Fram

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats Oh my!
User avatar
CrowsNest
Sucks Maniac
Posts: 4459
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:50 am
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Fram

Post by CrowsNest » Wed Jul 03, 2019 2:48 am

Seriously, why did the Baord even waste their time.....
Hopefully this will indeed catalyse changes to make our community more inclusive, so that in the future sustained hostile scrutiny to individual editors is no longer supported by policy.
IT NEVER WAS SUPPORTED BY POLICY

Fram was who he was, and will be again in short order, ironically because of widespread and sustained failure to give a damn what policy says, especially the bit about "those in a position of authority should be held to a higher standard".

This is how the whole thing came about. If policy is defined simply by what the majority or their elected representatives lets people get away with, then the direction of travel is only ever downward, into the gutter.

We're talking about a community who have fallen so far down into the mire, they cannot even find the moral courage or sense of shame to even say no, it's not appropriate for an editor to repeatedly tell other editors to fuck off, that should receive a warning or worse unless there is an extremely good reason. A good reason for this community is simple that the baby needed his bottle. Like Administrator Fram, in May, or Eric Corbett, also in May, or any number of other seriously toxic users.

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

Re: Fram

Post by Graaf Statler » Wed Jul 03, 2019 6:37 am

Well, lets wait what the next step to come is because according to Katherine we are going now to the next step and I doubt if Arbcom will safe once again the digital life of Fram.
The community is satisfied and the hard core still angry, so till now this has worked out. And Fram is still blocked.

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

Re: Fram

Post by CrowsNest » Wed Jul 03, 2019 10:05 am

If you can believe it, Katherine has released a statement that is even lighter on details of next steps, but even heavier on contrition.

They Board and ED have somehow got their roles entirely reversed. :?

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

Re: Fram

Post by Graaf Statler » Wed Jul 03, 2019 10:44 am

She has not much of a choice other than to do this, Crow. Legal it is impossible and dangerous to interfere direct and as i said before, it would be extreme irresponsible to let this floating around. And WMF has showed where it is able to. Because this accurate shit drone bomb was extreme hard hitting and is thrown by professionals who knew what they did.

And a lot of the trolling fun is of course slipping away if you know the next shit bomb can be on your head what not only hits you, but also all your troll friends.
It's a kind of atomic weapon, if you have it is not even necessary to use it.

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

Re: Fram

Post by Graaf Statler » Wed Jul 03, 2019 11:35 am

Sad trollytroll Neil wrote:None of the other T&S actions were made using the new tactical powers T&S gave themselves, they were global, permanent bans for nutters, paedos, and other such wrong'uns; there is a distinction.


Just fuck yourself and it is time you get a real life instate of lighting your gas licht on trollocrazy. You are really a sad personality just like the rest.

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

Re: Fram

Post by CrowsNest » Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:41 pm

Let us count the ways the pooch has been screwed.......

Staff morale

Does anyone in the WMF staff, particularly T&S, have any incentive to go into work now? Being a paid employee doesn't suddenly make you unaware as to when you're being thrown under a bus for what are clearly high level management errors in the eyes of the Board. For so absolutely and shamelessly backing utter assholes (who didn't even like him until this drama), over his paid employees, Jimmy Wales specifically has the responsibility for future resignations on his hands.

Strategy

As impossible as it will be separate this from the issue of morale, consider how it must look to staff, to be told on the one hand they have a good record handling difficult cases, and to know everything they did was backed by management working off of a clear strategy, but on the other to be told to stop working until the policies giving force to the strategy, are completely rewritten. It is clearly widespread and powerful volunteer driven opposition to the strategic goal of detoxification and inclusivity, that is the root of the problem.

Roles and responsibilities

It used to be pretty clear who was responsible for what. Now, who the fuck knows what the Board is for, what the ED does, what WMF staff are for, and what volunteers are for? All are supposedly partners now, each in everyone's business. We now have the chief executive talking only about vague strategy, a Board issuing executive directions, and a Life President acting as a shop steward but only for non-employees. Who has final authority to approve, enact and even repeal office actions? It is a very simple question, one that a corporate entity must be able to answer clearly.

Movement integrity

Beyond specific roles and responsibilities, is the sheer blurring of the lines in this statement between the global movement (which includes staff), the collective of communities, and the one big community that is the instigator of this problem. A clear aim of the rebels was to reassert the supremacy of en.wiki over the movement and all other communities. They appear to have succeeed. Certainly the planned rebranding exercise, pitching everything they do as being by or from Wikipedia, has taken on a whole new dimension. Harassment, by Wikipedia. Toxicity, from Wikipedia. Has a ring of truth to it.

Trust and safety

Is it now easier or harder for people who want to submit anonymous complaints of serious harassment directly to the website owner, to really trust that their safety is assured? Harassment can rise to legal liability well before it reaches threats of violence or cross-wiki abuse. The only concrete outcome of the Board's intervention is that an irrevocable ban that was obviously for serious harassment can now be revoked on the singular authority of the volunteer body that so spectacularly and repeatedly failed to see there was any need for it in the first place.

