Fram

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats blecch!
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 01, 2019 1:21 am

I quite like how she hasn't deleted it, but made it sound like this was for their benefit.

That's a PR for you.

I am literally praying they turn this into a hot war.

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 01, 2019 1:51 am

Looks like we may be nearing the point they'll say any old dumb shit to keep this people's revolution alive....
Sorry seems to be the hardest word
With Maher dithering, mistweeting, and generally showing complete detachment from her "community", and with Jimbo and Doc James trying yet failing to get any kind of substantive indication of what the hell has happened here, it suddenly struck me today that we, the community, have missed the apology for all this. I know, these days, that apologies imply guilt, but wouldn't it be nice if Maher or someone else said: "We're really sorry, we had no idea that our actions were going to cause such a reaction and we misjudged it completely." That would be all that's needed to keep some of us onside while the ongoing (three weeks and counting) malaise is discussed and a conclusion brought to us all. Elton John (as befits Pride weekend) noted it perfectly, "sorry" does seem to be the hardest word here right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Back in the real world, the WMF actually apologized on 13 June, three days after their block. Sure, that was their 5th comment, but it was the first by a named person, and knowing a real person is giving the apology seems to be important to these psychopaths, if that masquerade above is to be believed. The previous four complaints were clearly meant to convey authority and a level of infallibility, conveying understanding but not agreement with the complaints. As a role account, you could surely not expect anything else.

Meanwhile, I've not yet seen one person apologize for this sort of bullshit still being a thing 19 days into the crisis, when everyone has pretty much figured out that what Fram did was serious and directed at multiple users, and reasonable people can only really argue that a ban was justified, it just shouldn't have been the WMF to do it.
Simple cases of "User X was mean to me!" is not within the WMF's remit to handle. ArbCom has handled many cases of that type, and will likely handle many more, so there's no reason to believe they couldn't. But "ArbCom might not make the decision I would make" is not a reason to usurp local control. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
To clarify, even straight up cases of WP:HOUNDING has to be considered by reasonable people to be a grade above being mean. If not, well, I guess that's one reason for how things got so out of whack, and en.wiki apparently just woke up one day, totally surprised everyone at Pest Control thinks they're the biggest asholes in the room, and they could stand to be taken down a peg or two by the landlords.

I mean, look at this Grade-A manure.....
But the WMF must know that if they mistreat us, we will leave. Because yes, they depend on us far more than we depend on them. Volunteers used to run the servers, fix Mediawiki bugs, even handle serious complaints like child protection and the like. We can do that without them; having someone else able to is a "nice to have". But the project cannot continue without the volunteers that keep it going day to day. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
........just being said without anyone objecting. As if nobody has even read all the statements which have made it pretty darn clear successive ArbCom's were absolutely fucking desperate to take issues like child protection off their hands.

Handling harassment is a serious issue. In most jurisdictions it is actually illegal. The very idea that the Wikipedians wouldn't be screaming for the WMF's help in handling the really tough cases, is fanciful. They can't even handle their own Founder being harassed by multiple users. It's genuinely pathetic to see him having to literally tell another editor they're doing nothing but insulting him, and then watch as the community let's the prick just go ahead and post again. And that's the guy they think is at this very moment in a conference call or meeting room arguing strongly for the community's rights? Come on people.

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 01, 2019 2:32 am

Looks like the SignPost has joined the fake news brigade too.....
This came as a surprise to everyone as far as we can tell. As far as the The Signpost is aware, there were no ongoing discussions or Arbitration Committee proceedings regarding Fram in the usual English Wikipedia venues for editor/administrator behavior issues.
As much as the ArbCom open letter tried to concealed it, there's been plenty of evidence floating around to suggest the Fram issue was a subject of discussion with members of the Arbitration Committee in the weeks leading up to the ban. Shit, the parallel 'special report' that sits alongside this 'discussion report' has a direct quote from Rob to that effect.

Look at this bullshit......
Prior to the block, WMF conducted a conference call in which one member of the Arbitration Committee participated, Opabinia regalis. She has stated that "an action to do with Fram was under consideration". Other arbitrators have said they were not aware of it.
A more accurate account would state the information was included the minutes of the call, it included the fact the action being considered included a ban, and these minutes were seen by some but not all of the Committee (and a real fucking newspaper would be looking to get hard numbers on that). Crucially, even without the precise number, we already know enough of them knew that the blame for not doing anything about it before all hell broke loose, rests with the Committee, not an individual, as terrible and corrupt as she is.

