Koavf reverts Doug Weller's revert to Antifa, Bishonen blocks Koavf, and many accusations of trolling and "admin abuse"

[Bbb23sucks]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti ... s)#Bizarre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Koavf#Antifa

[ericbarbour]

Ha ha ha ha. Blecchhh.

There's a GIF they use on the Dramatica forum when "admin abuse" comes up.

I would post it but people would be OFFENDED.

[ChaosMeRee]

That is ridiculous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 419#Antifa

Bishonen is just so insanely aggressive, so quick to pre-judge, so unwilling to consider any opinion of clearly subjective matters but her own, so entirely unaware of the irony of her accusations, or even just how ridiculous some of them really are.

Nothing about this feels normal, even for someone who isn't exactly known for her diplomacy or being a straight shooter.

[ChaosMeRee]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _unblocked

Looks like Koavf is headed for a site ban. You'll never guess who proposed it.

This guy, posting these nice helpful messages on Koavf's talk page.....

Looks like this is your 20th block
I don't recall anyone with a worse block record. Mostly for edit-warring, a couple for violating a 1RR parole, 5 of them indefinite (the last unblock for an indefinite just over a year ago), some agf unblocked. Doug Weller talk 09:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Oops, closer to 28 or 29
Granted you managed to edit for 9 years without a block, then went back to your old ways, mainly being blocked for editwarring/3RR violations and several for violating a 1RR ruling by the Arbitration Committee. You made promises to stop but you couldn't keep them. I don't see how making clear your block record is harassment, it's simply here to give anyone looking at any unblock request some of the background easily. I can of course understand how you wouldn't want me to do that. Doug Weller talk 13:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

"I don't see how making clear your block record is harassment."

Oh you don't, do you?

Gee, it's SUCH A MYSTERY.

1. You and he have had serious (but insanely petty) beef
2. Why would anyone need your help to read a block log?
3. Why does your effort to "make clear" something contain far more than dry undisputed facts?

The cherry on top is the fact you didn't even bother to mention your prior history as you go about proposing a site ban. Y'know, to make things clear for the passers by. Prick.

You're a weasel cunt, Doug Weller. The EXCACT kind of person I would assume was best friends with a piece of shit like Bishonen and her pet slug Drmies.

These are the real unlockables of Wikipedia.

Look at it. Nobody even dares mention what is happening right infront of their faces (lest they get the same treatment, one imagines).

They all act like it is normal. Acting like these very same people wouldn't go OUT OF THEIR FUCKING MINDS WITH FURIOUS ANGER if the shoe was on the other foot and someone was being this much of an obvious cute little bastard to them and their friends.

*checks Wikipediocracy*

Yup, they could still give a shit.

ScottishFinnishRadish, a good man trying to do a good thing, and they're all over him in forensic detail.

Bishonen and her coven? Crickets.

The fear is palpable.

Pussies.

[Bbb23sucks]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _unblocked

Looks like Koavf is headed for a site ban. You'll never guess who proposed it.

This guy, posting these nice helpful messages on Koavf's talk page.....

Looks like this is your 20th block
I don't recall anyone with a worse block record. Mostly for edit-warring, a couple for violating a 1RR parole, 5 of them indefinite (the last unblock for an indefinite just over a year ago), some agf unblocked. Doug Weller talk 09:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Oops, closer to 28 or 29
Granted you managed to edit for 9 years without a block, then went back to your old ways, mainly being blocked for editwarring/3RR violations and several for violating a 1RR ruling by the Arbitration Committee. You made promises to stop but you couldn't keep them. I don't see how making clear your block record is harassment, it's simply here to give anyone looking at any unblock request some of the background easily. I can of course understand how you wouldn't want me to do that. Doug Weller talk 13:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

"I don't see how making clear your block record is harassment."

Oh you don't, do you?

Gee, it's SUCH A MYSTERY.

1. You and he have had serious (but insanely petty) beef
2. Why would anyone need your help to read a block log?
3. Why does your effort to "make clear" something contain far more than dry undisputed facts?

