Fram's RFA

Discussions on Wikimedia governance
User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
kołdry
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:32 pm

GoldenRing wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
GoldenRing wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
GoldenRing wrote:
Vigilant wrote: You know, as a clerk for the highest deliberative body on en.wp, I would wish that you understood that the process being followed and being seen to be fair and equitable is vastly more important than the outcome for any given case.
You have a very basic misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. WP:NOJUSTICE (T-H-L) is not policy but it's right. WP:NOTBUREAU (T-H-L) is policy which directly contradicts what you've said above. In particular, "A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request." Wikipedia is not a legal system or a system for achieving equitable outcomes; it is an encyclopaedia.
Drink that koolaid, son.
Quote those wiki-policies, as if it makes it right.

If it were 'an encyclopaedia', Laura Hale wouldn't have been allowed to shit it up for a decade and Fram wouldn't have been the only gatekeeper. What you have is a social network of petty political players, most who are utterly incapable of 'writing an encyclopaedia' even if their life depended on it, who play at nasty politics.

The case was not predicated on a procedural error, it was fundamentally designed to be unfair, with the outcome preordained.

You participated in it as a Good German.
"I vas just follwink orders!"
You don't like the rules, piss off and make your own encyclopaedia.
America, Love it or Leave it!
The cry of the frustrated fascist.

Touched a nerve there, son?

The best part is, you know I'm right.
You're wrong, and you have abominable taste in hats.
GoldenRingPiece, "Oh look, I got called out hard and don't have a cogent response. I'm gonna try saying something super random (and hope it's funny) to try to defuse the situation.

That always works with the speds on en.wp.

Oh lord, why does the Eye of Sauron not move from staring at me?!!?"

I'm not one of the feeble-minded, lick-spittles of wikipedia who is 'trying to build an encyclopaedia'. (What is it with the ae pretentious dipshittery anyway?)
This is a criticism site.
You might have wandered away from your safe space, son.

If you want to have a conversation, then you need to hold your end up.
If you're looking for a support group to validate your feelings about your abominable participation in a grossly unfair process, then you've come to the wrong place.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

GoldenRing
Contributor
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2019 4:03 pm
Wikipedia User: GoldenRing

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by GoldenRing » Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:37 pm

Vigilant wrote:
This assumes an evolutionary view of politics, and denies the possibility that national politics can be the governance of a nation for the good of all people, not just the ruling elite. --[[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] 01:48, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
Irony!
And, dear God, you have too much time on your hands.

User avatar
Jans Hammer
Gregarious
Posts: 835
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:59 am

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Jans Hammer » Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:43 pm

Xeno calling it a day. On the back of the Fram RFA failure??

linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... est_(Xeno)[/link]

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:43 pm

GoldenRing wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
This assumes an evolutionary view of politics, and denies the possibility that national politics can be the governance of a nation for the good of all people, not just the ruling elite. --[[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] 01:48, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
Irony!
And, dear God, you have too much time on your hands.
It was your third edit.
It was contribs->oldest->click.

I'm sorry that operating computer systems is so difficult for you.

Do not fear that I have failed to notice that you didn't respond to the content of the message, that you appear to be a bit of a hypocrite, yet again attempting to deflect.
Last edited by Vigilant on Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

GoldenRing
Contributor
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2019 4:03 pm
Wikipedia User: GoldenRing

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by GoldenRing » Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:44 pm

Vigilant wrote: If you want to have a conversation, then you need to hold your end up.
If you're looking for a support group to validate your feelings about your abominable participation in a grossly unfair process, then you've come to the wrong place.
Fine. I'll leave off the hats, since they seem important to you.
vigilant wrote:I would wish that you understood that the process being followed and being seen to be fair and equitable is vastly more important than the outcome for any given case.
This is false. More important for achieving what end? You've already said you're not interested in producing an encyclopaedia (and sorry, the spelling is just habit) so what makes it important? If your answer boils down to "natural justice is important for its own sake" then get off your arse and go volunteer for Save the Children in Syria or something equally noble and quit whinging about the horrific injustices that are meted out on a website.

You might want it to be vastly more important, but nothing makes it so.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:45 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote: You know, as a clerk for the highest deliberative body discipline committee on en.wp, I would wish that you understood that the process being followed and being seen to be fair and equitable is vastly more important than the outcome for any given case.
Fixed it for you...

RfB
After this case, I'm not sure what to call them.

They split the baby like Solomon.

The delicious part isn't even here yet.
I suspect that there are more than enough skeletons in most admin's pasts to show them having violated WP:ADMINCOND.

What this reveals for all to see is that ARBCOM is a purely political process at this point.
Any pretense of fairness has been torn away.
If you think of Arbcom as "the discipline committee of an unincorporated voluntary association"† with specific purview over administrative behavior, and not the Wikipedia Supreme Court,‡ this process is easier to understand. Fram at Arbcom wasn't a court case, it was a discipline hearing — except there was no hearing, it was Star Chamber bullshit based on the redacted secret evidence of secret complainants.

The correct solution was that Arbcom should have taken this complaint, looked it over to assure there was nothing serious in the way of off-wiki harassment that was part of it, then quickly set aside WMF's allegedly "unappealable" sanctions and started a proper case against him for his on-wiki conduct.

But they had to think fast, figure that out, come to unanimous agreement among themselves, and act fast at a moment during which Wikipedia's walls were shaking and little chips from the ceiling were flying. They made a big, big mistake of trying to do this as a secret case because they thought was the best way out — it would keep WMF happy and make sure that the authority to make a final decision stayed with them (i.e. that they would win the big battle, the fight over WMF's new SuperControl™ power over user behavior).