Overall, while the 'special report' seems damning, it's quality of journalism is already being picked apart, specifically over claims which have been included without being verified, which is ironic. If the community can't produce a damn newsletter that is accurate, how's it gonna handle harassment cases?

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 01, 2019 2:50 am

Oh wow. The comments.....
I find reprehensible the use of the word "safety" by Raystorm and women like her. I have come to learn that many women continually reassess how emotionally-stable, socially-connected, and physically safe they feel. Sadly, some women wrap up their feelings about the former two into the all-inclusive language of the latter, which is a mistake. I don't use language that impugns others for the discomforts I and everyone else feel. I would recommend to all women that when they don't feel comfortable with the tone of a discussion, that they eschew claims that they don't feel safe, as if someone has put a gun to their heads. Describing your unhappiness with conversations and disagreements as feeling "not safe" serves to silence and punish the majority of us who are trying to reason out a solution, while also discrediting the word of all women about matters of safety. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
That was supposedly in reference to.....
This community, when confronted with the ban of an admin on the grounds of problematic behavior, instead of examining said behavior immediately turned to find another individual to blame ... [T]his pattern of trying to prove, in order to absolve a banned admin, that there must be either something in [a third party's] past, or that [the third party] must have done something wrong or used undue influence for her own personal gain, is sadly familiar to most women in the internet, and has strong textbook reminiscences of for instance gamergate. This is not safe. It's not healthy for this community either.
So in the mind of this Wikipedian, a woman has to be literally held at gunpoint, to be entitled to say she feels unsafe. And stuff like publicly rooting through her digital history to find dirt so they can smear her as revenge, is downgraded merely to a conversation with a bad tone.

These people. They literally make your skin crawl.

It's classic misogyny. Avoid talking about the actual actions, just focus your rage on them women with their invalid feelings. Goddamn them for discrediting the word of all women about matters of safety. Said the dude.

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 01, 2019 3:37 am

If you can believe your eyes, this is apparently meant as an explanation for why ArbCom's open letter doesn't admit the existence of the minutes......
In that case yes we'd known for some time that T&S were talking to him, and were told a few days before that they were considering a ban. Unfortunately that was on a poorly-attended call and I don't think many arbs picked up on it in the minutes (I was inactive at the time), which of course is not T&S' fault. I thought about putting that in the letter, but Jan has already apologised for not communicating it to us more clearly in advance, and I actually think T&S are generally good at keeping us (ArbCom) informed about what they're doing, so it didn't seem worth pursuing. The communication problems we refer to are largely in communication after the ban. – Joe (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
This is the first time we're even getting a concrete timeline, and we are still at a loss for precise figures of which Arbs had read the minutes before all hell broke loose. Even here, the focus seems to be on blaming the WMF for not warning them sufficiently early, and not on the rather obvious fact that they had enough time and it had been seen by enough people for any sensible person to assume they would have done something, if, and it is a big if, they were minded to. I don't think they were. I think they were happy to let the WMF finally do something they had kept passing on, something they now admit was causing friction in the Committee. And they clearly panicked when the flares went up, and crucially, waited for the WMF's permission before they told the community anything.

This is what reveals what this revolt is all about. The en.wiki community are just fine with their own ArbCom having a clear intent to mislead or even deceive with their communications of what happened, it was only one user who was even bothered enough to ask. The rest could give a tiny rat's ass, even though knowing details like this is absolutely central to the question, can these fuckers really handle harassment cases? Many of them will require fast but collective decisions, and under no circumstances will ArbCom be allowed to pass the buck for any failures.

How's this for hilarious too. In all this talk of power grabs, Gorilla Warfare slips in this little gem.....
I wrestled with this a bit myself. I feel like we're in a chicken an egg position: if the WMF has decided to take on enforcement of harassment issues, then there is no point in spending the immense amount of ArbCom's and the community's time required to have a thoughtful RfC about how to improve our process. But of course, without a better process, we will be no better at handling these difficult issues. I think one positive thing about this whole situation is that it has drawn attention to how nuanced these kinds of issues are—in the past, people have been extremely wary of ArbCom holding private proceedings, but it seems this situation has drawn attention to how important privacy protections are in harassment cases. I am hoping that we will come out of this with all parties (WMF, ArbCom, and the general community) better informed about all the issues there are to juggle in harassment cases, and a community more willing to allow the ArbCom to handle them privately when needed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
In the spirit of everyone's new found love of consultation and community consent in how they are governed, when might we see a specific RfC that details what this greater willingness to handle cases in private might actually entail........? Something tells me this will be one of those details that gets left to the Committee to decide among themselves, presumably justified in policy with some reference to an ad hoc basis or special circumstances of some other worthless bullshit that, if it came from the Evil WMF, would frighten and alarm those community members who apparently cannot stand to live their lives in such an environment of uncertainty, unable to plan their futures, buy wiki-mortgages, and otherwise spend the lunch money of the users they bully.

