View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:19 am




Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Swarm 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
This comment, the last registered in the Jytdog Arbitration Case Request (December 2018 if disambiguation is needed), is a fitting point to glorify this person, as a "Wikipedian".
Quote:
So, we've already lost one of our most dedicated editors, for phoning someone? Not with the intent to harass, but with the intent of maintaining the integrity of the project? Which is not actually a violation of policy? After he repeatedly admitted that it was a mistake that he would not repeat? Blocking/banning in this context for "secret reasons" comes across as an absurd overreach, please be transparent and accountable to the community and at least have the common decency to explain why you could possibly feel the need to apply this final indignity. Examining the public facts, this wasn't the most serious offense, and it kind of appears that Arbcom is being influenced by a lynch mob. Swarm talk 06:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Now, TO THE ANALYSIS BUS!1
Quote:
So, we've already lost one of our most dedicated editors
Hmm. Interesting concept. How are you measuring dedication here? OH, are there annual Awards by which we may judge how community members are viewed? Obviously by their fellow editors, we know you folks don't care so much for what outsiders think of you.

If such a thing existed, let's call them THE WIKIS, would Jytdog really get nominated in the "Most Dedicated Editor" category?
Quote:
, for phoning someone?
This is an easy one. NOT EVEN JYTDOG AGREES THE REASON HE IS LEAVING IS FOR THE SINGULAR ACT OF MAKING A PHONE CALL. So fuck off.
Quote:
Not with the intent to harass, but with the intent of maintaining the integrity of the project?
In whose opinion? Are you so stupid as to judge intent to harass, from the person doing it? While most seem prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, a significant number of respondents have made it clear they think the intent was to perform a deliberate act of intimidation. And the person he called seems to think so too. What say you to that? Oh right, NOTHING. Never happened. Doesn't matter. Fuck off.
Quote:
Which is not actually a violation of policy?
Don't make threatening or abusive phone calls to your fellow editors, especially if you have to work to find their contact details, is Wikipedia policy. I am surprised you didn't know this, Mr WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATOR. Can I expect your resignation in the morning? Or at the least, a reconfirmation RfA, so that we might know whether your fellow editors continue to trust your ability or willingness to uphold policy? Or course I can't. I know: fuck off.
Quote:
After he repeatedly admitted that it was a mistake that he would not repeat?
What, an admission from the same guy who keeps making mistakes and promising not to repeat that specific mistake? Did you pick up on that element of the discussion from Arbs and commenters? Or are you just deliberately ignoring it?
Quote:
Blocking/banning in this context for "secret reasons" comes across as an absurd overreach,
At the time you wrote this, he was not even blocked. Now that he is, the reasons are not secret, they have been stated plainly - enacting the publicly available Arbitration motion. Resolving cases by motion is entirely within their remit, so where is the over-reach? You are surely not just making shit up and spreading false accusations about Wikipedia's highest office holders, are you, Mr. Administrator?

And since that motion made no statement of his guilt, and indeed leaves it entirely open as to whether he will even be facing a case if he ever returns, it seems rather extraordinarily generous. As I'm sure you know, or maybe your incompetence extends to not knowing, other editors have been tried by ArbCom in their absence, both by motion and in a full case.
Quote:
please be transparent and accountable to the community and at least have the common decency to explain why you could possibly feel the need to apply this final indignity.
Oh no, poor Jytdog. You do get that he walked away voluntarily? So, really, fuck off with this shit.
Quote:
Examining the public facts, this wasn't the most serious offense
The public facts are that he was so incensed that a Wikipedia editor wouldn't listen to him, he took it upon himself to find the person's telephone number, which they hadn't published on Wikipedia in any context, much less an explicit invitation to contact, and by his own admission, had an angry exchange, which according to the other party, was derogatory and left them feeling alarmed and intimidated. Hard to think of a more serious offence, really, outside of criminal acts. So, we can expect your resignation when exactly?
Quote:
, and it kind of appears that Arbcom is being influenced by a lynch mob. Swarm talk 06:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Feel free to block them all then, Mr. Administrator. You have the power, acting as or on behalf of a lynch mob is against Wikipedia policy. I think, anyway. If it isn't, is that a problem for you?