Once the case went to them — fully, not to review, but to decide — that meant that WMF had surrendered. Game over.

Now it was a simple discipline case on a defective basis. Many people did not participate who otherwise would have. But they looked into Fram's edit history and his track record and they knew about Fram beforehand. Everyone knew about Fram beforehand. He's an asshole, but he's an asshole that produces. They felt the pressure to do something, because failing to do anything meant that WMF would be back with its SuperControl™ powers the next time any most favored gameplayers demanded it.

They decided to pull Fram's toolbox (same rationale as The Ramblin' Man case, for failure to meet behavioral norms expected of an administrator) and to punt the football to the community. Was that fair? No, because the procedure was broken. But at that point it became a simple RFA, subject to regular RFA procedures. And that was an impossible hill to climb — NOT because of Laura Hale (she played no part, nor did their interaction). It's just: Fram is a dick and he's not going to get through an RFA until he proves he has stopped being a dick.

People can change. Sarek Of Vulcan (T-C-L) is a great example. He was a dick. He turned it around. TenPoundHammer (T-C-L) was a complete jerk. He changed.

But Fram? He's not even at the level of being self-aware. Maybe that self-awareness starts here.

As for Arbcom and their processes — I sure hope they've learned something from this mess...

RfB



†- © Copyright Kelly Martin, Wikipediocracy, Feb. 1, 2015
‡- Mainstream media horseshit
Last edited by Randy from Boise on Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:02 pm, edited 10 times in total.

User avatar
Ming
the Merciless
Posts: 2966
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Ming » Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:46 pm

The rules are supposed to serve making an encyclopedia through the labors of a host of volunteers. Fram was, along with far too few others, on the side of making at least a decent encyclopedia, but these days the politics of exercising the rules are tilted in the direction of quantity over quality, particularly if you have the right friends.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:59 pm

GoldenRing wrote:
Vigilant wrote: If you want to have a conversation, then you need to hold your end up.
If you're looking for a support group to validate your feelings about your abominable participation in a grossly unfair process, then you've come to the wrong place.
Fine. I'll leave off the hats, since they seem important to you.
Speak to the point instead of throwing chaff.
GoldenRing wrote:
vigilant wrote:I would wish that you understood that the process being followed and being seen to be fair and equitable is vastly more important than the outcome for any given case.
This is false. More important for achieving what end?
You're saying that you are fine with a completely capricious process that derives from the people and politics ascendant at the moment?
Whoever is on top gets to make new rules to suit themselves and their friends at the expense of everyone else?

Sounds like you've got a bit of Lord of the Flies in you.
Watch out you're not the next Piggy.
Cuddle up to the strong, knowing that nothing else will protect you.
GoldenRing wrote:You've already said you're not interested in producing an encyclopaedia (and sorry, the spelling is just habit) so what makes it important?
I viewed wikipedia as an important and useful topic when I first landed there.
I attempted to protect it from a sociopath, not unlike Laura Hale.

I quickly saw that the people in 'positions of authority' were incompetent and prone to abuse anyone not in their clique.

At WO, and WR prior, we've exposed so many corrupt actors that I'd think by now, you guys at en.wp might have recognized that when we're saying, "This is wrong!", you might want to take a look at what we're pointing at and why.
GoldenRing wrote:If your answer boils down to "natural justice is important for its own sake" then get off your arse and go volunteer for Save the Children in Syria or something equally noble and quit whinging about the horrific injustices that are meted out on a website.
I'm absolutely certain that I donate more of my time to worthy charitable causes than you do.

It's neither here nor there, as wikipedia criticism is what I choose to do with my time.

What's more remarkable is that you've been there since 2004 and are completely unable to articulate a rational defense of the behavior shown in the Fram debacle.
Further, you're seemingly unwilling to discuss it without resorting to deflection, obfuscation and logical fallacy.

I'm perfectly fine talking about this with you, it's just that the 'rules' on en.wp don't apply here.
GoldenRing wrote:You might want it to be vastly more important, but nothing makes it so.
It's my opinion.
That's what we do here.

Equitable treatment is ingrained in primate genetics.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690609/

What you're building at the WMF and en.wp is Might Makes Right.
Unquestioning loyalty to the state (WMF).
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:10 pm

Vigilant wrote: What you're building at the WMF and en.wp is Might Makes Right.
Unquestioning loyalty to the state (WMF).
If you think that's why Fram crashed and burned in the RFA, you have not read the oppose rationales.

Certainly there were quite a few trough-feeders among the opposers (the Cabal flexed their muscles, as they sometimes do) — but the reasons to Oppose were "because Fram," not "because WMF."

RfB

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:20 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote: What you're building at the WMF and en.wp is Might Makes Right.
Unquestioning loyalty to the state (WMF).
If you think that's why Fram crashed and burned in the RFA, you have not read the oppose rationales.

Certainly there were quite a few trough-feeders among the opposers (the Cabal flexed their muscles, as they sometimes do) — but the reasons to Oppose were "because Fram," not "because WMF."

RfB
Really?
Again?

It should never have gone to RfA.

The ban was vacated, the desysop should also have been.
Then, have a full case with public evidence and proper process and let the chips fall where they may.

When ARBCOM is just making shit up as it goes along, primarily based on the composition of the committee at any given time, then nobody should feel safe and nobody should applaud that state of affairs.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:25 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote: What you're building at the WMF and en.wp is Might Makes Right.
Unquestioning loyalty to the state (WMF).
If you think that's why Fram crashed and burned in the RFA, you have not read the oppose rationales.

