Wikipediocracy

I guess I'm just a pragmatist. I'm reasonably sure they won't do it again. Whether they acknowledge why they shouldn't or not is secondary. Like, it would've been nice but I never really expected it anyway, so I'm satisfied with what we did get.

Beeblebrox wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:28 pm

I guess I'm just a pragmatist. I'm reasonably sure they won't do it again. Whether they acknowledge why they shouldn't or not is secondary. Like, it would've been nice but I never really expected it anyway, so I'm satisfied with what we did get.

Of course they'll do it again.

It's not "pragmatic" to ignore what's staring you in the face, that just being blinded.

Eric Corbett wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:46 pm

Beeblebrox wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:28 pm

I guess I'm just a pragmatist. I'm reasonably sure they won't do it again. Whether they acknowledge why they shouldn't or not is secondary. Like, it would've been nice but I never really expected it anyway, so I'm satisfied with what we did get.

Of course they'll do it again.

It's not "pragmatic" to ignore what's staring you in the face, that just being blinded.

Aaaaand I'm going to have to go and shower.

Eric is completely right here.

Unless they have their noses rubbed in it... hard... they're going to do it again.

Beeblebrox wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:28 pm

I guess I'm just a pragmatist. I'm reasonably sure they won't do it again. Whether they acknowledge why they shouldn't or not is secondary. Like, it would've been nice but I never really expected it anyway, so I'm satisfied with what we did get.

I would like to be able to share your optimism, but...

Given the general degree of competence and sensitivity displayed by WMF staff, either explanation is quite plausible.

Vigilant wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:28 pm

Eric Corbett wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:46 pm

Beeblebrox wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:28 pm

I guess I'm just a pragmatist. I'm reasonably sure they won't do it again. Whether they acknowledge why they shouldn't or not is secondary. Like, it would've been nice but I never really expected it anyway, so I'm satisfied with what we did get.

Of course they'll do it again.

It's not "pragmatic" to ignore what's staring you in the face, that just being blinded.

Aaaaand I'm going to have to go and shower.

Eric is completely right here.

Unless they have their noses rubbed in it... hard... they're going to do it again.

I agree with both of you, and you both know how rare that is

Eric Corbett wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:46 pm

Beeblebrox wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:28 pm

I guess I'm just a pragmatist. I'm reasonably sure they won't do it again. Whether they acknowledge why they shouldn't or not is secondary. Like, it would've been nice but I never really expected it anyway, so I'm satisfied with what we did get.

Of course they'll do it again.

It's not "pragmatic" to ignore what's staring you in the face, that just being blinded.

Charles S. Peirce (T-H-L) renamed his philosophy as "pragmaticism (T-H-L)", because of the misusue of "pragmatism (T-H-L)" by William James (T-H-L), et alia.

Moral Hazard wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:55 am

Charles S. Peirce (T-H-L) renamed his philosophy as "pragmaticism (T-H-L)", because of the misusue of "pragmatism (T-H-L)" by William James (T-H-L), et alia.

I can understand why. Another misuse that always gets on my tits is when people say "But that's just semantics". FFS, semantics is what things mean, not some minor nit-picking that you can just shrug off because it doesn't suit you. I blame the teachers.

Moral Hazard wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:55 am

Charles S. Peirce (T-H-L) renamed his philosophy as "pragmaticism (T-H-L)", because of the misusue of "pragmatism (T-H-L)" by William James (T-H-L), et alia.

I miss Johnny Cache.

tarantino wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 16, 2019 3:44 am

I miss Johnny Cache.

I think we all do...

Moderator's note: Further reminiscences regarding WR member Jonny Cache were split to this other thread.

But as for the question of whether the WMF is going to do it again, let's not be too quick to dismiss the idea that they won't. Aside from the uproar it created, a big part of our conclusions about it over the past 6 months have been based on the Hale-Sefidari relationship, and that's not something that's likely to be seen again for a while (arguably, it's extraordinary that it existed in the first place). What's more, negative media coverage of the WP gender gap has continued despite their having taken action against Mr. Fram, and since it's the WMF, their logic is likely to be "if it didn't work the first time, why would it work the second time?"

