Just the top two community negotiators having a fireside chat about their opponents' corporate culture....
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... and_office
Not hard to see where the Gamergate analogies come from.
Can't be too long before we start seeing the infamous "SJW" label invoked.
These people are children, or rather the emotionally stunted immature adults they claim they are facing across the table.
You don't negotiate with children, you tell them no, YOU CAN'T JUST DO WHAT YOU WANT. You're the children, we're the parents. We're not your buddies, not your pals, not your friends, not your equals. We're here to keep you alive, everything else is not so much an obligation as it is a nice to have.
Fram
Re: Fram
OK, now we're finally starting to see real civil disobedience, on a community scale.
Xeno has downgraded the Office Actions page from a policy to an "information page".
In doing so, he has explicitly said he believes the WMF do not have the right to unilaterally change the page that describes their powers on English Wikipedia, and indeed the validity of the page as a policy is subject to consensus approval.
xaosflux has gone one step further and edited the page so it no longer suggests office actions are sacrosanct, i.e. they can be unilaterally reverted by local users with the means to do so (i.e. Administrators and above).
Both of these users are Bureaucrats, and although these changes required no advanced permissions to make, it is the internal en.wiki culture that these people are elected for and trusted to act in furtherance of the collective community will. They are the elders, so to speak.
None of this has any real effect on the WMF's actual powers, the reality of the legal status of the community has not changed, in the same way Fram is still banned, even though he is no longer blocked.
What this does is formalize the idea that the actual disobedient acts this rebellion has produced (being separate and distinct to the terabytes of mere whining) now encompass more than just a couple of opinionated rogue Administrators abusing their unblock tool, trying to pick a fight with the WMF.
These changes make it crystal clear to the WMF that the en.wiki community itself is actively resisting their authority. Assuming they are not reverted, the WMF are perfectly entitled to view this as a unilateral Declaration of Independence, a clear act designed to reclassify office actions as somehow subject to the approval of the community, with all the attendant risk of urgent or serious action being delayed and filibustered by people without the means or the responsibility to be interfering such actions.
If anyone is looking for a media hook to declare this to officially be a revolt, this is it. This is way more significant than a few resignations and retirements. Wikipedia can replace even a hundred retired Administrators if it wanted, but every single one of them would still be obliged, by these changes, to see office actions as carrying less validity than anything that random local policy says you must not do, which, Wikipedia being what it is, covers a hell of a lot of quite trivial nonsense.
The insurrection has begun.
Time to dust off and fire up the Super-Protect cannon.
Xeno has downgraded the Office Actions page from a policy to an "information page".
In doing so, he has explicitly said he believes the WMF do not have the right to unilaterally change the page that describes their powers on English Wikipedia, and indeed the validity of the page as a policy is subject to consensus approval.
xaosflux has gone one step further and edited the page so it no longer suggests office actions are sacrosanct, i.e. they can be unilaterally reverted by local users with the means to do so (i.e. Administrators and above).
Both of these users are Bureaucrats, and although these changes required no advanced permissions to make, it is the internal en.wiki culture that these people are elected for and trusted to act in furtherance of the collective community will. They are the elders, so to speak.
None of this has any real effect on the WMF's actual powers, the reality of the legal status of the community has not changed, in the same way Fram is still banned, even though he is no longer blocked.
What this does is formalize the idea that the actual disobedient acts this rebellion has produced (being separate and distinct to the terabytes of mere whining) now encompass more than just a couple of opinionated rogue Administrators abusing their unblock tool, trying to pick a fight with the WMF.
These changes make it crystal clear to the WMF that the en.wiki community itself is actively resisting their authority. Assuming they are not reverted, the WMF are perfectly entitled to view this as a unilateral Declaration of Independence, a clear act designed to reclassify office actions as somehow subject to the approval of the community, with all the attendant risk of urgent or serious action being delayed and filibustered by people without the means or the responsibility to be interfering such actions.
