ArbCom bottles it, clearly afraid to ban a woman

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

ArbCom bottles it, clearly afraid to ban a woman

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Sun Aug 15, 2021 2:37 pm

Look at the array of excuse making and double talk here.......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1038891019

I am a fan of BrownHairedGirl, but it is what it is. She has broken the civility rules, she has done it before, previously been sanctioned for it by ArbCom, so she would be headed straight for a site ban if this Case were accepted.

So why the reluctance to accept?

They realised what they were about to do, and how it would look, historically.

You can't let scum like The Rambling Man and his many forebears just keep getting away with it, over and over, and then when a very similar case arises that involves a woman, and indeed sees The Rambling Man be a part of it by having been one of the fire starters, well, you can hardly start coming down hard on civility.

Certainly not when some of them have already admitted that her prior sanction was perhaps a case of her being used to set an example.

Questions would be asked. What's different about this case? Nothing. Other than gender. A woman becoming a scapegoat, being treated harsher than the men have, for the same crimes. This nominal case and its sorry history is not much different from The Rambling Man. He was given endless second chances, and was allowed to nullify any and all attempts to deal with the problem, short of a ban.

A ban which wouldn't stick unless it came with the full authority of ArbCom, because the men of Wikipedia always rally around to protect one of their own. The men of ArbCom instead chose to protect him. Not get off scot free, but offer him a course that he knew he could safely navigate back to freedom to do as he pleased. As he has done here. He deployed a flamethrower, and has faced no consequences at all. Someone else's problem, yet again. Just boys being boys.

But the girl who got set on fire? Different story.

As much as ArbCom might have wanted to do the same for her that they did for The Rambling Man, in the interests of fairness and equality, the community wouldn't have allowed it. And they know it.

But unlike in other cases, their unfortunate lot is that a harsh tongue is the limit of her crimes. So they can't treat her like a RexxS. And if they had a case in civility alone, it would be their unfortunate lot to see how often that even her harsher labels, do actually fit the facts. Unlike RexxS, whose inflammatory words started with a detachment from reality, and only got worse.

She has been trolled and even gaslighted. Informative to remember that this ArbCom has already previously declined to accept what gaslighting is. All good history. All good backstory. Context to their continuing failures to provide any kind of leadership, least of all moral. They'd want no part of any such inquest, seeing no way to avoid the demanded outcome, a ban.

A ban it would be. But she is strong willed and has press contacts.

Such is life. They're paid to make the hard decisions, even if those decisions would be compromised by their prior decisions and seriously bad optics.

They've bottled it.

Just one of those time when it would be useful for the world at large, eager to understand the cult, if Wikipediocracy was a place where asking these people hard questions, was allowed. Not seen as "hostile".

But no. Beeblebrox and Worm The Turned will be enjoying a pipe, slippers and oodles of sympathy and maybe even a back rub, as they chill out at Wikipediocracy tonight. Done nothing wrong, in the eyes of the sellouts forum.

She's not one for backing down, not in the face of bullies. Not one to let such rank unfairness slide, to let her expulsion be the end of the matter. Not she of the last word. Not really down with the whole, well, it's Wikipedia, there is no justice, doctrine. She is the right gender and has the right profile to be the first to bring the full scrutiny of the outside world onto that particular dirty little secret of the cult.

What? You can just ban women, and it doesn't even matter if it's fair? Either the case in question, or in comparison to male outcomes? Hold my prosecco.

Perhaps now Vigilant realises the benefit of having to hand a Californian judgement that does indeed say, you can be banned from Wikipedia for any reason, including no reason at all. A formal, official, FUCK YOU, to underpin the informal skeevy ways of the volunteer based sausage fest.

With no legal avenue open, what choice has she got, when unfairly banned by ArbCom? No other option but to press her case in the court of public opinion. Was she gaslighted? Did the Wikipedia community deal with it, or sweep it under the carpet?

I hereby call Newslinger to the bench, as a hostile witness.

What's that? He's done a runner? How unfortunate. I mean, I am sure he was innocent and he really didn't gaslight and it was all just some giant mistake. But what a shame he isn't around to explain that in the media. In the Daily Mail, perhaps.

I also call Fram to the bench. And the Foundation documents that say he was sanctioned by the Foundation precisely because ArbCom was routinely failing to uphold a minimal standard, and in a case where a woman was being harassed. And that failed, because the community revolted, led by some of the very people on ArbCom right now.

Asserted their self governance rights. Their alleged maturity. Responsibility. An ability not to duck the hard cases, and certainly not for some lame reason, like it might be unpopular or generate bad press.

Good work, that, V Man. Pretty stupid to side with the enemy there. But you do you, ya fuckwit. :oops:

They saw the looming threat. They ducked.

I have warned them, it might not be a good strategy to hand her over to a community sanction that seems like it could, if you took her expressed feelings literary, be life changing in its effect. An ever tightening noose. Something you might apply to a witch, perhaps. Not to a most noble Knight of the Grand Garter, the Lord Rambling of Manliness. Was tried, and nullified. To be expected, in the feudal society that is Wikipedia.

