Fram blocked by User:WMFOffice for 1 year

[Midsize Jake]

None of the other T&S actions were made using the new tactical powers T&S gave themselves, they were global, permanent bans for nutters, paedos, and other such wrong'uns; there is a distinction.

I don't believe Brillyle, Kumioko or several others were any of those things.

They definitely were not, and are not. And you'd pretty much have to include Abd in that list too, even though I can't imagine them ever unbanning him at this point. (At least not voluntarily.)

Still, in those cases they could improve their argument position enormously if they would just stop publishing the list. There's yet another related thread on wikimedia-l about this that just started the other day. The counter-argument that this somehow "helps to protect the community" is completely absurd - first of all it doesn't, and second, there are plenty of other ways to keep people apprised of who's currently on their shit-list that wouldn't cause them this problem.

So now, imagine if they put Fram on that list, after the shit-show we've already seen. That's the real reason why they made up this whole "temporary office ban" BS - so they wouldn't have to put him on that list, because they know the publication of that list in that context is morally indefensible to begin with. The other admins know it too; they just won't admit it, because (as I've pointed out many times before) that would just mean one less thing they can successfully masturbate to.

[mendaliv]

None of the other T&S actions were made using the new tactical powers T&S gave themselves, they were global, permanent bans for nutters, paedos, and other such wrong'uns; there is a distinction.

I don't believe Brillyle, Kumioko or several others were any of those things.

They definitely were not, and are not. And you'd pretty much have to include Abd in that list too, even though I can't imagine them ever unbanning him at this point. (At least not voluntarily.)

Still, in those cases they could improve their argument position enormously if they would just stop publishing the list. There's yet another related thread on wikimedia-l about this that just started the other day. The counter-argument that this somehow "helps to protect the community" is completely absurd - first of all it doesn't, and second, there are plenty of other ways to keep people apprised of who's currently on their shit-list that wouldn't cause them this problem.

So now, imagine if they put Fram on that list, after the shit-show we've already seen. That's the real reason why they made up this whole "temporary office ban" BS - so they wouldn't have to put him on that list, because they know the publication of that list in that context is morally indefensible to begin with. The other admins know it too; they just won't admit it, because (as I've pointed out many times before) that would just mean one less thing they can successfully masturbate to.

Bit of an aside (but related because you linked an email from him), I cannot understand how the hell Isaac Olatunde is still involved in the movement. For those who don't recall, he is T-Cells, formerly called Wikicology (the subject of an ArbCom case in 2016).

[Moral Hazard]

Well, I for one appreciated his explanations when I tried to analyze the Terms of Service and noted the ambiguity of some terms, and how that might play out in an expensive trial-by-judge.

I also appreciate (in advance) his efforts to improve ArbCom procedures so as to protect minority complainants who have stated Policy on their side, so that they don't get run over by a mob "ignoring the rules". In other words, to move online Wikipedia dispute resolution away from "a medieval feudal model of dispute resolution".

ok check out this article

Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation (T-H-L)

Notice how short it is.

Notice how none of it is related to individual Wikipedian behavioral issues, ArbCom, or any other drama nonsense. It's mostly defamation.

This is why I find it frustrating to listen to wiki-lawyers. The wannabes on Wikipedia do not think or talk like real lawyers. Real lawyers do not obsess about speculative outcomes that never happen in real life. They don't blather on about injunctions, jury trials, or constitutional crises, when their clients are simply trying to pay for a speeding ticket. It's nonsense. Jimbo feeds into it when he talks about "constitutional order".

Newyorkbrad is another offender, turning ArbCom into his own personal legal playground. Maybe he finds it fun to blow off steam in an environment where he can spar against laypeople over inconsequential bullshit.

On the contrary, like most lawyers (known to me), NYB thinks before he writes and he strives to write usefully.

[mendaliv]

Interesting statement from a dewiki member: diff

Example: In August 2015 a certain Jan Eissfeldt already mentioned on this page has been requested for re-election (in context of his role in the superprotect and mediaviewer issue); within 64 minutes the necessary quota has been collected. Since no candidature was launched desysop followed. There is another example of current WMF T&S staff who did the quota within two weeks, did not candidate and has been desysopped on basic request of community regulars. The incident has been objections on dealing with local admin tasks, later the role as community advocate for WMF but not really an advocate for the community, and questions about establishing WMF Community health.

[Disgruntled haddock]

None of the other T&S actions were made using the new tactical powers T&S gave themselves, they were global, permanent bans for nutters, paedos, and other such wrong'uns; there is a distinction.