If anyone is looking for a media hook to declare this to officially be a revolt, this is it. This is way more significant than a few resignations and retirements. Wikipedia can replace even a hundred retired Administrators if it wanted, but every single one of them would still be obliged, by these changes, to see office actions as carrying less validity than anything that random local policy says you must not do, which, Wikipedia being what it is, covers a hell of a lot of quite trivial nonsense.
The insurrection has begun.
Time to dust off and fire up the Super-Protect cannon.
Re: Fram
On dear......
@WJBscribe: We have asked, and were told a) there is additional, private and off-wiki information relevant to the ban; b) ArbCom doesn't have all of it; and c) they do not consider the ban, as an office action, to be overturnable by ArbCom. Given that, I don't feel competent to assess Fram's ban, although others on the committee may feel differently. – Joe (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Re: Fram
Of course, now because of this civil disobedience, there is a classic conflict of policy...
I mean honestly, the Rebels are living in dream land at this point.....
Put that in a local English Wikipedia policy.
WP:ILLUSIONSOFFREEDOM?
That statement is now a complete nonsense, on multiple levels. And yet it is official Wikipedia policy. You can't even rewrite it to reflect the new realty, because that will produce a paragraph so absurd, it will continually cause people to assume it is just vandalism.WP:BAN wrote:The Wikimedia Foundation has the authority to ban editors
I mean honestly, the Rebels are living in dream land at this point.....
In reality, blocked or not, Fram will not be making one single edit to Wikipedia for an entire year, unless or until the WMF say he can. Because he knows that if he does, he can be upgraded to a permanent global ban. Those are achieved through global locks, something no local en.wiki Functionary can undo in any way.Whether or not Fram's conduct has been such as to justify a ban is squarely within the competence of ArbCom to determine. You can invite the WMF to submit evidence to you, in private if necessary, to substantiate their case. If WMF chooses not to do so, that would be up to them, but it would expose them to the risk that ArbCom would conclude that a ban is not warranted. It would then be a matter for Fram, who is not blocked on this project, to decide whether to resume editing if ArbCom determined that no ban was justified on the evidence available to it. ArbCom has access to all of Fram's edits on Wikipedia and WMF has not positively stated that it considered anything else (other than the request from the anonymous complainant) in taking its decision. As far as we know, you're in just as good a place to adjudicate this matter as they were. WJBscribe (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Put that in a local English Wikipedia policy.
WP:ILLUSIONSOFFREEDOM?
-
Graaf Statler
- Side Troll
- Posts: 3996
- Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm
Re: Fram
But why should anyone want to do any edit on a internet product what is one big chaos with people with the minds of children in a kindergarten? When I got Alexander his mail it was a relive for me, I didn't have to feel responsible for Wikiquote and my work on Wikipedia anymore, and on Guido his Wikisage it was the same after his mail he should go to the police if I ever should send him any email. (What a joker are you, Guido!).
Why should I do work for free anymore? Others (you too, Guido) get the benefits and the honour, and I am not welcome anymore.
Well fine, have a nice day and just fuck yourself, but will you be so kind to tell me what I did wrong? And to WMF why did you put my name on a list with people who have done all kind of nasty things after your star sysop MoiraMoira has doxxed me on purpose?
Breaking the ToU can't be the reason, because otherwise they had blocked Edo, Natuur12, Ymnes and MoiraMoira. So why, what was the real reason? And that is what I want to know and that is all and for the rest they can fuck themself or each other.
Why should I do work for free anymore? Others (you too, Guido) get the benefits and the honour, and I am not welcome anymore.
Well fine, have a nice day and just fuck yourself, but will you be so kind to tell me what I did wrong? And to WMF why did you put my name on a list with people who have done all kind of nasty things after your star sysop MoiraMoira has doxxed me on purpose?
Breaking the ToU can't be the reason, because otherwise they had blocked Edo, Natuur12, Ymnes and MoiraMoira. So why, what was the real reason? And that is what I want to know and that is all and for the rest they can fuck themself or each other.
Re: Fram
Are you for real? I can at least believe certain editors would have felt that way, as they were subjected to one of Fram's patented investigations.Vigilant wrote:That's probably the single most 'snowflake' comment I've ever seen.Fram gets a one-year vacation. His victims have been damaged for life.
