Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

mendaliv · Unread post by **mendaliv** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 3:52 pm

10920 wrote:I thought my original question was still very much in the air until Rob landed the deciding blow by "vanishing" due to people "harassing him" and making him feel "unsafe" (read: reverting his edits and disagreeing with him).

Congratulations are in order. Rob, you win.

Every decision Rob was ever involved in during his disastrous tenure on ArbCom is suspect, IMO.

Partiality while serving on an arbitral panel? My goodness how could that possibly speak to someone's character and fitness? /s

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 3:58 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Accept. I think in the light of views that ArbCom do not take harassment seriously enough, I will from this point until/if a better system of dealing with harassment is found be inclined toward accepting cases in which claims of harassment are made. SilkTork (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I suspect that SmallBoner and MegaLibelGirl are about to be the reluctant recipients of a new prototype discipline system that they longed to target Fram with.

I believe you are correct, at least with respect to Smallbones... He will at least be dragged around the neighborhood by his feet a bit for form.

RfB

Carcharoth · Unread post by **Carcharoth** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 3:59 pm

mendaliv wrote:Oh, what the fuck? BU Rob13's talk page archives have all been deleted.

Yeah, he has exercised a right to vanish. I am trying to remember whether this can be brought up on-wiki or not? Obviously the *other* vanished user cannot be brought up on-wiki, but people elected to positions of trust should not be able to vanish their history so quickly and blatantly, IMO (not sure if any former arbs have ever done this). Getting the talk page histories restored is a first step, as historically consensus on-wiki is mostly against that.

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:02 pm

link https://fanlore.org/wiki/Laura_Hale_(fan)#Wikipedia[/link]

As noted above, Laura Hale was linked to a number of controversies for linking fan fiction authors with their real world identities without their consent.
In February 2011, Hale began editing Wikipedia under the user name "LauraHale", and within a month became dissatified when three editors refused to give "Good Article" ratings to her work. This led to conflict and one of the involved editors contacted the Wikimedia Foundation about Hale.[66] In response, Hale sought to have the editor banned on the grounds of "Outing of my real identity to suspected employer" and "Attempts to get me in trouble by contacting my employer".[67] Laura Hale had been open about her identity. and she was never employed by the Wikimedia Foundation.
Hale continued to have a contentious editing career at Wikipedia, and became the significant other of the Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) Board. She moved to Madrid Spain, so that they could be together.
Following Wikipedia's inability to address online child predators, the WMF established a Trust and Safety staff with responsibility to handle these cases, and the WMF has banned a number of people from all projects without publicly stating any reason and without any avenue of appeal. When Trust and Safety was established its scope was limited to serious issues such as child protection, leaving editing disputes or "incivility" to the specific Wikipedia projects. However, in 2018, the Foundation expanded the role of Trust and Safety to include "incivility" and discussed this change only with user groups associated with minority or disadvantaged populations. In 2018, Laura Hale who is the significant other of the Foundation Board Chair, filed a series of complaints with Trust and Safety claiming that a long-time and respected administrator Fram, was harassing her based on his challenging the competence of many of her edits. On June 10, 2019, Trust and Safety blocked Fram for one year, which triggered a fire-storm of protests and resignations among English Wikipedia administrators.[68][69] Katherine Maher, the Executive Director's first response was to tweet that the Buzzfeed News article was "sh*tty".[70] On June 29, 2019, Hale elected to "vanish" from Wikipedia having her talk page and edit history moved to a random name.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:05 pm

Cla68 wrote:If it turns out that Fram really was sexually harassing one or more women or transgender editors, it's going to make Wikipedia look dreadful for having defended him and will provide credibility to the claim that the site is a haven for misogyny and toxic masculinity. I guess the only way that would happen, however, is if the victims come forward and provide some details. The details, if provided, I imagine would be fairly definitive as they likely consists of emails and other electronic communications. Nevertheless, I understand that you all, by some quality sleuthing, have found evidence that he may be being railroaded.

It would also look really bad for them if it were suddenly revealed he was a child pornographer, a counterfeiter, a polygamist, a mass murderer, a product tamperer, or a WMF software developer.

There is also not the slightest hint of evidence he is any of these things.