I don't believe Brillyle, Kumioko or several others were any of those things.

They definitely were not, and are not. And you'd pretty much have to include Abd in that list too, even though I can't imagine them ever unbanning him at this point. (At least not voluntarily.)

Still, in those cases they could improve their argument position enormously if they would just stop publishing the list. There's yet another related thread on wikimedia-l about this that just started the other day. The counter-argument that this somehow "helps to protect the community" is completely absurd - first of all it doesn't, and second, there are plenty of other ways to keep people apprised of who's currently on their shit-list that wouldn't cause them this problem.

So now, imagine if they put Fram on that list, after the shit-show we've already seen. That's the real reason why they made up this whole "temporary office ban" BS - so they wouldn't have to put him on that list, because they know the publication of that list in that context is morally indefensible to begin with. The other admins know it too; they just won't admit it, because (as I've pointed out many times before) that would just mean one less thing they can successfully masturbate to.

Bit of an aside (but related because you linked an email from him), I cannot understand how the hell Isaac Olatunde is still involved in the movement. For those who don't recall, he is T-Cells, formerly called Wikicology (the subject of an ArbCom case in 2016).

Imagine if Wikicology had happened a couple of months ago. He could have availed himself of T&S, and three-quarters of all ANI regulars would have been temp-banned by the WMF for harassment!

[mendaliv]

None of the other T&S actions were made using the new tactical powers T&S gave themselves, they were global, permanent bans for nutters, paedos, and other such wrong'uns; there is a distinction.

I don't believe Brillyle, Kumioko or several others were any of those things.

They definitely were not, and are not. And you'd pretty much have to include Abd in that list too, even though I can't imagine them ever unbanning him at this point. (At least not voluntarily.)

Still, in those cases they could improve their argument position enormously if they would just stop publishing the list. There's yet another related thread on wikimedia-l about this that just started the other day. The counter-argument that this somehow "helps to protect the community" is completely absurd - first of all it doesn't, and second, there are plenty of other ways to keep people apprised of who's currently on their shit-list that wouldn't cause them this problem.

So now, imagine if they put Fram on that list, after the shit-show we've already seen. That's the real reason why they made up this whole "temporary office ban" BS - so they wouldn't have to put him on that list, because they know the publication of that list in that context is morally indefensible to begin with. The other admins know it too; they just won't admit it, because (as I've pointed out many times before) that would just mean one less thing they can successfully masturbate to.

Bit of an aside (but related because you linked an email from him), I cannot understand how the hell Isaac Olatunde is still involved in the movement. For those who don't recall, he is T-Cells, formerly called Wikicology (the subject of an ArbCom case in 2016).

Imagine if Wikicology had happened a couple of months ago. He could have availed himself of T&S, and three-quarters of all ANI regulars would have been temp-banned by the WMF for harassment!

There was even someone at the RFAR who got indeffed for “harassing” Wikicology because she asked a lot of weird questions about his IRL activities and claimed to be from the same country. It was pretty damn weird but I didn’t see it rising to the level of harassment. It was more creepy.

But yeah, in the current atmosphere Wikicology would have been a victim of the whole process. Probably. Some of his biomedical stuff was related to women’s health and introduced some particularly embarrassing errors on those subjects (which I think were reprinted in an academic article on women’s healthcare). It kind of ticked a lot of boxes for getting ArbCom’s attention.

[Poetlister]

On the contrary, like most lawyers (known to me), NYB thinks before he writes and he strives to write usefully.

NYB is not perfect, but on the whole he's been the most sensible Arbcom member I can recall. He is certainly superior to one or two other lawyers who've served on Arbcom, such as Fred Bauder.

[No Ledge]

June 26, 2019 research reports on blocking/blocked users

The Foundation's general approach.
1) Introduce flexible-use (i.e. without any policy-based restrictions) software features to the admin toolset (e.g. article- or namespace-specific blocks)
2) Let the lab rats (users) use them in whatever ad-hoc manner they desire
3) Study the users and write reports on how the features were used
* Individual use
* Collective use
* Are policies and guidelines for use developed?

[mendaliv]

On the contrary, like most lawyers (known to me), NYB thinks before he writes and he strives to write usefully.

NYB is not perfect, but on the whole he's been the most sensible Arbcom member I can recall. He is certainly superior to one or two other lawyers who've served on Arbcom, such as Fred Bauder.

