Fram

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

Re: Fram

Post by Graaf Statler » Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:37 pm

CrowsNest wrote:So far, all we've heard is snippets, hints that their likely dysfunction was tied as much to resource issues and communication failures and their renowned prediliction for delay and indecision, as it was a conscious desire to classify Fram's slide back into his old behaviours as not something that should concern the Committee.

Settle this question first, then worry about whether or not what he was doing was harassment, and by whose definition, and what it all means in the wider context.

Exacte. Place it in a wider context because this incident has a long, long history as you can see in the posting's of Guido with many, many facets and later incidents. All these snippets, hints doesn't help us forward. Indeed, settle first you questions.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Fram

Post by CrowsNest » Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:43 pm

Oh wow. Just noticed this gem from WJScribe......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =902864341

Since when has it been common practice to note the "controversial" nature of a Wikipedia ban, much less for the Bureaucrat abusing his tools to give force to that view, editing through protection to note this controversy?

Did the community ever note the controversy of any past ban at all in this fashion, ever? Sure, they often edit war over whether to pin a badge of shame or just leave their page unaltered, as if, to an unwitting observer, the user just decided for themselves to stop editing (there's that dead hand power of Queen Bishonen to unilaterally reinterpret policy again). But third party commentary notes? No, I cannot recall a single instance.

Not even for Derrick Coetzee, even though we can speculate the origins for his ban were in a legit Wikipedia controversy. We speculate, because no reasons were given, remember, Wikipediots?

Seriously, they have absolutely no standards at all. On what planet, under what system of governance, is this sort of behavior considered good governance? Not being done by an ordinary editor, not even an Administrator, but a Bureaucrat, the supposedly top of the line models.

I will accept this guy does not deserve to suffer real world consequences for these things, if he can convince me he has never used the fact he is a Wikipedia high office holder to advance in his real world life.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Fram

Post by CrowsNest » Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:54 pm

Fram reminds us why he released only certain extracts of confidential emails......
......I only did this to give myself some chance at a defense, and the enwiki community some indication of the actual history. ....... Fram (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
OK. I'm sure the separatists will refuse to accept it, but this is basically an admission that he has a motive not to reveal the whole story over and above the simple desire not to breach the implied confidentiality of email communications. Which he did anyway.

Why is the mob's demand for transparency only directed at the WMF? Why no calls for Fram or ArbCom to release everything they have? Or for everyone involved to be allowed to claim what they have is privelaged/confidential, only viewable by people who have signed an NDA.

Because they do not seek the truth. This is not about transparency in government. This is about the mob wanting their pre-existing biases confirmed. It's Hilary's emails all over again.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Fram

Post by CrowsNest » Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:15 pm

And if Fram had engaged in harassment that was serious enough for T&S to intervene, then it should have resulted in an indefinite global ban, not a fixed duration site ban exclusive to the English Wikipedia. Nothing about the official response to this situation makes any sense if not viewed with the presumption that they have committed an overreach of authority in banning someone they didn't like. Kurtis (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
A perfect example of why the WMF has basically ghosted the mob since the 21st.

Explaining themselves to the community in a detailed and specific fashion with regard to their concerns, is simply thrown back in their face with classic examples of the behaviour they claim to detest - assume bad faith and general fuckwittery.

I mean for FUCK'S SAKE. It is the actual position of the English Wikipedia community that even if someone is found to have harassed volunteers to the point they need to be banned from en.wiki, the longest ban they ever apply is for one year. Suddenly this is the mark of crazy people now? Maybe it is. So own it, because you were doing it first.

The WMF placed a partial ban on Fram out of deference to the local communities, who seem to think harassment is sometimes something that can be dealt with by time and scope limited bans. If you don't like it, they're not going to lift it, they'll just upgrade it.

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

Re: Fram

Post by Graaf Statler » Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:42 pm

CrowsNest wrote:The WMF placed a partial ban on Fram out of deference to the local communities, who seem to think harassment is sometimes something that can be dealt with by time and scope limited bans. If you don't like it, they're not going to lift it, they'll just upgrade it.