Christ, what a talented writer could have done with this shit. :D

No wonder they ducked. Always been afraid of good penmanship applied to bad decisions.

That bullet is landing somewhere though. Might land in an entirely different county, wound an entirely different person, but land it must.

I wonder if they'll have anyone stupid enough to even want to stand for ArbCom, come December?

Could be facing a desk with a case that actually involves a fight between BHG and TRM.

Fireproof suit anyone?

:flamingbanana:

Or maybe a pallet of (wiki) legal pads?

:ugeek:

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: ArbCom bottles it, clearly afraid to ban a woman

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Sun Aug 15, 2021 3:15 pm

Perhaps the basis of the very first paragraph of any future press coverage, were she to be banned and TRM isn't even a named party...
I believe that The Rambling Man should be a party to this, since he was weaponised by AAW. That vector for disruption needs Arbcom's attention, and TRM's explanation of his role would be an important part of helping to avoid similar manipulation in future. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes indeed, seeing TRM try to explain his role is always an entertaining exercise.

No wonder they bottled it.

:lol:

Speaking of the poison frog, what's he up to this week, while the fire he set still rages? Enjoying his role as a commentator, of course.
I completely agree that Arbcom should respect the community's desires to fix this situation themselves. It appears that Arbcom are now just overriding the community because some of the members "know better" and can predict the future, and I don't think that was what Arbcom was elected to do. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
:oops:

Yes, I think we all know why you don't want ArbCom to take the case. :roll:

Trying to predicting the future is of course within the remit of ArbCom.

Here's an example: if you don't stamp down on TRM's toxic habit of speculating on the motives of others, he will just keep doing it.

Like acid. Drip. Drip. Drip.

That predictably, is true.

It may seem a small thing, but to take on the task of being an ArbCom member, is no picnic. You really don't need to be ground down on a daily basis by Wikipedia editors constantly making obviously unacceptable remarks like this latest crack about how they appear to be acting as if they "know better".

A casual comment, perhaps even easily dismissed as fair comment, healthy debate. But it is its unfairness that makes it unacceptable, unhealthy. He is accusing them of acting outside their remit. It is only his opinion, nothing that can actually be supported with evidence, much less debated (which would laughingly suggest TRM has ever conceded defeat in a debate).

I mean, it could be debated, I gueeeeesssss. Are ArbCom outside their remit by accepting a case which is being discussed at AN/I? If the thread is fucking huge with countless failed proposals, if its only conclusion is a simple tweak of existing policy, and if the editor has already been before ArbCom once for the exact same shit, then no. End of debate. If you were dealing with a respectful human. But you're not. TRM is a cock. He likes to fight. He would argue the point until you gave up, or called him a cock. Or to put BHG in these shoes, called him a troll.

But this is Wikipedia. Nobody even cares. Just background radiation, this shit. This level of toxicity had become accepted, normalised. Tolerance of it, the price of entry. Rising to it, an acceptable risk.

It didn't start with the victory of The Rambling Man over anyone and everyone who thinks he's a massive cock. But it certainly ended there. Wikipedia has reached peak toxic, in my view.

When you are just blind to or otherwise willing to accept the toxic presence of someone like The Rambling Man, you have already lost. Sold your soul.

Sacrificed good people like BrownHairedGirl, at the alter of your cowardice.

She gets it.

If she's getting screwed, she wants to take a few of the massive cocks with her.

Good on her.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: ArbCom bottles it, clearly afraid to ban a woman

Post by ericbarbour » Mon Aug 16, 2021 5:00 am

Jake Is A Sellout wrote:
Sun Aug 15, 2021 3:15 pm
Wikipedia has reached peak toxic, in my view.
My take is, they reached the toxic peak back in 2007. When the inside gang was so arrogant and abusive, bulk editing statistics began to decline. Today the place is controlled by deletionist patroller twats. Even THEY aren't as toxic as the original "cabalistas"--most of whom have left, were forced out, or literally died out.

They are hesitating to toss BHG because she's been on Wiki since 2004, and most of her accusers haven't been around that long. Plus she wrote a lot of good content (more than 2 million edits--the edit summary function can't handle it). But I fully expect they will trash her eventually.

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: ArbCom bottles it, clearly afraid to ban a woman

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Mon Aug 16, 2021 1:54 pm

NewYorkBrad has just bottled it harder than any of the others.....
BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs), and more specifically her level of civility, have been discussed extensively both here and at ANI. I believe, and I think others believe, that her level of knowledge and dedication to the project, especially but not only regarding categories and categorization, are superior. It is also clear that BHG was harassed by an interaction-banned and now wholly-banned editor. Nonetheless, from the above and from the ANI discussion, I hope BHG can now accept that many editors hope she can tone down the occasional level of name-calling, even when she strongly believes she is in the right and that someone on the other side is hopelessly misguided. In a given dispute, another editor may disagree with BHG, and BHG may think that editor is missing her points or even is completely clueless—yet that editor may nonetheless be acting in good faith and need not be classified as a "thug," a troll, a gaslighter, or the like. Even in the most contentious arguments, it is almost always unhelpful to accuse other editors of being these things, regardless of the merits of the arguments. But I do not believe a lengthy arbitration case is necessary to reinforce this message, given how many others have already sought to send it.
What an absolute load of shit.