Just another billy bullshitter, howling at the Moon. As a Wikipedia Administrator. :roll:

HEY WIKIPEDIA. YOU NEED BETTER ADMINISTRATORS.

This one at least, seems to be broken.


Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:26 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
What an absolute fucking tool.
Quote:
I have been a participant to this project since 2005, a registered editor since 2008, and an admin since 2011. Over that time I've witnessed multiple incidents that the Foundation didn't handle perfectly, but I never lost faith in the WMF entirely. After nearly 15 years, I have lost faith in the WMF. You no longer have my trust. You no longer have my support. If a journalist came to me right now, I would throw the WMF under the bus as a terrible and corrupt organization that has lost its founding principles. It will take serious steps to begin to reestablish that trust. It is clear that I am not the only one feeling this way. A significant portion of the community has had their faith in the WMF shattered. Most notably, Floquenbeam and Bishonen, two of our greatest, and most policy-compliant, admins of all time, who have openly rebelled in spite of the revocation of their tools. These are people who gave a great deal to your project. If you want this project to survive long term, you need to start taking the community seriously, right now. Jimbo has taken us seriously since the early days. If the WMF wishes to betray that precedent, then it deserves to be relegated to the ash heap of history. And it will. You are not immune to the court of public opinion, and you need to start realizing this. This is a turning point in Wikipedia's history. You can either side with the community, or against it. But make no mistake that your decision will make a difference in the development of Wikimedia long after this blows over. If successful in repressing this dissent, it may well break out in the media later on as a successful coverup. There are few things the public hates more than a corrupt charity. ~Swarm~ {sting} 09:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

And in case it literally needs to be spelled out, it’s a big fucking deal that Floquenbeam and Bishonen have fallen on their swords over this. These are not random admins. These are serious pillars of the community who can’t be replaced. ~Swarm~ {sting} 09:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:41 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
Quote:
Your bullying of a person who's well respected by almost everyone they have worked with on this project is precisely the kind of action that can, and probably will, be used to show that English Wikipedia can't manage itself or its problematic users. Please take the time to consider that you, as an administrator, do have a disproportionate impact on this project and its reputation. Risker (talk) 06:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Didn't agree, obviously.

I nominate Swarm for Community Organiser!

FIGHT THE POWER


Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:58 am
Profile
Psyop
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:56 pm
Posts: 1505
Reply with quote
CrowsNest wrote:
HEY WIKIPEDIA. YOU NEED BETTER ADMINISTRATORS.

This one at least, seems to be broken.

As usual. You know he's probably reading this, and BSing his little admin buds on IRC, of course. They all HATE being criticized but most are such slimy characters, they haven't the balls to dispute anything posted on a public forum.

I suppose I should keep notes on the Jytdog arbitration. But it's pointless. He's a "Guerrilla Skeptic" and Doc Heilman suck-up and therefore, WP's little Turd Mafia likes him. Proof? From the Medical book notes:
Quote:
Jytdog

Little noticed except for his regular appearance in pseudoscience and medical editwars, Jytdog (T-C-F-R-B) arrived on Wikipedia in 2008 and was rarely discussed until the mid-2010s. He rapidly accumulated various minor special powers (rollback, new pages/pending change reviewer, etc) and started to abuse them by 2012-2013. He was often embroiled in Rupert Sheldrake editwars and evidently has a systemic hatred of Monsanto and glyphosate herbicides. Unlike most other Wikipedia insiders, he has done a very good job of hiding his real identity.

By 2016 he had developed a reputation that led to a lengthy Wikipediocracy thread about his activities.