Sometimes I think we automatically assume the WMF will do the worst and/or dumbest possible thing in any given situation, because that's usually how it looks, but I prefer to think of them as more clever and cautiously self-serving than that. And like many (if not most) people, they're usually looking to get the maximum benefit from the minimum of effort. So while they probably wouldn't have any ethical compunctions against doing it again, they've seen that banning Fram required a lot more effort, long-term, than just the few mouse clicks required to actually ban him. I'm not sure they're keen on repeating that mistake.

Midsize Jake wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:33 am

But as for the question of whether the WMF is going to do it again, let's not be too quick to dismiss the idea that they won't. Aside from the uproar it created, a big part of our conclusions about it over the past 6 months have been based on the Hale-Sefidari relationship, and that's not something that's likely to be seen again for a while (arguably, it's extraordinary that it existed in the first place). What's more, negative media coverage of the WP gender gap has continued despite their having taken action against Mr. Fram, and since it's the WMF, their logic is likely to be "if it didn't work the first time, why would it work the second time?"

Sometimes I think we automatically assume the WMF will do the worst and/or dumbest possible thing in any given situation, because that's usually how it looks, but I prefer to think of them as more clever and cautiously self-serving than that. And like many (if not most) people, they're usually looking to get the maximum benefit from the minimum of effort. So while they probably wouldn't have any ethical compunctions against doing it again, they've seen that banning Fram required a lot more effort, long-term, than just the few mouse clicks required to actually ban him. I'm not sure they're keen on repeating that mistake.

I'm with Jake here. They're going to continue to abuse the SanFranBan but they're going to pick their shots: lesser names on smaller Wikis. Blowing up En-WP for two months and nearly having the circus cross over into the mainstream press is bad for business — and if there's one thing the WMF does well, it's business.

That said: these bastards have got to be closely watched.

RfB

The lesson they learned is, always make it global and permanent. That's it.

Beeblebrox wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:28 pm

I guess I'm just a pragmatist. I'm reasonably sure they won't do it again. Whether they acknowledge why they shouldn't or not is secondary. Like, it would've been nice but I never really expected it anyway, so I'm satisfied with what we did get.

It's November 2019 and as best I can tell, the WMF's official position remains that they did nothing wrong, that Laura Hale and Maria S. (to a lesser extent) were innocent victims being harassed by the evil misogynists that run English Wikipedia, and that if they could correct the imbalance by being less white, less male, and less straight, there would be no issues and Wikipedia could run itself without needing the WMF's "parental guidance". They still can't understand why anyone was upset by what they did.

So your position is pretty well removed from reality.

Randy from Boise wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 16, 2019 6:11 am

They're going to continue to abuse the SanFranBan but they're going to pick their shots: lesser names on smaller Wikis. Blowing up En-WP for two months and nearly having the circus cross over into the mainstream press is bad for business — and if there's one thing the WMF does well, it's business.

It's highly likely that they will abuse the SanFranBan, but why would they do it on smaller wikis? They have little interest outside ENWP. I suppose they might help out a Board member who edits on smaller wikis; we all know someone who edits on the Spanish wiki for example.

Poetlister wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:49 pm

Randy from Boise wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 16, 2019 6:11 am

They're going to continue to abuse the SanFranBan but they're going to pick their shots: lesser names on smaller Wikis. Blowing up En-WP for two months and nearly having the circus cross over into the mainstream press is bad for business — and if there's one thing the WMF does well, it's business.

It's highly likely that they will abuse the SanFranBan, but why would they do it on smaller wikis? They have little interest outside ENWP. I suppose they might help out a Board member who edits on smaller wikis; we all know someone who edits on the Spanish wiki for example.

Their main interest is in (a) preserving their jobs; (b) making sure that dysfunctionality on Wiki does not cut into the donation stream.

At En-WP, the dysfunctionality of intervention exceeds the dysfunctionality of bad behavior on-Wiki. They will probably come up with a way to push their agenda using existing institutions... A hotline to Arbcom, if you will.

