"Fram Gate" in Arbcom

[Guido den Broeder]

You really going to claim that wasn't you Guido?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =782917821
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =906735685

They were undoing some vandalism. Many users have reverted to my versions on WP, as those are rather solid. What is your point?

The real question (already answered, but you can have your own go at it) is, of course, why you were investigating Almond Plate's edits to begin with, and why you blocked them. Their contributions look sound, so what was the danger to the project?

[CrowsNest]

Hilarious. SilkTork is of course now the target of the Wikipediocracy hate machine, because he refuses to bend to their will and let Fram be the judge of whether Fram is a good Administrator. If only they knew how much he values them as some sort of necessary evil.

We here, with the benefit of true independence, can both praise SilkTork for doing what he is supposed to be doing as an Arbitrator, while correcting him when he makes obvious errors.....

I don't see it as the role of the Foundation to be compiling reports on Wikipedians for conduct issues, which may be unpleasant and unhelpful and breach our guidelines, but are not illegal or life-threatening. But we cannot stop individuals or organisations doing that. You can do it. I can do it. Cambridge Analytica can do it. Wikipediocracy can do it. Wikipedia is open and public. So be it. I am not comfortable with staff from the Foundation writing to Wikipedians to draw attention to their behavior because that puts a strain and a question on the Foundation's role, and our relationship with the Foundation. But we are an open project, and anyone can post comments here or email those who have email enabled. So: Compile reports? OK; whatever turns you on baby. Criticise Wikipedians directly? OK; but be aware of your own role when doing it. We developed the policy WP:Involved for a reason. Sanction Wikipedians? For breaking the law - yes. Global ban. For falling foul of our own guidelines? No. We created those guidelines because we are a self-governing community. Our self-governance is an essential part of what we are. It drives our creativity, and motivates our workforce. Insert and assert yourself in our self-governing community and you destabilise us and break us up, and Wikipedia starts to lose its essential self. Without the sense of belonging to and "owning" Wikipedia, a lot of the essential motivation will be gone.

This whole idea that the Foundation can/does/should only get involved in case of illegality, is obvious bunk.

Wikipedia is not independent or self-governing, they didn't make all their rules, and indeed a whole bunch of them exist not because they want them, but because they are legal requirements. I assume these are not going to be downgraded to information pages, their enforcement handed to the WMF? That would certainly have reduced Fram's interest in enforcement. But there is plenty more of the Wikipedia rule set that only exists now (aside from its origins) as part of the local expression of movement wide policy, chiefly the Terms of Use. They do not constrain themselves to illegality.

It is a good thing he is resigning, because in the wars of independence to come, it wouldn't have helped anyone to have such ignorance of what the basic reality of where English Wikipedia fits into the movement, on the Committee.

The Foundation has the absolute right, legal and ethical, to maintain dossiers on the activities of Wikipedia editors. We are seeing in this very case, the massive variance there can be between the dossier compiled by anonymous volunteers looking into one of their own, and the dossier compiled by independent paid staff given a clear brief.

This whole case has been all about how the English Wikipedia community, right up to their highest local officers, have become totally blind to how poorly they seem to perform against their own published policies. Excuses that these policies don't really mean what they say, or can be watered down or even ignored when the violator is popular or valuable, are not good enough. Why? Check the movement principles. Policy matters. Standards matter. Equality matters.

The Foundation did not insert or assert a right to interfere in local governance, it issued a much needed course correction of that governance, using powers it has always had and always will have, unless or until someone steps up from the community to take on the responsibilities (and liabilities) of the Foundation.

If the essential self of Wikipedia is to be an ungovernable community impervious to external concerns, even from the people who keep them in crayons, so be it. It will have merely sown the seeds of their own destruction.

There is a pernicious myth in play here, one that would have us believe Wikipedia where Fram is considered a well performing Administrator, is somehow already a success. Is it? Clearly not.

[CrowsNest]

......I am actually very emotional and angry about this whole thing and it is difficult for me to remain calm and polite. I was unable to join in any of the phone conversations with T&S because I could not trust myself not to say something inappropriate or damaging. At least with the keyboard there is the chance of pausing to reflect before sending. ..... SilkTork (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, poor you.

Your reflection needs work.

....... I have even more of a problem that the Foundation took it upon themselves to disregard the self-governance of this community and ban Fram without even consulting ArbCom........Of course none of this would have happened if T&S had left the community to deal with our own conduct issues. It was wrong of them to get involved. Full stop.