Certainly there were quite a few trough-feeders among the opposers (the Cabal flexed their muscles, as they sometimes do) — but the reasons to Oppose were "because Fram," not "because WMF."

RfB
Really?
Again?

It should never have gone to RfA.

The ban was vacated, the desysop should also have been.
There were a ton of "should haves" in this case. That is only one of them.

But after all the procedural bullshit, it went to an open vote: "Should Fram be an Administrator?"

It wasn't 55 to 0 in his favor this time, because like it or not, since 2007 having the toolbox has become a Really Big Deal.

RfB

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:29 pm

Vigilant wrote:When ARBCOM is just making shit up as it goes along, primarily based on the composition of the committee at any given time, then nobody should feel safe and nobody should applaud that state of affairs.
Wikipedians and citizens of the UK alike...

This is why Arbcom elections are really important.

RfB

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:32 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote: What you're building at the WMF and en.wp is Might Makes Right.
Unquestioning loyalty to the state (WMF).
If you think that's why Fram crashed and burned in the RFA, you have not read the oppose rationales.

Certainly there were quite a few trough-feeders among the opposers (the Cabal flexed their muscles, as they sometimes do) — but the reasons to Oppose were "because Fram," not "because WMF."

RfB
Really?
Again?

It should never have gone to RfA.

The ban was vacated, the desysop should also have been.
There were a ton of "should haves" in this case. That is only one of them.

But after all the procedural bullshit, it went to an open vote: "Should Fram be an Administrator?"

It wasn't 55 to 0 in his favor this time, because like it or not, since 2007 having the toolbox has become a Really Big Deal.

RfB
You seem to be laboring under the mistaken assumption that I desperately care if Fram is an admin on en.wp and missing the point that I am decrying the grossly unfair PROCESS.

How am I to make this clearer to you?
Is here someone else at your facility that I could speak to for a moment?
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:40 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote:When ARBCOM is just making shit up as it goes along, primarily based on the composition of the committee at any given time, then nobody should feel safe and nobody should applaud that state of affairs.
Wikipedians and citizens of the UK alike...

This is why Arbcom elections are really important.

RfB
No, no, no, no, no!
Bad Tim, no cookie!

Counting on the character of ARBCOM membership is why we ended up in this cesspit in the first place.
Cults of personality and mutual support/defense cliques are a natural consequence of not having institutional fairness.
This is why there are so many pathetic little razor gangs on en.wp.

This is why enshrining fairness in the process and then forcing everyone to follow that process is important.
Everyone gets a fair shake.
It's what you know, not who you know.
All citizens are equal under the law.


This is why Laura Hale and Maria Sefidari Huici are so dangerous here; they corrupted the process and destroyed any notion of fairness.
No justice, no peace.


This goes back to my insistence on a professional body comprised of experienced arbitrators being employees who handle things fairly... from a set process.... equitable.

Howver, in typical WMF fashion, they have destroyed the chance to have somthing like this by constituting the grossly misnamed 'Trust and Safety' from the incompetent, corrupt dregs of the world.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

Carcharoth
Habitué
Posts: 1220
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:44 am
Wikipedia User: Carcharoth

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Carcharoth » Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:42 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote:When ARBCOM is just making shit up as it goes along, primarily based on the composition of the committee at any given time, then nobody should feel safe and nobody should applaud that state of affairs.
Wikipedians and citizens of the UK alike...

This is why Arbcom elections are really important.

RfB
In that vein (I am actually more concerned about the state of UK politics than the state of Wikipedia/Wikimedia politics as the latter former has more potential to actually impact me), what are your views on how much the forthcoming ArbCom elections will be about Framgate? (I know, it depends on the candidates - in that vein, see here.) Do you think there are people on both sides of the divide (and maybe some 'unity' candidates) who are considering running (or who will consider running if they think ArbCom will become too partisan)?

EDIT: corrected 'latter' when I meant 'former'.
Last edited by Carcharoth on Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Jans Hammer
Gregarious
Posts: 835
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:59 am

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Jans Hammer » Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:02 pm

Carcharoth wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote:When ARBCOM is just making shit up as it goes along, primarily based on the composition of the committee at any given time, then nobody should feel safe and nobody should applaud that state of affairs.
Wikipedians and citizens of the UK alike...

This is why Arbcom elections are really important.

RfB
In that vein (I am actually more concerned about the state of UK politics than the state of Wikipedia/Wikimedia politics as the latter has more potential to actually impact me), what are your views on how much the forthcoming ArbCom elections will be about Framgate? (I know, it depends on the candidates - in that vein, see here.) Do you think there are people on both sides of the divide (and maybe some 'unity' candidates) who are considering running (or who will consider running if they think ArbCom will become too partisan)?
2 obvious strands spring to my mind. Civility and yes, relationship with WMF. IMHO, community would be best served concentrating on the former because, given Fram's blown RFA and what transpired in his case, there is a clear opportunity with the planned civility RFC to benchmark what is and isn't acceptable. In particular in relation to pre-2012 admins. Just 2p. What concerns you about UK pols?

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:03 pm

Carcharoth wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Vigilant wrote:When ARBCOM is just making shit up as it goes along, primarily based on the composition of the committee at any given time, then nobody should feel safe and nobody should applaud that state of affairs.
Wikipedians and citizens of the UK alike...

This is why Arbcom elections are really important.

