Page 36 of 45

Re: Fram

Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 7:42 pm
by CrowsNest
The Board's statement falls apart quite easily when you just apply a few simple copyedits.....

I think this is the most crucial line.....
While we remain fully committed to [draining the swamp], we also recognize the critical importance of allowing communities to be self-governing and for the movement, as a whole, to make high-level decisions.
It is what dooms the rest of the statement, wherein it is truly difficult, if not impossible, to identify the critical who/where/how details of what little action items there were.....

-work to make Wikimedia communities safer for all good faith editors.

-[close the] gap between ... movement principles and practices

-improve ... enforcement processes to deal with so-called "unblockables"

-identify the shortcomings of current processes and to propose solutions [to] effectively address the most difficult and controversial cases

-[introduce] changes in the long-established practices of dealing with toxic behavior within the communities

-[create] the right processes to reach the right results [in] cases which obviously need some form of sanctions, in which sanctions have not occurred

-[fund] training of community members involved in dealing with harassment

-[help] long term contributors correct behaviors that are inappropriate

Re: Fram

Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 8:24 pm
by CrowsNest
One of the ways Jimmy hopes this crisis can be resolved, is ......
flying relevant key players for face-to-face workshopping of ideas
.....and he is yet again just revealing how completely out of touch he is with the state of Wikipedia.

The main leaders and loudest voices of the revolt are, pretty much exclusively, all people who think Wikipedia should be an online affair only. They hate Outreach, because of all the problems it causes for real editors. They think any editor who ends up securing a paid post, such as in the T&S Dept., is a money grabbing careerist turncoat. They think all the WMF funds and activity not squarely aimed at improving the lot of the real editors, is a complete betrayal of the mission. They most certainly wouldn't be seen dead at wiki conferences or the like. If they meet up in real life at all, it is in a Manchester pub over beers, where the conversation would make interesting listening to any T&S employee.

As such, whichever starry eyed fool is offered the treat of being flow around in Katherine's Learjet as the community's representative, is going to simply arrive back at and have anything they have produced at these workshops, dismissed out of hand. The very fact they went, will be seen as proof they can't be a real editor, and so cannot have come up with any worthwhile ideas.

Re: Fram

Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 8:57 pm
by CrowsNest
I don't think it controversial at all to say that his behavior has been problematic.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Several Administrators stated quite plainly they thought Fram has done no more than enforce policy. Some were so convinced of his innocence, they used their tools to bust him out of wiki-jail. You just don't do that if your actual gripe is 'right outcome, wrong process'.

Given the facts on the ground, it should actually be controversial for anyone to use terms to describe Fram's behaviour that do not adequately convey the seriousness of his transgressions. But it isn't. Because so few Wikipedia Administrators are prepared to respect the truth.

Re: Fram

Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 1:36 pm
by CrowsNest
And she was doing so well soothing the rebels egos...... ... er-1389966
women make up a majority of senior leadership at the Wikimedia Foundation — including the chief executive, chief operating, chief advancement, chief creative, and chief engagement officers as well as the vice president of human resources. .

“I think we’re just willing to hire people who, perhaps when we first see their resume, are not necessarily the exact right fit for the job,” Maher said. “If you believe that a bunch of amateur, volunteer, nonspecialists can write an encyclopedia and then have it be the fifth most popular website on the planet, then you also have to believe that there are talents that exist within society that may not match what we actually think a COO or a CTO should look like.”
What a time to be trumpeting the superior qualities of your ovarian senior leadership to a bunch of angry manchildren.

They're probably not gonna like that "nonspecialist" tag either.

Re: Fram

Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 1:55 pm
by CrowsNest
According to Jimmy, ArbCom are getting basically T&S's entire dossier, just with names redacted.

What a joke. Now, we already know T&S are not dumb enough to think merely redacting names assures confidentiality (and thus safety). And we know this fact hasn't escaped many a more sensible Wikipedia editor defending the secrecy surrounding FramBan.

So, I guess the question is, who is responsible for this fudge? For determining that ArbCom can be trusted to keep these details confidential? Because that is what this amounts to.

Tell me it could be someone other than Jimmy. Because this for sure sounds like Jimmy, in his new shop steward role. This is tantamount to saying a confidentiality agreement with the Foundation and a user, is equivalent to that user having one with ArbCom. Redacting seems to be WMF Legal's attempt to overcome obvious legal issues with a simple transfer, where no such consent previously existed or is even implied.

As per the previous post, it is hard to believe the women dominated executive leadership of the Foundation would be so casual with people's online safety in any context, least of all this one. They have seen what the mob wants, what they did with even the tiniest amount of information, in concert with an external harassment site of known women haters.