You were consulted. That is a matter of public record. It was part of the minutes from your regularly scheduled conference call between ArbCom and T&S.

Also a matter of public record, is the reason why this proper consultation never resulted in ArbCom expressing their vehement opposition to an impending external action (if we are to even assume this outrage could or would have existed at the time), namely it was your own inability to properly resource your functions and/or just get your shit together, that meant it didn't manifest at a time when disaster could have been averted.

And it is not even in doubt that getting involved in the manner they did was perfectly legitimate under both the legal contract all users sign with the Foundation, and the posted policies governing such things. The fact the English Wikipedians disavowed it as a local rule once they realized it could be applied to Vested Administrators, is neither here nor there. The fact the Terms of Use is a document widely ignored by all English Wikipedia community members, is rather the point.

I can readily imagine the FURIOUS ANGER that must envelop people who are forced to endure this bullshit as if it were "governance", not as volunteers, but as paid employees of the supposed service sector of that supposed self-government.

You couldn't pay me a million dollars to do it. I do this for free, because what motivates me is the sheer public deception of it all. The general public has no idea of the sheer depth of incompetence and corruption at the heart of the con-trick that is the "volunteer written" encyclopedia.

I can only imagine the stress involved when your mortgage potentially rests on the performance of the rank amateurs the English Wikipedia community routinely elects to their highest offices, as their supposed best and brightest.

There is certainly nothing that can be said about the anger and stress of ArbCom, or even Fram, that will eclipse the distress caused to the real victims. Even now, due to your bunglings, they still cannot be sure they're not going to be exposed to further harassment, for the crime of reporting a poorly performing Administrator to the proper authorities. Lest you forget, there really is only one reason T&S didn't do what they usually have done and let you deal with it.

Can you guess what it is? Can you articulate it clearly and unambiguously even when a hundred angry manchildren are biting your ankles? We're seeing from your continued screwups, the answer is no. Nobody can. Hence why behavioral policies exist and should be enforced, especially in times of high stakes controversy when gross breaches are extremely likely to occur.

You had just one job. One.

Just piss off into your well deserved retirement, sorry, your premature resignation from a role you promised the community you would do for a set time, and let the professionals take it from here.

First order of business. All that shit you said on the ArbCom mailing list that reveals ArbCom's role in failing to provide genuine leadership to foster an environment where FRAMBAN would never have happened, because it would be inconceivable that a routine complaint about Administrator standards couldn't be handed to the local authorities. SURPISE. To protect their own interests, T&S have just decided it is suitable for public consumption. They're feeding it to their media contacts as we speak, a practice ArbCom has never once condemned that I can recall, despite these press releases often appearing to speak for "the community".

Sadly, no. You're safe. This was just an exercise in an imagined future born from a place where actions have consequences. You might know it. It's called real life. Not a place too many Wikipedians visit. More's the pity.

[CrowsNest]

Fram has had enough. Abandoned his defence, thrown his fate to the wind, being only interested now in continuing to point people in the direction of those who have to be punished for this loss to the Free Knowledge movement.

IF ONLY people had been clear what the constraints of this rather unique review would be (he can't know the identities of complainants) and IF ONLY he knew how ArbCom cases usually work in general (the motives of your accusers don't matter) and IF ONLY he knew the only people who would be in a position to reveal any rule breaches in the manner of the complaints against him or their investigation, would be the people he had already accused of engineering the investigation to secure a ban just to shut him up. And IF ONLY he had some idea this oddball Case was going to turn into a long and complicated affair, and IF ONLY he had known it was only going to be even more complicated by the fact he would effectively only be allowed to participate by shouting over the garden fence.

Except they were clear, weren't they, Fram? He did know what he was getting involved with.

He had his chance to say, no thanks, I do not think this process meets my expectations of a fair trial, I will wait out my ban and spend that time in a more useful way, knowing as I do that in a mere twelve months, I would be fully restored and completely able to do what would be needed to do to clear my name in the eyes of the community, the people I really trust to have my back, using whatever process they deem fit, which I would have to be seen to accept because I am ultimately a loyal servant to them..