RfB
In that vein (I am actually more concerned about the state of UK politics than the state of Wikipedia/Wikimedia politics as the latter has more potential to actually impact me), what are your views on how much the forthcoming ArbCom elections will be about Framgate? (I know, it depends on the candidates - in that vein, see here.) Do you think there are people on both sides of the divide (and maybe some 'unity' candidates) who are considering running (or who will consider running if they think ArbCom will become too partisan)?
I don't think there will be more than one or two protest candidates. Xeno (T-C-L) just turned in tools in protest of the result of Fram plebiscite, having been a co-nominator — but making sure to note it was not "under a cloud," which means he could pop the hat back on and run on ten minutes' notice. I'd be a little surprised if he doesn't run, actually, although I do not know him and am saying that after reading the tea leaves, no more.

They're going to have a really hard time getting 11 electable administrators to run for the 11 vacancies as it stands, maybe this will spur more interest and new names will enter the ring. (Committee will be going back to 15 seats.) If they are committed to fair process and standing up to WMF's attempts to meddle, so much the better. That would be a big win.

I think questions about fairness and process will be the big issue this time around, with questions about harassment and reining in incivility somewhat attenuated versus a few previous elections.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Randy from Boise on Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:19 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Carcharoth
Habitué
Posts: 1220
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:44 am
Wikipedia User: Carcharoth

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Carcharoth » Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:05 pm

Xaosflux (T-C-L) and Xeno (T-C-L) are two different people.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:14 pm

Carcharoth wrote:Xaosflux (T-C-L) and Xeno (T-C-L) are two different people.
Oops. I must have hit a wrong link.

Xeno (T-C-L) is the one who resigned, xaosflux (T-C-L) is the bureaucrat who shut off the buttons.

t
Last edited by Randy from Boise on Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

GoldenRing
Contributor
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2019 4:03 pm
Wikipedia User: GoldenRing

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by GoldenRing » Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:20 pm

Vigilant wrote: You're saying that you are fine with a completely capricious process that derives from the people and politics ascendant at the moment?
Whoever is on top gets to make new rules to suit themselves and their friends at the expense of everyone else?
Yes, basically. It's worked relatively well so far. No-one claims it's perfect (or at any rate I don't) but so far the output is generally considered a valuable resource.
Vigilant wrote: ...I'll cut out the chaff that was thrown here...
GoldenRing wrote:You've already said you're not interested in producing an encyclopaedia (and sorry, the spelling is just habit) so what makes it important?
I viewed wikipedia as an important and useful topic when I first landed there.
I attempted to protect it from a sociopath, not unlike Laura Hale.

I quickly saw that the people in 'positions of authority' were incompetent and prone to abuse anyone not in their clique.

At WO, and WR prior, we've exposed so many corrupt actors that I'd think by now, you guys at en.wp might have recognized that when we're saying, "This is wrong!", you might want to take a look at what we're pointing at and why.
On the contrary, those in 'positions of authority' are prone to gladly ignore anyone who just turns up and make reasonable edits. People who just turn up and make crap edits generally get blocked. People who turn up and make lots of quasi-political trouble tend to get picked on for a while and eventually blocked. You probably have more in common with Laura Hale than you're prepared to admit here.
Vigilant wrote:
GoldenRing wrote:If your answer boils down to "natural justice is important for its own sake" then get off your arse and go volunteer for Save the Children in Syria or something equally noble and quit whinging about the horrific injustices that are meted out on a website.
I'm absolutely certain that I donate more of my time to worthy charitable causes than you do.

It's neither here nor there, as wikipedia criticism is what I choose to do with my time.
Then you are a fool, for you are certain of that on which you have no information. At any rate, the comparison is irrelevant to the point; if you are actually concerned about natural justice, go and find some actual, serious injustices to deal with. It's a bloody website.
Vigilant wrote: What's more remarkable is that you've been there since 2004 and are completely unable to articulate a rational defense of the behavior shown in the Fram debacle.
Further, you're seemingly unwilling to discuss it without resorting to deflection, obfuscation and logical fallacy.

I'm perfectly fine talking about this with you, it's just that the 'rules' on en.wp don't apply here.
Nobody asked that they should; only that they should apply on en.wp. Whinging that there's a gross abuse of process going on when the site's system of rules explicitly says that process doesn't matter is useless. But then (apparently) your genes made you do it, so ho hum.
Vigilant wrote:
GoldenRing wrote:You might want it to be vastly more important, but nothing makes it so.
It's my opinion.
That's what we do here.
Ah. We're back to the taste in hats. It really is unspeakable.
Vigilant wrote: What you're building at the WMF and en.wp is Might Makes Right.
Unquestioning loyalty to the state (WMF).
The WMF certainly appear to be attempting that; but there is clear blue water between thinking the WMF is wonderful and thinking Fram is suitable to be an administrator. Making him an administrator again because he is unsuitable but the process that got us here is stupid (it's my opinion - it's what we do here). How much more drama do we need to get to the point we should get to when we're already there?
Last edited by GoldenRing on Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Carcharoth
Habitué
Posts: 1220
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:44 am
Wikipedia User: Carcharoth

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Carcharoth » Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:20 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:I don't think there will be more than one or two protest candidates.
My reading of it is that there will be some emboldened by the Fram RfA result to run as 'civility police' candidates. Which could be a bad thing. There might also be some running who have WMF/WMDC/WiR backgrounds (or similar organisations).

