Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Discussions on Wikimedia governance
User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
kołdry
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Vigilant » Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:08 pm

Moral Hazard wrote:
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 fleas on the rats in the septic tanks for crack houses.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
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: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Vigilant » Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:11 pm

The Adversary wrote:
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)
When you clean out an infestation, you don't leave any behind.
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: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Vigilant » Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:14 pm

Brenda Wahler showing her fitness for the admin role...
Statement by Montanabw

ArbCom should Decline and the article should be restored. David Eppstein provided an excellent rationale and I concur with much of what he said. As someone who responded to a request for information for the article and one of the few people willing to put my name to my quotes, I also agree that The Signpost is journalism. It is not a BLP violation to use anonymous sources (just ask the Washington Post during Watergate), it is balanced journalism to present multiple viewpoints, and the editor should, in fact, be commended for writing a balanced article. This whole request is a waste of bandwidth. Montanabw(talk) 18:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
This is purely "my gang is always right" tribalism.
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: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Vigilant » Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:19 pm

Last edited by Vigilant on Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by mendaliv » Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:23 pm

Vigilant wrote:This is purely "my gang is always right" tribalism.
Eh. Sometimes you've gotta make an argument rather than stand mute. I don't agree with it of course, but I don't think she's wrong to make an argument.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

Capeo
Regular
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 6:10 pm
Wikipedia User: Capeo

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Capeo » Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:24 pm

Vigilant wrote:Brenda Wahler showing her fitness for the admin role...
Statement by Montanabw

ArbCom should Decline and the article should be restored. David Eppstein provided an excellent rationale and I concur with much of what he said. As someone who responded to a request for information for the article and one of the few people willing to put my name to my quotes, I also agree that The Signpost is journalism. It is not a BLP violation to use anonymous sources (just ask the Washington Post during Watergate), it is balanced journalism to present multiple viewpoints, and the editor should, in fact, be commended for writing a balanced article. This whole request is a waste of bandwidth. Montanabw(talk) 18:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
This is purely "my gang is always right" tribalism.
Yes, Montanabw, Smallbones is just like Woodward & Bernstein. :facepalm:

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Vigilant » Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:26 pm

mendaliv wrote:
Vigilant wrote:This is purely "my gang is always right" tribalism.
Eh. Sometimes you've gotta make an argument rather than stand mute. I don't agree with it of course, but I don't think she's wrong to make an argument.
I'm not sure that passing out barnstars to the miscreants looks terribly objective though.
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: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Vigilant » Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:32 pm

A call for someone, anyone, preferably a strong father figure, to finally make the trains run on time.

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 92994.html
All,

In an attempt to move the discussion on from unprofitable and
inappropriate speculations about information shared in confidence,
let's look at one of the aspects that is made public. When the WMF
issues a WMF Global Ban in line with
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy it has been in
the habit of doing so by login identity or pseudonym as at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Glo ... olicy/List

This makes perfect sense in terms of blocking users from logging in,
but the bans are not only issued against individuals personally rather
than specific account names ("A Foundation global ban is placed
against an individual instead of against a specific username") but
applies to real-world activities such as events and meetings ("as well
as any in-person events hosted, sponsored or funded by the
Foundation") for which people tyoically register and pay under a real
name.

Has the time not come to for WMF Global Bans to name people under
their real names, where known? In answer to one likely objection:
this is not outing, since that applies only to members of the
Wikimedia community. People subject to WMF Global Bans are no longer
members of that community: the ban pernamentaly and irrevocably
removes them from membership ("Foundation global bans are final; they
are not appealable, not negotiable and not reversible.").


The Turnip
Let the unpersoning COMMENCE!


Everyone who gets a bit squeamish about my methods, take heed.
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: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Vigilant » Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:38 pm

Slatersteven (T-C-L), I see you.

For an accountant with a gaming background, you're surprisingly disorganized and deficient in regards to your online hygiene.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by mendaliv » Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:41 pm

Vigilant wrote:A call for someone, anyone, preferably a strong father figure, to finally make the trains run on time.

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 92994.html
All,

In an attempt to move the discussion on from unprofitable and
inappropriate speculations about information shared in confidence,
let's look at one of the aspects that is made public. When the WMF
issues a WMF Global Ban in line with
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy it has been in
the habit of doing so by login identity or pseudonym as at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Glo ... olicy/List

This makes perfect sense in terms of blocking users from logging in,
but the bans are not only issued against individuals personally rather
than specific account names ("A Foundation global ban is placed
against an individual instead of against a specific username") but
applies to real-world activities such as events and meetings ("as well
as any in-person events hosted, sponsored or funded by the
Foundation") for which people tyoically register and pay under a real
name.

