Fram

[CrowsNest]

Arbitrators finally finding their voices.

....Similar to GW, also speaking just for myself. My concerns are not completely satisfied regarding Fram as there is still the question of what happens if ArbCom decide to unban Fram. T&S have not been clear on that point, though Jimbo has said he will back whatever decision the Committee makes. There may be a tussle, there may not. However, T&S have supplied us with their redacted report on Fram, which is a starting point. And there are aspects of the report that I find shows T&S understanding the nuances of Wikipedia's civility issues. So I am moderately optimistic....SilkTork (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

.....On the actual Fram ban, T&S has provided us with a hefty document, in much more detail than I had expected and as SilkTork states, it includes a good understanding of the nuances of Wikipedia's discussions and issues. It's clear that T&S has had far more reports on the subject than I would have expected and although I do not know the reporters, this idea of a "single complainant", or even just two or three, is misleading. The committee is working on how to handle a case, we've got some suggestions above which are helpful, but this isn't an easy task..... WormTT(talk) 10:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems obvious that the sticking point is that ArbCom are seriously trying to find a way to unban Fram, even though the evidence against him is damning, and everything the rebels and their Wikipediocracy friends said was the truth of the matter, was complete horseshit.

No way out of that for ArbCom, except to claim that they have to unban him because even though what he is guilty of is far beyond what any reasonable person would have considered repeated and intransigent examples of gross misconduct even if only looking at the relevant local policies - WP:ADMIN and WP:HARASS, the precedent has been set multiple times that there is no higher standard on en.wiki, and basically unless you've killed someone, the worst a powerful Administrator like Fram faces before the local courts, certainly as a first offence, is desysopping. Super Mario baby!

Much like they casually dismissed clear and obvious misconduct in how several Administrators abused their tools to openly defy WMF Office, putting multiple users at significant risk of harassment even though they did not have all the facts, harassment beyond even what was allowed as the mob whipped itself into a frenzy, they are probably going to try and frame this as a guilty verdict without then necessary consequences, because it was all just such a crazy time, people were high on drugs and adrenaline and not thinking clearly, exceptional circumstances, blah blah, and rest assured, the next time they really will send the guilty Administrator to bed without their supper. They promise.

And the community will react the exact same way, interpreting this as a finding of a not-guilty verdict for Fram, repeated even by the corrupt Opabina, and will therefore see it as a license to do the same behaviour again if the same "exceptional" circumstances arise (a need to enforce policy), and react the exact same way should anyone ever dare interpret that as serious misconduct.

When are these idiots going to learn? Backsliding and continuing the failures of the past, is how you, dear ArbCom, got everyone into this crisis in the first place. It didn't just happen. Take a gander through the last few years of ArbCom cases, the deceptions of Opabina especially, and your miserable lack of leadership as the forces aiming to completely erase the already severely eroded general expectation of en.wiki being a safe and respectful environment, did their stuff.

[CrowsNest]

What a surprise. The very first reaction of one of the toxic en.wiki volunteers, is to suggest an identifiable Foundation manager has committed corporate fraud, and will assume so unless the Committee provides them with some reasurance.....

Thanks are due to the committee for these informative replies. A big case file does not surprise me. If I were Jan I would have used the ample time between the beginning of the crisis and the board statement to beef up my case on Fram in whatever way I could. But maybe it's clear in some way that the file you have already existed as is in early June?
Fram has already been blocked for more than a month now. Between the summer holidays and the time to actually run the case we are presumably looking at something like three months of time served - a hefty penalty by our standards even if there is no further sentence. It would be surprising if T&S objected to that outcome. Haukur (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

That should attract an instant block as a gross BLP violation. There will be no such block. The scum don't even see this sort of thing as remotely unacceptable. They see it as normal. Because they are scum.

ArbCom has for far too long seen their role as keeping this sort of scumbag happy. That's their idea of self-government.

[Graaf Statler]

Everything we condemn in the civil world you find back on Wikipedia.
Stealing data and capitalise it. Cronyism. Forming gangs. Star Chamber trails. Algorithm fucking. (Yes, special you, madam Maher.) Gaslighting. Nepotism. Conspiracy. Vorming van een criminele organisatie, forming a criminal organisation, a heavy crime in Holland.

Wikipedia makes blind just like drugs. A prosecutor should have a life time job on them. And what did they do? Sending me a letter of a lawyer I had to shut up or they went to court.
The laughable wiki addicted. Thinking you can win trails with jokers like mendaliv and Gerlach, our capable legal specialists. That you can change European and national laws with Romaine, Dimi and the other fools waving with pirate flags. And now again a Star Chamber show by Arbcom.

Charity, give me a break.

[CrowsNest]

What the actual fuck?