Carcharoth
Habitué
Posts: 1220
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:44 am
Wikipedia User: Carcharoth

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Carcharoth » Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:22 pm

GoldenRing wrote:How much more drama do we need to get to the point we should get to when we're already there?
The point is that principles are important. Sometimes it is necessary to stick to principles to avoid them being eroded.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31489
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:30 pm

GoldenRing wrote:
Vigilant wrote: You're saying that you are fine with a completely capricious process that derives from the people and politics ascendant at the moment?
Whoever is on top gets to make new rules to suit themselves and their friends at the expense of everyone else?
Yes, basically. It's worked relatively well so far. No-one claims it's perfect (or at any rate I don't) but so far the output is generally considered a valuable resource.
Obviously not or there wouldn't have been a full scale revolt over WP:FRAM.
GoldenRing wrote:
Vigilant wrote: ...I'll cut out the chaff that was thrown here...
GoldenRing wrote:You've already said you're not interested in producing an encyclopaedia (and sorry, the spelling is just habit) so what makes it important?
I viewed wikipedia as an important and useful topic when I first landed there.
I attempted to protect it from a sociopath, not unlike Laura Hale.

I quickly saw that the people in 'positions of authority' were incompetent and prone to abuse anyone not in their clique.

At WO, and WR prior, we've exposed so many corrupt actors that I'd think by now, you guys at en.wp might have recognized that when we're saying, "This is wrong!", you might want to take a look at what we're pointing at and why.
On the contrary, those in 'positions of authority' are prone to gladly ignore anyone who just turns up and make reasonable edits. People who just turn up and make crap edits generally get blocked. People who turn up and make lots of quasi-political trouble tend to get picked on for a while and eventually blocked. You probably have more in common with Laura Hale than you're prepared to admit here.
At this point, I have to ask, do you have any connection to Laura Hale?

GoldenRing wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
GoldenRing wrote:If your answer boils down to "natural justice is important for its own sake" then get off your arse and go volunteer for Save the Children in Syria or something equally noble and quit whinging about the horrific injustices that are meted out on a website.
I'm absolutely certain that I donate more of my time to worthy charitable causes than you do.

It's neither here nor there, as wikipedia criticism is what I choose to do with my time.
Then you are a fool, for you are certain of that on which you have no information.
That's the thing about being able to dig online.
GoldenRing wrote:At any rate, the comparison is irrelevant to the point; if you are actually concerned about natural justice, go and find some actual, serious injustices to deal with. It's a bloody website.
You should try to follow along more carefully, you're the one who raised this line in the first place.
GoldenRing wrote:
Vigilant wrote: What's more remarkable is that you've been there since 2004 and are completely unable to articulate a rational defense of the behavior shown in the Fram debacle.
Further, you're seemingly unwilling to discuss it without resorting to deflection, obfuscation and logical fallacy.

I'm perfectly fine talking about this with you, it's just that the 'rules' on en.wp don't apply here.
Nobody asked that they should; only that they should apply on en.wp. Whinging that there's a gross abuse of process going on when the site's system of rules explicitly says that process doesn't matter is useless. But then (apparently) your genes made you do it, so ho hum.
So, you're fine with it. Noted.
GoldenRing wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
GoldenRing wrote:You might want it to be vastly more important, but nothing makes it so.
It's my opinion.
That's what we do here.
Ah. We're back to the taste in hats. It really is unspeakable.
We're really not.
You've tried to say that I'm wrong for wanting equitable process and I've called you out on it.
You're now trying desperately to squirm away.
GoldenRing wrote:
Vigilant wrote: What you're building at the WMF and en.wp is Might Makes Right.
Unquestioning loyalty to the state (WMF).
The WMF certainly appear to be attempting that; but there is clear blue water between thinking the WMF is wonderful and thinking Fram is suitable to be an administrator. Making him an administrator again because he is unsuitable but the process that got us here is stupid (it's my opinion - it's what we do here). How much more drama do we need to get to the point we should get to when we're already there?
Then tell me how you would have handled this case if you were given free reign?
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Osborne
Habitué
Posts: 1259
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2019 8:29 pm

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Osborne » Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:04 pm

Vigilant wrote: What you're building at the WMF and en.wp is Might Makes Right.
That's the first rule of Wikipedia. The WMF has nothing to do with that, other than skimming the benefits.

GoldenRing
Contributor
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2019 4:03 pm
Wikipedia User: GoldenRing

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by GoldenRing » Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:07 pm

Vigilant wrote: At this point, I have to ask, do you have any connection to Laura Hale?
No. However you define "connection", I have no connection to Laura Hale beyond the fact we have both edited Wikipedia. As far as I recall, even there we have never interacted.
Vigilant wrote:
GoldenRing wrote: Then you are a fool, for you are certain of that on which you have no information.
That's the thing about being able to dig online.
Uh huh. So, go on, dox me then.
Vigilant wrote:
GoldenRing wrote:At any rate, the comparison is irrelevant to the point; if you are actually concerned about natural justice, go and find some actual, serious injustices to deal with. It's a bloody website.
You should try to follow along more carefully, you're the one who raised this line in the first place.
And I'm still making the same point. Keep up.
Vigilant wrote: So, you're fine with it. Noted.
The message got through eventually. Quick, isn't he, folks?
Vigilant wrote:
GoldenRing wrote: Ah. We're back to the taste in hats. It really is unspeakable.
We're really not.
You've tried to say that I'm wrong for wanting equitable process and I've called you out on it.
You're now trying desperately to squirm away.
I mean, where do you even find a hat like that?
Vigilant wrote:
GoldenRing wrote: The WMF certainly appear to be attempting that; but there is clear blue water between thinking the WMF is wonderful and thinking Fram is suitable to be an administrator. Making him an administrator again because he is unsuitable but the process that got us here is stupid (it's my opinion - it's what we do here). How much more drama do we need to get to the point we should get to when we're already there?
Then tell me how you would have handled this case if you were given free reign?
I suspect arbcom should have accepted a Fram case and desysopped for cause years ago. We got there in the end.