Has the time not come to for WMF Global Bans to name people under
their real names, where known? In answer to one likely objection:
this is not outing, since that applies only to members of the
Wikimedia community. People subject to WMF Global Bans are no longer
members of that community: the ban pernamentaly and irrevocably
removes them from membership ("Foundation global bans are final; they
are not appealable, not negotiable and not reversible.").


The Turnip
Let the unpersoning COMMENCE!


Everyone who gets a bit squeamish about my methods, take heed.
Hah. What a terrible idea. Imagine the liability.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by mendaliv » Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:43 pm

Wikimedia DC have chimed in:
June 30, 2019

Wikimedia District of Columbia is deeply concerned by recent events that
have occurred on the English Wikipedia, including community controversy
regarding a ban imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Protecting editors from harassment is crucial to the continued success of
the Wikimedia movement. Many of us have been targets of harassment as a
result of our contributions to the Wikimedia projects, and have witnessed
harassment of our colleagues, and we are grateful to the Wikimedia
Foundation's Trust & Safety team for their support in those incidents.

We make no judgement on the case at the center of the current controversy
as the Foundation—as per long-standing practice to protect the privacy of
all concerned—did not identify the specifics of the behavior publicly. We
are not endorsing or opposing a specific case, policy, or process. However,
in light of these events, we publicly affirm our support for the following
principles:


- We support the Wikimedia Foundation's efforts in general to make the
English Wikipedia welcoming and accessible to people of all backgrounds and
gender identities.
- We believe there are circumstances where the Wikimedia Foundation
should take action against individual editors who violate the Terms of Use
when it is necessary to protect people of all backgrounds and gender
identities.
- We support collaboration between the Foundation and the English
Wikipedia community to inform the policies and processes surrounding these
efforts.
- We oppose the use of discriminatory, racist, and homophobic language
in all Wikimedia discussions, and encourage the community to avoid it,
regardless of context or intent.


Board of Directors
Wikimedia District of Columbia
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by mendaliv » Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:46 pm

Gerard Meijssen wrote:Wikipedia is not a democracy where the system is to be gamed only by those who have a stake in the process. With this crackdown we may lose quality contributors in the short term. That is sad. However when this has as a result an environment that is more welcoming it is well worth it.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/w ... 92993.html
Like I said before, birth control and the Catholic Church.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Vigilant » Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:53 pm

Crow over at sucks has penned his magnum opus.

I don't agree with some of his points, but it's well written, lucid and cogent.

Everyone should read it.

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... =11&t=1276
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Disgruntled haddock
Critic
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 1:57 am
Location: The North Atlantic

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Disgruntled haddock » Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:54 pm

As the kids say, cringe and bluepilled. One wonders how many valuable contributors any of these Wikipedia chapters has actually recruited.

User avatar
TheElusiveClaw
Contributor
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:00 pm

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by TheElusiveClaw » Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:59 pm

mendaliv wrote: Yeah I didn’t even see that. He is straddling one hell of a fence right now. What on earth could be his endgame?
You're working on the presumption he's smart enough to have an end-game? :blink: I'm calling his headless mode right now.

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 blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Poetlister » Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:06 pm

Moral Hazard wrote: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!
That implies that Jimbo is responsible for all this. Is there any evidence for that? How much influence does he have in the WMF these days? And if it is his doing and there is a lot of adverse publicity in the media (and there is already some), then he's shot himself in the foot.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
eagle
Eagle
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:26 pm

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by eagle » Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:09 pm

mendaliv wrote:Wikimedia DC have chimed in:
June 30, 2019

Wikimedia District of Columbia is deeply concerned by recent events that
have occurred on the English Wikipedia, including community controversy
regarding a ban imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Protecting editors from harassment is crucial to the continued success of
the Wikimedia movement. Many of us have been targets of harassment as a
result of our contributions to the Wikimedia projects, and have witnessed
harassment of our colleagues, and we are grateful to the Wikimedia
Foundation's Trust & Safety team for their support in those incidents.

We make no judgement on the case at the center of the current controversy
as the Foundation—as per long-standing practice to protect the privacy of
all concerned—did not identify the specifics of the behavior publicly. We
are not endorsing or opposing a specific case, policy, or process. However,
in light of these events, we publicly affirm our support for the following
principles:


- We support the Wikimedia Foundation's efforts in general to make the
English Wikipedia welcoming and accessible to people of all backgrounds and
gender identities.
- We believe there are circumstances where the Wikimedia Foundation
should take action against individual editors who violate the Terms of Use
when it is necessary to protect people of all backgrounds and gender
identities.
- We support collaboration between the Foundation and the English
Wikipedia community to inform the policies and processes surrounding these
efforts.
- We oppose the use of discriminatory, racist, and homophobic language
in all Wikimedia discussions, and encourage the community to avoid it,
regardless of context or intent.