My snowflake bullshit detector is however having a pretty hard time believing the editors on the other side actually really believe their fundamental rights have been trampled on.
Harassment is in the eye of the beholder. Trampling of your fundamental rights, especially in a place where YOU HAVE NO FUCKING RIGHTS (except to fuck off) really isn't.
Get some perspective.
Re: Fram
Make your mind up. Either you trust people because you elected them, or because they're qualified for their role. In the Wikipedia community, it sure as shit usually isn't both.Bungling incompetence
Was this FRAMBAN sanction approved by a lawyer? What I see of Jans experience looks pretty thin. He’s not a lawyer, he isn’t a native English speaker nor a linguist, and he’s a recent university graduate who studied philosophy. That’s very nice but probably doesn’t qualify him as an expert in the matter which he ruled upon. Most importantly, he was not selected by the community, so none of us have any reason to trust him. I think ArbCom would have been a vastly superior entity to decide his case. If WMF receives an anonymous complaint, why can’t they refer the matter anonymously to ArbCom for resolution? Why did they choose to bungle it themselves? Jehochman Talk 11:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
As usual, the question he asks about why this couldn't be given to ArbCom has been answered multiple times already. Being this thick should disqualify someone from the role of Wikipedia Administrator, but here we are, this guy is one.
Re: Fram
Turns out Fram was eventually asked to move on from Commons, like a filthy Tramp.....
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fram
Note how nobody has complained about this interference with His Great Matter, trampling his rights. Self-government in action, I suppose.
The switch seems to have given everyone an excuse to stop listening to him. It might have something to do with the fact his suggestion for direct action to protest his situation was for en.wiki to simply stop copyright investigations. According to Fram, this would avoid harming innocent victims.
Indeed, he managed to properly show off what a fool he is, and why sensible people examining his actions for compliance with the ToU, would have had no difficulty finding serious issues. Baannable offences.
The last part is hilarious, because of course as anyone with any experience in the profession knows, most topics covered in an encyclopedia won't have a single authoritative source to draw from, so if you are actually aiming to meet your goals of neutrality and comprehensivity, then you are not going to be copying and pasting copyrightable sized chunks of primary source material. You would be summarising their combined message in your own words by default, the fact that what is then produced is guaranteed not to be a copyright violation, being a happy bonus.
Re-reading it, that whole paragraph is so damming of Fram's knowledge and mindset, it is so obviously prima facie evidence that he doesn't have the slightest business being a Wikipedia Administrator, that you have to wonder if it wasn't meant as sarcasm. No safety smiley, so, well.......
......although he only moved next door, to Meta.Fram's edits here amount to ban evasion. I would also support a block of Fram's account here, but hope they can avoid that by recognising their error, which their comment about irony suggests they do. -- Colin (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fram
Note how nobody has complained about this interference with His Great Matter, trampling his rights. Self-government in action, I suppose.
The switch seems to have given everyone an excuse to stop listening to him. It might have something to do with the fact his suggestion for direct action to protest his situation was for en.wiki to simply stop copyright investigations. According to Fram, this would avoid harming innocent victims.
Indeed, he managed to properly show off what a fool he is, and why sensible people examining his actions for compliance with the ToU, would have had no difficulty finding serious issues. Baannable offences.
The harm to readers is obvious. Every person who unwittingly copied a Wikipedia page they were not entitled to, is in turn violating the copyright. The harm to subjects is hardly miniscule - if you're the only authority on a topic, then having your shit copied wholesale into Wikipedia, without attribution or a claim of fair use, will quite literally mean potential customers never even visit your site, which will of course be lower in the Google rankings. If this didn't have the potential to cost victims dearly, there really would be no reason to protect the WMF from claims against the potential losses.Seriously, what's the actual harm to enwiki readers and subjects (apart from some minuscule monetary loss to whoever wrote the original?) Why do we even bother with removing copyvio's? Mainly to protect the WMF, not to get a better encyclopedia, as you don't necessarily get a better encyclopedia by rewriting and summarizing bits instead of simply copying bits.