The cherry on top is the fact you didn't even bother to mention your prior history as you go about proposing a site ban. Y'know, to make things clear for the passers by. Prick.

You're a weasel cunt, Doug Weller. The EXCACT kind of person I would assume was best friends with a piece of shit like Bishonen and her pet slug Drmies.

These are the real unlockables of Wikipedia.

Look at it. Nobody even dares mention what is happening right infront of their faces (lest they get the same treatment, one imagines).

They all act like it is normal. Acting like these very same people wouldn't go OUT OF THEIR FUCKING MINDS WITH FURIOUS ANGER if the shoe was on the other foot and someone was being this much of an obvious cute little bastard to them and their friends.

*checks Wikipediocracy*

Yup, they could still give a shit.

ScottishFinnishRadish, a good man trying to do a good thing, and they're all over him in forensic detail.

Bishonen and her coven? Crickets.

The fear is palpable.

Pussies.

Wow. I certainly did not expect that. Every wiki-hole is there too voting SUPPORT SUPPORT. Idiots. Koavf was probably Wikipedia's last decent editor too.

But hey, at least we'll have a new forum member.

[Bbb23sucks]

Lol. Doug Weller just went on an insane screed about Koavf: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1193922746

Bonus points for misspelling Koavf SIX times, in several different ways, too.

[ChaosMeRee]

Lol. Doug Weller just went on an insane screed about Koavf: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1193922746

Bonus points for misspelling Koavf SIX times, in several different ways, too.

Desperate stuff.

Fram is a habitual harasser, someone who has a severe mental illness that makes him think everything he says and does as he pursues his targets is a legitimate act of Wikipedia Administration. Even though he is such an asshole he long ago lost the right to call himself an Administrator, the often forgotten outcome of FRAMGATE.

If someone with 2 million edits and multiple trips around the block/appeal cycle reacts to you the exact same way they react to Fram, well, that doesn't say anything good about you at all. At all.

Some of this is just absolutely blatant. Like how Bishonen fixes the ping to make sure Fram knows for sure there is a party going on and he is invited.

In any other scenario, Bishonen would be snarling and glaring at Fram, making it plain his presence was not wanted, for the simple reason there's never an Administrative discussion that would benefit from the input of that particular non-Admin. Especially the ones where he was a direct participant in the matters at hand.

[ChaosMeRee]

Bishonen is now formally supporting a site ban based on how Koavf reacted to Fram.

So for the record, just so everyone knows what a sick bitch she really is, here is a summary of that interaction from the POV of someone examining Fram's behaviour.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... tober_2023

* Fram templates a regular, leaving them a message that directs them to read "referencing for beginners".

* Fram reacts to an accusation of harassment with a personal attack "You seem to believe that the basic rules don't apply to you for some reason." and goading "Feel free to report me, but beware of the boomerang. "

* Fram draftified an empty article because he apparently dislikes the idea of empty articles being created in mainspace (but offers no proof that such a thing would actually be against policy, assuming it has an acceptable title, which it did)

* Fram edit warred over a maintenance tag complaining about lack of references in an obviously easily verifiable stub written by a trusted user and whose lack of references didn't pose a significant risk of harm to the subject or Wikipedia

* Fram chucked around accusations of OWN while edit warring

* Fram let a dispute roll to the nth degree and descend into accusations of harassment and lying on his part, without ever disengaging or requesting assistance from a third party

* Fram was deliberately opaque and selective in his communications, such as in how refers to the two hour rule of the {in use} tag to justify him draftifying the article, while ignoring the fact his subsequent edit warring to reinstate the unreferenced tag occurred well within the two hour window (and after Koavf had explicitly made it clear the article was in use).

Fram is never seen again (and presumably doesn't take the matter further elsewhere) once it becomes clear his seemingly deliberately evasive and ever changing angle of attack had been noticed by a third party who might just want to report Fram for harassment if he doesn't have a good explanation for why he is approaching Koavf in a very aggressive and difficult to parse manner under the guise of issuing a "warning" for breaking Wikipedia rules.