Tell us, CLA, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

God damn, you're gullible.

RfB

10920 · Unread post by **10920** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:07 pm

Carcharoth wrote:
mendaliv wrote:Oh, what the fuck? BU Rob13's talk page archives have all been deleted.
Yeah, he has exercised a right to vanish. I am trying to remember whether this can be brought up on-wiki or not? Obviously the *other* vanished user cannot be brought up on-wiki, but people elected to positions of trust should not be able to vanish their history so quickly and blatantly, IMO (not sure if any former arbs have ever done this). Getting the talk page histories restored is a first step, as historically consensus on-wiki is mostly against that.

Yes, this is completely inappropriate.

If you want to maintain your "right to vanish", don't go collecting all those hats.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:08 pm

mendaliv wrote:Oh, what the fuck? BU Rob13's talk page archives have all been deleted.

It's all there at User talk:BU Rob13.

02:37, 1 July 2019 Oshwah talk contribs restored page User talk:BU Rob13 (1,435 revisions) (Restoring user talk page. This page shouldn't have been deleted.)
02:37, 1 July 2019 Oshwah talk contribs restored page User talk:BU Rob13 (999 revisions) (Restoring user talk page. This page shouldn't have been deleted.)
02:36, 1 July 2019 Oshwah talk contribs restored page User talk:BU Rob13 (1,213 revisions) (Restoring user talk page. This page shouldn't have been deleted.)
02:34, 1 July 2019 Oshwah talk contribs restored page User talk:BU Rob13 (1,198 revisions) (Restoring user talk page. This page shouldn't have been deleted.)
02:33, 1 July 2019 Oshwah talk contribs restored page User talk:BU Rob13 (722 revisions) (Restoring user talk page. This page shouldn't have been deleted.)
02:32, 1 July 2019 Oshwah talk contribs restored page User talk:BU Rob13 (287 revisions) (Restoring user talk page. This page shouldn't have been deleted.)
02:31, 1 July 2019 Oshwah talk contribs restored page User talk:BU Rob13 (105 revisions) (Restoring user talk page. This page shouldn't have been deleted.)
02:23, 1 July 2019 -revi talk contribs deleted page User talk:BU Rob13 (U1: User request to delete page in own userspace: Over 5000 revisions: per request by Oshwah)

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:10 pm

Carcharoth wrote:
mendaliv wrote:Oh, what the fuck? BU Rob13's talk page archives have all been deleted.
Yeah, he has exercised a right to vanish. I am trying to remember whether this can be brought up on-wiki or not? Obviously the *other* vanished user cannot be brought up on-wiki, but people elected to positions of trust should not be able to vanish their history so quickly and blatantly, IMO (not sure if any former arbs have ever done this). Getting the talk page histories restored is a first step, as historically consensus on-wiki is mostly against that.

Why would you want to talk about Wikipedia on wiki? There's no good that can come of that...

As for your specific question about the talk page history: I have no idea whether there is a rationale to undo that which will fly.

RfB

10920 · Unread post by **10920** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:12 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Cla68 wrote:If it turns out that Fram really was sexually harassing one or more women or transgender editors, it's going to make Wikipedia look dreadful for having defended him and will provide credibility to the claim that the site is a haven for misogyny and toxic masculinity. I guess the only way that would happen, however, is if the victims come forward and provide some details. The details, if provided, I imagine would be fairly definitive as they likely consists of emails and other electronic communications. Nevertheless, I understand that you all, by some quality sleuthing, have found evidence that he may be being railroaded.
It would also look really bad for them if it were suddenly revealed he was a child pornographer, a counterfeiter, a polygamist, a mass murderer, a product tamperer, or a WMF software developer.

There is also not the slightest hint of evidence he is any of these things.

Tell us, CLA, have you stopped beating your wife lately?

God damn, you're gullible.

RfB

If he doesn't deny beating his wife within the next few hours, I think it should be published in the Signpost.

mendaliv · Unread post by **mendaliv** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:12 pm

tarantino wrote:
mendaliv wrote:Oh, what the fuck? BU Rob13's talk page archives have all been deleted.
It's all there at User talk:BU Rob13.

