I don't get a good impression of him. Seems to be interested in comic books. A sock of Yuri?
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Bijdragen/Fram
https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 20520127#??
Fram
-
Abd
- Sucks Warrior
- Posts: 749
- Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
- Has thanked: 72 times
- Been thanked: 48 times
Re: Fram
Fram's story has been told by Fram, on Commons..
It is clear from this that the WMF is involving itself more intimately in behavioral minutiae.They issued warnings for behavior that could be addressed on-wiki. He points to what they gave as a reason for the ban. [url:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=895438118&diffmode=source]May 4:[/url]
This is what I notice. That comment was not directly or grossly uncivil, by Wikipedia standards. It was disrespect of ArbCom. A body of that nature can sanction such (as a court can declare contempt of court). But nobody else can sanction for such. A police officer seeing a person say "Fuck you!" to the court cannot arrest for that, unless it is clearly causing a riot (which is a different crime.) If ArbCom chooses to ignore it, that would be their right. And they apparently did.
This is all very obvious: the WMF is defacto declaring that it is the ultimate authority on even minor disputes on a local project. And the Wikipedia community does appear to be aware that it has choices. But does it have the guts to exercise them? My opinion: ArbCom should request the WMF turn this affair over to them for appeal, the desysop and block to stand until and unless ArbCom decides to reverse those actions (unless the WMF reverses first.) It should urge the community to be patient to allow time for the WMF and ArbCom to fully consider the implications. If ArbCom can come to consensus (more than mere majority, probably, it should turn the *structural* and *policy* issues over to the community for discussion, ArbCom still being responsible for ruling on the outcome of that discussion.
What I suspect is that ArbCom members are involved, if so, that could explain why the WMF might not turn it over to ArbCom. But there are ways to handle problems like that.
As others have noticed, it depends on whose ox is being gored. If if it is your neighbor's ox, you think "maybe he deserved it" or "He deserved it, my neighbor is such a jerk, he actually criticized my hat!"
If it is your ox, or your friend's ox, suddenly this is a huge issue!
There is precedent, involving Wikiversity. Jimbo Wales descended on Wikiversity, deleting pages where alleged Wikipedia misbehavior had been documented. He desysopped a user, and a 'crat re-opped him, so Wales removed rights from the 'crat. For Wikiversity the issue was outside interference with academic freedom. The result of all this was a drastic decline in Wikiversity participation. An RfC was filed on Meta to remove Wales' Founder rights. It was running 2:1 against, with the usual Wikipedia biggies opposing -- Wikipedians generally have no understanding of the mission of Wikiversity.
Then Jimbo, perhaps encouraged, went to Commons and, bypassing the Commons processes and policies and expectations, started deleting porn. And Commons users -- a far larger group, plus some long-term general editors and admins, dropped in and supported removal. I think it ended up at about 4:1 when Wales caved and surrendered the tools. My summary:
Academic freedom, poof! Who cares? But don't touch our porn!
(That's a bit unfair, the sequence actually showed how Wikipedians dominated global processes, with no regard for how other projects might be operating. Academic freedom is very important in an educational setting, university-like, like Wikiversity. It is far less of an issue on an encyclopedia project.)
It is clear from this that the WMF is involving itself more intimately in behavioral minutiae.They issued warnings for behavior that could be addressed on-wiki. He points to what they gave as a reason for the ban. [url:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=895438118&diffmode=source]May 4:[/url]
Fuck ArbCom which doesn't even understand their own messages and again give themselves powers they don't have. First it was deletions, then it was mandatory 2FA, inbetween it is loads of evidence of utter incompetence in many of its members (witness the statement by AGK above, but also some of the comments at e.g. the Rama case request). Just crawl into a corner and shut up until the community asks you to do something within your remit, but don't try to rule enwiki as if you have the right and the competence to do so. Or collectively resign. But don't give us any more of this bullshit. Fram (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
This is what I notice. That comment was not directly or grossly uncivil, by Wikipedia standards. It was disrespect of ArbCom. A body of that nature can sanction such (as a court can declare contempt of court). But nobody else can sanction for such. A police officer seeing a person say "Fuck you!" to the court cannot arrest for that, unless it is clearly causing a riot (which is a different crime.) If ArbCom chooses to ignore it, that would be their right. And they apparently did.