In general lawyers are a huge grabbag of quality. Law schools run the gamut from actually hard-to-get-into places, down to third- and fourth-tier toilets like Cooley and Northern Illinois University, and California-only schools like People's College of Law. See pic related:

Cooley will let in pretty much anybody capable of paying, and with student loans available to almost everyone, you can pay.

And the lawyers themselves run the gamut. The reality is that you can graduate law school, even hard law schools, coasting as hard as you can in undergrad. Since everything's on a curve, provided you do the bare minimum on your exams, it should be almost impossible to get a failing grade. But the bar exam itself in most states is not that hard. Yes, it's intense and long, but it's not an aptitude test: It's a knowledge test that, in theory, anybody who is capable of remembering the material will be able to pass. Kind of like a driver's license test, just longer.

[Vigilant]

There weak point is of course that I can proof with official rapports I am 100% metal heakty, something they never will or can.

All right, I’ll say it.
The rapports say you are 100% metal heakty.

Happy now?

[mendaliv]

There weak point is of course that I can proof with official rapports I am 100% metal heakty, something they never will or can.

All right, I’ll say it.
The rapports say you are 100% metal heakty.

Happy now?

Feed it into the Transformer. Seems like good seed text.

[mendaliv]

Smallbones added more garbage to his Signpost RFAR statement:

• Fram has informed me that he has withdrawn our agreement on what I can do with the information that he's sent me, and also that he sent all the emails from both of us about the article to Arbcom. Anybody who knows anything about journalism knows that once you've agreed that something can be published, it can be published. The agreement can't be withdrawn. Also everybody here knows that a CC BY-SA license can't be withdrawn. Fram licensed his emails to me as CC BY-SA. Fram's "withdrawal" accomplishes nothing. Somebody should also tell Fram that he shouldn't be sending my e-mails to him to anybody - I have copyright and haven't given him permission to do that. Not that I'm afraid of anything in them, but don't do that again! ArbCom should consider that he has lost control on this matter.

This guy has no clue what he's talking about, at all. What in the ever loving fuck does copyright have to do with this? Fram can send whatever he wants to ArbCom, provided he doesn't post it on enwiki, because even if copyright is relevant (it isn't), it's fair use.

Same with the whole "Fram licensed his e-mails to me under CC-BY-SA" (if he did he's stupid but that's besides the point). Copyright only has to do with the right to republish, it has nothing to do with the ethical standards for quoting someone (really you probably don't need someone's permission in the first place) and also has nothing to do with revoking such permission. Why in the hell would anyone think a copyright license would be tantamount to consent to quote someone in a journalistic capacity?

I love when people shout WP:NOTLAW and WP:NOTBURO but then turn around and concoct these byzantine rationales for why something's proper.

[Vigilant]

Smallbones added more garbage to his Signpost RFAR statement:

• Fram has informed me that he has withdrawn our agreement on what I can do with the information that he's sent me, and also that he sent all the emails from both of us about the article to Arbcom. Anybody who knows anything about journalism knows that once you've agreed that something can be published, it can be published. The agreement can't be withdrawn. Also everybody here knows that a CC BY-SA license can't be withdrawn. Fram licensed his emails to me as CC BY-SA. Fram's "withdrawal" accomplishes nothing. Somebody should also tell Fram that he shouldn't be sending my e-mails to him to anybody - I have copyright and haven't given him permission to do that. Not that I'm afraid of anything in them, but don't do that again! ArbCom should consider that he has lost control on this matter.

This guy has no clue what he's talking about, at all. What in the ever loving fuck does copyright have to do with this? Fram can send whatever he wants to ArbCom, provided he doesn't post it on enwiki, because even if copyright is relevant (it isn't), it's fair use.

Same with the whole "Fram licensed his e-mails to me under CC-BY-SA" (if he did he's stupid but that's besides the point). Copyright only has to do with the right to republish, it has nothing to do with the ethical standards for quoting someone (really you probably don't need someone's permission in the first place) and also has nothing to do with revoking such permission. Why in the hell would anyone think a copyright license would be tantamount to consent to quote someone in a journalistic capacity?

I love when people shout WP:NOTLAW and WP:NOTBURO but then turn around and concoct these byzantine rationales for why something's proper.

Considering that Peter Ekman aka Smallbones failed due to ethical issues as a journalist in the Wild, Wild West that was Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union....

[Poetlister]

In general lawyers are a huge grabbag of quality.

Very true. And we're not just talking about competence as a lawyer. Ethics are pretty important. You can be brilliant, but if for example you use your ability to push POV and turn a blind eye to the faults of those you agree with, you're going to be an awful Arbcom member.

