Page 1 of 1


Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2019 11:52 am
by CrowsNest
Another classic case of someone subjected to the cruel and unusual punishment of English Wikipedia's morally bankrupt and totally unfit for purpose system of self-government.

Let's start with the obvious - no way was this appeal handled with objectivity or neutrality by the community. The user was last indefinitely blocked by Fram, and the appeal was filed by a prominent critic of Fram, someone who had clearly not explained the risks or remotely prepared them for what what was needed to succeed.

Fram's block was a classic Fram block - he opportunistically swooped in over the head of his colleagues, to apply a gotcha block (or rather the replacement of a one month block applied after the conclusion of a successful negotiation, with an indefinite block) to someone he had been pursuing for some time, for something that on paper was a violation but in reality not a big deal, easily rectified through other means.

The effect was entirely predictable, and probably what Fram was aiming for, given their well established pattern for aggressive unilateral action. The user, presumably confused and upset, immediately threw in the towel in sheer exhaustion/frustration, and the other Administrators dealing with them up to then were put in a position where they would probably have to have an extended battle with Fram to defend a user they thought was deserving of another chance, and had seemingly achieved that. Understandably, they chose to find something better to spend their time on.

As if you didn't already know it from his M.O., Fram then promptly washed his hands of the user, only returning two months later to cynically state that there was a no point anyone doing anything unless or until the user showed a willingness to ask to be unblocked and a desire to engage in the required negotiation. Not mentioning the fact this is precisely what he had interrupted, Fram generously granted his approval for others to try, even though in his esteemed opinion, the user had no chance. They were a bad egg.

Fast forward to now, with Fram exiled to the Outer Rim awaiting judgement for a long history of interactions just like this, deemed by many to be at the very least improper Administration, and at worst, downright harassment, it isn't an accident that this user's future on Wikipedia has therefore been framed squarely on the themes of the dispute between those who think Fram is a heartless bully demanding perfection, and those who think he is guilty of nothing but protecting Wikipedia from incompetents.

On top of that is the wider conflict between those who think Outreach is about giving snowflakes special treatment in the name of diversity, and those who think it is what it says, an effort to reach out to editors from the sort of demographics who have traditionally been put off by the aggressive, elitist, and downright perversely unjust nature of the Wikipedia community, a classic digital version of Lord of the Flies.

No surprise that many of the same users arrayed on opposing sides in that Great Matter, also turned up to opine on this lesser matter. Perhaps a little surprising that more than one user openly admitted their only interest in the matter was to make some pathetic point regarding the post-FRAMBAN situation and culture war between Women In Red and the so called elite editors it has reignited. Extremely surprised the closing Administrator made no comment regarding whether or not these views had been discounted, if not completely ignored, for their WP:POINTed nature.

The sight of the supreme shitlord Kudpung making the extraordinary demand that the user remove retirement banners before their appeal would even be considered, should be enough to convince people this user's case was not going to be considered on its merits. The toxicity of Wikipedia is so bad that not one person told him to take that supreme bullshit and shove it up his ass.

Absent the cloud of Fram and the culture wars, there should have been nothing unusual about the appeal, Dianaa of all people knows that such things are never a case of a second chance as she falsely framed - unless an Administrator has seriously overstepped their authority, a user who ends up having to appeal an indef block after a significant period of reflection, is of course going to have a long history of failed attempts to get them to understand what they were doing wrong. It is to be assumed by unbiased Administrators that their understanding has changed with the benefit of distance and reflection.

Even though they were hampered by having a really poor advocate, who incorrectly characterized this as a standard offer situation, contrary to the claims of the naysayers the user had clearly made a pretty decent effort at doing what any user is required to do - having completed a significant period of penitence, demonstrate an understanding of what they did wrong, and offer reassurances as to how and why people should trust it won't happen again.

Their specific commitment that they only intended to return to make small updates to their previously published articles, and not to create new articles at all, least of all at a high rate, plus assorted other conditions, were entirely reasonable, seen many times before in prior cases. Diannaa might not have had the time to monitor such a return for copyright compliance, but an Administrator who was not so biased would have found this a very easy task requiring minimal effort.

As anyone who watches Wikipedia appreciates, this proffered objection that the user should only have been unblocked once they'd cleaned up their own history of copyright violations, is false. We know that because this argument was used by Fram when he tried to expel the unlockable Dr. Blofeld. He failed, precisely because many of the users seeking to keep this user out on those grounds, argued it was irrelevant in the matter of Blofeld - it was other people's responsibility to clean up his historical mess, all the community needed to appreciate was that he was no longer making new messes. In both copyright and resource terms the cases are identical, so there must be some other explanation for the lack of consistency in those making this argument.

Not for the first time, but especially so here, the user's non-native standard of English was used against them, rather than being accounted for. There were the usual issues of moving goal posts, horrific bad faith, and all the other general shitlordery that happens when people have decided someone is never getting back into Wikipedia under any circumstances.

The user was left to flounder in a state familiar to many put in this position, entity unsure whether to or how to speak in their defence in response to the myriad of claims and conditions and general unevidenced slurs. Again, their poor choice of advocate worked against them, but others could have done more. It seems to me their reluctance was entirely down to not wishing to be drawn into the Framban culture war, an unwillingness to become a target for the hate of a frustrated self-styled elite.

It should have been handled as it was presented. A user with a troubled history, looking for another chance, on perfectly reasonable terms that should have been amenable to both sides. The spectre of Fram, the Foundation, Women In Red and the entirely toxic culture war should have played no part in how this user was handled by the English Wikipedia system of community self-governance. But it did, and rather obviously so.

And that is rather the point, is it not? If the English Wikipedia community was mature and responsible enough to be able to do handle issues without corruption and immorality affecting them, or had effective systems in place that eliminated it, corrective action like FRAMBAN or the creation of WiR would have never occurred. Certainly editors like the ones who arrayed against this user would not be part of the community at all, never mind as Administrators. As with most of the corruption and general amorality that occurs in the Wikipedia community, it happened all out in the open, succeeding precisely because being amoral and corrupt is the norm.

Their toxic stain should have been erased long ago. Perhaps way back when Jimmy Wales tried to impress upon the community the value of treating people with respect and dignity and not forming into identifiable factions with ideological positions, with chiefs and lieutenants who vote en masse. The community said no. The community liked being scum way too much to follow that path. This user was a necessary casualty, reinforcing the toxic's perceived right to be as bad as they can be, and police themselves. This is important to them. Perhaps the only reason they get up in the morning.

Battered and bruised, accepting the futility of it all, the user has literally had even to fight to be left alone so they can just walk away with some shred of dignity in tact, as the wolves returned to pick at their bones. Says it all really.

The community know what they are, they know what they do. It requires a certain level of shamelesness to be a Wikipedian. You can consider them de-evolved, because what they do comes from a place only ancient humans would really recognize as normal behaviour.

The user is better off out of it. A conclusion everyone but the worst of the worst, will eventually realise. The concentration of the toxicity will only ever increase. How it ends, we can only guess.


Re: Elisa.rolle

Posted: Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:55 am
by CrowsNest
In a cruel twist of irony, Elisa's happiness at finally being released from the Wikipedia Jaws of Death, was tempered by learning during the final stages of that horrible and humiliating process, the instrument of her torture, the cruel and unusual Fram, was also unbanned.