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 01, 2019 3:56 am

Yet again, the Partner from Retards, Retard and Retard just keeps giving.....
Yep. This is why we need a "reasonable person" standard for harassment. Just looking at Rob's description, I don't see how he could have felt "unsafe". It just doesn't make sense. Yes, Fram was being a dick, but that doesn't make you unsafe. "Safety" means physical safety, and to a lesser extent, ability to participate freely. It doesn't mean freedom to participate without being challenged.
You wouldn't even take this advice for free.

Check the record, you asswipe. The specific act, following a user to an unrelated place merely to challenge on dubious grounds, speaks for itself, even on this deliberately concocted scale.

And stop pretending that "safe" means physically safe as if it means shit here. That horseshit has been dismissed in actual proper legal systems for years. Harassment on Wikipedia is always going to be about how a user feels, the reasonable person test being applied to online actions and more usually, words. I mean, keep up - threats of actual physics violence, the community graciously wants to let the WMF keep handling those cases.

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 01, 2019 5:12 am

Timmy! Now come on, what have I showed you before? Whenever you make a list, it tends to mean you're talking shite......
Now a positive program for a way out of this mess
1. It starts with an "I'm sorry." WMF needs to acknowlege that behavior-banning is not their purview (particularly secretly deliberated, unappealable behavior banning!); they need to acknowledge that they should have stepped back instead of digging in.

For a start, they did apologize, on day three. Fat lot of good it did too. Please clarify - are you still fine with the way the WMF bans other people banned for behavior we already know you lot are too chicken shit to handle. As for who stepped back and dug in, are you for real?

2. No matter what WMF thinks of him, Fram's ban needs to be immediately terminated "without prejudice" for being implemented later by Arbcom if the evidence so indicates.

How much later? We know it takes ArbCom anywhere from two to three months to hear a case, and you can probably add another one on top of that for Fram, because of all the natural justice requirements that have magically appeared. That's a whole lot of time Fram would theoretically be free to continue his established behavior, if not worse (after all, whose going to just indef him during that period?). Also, what of his Admin status?

3. Whatever Fram is accused of having done, behavior-wise, should be turned over to the proper channel for this to be handled, which is Arbcom. There has never been a case on this for him, the foundation made an end run around the system here. Let the system work, Arbcom works under non-disclosure agreements of non-public information.

The proper channel for the problem described, namely an institutional failure to uphold minimal standards, was T&S. You just don't like it is all. Just like you refuse to accept that under policy and precedent, Fram has already been before the Committee at least once in an actual Case as a named party, and they refused to act. There was no end run, T&S was empowered to act in such obvious cases of balls being dropped, and the Committee had obviously been discussing him for ages, and right up until before the ban was enacted, were properly informed and had the opportunity to protest if they so wished. They did not.

4. Jan Eissfeldt needs to be immediatelty reassigned within the WMF establishment. He doesn't necessarily need to be fired (although that would send a message), but he absolutely needs to be removed from his current position of authority, having lost the confidence of the volunteer community.

Says who? Did you take a poll? Did you speak to anyone who has ever actually filed a complaint with T&S? Where the fuck do you get off even ordering paid staff around like this? Aren't you the guy who was told by Jimmy Wales to stay off his talk page, and you've posted there many times since (including this pathetic list).

5. If WMF is actually interested in some sort of "Universal Code of Behavior," this must be negotiated and debated with the various language communities (not just English-WP). Implementation by fiat would be a catastrophe like the Fram Affair, amplified, simultaneously occurring across multiple wikis.

Hey genius, talking with every project via the central wiki set up for just that, is the usual model for WMF consultations. FloNight has said everyone is invited to the consultation if and when she has a URS/UCC proposal. Are you calling her a liar? What evidence is there that the en.wiki would even show up? They seem most disinterested in all of these global things that I've seen.

6. There absolutely needs to be a written constitution delineating roles of the two entities, the paid staff and the volunteer communities. Let each community elect delegates, one for every 500 or 1,000 very active editors (100+ edits per month) or something like that, to meet either in person or with a series of conference calls to hash out details. There needs to be institutional "buy in." Perhaps the "universal code" negotiation could be made part of this.