RfB

Is D'Costa's ganking possibly linked to the Frammageddon?

Midsize Jake wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 16, 2019 4:33 am

But as for the question of whether the WMF is going to do it again, let's not be too quick to dismiss the idea that they won't. Aside from the uproar it created, a big part of our conclusions about it over the past 6 months have been based on the Hale-Sefidari relationship, and that's not something that's likely to be seen again for a while (arguably, it's extraordinary that it existed in the first place). What's more, negative media coverage of the WP gender gap has continued despite their having taken action against Mr. Fram, and since it's the WMF, their logic is likely to be "if it didn't work the first time, why would it work the second time?"

The WMF has been a cult, which has increasingly incorporated the social-justice cult.
They want to show their purity and they explain failures as being caused by wreckers, misogynists, etc.
They will intensify their efforts.

The irony is sooo thick.

https://twitter.com/krmaher/status/1210263806837833728

I mean, I see your point, both cases involve a gross authoritarian overreach and a strong unanticipated backlash from the affected community, but one is a website bungling how to deal with one guy and the other is a national government ineptly trying to extort a private website whose purpose it doesn't even understand. And it didn't take T&S 3 years to back down.

Beeblebrox wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 27, 2019 12:20 am

I mean, I see your point, both cases involve a gross authoritarian overreach and a strong unanticipated backlash from the affected community, but one is a website bungling how to deal with one guy and the other is a national government ineptly trying to extort a private website whose purpose it doesn't even understand. And it didn't take T&S 3 years to back down.

Turkey hasn't backed down yet.
There's been a ruling in the Supreme Court.

I suspect Erdogan is going to channel his inner Andrew Jackson on this point.
Worcester v. Georgia, round 2.


More to the point:
* it's wildly hypocritical of Maher to post that with her complicity.
* T&S never backed down, never apologized.
* Fram was still desysoped out of process after being blocked for over 100 days with no recourse.
* The case was an archetype for the "Star Chamber". (William Barr and Mitch McConnell would have blushed)
* The complainant with unclean hands and corrupt intent has suffered no public effect.
* T&S' mandate is more unclear than ever.

Detox, the energizer bunny of dipshittery.

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

I'd like to see ArbCom "admonish" the various WMF accounts on Wikipedia for poor behaviour.

10920 wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 05, 2020 8:26 pm

I'd like to see ArbCom "admonish" the various WMF accounts on Wikipedia for poor behaviour.

Wouldn't we all? Maybe in the next election, some candidates would suggest that they would be willing to do so. Who knows? It might get them a few votes.

Speaking only for myself, I tend to only support sanctions that actually do something, and this wouldn't do anything.

Beeblebrox wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:36 pm

Speaking only for myself, I tend to only support sanctions that actually do something, and this wouldn't do anything.

Sanctions never do anything other than to create an alternative reality in which they're either ignored or irrelevant. Isn't that the essence of what Wikipedia calls "sockpuppeting"?

But there are times when statements such as "I have a dream ..." can change the world.

Beeblebrox wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:36 pm

Speaking only for myself, I tend to only support sanctions that actually do something, and this wouldn't do anything.

The WMF occasionally backs down if the community gets angry enough. You will remember the brief history of the superprotect option that stopped even admins from editing something.

Beeblebrox wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:36 pm

Speaking only for myself, I tend to only support sanctions that actually do something, and this wouldn't do anything.

In every arbcom case you have "User is admonished for blah blah blah".

In fact, the findings in every arbcom case are mostly meaningless.

"Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. Pass 11-0"

"Wikipedia members should not be rude. Pass 11-0"

This would be a lot more useful.

10920 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 07, 2020 4:35 pm

Beeblebrox wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:36 pm

Speaking only for myself, I tend to only support sanctions that actually do something, and this wouldn't do anything.

In every arbcom case you have "User is admonished for blah blah blah".

In fact, the findings in every arbcom case are mostly meaningless.

"Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. Pass 11-0"

"Wikipedia members should not be rude. Pass 11-0"

This would be a lot more useful.