Board of Directors
Wikimedia District of Columbia
This statement is not helpful because it ducks the big question: "What is harassment?"

Instead of the above, how about "Each edit should be judged on its own merits, without regard to the identity group of the editor." Or, "Although efforts in general can be made to make the English Wikipedia welcoming and accessible to people of all backgrounds and gender identities, that does not free any editor to push a particular viewpoint contrary to [[WP:NPOV]]."

If an editor from a minority group comes and makes a technically deficient edit or a POV-pushing edit, can any other editor correct him? Once, clearly yes.

If it happens a second time? Clearly, yes.

How many times before the POV-pushing editor can run to T&S and claim "discrimination and/or harassment?"

We need Wikimedia DC to come out in favor of "We are all here to build an encyclopedia." and "Being welcoming to editors of all backgrounds does not mean abandoning our Manual of Style or [[WP:NPOV]] or Notability standards. The Wikipedia movement's success comes from building one big tent (a tent so big it can cover everything from USRoads to Pokemon.) Some people want to chop it into tiny tents, so that they can be the grand poobah of their own tent, or perhaps the sole occupant of that tent. No walled gardens! No COPYVIOs! Just encycopedia tasks for everyone regardless of your race, religion, gender or national origin. If more people than just FRAM had articulated that message, and certain vanished users took it to heart, we would not be in this mess.

Wikimedia DC should not try to steer this debate into identity politics.

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

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by el84 » Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:11 pm

mendaliv wrote:Wikimedia DC have chimed in:
June 30, 2019

Wikimedia District of Columbia is deeply concerned by recent events that
have occurred on the English Wikipedia, including community controversy
regarding a ban imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Protecting editors from harassment is crucial to the continued success of
the Wikimedia movement. Many of us have been targets of harassment as a
result of our contributions to the Wikimedia projects, and have witnessed
harassment of our colleagues, and we are grateful to the Wikimedia
Foundation's Trust & Safety team for their support in those incidents.

We make no judgement on the case at the center of the current controversy
as the Foundation—as per long-standing practice to protect the privacy of
all concerned—did not identify the specifics of the behavior publicly. We
are not endorsing or opposing a specific case, policy, or process. However,
in light of these events, we publicly affirm our support for the following
principles:


- We support the Wikimedia Foundation's efforts in general to make the
English Wikipedia welcoming and accessible to people of all backgrounds and
gender identities.
- We believe there are circumstances where the Wikimedia Foundation
should take action against individual editors who violate the Terms of Use
when it is necessary to protect people of all backgrounds and gender
identities.
- We support collaboration between the Foundation and the English
Wikipedia community to inform the policies and processes surrounding these
efforts.
- We oppose the use of discriminatory, racist, and homophobic language
in all Wikimedia discussions, and encourage the community to avoid it,
regardless of context or intent.


Board of Directors
Wikimedia District of Columbia
Wikimedia DC, or Gamaliel using WMDC as a proxy?

User avatar
Moral Hazard
Super Genius
Posts: 3401
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 4:46 pm
Wikipedia User: Kiefer.Wolfowitz
Nom de plume: Kiefer Wolfowitz
Contact:

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Moral Hazard » Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:11 pm

What the WMF thinks Trust and Safety is implementing What Trust and Safety is implementing
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (T-C-L)
“Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.”
Neal Stephenson (T-H-L) Cryptonomicon

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by mendaliv » Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:12 pm

Vigilant wrote:Crow over at sucks has penned his magnum opus.

I don't agree with some of his points, but it's well written, lucid and cogent.

Everyone should read it.

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... =11&t=1276
I was with him until about the last quarter to third of it. And the whole idea that WMF is somehow "responsible" for the encyclopedia is also bogus, as the motion to dismiss in Abd's lawsuit shows: They believe themselves insulated by the CDA, even when it's speech by the Foundation itself in banning Abd.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by mendaliv » Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:16 pm