Of course the WMF made a dogs breakfast of the whole thing; don't think me a fan of them. Of course the process was a mess. It doesn't follow, to me, that we should make an arsehole an administrator because he was desysopped in a bad process. If this was Fram's first RfA and FRAMGATE had never happened, the proportions would be more like 75-25 than the current 50-50, on the basis that most of the opposes are on the basis that an arsehole shouldn't be an admin, while half the supports are there to spite the WMF and would probably oppose if FRAMGATE wasn't in the picture. Why should I support someone I don't think should be an admin because someone else who I don't think should be adminning did something stupid to them?

At any rate, I see the RfA has been withdrawn so the responsibility of deciding which way I go from neutral is lifted.
Last edited by GoldenRing on Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:07 pm

Osborne wrote:
Vigilant wrote: What you're building at the WMF and en.wp is Might Makes Right.
That's the first rule of Wikipedia. The WMF has nothing to do with that, other than skimming the benefits.
Deeply cynical. I like that.

Of course, one could say Might Makes Right is true for all fields of human activity, including government, law, and business.

RfB

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:09 pm

I don't think I ever told GoldenRing welcome to WPO.

Let me do that now. Welcome!

But don't get in a pissing match with Vig. Nobody wants to read that and you will end up with very soggy trousers.

I used that noun for you, PL,

RfB

10920
Gregarious
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:01 pm

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by 10920 » Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:33 pm

Alex Shih wrote:
GoldenRing wrote:
10920 wrote: Nice of ArbCom to have the "clerks" proxy for them in the oppose column.
I might have missed some, but the clerks I've seen have been one opposed (bradv), one supporting (Miniapolis) and one neutral (me). I'm not sure how you work that into "proxy[ing] in the oppose column."
Yes you did. Guerillero (emphatic oppose) and Liz (Neutral leaning oppose) have both been pretty active in this RfA. And also DeltaQuad, whom is acting as a neutral 'crat clerking this RfA, when in the ideal world she really should recuse. Again this is a question of "must" vs. "should", and unfortunately many folks on Wikipedia simply do not have the decency to follow the moral integrity
Agreed.


As for Fram's RfA, it didn't fail because Fram is a "dick". That earned Fram some opposes, sure, but the reason Fram failed was because he/she pissed off too many cabals. ArbCom was determined to ensure Fram did not pass RfA (they felt it would make them look bad), so they flexed their muscle (yes, I know they didn't vote directly), Wicked Women in Scarlet got there as quickly as possible, Wikimedia DC, every serious bootlicker, and I'm probably missing some others. Amusing that Fae claimed this thread was canvassing. A good chunk of the opposes were canvassed if you look at the timeline.

User avatar
Osborne
Habitué
Posts: 1259
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2019 8:29 pm

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Osborne » Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:50 pm

GoldenRing wrote: I suspect arbcom should have accepted a Fram case and desysopped for cause years ago. We got there in the end.
Indeed. We finally got there. Maybe it's a bigger lesson than if it have happened years ago.
GoldenRing wrote: Of course the WMF made a dogs breakfast of the whole thing; don't think me a fan of them. Of course the process was a mess. It doesn't follow, to me, that we should make an arsehole an administrator because he was desysopped in a bad process. If this was Fram's first RfA and FRAMGATE had never happened, the proportions would be more like 75-25 than the current 50-50, on the basis that most of the opposes are on the basis that an arsehole shouldn't be an admin, while half the supports are there to spite the WMF and would probably oppose if FRAMGATE wasn't in the picture. Why should I support someone I don't think should be an admin because someone else who I don't think should be adminning did something stupid to them?
:agree:

Ansh666
Critic
Posts: 240
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:50 am
Wikipedia User: Ansh666

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Ansh666 » Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:54 pm

GoldenRing wrote:Of course the WMF made a dogs breakfast of the whole thing; don't think me a fan of them. Of course the process was a mess. It doesn't follow, to me, that we should make an arsehole an administrator because he was desysopped in a bad process. If this was Fram's first RfA and FRAMGATE had never happened, the proportions would be more like 75-25 than the current 50-50, on the basis that most of the opposes are on the basis that an arsehole shouldn't be an admin, while half the supports are there to spite the WMF and would probably oppose if FRAMGATE wasn't in the picture. Why should I support someone I don't think should be an admin because someone else who I don't think should be adminning did something stupid to them?
Because it means that the same bad process can now happen to someone who should be adminning, and all they have to do to justify it is to point back at Fram.

User avatar
Osborne
Habitué
Posts: 1259
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2019 8:29 pm

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Osborne » Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:04 pm

Ansh666 wrote: Because it means that the same bad process can now happen to someone who should be adminning, and all they have to do to justify it is to point back at Fram.
Pointing back to Fram would remind people of an unjustified ban, and a non-transparent process that took 4 months to fix, and adjust to the community's values. I don't think that would be a justification. :rotfl:
I understand, that some people think the result justifies the procedure, but that's not generally true to every people. People are capable of more complex thinking than that.