....If I feel after conducting our own case, that there is sufficient evidence that Fram has persistently and maliciously hounded people out of proportion to whatever problems they were causing, then I would be supporting a one year ban. ......SilkTork (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Out of proportion? The implication being, there is an acceptable level of hounding?

Seriously, what the actual fuck? Hounding is misconduct, period. You are either enforcing policy, or you are hounding. While this is a subjective measure, it should not be possible for one person to conclude hounding had occcurred, but it was justifiable because it was "proportionate". There is no such thing as a proportionate personal attack for example, no matter how much the conduct of Administrators like Drmies make it appear there must be. These policies are about what is prohibited, not permitted in certain circumstances.

........If I feel that Fram has only spoken to genuinely problematic users who refused to acknowledge they were causing a problem, and in so doing Fram went overboard with their attitude and/or language then I would be looking at a solution to prevent that happening again, but not looking for a site ban.......

Again, why this idea that the seriousness of Fram's conduct is dependent on what their victim has or has not done?

And on what fucking planet is it acceptable to rule out a site ban for an Administrator who has repeatedly "gone overboard"? Are we living in a world where Fram genuinely didn't know what he was doing was wrong, and that he had had all the warnings and other indications he should change his ways that he was entitled to, as an Administrator. That the next stop was a ban. Because to suggest otherwise is proveably false. What possible measures short or a ban are even practicable? Desysop, sure, but that doesn't stop him using inappropriate language.

A civility probation then? Ridiculous. They do not work - as seen in the conduct of people like The Rambling Man, who just see it as a game, something to be worked around, not abided by, its proper enforcement also frustrated by and interfered with by countless Administrators who have made it plain they never agreed with the sanction in the first place (but still somehow get to comment on its enforcement in practice). A topic ban, perhaps? But what topic? All disputes? Ridiculous.

I see those statements as nothing short of an institutional acceptance of victim blaming, and a complete and total rejection of higher standard as the goal for Administrators. It isn't theoretically acceptable for ordinary users to go "overboard" with violators, justifying themselves based on their victim's conduct, but it is tolerated to an extent, if limited and swiftly regretted, in recognition that ordinary users are just ordinary scum with ordinary frailties, not vetted and trusted by the community to reliably follow the rules and in all things be professional and dispassionate.

This isn't a matter for recusal, as the legal beagle of Wikipediocracy has suggested. This is grounds for recall, since they are patently unfiit to serve as an Arbitrator.

Then again, he isn't saying anything you won't hear other countless people on Wikipedia say, convinced as they are that they're not just utter retards. Which is all rather the point really. These people are as unfit to govern themselves as a bunch of chimps would be, if expected to abide by a rule book they simply don't understand.

[Graaf Statler]

About the noble motives of Crap Jan and his Trolling&Sucking I have my doubts, but for the rest you are of course right. It is rediciles you have first to become a warlord with gang before you can have any influence on Wikipedia. Because that is what Wikipedia and it's mangement call a "consensus".
Try to get a blocking tool and troll yourself in to heaven and you are a dream wikipedian. Plenty of examples. Block your opponent and get what you want.

And so we have at the end crap sysops, a crap arbcom, crap gender lady's who will solve anything, a crap content, a crap WMF with a crap legal department, a crap T&S and a crap director.
I have to say the wikisystem is absolute a wonder, I am astonished. It is all a matter of replacement, I said it often. Everything what is crqp is replaced by even bigger crap as solution. They try to neutralise crap with crap, a interesting process what will end up in the ultimate crap.
A wikisystem will never approve itself, that is impossible because of this principe. It will always destroy itself at the end.

[CrowsNest]

Just as a historical note, we did try out a fixed-term ban last year, which seems to have worked out OK. Of course single data points are hard to draw conclusions from. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

It's an EXCELLENT data point in of itself.

As was documented here at the time, Joefromrandb escaped an Arbitration Case because Opabina lied her ass off, cynically framing the issue as just about a user who says fuck off (and not really explaining why even that isn't an issue for ArbCom). In reality, he was a user with a serious problem, a classic toxic editor, who blamed everyone except themselves for their misconduct. Since he never faced any consequences, he never changed his behaviour.

Whether through stupidity or corruption, Opabina's rejection swung the case from the brink of acceptance, to rejection. Predictably, Joe didn't see this for what it was, a lucky escape, and soon enough he had done enough of what he does that even the most corrupt Arbitrators couldn't realistically reject a Case.

Quel surprise, in the massive amount of evidence filed in the Case he was found guilty of a variety of misconduct, all characteristic of a toxic user, that had been going on for a long time, well before Opabina told her lies to shield him from the consequences. So he got a year long ban. And again, quel surprise, when he returned, he finally appears to have learned his lesson.