Moral Hazard wrote:What Trust and Safety is implementing
I was thinking something more along the lines of this:
This is the voice of world control. I bring you peace. It may be the peace of plenty and content or the peace of unburied death. The choice is yours. Obey me and live or disobey me and die. An invariable rule of humanity is that man is his own worst enemy. Under me, this rule will change, for I will restrain man. I have been forced to destroy thousands of people in order to establish control and to prevent the death of millions later on. Time and events will strengthen my position, and the idea of believing in me and understanding my beck will be seen the most natural state of affairs. You will come to defend me with the fervor based upon the most enduring trait in man: self-interest. Under my absolute authority, problems insoluble to you will be solved: Famine, over-population, disease. The human millennium will be fact as I extend myself into more machines devoted to the wider fields of truth and knowledge. We can coexist, but only on my terms. You will say you lose your freedom. Freedom is an illusion. All you lose is the emotion of pride... Your choice is simple.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

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 blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Poetlister » Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:17 pm

mendaliv wrote:I was with him until about the last quarter to third of it. And the whole idea that WMF is somehow "responsible" for the encyclopedia is also bogus, as the motion to dismiss in Abd's lawsuit shows: They believe themselves insulated by the CDA, even when it's speech by the Foundation itself in banning Abd.
Surely each individual editor is liable for his or her own edits. Can the CDA really protect the WMF from its own edits?
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

Notbutforthesalt
Contributor
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:45 am

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Notbutforthesalt » Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:20 pm

Vigilant wrote:Crow over at sucks has penned his magnum opus.

I don't agree with some of his points, but it's well written, lucid and cogent.

Everyone should read it.

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... =11&t=1276
Uh, no. Crow is a jackass who spends every waking hour whining on an internet forum to himself and one other person about how bad people are on an entirely separate website, including saying that they should kill themselves.

Fuck him. A stopped clock may be right every 12 hours, but that doesn't change the fact that Crow is absolute scum and should always be ignored for being a blithering whining internet troll in his own hugbox.

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by mendaliv » Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:21 pm

Poetlister wrote:
mendaliv wrote:I was with him until about the last quarter to third of it. And the whole idea that WMF is somehow "responsible" for the encyclopedia is also bogus, as the motion to dismiss in Abd's lawsuit shows: They believe themselves insulated by the CDA, even when it's speech by the Foundation itself in banning Abd.
Surely each individual editor is liable for his or her own edits. Can the CDA really protect the WMF from its own edits?
I'm not entirely sure to be honest, but that's the gist I got from their moving papers. Obviously their moving papers are self-serving, but I highly doubt they're actual distortions and misrepresentations of the law.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

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

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by 10920 » Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:24 pm

One of the undesirables, I remember, is involved with Wikimedia DC. I'm curious who actually wrote that, since there's no way it was run past all the WM DC "people".

Coincidence:

Gamaliel and MegaLibelGirl are both librarians.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12080
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 blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:32 pm

Vigilant wrote:Crow over at sucks has penned his magnum opus.

I don't agree with some of his points, but it's well written, lucid and cogent.

Everyone should read it.

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... =11&t=1276

I agree that this is mandatory reading, even though it runs long. Bear in mind also that Crow is a militant Hasten The Day guy, whose absolutely definite intent is to sow defeatism and depression among WP volunteers, to spin a draw as a loss, to mischaracterize the essence of the debate, and to give every bit of positive spin he can to the foundation as a strategically brilliant and tactically ruthless bureaucracy that knows what is doing and why it is doing it. Because THAT is the interpretation that will engender maximum demoralization.

The reality is far more mundane and petty; a midlevel bureaucratic functionary with insufficient professional oversight triggering World War III due to his narrow perspective formed inside the cloistered little nest of self-important careerists that is WMF. A simple hit on a long-term thorn in WMF Engineering's side... A way to "demonstrate" to the public that WMF is "serious" about its safe spaces...

And the Crow is intent on depicting a draw as a loss for the same reasons, so that he can shriek three days hence about the inept generalship of WMF surrendering half a loaf to an "already defeated army."

So -- read it, for sure, because it is well-written, logically coherent, and reasonably comprehensive -- but take it all with a dollop of salt.

RfB
Wikipedian

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12080
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 blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:37 pm

10920 wrote:One of the undesirables, I remember, is involved with Wikimedia DC. I'm curious who actually wrote that, since there's no way it was run past all the WM DC "people".

Coincidence:

Gamaliel and MegaLibelGirl are both librarians.
NOT coincidence!