02:37, 1 July 2019 Oshwah talk contribs restored page User talk:BU Rob13 (1,435 revisions) (Restoring user talk page. This page shouldn't have been deleted.)
...
02:23, 1 July 2019 -revi talk contribs deleted page User talk:BU Rob13 (U1: User request to delete page in own userspace: Over 5000 revisions: per request by Oshwah)

Christ. I guess at least it's there. It's just downright annoying to have to plod through page histories when he had individual talk archives, like User talk:BU Rob13/Archive 10 (which is still deleted and I presume won't get restored). Fram actually links to one of those in one of his posts dealing with Rob.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:13 pm

tarantino wrote:It's all there at User talk:BU Rob13.

I can only presume you now have this endangered material preserved off-wiki under the policy [[WPO:STREISAND]].

RfB

mendaliv · Unread post by **mendaliv** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:15 pm

Megalibrarygirl wrote:I see freedom of speech praised when someone is "gruff" or "difficult" on Wikipedia.

I actually never see that. Usually saying "freedom of speech" anywhere, even outside of an argument, gets a snarky link to WP:NOT in my experience.

However, when a news article is written that deals with the elephant in the room, everyone is passionate to delete.

Even if her first point was correct, that individual cases of speech are treated differently than the Signpost, doesn't it follow that this is reasonable given the prominence and wide distribution of the Signpost?

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:15 pm

10920 wrote:If he doesn't deny beating his wife within the next few hours, I think it should be published in the Signpost.

I'm sure we can find somebody or other to make an anonymous allusion to that effect for publication...

RfB

mendaliv · Unread post by **mendaliv** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:16 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
10920 wrote:If he doesn't deny beating his wife within the next few hours, I think it should be published in the Signpost.
I'm sure we can find somebody or other to make an anonymous allusion to that effect for publication...

RfB

When all else fails, publish a screed on Medium.

Capeo · Unread post by **Capeo** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:21 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Accept. I think in the light of views that ArbCom do not take harassment seriously enough, I will from this point until/if a better system of dealing with harassment is found be inclined toward accepting cases in which claims of harassment are made. SilkTork (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I suspect that SmallBoner and MegaLibelGirl are about to be the reluctant recipients of a new prototype discipline system that they longed to target Fram with.
I believe you are correct, at least with respect to Smallbones... He will at least be dragged around the neighborhood by his feet a bit for form.

RfB

Smallbones should be indeffed, honestly. There’s some utterly reckless insinuations in that article. In addition to that, assuming the correspondence Fram posted is genuine, he knew Fram was disputing the Gamaliel quote as well as the claim that Fram was outing people in some off-wiki venue, but refused to publish Fram’s denials. Not that it should’ve even come to that point. The Signpost shouldn’t be publishing unevidenced allegations of serious wrong doing in the first place. There’s also no way Smallbones didn’t know Gamaliel’s quote misrepresented what actually happened. Gamaliel should get slapped for that too. He himself knew what he was saying was bullshit and any claim to anonymity is bogus.

Carcharoth · Unread post by **Carcharoth** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:25 pm

My mistake. Tarantino is correct. The user talk page edits are (presumably) still all there. That is normal practice, to delete cut-and-paste archives, but keep the page history where the edits were originally made. What you have to watch out for is where archiving is done by page moves, and then the page deleted (I don't think that happened here). Not sure where to raise the issues of a former arbitrator vanishing. It will be blindingly obvious from the page histories of arbitration cases who that vanished user is, such as here. Seems remarkably pointless.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:25 pm

Carcharoth wrote:
Vigilant wrote:Next up for Vigilant's funhouse treatment, Bri (T-C-L)

Buckle up, Cascadia buttercup.
Why the focus on them (not sure of their gender)? Why not focus on their Signpost article rather than the person. Oh, I forgot, that's not your style.

We can’t all be paragons of wiki-virtue like you.

I’m just staying in my lane.

mendaliv · Unread post by **mendaliv** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:25 pm

Ritchie333 wrote:As I have said elsewhere, if Arbcom want an in camera case for Fram, I will supply my offline evidence for a ban if asked and if it is deemed appropriate. I am certainly dead against airing dirty laundry in public.