And if the purpose of these redactions is to allow ArbCom to review Fram's ban in a public settting, all the people involved need to be hiring lawyers right now. Even the Arbitrators.

Re: Fram

Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 3:33 pm
by Graaf Statler
It's a dilemma. Fram must be relieved and not by arbcom. So, they are started to blow complete T&S with there WO blogpost.
But......... you can't blow T&S partial. That is what Vig tried, T&S is rubbish, except with the ban of Statler and Abd because there they did a excellent job. That didn't work.

And now the difficult choice is or Fram letting in the hands of arbcom, or to accept the collateral damage of sacrifice all that other nice troll Kafka bans too.
A risky game.

Re: Fram

Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 5:37 pm
by CrowsNest
We may already be seeing the detoxifying effects of the message already. For the first time I can recall, an appropriate and effective sanction placed on the vicious little bastard known as Eric Corbett, seems to be holding. Yesterday he got blocked for a month for an obvious and unjustifiable ArbCom sanction violation, and had talk page access removed for not using the privilege to show acknowledgement or contrition, or otherwise appeal.

So far, nobody has objected except the worst of the worst Wikipedia has to offer, and crucially, no Administrators, not even one of the several who always defended or excused the little shit, year after year. Other than this controversy, nothing else has changed in the initial conditions of the experiment - he didn't do anything he hadn't done before, indeed this was relatively minor. The month long length of the sanction finally takes into account his history of recidivism as opposed to the mere violation in isolation.

It has been claimed by one usual White Knight of the Red Baron that he has lost his get out of jail free card this time because he is no longer being productive, but he's gotten away with stuff before when he's been basically retired, and this month, when not telling people to fuck off, he has been chipping in with FAC reviews.

He practically begged to be blocked and showed open defiance, but that too has been his sad little schtick for a long time now. The fact this is an Arbitration Enforcement block is not the difference either, they have been applied and overturned for this user before, even when the Administrators knew that would create huge drama and their desysopping.

Administrators objected to the proposed one month block prior to the sanction, but that has always been the case. This is the first time I have seen no Administrator prepared to be the Hand of Bishonen to flourish a sword and so give medieval agency to her clearly expressed Royal wish - "I'm against sanctioning for this, especially for a whole month, because I think it's a trifling matter."

I don't think it is a coincidence that she has since dissappeared, off on a Royal Progress for a week, rather than stick around and make people wonder why she isn't objecting or overturning the sanction herself. And so the toxic user stands alone, abandoned, friendless, at least as far as the Administration is concerned. As he should have been when his true nature was revealed, back in 2008, when he finally realized he was just not going to be granted Admin rights, ironically because he was too rude. Never a Wikipedian, might actually not be one for a whole month.

Cultural change? Obviously a massive part of that cultural change is down to quite a few of the Administrators who would have interfered with a toxic piece of shit like this getting treated exactly like any other user would be in similar circumstances, having given up their ability to do so, in protest at the message needed to clean up their act. Although I'm sure if it had been indefinite, one of them would have reanimated just so they could. The needs of the one.....

Maybe this is too early to tell. But it is worth noting even so, as already the experimental results are differing from the expected norm, even if there is a later correction back to normal.

Baby steps........ :lol:

Re: Fram

Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:33 pm
by CrowsNest
Of course, in other respects, particularly this scenario featuring the same damn Administrator, it is situation normal. :roll:

Re: Fram

Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:37 pm
by Graaf Statler
CrowsNest wrote:Baby steps........ :lol:

Exact. Because there is not said there will be no drone shit bombs in the future anymore, no there is told them we will not taking you by surprise next time. And the WO trolls can troll as much as they want, but those bans remain as they are and the FramBan simple will be reviewed by arbcom.
And whit a shit drone over there heads, believe me, there will no abitrolling anymore.

And form the rest, Aken en Rome zijn ook niet op een dag gebrouwd, Aachen and Rome wasn't built in a day

Re: Fram

Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 7:28 pm
by CrowsNest
Opabina seems to have gotten her way, two of her colleagues falling into line and seeing this as about a single quote, a minor affair. The Editor-in-Chief of The SignPost has duly been intimidated into letting the government dictate what does and does not appear in the community newspaper.....
[Arbitrators] have suggested below that since only one quote is being disputed, that we just delete that quote, put the rest of the article back and move on. While I don't like ArbCom "editing Signpost pages", if that satisfies ArbCom, that's ok with me.
That the removal waters down the aspect of the their story that ArbCom failed in their duties to protect users from harassment by Fram, and ensures that protecting Fram from harassment is not the only ArbCom action that results from FRAMBAN, at least not in the full public glare of a Case, is I am sure a total coincidence. :roll: