, look what we have found my friends of the press. A signature! A toy train accessories!

Look, look, look judge what a great collection emails Bart Legal has trolled together. The man is a complete lunatic including his doctors. And a drug addicted too. Here read yourself what Bart Legal and Vig wrote on WO.

The fools. Wikipedia powered by troll power and the world outside our wiki glass bell is just as foolish as we are.

[CrowsNest]

Everything is basically back to normal in the Wikipedia community. ArbCom is stuck with the problem of how to come to a different conclusion based on the same evidence and not return to being hated by the community. Having asked the community for help, all they got was a handful of users giving completely contradictory advice in an entirely unstructured manner. And so the Committee has retreated to their back office, doing who knows what, with the community going back to being largely disinterested in the workings of their elected government, unless or until they make the wrong decision. Like banning an Administrator for harassment.

Other editors have moved on to discussion of how to handle harassment and toxic users in general, but having started with the usual lack of wide participation or clear objectives, all those discussions were quickly derailed and obfuscated by the loudest voices, for all the usual reasons. Largely the community's unwillingness to even admit they have a problem, believing that it is everyone else who is wrong, the deterrent effect on those who think differently but don't want to fight for their right to be heard or risk punishment for airing unacceptable views, still more than obvious. As it always will be, until the corruption of Administrators stops being the primary problem the Foundation has in maintaining minimum standards without deploying nuclear measures.

There's absolutely no sign of the WMF fulfilling its promise to help the community in this process of introspection in any way, which is understandable, as it is an impossible task, like herding cats, but even more vicious and ungrateful to the hand that feeds. You can't blame anyone for finding something else more important to do in their paid job, if not just going on holiday.

Most of the retirements are still in effect, but nobody cares, largely because their effects aren't really very noticeable when Wikipedia wasn't exactly being run efficiently or had a recognized level of quality before these people exercised the volunteer's only right, to be selfish pricks. Those who announced other lesser forms of protest have probably already succumbed to their addiction, but even if they haven't, who cares? It is only The Rambling Man who thinks what he does has a measurable effect on the quality of Wikipedia, when in reality it is his absence that probably improves things. Hence why he never goes on strike for very long.

And what's Wikipediocracy doing? Nothing remotely relevant, and certainly nothing that will interest people who might be interested in the controversy, but don't have the time or the knowledge to follow it as closely as serious critics/analysts.