Does he not realize that by saying there's dirty laundry and grounds for a ban, he's airing dirty laundry?

mendaliv · Unread post by **mendaliv** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:26 pm

Carcharoth wrote:Not sure where to raise the issues of a former arbitrator vanishing. It will be blindingly obvious from the page histories of arbitration cases who that vanished user is, such as here. Seems remarkably pointless.

In the great panoply of pointless on-wiki actions, I would call this one's pointless a pimple on an elephant's backside.

10920 · Unread post by **10920** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:27 pm

Capeo wrote:Smallbones should be indeffed, honestly. There’s some utterly reckless insinuations in that article. In addition to that, assuming the correspondence Fram posted is genuine, he knew Fram was disputing the Gamaliel quote as well as the claim that Fram was outing people in some off-wiki venue, but refused to publish Fram’s denials. Not that it should’ve even come to that point. The Signpost shouldn’t be publishing unevidenced allegations of serious wrong doing in the first place. There’s also no way Smallbones didn’t know Gamaliel’s quote misrepresented what actually happened. Gamaliel should get slapped for that too. He himself knew what he was saying was bullshit and any claim to anonymity is bogus.

Yes, yes, and yes. Additionally, given their recent behaviour, it is clear that Gamaliel and MegaLibelGirl do not enjoy the support or trust of the community they purport to represent. They should be excised from the ranks of administrators. Gamaliel has been claiming to be retired for 2 straight years, so it certainly would be no loss.

mendaliv · Unread post by **mendaliv** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:29 pm

A claim of retirement or semi-retirement is flatly incompatible with holding advanced permissions of any kind. That should be policy.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:36 pm

mendaliv wrote:
Ritchie333 wrote:As I have said elsewhere, if Arbcom want an in camera case for Fram, I will supply my offline evidence for a ban if asked and if it is deemed appropriate. I am certainly dead against airing dirty laundry in public.
Does he not realize that by saying there's dirty laundry and grounds for a ban, he's airing dirty laundry?

One would think, but ritchie’s never shown any overt signs of situational awareness prior to this point, so yours may be a vain hope.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:38 pm

Vigilant wrote:We can’t all be paragons of wiki-virtue like you.

I’m just staying in my lane.

Just don't swerve out of it trying to squish pedestrians!

t

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:42 pm

mendaliv wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:Not sure where to raise the issues of a former arbitrator vanishing. It will be blindingly obvious from the page histories of arbitration cases who that vanished user is, such as here. Seems remarkably pointless.
In the great panoply of pointless on-wiki actions, I would call this one's pointless a pimple on an elephant's backside.

Ah, but it's very DRAMATIC.... Earnest young volunteer, forced to flee from WP due to harassment and abuse!!! Whoever can there be to help?!?!?! This situation is untenable -- PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, DO SOMETHING WMF!!!

Just a sec, I need to check the bottom of my shoes...

RfB

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:42 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
Vigilant wrote:Next up for Vigilant's funhouse treatment, Bri (T-C-L)

Buckle up, Cascadia buttercup.
Why the focus on them (not sure of their gender)? Why not focus on their Signpost article rather than the person. Oh, I forgot, that's not your style.
We can’t all be paragons of wiki-virtue like you.

I’m just staying in my lane.
Just don't swerve out of it trying to squish pedestrians!

t

No swerving needed for the war rig I’m driving.

mendaliv · Unread post by **mendaliv** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:45 pm

Vigilant wrote:No swerving needed for the war rig I’m driving.

I envision a 1970 Oldsmobile 442.

MrErnie · Unread post by **MrErnie** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:45 pm

Vigilant wrote:
mendaliv wrote:
Ritchie333 wrote:As I have said elsewhere, if Arbcom want an in camera case for Fram, I will supply my offline evidence for a ban if asked and if it is deemed appropriate. I am certainly dead against airing dirty laundry in public.
Does he not realize that by saying there's dirty laundry and grounds for a ban, he's airing dirty laundry?
One would think, but ritchie’s never shown any overt signs of situational awareness prior to this point, so yours may be a vain hope.