It's like Wheel of Fortune at the final round when the contestants always chose "R,S,T,L,N,E" The show finally just gave them those letters and pick a few more. There may as well just be a template and just be an automatic consensus vote.

It's really a waste of everyone's time to keep reasserting the same things. There should be a page somewhere of what the Americans call "Motherhood and apple pie" statements that no Arbcom is ever likely to disagree about.

Poetlister wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:19 am

It's really a waste of everyone's time to keep reasserting the same things. There should be a page somewhere of what the Americans call "Motherhood and apple pie" statements that no Arbcom is ever likely to disagree about.

Might be more difficult than you think to come up with such a list.

Even the WMF doesn't agree that "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia".

Poetlister wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:19 am

It's really a waste of everyone's time to keep reasserting the same things. There should be a page somewhere of what the Americans call "Motherhood and apple pie" statements that no Arbcom is ever likely to disagree about.

Agreed, and half the time the meaningless statement that everyone ArbCom member agrees with doesn't even have to do with the case in question. It's like they just want to keep making the same statements to pretend they're being useful.

10920 wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:00 pm

Poetlister wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:19 am

It's really a waste of everyone's time to keep reasserting the same things. There should be a page somewhere of what the Americans call "Motherhood and apple pie" statements that no Arbcom is ever likely to disagree about.

Agreed, and half the time the meaningless statement that everyone ArbCom member agrees with doesn't even have to do with the case in question. It's like they just want to keep making the same statements to pretend they're being useful.

Or to pretend that on the whole, they're in agreement about most things.

It's a little like dinner at my grandmother's (was): you pray before you eat.

Poetlister wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:19 am

It's really a waste of everyone's time to keep reasserting the same things.

Irony much?

tim

10920 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 07, 2020 4:35 pm

Beeblebrox wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:36 pm

Speaking only for myself, I tend to only support sanctions that actually do something, and this wouldn't do anything.

In every arbcom case you have "User is admonished for blah blah blah".

I didn't say the whole committee agrees with me, they don't. If you look at the cases I've participated in since re-joining the committee, you won't see me supporting admonishments.

Poetlister wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:19 am

It's really a waste of everyone's time to keep reasserting the same things. There should be a page somewhere of what the Americans call "Motherhood and apple pie" statements that no Arbcom is ever likely to disagree about.

That's actually not a bad idea. We already have something like that for enforcement and appeals procedures that is automatically added to every case without the need for a vote.

Beeblebrox wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:19 am

10920 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 07, 2020 4:35 pm

In every arbcom case you have "User is admonished for blah blah blah".

I didn't say the whole committee agrees with me, they don't. If you look at the cases I've participated in since re-joining the committee, you won't see me supporting admonishments.

Admonishments would be a humane solution (instead of desysop) to non-egregious admin conduct issues, IF there was a follow-up. That would take effort, though, and well... actual will on admins' part to serve the community.

Osborne wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:35 am

Beeblebrox wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:19 am

10920 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 07, 2020 4:35 pm

In every arbcom case you have "User is admonished for blah blah blah".

I didn't say the whole committee agrees with me, they don't. If you look at the cases I've participated in since re-joining the committee, you won't see me supporting admonishments.

Admonishments would be a humane solution (instead of desysop) to non-egregious admin conduct issues, IF there was a follow-up. That would take effort, though, and well... actual will on admins' part to serve the community.

Yes, a "three strikes and you're out" rule, strictly enforced, might do wonders for improving admin behaviour.

Beeblebrox wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:19 am

10920 wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 07, 2020 4:35 pm

Beeblebrox wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:36 pm

Speaking only for myself, I tend to only support sanctions that actually do something, and this wouldn't do anything.

In every arbcom case you have "User is admonished for blah blah blah".

I didn't say the whole committee agrees with me, they don't. If you look at the cases I've participated in since re-joining the committee, you won't see me supporting admonishments.

RIght, but since the other members don't agree with you, they could certainly do what I suggested, despite the fact that it doesn't accomplish anything concrete. Oh well.

As for admonishments in lieu of desysop, I agree that it makes sense for most cases. However, the recent ArbCom cases have preferred desysopping without warning, it seems.