[Vigilant]

In general lawyers are a huge grabbag of quality.

What about pro se litigants?

[mendaliv]

In general lawyers are a huge grabbag of quality.

What about pro se litigants?

Almost perfectly uniform in quality.

[eagle]

With all due respect, if all of this thought will have any impact, isn't it time to write a blog post? We were waiting for the WMF Board Statement and the ED Maher Statement, which dropped at 1 a.m. last night. The general public is not going to dig through 34 pages of forum posts (at least not when they can get 36 pages of forum posts on the same topic at another website). We need to explain what happened to Fram, why it matters that there is now a separate T&S process that is a black box separated from the community. Sources of possible WMF influences have been alleged, and echo a past bad track record of (founder-based) influence pedaling. Also, concern that Fram was targeted because his prior vocal opposition to the deployment of WMF technology.

The absence of any justification from the WMF or T&S gave rise to various protests:

1) a 500,000 word discussion at WP:FRAMBAN
2) an unblock followed by a block and a 30-day desysop [an unprecedented community overturning of an office action.]
3) the ArbCom letter to the WMF Board
4) the ED tweet in response to the Buzzfeed story
5) the WMF and ED response.

The important thing to explain is why are so many people unhappy and what impact could it have on the volunteer community and quality assurance of the English Wikipedia.

A second blog post could cover ancilary matters such as the various ArbCom cases and the whole Signpost mess.

How about it?

[DHeyward]

In general lawyers are a huge grabbag of quality.

What about pro se litigants?

Almost perfectly uniform in quality.

[Smiley]

I did a blog thing, please can someone put in on the front page?

FRAMGATE!

The endless clown car ejector-seat malfunction extravaganza!



Important Announcement:

Passengers in a wonkily wheeled car that purposely backfires clouds of black smoke may not realize that the car is actually burning.

Please do not laugh at the freakishly attired people tumbling from the vehicle as they may in fact be on fire.

For more details, visit: wikipediocracy.com

ONLY $3.50!

[Midsize Jake]

The important thing to explain is why are so many people unhappy and what impact could it have on the volunteer community and quality assurance of the English Wikipedia. ... How about it?

[C&B]

Is that gif from Airplane?

[Smiley]

Is that gif from Airplane?

Great recent interview with Charlie Brooker about Airplane for you comedy buffs:

https://www.ruleofthreepod.com/blog/cha ... n-airplane

[Smiley]

Remember when Fram took it upon himself to delete every single copyright-violating youtube clip from all WP talkspace?

That was fun.

As part of this spree, he indeffed Martinevans123 (T-C-L) (which may have been the whole point of the exercise) for daring to link to an obscure 70s disco song or something. He must have single-handedly gone through all of Martin's many, many talkpage links to check each one's exact copyright status.

My last block from Fram (an indef, that lasted 2 days), a year ago, was for posting YouTube videos "without bothering to check" if they were copy vios. This one is for paraphrasing three lines of French into English. Martinevans123 (T-C-L) 30 January 2019

What dedication! What joyous music!

[tarantino]

Is that gif from Airplane?

Surely you can't be serious.

[Smiley]

New TDA piece in Brietbart:

"Google ‘Toxicity Detection’ Tool Rated Wikipedia Comments to Women as More Hostile" T. D. Alder (3 June 2019)

Members of Wikipedia criticism site Wikipediocracy recently began experimenting with the public demo version of the tool to test its reliability as did members of Wikipedia. The tool gives ratings for the “attacking” nature and the “aggressive” nature of any inputted comments on a scale from zero to one, the latter denoting a highly hostile comment. On both sites, members found the tool easy to trick by using synonyms for curse words or by making more passive-aggressive comments. It also regularly misidentified certain phrases as attacks.

One member of Wikipediocracy, Mendaliv, found that while the term “ban” was marked as 30 percent hostile, this percentage was cut in half when phrased as a suggestion to ban a man. If instead the comment was phrased as a suggestion to ban a woman, the comment was rated roughly twice as hostile as a bland ban suggestion and about four times as hostile as a suggestion to ban a man. This was borne out by additional rephrasing where every iteration saw comments directed at women treated as more hostile.

[Vigilant]

Let's also not forget that there were git commits to this project within the last two weeks.

This tool was in active development until very recently.