He does seem lost and hopelessly out of touch in all this. I’m just waiting for his inevitable anecdote about heading down to the pub for a pint, in which he cluelessly makes a misogynistic comment or two, while somehow avoiding to make a relevant point.

mendaliv · Unread post by **mendaliv** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:47 pm

MrErnie wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
mendaliv wrote:
Ritchie333 wrote:As I have said elsewhere, if Arbcom want an in camera case for Fram, I will supply my offline evidence for a ban if asked and if it is deemed appropriate. I am certainly dead against airing dirty laundry in public.
Does he not realize that by saying there's dirty laundry and grounds for a ban, he's airing dirty laundry?
One would think, but ritchie’s never shown any overt signs of situational awareness prior to this point, so yours may be a vain hope.
He does seem lost and hopelessly out of touch in all this. I’m just waiting for his inevitable anecdote about heading down to the pub for a pint, in which he cluelessly makes a misogynistic comment or two, while somehow avoiding to make a relevant point.

The whole line about having a bunch of off-wiki evidence is also troubling. I thought compiling dossiers on editors was considered poor form.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:48 pm

mendaliv wrote:
Vigilant wrote:No swerving needed for the war rig I’m driving.
I envision a 1970 Oldsmobile 442.

Yeah, maybe so because it has a nice wide front-end and a durable bumper... But rest assured that it is a tricked out jet black Olds 442...

RfB

10920 · Unread post by **10920** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:50 pm

Reading up on the Signpost.

GorillaWarfare previously commented that she and Fram have "butted heads" in the past. Smallbones took that and used it in the Signpost to say that Fram headbutted GW. This later had to be corrected.

mendaliv · Unread post by **mendaliv** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:51 pm

Mkdw's statement is pretty unsurprising, particularly the bit where the response was to whine about the specific incident not being problematic rather than looking at the big picture and principle (a perennial problem with this "anything-goes" consensus model), as well as claims that a change would violate WP:NOTBURO (another piece of policy that gets abused by everyone).

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:52 pm

mendaliv wrote:
MrErnie wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
mendaliv wrote:
Ritchie333 wrote:As I have said elsewhere, if Arbcom want an in camera case for Fram, I will supply my offline evidence for a ban if asked and if it is deemed appropriate. I am certainly dead against airing dirty laundry in public.
Does he not realize that by saying there's dirty laundry and grounds for a ban, he's airing dirty laundry?
One would think, but ritchie’s never shown any overt signs of situational awareness prior to this point, so yours may be a vain hope.
He does seem lost and hopelessly out of touch in all this. I’m just waiting for his inevitable anecdote about heading down to the pub for a pint, in which he cluelessly makes a misogynistic comment or two, while somehow avoiding to make a relevant point.
The whole line about having a bunch of off-wiki evidence is also troubling. I thought compiling dossiers on editors was considered poor form.

Only if the target is “of the body”...

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:55 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
mendaliv wrote:
Vigilant wrote:No swerving needed for the war rig I’m driving.
I envision a 1970 Oldsmobile 442.
Yeah, maybe so because it has a nice wide front-end and a durable bumper... But rest assured that it is a tricked out jet black Olds 442...

RfB

Cla68 · Unread post by **Cla68** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 5:01 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Cla68 wrote:If it turns out that Fram really was sexually harassing one or more women or transgender editors, it's going to make Wikipedia look dreadful for having defended him and will provide credibility to the claim that the site is a haven for misogyny and toxic masculinity. I guess the only way that would happen, however, is if the victims come forward and provide some details. The details, if provided, I imagine would be fairly definitive as they likely consists of emails and other electronic communications. Nevertheless, I understand that you all, by some quality sleuthing, have found evidence that he may be being railroaded.
It would also look really bad for them if it were suddenly revealed he was a child pornographer, a counterfeiter, a polygamist, a mass murderer, a product tamperer, or a WMF software developer.

RfB

That's a strawman argument, also known as the Standard Wikipedian's Response, LOL. I thought progressives believed that, "the woman accuser should be believed?" I'm not trying to start an argument with you, however, as I really don't have an opinion either way on whether I think Fram is guilty of the accusation or not.