If ArbCom has ANY role on Wikipedia at all, it is to be the evidentiary and deliberative environment to ascertain whether a particular user was indeed making a good faith but possibly even completely clueless point, or was gaslighting one of Wikipedia's best and openly female editors.

The evidence would show, if only because of the experience of all the other editors who were the target of her ire, that she was being fucked with. And that she probably wasn't the first victim of these habitually toxic bastards.

Identifying and acting strongly against such people feeling like they're legit Wikipedia editors, would go some way to making Wikipedia feel like more of a safe and indeed welcoming environment for women. But this is Wikipedia. Old white privileged dudes at the highest levels of Wikipedia's self governance apparatus wholly missing a key aspect of Wikipedia's sexism problem, is hardly news.

On that score, it is actually most helpful for Wikipedia editors to be able to call a gaslighter a gaslighter and a troll a troll, the only matter at hand is whether that have done so in the appropriate forum, and with the evidence to back up their accusation. Arbitration is a perfect environment to ascertain whether BHG has made good faith efforts to abide by that widely accepted protocol, and what to do about it if she has not.
The involvement of The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) here was peripheral—which is just as well, as I'm recused from matters relating to him.
Bollocks. He was not peripheral, he was a trigger. He did something he has already been warned not to do MANY times, including by Arbitration Committees. Had he not been party to this case, it would have been an absolute outrage for him to walk away scot free, and the same would be true if he escaped a case without a site ban.

And if you are recused, then say nothing at all, lest you want to be seen to be influencing other Arbitrators? Brad being the specialist in giving men like TRM numerous second chances.

Lest people think Brad has just given BHG a second chance too, well, no, because the AN/I has unsurprisingly been closed with consensus for an ever tightening civility ratchet to be applied to her in any and all cases where she calls someone a troll or a gaslighter, even if she is doing it in the right venue and has ample evidence to back her case up. No such consensus was ever formed against TRM, despite many voices stating he was being "unhelpful". It would have been seen as a violation of the bro code, I guess. It was left to ArbCom to deal with him, and they obviously didn't.

Properly bottled it.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4547
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1099 times
Been thanked: 1797 times

Re: ArbCom bottles it, clearly afraid to ban a woman

Post by ericbarbour » Thu Aug 19, 2021 2:58 am

Jake Is A Sellout wrote:
Mon Aug 16, 2021 1:54 pm
NewYorkBrad has just bottled it harder than any of the others.....
NYB has bottled so much shit over the years, I gave up trying to make a list. But still have plenty of examples.

User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 717
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 113 times

Re: ArbCom bottles it, clearly afraid to ban a woman

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Thu Aug 19, 2021 7:08 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... t_declined
Thanks, Ritchie. That was indeed demoralising, so I disengaged from it early on.But by several orders of magnitude, the most demoralising aspect of the whole thing is the community's (and arbcom's) very narrow view of what constitutes civil discourse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, I think that was the right cause of action

....blah blah bollocks blah......

I was also not happy at The Rambling Man getting dragged into the case;

....blah blah bollocks blah.....

 Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Ritchie, there is a lot I would agree with there, but also a lot I disagree with, esp the disregard at both ANI and Arbcom of context.As to TRM, I suggest that if you look at the history of TRM's engagement, it will become clear why I put such emphasis on the important of context. And the block of me for describing the long history of devastation wreaked by AAW/CS was pure victimisation; the outrage at the lifting of that block has severely dented my faith in the community. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I thought we'd moved on. You chose to obliquely reference me somewhere completely unnecessary. I had hoped you wouldn't continue to do so, but here we go again. There's no need to keep talking about me, I'm not interested in you or what you do or what happens to you, and I'm self-imposing a one-way IBAN as of now so you won't ever need to worry about or refer to me, directly or obliquely, ever again. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh look, it's The Rambling Man telling lies in order to provoke a woman editor who he had supposedly kissed and made up with previously. Didn't last long? Almost as if it wasn't genuine.....

BHG clearly had a legitimate reason to be talking about TRM here, and if he doesn't like it, the only person he should have an issue with is Ritchie, who pinged BHG to his talk page and mentioned TRM.

TRM won't complain about Ritchie, because he's hardly going to bite the hand that feeds [his need to harass a woman].

Chances of TRM never mentioning BHG again? ZERO.

Chances of ArbCom ever dealing with this harassing piece of shit? ZERO.

Chances of Wikipediocracy ever challenging NewYorkBrad to explain why TRM is still considered a Wikipedia editor in good standing while it's BHG who deserves the witche's cradle? ZERO.

Post Reply