[The Adversary]

Interesting statement from a dewiki member: diff

Example: In August 2015 a certain Jan Eissfeldt already mentioned on this page has been requested for re-election (in context of his role in the superprotect and mediaviewer issue); within 64 minutes the necessary quota has been collected. Since no candidature was launched desysop followed. There is another example of current WMF T&S staff who did the quota within two weeks, did not candidate and has been desysopped on basic request of community regulars. The incident has been objections on dealing with local admin tasks, later the role as community advocate for WMF but not really an advocate for the community, and questions about establishing WMF Community health.

That statement was very interesting.

Not only does it say that JEissfeldt (WMF) is a disgraced former admin on de.wp (actually, that had been pointed out to us already)

BUT, also that present "Trust and Safety Specialist," Christel Steigenberger is identical with disgraced former German admin Kritzolina.

So, those who are appointed to leadership position in WMF, are unpalatable on their "home" wiki.

You couldn't make this up.

[mendaliv]

New TDA piece in Brietbart:

"Google ‘Toxicity Detection’ Tool Rated Wikipedia Comments to Women as More Hostile" T. D. Alder (3 June 2019)

Members of Wikipedia criticism site Wikipediocracy recently began experimenting with the public demo version of the tool to test its reliability as did members of Wikipedia. The tool gives ratings for the “attacking” nature and the “aggressive” nature of any inputted comments on a scale from zero to one, the latter denoting a highly hostile comment. On both sites, members found the tool easy to trick by using synonyms for curse words or by making more passive-aggressive comments. It also regularly misidentified certain phrases as attacks.

One member of Wikipediocracy, Mendaliv, found that while the term “ban” was marked as 30 percent hostile, this percentage was cut in half when phrased as a suggestion to ban a man. If instead the comment was phrased as a suggestion to ban a woman, the comment was rated roughly twice as hostile as a bland ban suggestion and about four times as hostile as a suggestion to ban a man. This was borne out by additional rephrasing where every iteration saw comments directed at women treated as more hostile.

LOL I had no idea that happened. Cool, I guess. Even it is Breitbart.

[Smiley]

New TDA piece in Brietbart:

"Google ‘Toxicity Detection’ Tool Rated Wikipedia Comments to Women as More Hostile" T. D. Alder (3 June 2019)

Grr...that TDA and his cavalier timeline-hopping antics...

Time-beans:

It's been reported. The Intergalactic Timelord Council are, have, and will be warneding TDA several times for such reckless behaviour.

[Smiley]

Those with a skeptical bent regarding the Timelords may wish to consult this post from May 2013:

[Smiley]

New WO blogpost about the Trust & Safety(?) team:

http://wikipediocracy.com/2019/07/04/trust-safety/

[Smiley]

oof

Trust & Safety article

(July 4, 2019) "Trust & Safety?" Pa Nautilus, Wikipediocracy

Dear Jimbo,

Please read this recent piece about the Truts & Safety team by Pa Nautilus of Wikipediocracy and then kindly tell us what you will do about it.

Thank you. ConcerneAbbasGiant (T-C-L) 09:09, 4 July 2019

---

Ye Gods. This is quite, quite scandalous, Jimmy.

Your Trust & Safety department is clearly not fit for purpose, and nor, by extension, is the Wikimedia Foundation. The ineptitude displayed in this case would be laughable were it not so serious, and I rather fear it is only the tip of an enormous iceberg. Who on earth chose these unsuitable people? Recent events have amply demonstrated that it's high time Wikipedia had a big clear out, and it seems that the Foundation similarly needs to be rebuilt from scratch.

I humbly suggest that the first WMF staff member to retire should be you.

Sincerely, Mango Mapes (T-C-L) 10:43, 4 July 2019

[Jans Hammer]

Fram & ArbCom | from Jimbo's TP
Sure. I can't speak for anyone in particular and I can't violate any confidences, but I can say a few words about this that I think will be helpful. I sat in on a call yesterday evening (UK time) with ArbCom and T&S, and T&S will be sharing a very large file of what sounds like basically everything with, as I understand it, certain names redacted. The ArbCom members on the call seemed happy to hear that, but of course hadn't seen the file yet. I am happy to say, therefore, assuming good faith all around, that ArbCom will have the information they need to come to a fully independent judgment.
I also think that everyone - including strong partisans on the anti-Fram and pro-Fram sides of things - should personally prepare to support the ArbCom decision as this is the elected traditional body of the community and they need the will of the community behind them.
The alternative, I fear, is anarchy and/or WMF top-down control. (This is an empirical observation of things in the abstract, and obviously oversimplified, and not something that I think is in any way good.)
We need to get better at dealing with toxic behavior on the site. Our best hope is ArbCom in this case, and a big community consultation to figure out how we are failing and how we can build institutions inside the community that are fair and just - and firm against personal attacks of all kinds.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:15 pm, Today (UTC+1)