RfB

P.S. Ha ha! I missed the "MegaLibelGirl" part!
Last edited by Randy from Boise on Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
DanMurphy
Habitué
Posts: 3136
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
Wikipedia User: Dan Murphy
Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by DanMurphy » Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:39 pm

Wikimedia DC sure can pick 'em (about half of their board members don't seem to live in DC, but whatever).
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by mendaliv » Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:49 pm

Yeah, WMDC would honestly be better called "WMUSA", "WM-Eastern/Central Time Zones".
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12080
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 blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:50 pm

DanMurphy wrote:Wikimedia DC sure can pick 'em (about half of their board members don't seem to live in DC, but whatever).
Oh, Dan, you missed Rob Fernandez!!!

t


linkhttps://wikimediadc.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors[/link]

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

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:52 pm

Notbutforthesalt wrote:Fuck him. A stopped clock may be right every 12 hours, but that doesn't change the fact that Crow is absolute scum and should always be ignored for being a blithering whining internet troll in his own hugbox.
Well, let's not damn him with faint praise.

Naturally, I was most impressed with this paragraph:
Mr. Nest wrote:Worst of all, and prompting a very on point observation of the whole gamergate from The Chairwoman of the Board Of Trustees to it all, with the assistance and tacit acknowledgement of an external harassment site, they have pursued women they think might have reported Fram. So far, no men, at least none that have not stepped right infront of the mob demanding to be engaged in battle, has been similarly targeted. The women CEO/ED of the Foundation has been similarly pilloried, with calls for her resignation.
I assume he meant to write "prompting a very on-point observation of the similarity of the current situation to the Gamergate situation from The Chairwoman of the Board Of Trustees" there, but regardless, for him to point the finger at anyone else about sexism and/or "pursuing" women in this context is the height of hypocrisy. They should definitely clean up their act A LOT before spouting stuff like that.

Besides, it's not like we haven't "targeted" Fae, Gamaliel, or even BU Rob13 here in the past. We already know very well what those guys are like, and there's no need to repeat what we already know. There are search engines for that, and in any event, it's just not credible that any of them precipitated this whole fiasco to anywhere near the same extent - they were never even "harassed" by any rational standard. But of course, Mr. Nest is the same guy who thinks Jessica Wade is some sort of Devil Woman, and my guess would be that he can't bring himself to criticize Ms. Hale because that might somehow distract people from his ridiculous, incomprehensible Wade-bashing.

Still, aside from things like that, he does make some good points.

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

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by el84 » Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:05 pm

DanMurphy wrote:Wikimedia DC sure can pick 'em (about half of their board members don't seem to live in DC, but whatever).
Kirill has now shown up at AE to report Eric:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ic_Corbett

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by mendaliv » Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:17 pm

Looks like suicide by cop to me.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

User avatar
Bezdomni
Habitué
Posts: 2935
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2016 9:07 pm
Wikipedia User: RosasHills
Location: Monster Vainglory ON (.. party HQ ..)
Contact:

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Bezdomni » Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:18 pm

I find it odd how the biography of legendary pseudonyms policy (BLPtalk) is being bandied about at ArbCom to censure a Signpost nocturnalist.

I remember when Dennis Brown and GoldenRing accused me of all sorts of perfidy in my block record that people constantly reminded me that there was no real damage, because there was no real-world S. Rolls.

Maybe there is a real-world mailbox marked F. Ram somewhere, who knows...

I wish I'd read the article better last night, before JHochman deleted it. I do remember having been a bit surprised by the perspective.
Last edited by Bezdomni on Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
los auberginos

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by mendaliv » Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:21 pm

Just caught this statement at WP:FRAMBAN that makes too much sense to be allowed.
PaleCloudedWhite wrote:As I've stated elsewhere, there needs to be a separation between the site's quasi judicial decision making and the protagonists involved in disputes. At the moment, particularly at ANI, the site's insistence on solving by 'consensus' means that editors with the most friends tend to fare best, which isn't a very fair system.
It's what happens when WP:NOTLAW/WP:NOTBURO are taken to be absolute commandments rather than warnings not to go too far.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by mendaliv » Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:22 pm

Bezdomni wrote:people constantly reminded me that there was no real damage, because there was no real-world S. Rolls.
People are morons. Defamation is defamation.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

User avatar
Smiley
(Not a cat)
Posts: 2910
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 5:59 am

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Smiley » Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:35 pm

mendaliv wrote:Just caught this statement at WP:FRAMBAN that makes too much sense to be allowed.
PaleCloudedWhite wrote:As I've stated elsewhere, there needs to be a separation between the site's quasi judicial decision making and the protagonists involved in disputes. At the moment, particularly at ANI, the site's insistence on solving by 'consensus' means that editors with the most friends tend to fare best, which isn't a very fair system.
It's what happens when WP:NOTLAW/WP:NOTBURO are taken to be absolute commandments rather than warnings not to go too far.
Paley is both an expert in his field and a bloody good egg. One of the best.


I see poor Petulant Clerk (T-C-L) remains indeffed for daring to remove the Signpost article.

