Fram

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: Fram

Post by Graaf Statler » Thu Jul 18, 2019 9:10 am

I was managing the block with TonyBallioni and we agreed to drop it down to a fixed time so we could talk about copyright, before Fram popped in and reblocked indefinitely,

Copyright, special in Europe is not up to Wikipedians but up to governments, laws and judges. As far as I know is the pirate Party is not the governing party in Europe and till that time is talking about copyright as absurd as talking about stealing cars,

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Fram

Post by CrowsNest » Thu Jul 18, 2019 9:23 am

13 days. Looks to me like the precious community is going to let their precious ArbCom take as long as they like to decide the way forward in the Fram affair.

Professional versus amateur. The difference is always clear.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Fram

Post by CrowsNest » Thu Jul 18, 2019 9:30 am

Graaf Statler wrote:
I was managing the block with TonyBallioni and we agreed to drop it down to a fixed time so we could talk about copyright, before Fram popped in and reblocked indefinitely,

Copyright, special in Europe is not up to Wikipedians but up to governments, laws and judges. As far as I know is the pirate Party is not the governing party in Europe and till that time is talking about copyright as absurd as talking about stealing cars,
This was yet another case where Fram overruled his Admin colleagues based on his singular assessment of an editor's threat to Teh Wiki, and therefore challenged them to spend the next month persuading him he was wrong, through an Arbitration Case it necessary.

Buh, buh, buh, he DID NOTHING WRONG!

And to be pedantic, because Ritchie and Tony didn't do anything about it except pout (except perhaps report Fram to the Foundation?), due to the wonderful way Wikipedia governs itself, Fram can argue he did indeed, do nothing wrong. What is not reversed, is accepted.

#FREEFRAM

:lol:

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: Fram

Post by Graaf Statler » Thu Jul 18, 2019 11:38 am

Time to end the playtime. A reminder.

The facts.

*Copyright is a serious matter with a pay or I sue system and high fines in Europe. On the industrial scale the wikipedians are stealing data it is properly a crime in Europe.
*Pirate missions possibly end up in jail. There is not any protection of the foundation what is hiding themself behind section230 and what is highly incompetent including there legal department and Trust&Safety department and it's director
*Many users are European, there is a server in the EU, there are chapters all over the world with a opalic financial structuur and for sure some of them are highly corrupt.
*The ToU is rejected by the German/European judge, and properly also by the American. But that will be clear after the Lomax law cause.
*European regulation is on a lage scale ignored including privacy laws.

**Fran had a serious conflict with madam Hale.
**Fram was extreem critical about copyvio and Wikidata
**Fram has been for years often extreem uncivil.

And this is the situation as it is, Lady's and gentleman. So, here is the one million dollar question, why is Fram banned.
Is Fram banned because:

*Fram had a conflict with madam Hale. Has Madam Hale misused her personal relation?
*Was Fram the with knight and has T&S abused there power to silences the critical Fram?
*Fram was uncivil and was that the real reason of the intervention of T&S?

Well, meer smaken hebben we niet., we have no more tastes, and one of them is the true. And that has to be examined in a transperant way and is the only right way out of this crises.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Fram

Post by CrowsNest » Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:11 pm

The hits just keep comin'......
In the context of English Wikipedia (what happens on Armenian Wikiquote or whatever is out of our competence to decide), per my original comment when Fram's ban was announced (the subsequent discussion of which became WP:FRAMBAN), I can see no circumstances when it would ever be appropriate for the foundation to use a partial block on English Wikipedia or on any other project with a functioning dispute resolution process. Either somebody's conduct is so problematic that they should be banned from all projects permanently, or the appropriate response should be decided by the relevant community's processes. Except possibly in a very few edge cases to do with ongoing legal action where the parties need to be prevented from commenting while a real-world case is ongoing, there are no circumstances in which somebody's conduct could be so problematic they need to be totally banned with no possibility of appeal, but simultaneously so non-problematic that the problems will no longer exist in a year, or so non-problematic that they're free to edit every other WMF site without restrictions. ‑ Iridescent 14:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
1. What part of his comment remotely addresses the Foundation's stated purposes for partial blocks on large projects? There are circumstances, Fram was one. Would he rather the Foundation have displayed epic bad faith and dismissed his good record? He deliberately ignores it (a violation of WP:CIVIL) because the useless fuck can't say anything about it that would make any sense.