I will repeat, because it is indisputable fact the Board should have been briefed on, ArbCom were not blindsided by FRAMBAN or unaware of the existence of multiple concerns and complaints before it happened. Yet they have been given the authority to review that ban, before anyone else has been reassured all of the required lessons that are implied in the statement, have been learned by individual Arbitrators.

Nobody on the wrong end of harassment has any reason to trust the WMF now. Everyone who has insisted without any factual basis whatsoever, that there is nothing about what Fram did that can be remotely classed as harassment under WP:HARASS, have been totally reassured that bullshit works. ArbCom are now going to bombarded with that bullshit until they too capitulate, which they will, because they surely rather like being seen as the friend of the community against a common foe, and several of their quorum clearly even believe the bullshit is actual truth.

I know people who harass Wikipedians of all stripes as a sport, just literally for the fun of inducing fear, usually as a biblical act of revenge. I know their methods and their deep knowledge of what they could and could not previously get away with before they will be faced with anything that even remotely makes them think it might not be the wisest hobby. There is nothing in this statement that tells them to start worrying their sport is no longer a risky endeavour, indeed quite the reverse. It exposes weaknesses, structural vulnerabilities that are ripe for exploitation.

I will repeat for the more normal Wikipedians, if you don't like feeling afraid or even unsafe, you might as well leave now. Don't wait for reassurances or clarifications that are not going to come, and don't be fooled into thinking there is any concrete policy coming down the line any time soon, or that it if does it would ever be enforced. See the offer of training for what it is for people in your situation, namely nothing but a folly.

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

Re: Fram

Post by CrowsNest » Wed Jul 03, 2019 1:32 pm

Jehochman wrote:An arbitrator told me (by email) that anything already in public view on this site can be posted to arbitration pages.
Ha. Well, they 're either incompetent, or setting you up.

WP:OUTING is just one of many policies that make it clear that just because something was once posted on Wikipedia and is still publicly visible, doesn't mean you have blanket authorization to paste it across highly viewed pages where it is known bad people will be lurking. Not without taking advice from the proper local authorities beforehand.....which hilariously in the dysfunctional en.wiki shit pit, is the Arbitration Committee.

But hey, they're gonna be trained now. Yay!

Chapter 1 - why knowing critically important policy before you stand for election, is important.

: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 » Wed Jul 03, 2019 2:22 pm

This has always been the fiction. The training, resources, tools and legal authority to properly tackle people accessing Wikipedia services for the purposes of grooming children, making threats of violence, making cross-wiki disruption, and indeed anything nebulously defined as causing the Foundation "legal issues", is really no different to that required to deal with someone engaged in harassment, much of which easily falls into illegality without a threat of violence.

The Board's training is clearly suspect if they think it is wise to trust the review of Fram's ban to a body that did nothing when faced with untrained Administrators happily taking the word of Fram over the Foundation based on evidence they couldn't possibly have been aware of. Trained people don't 'assume good faith' when it comes to those accused of serious misconduct, nor would they so readily assume corruption or incompetence without evidence, much less take serious decisions based on it, when cultural differences in application better explain an office action, if unseen evidence supposedly does not.

The very idea you even need any training to marry up WP:HARASS with Fram's conduct, is laughable. You have to completely throw out your English dictionary for him to be found not guilty. Training in this area, is more usually required to be able to adequately factor in the circumstances to tailor the response. Fram has already shown his capacity for introspection and self-improvement is suspect and likely not genuine, so it takes training to prevent your personal feelings from interfering with doing what must be done when faced with a recidivist editor who has yet to face up to their responsibilities. Personal feelings have no role to play there, except to get you into a serious mess if you make the wrong decision - see Eric Corbett.

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

Re: Fram

Post by CrowsNest » Wed Jul 03, 2019 4:38 pm

I wonder what percentage of the highly active Wikipedia community that inevitably dominates their instruments of self-government even understand what is meant by the following terms recently used by the Board.....

* toxic behaviors
* safe and respectful environment
* diverse voices

Is that really what they want to offer training on? I know Wikipedia is meant to be for everyone, but come on, anyone who needs training to understand these terms and how they relate to Wikipedia governance, they're really not going to be capable of being an effective Administrator.

It is clear, training is not the answer. The problem, is wiki has far too many Administrators, and a good few users even higher up the food chain, who know precisely what these words mean, they just have no real interest in seeing them as strategic priorities.

As this whole storm raged, Bishonen flatly refused to say whether Giano said something that was transphobic. You can't train out that sort of utter disloyalty to everything an Administrator is supposed to stand for. And you need no training to recognise it marks her out as untrustworthy, a serious threat to those strategic goals. And yet she is treated like a God, to be feared and revered. I sometimes wonder if she is a figment of my imagination, the Wikipedians having become so adept at pretending she isn't even in the room when she's doing something disgusting.

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

Re: Fram

Post by Graaf Statler » Wed Jul 03, 2019 6:18 pm

Nonsense of course. Most of the wiki users and special the high productive are autistic as hell. And there they recruit there sysops and Arbs out of.
You can't learn a elephant figure skating, it is again insane. It's the same if I hire for my next project a bunch of color blind painters and if the mess everything up say I will train them.

Post Reply