Being generous, Fram did indeed go to Koavf's talk page (after edit warring with Koavf) to warn him about the importance of sourcing, but he did it in an incredibly unproductive and indeed highly inflammatory way, and it is only by sheer luck that this didn't explode into a huge drama far beyond any conceivable magnitude of the crimes committed by Koavf, where disciplinary action on either both or neither parties would be the only reasonable outcome.

Being real, Fram only went to Koavf's page to try and provoke them over a trivial matter to hopefully end in their eventual banning, simply because he dislikes their manner of editing and is unhappy that they are not yet site banned. In other words, blatant harassment. And he only walked away because Fram does at least appear to be smart enough to realise when he has made serious mistakes in how he goes about his chosen method of harassment, and in this case had made enough errors that in the ensuing report of Koavf that Fram would have undoubtedly made in due course, Fram would have not emerged unscathed. He has had enough wanrings, enough second chances. Someone would have reported them to ArbCom to consider whether his desysop was in hindsight not a sufficiently serious remedy to get the intended message across...

Wikipedia's vast array of rules do not exist to help Fram get this rocks off, and having him roaming around Wikipedia getting his rocks off with apparent complete freedom to do so, makes the place look very much like it is in dire need of adult supervision. In other words, enforcement of minimal standards by the Foundation.

Hopefully everyone can see that Bishonen would have BLOWN HER FUCKING TOP and banned Fram to eternity (INVOVLED be damned) if he had done even one of these things to her or one of her friends, never mind all of them.

Hopefully everyone can see this is the exact same penchant for seeing the sober act of enforcing Wikipedia rules as if it is an opportunity to gleefully engage in personalised combat that got Fram rightfully desysopped as a habitual harrasser, and on this evidence, as he continues the behaviour as an editor, he is the one who arguably deserves a site ban, because he either doesn't get it, or does but refuses to change his ways. Oh the ironing.

Hopefully everyone can see that if this is all Doug has to offer by way of proving Koavf needs a site ban on grounds other than they had a petty spat and Koavf has a long block, he really doesn't have anything.

Ban Koavf if you want. But don't pretend like Fram, Bishonen and Fram are any better.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

I can't help thinking the current Koavf thing highlights a fair bit of what's wrong with Wikipedia.

What we have is someone who is very prolific and has contributed a huge amount of content (mostly good, as far as I can see). Occasionally (at fairly lengthy intervals) he gets into a bit of an edit war - but a fixed-term block each time it happens would very likely deal with it just fine. Why would it matter how many times it happens, as long as it's not too frequent and the net result is enthusiastic work to improve content? Any competent organisation would be able to manage someone like Koavf, in a way that gets the best from him over the long term.

But just look at the feeding frenzy that's happening right now, with all manner of would-be enforcers sticking their boots in. If you examined all their actual encyclopedia content work, I wonder how many of them have managed even 1% of Koavf's contributions? And would they come close to him all added together?

I think AN/ANI is getting worse, rather than better with experience - and it attracts far too many people wanting to be enforcers but without having any management or interpersonal competence. But everyone is equal, and "consensus" is all that matters - even though consensus drives away prolific contributors because "da roolz" are more important than actually building an encyclopedia.

The current Wikipedia culture is too far up itself, and I think this case shows it clearly.

[ChaosMeRee]

I can't help thinking the current Koavf thing highlights a fair bit of what's wrong with Wikipedia.

What we have is someone who is very prolific and has contributed a huge amount of content (mostly good, as far as I can see). Occasionally (at fairly lengthy intervals) he gets into a bit of an edit war - but a fixed-term block each time it happens would very likely deal with it just fine. Why would it matter how many times it happens, as long as it's not too frequent and the net result is enthusiastic work to improve content? Any competent organisation would be able to manage someone like Koavf, in a way that gets the best from him over the long term.