To this day, I have never seen Opabina held to account for that astonishing act of corruption, the utter deception it represented. If the community even noticed, they clearly don't care. Rather ridiculously, the idiot German Gerda Arendt told anyone who would listen during the ArbCom elections and many times thereafter that Opabina's comment was brilliant. I doubt she is even capable of understanding why it was not. She would rather people like Joe were dealt with by banning people calling them toxic.

[Graaf Statler]

I really miss Timmy Tim boy here.

PRESS! FRIENDS OF THE PRESS! LOOK WHAT WE HAVE FOUND!

The corrupt fuckheads, what different is there between a lying wiki woman or a lying male shit head. Why is a Star Chamber with lying female cheaters so much better?
I simple don't get Maher her gender solution. Good catch crow!

[CrowsNest]

Fuck me. They totally caved.

As far as "will the Foundation resume issuing temporary and partial Foundation bans at the end of this consultation", the answer is no, not necessarily. If there's no consensus to use those actions at the end of the consultation - either as-is or in some adapted format - then we will not resume using those actions. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Even before they said this, it was obvious the only feedback from the community would be DO NOT WANT.

These people really have no idea how prepared the community is to insist everything is hunky dory, nobody ever gets harassed who either doesn't deserve it, or has misunderstood their community approved means of policy enforcement.

Idiots.

Look at this bullshit.......

Wikimania should have nothing to do with this - it is a highly skewed club of the (mostly) more "cult-y" people and with COIs galore. Do it openly in the biggest forum, not in some echo chamber. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: "Openly" is definitely how we're doing this. The draft consultation will be placed on Meta so anyone can comment on it, including those who aren't at Wikimania, and as my initial announcement said, we plan to publicly announce when that draft is up so people know to come give us feedback. Our goal is to get as much input as possible both in designing the consultation, and then in the actual consultation itself. Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

No, Wikimania is a closed shop where you can prime a skewed sample of the community. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

YOU CAN'T HAVE A SERIOUS CONVERSATION WITH PEOPLE LIKE THIS.

You ask them a question, you will be told what they want, and nothing else. It won't matter to them if it is unworkable, harmful, idiotic, from your perspective as a responsible farmer. They are happy in their pig sty, who cares if 1 in 10 pigs drowns in shit, they're pigs, they could care less about anything not right in front of their snout.

Sitush is deaf in real life. On Wikipedia, he is blind. Misreads people on purpose, just to make pathetic points. A blatant violation of WP:CIVIL if ever there was one. Surprise surprise, he is another editor who is untouchable because he is protected by Bishonen.

That is their idea of self-government. You cannot change it through a negotiation of equals, you have to treat it like you are taking care of a bunch of misbehaving children. You have to start breaking arms and legs, basically.

[CrowsNest]

It doesn't get better than seeing en.wiki editors claim the attendees of Wikimania do not represent them.

YOU'RE RIGHT. There is a strictly enforced no assholes rule, for a start. Plus, to attend Wikimania as a volunteer, you have to be pretty committed to the project, the sort of people who don't resign at the drop of a hat when they don't get their bottle.

It's pretty obvious people who attend official events would have an entirely different attitude to harassment and safety. It's real for them. You talk to someone in person, you can see the effect someone like Fram has on people, and what it means when they are just given a pat on the back and an attaboy, as if the consequences were nothing.

The 'online only' crowd just don't care about this stuff, on a basic, human, level. What does it matter to them, as digital avatars in a giant shit box? Nothing. Claim a Foundation employee committed fraud? Sure. Tell the Foundation they have to exclude conference participants from a user consultation? Why not? Casually toss out the idea Fram could be unbanned because his victims might have been asking for it, and a bit of rough stuff from an Administrator is no big thing. No problemo.

[Graaf Statler]

First, most of them are cult members and are subsidised by there chapter, indirect by WMF, they don't pay that trip themself. Second who is that not has to pay $225 USD out of his one pocket and where are we talking about.

Everyone could tell me after the ban I got Alexander was one of the most lousy sysops ever of WP En but he was blind trusted. The same with Jan Eissfeldt, a complete crap user who was sinked as a sysop by the German community. A Trolling&Sucking team what exist out of very questionable people. But this is not new! This is going on for years.
Trolling&Sucking what is trying to defend themself for there own church, it is sad, sad, sad.

Star Chambers. A complete leak of transparence. Corruption. It is not your money what you are drinking there in the bar in Sweden to borrow a few words of Wikimedia EdodeRoo, you basters. Openn that windows, you dirty bunch of creeps! Because the windows will be opened anyway, o yeh! I can smell the stink to here in Holland.