ArbCom bottles it, clearly afraid to ban a woman
Posted: 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.
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.
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?
Or maybe a pallet of (wiki) legal pads?
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.
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.
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?
Or maybe a pallet of (wiki) legal pads?