[Guido den Broeder]

Smallbones added more garbage to his Signpost RFAR statement:

• Fram has informed me that he has withdrawn our agreement on what I can do with the information that he's sent me, and also that he sent all the emails from both of us about the article to Arbcom. Anybody who knows anything about journalism knows that once you've agreed that something can be published, it can be published. The agreement can't be withdrawn. Also everybody here knows that a CC BY-SA license can't be withdrawn. Fram licensed his emails to me as CC BY-SA. Fram's "withdrawal" accomplishes nothing. Somebody should also tell Fram that he shouldn't be sending my e-mails to him to anybody - I have copyright and haven't given him permission to do that. Not that I'm afraid of anything in them, but don't do that again! ArbCom should consider that he has lost control on this matter.

This guy has no clue what he's talking about, at all. What in the ever loving fuck does copyright have to do with this? Fram can send whatever he wants to ArbCom, provided he doesn't post it on enwiki, because even if copyright is relevant (it isn't), it's fair use.

Same with the whole "Fram licensed his e-mails to me under CC-BY-SA" (if he did he's stupid but that's besides the point). Copyright only has to do with the right to republish, it has nothing to do with the ethical standards for quoting someone (really you probably don't need someone's permission in the first place) and also has nothing to do with revoking such permission. Why in the hell would anyone think a copyright license would be tantamount to consent to quote someone in a journalistic capacity?

I love when people shout WP:NOTLAW and WP:NOTBURO but then turn around and concoct these byzantine rationales for why something's proper.

Belgium doesn't have a fair-use clause. However, sending stuff to ArbCom is not publishing.

[Poetlister]

Cool, I guess. Even it is Breitbart.

Even Breitbart has its uses.

[Smiley]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =904770135

Addendum: A review of his past actions shows that Mr. Wales is neither respected nor trusted by a significant number of editors and a brief perusal of his history should be enough of a shock to leave one mindblown (as the youngsters put it). Even worse, I can't discern anything, at all, in any of his contributions to furthering human understanding that warrants his staying in his position, either as an editor, Board member or "Constitutional Monarch". His current role as Wikepedia's figurehead is simply and obviously untenable. Mango Mapes (T-C-L) 11:10, 4 July 2019

Jimbo, I see you have responded to other, less pressing, concerns since this was posted. One can only assume that, as well as being a jelly belly, you are also a yellow belly. Mango Mapes (T-C-L) 12:17, 4 July 2019

Calling Smallbones (T-C-L) !!! Clean up on Aisle J !!!



[Edit] Multiple timequakes, sorry for any inconvenience.

[Smiley]

"Silence, peasant!"




Aaand...the entire section has been zzaapped by Zzuuzz (T-C-L)...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =904773284




"trollsockery"?

LOLOLOLOL

[Jans Hammer]

PAID ARBITRATORS anyone?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... to_be_paid

How much would Courcelles be worth this year?

[Randy from Boise]

I was over in the Wikipedia Weekly facebook group this morning, which is the playground of Gamergate warrior Rob Fernandez and various pro-WMF wikipedians. It suddenly hit me, very fast and hard, that it's not really the "well-connected Wikipedian" making an end run around the discipline process that triggered the Framban crisis at all — rather, that was only a contributing factor. What they (WMF and pro-WMF Wikipedians) are really pissed about with Fram is his officiousness in the AfD venue, which they perceive as an attack upon female editors trying to do good-faith creation of articles on topics like biographies of women in science and so forth.

They have lost faith in ArbCom as a miracle tool to smite their enemies (remember the concerted effort to take over ArbCom by the friendly spacers a couple years ago?) and they are coming up with a new tool.

They aren't actually interested in making a hit on Fram for criticizing WMF's crappy software at all, it's an extension of an AfD turf scrum, with heavy Gamergate-style overtones.

Small sample size of my conversations, I know, but it was truly a revelation.........

Of course, they don't care about blowing up community autonomy because they are Of The Body with WMF. Community autonomy is a negative to them.

Super interesting.

RfB

[Vigilant]

PAID ARBITRATORS anyone?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... to_be_paid

How much would Courcelles be worth this year?

Well, you wouldn't want to pay them in the current system.