Notbutforthesalt · Unread post by **Notbutforthesalt** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 5:13 pm

My god this thread exploded over the weekend while I wasn't looking. I see Rob deleted his pages? Has he finally decided to fuck off? Or is he still playing this "I'm retired but I'm going to whine like a bitch" game?

mendaliv · Unread post by **mendaliv** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 5:19 pm

Oh I have no doubt Fram is not guilty of harassment in the legal sense. In the Wikipedia sense, where people seem to think it’s synonymous with “rudeness that makes me want to edit less”, he’s guilty as sin.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 5:29 pm

mendaliv wrote:Oh I have no doubt Fram is not guilty of harassment in the legal sense. In the Wikipedia sense, where people seem to think it’s synonymous with “rudeness that makes me want to edit less”, he’s guilty as sin.

So, here's an honest question, "If you look at the people that are claiming harassment from Fram, are their contributions worth more to the encyclopedia project than Fram's vigilance against bad content?"

mendaliv · Unread post by **mendaliv** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 5:36 pm

Vigilant wrote:
mendaliv wrote:Oh I have no doubt Fram is not guilty of harassment in the legal sense. In the Wikipedia sense, where people seem to think it’s synonymous with “rudeness that makes me want to edit less”, he’s guilty as sin.
So, here's an honest question, "If you look at the people that are claiming harassment from Fram, are their contributions worth more to the encyclopedia project than Fram's vigilance against bad content?"

Generally speaking, I doubt it. But of course, those in power have concluded that the “atmosphere” created by that “toxicity” repels the thousands and thousands of potential editors that might otherwise edit.

In short, Fram is birth control and WMF is the Roman Catholic Church.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 5:51 pm

mendaliv wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
mendaliv wrote:Oh I have no doubt Fram is not guilty of harassment in the legal sense. In the Wikipedia sense, where people seem to think it’s synonymous with “rudeness that makes me want to edit less”, he’s guilty as sin.
So, here's an honest question, "If you look at the people that are claiming harassment from Fram, are their contributions worth more to the encyclopedia project than Fram's vigilance against bad content?"
Generally speaking, I doubt it. But of course, those in power have concluded that the “atmosphere” created by that “toxicity” repels the thousands and thousands of potential editors that might otherwise edit.

In short, Fram is birth control and WMF is the Roman Catholic Church.

And en.wp culture is an alkylating agent.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 5:57 pm

Jehochman is tank slapping me here...

As for the case, you need to examine these issues:

* Is the Signpost part of Wikipedia and subject to Wikipedia's rules?

* Has the anonymous source who made the inflammatory accusations has been running around casting baseless aspersions to the Signpost, to ArbCom and to WMF? At some point that editor may need to be sanctioned for harassment and head-hunting. Wikipedia is not a game where editors try to ban perceived opponents. It appears that this editor has engaged in exactly this sort of behavior against Fram and other editors, which may constitute a pattern. If a case is accepted, I will provide evidence.

* Can editors use anonymity and aggressive victim-hood to evade scrutiny and responsibility of their actions? ArbCom is well positioned to investigate and rule on this question.

* If the Signpost is part of Wikipedia, do the Signpost reporters have journalistic privilege vis a vis ArbCom?

* Does ArbCom have a mandate to ask the Signpost reporters to show their evidence or face sanctions for publishing defamatory content?

I've added JamieDoe to this case as named party. This is a placeholder since the actual name can be given to ArbCom in private. Jehochman Talk 17:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm flabbergasted and don't know what to think.
His overall body of work is terrible, but he seems to have reached a sanity eye in his dipshit hurricane.

mendaliv · Unread post by **mendaliv** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 6:02 pm

Vigilant wrote:I'm flabbergasted and don't know what to think.
His overall body of work is terrible, but he seems to have reached a sanity eye in his dipshit hurricane.

Yeah I didn’t even see that. He is straddling one hell of a fence right now. What on earth could be his endgame?