He chose to press on, to engage his enemies in battle even under these conditions. And he did so battle. He was Fram to the very end. Not a Wikipedia Administrator, by any stretch of the imagination, except to many people who wrongly consider themselves to be part of the Wikipedia community, due to their own refusal to accept they just don't belong, because they just aren't Wikipedians by any stretch of the imagination. Being there is not enough, you have to actually want to follow the rules in good faith, or you're just another Eric Corbett. You have to accept that fairness and respect is not a one way street.

The message was sent, it was not received. Time for a deep clean.

Break out The Virus.

[Guido den Broeder]

Note that similarly, one of the more negative commenters at the PD talk page has been blocked as a sock of another editor who was banned and where I played a role in the banning. Fram (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

If I can't even point to banned enwiki editors who elsewhere (or at enwiki through socks) are quick to oppose me (without, of course, revealing any backstory) in general or in cases you raise as "issues of concern", then this is rather pointless. I didn't ask you to confirm or deny anything, I just made an observation. Like I said, the chance that innocent people will be harassed through your revelations is probably larger than the chance that innocent people will get that treatment by me mentioning a banned editor here. Fram (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks like he is himself again though.

Completely obsessed with harassing me for over a decade now, not caring about victims on the side of the road, or whose real-life safety he is threatening.

It's all about the backstories for Fram. He wants to pressure people into revealing their personal lives, and then have them banned and defamed. It makes him feel powerful, because he has no life. That's how he picks his targets.

[CrowsNest]

Thanks, but at the moment I get rather tired of these discussions in the hinterland. Silktork at least was thoroughly engaging me, other arbs make a token visit and then stay away when a question gets a bit tougher to answer.......I'm not willing to walk on eggshells where every statement by me is looked at to see if I am perhaps not a saint, while all the time the arbs display much lower standards during this very case. Fram (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh spare me, you absolute plum.

The Arbitrators are literally the twelve people the community thinks are possessing of the highest standards.

It takes no effort to make you look like a tool. For all SilkTork's efforts, all he seems to have achieved is the gracious concession that "I wouldn't be a better arb on the whole probably". Looking at what you've said about their performance, that's a pretty sick burn on your own abilities.

One of these positions has to be fake, and I think 99% of people would believe the real Fram is the one who thinks that he would surely romp any Arbcom election because of his impeccable standards. And as anyone who knows Wikipedia would have seen, even before this nonsense, you'd have had no chance.

[Graaf Statler]

Looks like he is himself again though.

Completely obsessed with harassing me for over a decade now, not caring about victims on the side of the road, or whose real-life safety he is threatening.

It's all about the backstories for Fram. He wants to pressure people into revealing their personal lives, and then have them banned and defamed. It makes him feel powerful, because he has no life. That's how he picks his targets.

That's indeed his tactic. Collecting private date from people, give it his own twist and suggesting there is more. What there of course not is.
Fram is only a sock from his troll farm. Not necessary to mention a few other socks of him.

The man has a massive psychologic problem, that is complete clear.

[Anyone]

He wants to pressure people into revealing their personal lives, and then have them banned and defamed. It makes him feel powerful, because he has no life.

This was the only time I interacted with Fram:

You know perfectly well that my comments didn't warrant a one month block, but if it makes you feel better, or adds an inch or two to your tiny little cock, go for it. Feel better now, little man? Do you feel important?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =766859487

It was obvious to me that Fram was just a worthless pipsqueak. A nobody. A zero.

There's a nastiness about him, too. As a kid, he would've been the sort of individual who got pleasure from pulling the legs off spiders.

[CrowsNest]

Yup, and here we are, with every man and his dog knowing he would have quite happily called ArbCom "paranoid clowns" if he thought the cap fit, and he'd do so even after he had promised to clean up his act.

Super Mario mother fucker that he is.

Never ceases to amaze me, how the Wikipedians always seem to genuinely act surprised when people turn up to fuck with them, to absolutely turn their shit upside down and inside out, laughing uncontrollably as they do so.

You can't even really have sympathy for the ones who haven't done anything wrong, not if they've stuck around long enough to have have seen this shit and decided, fuck it, this community is fucked up, but I'll be a part of it anyway, because I 'ain't got shit else to do with my life, and I really luvs me some free scribblin. Whheeeeee!

Dumbasses.

[Guido den Broeder]

The only reason why I've ever edited Wikipedia has been damage control. Articles like Chronic Fatigue Syndrome kill people.

I have even created some articles just to accomplish that they would be disallowed, and the top Google search result would not be infested with lies.