An admonishment is like a prior.

it still matters more who's the judge, the prosecutor, your character witnesses, and who shows up to be the jury/chorus/peanut gallery.

Well, don't let it ever be said that they're not persistent.

Trust and Safety is coming to town...

They see you when you're naughty...

Settling scores from the past

"Work with community functionaries to create and refine a retroactive
review process for cases brought by involved parties, excluding those cases
which pose legal or other severe risks "

What does "retroactive review process" mean?

I hope it doesn't mean applying standards that were not promulgated at the
time to past actions and applying severe sanctions to the alleged
perpetrators.

It means social justice warriors will function as grand inquisitors who will right ancient wrongs.

*cough* Fram *cough*

There's gambling in this establishment?! I am shocked! Shocked I tell you!!

You mean like Maria Sefidari Huici getting her wife, Laura Hale, a series of paid gigs in wikiland? Or was it all the paid trips???

Vigilant wrote: ↑

Sat May 23, 2020 8:50 pm

There's gambling in this establishment?! I am shocked! Shocked I tell you!!

You mean like Maria Sefidari Huici getting her wife, Laura Hale, a series of paid gigs in wikiland? Or was it all the paid trips???

Did anyone ever lay out a clear timeline of a) when Laura Hale recieved grants, trips etc, b) Maria's involvement in the grants process, c) all their mutual interactions, when they attended events together etc.

I thought about doing it when it all kicked off but unfortunately life got in the way. The reason it triggered is because I too in my youth had a long distance relationship (UK to Australia) which ended up in me moving across the planet. Certainly the relationship was ongoing wayyyyyy before the actual move. And given the times when Hale recived cash, even though Hale was not living with Sefidari at that time, it was close enough that I would have expected them to be in a relationship given the subsequent life move.

This is pretty interesting.

The dominant case cited is FRAMGATE.

The discussion

TL;DR - Fuck off T&S.

Why didn't Maria Sefidari Huici get kicked to the curb by the WMF when it was clear that she was entirely involved in running interference for her undisclosed wife, Laura Hale, during the run up to FRAMGate?

Vigilant wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 22, 2020 6:25 pm

Why didn't Maria Sefidari Huici get kicked to the curb by the WMF when it was clear that she was entirely involved in running interference for her undisclosed wife, Laura Hale, during the run up to FRAMGate?

Could it be because she is in charge of the WMF?

Poetlister wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:17 pm

Vigilant wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 22, 2020 6:25 pm

Why didn't Maria Sefidari Huici get kicked to the curb by the WMF when it was clear that she was entirely involved in running interference for her undisclosed wife, Laura Hale, during the run up to FRAMGate?

Could it be because she is in charge of the WMF?

It's an interesting question. I recall that Maria lost her seat on the board when she was beaten out by Doc James in an election. And then after Doc was kicked to the curb, she regained her seat via appointment by the other board members.

Seems that Doc has never had much influence on the board; maybe he's regarded as a gadfly by the other members.

Make no mistake. I'm sure the delay in elections and the proposed bylaw changes are all Maria's doing. I wonder what Doc thinks of the bylaw changes. I wonder how much input the other board members really had in drafting her proposal.

Maria surely realizes that if she has to go up before the voters again (is she even eligible, or is she subject to term limits?) the voters will kick her to the curb.

She must have a lot of role models for her attitude to democracy, like Vladimir Putin. Is there nobody on the board prepared to call her out?

I've pretty much stayed out of this since the beginning though I did say that I thought both of the main agons (LH & Fram) were more powerful than they should be.

I'm not sure I'd mentioned it before here (if I did it was buried in the avalanche of comments), but the user-name Fram is a clear policy violation.

WP:CORPNAME wrote: The following types of usernames are not permitted because they are considered promotional:

• Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product

source

FRAM is not exactly a small concern (SAS: €10m, fr.wp entry. I seem to recall seeing quite a few people being summarily blocked for such accidents.)

Hindsight is 20/20, but it sure seems like some "gentle" (policy-based) "persuasion", like, years ago might have been appropriate.