But just look at the feeding frenzy that's happening right now, with all manner of would-be enforcers sticking their boots in. If you examined all their actual encyclopedia content work, I wonder how many of them have managed even 1% of Koavf's contributions? And would they come close to him all added together?

I think AN/ANI is getting worse, rather than better with experience - and it attracts far too many people wanting to be enforcers but without having any management or interpersonal competence. But everyone is equal, and "consensus" is all that matters - even though consensus drives away prolific contributors because "da roolz" are more important than actually building an encyclopedia.

The current Wikipedia culture is too far up itself, and I think this case shows it clearly.

Well, Wikipedia has had a good ten years at least to show that being lenient to productive users is a net positive. The signs of failure are all around. The lack of women, for example, who hate edit warring, if you're looking for concrete harms.

Koavf has been getting special treatment since at least 2007, when the abject failure of a parole arrived at by the highest levels of self government failed within days. Apparently nobody thought that was a problem. If there was ever a time to subject Koavf to an indefinite revert ban with automatic but time limited blocks, as some kind of sensible case specific alternative to the normal approach (ban), which inexplicably wasn't even followed either, that was it.

The culture is set by the people, especially those in power. That's you, btw.

And it seems ever so slightly laughable to claim rules obsessives are ruling the roost now, or ever have. Quite the opposite. Bishonen was fine with recidivism and rank hostility when it was Eric Corbett. It's now a problem with Koavf. She can hardly claim she is standing up for prolific content creators now, can she. Nor can she claim she is just enforcing the rules.

We can all see the real reason Koavf is about to be banned. Insufficient deference to his superiors and their social group. They don't say it, because that would be silly. But no other explanation fits the facts. It is especially absurd to see Bishonen mentioning Fram here in a way that would have us see Fram as if he were Bishonen's idea of a model Wikipedian.

It's bullshit. The grand game. Games that can only effectively be played by Wikipedia Administrators, given their awesome power in an organisation whose dominant influence is not mindless adherence to the rules but social capital and mutual assistance.

I could register on Wikipedia simply to point out on AN that Bishonen is being disingenuous and in any other context she would have an extremely dim view of an editor daring to template someone with 2 million edits with a pointer to referencing for dummies, and all the other grossly insulting and inflammatory things Fram did to Koavf that now apparently forms the basis of a site ban case in her mind, due solely to how Koavf reacted.

That would be a good way to quite properly steer consensus away from the outcome she wants, using facts to sway opinions. A CheckUser could confirm it was not an attempt by someone who has already voted to artificially inflate their support, and the fact nobody else has dared to even point it out would be proof enough it is not an attempt to be a meat puppet. And as far as I know, nobody has ever been banned for pointing it out.

But I would of course be blocked instantly regardless of the complete lack of disruptive intent and indeed my clear intent to help Wikipedia by retaining a productive user who is a net benefit according to you. Once blocked, my comment would be reverted, all because Bishonen long ago changed policy to make it plain that all such people are obvious socks. Now we see why. And for good measure, your buddies at Wikipediocracy would have a good old laugh about it. Probably knock each other over in their haste to report this crime against the proper functioning of Wikipedia governance. Insiders in, outsiders out.

The culture of an organisation with no leaders, or robust promotion/demotion mechanisms, and a heavy emphasis on social capital, rather than objective edit capital or even objective truth, is set by the people who are the core community, up to and especially the de facto bomb proof Administrators like Bishonen, and the incredibly hard to remove established editors like Fram.

You are one of those people too.

Yet you have no detectable opinion on the enduring but highly toxic presence of people like Bishonen or Fram on the effective governance of a merit (net benefit) based Wikipedia....unless I have missed it.

You are instead focused only on people making the not unreasonable point that Koavf is an absolute embarrassment on a project with the rules as they are written (but which can be changed quite easily if it would demonstrably benefit Wikipedia). Just as Eric Corbett was.

A curious state of affairs.