"Jytdog is a relentless article owner who long ago progressed from making sure medically-related articles were based on mainstream science to trying to remove and bury everything even slightly related to alternative medicine. Or in some cases even mainstream stuff that he doesn't personally support. He has a team of supporters who always show up to back him in all disputes and AfDs. The worst part is that he constantly misleads and misrepresents policy to new editors to win content disputes. He's a POV warrior if I ever saw one."
"I know of no greater abuser of WP:FOO stuff than this asshole in order to to own articles, particularly medical stuff. The truly galling part is that he makes liberal (near obsessive) use of COI in medical cases while simultaneously admitting a COI on his own userpage. The guy works for some sort of biomedical/pharma startup and he relentlessly shuts down any attempt to cover alternative medicine in any kind of non-confrontational way, even when it's just a run-of-the-mill bio about some minor person in the alternative or complementary medicine field. I encountered his obsessiveness on the AfD for Randolph Stone link. His obsession with these topics and addiction to editing is Betacommandesque."

Greg Kohs was even more specific:

"1. In trying to modify Wikipedia's Harassment policy, Jytdog has pushed for a carve-out that would leave COI and paid editing an exception to the outing rules. In other words, if you're a paid editor, no courtesy of privacy should be extended to you."

"2. When he asked the community for evidence of the prevalence of paid editing on Wikipedia, when he was given a carefully-documented exercise that evaluated paid and COI editing on 100 random articles about businesses, he called the evidence "bullshit" because it wasn't published in a reliable source."

"3. After Sharyl Attkisson's story about "The Dark Side of Wikipedia", he summed it up with, "Attkisson, in my view is a sloppy-thinking anti-vaccination hack and not worth an iota of anyone's time here.""

"He's a trademark Wikipedian with a sense of superiority, who doesn't handle himself well when presented with views that suggest his thinking may be wrong or misinformed."

As he posted on his own userpage:

"==Privileges removed=="

"In the fall of 2015 an Arbcom case was opened, and it was closed in December 2015: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms. Notice of the close was given to me here."

"I was "indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted"; I was "admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case", and an interaction ban was imposed with another user. The TBAN was made appealable in 12 months."

"==Privileges removed then restored=="

"On 27 June 2016 I was blocked for violating WP:OUTING in the course of doing COI work, and that block was lifted on 8 August 2016 with an indefinite ban from discussing any COI of editors (see unblock notice for details), which was appealable in six months and every six months thereafter. I appealed in February 2017 and the TBAN was lifted. ARCA discussion archived here; notice given to me here."

In August 2017 Jytdog became a principal squabbler in the area related to the firing of Google employee James Damore over his contentious essay about software development being an unsuitable field for women. [46] Starting on 8 August, Jytdog got into a brutal editwar when he tried to remove material and references from the Neuroticism article, which Damore had cited as a reference, in an attempt to weaken Damore's argument. Apparently some edits "mysteriously disappeared", indicating that Jytdog had silent assistance from an oversighter. He was unquestionably getting help from administrators, who blocked several of his foes. This was noticed by Damore supporters. [47][48][49] And it soon spread to right-wing and "men's rights" media. [50]

In September Jytdog noticed the activities of videoblogger Josh "Wiki What" Gondelman, who interviews celebrities and then fixes their Wikipedia articles using the account "Mrazzle". [51] Obviously by this time Jytdog was feeling "invulnerable", in the Mathsci fashion, because he repeatedly tried to remove Gondelman's edits and forced the removal of Gondelman's Wikipedia bio from the absurd "Wikipedians With Articles" list, by shrieking "WP:OUTING". Ugly squabbling ensued. [52][53]

That's FUCKED UP. But he got away with it.


Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:26 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
Swivel eyed loon:
Quote:
According to Fram, he received a one year ban for saying "fuck Arbcom", and that the Foundation likely employed this draconian move because a grudging complainant against him has connections to the WMF and the Chair herself. This is an oddly specific, extremely outrageous narrative. And, yet, the Foundation will not deny it, nor will they even suggest that there's more to the story. If they will not even try to defend the ban against alleged blatant corruption, then why should we assume that it is legitimate? I would much rather have them simply explain that the ban is for legitimate reasons. But it's highly suspect that they will not do so. It goes beyond simple refusal to explain a ban when the ban is alleged to be unjust. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Foundation:
Quote:
In terms of us providing direct justification for this ban to the community, as both several community members and we have already mentioned, we do not release details about Trust & Safety investigations due to privacy concerns. What do we mean by that? We mean that when someone reports a situation to us, or someone is involved in a case we investigate, we are obligated to keep their identity and any personally-identifying evidence private. That includes not only literally not publishing their name, but often not sharing diffs (which might show things like "who the named party was targeting" or "what dispute this investigation arose from") or even general details (in many cases, even naming the specific infraction will allow interested sleuths to deduce who was involved). What we can say in this case is that the issues reported to us fell under section 4 of the terms of use, as noted above, specifically under the first provision entitled “harassing and abusing others.”

The Foundation's office action investigations generally review the conduct of the user as a whole. Therefore, they usually involve conduct on the projects over an extended period of time. In the case of established editors, the time window reviewed often extends beyond any individual complaints received and can include conduct spanning several years. The scope is one of the main reasons why such investigations usually take at least four weeks. Such investigations evaluate the conduct of a user and by default not the substance of their views.


Wed Jun 19, 2019 11:29 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 2716
Reply with quote
Shitheads like Jan Eißfeldt and Alexander investing something? Without even asking what is really going on?


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Wed Jun 19, 2019 11:41 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 3541
Reply with quote
The Wikipedia community will be fixed when it rids itself of toxic Administrators like this......
Quote:
Good comment. And yes, the overwhelming response has been positive and reasonable. With that I am pleased. However, attempts at falsely redefining the issue as "harassment", even in spite of all the evidence and challenges, grow more and more egregious and disruptive. Thankfully one of the editors who has been pushing this narrative has vanished his account, but this narrative continues to be pushed. It appears to have been falsified by the WMF. No direct allegations have been made by the WMF. However, editors are defaming a living person in violation of BLP on-wiki. This is an exceptionally serious offense and I will not stand for it. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Seriously, to even begin to think this statement is acceptable, marks you out as incompetent for the WP:ADMIN role.

You want to accuse Wikipedia editors of violating BLP by defaming a "living person" by defining FRAMBAN as an issue of harassment? No. Even if Fram was an identifiable person, which he is not.

The identifiable people actually being defamed here by this Wikipedia Administrator (who is subject do both the ToU and BLP like everyone else), are the staff of the WMF who applied FRAMBAN, and have been quite clear that one of the reasons it might have been done for, is harassment of others.

To accuse these identifiable people of corporate fraud because they have not explicitly stated it is the reason, or the only reason, you do actually need to be able to prove Fram was not found guilty of harassment. Which he cannot do, no matter how much he clearly wants to. The applicable definition of course being WP:HARASS, unless someone wants to argue that the local policy is actually more strict than the ToU definition, which would be hilarious in context.

There irony here is that the reason the WMF do not want to be any more specific than this already quite detailed level of charge under the very wide ranging ToU, is because of the harm that specificity might cause Fram, were he ever to reveal his real identity. Who wants to employ someone banned from Wikipedia for harassment? But if he pushes, and if the community insists, well, I can see them being happy with explicitly confirming what is frankly pretty obvious if you look at his interactions.

Pretending that stating that Fram was banned for violating the ToU clause that forbids harassing and abusing others is WP:DISRUPTive, and worse, suggesting the way you avoid being disruptive is by complying with this Administrator's wishes to pretend the reason can only be abuse, is the real disruption here.

In terms of local governance, you surely can't get a more serious offence than a Wikipedia Administrator falsely invoking BLP to bully people into silence, ironically to prevent them talking about how Wikipedia handles harassment.

The Wikipedia community neither has the effective means nor the collective will to hold this Administrator to account for these clear and obvious breaches of policy. But be in no doubt, they are breaches. If his real name was known, real consequences could be assured. But it is not. Such is the Wikipedia way.


Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:39 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 7 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Carrite and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.