You're an idiot.

7. Jimmy Wales needs to personally contact each resigning administrator individually, by email or on-wiki, makes no difference, passing along what has been done and what will be done going forward with respect to the Fram Affair, behavior policing in general, and asking each to reconsider their decision since we do need their talent and the way to stop the quits is by turning around the school bus.

Pathetic. I mean, you do realise the whole point of being a volunteer is you are free to do what the fuck you like? If a bunch of asshole Administrators are done with Wikipedia and don't want to even look back to see if all their asshole demands were met and it is safe to return, then where's the downside?

8. The WMF board should start looking for a new ED by the end of the year. This is not strictly essential, politically, but it is getting untenable for the current ED to continue given the magnitude of the mishandling of this affair.

It is becoming untenable for the WMF to believe it can hire anyone who would be willing to take that poisoned chalice. Arguably Maher has only lasted this long by purposefully being distant from you freaks and your trivial concerns. Who says she hasn't already decided to stay until she has crushed the rebellion, then use that to get an even better job? Do you have any idea how weak your position actually is?

-- Tim Davenport /// Carrite (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

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 01, 2019 5:31 am

How apt that one of the side shows has demonstrated Wikipedia governance in action....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=904091491

Just a total cowboy, acting out of emotion and for a set of very narrow interests, with an exceedingly poor grasp of conflict resolution.

Wikipedia has already tried this fast and loose approach to Adminship. It doesn't work.

This time around, ArbCom is so thoroughly corrupted if not just completely disinterested, it won't be able to stop their collective charge back the the Wild West days.

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

Re: Fram

Post by Graaf Statler » Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:35 am

They all must learn to read.
The meta policy is Foundation bans are final; they are not appealable, not negotiable and not reversible.

And a Foundation ban has passed many, many layers, so it is complete nonsense to dig in the private life of some people and I can't imagine they are all romantic involved with each other there in LA. :mrgreen:
(What has noting to do with the matter in my opinion.)
So, WMF must have had a dammed good reason for that FramBan and I am sure they had foresee this riot.

Nothing is going to change, really nothing. Just like I had to accept and respect that Foundation ban the English community has to accept the Framban too. Because WMF was right, a wiki surrounding is not good for me. It costed me a long time to find out the reason for my ban, but there was one. (Voortschrijdend inzicht) just like there is a dammed good reason for the Framban.

The English community could better spent it's time to find out why WFM has banned Fram and take messages it doesn't happen again instead of writing open letters and producing truckloads of bullshit both on WP-EN and Wikipediocrazy.

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

Re: Fram

Post by CrowsNest » Tue Jul 02, 2019 2:13 am

Just as I predicted, ArbCom are refusing to even admonish Administrators and Bureaucrats for interfering with Foundation business without permission. Their excuse? It was controversial. Oh well. Thanks for confirming that any Administrator who thinks he has a mob behind him, can do what the fuck he wants. Or more likely she, because Bishonen has her greedy beady eyes all over the potential to be had in this quivering capitulation.

Consensus does not apply to office actions. That is a statement that should exist in Wikipedia policy, because it is entirely an issue for the community to decide - either they accept the Foundation is their legal owner entitled to have the final word, or they don't. If they don't, codify in policy when you are likely going to want to fuck with office actions ( "when people are mad" will do), and how those volunteer rights holders who do so fuck, can be made to have the same legal exposure that the Foundation otherwise would have for these actions, or rather their reversal. Because I sure as shit don't know the real name or postal address of "Bishonen from Wikipedia" so she can be served. The Foundation doesn't either, and they're not going to be happy about that, because they will get doubly fucked in the ass as the people responsible for me not being able to get at the actual person responsible.

They've written a whole bunch of equivocating bullshit that merely masks what they are doing - authorizing unilateral volunteer interference with office actions.
Lack of sanctions under these exceptional circumstances should not set expectations around similar future actions.
I think at this point ArbCom need to retain their own counsel, because if the Foundation no longer has final authority, if a lawyer can identify a quasi-official group of identifiable individuals who did indeed make quasi official rulings that did indeed seem to influence the decision making of any future rights holder pushing buttons that ultimately severely harmed my client's real world interests, as tends to happen real fast with accusations of the sort now being seen in the Fram case, they are fair game.

Exceptional circumstances is a gift to any lawyer looking to sue on the basis clear and obvious rules either did not exist or were needlessly ignored. If the Foundation lets this risk develop without acting to correct misconceptions and thus prevent an entirely foreseeable scenario, that too can be used against them.

Post Reply