Currently, 'arbitrators' are selected by having 100 random dipshits vote in a middle school style popularity contest for a smaller bunch of dipshits who have no education, training or experience in actual arbitration after which the even smaller group of 'elected' 'arbitrators' sit in judgement over the larger pool of wikipedia editors.

This is insanity.

A professional arbcom that hired actual arbitration experts and paid them for a fixed term couldn't be worse than what exists now.

[Kumioko]

None of the other T&S actions were made using the new tactical powers T&S gave themselves, they were global, permanent bans for nutters, paedos, and other such wrong'uns; there is a distinction.

I don't believe Brillyle, Kumioko or several others were any of those things.

They definitely were not, and are not. And you'd pretty much have to include Abd in that list too, even though I can't imagine them ever unbanning him at this point. (At least not voluntarily.)

Still, in those cases they could improve their argument position enormously if they would just stop publishing the list. There's yet another related thread on wikimedia-l about this that just started the other day. The counter-argument that this somehow "helps to protect the community" is completely absurd - first of all it doesn't, and second, there are plenty of other ways to keep people apprised of who's currently on their shit-list that wouldn't cause them this problem.

So now, imagine if they put Fram on that list, after the shit-show we've already seen. That's the real reason why they made up this whole "temporary office ban" BS - so they wouldn't have to put him on that list, because they know the publication of that list in that context is morally indefensible to begin with. The other admins know it too; they just won't admit it, because (as I've pointed out many times before) that would just mean one less thing they can successfully masturbate to.

The attitude that Neil displays in his comments is exactly why bans are such powerful tools in pushing POV on Wikipedia. If you don't like someone, get them banned and then, regardless of the validity of the ban, they are persona non grata and you can continue pursuing whatever vendetta or mission you have.

In my case my ban required lies and policy manipulation to make sure that WikiProject United States didn't succeed and because I was critical of abusive admin conduct. But Neil doesn't care about that, all he cares about is "Banned editors bad", "Must block", "Must not allow" because he has been culturally lobotomized into believing that every ban is valid and every banned editor is bad.

To me, and this analogy invoking Godwin's Law is going to piss some people off, he and others like him on Wikipedia show the traits of the Nazi's stuffing Jews on trains. They don't know why it's illegal to be a Jew and they don't care, it's their job and they don't ask questions.

[Ryuichi]

I was over in the Wikipedia Weekly facebook group this morning, which is the playground of Gamergate warrior Rob Fernandez and various pro-WMF wikipedians.

They aren't actually interested in making a hit on Fram for criticizing WMF's crappy software at all, it's an extension of an AfD turf scrum, with heavy Gamergate-style overtones.

Interesting indeed. But for Rob it's also a get square for Fram's involvement in the "Gamaliel and others" case. Petty goes all the way to the bone.

[Casliber]

Currently, 'arbitrators' are selected by having 100 random dipshits vote in a middle school style popularity contest for a smaller bunch of dipshits who have no education, training or experience in actual arbitration after which the even smaller group of 'elected' 'arbitrators' sit in judgement over the larger pool of wikipedia editors.

Sounds like political elections.

[Vigilant]

Currently, 'arbitrators' are selected by having 100 random dipshits vote in a middle school style popularity contest for a smaller bunch of dipshits who have no education, training or experience in actual arbitration after which the even smaller group of 'elected' 'arbitrators' sit in judgement over the larger pool of wikipedia editors.

Sounds like political elections.

In a middle school.
In Alabama.

Far, far too many autistic, fart huffing, navel gazers in en.wp to get any objectively qualified people on ARBCOM through the current system.

As supporting evidence, I submit the history of ARBCOM.
What's the percentage of ARBCOM members who have any formal education, training or prior professional success in arbitration or mediation?

[Randy from Boise]

Fram & ArbCom | from Jimbo's TP
Sure. I can't speak for anyone in particular and I can't violate any confidences, but I can say a few words about this that I think will be helpful. I sat in on a call yesterday evening (UK time) with ArbCom and T&S, and T&S will be sharing a very large file of what sounds like basically everything with, as I understand it, certain names redacted. The ArbCom members on the call seemed happy to hear that, but of course hadn't seen the file yet. I am happy to say, therefore, assuming good faith all around, that ArbCom will have the information they need to come to a fully independent judgment.
I also think that everyone - including strong partisans on the anti-Fram and pro-Fram sides of things - should personally prepare to support the ArbCom decision as this is the elected traditional body of the community and they need the will of the community behind them.
The alternative, I fear, is anarchy and/or WMF top-down control. (This is an empirical observation of things in the abstract, and obviously oversimplified, and not something that I think is in any way good.)
We need to get better at dealing with toxic behavior on the site. Our best hope is ArbCom in this case, and a big community consultation to figure out how we are failing and how we can build institutions inside the community that are fair and just - and firm against personal attacks of all kinds.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:15 pm, Today (UTC+1)

The fact that he is framing this as "pro-" and "anti-" Fram indicates that he still doesn't quite get it. "Pro-local decision-making" versus "Anti-officiousness towards editors in sensitive topics" is closer to the mark.