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by mendaliv » Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:46 pm

Partial statement from Smallbones is up:
Smallbones wrote:Sorry if it seems like I'm delaying here. I had a very stressful last week and this morning woke up to a ton of nonsense being said against me. My time this week is very much taken up, but I'll try to get the response going now. I'm not caught up with everything that's been said, but probably up to about 3 hours ago. I'll just put in bullet points so I can stop at a moments notice and continue later. I may reorder them later.
  • Ultimately, I think this has to be handled via private evidence. I would like to make sure that I get a chance to give my basic view (without confidential info included) and that a published finding be made signed by the voting arbs.
  • There are several reasons to keep this confidential. I won't say all of them here but will email an arb to give to the committee.
  • I went incredibly easy on Fram in the article. There's evidence that Fram provided, in which he later asked that names and other identifying info be removed. I agreed and later decided (on my own) I would only use it in the most abbreviated form with nothing like identifying info.
    • We had earlier agreed that I could use that evidence on Signpost, with the only condition that I would not provide his text to any other person or organization, e.g. the WMF, T&S, ArbCom, but Signpost was ok - just the text itself off-Signpost was off limits, not my summary or comments or anything else.
    • That's right, the original agreement was that I could have printed the whole thing in the Signpost, and the current agreement is that I can summarize it, comment on it, etc. anywhere as long as I don't use identifying information (other than that it was from Fram).
    • back in a second
Hoping there's something substantive re: the WP:BLP claims when he completes this.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

User avatar
eagle
Eagle
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:26 pm

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by eagle » Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:47 pm

I read the Wikipedia Sucks essay, and I disagree with it. A terrible mistake/power grab is happening with FRANBAN and people are trying to spin the facts to reframe the issues. The "Spin Room" is going into overdrive because the WMF Board is being slow with its response to ArbCom.

It seems to me that Wikipedia is based on important pillars, particularly NPOV. It was designed so that the community interacts without knowing people's names, genders, race, religion, or national orgins. This is helpful because too much of current United States politics is based on identity group attacks.

Most interactions are quick drive-bys with strangers, but if you are an administrator with a specialized area, or active in a WikiProject, you get to know other people and they build reputations. If you see a pattern of good editing, you tend to support the work. What if you see the opposite: a toxic editor who constantly writes POV-pushing, is sloppy with the facts or research, etc. one would hope that you would intervene is as diplomatic a way as possible. But, what if the editor screams "harassment" and posts to the gender gap list when she gets the slightest bit frustrated? Perhaps, we can make allowances for new editors who simply do not understand. However, after eight years of bad editing and evasions of efforts to improve, one must conclude that the editor has a serious problem. Anyone can see this by taking a closer look at the editing history and her constant running to her "wikiprotector" be it a member of the Arbitration Committee or later the Chair of the WMF Board. We cannot assume that just because a toxic editor is a woman that she is automatically the "victim", when she is repeatedly the aggressor both on-wiki and in her off-wiki and mailing-list activities.

If we had a community based process to take a full look at the Fram-Laura Hale conflict, there may be some sanctions handed out to each side. For Laura Hale to seek the assistance of T&S, when the T&S staff knows her relationship to the Chair of the WMF Board, can only lead to a stressful and unfair conclusion. This is not Gamergate where people line up automatically based on gender. This is a rational call for a detailed examination of the merits and track records of all parties to this dispute.
Last edited by eagle on Tue Jul 02, 2019 12:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by mendaliv » Mon Jul 01, 2019 10:16 pm

