Trust and Safety's Most Wanted List

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
Post Reply
User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Trust and Safety's Most Wanted List

Post by CrowsNest » Fri Jun 14, 2019 12:04 pm

OK, so if the Wikipedians insist Fram should have been far down the list of people that Trust and Safety should have been investigating for High Crimes and Treason, let's help them out by compiling a Ten Most Wanted list for the WMF to work through, before working their way back to him.

If you agree that these users have consistently and repeatedly used their advanced permissions, either directly or more usually through soft power, to ensure that the toxic core of the English Wikipedia community interferes with the WMF's desire that all their projects maintain minimum standards of civility (in full cognisence of the fact Enish Wikipedia has its own very detailed and very specific local policy which purports to interpret the global minimum standard we it applies to them, and that it goes far beyond mere trifles of individual word choice, as the toxics often like to reduce it to), then do your civic duty and report them. It only takes an email and a few diffs, and those you can find here.

1. Bishonen, for protecting a whole stable of Vested Contributors
2. Opabina Regalis, for totally undermining the moral authority of ArbCom
3. Drmies, chiefly for protecting a psychopathic Administrator, but other similar crimes too
4. Ritchie333, for basically proving "Administrator" carries no implication of higher standards of civility at all, quite the reverse in fact
5. Kudpung. See Ritchie.
6. RexxS, as the current textbook example of the sort of institutional corruption that has hollowed out RfA as an effective test of whether a user meets the minimum standards of civility required of an Administrator.

That's all I could come up with, before I couldn't in all honesty say anyone else was worse than Fram, the measure of harm being both severity of the crimes and the sheer breadth of impact given how prolific and proactive they are in progressing their aims. Guy Chapman for example, who is highly corrupt, but limits himself to a few single issues and targets. Chapman cannot do what he does, without the influence of the people on this list to undermine Wikipedia's ability to self-govern.

I can't even justify putting the likes of Bbb23 or Black Kite in the list, because their cowboy use of the tools and other stuff like improperly closing or even removing complaints, are not directly undermining standards, they're just aimed at ensuring the Vested Administrators who are, are not noticed by outsiders.

This sort of complaint is very easy to compile for T&S, when you realize a few basic things about what the local English Wikipedia policy on civility has to say, and that in turn, in the past at least, was consistently reinforced by the judgements of their local ArbCom.

1. All users are equal
2. Every user is entitled to full respect, even the worst offenders (<>AGF)
3. Mitigation is not justification or absolution
4. Enforcement is not a zero sum game
5. Recidivism and combativeness are serious issues
6. Administrators are held to a higher standard
7. Users have no rights at all (except to leave), including Free Speech, Fair Trial, or Blood Fued

Civility has been eroded so much, it's uselessness having become so much of an open secret, you could be forgiven for thinking a couple of ArbCom rulings were no longer in effect.......

1. WP:ASPERSIONS
An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe.
It has become the norm for English Wikipedia's Administrators to violate this basic principle. That is the environment in which not even the Chairman of the Board of Trustees is spared the indignity of seeing English Wikipedia's servers being abused to publicly charge them with corruption and slander.

2.WP:IAR
One of Wikipedia's central rules – to "ignore all rules" – permits a user to ignore any rule that prevents improving or maintaining Wikipedia. When users decide to ignore a rule, they must be able to show what they were prevented from doing and why being so prevented was detrimental to Wikipedia.
It has become the norm for English Wikipedia's Administrators to justify their corruption as IAR, hence why it is predictably getting an airing in the Fram case. Plenty of evidence exists to show the civility policy is not merely an exercise in political correctness, but that it exists because ignoring it directly harms Wikipedia's prospects for long term survival. A project whose highly active editors only comprise maladjusted people like Eric Corbett and Cassianto, might in the short term produce limited amounts of what might superficially look like encyclopedic content (scratch the surface and you see the usual errors that result from limited peer review), but in the end, even that highly toxic community would be reduced to a population of one. The One True Editor.

3. Recidivism
the severity of the sanction imposed should be commensurate with all circumstances of the case at hand, including the seriousness of the violation and the possible recidivism of the editor in question.
Eric Corbett, Cassianto, and a whole bunch of other Vested Contributors, would have been banned (or reformed) long ago, if it weren't for Vested Administrators completely nullifying this principle. Again, and again and again, ironically.

Arguably Fram was only banned because it had become clear that even the local ArbCom, the failsafe mechanism for ensuring policy always trumps the wishes of a toxic self-interested mob (the mob being fully empowered through WP:CON and WP:PAG to change any local policy it deems no longer fit for their local purpose), had itself been captured.

The mob of course having realized the weakness in the system - the composition of ArbCom is a simple straight up vote, so you don't even have to pretend you're not voting for someone like Opabina because she has shown the highly desirable trait of wanting to act on the wishes of the mob, not policy.

A local project where even someone so monumentally unfit as The Rambling Man can get 593 votes in an ArbCom election, has either seriously lost the plot, or there is a groundswell of stymied opposition who, on seeing no other way to protest the never ending erosion of its leadership, is actually trying to destroy itself, perhaps hoping to renew and purify itself in HellFire. The parallels with his candidacy to the rise of Trump are striking. The parallels in terms of personal character are obvious, and that is hopefully why he ultimately failed. And it is genuinely just a hope, because you sure was a shit can't be sure. He may have failed simply because there were smarter less obvious Trumpian candidates to pick from.

As always, I'm posting this list in the full knowledge these reports will not be filed, these users will long remain at the heart of English Wikipedia self-governance for as long as they derive personal satisfaction from whatever Dark Stain on their soul drives them to do it (the simple addictive nature of Wikipedia doesn't adequately explain it).

I only post such things simply to prove to historians that not everyone was so dumb as to not see why Wikipedia was a complete failure, causing significance current snd untold future harm to the world. They are in your schools, they are in your Doctor's office, they are in your devices. The reasons why Wikipedia Sucks in practice, will matter in the end.

I'm not even sure it works in theory, given how hot the fires will have to burn to purify it now, so I also post such things to prove how far we are from understanding if theoretical Wikipedia would have been of practical use to the world.

The time for reform is over. The time to destroy, has begun.

HTD.

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: Trust and Safety's Most Wanted List

Post by Graaf Statler » Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:45 pm

And on the list:

*Steward Trijnstel, steward bitch number one.
BU Rob13

Please remove my CU and OS flags. Thanks. ~ Rob13 21:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
On hold for 24 hours. (On a personal note: don't do something you'll regret later.) Trijnstel 21:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeh, that is her type. Guys like Ymnes and Rob may fuck her, but she keeps her slip and bra on.
Dirty women, a stinking bad and dirty woman.

Meta

Post Reply