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

Currently, 'arbitrators' are selected by having 100 random dipshits vote in a middle school style popularity contest for a smaller bunch of dipshits who have no education, training or experience in actual arbitration after which the even smaller group of 'elected' 'arbitrators' sit in judgement over the larger pool of wikipedia editors.

Sounds like political elections.

In a middle school.
In Alabama.

Far, far too many autistic, fart huffing, navel gazers in en.wp to get any objectively qualified people on ARBCOM through the current system.

As supporting evidence, I submit the history of ARBCOM.
What's the percentage of ARBCOM members who have any formal education, training or prior professional success in arbitration or mediation?

Oh, there have been any number that have been fully capable. Getting a majority who are fully capable is another matter altogether.

t

[mendaliv]

Fram & ArbCom | from Jimbo's TP
Sure. I can't speak for anyone in particular and I can't violate any confidences, but I can say a few words about this that I think will be helpful. I sat in on a call yesterday evening (UK time) with ArbCom and T&S, and T&S will be sharing a very large file of what sounds like basically everything with, as I understand it, certain names redacted. The ArbCom members on the call seemed happy to hear that, but of course hadn't seen the file yet. I am happy to say, therefore, assuming good faith all around, that ArbCom will have the information they need to come to a fully independent judgment.
I also think that everyone - including strong partisans on the anti-Fram and pro-Fram sides of things - should personally prepare to support the ArbCom decision as this is the elected traditional body of the community and they need the will of the community behind them.
The alternative, I fear, is anarchy and/or WMF top-down control. (This is an empirical observation of things in the abstract, and obviously oversimplified, and not something that I think is in any way good.)
We need to get better at dealing with toxic behavior on the site. Our best hope is ArbCom in this case, and a big community consultation to figure out how we are failing and how we can build institutions inside the community that are fair and just - and firm against personal attacks of all kinds.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:15 pm, Today (UTC+1)

What a sack of shit. That’s a direct threat to fuck us over that he masks with that “this is an empirical observation” language. He’s saying that we’d better obey ArbCom and shut up as soon as it’s over or they’re gonna take over. Son of a bitch.

[Carcharoth]

You have to remember that Jimmy is still subscribed to the ArbCom mailing list (though he typically only says anything in times of crisis), unless they have switched to a subsidiary list that does not include him. It might be worth directly asking ArbCom if they have taken steps during all this to ensure that Jimmy's unique position in having access to both the WMF Board and ArbCom has not compromised anything in all this. It is a bit of an eye-opener that Jimmy, as a member of the Board, sat in on that phone call. Or was he there in his traditional ArbCom role?

[mendaliv]

You have to remember that Jimmy is still subscribed to the ArbCom mailing list (though he typically only says anything in times of crisis), unless they have switched to a subsidiary list that does not include him. It might be worth directly asking ArbCom if they have taken steps during all this to ensure that Jimmy's unique position in having access to both the WMF Board and ArbCom has not compromised anything in all this. It is a bit of an eye-opener that Jimmy, as a member of the Board, sat in on that phone call. Or was he there in his traditional ArbCom role?

Oof. That is hugely inappropriate now that you mention it. If they’re supposed to be impartial and independent, why the hell is a board member getting a direct feed into their skulls?

[Dennis Brown]

I recall Dennis was once reprimanded by SlimVirgin for working on UV articles despite his apparent COI.

No, in fact I've worked with her on some UV articles. A COI would be if I was editing an article with a bias about a company I have a financial interest in. I've never done that, nor would I have. If you want people who have zero experience in UV working on UV articles, well, that is just silly. She might not like some of the edits I made and complained, then we worked together, but she can't "reprimand" me anyway. Complaining and then give and take is how articles get built. I get along with Sarah (Slim Virgin) just fine, always have, and feel like we did a lot of improvement to the tanning bed article, stating the dangers without overstating them, etc. And when I was editing, I put disclaimer that I worked in the UV field on my user page, you can find it in the history. That is more than most do.