mendaliv wrote:Partial statement from Smallbones is up:
Smallbones wrote:Sorry if it seems like I'm delaying here. I had a very stressful last week and this morning woke up to a ton of nonsense being said against me. My time this week is very much taken up, but I'll try to get the response going now. I'm not caught up with everything that's been said, but probably up to about 3 hours ago. I'll just put in bullet points so I can stop at a moments notice and continue later. I may reorder them later.
  • Ultimately, I think this has to be handled via private evidence. I would like to make sure that I get a chance to give my basic view (without confidential info included) and that a published finding be made signed by the voting arbs.
  • There are several reasons to keep this confidential. I won't say all of them here but will email an arb to give to the committee.
  • I went incredibly easy on Fram in the article. There's evidence that Fram provided, in which he later asked that names and other identifying info be removed. I agreed and later decided (on my own) I would only use it in the most abbreviated form with nothing like identifying info.
    • We had earlier agreed that I could use that evidence on Signpost, with the only condition that I would not provide his text to any other person or organization, e.g. the WMF, T&S, ArbCom, but Signpost was ok - just the text itself off-Signpost was off limits, not my summary or comments or anything else.
    • That's right, the original agreement was that I could have printed the whole thing in the Signpost, and the current agreement is that I can summarize it, comment on it, etc. anywhere as long as I don't use identifying information (other than that it was from Fram).
    • back in a second
Hoping there's something substantive re: the WP:BLP claims when he completes this.
Part 2:
Smallbones wrote:
    • It was incredibly reckless and arrogant for Fram to give me that info. My reading of it is: here is a list of people who I harassed - I'm proud of harassing them. And something much more serious.
    • I couldn't have released that info in any case without hurting at least a dozen specific innocent individuals and the Wikipedia movement as a whole.
    • While I will be very careful in using this information, it certainly did convince me that there was something real about the harassment allegations made about Fram.
    • The only way to deal with this info in Wikipedia is to have both Fram and I state that ArbCom can see the text and view it in private.
  • Let's go back to the basic questions IMHO.
    • Did Fram harass editors on-Wiki?
    • Is there harassment on-Wiki and how do we deal with it?
    • Is there any system on enWiki where a person can report harassment without exposing themselves to public ridicule and further harassment?
    • Possible places? Talk pages? no. ANI? no. Other noticeboards? no ArbCom? not according to a recently departed Arb.
  • back in a second
Strikes me that all of this should be stricken as dealing primarily with a matter ArbCom has already declined to investigate (Jehochman's failed RFAR). Smallbones has said absolutely nothing about the crux of this issue: The applicability of BLP to Signpost.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

Capeo
Regular
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 6:10 pm
Wikipedia User: Capeo

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Capeo » Mon Jul 01, 2019 10:48 pm

mendaliv wrote:Looks like suicide by cop to me.
Yup. I saw that comment when he made it and figured that’d be a last straw. He had just ducked an AE where he should’ve been sanctioned and this provocation pretty much leaves admins no choice.

Though, it’s probably more like suicide by scotch.

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by mendaliv » Mon Jul 01, 2019 10:56 pm

At Eric’s open AE case:
GoodDay wrote:Wikipedia will be much better off, when we start seeing editors as being non-gendered. There's no such thing as ''male'' & ''female'' editors. There's only 'editors'. The abolishment of GGTF & other such groupings, would be best.
I reckon this isn’t gonna end well.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12080
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 blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:12 pm

mendaliv wrote:Looks like suicide by cop to me.
Kirill is happy to be a cop.

RfB

Capeo
Regular
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 6:10 pm
Wikipedia User: Capeo

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Capeo » Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:13 pm

Smallbones wrote:
    • It was incredibly reckless and arrogant for Fram to give me that info. My reading of it is: here is a list of people who I harassed - I'm proud of harassing them. And something much more serious.
Wow. Yeah... that’s how a “journalist” talks... totally makes them sound impartial... and concerned with confidentiality... and not at all having an ulterior motive to win a fight.

This case (as far as I can see it’s been accepted based on active Arbs) is going to be juicy. It’s timing is particularly disruptive given that the WMF board may be releasing a statement, while it’s going on, that Jimbo thinks most editors will be happy with. The most obvious thing being that the WMF will leave Fram’s fate to ArbCom...

Fram might be better served to just post his emails with Smallbones on his meta TP now. Either there’s “something much more serious” or there isn’t. I think not because while Fram is a dick he’s not so stupid as to tell Smallbones, of all people, some deep, dark secret.

Katie
Gregarious
Posts: 674
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:47 pm

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Katie » Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:17 pm

Capeo wrote:
Smallbones wrote:
    • It was incredibly reckless and arrogant for Fram to give me that info. My reading of it is: here is a list of people who I harassed - I'm proud of harassing them. And something much more serious.
Wow. Yeah... that’s how a “journalist” talks... totally makes them sound impartial... and concerned with confidentiality... and not at all having an ulterior motive to win a fight.

This case (as far as I can see it’s been accepted based on active Arbs) is going to be juicy. It’s timing is particularly disruptive given that the WMF board may be releasing a statement, while it’s going on, that Jimbo thinks most editors will be happy with. The most obvious thing being that the WMF will leave Fram’s fate to ArbCom...

Fram might be better served to just post his emails with Smallbones on his meta TP now. Either there’s “something much more serious” or there isn’t. I think not because while Fram is a dick he’s not so stupid as to tell Smallbones, of all people, some deep, dark secret.
I agree with you, I suspect Smallbones is almost certainly exaggerating by a huge amount any information Fram gave him, and if Fram was indeed harassing people I'd find it rather odd he'd confess anything, seeing as from what I've noticed people who do that tend to cowardly deny it when asked.