The last part is hilarious, because of course as anyone with any experience in the profession knows, most topics covered in an encyclopedia won't have a single authoritative source to draw from, so if you are actually aiming to meet your goals of neutrality and comprehensivity, then you are not going to be copying and pasting copyrightable sized chunks of primary source material. You would be summarising their combined message in your own words by default, the fact that what is then produced is guaranteed not to be a copyright violation, being a happy bonus.
Re-reading it, that whole paragraph is so damming of Fram's knowledge and mindset, it is so obviously prima facie evidence that he doesn't have the slightest business being a Wikipedia Administrator, that you have to wonder if it wasn't meant as sarcasm. No safety smiley, so, well.......
Re: Fram
Moron.Beeblebrox wrote:Damn straight Dennis.
If this was a popular revolt, there would be some variety in the names of those gobbing off as if they've got a clue, much less a case.
But no, it's just the same usual suspects, people who have already been spoken about here many times for their records of basically doing bad stuff.
Re: Fram
Fucking hell.....
Can they for once come up with a solution to not liking the way the WMF has dealt with harassment, that isn't actually harassment?
And seriously, "leadership role"? On what basis are they assuming every word Jan has said on Wikipedia, has not been approved by his boss, the Executive Director? In a post that lists all the people who have ignored the community for two whole weeks, how the fuck is Jan, who has been the most forthcoming with information from the enemy side, the one who has to carry the can?
They simply want someone they can target for blame, pour all their hate on. They need it. Born to harass.
They quickly forgot the only reason Jan decided to reveal his name was in deference to how seriously the WMF wanted the community to know they were taking their complaints, because the usual policy is to not let volunteers know individual T&S members names, because it tends to lead to harassment.
No sane person would give these people the time of day, much less treat them as equals.
And it has been said before, but who the FUCK takes a job where it is considered normal for random tramps who dip in and out of the website owned by your employer, to be commenting so freely on your job performance, or indeed whether you deserve your job at all?
They keep gobbing off about fairness and natural justice, and yet if Jan dared utter one fucking word about these shitheads, as he would be perfectly entitled to do given what many have already said even before this ridiculous proposal, they would scream the place down. Not even the Chairman of the Board of Trustees is allowed to give their opinion on the precious volunteers.
I mean, just, how don't they see how crazy they look?Asking for Eissfeldt's resignation
I've been holding my tongue and waiting to see how the board, WMF, arbcom, Jimbo, et al, are going to respond. It's been two weeks, and no acceptable response has come forth.
I am at the point where I believe it is appropriate for the community to ask for Jan Eissfeldt's resignation. Eissfeldt's initial handling of this matter, and the unvarnished arrogance of his responses to the community, demonstrate that he is wholly unsuited for a paid leadership role within WMF.
We can then discuss specific proposals, bridge the divide, and find a way forward with his replacement.
UninvitedCompany 20:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Can they for once come up with a solution to not liking the way the WMF has dealt with harassment, that isn't actually harassment?
And seriously, "leadership role"? On what basis are they assuming every word Jan has said on Wikipedia, has not been approved by his boss, the Executive Director? In a post that lists all the people who have ignored the community for two whole weeks, how the fuck is Jan, who has been the most forthcoming with information from the enemy side, the one who has to carry the can?
They simply want someone they can target for blame, pour all their hate on. They need it. Born to harass.
They quickly forgot the only reason Jan decided to reveal his name was in deference to how seriously the WMF wanted the community to know they were taking their complaints, because the usual policy is to not let volunteers know individual T&S members names, because it tends to lead to harassment.
No sane person would give these people the time of day, much less treat them as equals.
And it has been said before, but who the FUCK takes a job where it is considered normal for random tramps who dip in and out of the website owned by your employer, to be commenting so freely on your job performance, or indeed whether you deserve your job at all?
They keep gobbing off about fairness and natural justice, and yet if Jan dared utter one fucking word about these shitheads, as he would be perfectly entitled to do given what many have already said even before this ridiculous proposal, they would scream the place down. Not even the Chairman of the Board of Trustees is allowed to give their opinion on the precious volunteers.