MrErnie · Unread post by **MrErnie** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 6:06 pm

Maybe while the Signpost is at it they can interview the prisoners at Florence and ask them how they feel about the officers who arrested them.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 6:08 pm

mendaliv wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
mendaliv wrote:Oh I have no doubt Fram is not guilty of harassment in the legal sense. In the Wikipedia sense, where people seem to think it’s synonymous with “rudeness that makes me want to edit less”, he’s guilty as sin.
So, here's an honest question, "If you look at the people that are claiming harassment from Fram, are their contributions worth more to the encyclopedia project than Fram's vigilance against bad content?"
Generally speaking, I doubt it. But of course, those in power have concluded that the “atmosphere” created by that “toxicity” repels the thousands and thousands of potential editors that might otherwise edit.

In short, Fram is birth control and WMF is the Roman Catholic Church.

If Fram is birth control, he's a paperclip folded up into the shape of an IUD...

This issue isn't about Fram, it's about principle, procedure, and precedent. Fram is a dick.

RfB

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 6:15 pm

mendaliv wrote:
Vigilant wrote:I'm flabbergasted and don't know what to think.
His overall body of work is terrible, but he seems to have reached a sanity eye in his dipshit hurricane.
Yeah I didn’t even see that. He is straddling one hell of a fence right now. What on earth could be his endgame?

In review: JEH started out militantly in the WFM's camp on the WP:Fram page, then went flying all the way the other direction on Jimbotalk within a day or two, then became Mr. Sleuthful Researcher and decided Fram was a horrible person that needed to go away, and now he seems to have executed the rare Double Flip-Flop and coming around to the other side again...

I have absolutely no clue what he's thinking. Maybe there's a new event in the X-Games that he's training for...

RfB

mendaliv · Unread post by **mendaliv** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 6:21 pm

On the plus side, when you’re fighting against yourself, you don’t need anyone else around to keep the fire burning even during down periods. I don’t think Jehochman is playing 4D chess to keep the pressure high, but I think he could be having that effect. After all, the longer this stays alive, the more resignations and vanishments will occur, and the better the outcome is likely to be in terms of WMF needing to capitulate.

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 6:22 pm

Vigilant wrote:Is it just me or is there a cadre of Cascadia types who are the core of this rotten borough?

Justified wrote:Raylan Givens (T-H-L): Miller, would you call this a herd, a gaggle, or a flock of assholes?
Alex Miller (T-H-L): I would call this a United Nations of assholes.

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 6:29 pm

Vigilant wrote:Names to faces

Smallbones aka Peter D(ickless) Ekman

Totally no unhinged Signpost editor and JimboStalk page litter box cleaner.

Another picture in this article

Makes Kudpung look like a model of health.

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 6:32 pm

mendaliv wrote:
Capeo wrote:If Fram has more emails from Smallbones like the one he posted on his meta TP than Smallbones might be in for a world of hurt.
I totally don't understand what's going on there.

It is difficult to give play-by-play for ... the sports of the fleas ... on the rats in the septic tanks for crack-houses.

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 6:43 pm

Vigilant wrote:Next up for Vigilant's funhouse treatment, Bri (T-C-L)
Buckle up, Cascadia buttercup.

Please, please don't go after "small fry".

And yes, Bri is small fry, (as is Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr (T-C-L), formerly known as LauraHale, or Renamed user mou89p43twvqcvm8ut9w3 (T-C-L), formerly known as BU Rob13)

What is important, is what the God King said here: "I would also argue that the WMF can and should have a role of facilitating and guiding community consultations to help the community resolve sticky issues where there is a failing of process. Reading between the lines here, you can likely guess my view of the current situation."

In short: he want to take power away from us peasants on en.wp, and deliver it into the "safe" (for him), ie predictable hands of the WMF.

It is a power grab, sanctioned by the very top.
Who support that powergrab or not, is not the vital question. The vital question is that there would not have been such an attempt for a power grab if it hadn't been supported by "our constitutional monarch". (Hah!)

(That the peasants are protesting so vigorously, must come as an unpleasant surprise. I guess they look upon en.wp the way Beijing is watching Hong Kong, just now. From the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests (T-H-L):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... fong15.jpg

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Mon Jul 01, 2019 6:54 pm

Jimmy Wales just wants to keep the sweet, sweet income from speaker-fees flowing.

Wikipedia is old news.

"Jimbo Wales makes Wikipedia safe for women" --- now that's a narrative that will get some speaking gigs!