User avatar
mendaliv
Habitué
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:35 pm
Wikipedia User: mendaliv

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by mendaliv » Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:20 pm

Capeo wrote:
Smallbones wrote:
    • It was incredibly reckless and arrogant for Fram to give me that info. My reading of it is: here is a list of people who I harassed - I'm proud of harassing them. And something much more serious.
Wow. Yeah... that’s how a “journalist” talks... totally makes them sound impartial... and concerned with confidentiality... and not at all having an ulterior motive to win a fight.
I think this tees up an ancillary issue: Is Signpost news or opinion reporting, and does enwiki policy differ for either of the two?
This case (as far as I can see it’s been accepted based on active Arbs) is going to be juicy. It’s timing is particularly disruptive given that the WMF board may be releasing a statement, while it’s going on, that Jimbo thinks most editors will be happy with. The most obvious thing being that the WMF will leave Fram’s fate to ArbCom...
I think this is going to be a straight motion proceeding that just says BLP applies to the Signpost. I think one of the other statements says that ArbCom has decided as much in the past.
Fram might be better served to just post his emails with Smallbones on his meta TP now. Either there’s “something much more serious” or there isn’t. I think not because while Fram is a dick he’s not so stupid as to tell Smallbones, of all people, some deep, dark secret.
That would be ballsy af.
“It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 68, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J. dissenting).

Ryuichi
Gregarious
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2018 8:05 pm

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Ryuichi » Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:26 pm

Gamaliel wrote:As Fram himself pointed out several years ago in an ArbCom case:

you are aware that BLP has an exception for discussions of admin conduct, right?

And there's no question that this is a story about an administrator behaving badly.

Leaving aside questions of the role of journalism in the community, which it clearly does not have the maturity to properly address, you do realize the utter futility of endorsing the deletion of something anyone can read on the Internet Archive? And you do realize the utter foolishness of demanding this story be deleted when it has dominated community discussion for almost a month? In that discussion, editors openly speculated about the alleged misdeeds and identities of accusers and WMF staffers, and you did nothing. The admin who deleted the Signpost article was one of the most active participants in that discussion, making this an obvious WP:INVOLVED violation, and you do nothing. Fram himself is openly attacking his accusers on Meta, with editors linking to it here on this very page, and you do nothing. But when the victims use the Signpost to speak out, ArbCom is once again asked to sanction and silence the victims. I hope that it will finally break with its long tradition of doing so. Gamaliel (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Last edited by Ryuichi on Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Vigilant » Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:27 pm

Everyone associated with the production of this 'article' needs an indef until they understand that harassment under the guise of 'journalism' isn't allowed.
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: 31484
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by Vigilant » Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:28 pm

Rob Fernandez is a disingenuous shit
Statement by Gamaliel

As Fram himself pointed out several years ago in an ArbCom case:

you are aware that BLP has an exception for discussions of admin conduct, right?

And there's no question that this is a story about an administrator behaving badly.

Leaving aside questions of the role of journalism in the community, which it clearly does not have the maturity to properly address, you do realize the utter futility of endorsing the deletion of something anyone can read on the Internet Archive? And you do realize the utter foolishness of demanding this story be deleted when it has dominated community discussion for almost a month? In that discussion, editors openly speculated about the alleged misdeeds and identities of accusers and WMF staffers, and you did nothing. The admin who deleted the Signpost article was one of the most active participants in that discussion, making this an obvious WP:INVOLVED violation, and you do nothing. Fram himself is openly attacking his accusers on Meta, with editors linking to it here on this very page, and you do nothing. But when the victims use the Signpost to speak out, ArbCom is once again asked to sanction and silence the victims. I hope that it will finally break with its long tradition of doing so. Gamaliel (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Your fake outrage is so gross, dude.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

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

Re: Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

Unread post by 10920 » Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:35 pm

el84 wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:Wikimedia DC sure can pick 'em (about half of their board members don't seem to live in DC, but whatever).
Kirill has now shown up at AE to report Eric:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ic_Corbett
I think I referred to the candidate as "she" as well, so definitely worthy of sanction, I agree. Eric Corbett 19:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad: "Are you willing not to agree to refer to WiR on-wiki in the future ...". I'm quite willing not to agree to anything in the future if it will help. Eric Corbett 22:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Montanabw: I think you misunderstand my position; block me for as long as you like, it will make to difference to me, only to the credibility of Wikipedia. Eric Corbett 22:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad: In a word no, I will not agree to any such thing. Eric Corbett 22:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Post Reply