Let me tell you one thing. WMF doesn't make the second time the same mistake they made with the Alexander blunder bans out of the past.
I assure you good lawyers and experts has looked to it and analysed the situation and the measure against Romaine and Fram is not a mistake. Jan is only a instrument, he is not the one who have decided this.
WMF understands dammed well how dangers blunder bans are, both for there reputation as legal. Blunder sanFanBans can even be legal suicide, they can hurt there reputation immense. Why should they gamble with this powerful weapon again? To pay even more money than they already do to the Jones lawyers?

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Fram

Post by CrowsNest » Thu Jun 27, 2019 6:23 pm

I'm afraid they will keep globally banning people until a judge tells them to stop. The advantages (or disadvantages) of the encyclopedia being owned by a corporate entity.

Maybe they regret not going onto the blockchain now? Putting the 'community' out of the reach of any law, and indeed any corporate owner.

What's that Beeeblebrox? Oh, you ARE a fuckwit. Yeah, I kinda told you, did I not?

Wikipediocracy. A haven for idiots. Or as they like to be called. Autonomous Volunteers. :lol:

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Fram

Post by CrowsNest » Thu Jun 27, 2019 6:36 pm

The Wikipedians want a constitution now! :lol:
Ok.........so, the legal basis of the Wikipedia community is what? Is it.......a collection individuals whose legal relationship to the encyclopedia project is either merely as individuals legally responsible for their own edits, or as same but with a parallel legal contracts with the website's owner regarding matters such as handling non-public data for and on behalf of the legal owner.

Where other corporate entities exist, such as the Chapters, and affiliate themselves to the website owner, this relationship grants them no rights or responsibilities regarding the website or its owners emoloyees, save perhaps trademark rights (and even then I don't think it is a right)

The logical fundamental legal principles are therefore.....

* volunteers don't own shit (safe what vests to them via individual rights)
* the community isn't shit (literally has no status or relevance)
* the website owner has sovereignty (and if it does not, can presumably be sued for misrepresentation)

Funnily enough, all the precedents that the nascent Wikipedia constitution could cite, reflect these basic realities.

The constitution they want, would be for a project/entity/organization they don't have.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Fram

Post by CrowsNest » Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:01 pm

And on it goes.....
Jehochman, I see no reason to assume a complainant at all. Once Fram was on WMF's radar, they may have started automatically monitoring his contributions, and his use of certain words or what the program (hopefully more advanced than the one now offline) deemed an excessively hostile tone, generated a report for review by a T&S team member.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
At best, this idiot is flapping his gums because he has missed the statement that is relevant.

At worst, he has seen the WMF has said quite clearly they were acting on complaints from the community, and is choosing to ignore it, to make a deliberate accusation that identifiable individuals within the Foundation have lied, and are guilty of conspiracy. If proven, they would be fired.

It's a fair bet the worst scenario is the reality.

This is what Wikipedia governance looks like. Nothing will be done to this user, because they have written the most Featured Articles of any editor. To the Wikipedia community, that equates to immunity even from the mighty WP:BLP.

I could email some pillock volunteer on the OTRS system to complain, but they would just brush me off. I could create an account just to lodge a complaint at AN/I, but they would just instantly block me for WP:NOTHERE.

Administrators like Dennis Brown, Black Kite, Ritchie333, Floquenbeam, they literally couldn't give a shit about violations like this. And now we know they would actively resist anyone else's attempt to enforce BLP on this piece of shit too. Self-governance in action.

Never mind a volunteer strike, why aren't the WMF staff going on strike? Do absolutely no work unless or until they can be assured the local en.wiki Administration will do all it can to prevent accusations and rumours that could get them fired, or affect their ability to get a better job once they get sick of up being forced to treat these scumbags as equals.

User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Fram

Post by CrowsNest » Thu Jun 27, 2019 9:01 pm


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

Re: Fram

Post by Graaf Statler » Thu Jun 27, 2019 9:50 pm

It is indeed a pretty good write up and a good summery. And it is about time the press shines the light of scrutiny into the dark crevices of Wikipedia and WMF, and not in the Wipediocrazy style. I hope soon will follow more of this articles, material and scandals enough!

Post Reply