Ansh666
Critic
Posts: 240
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:50 am
Wikipedia User: Ansh666

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Ansh666 » Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:06 pm

Osborne wrote:
Ansh666 wrote: Because it means that the same bad process can now happen to someone who should be adminning, and all they have to do to justify it is to point back at Fram.
Pointing back to Fram would remind people of an unjustified ban, and a non-transparent process that took 4 months to fix, and adjust to the community's values. I don't think that would be a justification. :rotfl:
I understand, that some people think the result justifies the procedure, but that's not generally true to every people. People are capable of more complex thinking than that.
Some people are capable of more complex thinking than that. Some...aren't. :)

10920
Gregarious
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:01 pm

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by 10920 » Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:08 pm

This will surely embolden the WMF.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:12 pm

Osborne wrote:
GoldenRing wrote: I suspect arbcom should have accepted a Fram case and desysopped for cause years ago. We got there in the end.
Indeed. We finally got there. Maybe it's a bigger lesson than if it have happened years ago.
GoldenRing wrote: Of course the WMF made a dogs breakfast of the whole thing; don't think me a fan of them. Of course the process was a mess. It doesn't follow, to me, that we should make an arsehole an administrator because he was desysopped in a bad process. If this was Fram's first RfA and FRAMGATE had never happened, the proportions would be more like 75-25 than the current 50-50, on the basis that most of the opposes are on the basis that an arsehole shouldn't be an admin, while half the supports are there to spite the WMF and would probably oppose if FRAMGATE wasn't in the picture. Why should I support someone I don't think should be an admin because someone else who I don't think should be adminning did something stupid to them?
:agree:
Exactly.

Realistically: Fram would have to undergo a nearly magical personality transformation and then engage in about two years of problem-free activity to make it through the spanking line successfully...

I would need some very, very long odds to bet on that outcome.

RfB

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:14 pm

10920 wrote:This will surely embolden the WMF.
How? They surrendered on the big question, kicking the case back to the established self-governing channel for site discipline and can't reasonably argue that Arbcom or the community are "do nothings" about bad actors.

WMF T&S is seriously weakened coming out of this. Back to their original mission, more like.

RfB

el84
Gregarious
Posts: 627
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:59 pm
Actual Name: Andy E
Location: イギリス

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by el84 » Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:16 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Osborne wrote:
GoldenRing wrote: I suspect arbcom should have accepted a Fram case and desysopped for cause years ago. We got there in the end.
Indeed. We finally got there. Maybe it's a bigger lesson than if it have happened years ago.
GoldenRing wrote: Of course the WMF made a dogs breakfast of the whole thing; don't think me a fan of them. Of course the process was a mess. It doesn't follow, to me, that we should make an arsehole an administrator because he was desysopped in a bad process. If this was Fram's first RfA and FRAMGATE had never happened, the proportions would be more like 75-25 than the current 50-50, on the basis that most of the opposes are on the basis that an arsehole shouldn't be an admin, while half the supports are there to spite the WMF and would probably oppose if FRAMGATE wasn't in the picture. Why should I support someone I don't think should be an admin because someone else who I don't think should be adminning did something stupid to them?
:agree:
Exactly.

Realistically: Fram would have to undergo a nearly magical personality transformation and then engage in about two years of problem-free activity to make it through the spanking line successfully...

I would need some very, very long odds to bet on that outcome.

RfB
I honestly doubt he'll be able to get himself reconfirmed. The above links from Wikipedia'll get archived so they can be dragged out every time he tries to go for it again.

User avatar
Jans Hammer
Gregarious
Posts: 835
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:59 am

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Jans Hammer » Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:18 pm

10920 wrote:This will surely embolden the WMF.
Not quite sure how that works to be honest. Looks at the opposes. How many directly reference the WMF issue? How many directly say that the WMF case was not a factor? FACT: Fram is not widely liked. He has a following. Eric had a following. Marmite.
Agree on not, this was 140 editors chance to tell him what they thought and they did. I am firmly in the camp of "by any means possible" and I cannot buy the "injustice of the WMF case" enabling the RfA. I believe in fixed terms for functionaries. with mandatory reconfirmation.
Whether WMF repeat the exercise will depend on the outcome of the proposed RFC.
Last edited by Jans Hammer on Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Osborne
Habitué
Posts: 1259
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2019 8:29 pm

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Osborne » Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:21 pm

Randy from Boise wrote: Exactly.
Realistically: Fram would have to undergo a nearly magical personality transformation and then engage in about two years of problem-free activity to make it through the spanking line successfully...
I would need some very, very long odds to bet on that outcome.
RfB
The last day I think was quite different of what he expected. He seemed to be very confident of his position, and ignorant of advice, that questioned that confidence. This might be a crucial lesson to him, but such personality transformation generally don't come from sitting in front of a keyboard. He should take on meditation, then it can happen in months even.

User avatar
Jans Hammer
Gregarious
Posts: 835
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:59 am

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Jans Hammer » Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:24 pm

Osborne wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote: Exactly.
Realistically: Fram would have to undergo a nearly magical personality transformation and then engage in about two years of problem-free activity to make it through the spanking line successfully...
I would need some very, very long odds to bet on that outcome.
RfB
The last day I think was quite different of what he expected. He seemed to be very confident of his position, and ignorant of advice, that questioned that confidence. This might be a crucial lesson to him, but such personality transformation generally don't come from sitting in front of a keyboard. He should take on meditation, then it can happen in months even.
I could have told him how to have avoided the worst of this. Wait 6 months and not allow most of the co-nominators anyway near his RfA.