This is all very obvious: the WMF is defacto declaring that it is the ultimate authority on even minor disputes on a local project. And the Wikipedia community does appear to be aware that it has choices. But does it have the guts to exercise them? My opinion: ArbCom should request the WMF turn this affair over to them for appeal, the desysop and block to stand until and unless ArbCom decides to reverse those actions (unless the WMF reverses first.) It should urge the community to be patient to allow time for the WMF and ArbCom to fully consider the implications. If ArbCom can come to consensus (more than mere majority, probably, it should turn the *structural* and *policy* issues over to the community for discussion, ArbCom still being responsible for ruling on the outcome of that discussion.
What I suspect is that ArbCom members are involved, if so, that could explain why the WMF might not turn it over to ArbCom. But there are ways to handle problems like that.
As others have noticed, it depends on whose ox is being gored. If if it is your neighbor's ox, you think "maybe he deserved it" or "He deserved it, my neighbor is such a jerk, he actually criticized my hat!"
If it is your ox, or your friend's ox, suddenly this is a huge issue!
There is precedent, involving Wikiversity. Jimbo Wales descended on Wikiversity, deleting pages where alleged Wikipedia misbehavior had been documented. He desysopped a user, and a 'crat re-opped him, so Wales removed rights from the 'crat. For Wikiversity the issue was outside interference with academic freedom. The result of all this was a drastic decline in Wikiversity participation. An RfC was filed on Meta to remove Wales' Founder rights. It was running 2:1 against, with the usual Wikipedia biggies opposing -- Wikipedians generally have no understanding of the mission of Wikiversity.
Then Jimbo, perhaps encouraged, went to Commons and, bypassing the Commons processes and policies and expectations, started deleting porn. And Commons users -- a far larger group, plus some long-term general editors and admins, dropped in and supported removal. I think it ended up at about 4:1 when Wales caved and surrendered the tools. My summary:
Academic freedom, poof! Who cares? But don't touch our porn!
(That's a bit unfair, the sequence actually showed how Wikipedians dominated global processes, with no regard for how other projects might be operating. Academic freedom is very important in an educational setting, university-like, like Wikiversity. It is far less of an issue on an encyclopedia project.)
-
Graaf Statler
- Side Troll
- Posts: 3996
- Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm
-
Abd
- Sucks Warrior
- Posts: 749
- Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
- Has thanked: 72 times
- Been thanked: 48 times
Re: Fram
CrowsNest wrote:On my fucking Christ, they've gone full turtle.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... an_of_Fram
What. The. Actual. Fuck.
(as they keep saying, but just for different reasons)
Yes. The WMF obviously overreached. I predict that they cave. Easiest: undo the removal of the sysop bit. Further, reach an agreement with Fran that he will not edit en.wiki without specific approval, say from ArbCom. If he refuses to agree, then leave the block in place, otherwise unblock, stating that Fran has agreed to not edit until this matter has resolved.
This is a general truth about Wikipedia administration. They do not trust and allow voluntary compliance with injunctions, too often. Or, in some cases, they over-trust and do not monitor compliance.
But the basic issue here is the usurpration of power from the community. So, we all know, the community processes are fucked, ineffective, inefficient. But instead of fixing them -- they could, if they had the cojones -- they barge in like vigilantes, to round up the criminals and prevent them from harming the good folk. Who don't want them.
We can see, as I have always seen in affairs like this, that people align based on the personalities, whom they like and whom they dislike. Some are not doing that, and I congratulate them. "Fram deserved it" is totally irrelevant. If the police grabbed someone in my neighborhood and tossed him in the clink -- or worse -- without due process, I'd be outraged, no matter how bad that person is. Police abuse threatens all of us if tolerated.
-
Graaf Statler
- Side Troll
- Posts: 3996
- Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm
Re: Fram
Please don't do that. It is really unnecessary. Both Doc James and I are on the case, trying to understand what happened here, and the ArbCom is discussing it as well. Drama will not be necessary, but more importantly, drama will not be helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeh, for the Dutch Fram both you and Doc James can run, isn't it Jimmy? The world doctor didn't even answer my mail, to bussy with his visit of the Dutch chapter in that time.
Fuck yourself, bunch of hypocrites what you both are. T&S is for years a chaos with fat boy overpaid Alexandre, but you have just ignored it.