2. Note how the comment pre-supposes the project has a "functioning dispute resolution process". As we know, a very very big reason why T&S selected a partial ban, was precisely because they could see what the en.wiki community cannot - their system is non-functional. There was every reason to hope that the combination of a duly chastened Fram and a project with a functioning system would do better, and in the manner of him being ushered along from Commons, who really had no interest in giving the hobo a roof while he sued the federal government for violating his civil rights, but would welcome any Commons related work he would like to offer, it proved to be the case.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Fram

Post by CrowsNest » Sat Jul 20, 2019 1:07 pm

RFA for Floq would be WP:POINTY and an utter WP:WASTEOFTIME better spent on writing or curating articles. Floq's historic intervention was an inspiration at least to me and I suspect to many others. Rather than going through a regular RfA, which he declared that he will not pursue, there should be a popular-acclamation RfC/RfA by which Floq would be declared admin emeritus and be given the tools back honoris causa. Dr. K. 21:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I hope you are watching, Trust and Safety, general Foundation staff, and the Board of Trustees. The Administrator who deliberately and knowingly overturned an office action, putting identifiable users at risk (had Fram not wisely chosen to assume the ban was still in place even though it was no longer in force from a technical standpoint), despite knowing in advance that they did not and could not have all the relevant details, is seen as some kind of inspirational hero by the community.

Jimmy Wales, for so enthusiastically supporting these people over the legal operators of the website, entertaining absolutely no possibility that they cannot be allowed to govern themselves even before they have shown what their response to this situation would be (and they have already shown their specific response regarding whether or not this Administrator did anything wrong is to officially lodge 'no ruling'), you have serious questions to answer.

I can see a time where Jimmy Wales' comments are used to make him a co-defendent in a massive Gawker style extinction suit. If the Foundation has any sense, this would be the right time to review Jimmy's status as a Board member. Their first priority is to ensure the survival of the corporate entity.

Oh, and it's been fifteen days since the last official update from ArbCom over how they intend to proceed regarding their Foundation (Jimmy?) granted authority to review Fram's ban, and thus give final certainty to the people whose peace of mind and literal safety is dependent on the outcome of that review and the general principles it produces. Not that there can be any certainty in a project where even apparently cast iron rules with legal implications can be set aside by pseudonyms, with zero consequences.

Needless to say, for the people whose safety the Foundation ban of Fram, both directly and through the message it sent, was meant to assure, they are left wondering how much longer they need to be worried, these delays merely adding to the months it usually takes the ineffectual and unprofessional ArbCom to close out even any ordinary business. Unlike a corporate entity, something that can be sued for negligence, the supposedly autonomous self-governing community of course has no rules covering such a critical thing.

Indeed, by what mechanism has the Board assured itself ArbCom even intends to perform their allotted task? Granted, you kept Fram banned as an obvious precaution that they end up doing nothing, but you cannot be blind to what a community that sees people like Floquenbeam as a hero are going to do if they realise ArbCom has decided they want no part of this, because it's just too damn difficult to square the diametrically opposite interests in play. If victims can't trust ArbCom and the community won't trust the Foundation, then there is no middle ground. Someone has to lose, someone has to be thoroughly defeated.

Obviously you couldn't have entered into any formal contract to ensure your volunteer partners will actually do something to resolve the impasse, because you are not dealing with a legal entity, just twelve individuals whose separate and distinct legal liability doesn't cover collective ArbCom decisions at all, at least not in any way their own lawyers would accept.

Perhaps it was just a gentleman's agreement, eh? Did they pinky swear via their Hello Kitty email accounts?

How inspiring.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Fram

Post by CrowsNest » Sun Jul 21, 2019 7:06 pm

Well, ArbCom are not dead. They just seem to be avoiding Case work. Both Fram's and Icewhiz vs. Marek.

Just chatting away about the fine details of Discretionary Sanctions alerts, as if that's never been done before.

Pretty sweet life, this volunteering bullshit. :roll:

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: Fram

Post by Graaf Statler » Sun Jul 21, 2019 11:56 pm

I know Guy Macon is not prulair, but here he is right.


...........................I strongly contend that these accusations, which originated with an anonymous comment on Wikipediocracy (possibly created by a sock of The Devil’s Advocate, who is banned from Wikipediocracy) are harassment, and I strongly '''Oppose''' linking to them. As an aside, if anyone has actual evidence that the accusation is true, I encourage them to contact Arbcom privately and let them see the evidence.....................................Guy Macon 17:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The Devil’s Advocate is just a person who belongs to the trollfarm Doctor Proabivouac (WR), Vigilant, Bart Legal, etc, etc, who are saving there ass for there blunderbans with fucking troll bots out of the past by putting the attention without any hard evidence on madam Hale & Co.

Just the normal WO trolly troll. Business as usual.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Fram

Post by CrowsNest » Mon Jul 22, 2019 10:35 pm

A certain scumbag now wants his due recognition from the community....

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... =19&t=1300

...and as I predicted, he is getting it.

Hey, WMF Baord, do you people even have the slightest clue what you've done? Like, even a little bit?

You feed them, cloth them, provide them with toys. And for no good reason at all, here you are letting them drive the car.

In-sane.

User avatar
Graaf Statler
Side Troll
Posts: 3996
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: Fram

Post by Graaf Statler » Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:28 pm

Ah, Timmy and Vig have fly BrillLyle in. But the same story about BrillLyle, no one knows why she is banned so it is impossible to say if that ban was right or not. Poor witness, guy's.

Post Reply