User avatar
Osborne
Habitué
Posts: 1259
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2019 8:29 pm

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Osborne » Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:43 pm

:agree: (I would have said 12 months)

User avatar
Jans Hammer
Gregarious
Posts: 835
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:59 am

Re: Fram's RFA

Unread post by Jans Hammer » Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:35 pm


User avatar
Osborne
Habitué
Posts: 1259
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2019 8:29 pm

Re: Fram's RFA

Unread post by Osborne » Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:40 pm

Jans Hammer wrote:Any idea why the revdels? linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history[/link]
Wugapodes' comment
"did you call the unblocked editor a pedophile"
was replaced by
"did you <redacted>"
linkhttps://web.archive.org/web/20190927132 ... hip/Fram_2[/link]

It is worth screwing up the history of a very popular RfA for that. /sarc

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Poetlister » Fri Sep 27, 2019 8:11 pm

Jans Hammer wrote:
Poetlister wrote:Now it's 106/114/13 (48%). Quite a few people in WMF must be breathing a sigh of relief, and LH is probably laughing. Whatever people think of Fram, surely anything that looks like an endorsement of LH can't be good.
Are you convinced though, by that angle? The weight of opposes from editors who never cropped up during "the case" relate to his brutal treatment of editors who have made genuine (albeit annoying and stupid to Fram) mistakes. To be honest, this is exactly what is needed to shock several of the pre-2010 Admins with a similar mind set to Fram. And there are many :angry:
Yes, difficult, isn't it? Whatever happens will be bad from some sngles. What can we find that is least bad?
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Poetlister » Fri Sep 27, 2019 8:17 pm

GoldenRing wrote:Wikipedia is not a legal system or a system for achieving equitable outcomes; it is an encyclopaedia.
Why does an encyclopaedia need an ArbCom? What an encyclopaedia needs, but of course Wikipedia does not have, is an editorial board.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Fri Sep 27, 2019 8:34 pm

GoldenRing wrote:At any rate, the comparison is irrelevant to the point; if you are actually concerned about natural justice, go and find some actual, serious injustices to deal with. It's a bloody website.
With all due respect, Mr. Goldenring, this line of argument is both patently dishonest and generally insulting. Of course Wikipedia is more than just some "bloody website," it's where half the planet goes to look up basic information (because Google sends them there), and it can probably influence people's thinking in ways most of us can't even imagine. The ways we can imagine are bad enough. And yes, that is a serious injustice, because the people building Wikipedia, by and large, simply don't know what they're doing - even after all this time, and after replacing so many people and organizations that did.

I won't deign to insist that you start taking Wikipedia (or at least its effects) more seriously, but I suspect you'd be more popular (at least around here) if you threw that particular bit of attitude into the bin where it belongs.

User avatar
Jans Hammer
Gregarious
Posts: 835
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:59 am

Re: Fram's RFA

Unread post by Jans Hammer » Fri Sep 27, 2019 8:43 pm

Osborne wrote:
Jans Hammer wrote:Any idea why the revdels? linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history[/link]
Wugapodes' comment
"did you call the unblocked editor a pedophile"
was replaced by
"did you <redacted>"
linkhttps://web.archive.org/web/20190927132 ... hip/Fram_2[/link]

It is worth screwing up the history of a very popular RfA for that. /sarc
Can the single offending edit not be removed?

Ansh666
Critic
Posts: 240
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:50 am
Wikipedia User: Ansh666

Re: Fram's RFA

Unread post by Ansh666 » Fri Sep 27, 2019 8:48 pm

Jans Hammer wrote:
Osborne wrote:
Jans Hammer wrote:Any idea why the revdels? linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title]=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Fram_2&action=history[/link]
Wugapodes' comment
"did you call the unblocked editor a pedophile"
was replaced by
"did you <redacted>"
linkhttps://web.archive.org/web/20190927132 ... hip/Fram_2[/link]

It is worth screwing up the history of a very popular RfA for that. /sarc
Can the single offending edit not be removed?
The same text will be in all the revisions after it until it's removed, so removing the single edit won't be any use at all.

10920
Gregarious
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:01 pm

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by 10920 » Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:29 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
10920 wrote:This will surely embolden the WMF.
How? They surrendered on the big question, kicking the case back to the established self-governing channel for site discipline and can't reasonably argue that Arbcom or the community are "do nothings" about bad actors.

WMF T&S is seriously weakened coming out of this. Back to their original mission, more like.

RfB
Because ArbCom didn't 'overturn' the ban, they essentially let WMF's ban stand at a 3.5 month ban (so Fram was banned for 3+ months for essentially nothing), ArbCom also declined to do anything about the desysop (both of these I predicted beforehand, as ArbCom wasn't given the ability/choice to do anything in this case).

Then the community "upheld" the desysop by not resysopping Fram.

So the WMF feels vindicated by the community and I am sure they will feel free to do such things again. Jan has certainly not apologized or said they wouldn't.

Disgruntled Admin
Contributor
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 2:17 am

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Disgruntled Admin » Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:49 pm

Vigilant wrote:
GoldenRing wrote:
Vigilant wrote: Then tell me how you would have handled this case if you were given free reign?
If that's deliberate spelling, it's very clever.

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Fram Request for Administration 2 — Now with more words!

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Fri Sep 27, 2019 11:24 pm

10920 wrote:So the WMF feels vindicated by the community and I am sure they will feel free to do such things again. Jan has certainly not apologized or said they wouldn't.
It's possible they have more tricks up their sleeve, too - they've had plenty of time to think about this.

The thing is, we're not really going to know for at least a few months, maybe a year or more. I suspect what they're going to propose next (possibly in the upcoming RfC) is that they be allowed to bring Arbcom civility cases themselves, and if the targets of those cases are admins, they'll insist on being allowed to immediately rescind the admin rights of those targets (but not ban them) "at their discretion," pending the decision in each case. That's going to make being an Arbcom member an even worse experience than it is now, of course.

On the other hand, if they really do nothing at all, what does that mean? That they really believed all en.wiki's administrative harassment problems were down to just one guy, all along? In that case we'll know a lot sooner, because they'll realize they were wrong about that fairly quickly. Or, would that mean this whole deal was a one-off to appease LauraHale (and maybe a handful of others), and give the WMF a nice public "win" in the never-ending battle against the sexist 85% male en.wiki majority? If so, what's going to happen the next time they need a "win"?

Post Reply