Last edited by Graaf Statler on Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Fram
Well, this is the issue, is it not? By their own written standards, it still is grossly uncivil. The WMF are merely reminding the locals that it is they who have ultimate jurisdiction, and they still clearly want Wikipedia's concepts of what is abusive, to match the real world, or at least the parts of it they want the public to think they are a part of. They did indeed trust the locals far too much, this is what correction looks like. If they protest, worse can be done. Anyone approaching this issue as if the English Wikipedia volunteers have rights of self-government and indeed self-determination, I say RTFM. It is an admirable aim, but it is not their reality. The WMF have been their Protectors of their reality for years, they are now being reminded they are also their Overlords, and they have only ever had one right if they are not happy with their reality - to leave. Maybe you should remind them your court case is a perfect opportunity for them to assert that they do perhaps have more rights than that, and according to their own lawyer's words to boot? You can be their new champion!Abd wrote:That comment was not directly or grossly uncivil, by Wikipedia standards.
-
Graaf Statler
- Side Troll
- Posts: 3996
- Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:20 pm
Re: Fram
Abd wrote: They did indeed trust the locals far too much, this is what correction looks like. If they protest, worse can be done.
Ach. Just after that SanFanBan World Doctor James came to Holland for a reading and there was written he wanted to speak as much wikipedians as posible. I thought well, mabey we can have a little chat, drink a coffee, let I try to make a appointment with him.
But no, no, no. Mister Doc James didn't even answer a email. Grossly uncivil, that is the right term for that person, it is just a uncivilised jerk.
Re: Fram
Can everyone please note, now that all of Wikipedia's "best" Administrators have turned up to protest in various forms, ranging from (rather unconvincing) claims they will fall on their sword, to writing strongly worded letters of protest, Ritchie333 is still nowhere to be seen. It is being claimed by many that this is an issue that is uniting the community in disgust. Isn't Ritchie usually considered part of that mob?
He's active, happily editing away, just apparently not remotely interested in this affair. Ritchie, the guy who'll comment literally anywhere if he is angry about something, usually Trump, but also often matters of what is Best For Wikipedia.
Come to think of it, where's Drmies, and Cullen? Both active, but evidently entirely uninterested in this as well. Bbb23 too, his only interest being to stop one brave little soldier taking up arms, on the basis Bishonen has already committed herself. If Bbb23 stands ready to fall on her sword given she seems unwilling to do so, you could be forgiven for not picking up that message. Never usually so unwilling to say what he means. Here, he apparently only wants to tell people not to protest.
What's the more likely scenario here? That the person who complained to the WMF and is now keeping silent about their role in Fram's downfall, is a tiny little women or a loud but friendless trans person, now terrified of retribution? Or a bunch of scheming bullying dick-swinging monkey-poo flinging bastards who know fine well that the WMF is obliged to withhold their identity even if doing so makes them look like the bad guys who are acting against the community, not in response to some of its biggest beasts.
A complaint to the WMF signed by no less than four "respected" and "long serving" Administrators would surely spur them to open a Case. They could point them to all of Fram's dirty little secrets, because they were usually there too, expressing their disapproval. In their petition to the WMF, they no doubt expressed their profound regrets that they have been forced to go over the heads of an ArbCom and community who have done so little about Fram's behaviour. Why would the WMF assume bad faith of such upstanding members of the WikiPolice?
Where's the one place you can be sure to be immune from a boomerang? If you knew that you had enough evidence to convict a fellow Administrator, but also know you're just as bad yourself, then if you wanted them out of the picture badly enough, if they had driven you to rage, then you'd swerve the battlespace of AN/I and a very controversial ArbCom involvement, where you would be in the spotlight too. Witness protection, a very quiet trial, delivering a very swift and entirely unexpected sencton, is what you'd want.
You'd go to the one place you feel best represents your own views of what good governance is. A shadowy star chamber which rejects any idea it is accountable to anyone but itself, whose members derive all their authority from the piece of paper that says they are the Law, and an unshakable belief there is no difference between what they think is right, and what is right.
History has shown us that those who profess their undying loyalty to the community the loudest, are the ones who do the most to destroy it.
Check their records. Drmies, Ritchie, Bbb23, Cullen. See any signs they really believe in transparency or accountability, much less even want to live in a wiki world where they ever have to accept they could be wrong? Have they ever lied to people who thought they could trust them? Have they ever betrayed a colleague for selfish reasons? Have they ever abused their power, then abused those who called them out for it? Would they have all eventually found themselves on the wrong side of Fram? Given his distaste for the sort of thing that binds these people together? Are they just the sort of hypocritical fucks who would do such a thing?
Search your feelings, Wikipedians. You know who the traitors are. I just feel bad for the other seriously corrupt Administrators. Clearly no sense of honour or loyalty in their ranks. Just a bunch of cuthroats. Fram was too, he just didn't know when to stop, didn't realize he wasn't supposed to target the editors these people considered friends.
He had to go.
He gone.
If nobody else disappears, if this proves not to be the beginning of an WMF purge, then you can be certain I am right. If Fram ends up getting unblocked but any of these people are eager to ensure he is not restored to his full former glory as Head Hunter Extraordinaire without certain conditions, as opposed to those being willing to state their views here and now, then you will know I was right.
He's active, happily editing away, just apparently not remotely interested in this affair. Ritchie, the guy who'll comment literally anywhere if he is angry about something, usually Trump, but also often matters of what is Best For Wikipedia.
Come to think of it, where's Drmies, and Cullen? Both active, but evidently entirely uninterested in this as well. Bbb23 too, his only interest being to stop one brave little soldier taking up arms, on the basis Bishonen has already committed herself. If Bbb23 stands ready to fall on her sword given she seems unwilling to do so, you could be forgiven for not picking up that message. Never usually so unwilling to say what he means. Here, he apparently only wants to tell people not to protest.
What's the more likely scenario here? That the person who complained to the WMF and is now keeping silent about their role in Fram's downfall, is a tiny little women or a loud but friendless trans person, now terrified of retribution? Or a bunch of scheming bullying dick-swinging monkey-poo flinging bastards who know fine well that the WMF is obliged to withhold their identity even if doing so makes them look like the bad guys who are acting against the community, not in response to some of its biggest beasts.
A complaint to the WMF signed by no less than four "respected" and "long serving" Administrators would surely spur them to open a Case. They could point them to all of Fram's dirty little secrets, because they were usually there too, expressing their disapproval. In their petition to the WMF, they no doubt expressed their profound regrets that they have been forced to go over the heads of an ArbCom and community who have done so little about Fram's behaviour. Why would the WMF assume bad faith of such upstanding members of the WikiPolice?
Where's the one place you can be sure to be immune from a boomerang? If you knew that you had enough evidence to convict a fellow Administrator, but also know you're just as bad yourself, then if you wanted them out of the picture badly enough, if they had driven you to rage, then you'd swerve the battlespace of AN/I and a very controversial ArbCom involvement, where you would be in the spotlight too. Witness protection, a very quiet trial, delivering a very swift and entirely unexpected sencton, is what you'd want.
You'd go to the one place you feel best represents your own views of what good governance is. A shadowy star chamber which rejects any idea it is accountable to anyone but itself, whose members derive all their authority from the piece of paper that says they are the Law, and an unshakable belief there is no difference between what they think is right, and what is right.
History has shown us that those who profess their undying loyalty to the community the loudest, are the ones who do the most to destroy it.
Check their records. Drmies, Ritchie, Bbb23, Cullen. See any signs they really believe in transparency or accountability, much less even want to live in a wiki world where they ever have to accept they could be wrong? Have they ever lied to people who thought they could trust them? Have they ever betrayed a colleague for selfish reasons? Have they ever abused their power, then abused those who called them out for it? Would they have all eventually found themselves on the wrong side of Fram? Given his distaste for the sort of thing that binds these people together? Are they just the sort of hypocritical fucks who would do such a thing?
Search your feelings, Wikipedians. You know who the traitors are. I just feel bad for the other seriously corrupt Administrators. Clearly no sense of honour or loyalty in their ranks. Just a bunch of cuthroats. Fram was too, he just didn't know when to stop, didn't realize he wasn't supposed to target the editors these people considered friends.
He had to go.
He gone.
If nobody else disappears, if this proves not to be the beginning of an WMF purge, then you can be certain I am right. If Fram ends up getting unblocked but any of these people are eager to ensure he is not restored to his full former glory as Head Hunter Extraordinaire without certain conditions, as opposed to those being willing to state their views here and now, then you will know I was right.